4 ms·

Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and r

Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and resource playing pirate whackamole. One of these two things makes money. We're halfway through the 2010s, if a random web developer can paywall content and take money for access in hours, then the BBC can manage. I want to give them money. They won't let me. Their loss. My conscience is clear when I watch Countdown through a UK proxy.

794CD01 10y ago
Both make money. If the second option didn't, as you disingenuously imply, they wouldn't be trying to stop the piracy.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That implies a rational business. Rationally, new content ends up on the internet, unencrypted, within minutes of air, and all the whackamole in the world doesn't change that. All the anti-piracy methods practiced by major content providers is inherently irrational.
  - Fargren 10y ago
    Not all of them. The ones that convince people that piracy is immoral may actually get some people to buy content.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    That argument is asinine. Murder happens even though we outlaw it and enforce the law. That doesn't make the law ineffectual or "irrational".
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      ...Please try to understand how "asinine" a comparison between copyright infringement and murder is.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        Or maybe you should understand the point of the comparison. If it truly makes you feel better, pretend I said speeding.