121–130 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one has a right to someone else's labor.
Likewise, the rightsholders don't have a right to extort the public for access. Since the companies producing these works rely on the public's attention and sentiment to make money, they can't have it both ways. Either make the works available at a consistent price to all distributors of content, or accept piracy as a cost of gatekeeping.
I propose the following paradigm which I'll call "RickRoll UIs." The developer builds a beautiful interface for searching, curating, and organizing media in a given genre. Everything down to the moment of streaming works as you'd expect, at which point some boring public domain content is looped for the given duration of that stream. Users would get the benefit of having the curated data accessible through the GUI--…
Building the interface itself is the trivial part of this exercise. How are you going to source the database of metadata of every media item produced in the last century?
So the answer is basically “just empower the community to do it”.
Similar shenanigans are the reason I cancelled Disney+. I’ll pay a monthly fee for your entire back library. Otherwise, no thanks. Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale? I’d love to see a copyright overhaul that formalized abandonware and extended it to back catalogs of film and music. That way, people could legally torrent everything currently missing from these streaming platform…
> Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale? The ethical issue with piracy is that you can't expect to change behaviors or the laws if you merely circumvent them, and circumvent them without substantial risk of punishment. Take the Civil Rights movement, for example. They disobeyed unjust laws in protest, but they succeeded in their cause because they were often punished for the disobe…
I don't understand how you can make this claim without any support. If companies believed that withholding random subsets of their collections wouldn't keep consumers from seeing them only lead them not to receive any compensation, they might simply not withhold those catalogues anymore. It's quite easy to come up with thought experiments in which your claim is incorrect.
Couldn't they just show trigger warnings for controversial content? Disney does this with old classics[1]. This is historical animation, I think it's worth showing an accurate snapshot of the past. [1]: https://imgur.com/dkMC6gd
Couldn't they just show trigger warnings Or people could just grow up and realize that you can't judge people who lived a hundred years ago by today's standards. Imagine what ordinary things you do every day that people a hundred years from now will consider a social crime and want you banned or cancelled for.
It’s the inevitable tension between Warner’s will to forever use this art for outright commercial purposes (i.e. sell T&J to kids) and the simple wish of academics and passionate consumers to just enjoy the art for what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, well I have done similar thing. I bought a games that I pirated in the past. I am not saying piracy is great everyone should be doing it. My argument is: I am sometimes lazy and tired after a long day. I want to watch a movie i heard was good. I can spend 15 mins trying to figure out where to watch it or I can pirate it after it doesnt come up in netflix search. but i am not going to pay for 10 subscriptions ju…
> I can spend 15 mins trying to figure out where to watch it or I can pirate it after it doesnt come up in netflix search. Almost any movie you care about will be available on iTunes and/or Amazon Video to rent or buy. Do you check those too or is that too much work? Ultimately, your attitude comes off as entitled. If everything you w Any to consume isn’t available as part of one convince the subscription you rather…
Who the fuck do you think you are to talk down to me like that?
I. Do. Not. Care. If bezos get my $20 or not. How hard is it to understand.
> That devalues creation.
That is a theoretical guess at best. Game of thrones was the most pirated show ever. Last time I checked they made enough $ to conclude the show.
All the big player carved out streaming market and locked it all up via exclusives. They do not compete on quality of experience, UI and feature. They only care about locking in exclusivity to shows. So maybe you get of your high horse and and stop blaming me for not playing corporate FOMO games.
Couldn't they just show trigger warnings for controversial content? Disney does this with old classics[1]. This is historical animation, I think it's worth showing an accurate snapshot of the past. [1]: https://imgur.com/dkMC6gd
Couldn't they just show trigger warnings Or people could just grow up and realize that you can't judge people who lived a hundred years ago by today's standards. Imagine what ordinary things you do every day that people a hundred years from now will consider a social crime and want you banned or cancelled for.
people judging and censoring content post-hoc will be one of those things, almost certainly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Your point is valid regarding the size of the niche here, but there are probably a thousand other niches that would combine—long tail fashion—into a good chuck of market share. What niches would those be? Why is HBO Max responsible for all of them? Their parent company made committments to censorship before HBO Max even existed back to when DVDs were being introduced, as stated in the article. I don't even know why…
> What niches would those be? I can't enumerate all niches that exist in a large back catalog of media. My point wasn't that HBO should cater to 1,000 different "I wanna see the racist stuff" niches. Rather, there are a thousand different subsets of their subscriber base that all have an outsized interest in something otherwise obscure. Or largely unpopular. I was responding the to general point about the tradeoff be…
Chang’s makeup is such a layered gag, it’s ridiculous that it gets dropped in the same basket as Mommy Two-Shoes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I understand where you're coming from, I just find that argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. For example, if instead of piracy we were talking about stealing from a brick and mortar store it wouldn't be right to do it just because it's possible and easy to get away with it (or because the store didn't provide convenient service, etc.). File sharing is different for lots of reasons (digital goods are non-…
> For example, if instead of piracy we were talking about stealing from a brick and mortar store But we are not. That's shifting goalposts fallacy. What about buying used DVD is that piracy? After all two parties watch a movie but movie maker made one sale? > I think just saying it's okay because you don't care about corporate profit actually weakens the ability to persuade people with the underlying arguments which…
I address this in the next sentence.
> "That is why the very first line I am admitting that my position is out of pure lazyness calculation."
Sure, but that doesn't make the argument good.
> "I am of belief that piracy is great equalizer. A force that curbs infinite appetite of corporate overlord that would bleed us dry if they could. It makes particularly movie industry more customer friendly and more competitive."
I don't disagree with this in a pragmatic sense, but it's just not a very good argument for why something is ethical or okay. You could make the same statement that stealing is a 'great equalizer' between the people and the 'corporate overlords'. The reason it's different for file sharing has to do with the underlying copyright issues and the law being bad.
> "Actually it was hi-jacking. Imagine two people talk and you overhead them you cut in."
I wasn't talking to you or really that interested in replying to you, I was talking to the person I replied to because I thought they'd find my argument more persuasive. On an internet forum replying to others in threads is allowed. By linking to the other thread rather than commenting I was attempting to not hijack and just have the discussion related to that thread at the link instead of here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or parents could pay more attention to what their children are watching. Just like when all we had was antenna TVs.
Parents prefer streaming services that don't expect them to watch kids shows in advance to make casw by case decision which boring show is ok or not. Like antenna TV programming used to be - guaranteed to be inoffesive so you don't have to watch crap kids like to watch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very good comment. I would like to point out to everyone that the correct expression to use in these discussions is rights holder NOT author . Anyone still imagining this as a fight between pirate and "author" is strongly misled. Most people will happily support the author - just look at youtube/patreon. But most are also aware that buying or pirating a book ... has very little to do with the author in either case.
The author presumably got paid at some point and how much directly relates to how long the new rights holder will be able to monetize the creation. If a book is only copyrighted for, say, 5 years after creation, the advances for authors will become a lot smaller.
If it turns out 5 isn't enough time to incentivize people to actually write books or make movies then maybe back to the original 14.
I don't know the specific policy answer that turns out to be enough time to keep the incentive, but I do know it isn't 95 years after the publication date or 70 years after the author's death.