AbsolutelyNotABot

No, it's like saying that seeking a network with less moderation where everyone can set up their own instance, will lead to less moderated content

Slow down

It's the same Union that wants to ban cryptography in instant messaging apps. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes...well

What do you mean? He's just a very polite fluffball

Italy finally got Corsica back?

The only objection I have with that is redundancy is useless because if the main server who "host" the community goes down then all the other copies will die too as content can't be added anymore.

There's no mechanic for orphan communities

This is practically impossible because piracy is easy and convenient.

Ads emerged right because they are a simpler way of monetization

your comment has been reported to the competent authority of the Interplanetary European Empire, an IEE official will contact you soon for reprisal

People who will pay as long as they get their money's worth, who may also be open to supporting the creator directly

The point is, isn't the producer right to make the price? You can always not consume what they produce. This category is the most obnoxious; would you ever go to a restaurant and expect to decide the prices?

It's the very same argument for producers that willingly release their contently freely and let you support them, eventually. It's their choice.

Of the three you quoted preservation is the only one I find acceptable. If the producer no longer care to distribute their product, then they probably don't care to what it happens to it either.

I think It is illegal and immoral to sell consumers a license to use a product, under the guise of them owning it

For me the main difference is that nobody is forcing you to accept the transaction. I could accept this kind of argument for drugs for example, where you either take it or die/have serious repercussions. But pirating a movie you would have very much lived without just because is easy to do so it's particularly problematic.

they are going to get paid regardless of whether you as an individual decide to purchase or pass on a product

Except they aren't. Or at least, of course they're payed the same, at the moment. But in our economy prices are signals. If a market will appear smaller then it is because of piracy then after some timesfewer developers will be hired, and each of them will be payed less because you're "falsifying" the signals. Or even worst, the producers will start to use alternative form of monetization. That's one of the reason the modern web is based off ads or free-to-play games with microtransanctions are so damn common.

IMO the people in the first camp probably aren't interested in money if they have chosen not to purchase their media to begin with

The people in the first category should also think about the allocation problem. Those products which they like to consume but not pay for, still had a cost of production. The problem is they want ti consume, without supporting production, and that's not gonna work for a society.

Probably might be worth a pirate

But here comes a problem of fairness.

You not only want to play the game, you also want to decide how much is worthed for the producer. If the price is too high, don't play it. Imagine going to a restaurant and saying "sure, cook for me, I'll later pay you if and how much I think it will worthed"

Not only this but:

Or I might not, since Ubisoft are a bunch of utter cunts.

Because you acknowledge the damaging nature of piracy, not only that, you also decide that rules are applied arbitrarily, which is a terrible thing to base your system on.

Ok but then you create a production problem.

You download it, but that piece of media still had a cost of production. If you don't pay for it then the producers must find other monetization methods.

It's one of the reasons the modern web is based off ads, or why free-to-play with microtransanction is so common.