this is a misleading reply because you ignore the speed and scale at which the internet allows sharing to happen. In the past, the speed of sharing was limited by communication at the time, either word of mouth, the speed of printing books etc.
If what you describe truly was the norm, then creating any sort of content for any reason would generate negative returns. This was and is rarely the case. I do not see it as unfair for content creators to be paid and to demand that you consume their content on their terms, within reason.
> If what you describe truly was the norm, then creating any sort of content for any reason would generate negative returns.
Piracy doesn't always hurt creators, and often it helps them make money. The people who pirate the most, also spend the most money on the things they pirate (https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-valuable-customers-not-...). Just because something is pirated that does not mean there was a loss of income for the creator. I've pirated things and enjoyed them enough that I purchased them later, and I've purchased physical copies of things and later pirated digital copies. I've also pirated things I'd never have purchased at all which means there was never any chance of any of my money going to the creator.
The vast majority of people today pirate all the time. Posting a meme that contains a copyrighted character or image, or listening to a song on youtube from anything other than an official channel, sharing a webcomic over social media, creating a GIF from a movie or TV show, streaming a video game playthrough, and downloading a youtube video to edit into a reaction video are all technically violations of copyright law. Copyright law is so draconian that what most people consider totally normal activities online are violations.
> I do not see it as unfair for content creators to be paid and to demand that you consume their content on their terms, within reason.
I agree that creators have a right for a chance at payment for their work. I disagree that I have no right to choose how to consume that content. Most of the restrictions on how media is intended to be consumed comes from the corporations who own the copyright and not the creators themselves.
When creators make it known that they want their content consumed in a certain way I'll take it into consideration. Musicians who ask that you only ever listen to their albums in their entirety and never listen to a single track I ignore. When Dave Chappelle asked fans to not watch Chappelle's Show I agreed and didn't.
> this is a misleading reply because you ignore the speed and scale at which the internet allows sharing to happen.
You are misleading because i explicitly talked about the Internet and widespread file-sharing in my comment. Most people would love to pay a fair price for high-quality DRM-free content and that's why for a while Spotify and Netflix won. Now that Netflix raises prices and doesn't license all the interesting shows anymore, people are going back to piracy because they can't afford 5 10$/month subscription for every streaming service out there.
Historically in France, a "global license" was proposed instead of HADOPI. It was like those streaming services, but run as a public service to ensure artists don't get scammed by corporations. Guess who opposed that proposal? Those same corporations, who keep exploiting the artists and milking the consumers.
I've been pirating all along. I still buy a lot of stuff, eg. CDs at concerts. Make it convenient and ethical for me to pay within what i can afford and i will. In the meantime, i'll keep pirating because i can't spend more on culture than i spend on food, often for content of dubious quality.
If what you describe truly was the norm, then creating any sort of content for any reason would generate negative returns. This was and is rarely the case. I do not see it as unfair for content creators to be paid and to demand that you consume their content on their terms, within reason.