4 ms·

People who pay for legal streaming of music and video are subsidizing the subversion of free speech and privacy on the Internet. The providers use part of their

People who pay for legal streaming of music and video are subsidizing the subversion of free speech and privacy on the Internet. The providers use part of their income to lobby politicians for more invasive monitoring of everyone's activities online (so it's easier to catch "pirates") and also fight against any means of preserving one's privacy online. All politicians who suggest to ban encryption online (to protect the children) are sponsored by the music and film industry. All VPN provides that don't keep logs are stopped from accepting payment for their service through credit/debit cards and PayPal (because streaming providers can't track "pirates" if there are no logs, so they go to the banks and ask the VPN provider to be banned from accepting bank cards).

hackernewds 4y ago
> People who pay for legal streaming of music and video are subsidizing the subversion of free speech and privacy on the Internet. So paying for a service that has cost the provider labor, effort and money is a disservice to society, versus stealing it? The verbal gymnastics are fantastic
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  The same can be said for slave or other unethically produced goods. Should you buy electronics devices made of conflict minerals (usually cobalt from slave child workers in Congo)? By paying for it, you are sponsoring their further exploitation.
  - duxup 4y ago
    > The same can be said for slave or other unethically produced goods. Should you buy electronics devices made of conflict minerals (usually cobalt from slave child workers in Congo)? Is it possible to even know if some electronics are built/ sourced ethically?
- selcuka 4y ago
  > So paying for a service that has cost the provider labor, effort and money is a disservice to society, versus stealing it? Well, the GP comment might be worded a bit too direct, but that is actually the truth for the time being. It didn't have to be this way, but that's a separate discussion.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  More like paying for a service that a company chose to put X amount of dollars in is not automatically a service to society. I might pay someone $1000 for a fruit basket, but society is certainly served better if I put that money towards someone's lifesaving surgery instead.
alwayslikethis 4y ago
Second this. In our current era the copyright owners (usually not even the authors themselves) are the ones lobbying for increasing surveillance to encroach on the fundamental rights to speech and information. They are also lobbying for ever-lengthening copyright. By paying, you are sponsoring their actions. We should also reform the political system to make it less susceptible to lobbying, but that's another discussion.

hackernewds 4y ago

> People who pay for legal streaming of music and video are subsidizing the subversion of free speech and privacy on the Internet. So paying for a service that has cost the provider labor, effort and money is a disservice to society, versus stealing it? The verbal gymnastics are fantastic

alwayslikethis 4y ago
The same can be said for slave or other unethically produced goods. Should you buy electronics devices made of conflict minerals (usually cobalt from slave child workers in Congo)? By paying for it, you are sponsoring their further exploitation.
- duxup 4y ago
  > The same can be said for slave or other unethically produced goods. Should you buy electronics devices made of conflict minerals (usually cobalt from slave child workers in Congo)? Is it possible to even know if some electronics are built/ sourced ethically?
selcuka 4y ago
> So paying for a service that has cost the provider labor, effort and money is a disservice to society, versus stealing it? Well, the GP comment might be worded a bit too direct, but that is actually the truth for the time being. It didn't have to be this way, but that's a separate discussion.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
More like paying for a service that a company chose to put X amount of dollars in is not automatically a service to society. I might pay someone $1000 for a fruit basket, but society is certainly served better if I put that money towards someone's lifesaving surgery instead.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

Second this. In our current era the copyright owners (usually not even the authors themselves) are the ones lobbying for increasing surveillance to encroach on the fundamental rights to speech and information. They are also lobbying for ever-lengthening copyright. By paying, you are sponsoring their actions. We should also reform the political system to make it less susceptible to lobbying, but that's another discussion.