Sorry but that is just not true, I worked at school for a long time and saw how it goes. After release of Episode VII children were talking only about it, they talked in quotes, argued about the movie, draw scenes, their entire lives basically revolved around it. Except for small group that did not see it because tickets are expensive, do you know how they felt?
Whoa, hold up. Episode VII was a major cultural event, years in the making. It broke records. The overwhelming majority of movies have < 1% as much cultural impact as that film did. So if that's going to be your example of "culture," you need to adjust your definition of "affordable," too. Because if we're just talking about seeing films that EVERYONE is seeing, you only need to buy a couple of tickets a year.
From my own life I remember when game boy (the first one) was a thing, everyone had it, and everyone played pokemon, they talked about, they traded it, friendships were created and broken based on it... except for me and few of my friends... we felt like outcasts.
Kids feeling like outsiders isn't something you can fix by torrenting movies. They always exclude each other for dumb things, and they would even if we lived in some egalitarian paradise.
I grew up poor, by the way. I didn't feel excluded from the rich kids: I felt closer to my poor friends.
no. I do not consider it a moral issue, more like a good tone issue, is it morally wrong to eat fish using fork and knife? No, it is bad form, but that is about it. If you like something you should support it of course but for me it is part of etiquette not morality.
The problem is you keep making arguments that you then turn around and admit your belief doesn't hinge on. So you say it's not wrong because some people can't afford it...but it's still okay even if they can. Then you say it's not wrong because they might not enjoy the film...but it's still okay even if they do. So, by your own admission, these things are ancillary to the topic.
As someone who had friends in music school let me assure you that street musician expects the money but he knows he have to earn it by impresing people enough to be rewarded volountarily.
But he doesn't demand it. And that alone means the two situations are not comparable. Whether or not you take it with their permission, or without it, is the important part.
I am not unilaterally deciding anything. I am stating my opinion.
Right, but it's your opinion that you should be allowed to unilaterally decide whether or not to pay for this stuff.
And as to objections of people who actually make films...I am sure that owners of transatlantic ships were also not exactly thrilled by invention of commercial flights.
I'm pretty sure the relevant comparison would be how they felt about stowaways.
Industry is expanding, nobody is making movies out of the goodnes of their hearts. They make profits, huge amounts of profits. I will not cry my eyes out because of their imaginary losses. If they are so unhappy with their profits stop making movies and go into other bussines. Nobody is keeping anyone by force.
Again, you're not really replying to the point here:
the level of profits directly correlates to the size of the industry. This is easily demonstrated with a thought experiment: if the film industry made $100 a year, total, they wouldn't be able to make many films (or many films with high production values), right? But if they made $10 million, they would make more, and more expensive ones. And if they made $100 million, you'd see even more movies greenlit, and with higher budgets, and riskier films would get made, too.
In all three of these examples, the industry is making "a profit." In two of them, it's making a large profit. But you're getting
far more films, with far larger budgets, and a wider variety of films, the higher you go. And the more films made, and the larger their budgets, the more ordinary people the industry sustains, too, since the overwhelming majority of people involved are not superstar actors or studio heads.
You just said "being poor is a gradient." So are profits. Just as your income affects your consumption, movie industry profits affect what gets made, and for how much. There's no big glowing line that says "REALLY RICH" beyond which they stop making more (or bigger, or weirder) films.
But I will not act enraged because some guy downloaded a movie.
This is a straw man. I'm not saying you should be enraged. I'm just saying I don't think these ethical justifications hold water.