3 ms·

> the overall legal experience good enough that most people wouldn't need to resort to illegality This fail when the content is the product. Sure you can impr

• latexr 7y ago
  > The VPN market is flourishing, many people pay to get into private torrent trackers and rent seedbox to makes sure they can seed as much as they need to stay there. If there was a legal method which worked as well as the illegal one (including quantity and offline capabilities) and cost the same as the VPN / seedbox, I doubt most would stay with the illegal content. Many would never switch because they stick with the illegal content for ideological reasons (“information wants to be free”, “I don’t want to give money to The Man”), but those you’ll never get money from either way. > I believed that argument for far too long, that illegal content would happen less if a good enough service would exist. Netflix happened, it did happen, but then they increased the price just a tiny bit, others subscriptions based content appeared, still freakinly cheap, and more and more people got back to illegal content. Netflix worked to reduce piracy because you felt they had everything. Now they don’t, and everything is split across several streaming services which you have to pay for individually. For many ex-pirates, it’s gotten to the point where consuming content legally has devolved (again) to be more cumbersome than doing so illegally.
  • dwild 7y ago
    > If there was a legal method which worked as well as the illegal one (including quantity and offline capabilities) and cost the same as the VPN / seedbox, I doubt most would stay with the illegal content. And I felt I repeated myself too much in my comment. The thing is the illegal market ONLY has to pay for the delivery methods, without any expectation of profit margin, or paying for bandwidth, but I'm okay ignoring that considering that the delivery methods is a tiny fraction in the cost of production. > Netflix worked to reduce piracy because you felt they had everything. At each price increase to keep being able to support such a big selection, there just so many people saying they would go back to illegal downloads... Again, the argument is VALID the thing is, the cost is about DELIVERY methods, not about FULL PRODUCTION. Theses peoples don't care about that. They want the best deal.
    • latexr 7y ago
      > The thing is the illegal market ONLY has to pay for the delivery methods Which is an extension of your first paragraph, which is not what I was replying to, hence why it wasn’t the section I quoted. Your argument further down was that you no longer believe (“I believed that argument for far too long”) that “illegal content would happen less if a good enough service would exist”. Well, a “good enough” service doesn’t exist. My suggestion was that for some of these pirates, a “good enough” legal service would need to allow them the same advantages they have with piracy, and cost the same as what they pay now for a VPN / seedbox. I was not concerned with the feasibility of such a service. Rather, my argument was that for a legal service to displace piracy, it would need to be closer to its advantages. Right now, it’s getting farther away.
      • dwild 7y ago
        How can you both say... > Rather, my argument was that for a legal service to displace piracy, it would need to be closer to its advantages. and > I was not concerned with the feasibility of such a service. in the same paragraph? I'm arguing that it's not feasible. I'm arguing that you can't compete, thus "if a good enough service would exist" return "false" all the time. That's it. > Right now, it’s getting farther away. It's not getting farther, it's at the same place, you are just paying the true cost of the service.