Rest assured, I am not defending piracy. Pointing out flawed reasoning is not the same as defending what it is criticising.
My point is that piracy is a natural response to a predatory practice. And that is what I think, that the current state of how the market is configured is anticonsumer, and therefore piracy is a natural response to it. It's not a matter of who is right or wrong. Everything is less than ideal in this whole affair.
>Pointing out flawed reasoning is not the same as defending what it is criticising.
pointing out flawed reasoning with flawed reasoning is well, a fallacy by your words?
Your link there is an obvious one: it doesn't take into account colluding data over if the most pirated stuff comes from the most popular artists who have the most demand for tours. It doesn't take into account artists who can't afford tours (so, most of them) and how too much piracy will just get them cut out of the publisher's already crappy deal.
>My point is that piracy is a natural response to a predatory practice.
okay, I believe piracy would exist even if media was dirt cheap and we were in an economic boom. Some people just don't value media and if they want to take the time to pirate it over spending the money, they would. I'm pretty tired of the Just World Fallacy here that people never steal out of convenience.
Natural things can be immoral, and the “state of the market” has no impact on the morality of piracy. There is no justification for lying, misrepresentation, breaking your word, or knowingly benefiting from ill gotten gains, given the immensely low stakes involved in listening to a particular song or watching a particular tv show.
The social contract does. It would be bad if people throughout society just straight up ignored the concepts of ownership and copyright law, and all of the things you enjoy would not be made. However, by ignoring that and pirating it anyway, you're becoming a "free rider" who benefits from the contract but doesn't abide by it.
The content of the social contract is whatever the members of the society accept. If a law is widely broken it's not really a part of the contract anymore.
Profiting from ownership without working (free riding of its own) is a questionable and often questioned item of a social contract.
>If a law is widely broken it's not really a part of the contract anymore.
so rising physical theft over the pandemic means that stealing is legal? School shootings are going to be legal in the US overtime? What a horrible model for a social contract.
>Profiting from ownership without working (free riding of its own) is a questionable and often questioned item of a social contract.
Sure. But fact is that CEOs do do a lot of work to direct companies. We can question if that deserve whatever their pay is or their competency, but I hope no one thinks CEOs literally sit around doing nothing all day. Can we at least agree that burning a company down to the ground takes a non-zero effort?
> The content of the social contract is whatever the members of the society accept.
No. The content of the social contract is whatever benefits those who adhere to the social contract. It's not a popular vote, what is good isn't up to what the most people think it is.
