5 ms·

Another win for the copyright mafia. > It is estimated that the amount of financial damages suffered annually from the illegal service is a massive €10 billion

by Timwi 2y ago

Another win for the copyright mafia. > It is estimated that the amount of financial damages suffered annually from the illegal service is a massive €10 billion ($10.5B). Oh boo hoo, some billionaires are getting a couple billions less than they could have. How sad. And what a disingenuous framing to call it “financial damage” as if it somehow affected any ordinary people.

itake 2y ago
My limited understanding is most content gets reinvested in creating more content. That is $10.5B that won't be used to create new movies, tv shows, etc.
- AzzyHN 2y ago
  The $10.5B number is bullshit. It assumes every piracy stream user would've been a paying customer (which is false), and they would have paid the full, non-sale value (also false). For subscriptions, they usually add up the cost over at least 12 months. Sometimes longer.
  - itake 2y ago
    The article says they made 250M euro/mo or 3b/yr. If they operated for 4 years, that would be 12B of money lost. They probably haven't made 250m/mo for 4 years, but they probably have also been operating longer than 4 years.
    - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
      I think the $250m per month is included in the "number is bullshit" description, given that the $10B is an extension of the $250m/mo.
- Ar-Curunir 2y ago
  maybe now they'll spend money thinking about what to produce, instead of producing tons of slop, most of which is not viewed by anybody.
  - brokenmachine 2y ago
    The slop is cheap to produce and some people watch it. Slop is good business!
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  Yes, that is definitely a limited understanding.
- Refusing23 2y ago
  i guess the 10 billion is based off of how long the service had been running, and how many users they had and some avg streaming service monthly cost and then you get 10 billion but that doesnt mean all the users would have spend money on netflix instead... loads of people who pirate arent potential customers to begin with. and does it take into account the price difference from different countries? i doubt it
- __rito__ 2y ago
  That line of argument assumes that all of this money would have actually gone to streaming sites. That's a lie they tell. People buy services from/use pirate site because either they could not afford it in the legal way, or contents weren’t available to them at all.
OkayBuddy44 2y ago
The real "financial damage" here is depriving ordinary people of an affordable alternative to the increasingly exorbitant cost of streaming services. We just want our bread and circuses while the world burns, is that too much to ask? If you want to watch your favourite sportsball team, there are jurisdictions where you need 4+ different subscriptions (and still won't have access to all games). I am currently trialling IPTV because my legit subscriptions (i) do not allow me to login on more than x devices, which is an unnecessary restriction and incredibly inconvenient, (ii) have broken functionality in their app that I rely on, (iii) no longer support my device, despite it being perfectly capable, so the app has been automatically deleted from it, (iv) ads. I remember when Netflix first appeared and there was a shift away from piracy and all of its risk, quality issues, illegality, etc to the convenient, affordable, legal alternative. Unfortunately we have reached a point now where these media companies have recaptured their power and control, and are wasting no time screwing over paying customers in the most cynical, usurious ways they can invent. The equilibrium is shifting back to piracy, where the consumer has the power, and the big players offer custom apps, great quality, no ads, reasonable restrictions, etc.
khazhoux 2y ago
HN: "We should be concerned about AI making it impossible for creative people to make a living in the future." Also HN: "Why should I have to pay for creative content?"
- Shugarl 2y ago
  Steam and Spotify proves that people are completely down to pay for creative content. I also regularly buy ebooks.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  HN isn't one person, if you wondered.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    And yet prevailing views emerge.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  Also HN: "Zomg, HN unbellyfeel as one prolefeed. This ungood diffspeak seen as newthink, must crimethink peers for lackold fullwise groupthink."
- Timwi 2y ago
  I'll bite. We should be concerned about AI because one of its consequences in our current world is that it may make it harder for people to make a living. However, that's not a failing of AI, it's a failing of our current world. Homeless people aren't all artists, you know. Ideally you shouldn't have to be an artist, or anything else, to just be allowed to live. So I don't see a contradiction in those statements. We should be concerned about the effect of AI, but the solution is not to shut down AI but to fix our society so that the (inevitable) rise of AI won't cause starvation or homelessness. The easiest fix available to us right now is UBI.

by Timwi 2y ago

itake 2y ago

My limited understanding is most content gets reinvested in creating more content. That is $10.5B that won't be used to create new movies, tv shows, etc.

AzzyHN 2y ago
The $10.5B number is bullshit. It assumes every piracy stream user would've been a paying customer (which is false), and they would have paid the full, non-sale value (also false). For subscriptions, they usually add up the cost over at least 12 months. Sometimes longer.
- itake 2y ago
  The article says they made 250M euro/mo or 3b/yr. If they operated for 4 years, that would be 12B of money lost. They probably haven't made 250m/mo for 4 years, but they probably have also been operating longer than 4 years.
  - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    I think the $250m per month is included in the "number is bullshit" description, given that the $10B is an extension of the $250m/mo.
Ar-Curunir 2y ago
maybe now they'll spend money thinking about what to produce, instead of producing tons of slop, most of which is not viewed by anybody.
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  The slop is cheap to produce and some people watch it. Slop is good business!
brokenmachine 2y ago
Yes, that is definitely a limited understanding.
Refusing23 2y ago
i guess the 10 billion is based off of how long the service had been running, and how many users they had and some avg streaming service monthly cost and then you get 10 billion but that doesnt mean all the users would have spend money on netflix instead... loads of people who pirate arent potential customers to begin with. and does it take into account the price difference from different countries? i doubt it
__rito__ 2y ago
That line of argument assumes that all of this money would have actually gone to streaming sites. That's a lie they tell. People buy services from/use pirate site because either they could not afford it in the legal way, or contents weren’t available to them at all.

OkayBuddy44 2y ago

The real "financial damage" here is depriving ordinary people of an affordable alternative to the increasingly exorbitant cost of streaming services. We just want our bread and circuses while the world burns, is that too much to ask? If you want to watch your favourite sportsball team, there are jurisdictions where you need 4+ different subscriptions (and still won't have access to all games). I am currently trialling IPTV because my legit subscriptions (i) do not allow me to login on more than x devices, which is an unnecessary restriction and incredibly inconvenient, (ii) have broken functionality in their app that I rely on, (iii) no longer support my device, despite it being perfectly capable, so the app has been automatically deleted from it, (iv) ads. I remember when Netflix first appeared and there was a shift away from piracy and all of its risk, quality issues, illegality, etc to the convenient, affordable, legal alternative. Unfortunately we have reached a point now where these media companies have recaptured their power and control, and are wasting no time screwing over paying customers in the most cynical, usurious ways they can invent. The equilibrium is shifting back to piracy, where the consumer has the power, and the big players offer custom apps, great quality, no ads, reasonable restrictions, etc.

khazhoux 2y ago

HN: "We should be concerned about AI making it impossible for creative people to make a living in the future." Also HN: "Why should I have to pay for creative content?"

Shugarl 2y ago
Steam and Spotify proves that people are completely down to pay for creative content. I also regularly buy ebooks.
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
HN isn't one person, if you wondered.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  And yet prevailing views emerge.
ssl-3 2y ago
Also HN: "Zomg, HN unbellyfeel as one prolefeed. This ungood diffspeak seen as newthink, must crimethink peers for lackold fullwise groupthink."
Timwi 2y ago
I'll bite. We should be concerned about AI because one of its consequences in our current world is that it may make it harder for people to make a living. However, that's not a failing of AI, it's a failing of our current world. Homeless people aren't all artists, you know. Ideally you shouldn't have to be an artist, or anything else, to just be allowed to live. So I don't see a contradiction in those statements. We should be concerned about the effect of AI, but the solution is not to shut down AI but to fix our society so that the (inevitable) rise of AI won't cause starvation or homelessness. The easiest fix available to us right now is UBI.