10-21-2015, 01:47 PM
Yeah, I don't have a media budget really, I stream music and TV shows and movies sometimes. It's money I would not have spent anyway, and, I also think today, multimedia success is also measured in clicks/streams/downloads - even if they weren't paid for, per se, exposure of any sort is good. If you watched something for free then rave about it on Facebook, I'm sure most modern media creators would see more value in your promotion of their material than the few dollars you may have spent to buy it. Just an example of how nuanced the service dichotomy is.
I think, most people (at least want to) create art for art's sake, and the money is a necessary byproduct, and those who are obsessed with copyright violations are the companies that own the media, and not usually the artists themselves. I mean the whole money issue gets sketchy either way, because someone will be protective of their "intellectual property" if it is tied to their livelihood - but I'm of the camp that art is art, and should be freely shared and enjoyed. In the context of watching movies for free online, I'd rather give the few extra bucks I have to spare to someone I'm more certain is hungry.
I think, most people (at least want to) create art for art's sake, and the money is a necessary byproduct, and those who are obsessed with copyright violations are the companies that own the media, and not usually the artists themselves. I mean the whole money issue gets sketchy either way, because someone will be protective of their "intellectual property" if it is tied to their livelihood - but I'm of the camp that art is art, and should be freely shared and enjoyed. In the context of watching movies for free online, I'd rather give the few extra bucks I have to spare to someone I'm more certain is hungry.