3 ms·

would you download a car? theft is when you take something from someone, when you download a movie, Netflix users can still watch it, Netflix can still stream

would you download a car? theft is when you take something from someone, when you download a movie, Netflix users can still watch it, Netflix can still stream it and they don't lose anything. In fact their profits have gone up, despite helping piracy by releasing more and more content easily sharable outside of their platforms. Netflix alone made 7.5 billions in the third quarter of 2021, up from 6.4 billions in the third of 2020. someone really believes that leaks are unfortunate? have you seen a single image leaked from the next Indiana Jones movie? Do you know the title?No? you know why? because they'll work next year on the post production and are keeping everything under rigorous control. leaks will be useful only when they are ready to launch. When Luca..ehm Disney wants to take secrecy seriously, they absolutely can and will. Anyway: I pay for prime video, because it's included with prime. I rarely watch other streaming services nor download their content. Last exception was Foundation from Apple, thank god I did not pay for that! Usually it works like this: I wanna watch an old movie, say Total Recall, some streaming service bought it for Christmas or whatever occasion together with all Schwarzenegger movie, to release a "member berry" bundle I probably already have it, ripped from DVD, when it comes out I download it again because I'll probably find the x265 version which is smaller or the 2160p (or 1080p) restored version.

ryandrake 5y ago
> would you download a car? If someone ever one day invents the Star Trek replicator, it would end scarcity of physical goods overnight! This would be an amazing thing for humanity (and would likely be opposed/outlawed by the same moneyed interests that oppose the sharing of non-physical goods). This hypothetical invention would utterly change humanity for the better. I would download a car! No question. If the alternative is needlessly spending money on the exact same product, of course I would, and so would nearly everyone posting here. What an absurd campaign that was! In a world without physical good scarcity, there would be nothing ethically wrong with doing it. Oh, and we’ve only been talking about cars and movies—luxury goods. Notice how the argument is never “would you download food?” Or “would you download insulin?” I think even EvilStudioExec might have a hard time arguing against downloading necessities or life-saving medicine.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  The difference is than in many countries on this planet, that call themselves free, food and insulin are guaranteed to (almost) anybody. If you go to the hospital in my country you can "download inulin" because it's free for everybody who needs it, rich or poor.
acdha 5y ago
> theft is when you take something from someone, Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire. Digital goods don't work the same way as physical works, it's true, but all of the people involved in making them still need to get paid. The principled, ethical stance is not to watch things you don't want to pay for. Nobody's life is impoverished by making the percentage of entertainment they don't watch go from 99.9987% to 99.999%.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire. No, that's not theft. That's infringement of rights. But I speak with many artists and creators, they are more mad than me, I have a job where I get paid no matter what the result is, because they pay for my time. they are between a rock and a stone: accept to work for these platforms and get paid shit, while they nmake billion, or don't and get paid shit, but at least own your work. Guess which way many are starting to take... > The principled, ethical stance is not to watch things you don't want to pay for. according to what ethical stance, exactly? yours? do you really think it is so relevant? or the ethic of corporations, which is objectively something to stay way from.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > they are between a rock and a stone: accept to work for these platforms and get paid shit, while they nmake billion, or don't and get paid shit, but at least own your work. Guess which way many are starting to take... Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid. You could buy directly from the artist or you can go without, but taking advantage of their work without the agreed upon compensation calls your motives into question.
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      > Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid. Are you saying that if I ask an artist to make a painting for me and the painting get stolen AFTER they made it, I am allowed to not pay the artist? That's a really strange POV. Media companies should pay artists, not me. I am only paying for their services, not for the content, which I can get in many other ways or not get it at all, which is an option too, but by your logic not watching the content would lead to artists not getting paid so I should feel bad about that too... I am not the one monetizing artists' work and they are not doing it because I am paying, but because media companies hired them to do their job. Again: sorry, not sorry!

ryandrake 5y ago

> would you download a car? If someone ever one day invents the Star Trek replicator, it would end scarcity of physical goods overnight! This would be an amazing thing for humanity (and would likely be opposed/outlawed by the same moneyed interests that oppose the sharing of non-physical goods). This hypothetical invention would utterly change humanity for the better. I would download a car! No question. If the alternative is needlessly spending money on the exact same product, of course I would, and so would nearly everyone posting here. What an absurd campaign that was! In a world without physical good scarcity, there would be nothing ethically wrong with doing it. Oh, and we’ve only been talking about cars and movies—luxury goods. Notice how the argument is never “would you download food?” Or “would you download insulin?” I think even EvilStudioExec might have a hard time arguing against downloading necessities or life-saving medicine.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
The difference is than in many countries on this planet, that call themselves free, food and insulin are guaranteed to (almost) anybody. If you go to the hospital in my country you can "download inulin" because it's free for everybody who needs it, rich or poor.

acdha 5y ago

> theft is when you take something from someone, Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire. Digital goods don't work the same way as physical works, it's true, but all of the people involved in making them still need to get paid. The principled, ethical stance is not to watch things you don't want to pay for. Nobody's life is impoverished by making the percentage of entertainment they don't watch go from 99.9987% to 99.999%.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire. No, that's not theft. That's infringement of rights. But I speak with many artists and creators, they are more mad than me, I have a job where I get paid no matter what the result is, because they pay for my time. they are between a rock and a stone: accept to work for these platforms and get paid shit, while they nmake billion, or don't and get paid shit, but at least own your work. Guess which way many are starting to take... > The principled, ethical stance is not to watch things you don't want to pay for. according to what ethical stance, exactly? yours? do you really think it is so relevant? or the ethic of corporations, which is objectively something to stay way from.
- acdha 5y ago
  > they are between a rock and a stone: accept to work for these platforms and get paid shit, while they nmake billion, or don't and get paid shit, but at least own your work. Guess which way many are starting to take... Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid. You could buy directly from the artist or you can go without, but taking advantage of their work without the agreed upon compensation calls your motives into question.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid. Are you saying that if I ask an artist to make a painting for me and the painting get stolen AFTER they made it, I am allowed to not pay the artist? That's a really strange POV. Media companies should pay artists, not me. I am only paying for their services, not for the content, which I can get in many other ways or not get it at all, which is an option too, but by your logic not watching the content would lead to artists not getting paid so I should feel bad about that too... I am not the one monetizing artists' work and they are not doing it because I am paying, but because media companies hired them to do their job. Again: sorry, not sorry!