4 ms·
> Spotify and Netflix (without copyright law, for instance, no one would pay for those services); Really? People already decide to pay for it instead of pirati
by lawl 11y ago
> Spotify and Netflix (without copyright law, for instance, no one would pay for those services);
Really? People already decide to pay for it instead of pirating it, because it's more convinient, not because they're scared of breaking the law.
- ghaff 11y agoHowever, in the absence of copyright, presumably it would be much easier to download quality content (assuming for the purposes of the hypothetical that all the content had been made in the first place) given that, for example, Napster v1 would be perfectly legal. Storage and bandwidth still need to be paid for of course and there might be a market for services that curated and served up free music and movies but the price would presumably have to be less than a subscription for Spotify or Netflix.
- lawl 11y agoI honestly doubt that, have you tried popcorn time, or illegal streaming sites recently? They're not really harder to use than YouTube, just more ads. But they don't have the clean metadata, sometimes releases are botched, parts are missing, this wouldn't be much different if it weren't illegal. Pirates have way larger libraries than netflix, and people still pay for it.
- gusmd 11y agoIn that hypothetical scenario, why would starving artists continue distributing their work? They would simply look for another job that paid the bills. I for one choose to believe that people mostly want to support the artists, hence the popularity of said services.
- ghaff 11y agoMost wouldn't. And the vast majority of films certainly wouldn't be made if they had to depend on donations. >I for one choose to believe that people mostly want to support the artists, hence the popularity of said services. I think that's very optimistic of you. In a world where you had a Netflix and a "Cheapflix" that was a quarter the monthly price because it (legally) didn't pay for any of its content but was otherwise identical to the Netflix of that world, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would go with the less expensive option.
- gusmd 11y agoYou might be right. However, anedoctally, most of my friends are paying for Spotify Premium and Netflix even when torrent downloads are just around the corner. And these are not rich people with money to spare; these are grad students or a few recent graduates on a budget like myself. So I still believe that people would rather go legal and support the artists when they have the option.
- bobajeff 11y agoNetflix and Spotify are irrelevant and useless in a world without copyright. They exist as a means to conveniently get media served over the internet. YouTube or Mega Video would be convenient if it weren't for DMCA takedowns, domain seizure and raids.
- lawl 11y agoYouTube works really well for music, they have deals with the music industry. I haven't had song blocked on youtube in a long time, depends on where you live though. Spotify still exists. There are thousands of alternatives to Mega Video, for example popcorn time, which is pretty much as convinient as netflix itself. Netflix still exists. No, they aren't irrelevant in a copyright less world.