this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
528 points (93.1% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55110 readers
550 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sanyanov@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your analogy is not entirely correct.

As a viewer, I do not demand producers to create remakes or enhanced versions. They do it themselves - to take profits off relatively easy work, compared to, you know, producing a new great film or whatnot.

The correct comparison would be me writing a book and selling it, and then writing an appendix to this book and selling it separately with a solid price tag.

If I'm an honest author, I'd post updates freely, so that people who already own the book would have important data and wouldn't use incorrect results from there. It would affect my reputation if I'd do otherwise, too.

In my real case, I can publish an update, and yes, it will be free. This is a standard for scientific articles, open or not, and many even have easy links for version updates, containing all corrections.

And my boss pays me because otherwise I wouldn't be able to produce the first result to begin with.

Also, the very idea of digital media is to be accessible and not transient. You can save and backup data and it will be there, in its original form, forever. Updates in art are entirely optional and often unasked for.