3 ms·

I don't think its that mind boggling. Everyone pays -in some way- for value. Pirated streams may not cost $$, but they cost time, labor, and its risky to set u

I don't think its that mind boggling. Everyone pays -in some way- for value. Pirated streams may not cost $$, but they cost time, labor, and its risky to set up (virii, installing bloatware, etc). So there's a cost to them. A hybrid model that is low cost and low labor, simply approximates the real value to the consumer. If someone is not paying Sky 30 EUR per month, but is paying a random reseller the equivalent of 3 EUR/mo, then the question is, why doesn't the content provider sell that value to the end user?

kmeisthax 3y ago
Right, but this is copyright brained "lost sale" logic. Sky costs 30 EUR/mo because everyone involved in the value chain can only produce their creative works if they can charge that much. The resellers are charging 3 EUR specifically because they cut the publishers and creators of that work out of the profit. Of course you can charge 3 EUR for something you didn't have to pay for. But you could also charge nothing - you don't really have costs because you aren't paying anyone. I distinctly remember the days of P2P and BitTorrent where pirated content actually was being provided for free[0]. So in my mind, charging any amount of money for pirated content feels like a grift. [0] Or at the very least, using an internal scrip denominated in bytes transferred to encourage people to host the content