It’s completely right. If there is no risk to non-paying parties then they will just pirate any media they can get from a creator. If patronizing the creator is illegal (positive CR), then why would they pay for something and risk going to jail when they can get it for free with no risk?
The myth that is being told in legal circles by economically illiterate law enforcement and judges is that if someone downloads something they have created a demand and an incentive to create it. But let’s look at it from the creator’s perspective to see if that is true. He produced and put effort into marketing something while trying to do that in a way that doesn’t reveal who is. Not easy. Now a pirate comes along and makes it available for free. Even his first customer fucks him over like that if it is legal to do so. Now because the media is publicly available and accessible, the cops know about it, analyze the film, identify the girls on CCTV video facial detection and he goes to jail. These pirates just royally fucked him over and made his attempt at a business 10x more risky and 0.00001x as viable.
The lie we tell ourselves is just a way to get to what we want to do emotionally, punish someone we feel disgust towards, even if we have to commit a logical foul to get there. The problem is that logical foul does harm children because it makes commercial CP exist. It’s a case of adults putting their emotional needs ahead of the well-being of children. We feel a need to act viscerally instead of logically in such a case so we haven’t even calculated if there is a cost to children in doing so, so of course we assume there isn’t.
Harvard economists, who approached this problem more empirically than my formula-based approach, have issued a warning for policymakers to consider if we have misstepped because the historical correlation is significant that once we created these laws, things took off in that industry. It takes a lot of guts for Harvard economists with public names to put their name on that letter. But they did because the data is pretty significant. TBH, I don’t want to do a lot of internet searches for that letter, but I know it exists.
It’s completely right. If there is no risk to non-paying parties then they will just pirate any media they can get from a creator. If patronizing the creator is illegal (positive CR), then why would they pay for something and risk going to jail when they can get it for free with no risk?
The myth that is being told in legal circles by economically illiterate law enforcement and judges is that if someone downloads something they have created a demand and an incentive to create it. But let’s look at it from the creator’s perspective to see if that is true. He produced and put effort into marketing something while trying to do that in a way that doesn’t reveal who is. Not easy. Now a pirate comes along and makes it available for free. Even his first customer fucks him over like that if it is legal to do so. Now because the media is publicly available and accessible, the cops know about it, analyze the film, identify the girls on CCTV video facial detection and he goes to jail. These pirates just royally fucked him over and made his attempt at a business 10x more risky and 0.00001x as viable.
The lie we tell ourselves is just a way to get to what we want to do emotionally, punish someone we feel disgust towards, even if we have to commit a logical foul to get there. The problem is that logical foul does harm children because it makes commercial CP exist. It’s a case of adults putting their emotional needs ahead of the well-being of children. We feel a need to act viscerally instead of logically in such a case so we haven’t even calculated if there is a cost to children in doing so, so of course we assume there isn’t.
Harvard economists, who approached this problem more empirically than my formula-based approach, have issued a warning for policymakers to consider if we have misstepped because the historical correlation is significant that once we created these laws, things took off in that industry. It takes a lot of guts for Harvard economists with public names to put their name on that letter. But they did because the data is pretty significant. TBH, I don’t want to do a lot of internet searches for that letter, but I know it exists.