richmondez

I think you hit the nail on the head where this is heading by questioning the final costs. Currently “AI” development is burning through insane piles of money and energy and no one is really paying a significant cost to use it… It’s a loss leader at the moment but it’s unclear if there are many uses for it if it were to be full price. Is it going to be another voice assistant situation where people like usi g it but it’s actually really hard to make any money off it directly?

Triple A games are often over funded and under deliver in experience in my recent experience. A little less funding might tighten up some of waste and deliver better games.

And they invested knowing that piracy was a thing and figured that into their calculations regard to the risk vs potential return. If they didn’t get that right and end up with a loss, well, that’s capitalism for you.

Copyright is the antithesis of free market by allowing a monopoly on distribution and exploitation of some resource.

Some parts of the gaming industry did, the vast majority still won’t provide content drm free.

If they could figure a way to make you pay without providing any service at all they absolutely would.

Frankly I’m horrified that it would go that way and wasn’t aware there were cases like this with sound alike voice actors unless the voice was misleading stated to be of someone it wasn’t.

Do they pay people for use of their voice when they get a cheaper voice actor in who sounds just like them?

Remember how a few years ago 3d displays and VR were being shoved in everyone’s faces? I can see the current “AI” trend going the same way.

Your average computer user is mainly using it for interacting with various web based services and playing media. Don’t need good input methods for that so tablets are a cheaper and easier to maintain alternative to a laptop.

Even if they would otherwise have subscribed, that money will be spent elsewhere in the economy, its potential revenue the streaming companies couldn’t secure, it’s not a loss to the economy unless it’s a foreign user.

Can’t see how it can, it’s not like if that money isn’t spent on entertainment then it’s just lost, it’s just spent on other goods and services or put in savings that the banks loan out to other people to generate economic activity. Unless people are literally burning the money or exclusively spending it on foreign goods and services it’s not costing the economy per se.

Tragedy of the commons? Everyone wants to use it, no one wants to put forward the resources to maintain it.

Copyright infringement for me but not for thee.

Won’t someone think of the billion dollar businesses?

Pirated content of course has no advertising in it, so it makes sense to pay good money for a service that has adverts in it or how else am I going to learn about all those fabulous products I just have to buy?

Doesn’t matter for a distribution, Apple historically also shipped some gpl tools like bash and Samba, they just provide the source for what they have to.

They’ll just do an Apple and publish the source to the bits they have to while keeping the bits they don’t closed source making the os as a whole closed source.

Disappointed to see so many people picking and choosing what is and isn’t acceptable to pirate.

We don’t know the OP circumstance and it’s a big assumption that he can just pay and it not be an issue in some way.

Average people deserve to get paid but we aren’t talking about scamming some custom content out of them, they already made the material in question and it’s a sunk cost, selling copies is as much rent seeking behaviour as when it’s done by big companies.

Also, let’s not use emotive incorrect language like “stealing” as it’s not, it’s copyright infringement, no one is stealing anything.

How do you even start to quantify something like a TV show? Without piracy would you have had subscription services, seen it free when it came on local TV and/or bought a box set of it? Similar situations exist for other media too, which “full price” are we talking about?