Oh please. Someone like him raking in the money, money can guarantee better service than average joe's pull. Let's not kid ourselves here. I'm actually astounded to know how much there is a divide here in the comments, where people are actually defending the rich one here.
And here I thought piracy was for the people that couldn't afford these luxuries on a daily basis. Piracy being for people that simply, by choice, don't want to bother with the legal alternative because of the questionable practices in play. Piracy being for people that just simply are locked out and have had their consumer rights stomped on all the way.
Why are we drawing the lines of exception here between a dude that pulls a million a year. That's like the antithesis of the concept of piracy. He's earning $83,000 a month, that's a lot more than an average joe makes in an entire year's worth of their salary.
You're defending the 1% and that's just wrong on so many angles when it comes to piracy.
He still has more say than average joe. Average joe pays an affordable but budget of a premium. He's probably paying for top-tier level stuff, giving how much he's making. He has more saying power than average joe. Average joe is the one getting the hot-potato of agents, getting ignored, getting mislead .etc
What makes you think a rich person is getting the same?