3 ms·

Usually when people use the term "get it" on this topic, they're referring to a better business model that sustainably supports all the participants in the mark

by sowbug 9y ago

Usually when people use the term "get it" on this topic, they're referring to a better business model that sustainably supports all the participants in the marketplace. You don't seem to be using the term that way. Rather, you seem to describing ordinary theft. What exactly is there to "get" from your comment? That you're gleefully infringing copyright? If so, yes, we already know you exist. You're not adding anything to this conversation. (By the way, this comment also applies to ad blockers in web browsers. If you don't like ads, that doesn't mean you still get to view the content without ads, any more than you still get to attend a concert whose ticket prices are too high for you.)

SauciestGNU 9y ago
Actually, I think to your point about blocking ads, if your server sends me data I am entitled to render it any way I choose, omitting any element I am not interested in (ads, etc). Similar to how it is not infringing copyright to leave the room or not look at the screen during a commercial break on broadcast television. If you don't want ad blockers to view a site then find a technical means to prevent it. You are not going to convince me that I have a moral obligation to consume psychologically manipulative content that is unrelated to what I am seeking to view.
- sowbug 9y ago
  Don't be surprised when that happens. Entire websites sent as a single PNG, or Widevine increasingly determining how/whether you view content. It didn't have to be this way. You can frame this as civil disobedience against duress, or attack a strawman of morality (which I never brought up). It's not that complicated or subjective. It's a business transaction. I'm saying if you don't like the store, don't patronize it. You're saying that if you don't like the store's prices or how they do business, then you get to take the goods without paying.
  - bestnameever 9y ago
    > Entire websites sent as a single PNG, Interesting. Are there any sites that you know which do this?
rconti 9y ago
I think the reference is to how crappy the experience is when you pay for the product. Just like the old days of pirating MP3s that's mostly gone by the wayside because they've figured out how to make the business work. If I could choose to watch any sporting event with any announcer for $1 or $5, it wouldn't be worth my time to pirate. FWIW, I actually don't share cable TV passwords; I'm technically a cord cutter although I have a cable TV subscription that's not plugged into the TV (I use an antenna) because Comcast charges me less for internet service if I agree to let a cable box rot in a box in my attic. I pay for the NFL.com Game Pass streaming thing, have Netflix UHD and Amazon Prime Video, and maybe 3-4 times a year I use my own cable creds to watch something on HBO.
- sowbug 9y ago
  That's the point I hoped was being made, and I agree with that observation -- when the free experience is better than the paid experience, don't be surprised when people who can easily pay still don't. I didn't actually see that point, though. Anyway, this is a good check on the monopoly of copyright. You've been granted this incredible power to sell copies that you can manufacture for free. But you still have to deliver a good experience; you're not the DMV.

by sowbug 9y ago

SauciestGNU 9y ago

Actually, I think to your point about blocking ads, if your server sends me data I am entitled to render it any way I choose, omitting any element I am not interested in (ads, etc). Similar to how it is not infringing copyright to leave the room or not look at the screen during a commercial break on broadcast television. If you don't want ad blockers to view a site then find a technical means to prevent it. You are not going to convince me that I have a moral obligation to consume psychologically manipulative content that is unrelated to what I am seeking to view.

sowbug 9y ago
Don't be surprised when that happens. Entire websites sent as a single PNG, or Widevine increasingly determining how/whether you view content. It didn't have to be this way. You can frame this as civil disobedience against duress, or attack a strawman of morality (which I never brought up). It's not that complicated or subjective. It's a business transaction. I'm saying if you don't like the store, don't patronize it. You're saying that if you don't like the store's prices or how they do business, then you get to take the goods without paying.
- bestnameever 9y ago
  > Entire websites sent as a single PNG, Interesting. Are there any sites that you know which do this?

rconti 9y ago

I think the reference is to how crappy the experience is when you pay for the product. Just like the old days of pirating MP3s that's mostly gone by the wayside because they've figured out how to make the business work. If I could choose to watch any sporting event with any announcer for $1 or $5, it wouldn't be worth my time to pirate. FWIW, I actually don't share cable TV passwords; I'm technically a cord cutter although I have a cable TV subscription that's not plugged into the TV (I use an antenna) because Comcast charges me less for internet service if I agree to let a cable box rot in a box in my attic. I pay for the NFL.com Game Pass streaming thing, have Netflix UHD and Amazon Prime Video, and maybe 3-4 times a year I use my own cable creds to watch something on HBO.

sowbug 9y ago
That's the point I hoped was being made, and I agree with that observation -- when the free experience is better than the paid experience, don't be surprised when people who can easily pay still don't. I didn't actually see that point, though. Anyway, this is a good check on the monopoly of copyright. You've been granted this incredible power to sell copies that you can manufacture for free. But you still have to deliver a good experience; you're not the DMV.