8 ms·

The problem here is not recognizing that the piracy was actually the problem. In what way was it forgivable? Because everybody does it, that makes it okie dokie

by _tbyy 6y ago

The problem here is not recognizing that the piracy was actually the problem. In what way was it forgivable? Because everybody does it, that makes it okie dokie? Because you don't have a Netflix account? If everyone treated piracy as theft (it is) then no one would have to waste their time investigating it because the collective will would exist to prevent it.

Bjartr 6y ago
Piracy is copyright infringement. There's no reason to call it theft. They are both bad for society, they are both illegal, but they are distinct.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  It's not that clear cut. Some people we're never and are never going to pay for some of the they consume, they'll either pirate it or just not consume it. I'm presently watching Avatar: The Last Airbender. Which I just pirated earlier today. I'm never going to our-right buy, nor rent, it. One season is presently on Netflix here in Australia, so I'll watch that there, and the publisher will get their three cents out of me via Netflix, or whatever Netflix pays. That's three cents they were otherwise never going to get out of me. If the content was available at a reasonable price, say some portion of what I pay my ISP and the AU$8 I pay the VPN service to hide my traffic from my surveillance-state ISP, I'd pay it. But it isn't, and I can't afford to pay for all the content I consume on my trifling skilled-tradesperson wage. You realise when people like me see job ads for doctors getting paid in a day what I earn in a fortnight, and revenue figures like: The Last Airbender had grossed $131,772,187 in the United States, and $187,941,694 in other countries, making for a total of $319,713,881 worldwide. ... there's no way you're going to convince me this side of the heat death of the universe that copyright infringement in universally bad.
- lostgame 6y ago
  While literally true; I have always found this argument to be petty and pedantic. I’ve heard every argument in the book; but even the old ads said ‘you wouldn’t steal ____’. The fundamental principle is so similar to the point that discussing it quickly devolves into pedantry. I am one that has had this discussion probably a dozen times; half of those on this forum, and I’ve just decided to stand by my educated opinion that it’s absolutely a type of theft.
  - djur 6y ago
    The purpose of those ads was to convince people that copyright infringement was equivalent to theft.
  - forty 6y ago
    No it's really different. If I don't watch your movie or watch it for free, it doesn't change anything for you (I'd even argue that the later might actually be better for you, but that's another topic) On the other hand, whether I eat your apple or not make a big difference to you, since you might not be able to eat it in one scenario.
  - stardek 6y ago
    Maybe a very distorted type of theft but from my perspective the main immoral thing about theft is that it deprives someone of what they used to have, or takes the place of a sale. From the limited research I've seen the evidence is, at best, mixed that corporations are losing sales due to piracy. If it was a clear choice between buying something or pirating it, equating piracy with theft would be more reasonable (though the owner still has their good so not entirely identical) but that doesn't seem to be the typical scenario. The ads only make that equivalence because it's better for the companies if they convince people it's theft. From a moral perspective I think whether it is theft really depends on your motivation/what you would do in the absence of piracy.
    - FabHK 6y ago
      Furthermore, by the way, theft typically destroys total value. If someone steals a wallet (or anything really), the amount he gets from fencing it is typically much smaller than the cost (including hassle, time spent, and potentially nostalgic value) to the original owner of replacing everything (if that’s possible at all). Copyright infringement, by contrast, arguably creates value - instead of one person being able to see the movie, two can see it.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > the main immoral thing about theft is that it deprives someone of what they used to have You should have just stopped there. That "or takes the place of a sale" rider is a very recent invention. You know what else takes the place of a sale? Spending your time doing anything else and ignoring the fact that the work even exists. If I could have paid to listen to a song from artist A and instead I listen to a song from artist B (free or paid, but we'll assume it was with permission either way) then that "takes the place of a sale" for artist A, but there's absolutely nothing immoral about choosing to listen to artist B's song instead. Or reading a book, or sleeping, or whatever. You could even write your own songs and give them away for free, directly competing with artist A and taking the place of many sales, and there still wouldn't be anything immoral about that. Artist A was never guaranteed sales, so they haven't lost anything simply by not making a sale. They still have their copy of the work, so they have not in fact been deprived of anything. Complaints about piracy always read to me as: "You aren't complying with this monopoly which was promised to us in a rather one-sided deal with a third party (government) which (unilaterally) claims to represent you. If you don't shape up—or even if you do—we intend to sue you for everything you own in courts run by our beneficiaries and otherwise do whatever we can to ruin your life, just on general principles and not because we suffered any actual damages." And yet they have the audacity to pretend to claim the moral high ground…
- prepend 6y ago
  I think the jury is still out on copyright infringement. I think it may be a net benefit to society, although a negative for copyright holders. Back in the Napster days I bought so much more music based on stuff I downloaded. Not everyone was like me, buty piracy made money for the record industry. I also think copyright infringement has allowed lots of knowledge and entertainment to be available to low resource markets that would never attract releases. How many young people in Lagos got software and media only through piracy?
- rapht 6y ago
  > They are both bad for society I challenge you to demonstrate that copyright infringement per se is bad for society. This would mean copyright is good for society which is still to be proven at least in it's current acception.
- anoncake 6y ago
  As part of society. Piracy is pretty good for me. Paying for DRM-infested media and fragmented streaming services on the other hand is bad for society.
katbyte 6y ago
It’s not theft. It’s not legal, but it’s not theft. It’s also not a big deal, maybe you disagree with that assessment but it’s how the majority of people feel.
- prepend 6y ago
  It’s also frequently legal through fair use. So I’d say that piracy is potential copyright infringement and leave it at that. It’s curious to see moral judgement on this. I assume that the judgers work in media or something. But I also come from a generation that thought DLC was unjust.
nawgszy 6y ago
I shouldn't feed the troll, but how can you make a ridiculous assertion and still fail to draw a sound logical conclusion from this new assertion? Unreal
alextheparrot 6y ago
I am unsure when you grew up, but for many of us who grew up in the 90s and 00s, this is exactly the mindset we have. I used to be able to take a movie I had and lend it to a friend, the same with music. The movement away from physical copies took this away from many of us, so we tried to take it back in kind -- piracy is what they called that behavior. I understand it might not seem right to you, but in all the social groups I am a part of piracy and sharing accounts is normative. The only fault I see is mixing personal and work resources, which naturally have separate concerns.
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  > The movement away from physical copies I just don't understand this argument, physical copies of virtually any type of media absolutely still exist. If you want to own even Netflix shows on disc, you can do that pretty cheaply. I'd you want to get Blu Ray discs delivered to you by mail for a subscription fee, you can probably do that (although this is slightly more geographically restricted). This argument is simply invalid. https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Seasons-Collectors/dp/B07QJSGRZF/ https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Seasons-Collect...
  - prepend 6y ago
    I don’t buy movies on dvd or Blu-ray any more. But I still lend access. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that if I watch a movie that I like, I should purchase it again on physical media just to loan it. And that my friend should buy a DVD player just to watch a borrowed movie. If I’ve bought it once digitally, I will make copies and lend them to friends. Or more specifically, I’ll give them a login to my private Plex server.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      It’s great to hear about people using software to share culture. Re: Plex, I looked in your bio but didn’t see contact info. I also have a private server to share culture with friends. Find my contact info in my bio and maybe we can talk more?
whitexn--g28h 6y ago
They said before Netflix was available in their country. There were / are many countries where it is impossible to legally watch US cable television. I cannot hold someone at fault for wanting to view creative works that are blocked just because of where they live.
_jal 6y ago
> If everyone treated piracy as theft (it is) Then everybody would be as wrong as you. You can repeat this as much as you like, but it is simply false. Legally speaking: copyright infringement is an offense distinct from theft. Speaking from reality: copyright infringement does not deprive the holder of the right of their property. Speaking ethically: Copyright infringement is a violation of a particular commercial mode of exchange. "Unauthorized Looking" would be a better term for what retail bittorrent users are up to.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  You know a forum has turned to shit when the mob down-votes the facts.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please stop turning the forum further "to shit" with unsubstantive comments.
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  I agree with your interpretation of copyright and that it is not theft, but your position ignores the fact that very many “properties” would not exist except for the understanding that they might be profitable. In some cases, like GoT, the likelihood of profitability is very high. In that sense, copyright infringement _indirectly_ deprives the holder of the property through the capital that they invested in order to create the property in the first place. I mean, if I spend $100 to make a movie with the hope that 100 people will each spend $2 to watch it, and then you make a copy and distribute it for free to my audience, then you’ve deprived me of my $100 in capital, and the $100 in profit. The profit itself is a loss because it is an opportunity cost: if I hadn’t made the movie then I might have spent my time making money some other way. The distance between your position and mine is, I think, one of scale. Individual infringement of a property with millions of views is a tiny fraction of the cost of creating that property. But as the number of infringers increases relative to the audience, it really does deprive people of property.
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
brutal_chaos_ 6y ago
> as theft (it is) Are you sure digital piracy is theft? Wikipedia defines theft as: "The taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." Copies are made, sales (possibly) lost, but no property is being taken such that the owner cannot continue to sell/rent/etc it. My take: I'll pay for whatever streaming service that has the content I want (except Hulu), but if it is not available to stream then Internet Copies are an option for me. I don't have a DVD/Bluray/etc player to go the physical copy route and would simply go without if not for streaming first then Internet Copies. physical copy theft: the physical medium is being stolen, the works are still available, but it is theft because packaging is an industry unto itself, costing money. Making an internet copy costs (basicallly) nothing. In all: I will pay for what is available, I will even wait if they announce something I want is coming to x-platform at y-date. Because of Netflix alone, I basically don't download movies now. Disney+ is an interesting option now, too. If the market provides, it can have my money!
- abnry 6y ago
  Just get a DVD/Blueray player. The content is there for you to legally get and pay for. Heck, you can buy pretty much any movie from Amazon digitally. There is really no excuse not to pay.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    HN is a global community. Quite a few people here are in countries where legitimate DVDs/Blu-rays are not available locally. If a person were to try to order them from Amazon, the shipping fees would be enormous, and the package may get stuck in customs and require further payment to get it out. In fact, some online shops (like Criterion) will not even ship abroad, because they have licensed the content for a DVD/Blu-ray release only in North America or some other limited geographic region. Consequently, it is no surprise that many ardent cinephiles turn to torrenting (or buying a release from the local marketplace that is going to be a pirated copy anyway) even if they would have liked to build up a physical collection.
  - freeflight 6y ago
matheusmoreira 6y ago
"Piracy" is not the problem, it is the solution. The truth is all subscription services straight up suck. They don't hold a candle to copyright infringement. Despite making billions of dollars in revenue, they simply can't compete with what's essentially a bunch of enthusiasts. More often than not the reason why they can't compete is copyright itself. They have clunky interfaces, making users miss mpv. They don't have chapters, making it annoying to seek to a specific part of a film or episode. They don't allow users to download content beforehand, locking them out whenever there's no internet connection. They have annoying DRM, preventing content playback on perfectly good computers and TVs for no good reason. They aren't available in most countries, locking out entire regions of the globe. When it is available, users get only a subset of the content and feel like second rate consumers. Whatever ends up being available is frequently modified, censored or cut. Users straight up lose access to content with no warning when licensing agreements expire. Every copyright holder launches its own little streaming service with its own annoying quirks. They compress the video so much even pure black frames have massive artifacts and have the audacity to charge for this garbage. They don't have enough subtitles. There's usually zero extra content such as commentary tracks. They track everything users do and watch. There is exactly one area where streaming offers a superior experience compared to copyright infringement: multiple audio tracks. This is because of a technical limitation: video players can load subtitles that are external to the video file but not audio tracks. Something as good as "piracy" shouldn't have to stop existing for the benefit of aging industries. It's the 21st century, copyright doesn't make sense anymore. Society must rethink its laws. The copyright industry must adopt new business models or disappear. > Because everybody does it, that makes it okie dokie? The fact everybody is infringing copyright is evidence that the law is wrong. Laws are supposed to codify the customs of a people. If everyone is violating a law then that law obviously does not represent the customs of that people. Society must recognize this and adapt so that the behavior can be allowed.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > … video players can load subtitles that are external to the video file but not audio tracks. Not true for MPV: --audio-files=<files> Play audio from an external file while viewing a video. This is a path list option. See List Options for details. --audio-file=<file> CLI/config file only alias for --audio-files-append. Each use of this option will add a new audio track. The details are similar to how --sub-file works.
neop1x 6y ago
I had Netflix for a year and canceled because I ended up still using torrent. There are lots of movies and anime missing in Netflix and it is annoying to use with Widevine (as I run almost 100% FOSS I use Kodi as a media center).

by _tbyy 6y ago

Bjartr 6y ago

Piracy is copyright infringement. There's no reason to call it theft. They are both bad for society, they are both illegal, but they are distinct.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
It's not that clear cut. Some people we're never and are never going to pay for some of the they consume, they'll either pirate it or just not consume it. I'm presently watching Avatar: The Last Airbender. Which I just pirated earlier today. I'm never going to our-right buy, nor rent, it. One season is presently on Netflix here in Australia, so I'll watch that there, and the publisher will get their three cents out of me via Netflix, or whatever Netflix pays. That's three cents they were otherwise never going to get out of me. If the content was available at a reasonable price, say some portion of what I pay my ISP and the AU$8 I pay the VPN service to hide my traffic from my surveillance-state ISP, I'd pay it. But it isn't, and I can't afford to pay for all the content I consume on my trifling skilled-tradesperson wage. You realise when people like me see job ads for doctors getting paid in a day what I earn in a fortnight, and revenue figures like: The Last Airbender had grossed $131,772,187 in the United States, and $187,941,694 in other countries, making for a total of $319,713,881 worldwide. ... there's no way you're going to convince me this side of the heat death of the universe that copyright infringement in universally bad.
lostgame 6y ago
While literally true; I have always found this argument to be petty and pedantic. I’ve heard every argument in the book; but even the old ads said ‘you wouldn’t steal ____’. The fundamental principle is so similar to the point that discussing it quickly devolves into pedantry. I am one that has had this discussion probably a dozen times; half of those on this forum, and I’ve just decided to stand by my educated opinion that it’s absolutely a type of theft.
- djur 6y ago
  The purpose of those ads was to convince people that copyright infringement was equivalent to theft.
- forty 6y ago
  No it's really different. If I don't watch your movie or watch it for free, it doesn't change anything for you (I'd even argue that the later might actually be better for you, but that's another topic) On the other hand, whether I eat your apple or not make a big difference to you, since you might not be able to eat it in one scenario.
- stardek 6y ago
  Maybe a very distorted type of theft but from my perspective the main immoral thing about theft is that it deprives someone of what they used to have, or takes the place of a sale. From the limited research I've seen the evidence is, at best, mixed that corporations are losing sales due to piracy. If it was a clear choice between buying something or pirating it, equating piracy with theft would be more reasonable (though the owner still has their good so not entirely identical) but that doesn't seem to be the typical scenario. The ads only make that equivalence because it's better for the companies if they convince people it's theft. From a moral perspective I think whether it is theft really depends on your motivation/what you would do in the absence of piracy.
  - FabHK 6y ago
    Furthermore, by the way, theft typically destroys total value. If someone steals a wallet (or anything really), the amount he gets from fencing it is typically much smaller than the cost (including hassle, time spent, and potentially nostalgic value) to the original owner of replacing everything (if that’s possible at all). Copyright infringement, by contrast, arguably creates value - instead of one person being able to see the movie, two can see it.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > the main immoral thing about theft is that it deprives someone of what they used to have You should have just stopped there. That "or takes the place of a sale" rider is a very recent invention. You know what else takes the place of a sale? Spending your time doing anything else and ignoring the fact that the work even exists. If I could have paid to listen to a song from artist A and instead I listen to a song from artist B (free or paid, but we'll assume it was with permission either way) then that "takes the place of a sale" for artist A, but there's absolutely nothing immoral about choosing to listen to artist B's song instead. Or reading a book, or sleeping, or whatever. You could even write your own songs and give them away for free, directly competing with artist A and taking the place of many sales, and there still wouldn't be anything immoral about that. Artist A was never guaranteed sales, so they haven't lost anything simply by not making a sale. They still have their copy of the work, so they have not in fact been deprived of anything. Complaints about piracy always read to me as: "You aren't complying with this monopoly which was promised to us in a rather one-sided deal with a third party (government) which (unilaterally) claims to represent you. If you don't shape up—or even if you do—we intend to sue you for everything you own in courts run by our beneficiaries and otherwise do whatever we can to ruin your life, just on general principles and not because we suffered any actual damages." And yet they have the audacity to pretend to claim the moral high ground…
prepend 6y ago
I think the jury is still out on copyright infringement. I think it may be a net benefit to society, although a negative for copyright holders. Back in the Napster days I bought so much more music based on stuff I downloaded. Not everyone was like me, buty piracy made money for the record industry. I also think copyright infringement has allowed lots of knowledge and entertainment to be available to low resource markets that would never attract releases. How many young people in Lagos got software and media only through piracy?
rapht 6y ago
> They are both bad for society I challenge you to demonstrate that copyright infringement per se is bad for society. This would mean copyright is good for society which is still to be proven at least in it's current acception.
anoncake 6y ago
As part of society. Piracy is pretty good for me. Paying for DRM-infested media and fragmented streaming services on the other hand is bad for society.

katbyte 6y ago

It’s not theft. It’s not legal, but it’s not theft. It’s also not a big deal, maybe you disagree with that assessment but it’s how the majority of people feel.

prepend 6y ago
It’s also frequently legal through fair use. So I’d say that piracy is potential copyright infringement and leave it at that. It’s curious to see moral judgement on this. I assume that the judgers work in media or something. But I also come from a generation that thought DLC was unjust.

nawgszy 6y ago

I shouldn't feed the troll, but how can you make a ridiculous assertion and still fail to draw a sound logical conclusion from this new assertion? Unreal

alextheparrot 6y ago

I am unsure when you grew up, but for many of us who grew up in the 90s and 00s, this is exactly the mindset we have. I used to be able to take a movie I had and lend it to a friend, the same with music. The movement away from physical copies took this away from many of us, so we tried to take it back in kind -- piracy is what they called that behavior. I understand it might not seem right to you, but in all the social groups I am a part of piracy and sharing accounts is normative. The only fault I see is mixing personal and work resources, which naturally have separate concerns.

Godel_unicode 6y ago
> The movement away from physical copies I just don't understand this argument, physical copies of virtually any type of media absolutely still exist. If you want to own even Netflix shows on disc, you can do that pretty cheaply. I'd you want to get Blu Ray discs delivered to you by mail for a subscription fee, you can probably do that (although this is slightly more geographically restricted). This argument is simply invalid. https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Seasons-Collectors/dp/B07QJSGRZF/ https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-Seasons-Collect...
- prepend 6y ago
  I don’t buy movies on dvd or Blu-ray any more. But I still lend access. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that if I watch a movie that I like, I should purchase it again on physical media just to loan it. And that my friend should buy a DVD player just to watch a borrowed movie. If I’ve bought it once digitally, I will make copies and lend them to friends. Or more specifically, I’ll give them a login to my private Plex server.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    It’s great to hear about people using software to share culture. Re: Plex, I looked in your bio but didn’t see contact info. I also have a private server to share culture with friends. Find my contact info in my bio and maybe we can talk more?

whitexn--g28h 6y ago

They said before Netflix was available in their country. There were / are many countries where it is impossible to legally watch US cable television. I cannot hold someone at fault for wanting to view creative works that are blocked just because of where they live.

_jal 6y ago

> If everyone treated piracy as theft (it is) Then everybody would be as wrong as you. You can repeat this as much as you like, but it is simply false. Legally speaking: copyright infringement is an offense distinct from theft. Speaking from reality: copyright infringement does not deprive the holder of the right of their property. Speaking ethically: Copyright infringement is a violation of a particular commercial mode of exchange. "Unauthorized Looking" would be a better term for what retail bittorrent users are up to.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
You know a forum has turned to shit when the mob down-votes the facts.
- dang 6y ago
  Please stop turning the forum further "to shit" with unsubstantive comments.
doctor_eval 6y ago
I agree with your interpretation of copyright and that it is not theft, but your position ignores the fact that very many “properties” would not exist except for the understanding that they might be profitable. In some cases, like GoT, the likelihood of profitability is very high. In that sense, copyright infringement _indirectly_ deprives the holder of the property through the capital that they invested in order to create the property in the first place. I mean, if I spend $100 to make a movie with the hope that 100 people will each spend $2 to watch it, and then you make a copy and distribute it for free to my audience, then you’ve deprived me of my $100 in capital, and the $100 in profit. The profit itself is a loss because it is an opportunity cost: if I hadn’t made the movie then I might have spent my time making money some other way. The distance between your position and mine is, I think, one of scale. Individual infringement of a property with millions of views is a tiny fraction of the cost of creating that property. But as the number of infringers increases relative to the audience, it really does deprive people of property.
- 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

brutal_chaos_ 6y ago

> as theft (it is) Are you sure digital piracy is theft? Wikipedia defines theft as: "The taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." Copies are made, sales (possibly) lost, but no property is being taken such that the owner cannot continue to sell/rent/etc it. My take: I'll pay for whatever streaming service that has the content I want (except Hulu), but if it is not available to stream then Internet Copies are an option for me. I don't have a DVD/Bluray/etc player to go the physical copy route and would simply go without if not for streaming first then Internet Copies. physical copy theft: the physical medium is being stolen, the works are still available, but it is theft because packaging is an industry unto itself, costing money. Making an internet copy costs (basicallly) nothing. In all: I will pay for what is available, I will even wait if they announce something I want is coming to x-platform at y-date. Because of Netflix alone, I basically don't download movies now. Disney+ is an interesting option now, too. If the market provides, it can have my money!

abnry 6y ago
Just get a DVD/Blueray player. The content is there for you to legally get and pay for. Heck, you can buy pretty much any movie from Amazon digitally. There is really no excuse not to pay.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  HN is a global community. Quite a few people here are in countries where legitimate DVDs/Blu-rays are not available locally. If a person were to try to order them from Amazon, the shipping fees would be enormous, and the package may get stuck in customs and require further payment to get it out. In fact, some online shops (like Criterion) will not even ship abroad, because they have licensed the content for a DVD/Blu-ray release only in North America or some other limited geographic region. Consequently, it is no surprise that many ardent cinephiles turn to torrenting (or buying a release from the local marketplace that is going to be a pirated copy anyway) even if they would have liked to build up a physical collection.
- freeflight 6y ago

matheusmoreira 6y ago

"Piracy" is not the problem, it is the solution. The truth is all subscription services straight up suck. They don't hold a candle to copyright infringement. Despite making billions of dollars in revenue, they simply can't compete with what's essentially a bunch of enthusiasts. More often than not the reason why they can't compete is copyright itself. They have clunky interfaces, making users miss mpv. They don't have chapters, making it annoying to seek to a specific part of a film or episode. They don't allow users to download content beforehand, locking them out whenever there's no internet connection. They have annoying DRM, preventing content playback on perfectly good computers and TVs for no good reason. They aren't available in most countries, locking out entire regions of the globe. When it is available, users get only a subset of the content and feel like second rate consumers. Whatever ends up being available is frequently modified, censored or cut. Users straight up lose access to content with no warning when licensing agreements expire. Every copyright holder launches its own little streaming service with its own annoying quirks. They compress the video so much even pure black frames have massive artifacts and have the audacity to charge for this garbage. They don't have enough subtitles. There's usually zero extra content such as commentary tracks. They track everything users do and watch. There is exactly one area where streaming offers a superior experience compared to copyright infringement: multiple audio tracks. This is because of a technical limitation: video players can load subtitles that are external to the video file but not audio tracks. Something as good as "piracy" shouldn't have to stop existing for the benefit of aging industries. It's the 21st century, copyright doesn't make sense anymore. Society must rethink its laws. The copyright industry must adopt new business models or disappear. > Because everybody does it, that makes it okie dokie? The fact everybody is infringing copyright is evidence that the law is wrong. Laws are supposed to codify the customs of a people. If everyone is violating a law then that law obviously does not represent the customs of that people. Society must recognize this and adapt so that the behavior can be allowed.

nybble41 6y ago
> … video players can load subtitles that are external to the video file but not audio tracks. Not true for MPV: --audio-files=<files> Play audio from an external file while viewing a video. This is a path list option. See List Options for details. --audio-file=<file> CLI/config file only alias for --audio-files-append. Each use of this option will add a new audio track. The details are similar to how --sub-file works.

neop1x 6y ago

I had Netflix for a year and canceled because I ended up still using torrent. There are lots of movies and anime missing in Netflix and it is annoying to use with Widevine (as I run almost 100% FOSS I use Kodi as a media center).