If buying ain’t owning, pirating ain’t stealing
If buying ain't owning, then selling is stealing
The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
361–370 of 398 posts
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is way cheaper long term. I would think this is only true if you watch a small number of shows and rewatch them often
They're $20-50 for complete series on dvd on Amazon right now. That's 14-35 new shows to get every year for the same price. I believe it's cheaper. This is why so many companies push subscriptions. If DVDs made them more money than they'd be pushing you to buy them.
Are you really buying and watching DVDs in 2026?
I bought some complete series in DVD in the past but, even putting aside the inconvenience of having to manage discs in the player, there's the quality issue.
I got my 1080p copies on the high seas and that's just a whole different experience.
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Different people have different feelings. Different people have different feelings about what we know call "the Holocaust". They're not equally worthy.
One of these things was wholesale systemized actual state-run murder. The other is a range that encompasses big companies run by awful people and also a binary blob I can run on a GPU in my basement. Don’t weaken how awful the Holocaust was.
Evil has many forms.
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#364saying "the exact same products" when the products in question are constantly expanding (and occasionally contracting) libraries of video content is definitely "a move"
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#365>At 2021-03 prices these four cost $1,150.92 a year. Today the same nine cost $1,852.92 Is that number really correct? It seems remarkably coincidental how close $1,852.92 is to $1,150.92 * 1.10^5 ($1,853.56) It's pretty much a match accounting for kibblesworth effects.
Forgive me but where does 1.10^5 come into the equation? What is the significance of this number? Both figures can be arrived to by taking the monthly total and multiplying it by 12.
1.1^5 is a 10 percent increase compounded 5 times.
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try before you buy is what piracy is for. I would prefer if there was another venue to try before paying, but the industry hasn't figured this out in the past hundred years, so piracy it is. Streaming could be an acceptable compromise if it was $10 a year for everything in existence, but the catalogues are splintered across multiple services and even when you combine them all there are plenty of things not available.
Youtube? (since this is about music)
There are a bunch of albums I found on Youtube that I ended up buying, yes. It's only a very small percentage of my collection, though and not generally how I discover new music.
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 seasons per month? I started watching The Sopranos this week, I watched 1.5 seasons over the weekend.
Sure, but do you actually do this every weekend? I mean obviously there are people that consume a lot more movie entertainment than the average, but I'm personally getting nowhere close to 70 seasons per year. Bingewatching occasionally might not be enough to economically justify your subscriptions.
Fair enough. I don't know how often I do it.
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#368One of the highest-value streaming subscriptions you can get is PBS Passport. You get it with a $60 donation to either a PBS TV or NPR radio station. The donation is tax-deductible and the PBS subscription is rich with high-quality content for both adults and children.
The last PBS produced video I watched (it was on yt) was on the current super El Nino, totally cool. But somehow they managed to segue into more than a few minutes of "Remind white people of what happened 300 years ago" right in the middle of it. No thanks. I'm here for science, and if your writers are mostly people primarily concerned with making sure they bow at the alter in every single video, I'm 100% out. It's l…
> "Remind white people of what happened 300 years ago"
1. 1877 was less than 150 years ago, not 300.
2. That year had the strongest El Nino in recorded history.
3. Talking about why so many people died - political and economic mismanagement, essentially - is valid.
Do you feel personally guilty about colonialism?
If yes, you shouldn't. It's not your fault.
If no, then why do you care about someone reciting relevant facts?
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last PBS produced video I watched (it was on yt) was on the current super El Nino, totally cool. But somehow they managed to segue into more than a few minutes of "Remind white people of what happened 300 years ago" right in the middle of it. No thanks. I'm here for science, and if your writers are mostly people primarily concerned with making sure they bow at the alter in every single video, I'm 100% out. It's l…
I think you're talking about "Weathered." About 150 years ago about 8m people died in India, because during an El Nino drought and famine British companies continued exporting food from India. I guess you could call that "white people guilt" but you could also say that it's valuable context that the impacts of climate change can be exasperated by economic and national policies.
> can be exasperated
You mean "exacerbated".
Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once your collection is built, thirty years down the line, you'll add less than five CDs per year. With streaming however, you'll end up paying a whole lot more than $5000 for the next 30 years, thanks to inflation. If you started this journey at 20 years old, you'll only be 80 after 60 years of streaming, but you might get to live until 110 and get to pay for yet another 30 years, which you may not be able to afford…
There's also an interesting side effect of owning limited media that streaming advocates overlook. When you own 3 albums, you'll listen to them more often. You will put more effort into memorizing them. You'll listen to the tracks that were not designed to be radio hits by a committee but were instead the songs the band came up with on their own. You get way more out of your investment when you invest mentally and em…
Is that a good thing? One of the benefits to streaming for me is precisely that I don't want to get stuck being an old guy who just listens to music from when I was a teenager/young adult. 20 new bands per month is certainly excessive, but with the radio long-dead, how do you discover new music without some kind of streaming service?