4 ms·

I don't get this. You say you're perfectly willing to pay to watch media that is ad free, and you do. So then why do you feel you have the right to pirate shows

I don't get this. You say you're perfectly willing to pay to watch media that is ad free, and you do. So then why do you feel you have the right to pirate shows that are not ad free? Why don't you just watch ad free media that you pay for instead of pirating media that forces ads? Is there not enough media that is ad free for you to watch, such that you need to resort to piracy?

Retric 4y ago
If I am never going to pay for X, then nobody is harmed by me pirating it. That said, I haven’t pirated anything in a decade. It’s up to content creators to create business models that work for them, but I really don’t care if they pick one that doesn’t work for me.
- einherjae 4y ago
  Are you saying that X provides a value to you that you are unwilling to pay for at any rate? Not even something like 1 cent with minimal transaction friction and no ads or tracking? Not even if the ask was for something non monetary like saying thanks in a guestbook?
  - Retric 4y ago
    I recently canceled patroon support for an author and there is absolutely no content they could create that would make me willing to buy their content at any price. I also lost interest in their content, but in theory if I still had interest I would think nothing of pirating it.
SantalBlush 4y ago
The notion of private property fails when it comes to things that can be multiplied in quantity practically for free, by a practically unlimited amount. What I mean when I say private property "fails" is that it is not a useful concept to us as a society in cases like this. The consumption of goods of the aforementioned type are nonrival, meaning my consumption of it does not interfere with your consumption of it. That's why it doesn't really matter.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Okay, that's a nice rationalization, and it seems to mirror what the sibling comment said, but it's just a rationalization. You still don't have a right to pirate anything, and the moral argument falls down completely when there are plenty for-pay options available that have no ads whatsoever. With all the options available, it seems to me like selfishness to say that you get to do whatever you want, laws and rights of others be damned. Seems to me if you believe that this model of society is not useful, you should work to change things through legal channels rather than just doing whatever you want to fulfil your desires, regardless of others rights and desires. Would you agree that's also not a useful model for a society?
  - Retric 4y ago
    Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Should libraries be allowed to purchase content and then ignore DRM? How about watching YouTube videos of video games you haven’t purchased. This stuff doesn’t have some universal answer everyone will agree with. PS: As for pay for value, people also create value for me by living their life and paying taxes, that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. Sure debate is fine. Changing laws is fine. Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws because you want to watch a show is not fine. > At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Not really, because enslaving people doesn’t have the same moral implications as copyright. I don’t even begin to see how you can draw a comparison. > that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money. Yes it does, through paying your own taxes that creates value for them.
      - Retric 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
happytoexplain 4y ago
>Is there not enough media that is ad free for you to watch There's a bizarre assumption in the wording of this sentence. If I can not pay to watch a specific thing I would like to watch without ads, I am going to pirate it, regardless of what volume of other things there are to watch.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > If I can not pay to watch a specific thing I would like to watch without ads, I am going to pirate it But why? Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? The fact that you have other options means you don't have to be subject to ads if you don't want to. So it seems to me the choice is watch media and not be subject to ads, or watch other media and be subject to ads. You seem to imply there is a third option, that you get to do whatever you want regardless of anyone else's rights or desires. If everyone thought that way, society wouldn't work.
  - amelius 4y ago
    > Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? Perhaps the desire exists exactly through ads :) If the creator planted the idea into your head of watching a show, isn't it your right to consume that show as you see fit?
    - pb7 4y ago
      No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical.
      - SantalBlush 4y ago
        For the sake of discussion, we should specify whose definition of property we're using. Are you talking about the US government's definition?
      - amelius 4y ago
i_like_apis 4y ago
Yes, specifically anything that is in-season.
lostlogin 4y ago
I pay for several subscription services and also pirate a lot. I’d prefer to watched the pirated copy and it looks better, works better and is all in one app. Family members use my subscriptions far more than I do.

Retric 4y ago

If I am never going to pay for X, then nobody is harmed by me pirating it. That said, I haven’t pirated anything in a decade. It’s up to content creators to create business models that work for them, but I really don’t care if they pick one that doesn’t work for me.

einherjae 4y ago
Are you saying that X provides a value to you that you are unwilling to pay for at any rate? Not even something like 1 cent with minimal transaction friction and no ads or tracking? Not even if the ask was for something non monetary like saying thanks in a guestbook?
- Retric 4y ago
  I recently canceled patroon support for an author and there is absolutely no content they could create that would make me willing to buy their content at any price. I also lost interest in their content, but in theory if I still had interest I would think nothing of pirating it.

SantalBlush 4y ago

The notion of private property fails when it comes to things that can be multiplied in quantity practically for free, by a practically unlimited amount. What I mean when I say private property "fails" is that it is not a useful concept to us as a society in cases like this. The consumption of goods of the aforementioned type are nonrival, meaning my consumption of it does not interfere with your consumption of it. That's why it doesn't really matter.

ModernMech 4y ago
Okay, that's a nice rationalization, and it seems to mirror what the sibling comment said, but it's just a rationalization. You still don't have a right to pirate anything, and the moral argument falls down completely when there are plenty for-pay options available that have no ads whatsoever. With all the options available, it seems to me like selfishness to say that you get to do whatever you want, laws and rights of others be damned. Seems to me if you believe that this model of society is not useful, you should work to change things through legal channels rather than just doing whatever you want to fulfil your desires, regardless of others rights and desires. Would you agree that's also not a useful model for a society?
- Retric 4y ago
  Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Should libraries be allowed to purchase content and then ignore DRM? How about watching YouTube videos of video games you haven’t purchased. This stuff doesn’t have some universal answer everyone will agree with. PS: As for pay for value, people also create value for me by living their life and paying taxes, that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. Sure debate is fine. Changing laws is fine. Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws because you want to watch a show is not fine. > At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Not really, because enslaving people doesn’t have the same moral implications as copyright. I don’t even begin to see how you can draw a comparison. > that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money. Yes it does, through paying your own taxes that creates value for them.
    - Retric 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

happytoexplain 4y ago

>Is there not enough media that is ad free for you to watch There's a bizarre assumption in the wording of this sentence. If I can not pay to watch a specific thing I would like to watch without ads, I am going to pirate it, regardless of what volume of other things there are to watch.

ModernMech 4y ago
> If I can not pay to watch a specific thing I would like to watch without ads, I am going to pirate it But why? Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? The fact that you have other options means you don't have to be subject to ads if you don't want to. So it seems to me the choice is watch media and not be subject to ads, or watch other media and be subject to ads. You seem to imply there is a third option, that you get to do whatever you want regardless of anyone else's rights or desires. If everyone thought that way, society wouldn't work.
- amelius 4y ago
  > Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? Perhaps the desire exists exactly through ads :) If the creator planted the idea into your head of watching a show, isn't it your right to consume that show as you see fit?
  - pb7 4y ago
    No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical.
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      For the sake of discussion, we should specify whose definition of property we're using. Are you talking about the US government's definition?
    - amelius 4y ago

i_like_apis 4y ago

Yes, specifically anything that is in-season.

lostlogin 4y ago

I pay for several subscription services and also pirate a lot. I’d prefer to watched the pirated copy and it looks better, works better and is all in one app. Family members use my subscriptions far more than I do.