4 ms·

https://torrentfreak.com/images/piracy-is-not-theft.png https://torrentfreak.com/images/piracy-is-not-theft.png

LeoNatan25 7y ago
You should post the full image: https://i.imgur.com/FPoJnH3.png https://i.imgur.com/FPoJnH3.png ;-) Arr matey BTW—I never thought that I would still find use of these things from early 2000s. Going into the 2010s, it looked so promising. But they couldn't have a good thing going.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Copyright infringement doesn't change whether you charge for the copies or not. No authorization === infringement. Fair use privileges never let you reproduce and distribute an entire work for casual consumption.
  - LeoNatan25 7y ago
    The only difference is there are stricter rules for gross copyright infringement.
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    But torrents don't distribute the entire work, they distribute fragments of a work with instructions on how to reassemble them. ;) That being said, the point here isn't to argue that file sharing is ok, the point is that making something harder to consume legally than illegally is a recipe for failure. Media companies try to maintain maximum control over their content and are surprised when people innovate ways to distribute it more simply? I just want to have a file (preferably legal) on my computer that I can watch whenever I want with whatever software that I want. I would probably cancel my Netflix subscription and spend more total buying content if that purchase option was available. I would rent far more movies and TV shows if they were more reasonably priced ($1-2 per movie, $0.50 per TV episode or something), probably spending more in total if they were available DRM-free (as in, just an MP4 stream from some CDN). I don't want to steal stuff, I just want to consume media in a convenient, DRM-free way. I don't want to steal stuff, but I absolutely don't want to be locked in to a content provider.
- nannal 7y ago
  >it looked so promising. But they couldn't have a good thing going. The shareholders demand constant growth.

You should post the full image: https://i.imgur.com/FPoJnH3.png https://i.imgur.com/FPoJnH3.png ;-) Arr matey BTW—I never thought that I would still find use of these things from early 2000s. Going into the 2010s, it looked so promising. But they couldn't have a good thing going.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Copyright infringement doesn't change whether you charge for the copies or not. No authorization === infringement. Fair use privileges never let you reproduce and distribute an entire work for casual consumption.
- LeoNatan25 7y ago
  The only difference is there are stricter rules for gross copyright infringement.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  But torrents don't distribute the entire work, they distribute fragments of a work with instructions on how to reassemble them. ;) That being said, the point here isn't to argue that file sharing is ok, the point is that making something harder to consume legally than illegally is a recipe for failure. Media companies try to maintain maximum control over their content and are surprised when people innovate ways to distribute it more simply? I just want to have a file (preferably legal) on my computer that I can watch whenever I want with whatever software that I want. I would probably cancel my Netflix subscription and spend more total buying content if that purchase option was available. I would rent far more movies and TV shows if they were more reasonably priced ($1-2 per movie, $0.50 per TV episode or something), probably spending more in total if they were available DRM-free (as in, just an MP4 stream from some CDN). I don't want to steal stuff, I just want to consume media in a convenient, DRM-free way. I don't want to steal stuff, but I absolutely don't want to be locked in to a content provider.
nannal 7y ago
>it looked so promising. But they couldn't have a good thing going. The shareholders demand constant growth.