3 ms·

> If you provide people with easy, convenient, legal methods to consume the content in a way that works for them, for a price they find reasonable, then they ov

> If you provide people with easy, convenient, legal methods to consume the content in a way that works for them, for a price they find reasonable, then they overwhelmingly won't resort to illegal means. I've never liked this sort of argument because it makes it sound like people simply have to view this content, by whatever means necessary, like their life depends on (excuse my slight exaggeration). You don't have to watch Game of Thrones. Your life really will be fine.

gnomewascool 7y ago
You obviously won't die from not watching Game of Thrones. However, depending on your circle of friends and acquaintances, you might be excluded from social interactions. This can range from not getting occasional references, to not being able to participate in many conversations (during "peak" Game of Thrones a couple of years ago, they were a major and frequent topic in many circles) and hence being side-lined, to even being semi-ostracised ("Why should they hang out with this loser who doesn't even watch Game of Thrones?"). Obviously you could claim that you should get other/better friends, but that's not really realistic, especially if you're already on the border of social isolation. This will have negative effects on your well-being and even your health (loneliness is a major health risk, on par with obesity and smoking).[0] [0] https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20180504/loneliness-rivals-obesity-smoking-as-health-risk https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20180504/loneliness-rival...
- dorian-graph 7y ago
  I assume the number of people who would be extremely affected in this way is quite small. I've never watched GoT and I've being there when people were having those conversations, or when people were having watching parties, etc.
carlmr 7y ago
I'm not watching game of thrones, but I can't quite see the connection here. The argument doesn't really depend on people finding they have to view something. They want to view it, so they look at the offering, which is illegal with bad customer experience or legal with better customer experience. They weigh their options according to their preferences, illegal VS legal, ad riddled pages vs smooth experience, having to find out how it works vs having it work in the TV out of the box. And then they will check the price to see what is the better trade off for them. A good customer experience like Netflix will increase the odds that someone won't go through the hassle. Then if the price is reasonable people won't on average decide for the illegal option. The problem for Netflix now is that a lot of third parties like Disney retract their content. This raises the price and worsens the UX, because you have to go through multiple subscriptions. This again raises the probability of pirating. This is all just basic economics, not a moral argument.
- cruano 7y ago
  I mean but say for example I want a promotion but my boss is deciding between two people. I could work harder and expect that he chooses me or I could go and murder the other person. I weight my options and turns out murdering him is the easy way out so I choose that. You can't say it's not a moral argument when one option is breaking the law
  - carlmr 7y ago
    A company is there to make a profit. People have preferences. From the perspective of the company your interest should lie in maximizing the profit, given your target groups preferences. This is what is essentially the argument here. It's not about discussing what is or isn't moral, your example probably isn't regarded as moral in most moral frameworks. But that is built into your subjective preferences. The company has to operate in a world with various preferences given as fact.
  - Can_Not 7y ago
    Morality is not defined by the law, there are lots of moral activities that are illegal, and there are lots of immoral activities being carried out by the law.
- dorian-graph 7y ago
  If it's either illegal or a poor experience. Either choose the poor exprience or nothing. It is very much a moral argument as well as economics. I wonder if it's attitudes similar to this that have landed us in some of these ultra-capitalist situations around the world. "It's not about saving the planet, that's just a moral thing, it's just basic economics"

gnomewascool 7y ago

You obviously won't die from not watching Game of Thrones. However, depending on your circle of friends and acquaintances, you might be excluded from social interactions. This can range from not getting occasional references, to not being able to participate in many conversations (during "peak" Game of Thrones a couple of years ago, they were a major and frequent topic in many circles) and hence being side-lined, to even being semi-ostracised ("Why should they hang out with this loser who doesn't even watch Game of Thrones?"). Obviously you could claim that you should get other/better friends, but that's not really realistic, especially if you're already on the border of social isolation. This will have negative effects on your well-being and even your health (loneliness is a major health risk, on par with obesity and smoking).[0] [0] https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20180504/loneliness-rivals-obesity-smoking-as-health-risk https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20180504/loneliness-rival...

dorian-graph 7y ago
I assume the number of people who would be extremely affected in this way is quite small. I've never watched GoT and I've being there when people were having those conversations, or when people were having watching parties, etc.

carlmr 7y ago

I'm not watching game of thrones, but I can't quite see the connection here. The argument doesn't really depend on people finding they have to view something. They want to view it, so they look at the offering, which is illegal with bad customer experience or legal with better customer experience. They weigh their options according to their preferences, illegal VS legal, ad riddled pages vs smooth experience, having to find out how it works vs having it work in the TV out of the box. And then they will check the price to see what is the better trade off for them. A good customer experience like Netflix will increase the odds that someone won't go through the hassle. Then if the price is reasonable people won't on average decide for the illegal option. The problem for Netflix now is that a lot of third parties like Disney retract their content. This raises the price and worsens the UX, because you have to go through multiple subscriptions. This again raises the probability of pirating. This is all just basic economics, not a moral argument.

cruano 7y ago
I mean but say for example I want a promotion but my boss is deciding between two people. I could work harder and expect that he chooses me or I could go and murder the other person. I weight my options and turns out murdering him is the easy way out so I choose that. You can't say it's not a moral argument when one option is breaking the law
- carlmr 7y ago
  A company is there to make a profit. People have preferences. From the perspective of the company your interest should lie in maximizing the profit, given your target groups preferences. This is what is essentially the argument here. It's not about discussing what is or isn't moral, your example probably isn't regarded as moral in most moral frameworks. But that is built into your subjective preferences. The company has to operate in a world with various preferences given as fact.
- Can_Not 7y ago
  Morality is not defined by the law, there are lots of moral activities that are illegal, and there are lots of immoral activities being carried out by the law.
dorian-graph 7y ago
If it's either illegal or a poor experience. Either choose the poor exprience or nothing. It is very much a moral argument as well as economics. I wonder if it's attitudes similar to this that have landed us in some of these ultra-capitalist situations around the world. "It's not about saving the planet, that's just a moral thing, it's just basic economics"