3 ms·
They have the choice to not torrent and not watch whatever content. They don't _have to_ watch it.
by dorian-graph 10y ago
They have the choice to not torrent and not watch whatever content.
They don't _have to_ watch it.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoYou are correct. However, the purpose of copyright is to encourage cultural development, not enable cultural rent seeking. The latter is merely the mechanism proposed to do the former. To the extent the latter doesn't encourage the former, we should completely disregard the artificial construct of the latter. I would argue that media companies have made this shift: Disney is no longer using the profits from copyright to enrich society with new cultural content (see very limited number of new properties), but is instead consolidating cultural control and rent-seeking (see studio/IP purchases, remakes and sequels). We should simply disregard their copyrights for as long as they continue this behavior. Copyrights, after all, are fundamentally a deed from the public to a company or individual in exchange for a (future) service. If the company fails to render the service, the deed is revoked, and the property redistributed for better public use.
- Malician 10y agoNo. They don't. The industry is holding off tiny bits of content laden with ads, features disabled, and the worst tech imaginable and as many roadblocks as possible. At this point I don't care. I don't watch much of their stuff and I really hope they go bankrupt. Not watch IS an option. Let them die.