Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54609 readers

676 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

570

Streaming Pirates Are Hollywood’s New Villains - Illegal subscription services that steal films or TV shows bring in $2 billion a year in ads and subscriber fees. (www.bloomberg.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

191 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I wouldn't ever buy the content so it's not a lost sale either. All I've done is copy a file. gasp

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

I believe their justification would be that you aquiring the media is a definite loss of sale vs you not subbing/buying the media is a potential sale in the future.

Edit: Not my opinion. Just imagining how they would justify it before court should it come to it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Which is stupid, because I’ll happily buy content I like with the guarantee it’ll never be taken from me. That’s not a real risk with physical media so why should that be acceptable with digital media?

He may have been an asshole but Steve Jobs said it best:

Customers want to own their content

And to reuse the same Gaben quote often repeated here:

Piracy is an issue of service, not price.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

"Customers want to own their content". It's amazing to me that execs don't grasp this? Or that they think if they stop allowing it people will stop caring, but maybe they will eventually. But it seems obvious, I've know many families that had massive dvd collections they were proud of. Bookshelves with dozens of books they probably never even read. It's just comforting to have a thing and know it's yours.

Every development in business consolidates their power and increases anxiety for the people.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

My theory is they're just trying to stifle the ability to own any content to normalize the concept of not owning content, which over time will make the masses complacent.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)