4 ms·
Piracy is the only option they’re giving you then.
by bogwog 4y ago
Piracy is the only option they’re giving you then.
- gameshot911 4y agoHe could also just not watch it right now, and hope it becomes available in the future. Let's not pretend that unethical stealing is the only option.
- bheadmaster 4y agoLet's not pretend that unauthorized copying is the same as stealing. If a hundred billion aliens in another galaxy watched a pirated movie, nobody would even know. If the aliens came down to Earth and took all our water, we'd all die.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deathanatos 4y agoI mean, I've got a fairly long list of content on that list, some years old at this point.
- nickthegreek 4y agoIt's not the only option.. it the only good option. Another option would be to purchase a VPN to route through a country where it is playable. But if you had to choose between the 2 options of pirating or paying more money to a different "shady" activity... I feel like the choice is pretty clear.
- TheHappyOddish 4y agoI wonder why people believe bypassing copyright law by pretending to be from another country is somehow better than bypassing copyright law by downloading the content. Both are piracy, but the latter holds the stigmatism, and the former is openly advertised by podcasters and youtubers everywhere.
- p0pcult 4y agoWhy do you think that the parent poster is entitled to watch it? There is clearly the option of not watching it.
- bogwog 4y agoFor the same reason the IP holder is entitled to a monopoly. The free market doesn't work without competition, and since IP law explicitly gives people monopolies, the only balancing force is piracy. People in general don't want to pirate, but they will if it's the best option (just look at the often-cited example of Steam). That's the only thing keeping publishers in check. Without it, I'm sure prices for content would be much higher than they are right now.
- p0pcult 4y agoThis is a very silly argument. There are plenty of other entertainment options that are not the anime in question; no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content, just because they feel like it and don't like the distribution model. Lots of entitled downvoters on here; I at least applaud you for engaging in discussion. Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago> Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue. This isn't an accurate analogy because the OP has no option to enter the venue at all, even if they want to pay. > no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content The whole motive behind copyright is that society is entitled to culture. By granting artists a time-limited monopoly, they can be incentivized to create and release more and more content, which makes society's culture richer and more widely available to everyone. So I'd argue that the status quo OP describes is contrary to the actual objective of copyright itself.