An I for an I Makes the World Go Bound
encouraged to express their individuality even more dramatically, and thus wherein their art is more efficient, leaks in the support chain potentially engenders the exact opposite effect. If, as creators find themselves in a position where they have to choose between their needs or those of others, a significant proportion of them overlook the function of their art in order to secure support, then the whole artistic offering slips towards expressing individualism, in its less desirable aspects, rather than expressing individuality, in its most beneficial form. That is to say, if, because of the state of play, too many artists employ art as a means of attaining independence, and deliberately reduce the quality of their output to do so, then, regardless of whether or not the operations are successful from an individual or business standpoint, they tarnish the entire artistic offering as the underlying message becomes that art is but another lucrative activity, and that its actual purposes are secondary. Ostensibly, the line between expressing individuality and expressing the less desirable aspects of individualism can be tenuous. Yet, in practice, if the boundary is easy to cross, it is not because of being poorly delineated. To the best of my knowledge, most if not all creators have a clear, innate awareness of which changes compromise their works of art, and which changes serve them. In the context of oneness, plausibly, artists are inspired media that best address the requirements of the whole. Hence, any external factor, including the artists own needs, that distorts those visions contributes to impair the resulting creations. And while this doesn't explain all flaws, the ones that ensue from consciously disregarding the instructions of oneness harm the mirror in such a way that its reflections of human nature are bent. Therefore, the infringing acts of illegally accessing media, and of sharing them without authorization, not only create repercussions of their own in the lives of the wrongdoers, but they hurt the whole artistic ecosystem in such a way that the support given to those whose responsibility it is to supply contents is also impacted. Added together, the non-consensual deeds of the violators create conditions wherein the quality of the overall artistic output will tend to decrease, the thus corrupted medium will be less effective and will possibly corrupt parts of the audience in turn, and artistic undertakings will probably end up being perceived as a mere moneymaking processes. Ultimately, the consequences of illegal file sharing hurt not only artists and mediavores but everyone. By making it harder, and in some cases actually impracticable, for creators to communicate their messages, those infractions damage the whole of society. Their insidious effects undermine the artists by sending them discouraging signals, and affect the audience members who are offered art of lesser value, and which doesn't fulfil its functions as well as it could have. In this fashion, the infringements constitute as many outflows of energy in the development process of the collectivity, and hinder its natural evolution. Depending on the overall magnitude of the transgressions, society experiences slowdown, stagnation, or even recession, and those movements, or lack thereof, reflect the measure in which people value the extremes of individualism, and must learn the necessity of collaboration. Takers Economy
75
Christopher Stewart