4 ms·

I agree. And this is why I no longer pirate stuff, if I can get it legally in a reasonable way. For me as a non-american though, there is a serious lack of cont

I agree. And this is why I no longer pirate stuff, if I can get it legally in a reasonable way. For me as a non-american though, there is a serious lack of content available to me, which means that if I want to watch something, sometimes the only available option is to pirate it.

barking 9y ago
Or when the legal way is unpleasant. I couldn't watch GOT on sky Atlantic with its ad breaks every ten minutes.
- delecti 9y ago
  That's a much less sympathetic position. It's one thing if there's literally no way to consume a piece of content. The copyright holders aren't losing money there. It's another if there's a perfectly viable method available but you want to put on your toddler voice and say "but I don't want it that way."
  - lovich 9y ago
    I wouldn't call forcing ads in as "a perfectly viable way" to watch something, especially on an already paid service. Is it a perfectly viable way to eat dinner at a restaurant if the chef takes your plate away from you mid bite several times so that you can listen to his friend try and sell you shit? If it's free + ads I could agree, but most content sellers are just trying to get paid twice
    - delecti 9y ago
      > I wouldn't call forcing ads in as "a perfectly viable way" to watch something, especially on an already paid service US Cable television already fits that description. Almost 100 million Americans pay a monthly subscription for television content which still includes ads. For that matter, HBO itself is already an extra additional fee on top of that prior subscription. Your restaurant comparison seems particularly disingenuous considering commercials are a pretty normal aspect of television consumption.
      - lovich 9y ago
        I don't know if you're aware, but cable was billed as an adless way to get the because you were _already_ paying for it. Then the companies flip flop Ed and started putting ads in. Just because they've gotten away with it for a long time doesn't make it ok. It's not ok for me to punch you in the face even if I've been doing it for 20 years with no consequence. If we take your argument as well, then piracy is perfectly fine because people have been doing it for a long time and it's become a normal aspect of the consumption.
freeflight 9y ago
> sometimes the only available option is to pirate it I once had to pay 500€ for torrenting an episode of The Americans that I had no way of buying legally, at least in my country at that time. The only thing I regret? Using torrent and not some alternative where they can't get you for "illegal distribution".
- striking 9y ago
  Consider paying for a seedbox or VPS instead.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    Nah, these days I mostly stick with DDL, I pay for 1-2 year subscriptions for 1-2 different providers and I'm pretty much set for all my needs.

barking 9y ago

Or when the legal way is unpleasant. I couldn't watch GOT on sky Atlantic with its ad breaks every ten minutes.

delecti 9y ago
That's a much less sympathetic position. It's one thing if there's literally no way to consume a piece of content. The copyright holders aren't losing money there. It's another if there's a perfectly viable method available but you want to put on your toddler voice and say "but I don't want it that way."
- lovich 9y ago
  I wouldn't call forcing ads in as "a perfectly viable way" to watch something, especially on an already paid service. Is it a perfectly viable way to eat dinner at a restaurant if the chef takes your plate away from you mid bite several times so that you can listen to his friend try and sell you shit? If it's free + ads I could agree, but most content sellers are just trying to get paid twice
  - delecti 9y ago
    > I wouldn't call forcing ads in as "a perfectly viable way" to watch something, especially on an already paid service US Cable television already fits that description. Almost 100 million Americans pay a monthly subscription for television content which still includes ads. For that matter, HBO itself is already an extra additional fee on top of that prior subscription. Your restaurant comparison seems particularly disingenuous considering commercials are a pretty normal aspect of television consumption.
    - lovich 9y ago
      I don't know if you're aware, but cable was billed as an adless way to get the because you were _already_ paying for it. Then the companies flip flop Ed and started putting ads in. Just because they've gotten away with it for a long time doesn't make it ok. It's not ok for me to punch you in the face even if I've been doing it for 20 years with no consequence. If we take your argument as well, then piracy is perfectly fine because people have been doing it for a long time and it's become a normal aspect of the consumption.

freeflight 9y ago

> sometimes the only available option is to pirate it I once had to pay 500€ for torrenting an episode of The Americans that I had no way of buying legally, at least in my country at that time. The only thing I regret? Using torrent and not some alternative where they can't get you for "illegal distribution".

striking 9y ago
Consider paying for a seedbox or VPS instead.
- freeflight 9y ago
  Nah, these days I mostly stick with DDL, I pay for 1-2 year subscriptions for 1-2 different providers and I'm pretty much set for all my needs.