I'm in the camp that's predicting a silver age of piracy in this new walled-garden world. The barrier to getting content was so low that piracy didn't really make sense for a lot of people (myself...
I'm in the camp that's predicting a silver age of piracy in this new walled-garden world. The barrier to getting content was so low that piracy didn't really make sense for a lot of people (myself included). Now that I'll have to get 5 memberships instead of 1 means piracy is more convenient again.
It's been shown over and over again that convenience reduces piracy. It's certainly been true for me—I used to pirate a lot, but I haven't pirated a game in over 10 years because Steam made buying...
It's been shown over and over again that convenience reduces piracy. It's certainly been true for me—I used to pirate a lot, but I haven't pirated a game in over 10 years because Steam made buying them so convenient. I don't pirate music any more because I can easily get everything I want between Bandcamp and the streaming services.
But TV is going in the wrong direction, and while I haven't started pirating it again yet, I did cancel my Netflix account this month after subscribing for over 6 years. I only intend to subscribe temporarily now when there's something specific I want to watch, it's not worth paying to keep it available with the selection constantly dropping as everyone pulls their content to try launching their own services.
Interesting your decision on Netflix. We made the decision that as long as they don't give us ads, we'll keep it as our streaming service. Though they have dropped a lot of shows that we liked,...
Interesting your decision on Netflix. We made the decision that as long as they don't give us ads, we'll keep it as our streaming service. Though they have dropped a lot of shows that we liked, we've also been exploring more of their foreign selections that so far has been able to fill the time we may have watched something else. Additionally, since we don't like the fracture happening in the streaming-verse, we decided to keep supporting the company we've liked doing business with.
I can only imagine piracy countermeasures and the ability to issue takedown notices have gotten better though. If rates start going up again you can bet on the companies having crawlers hunting...
I can only imagine piracy countermeasures and the ability to issue takedown notices have gotten better though. If rates start going up again you can bet on the companies having crawlers hunting for files to issue takedown notices on or even seeding trackers with corrupted copies or even malware.
Me too. Just wait until the younger Gen Zs start leaving home. Zoomers have never watched actual TV and piracy is second nature to them. I think media companies are going to be in for a big...
Me too. Just wait until the younger Gen Zs start leaving home. Zoomers have never watched actual TV and piracy is second nature to them. I think media companies are going to be in for a big surprise if they are expecting Gen Z to pay £50+ just on "TV" like their grand/parents generation.
You think? It seems to me like they're the most accustomed to streaming being the norm, to the point where something becoming available on a streaming service is an event nearly on par with a show...
You think?
It seems to me like they're the most accustomed to streaming being the norm, to the point where something becoming available on a streaming service is an event nearly on par with a show coming out in the first place. They definitely don't have much experience with TV, but I'm not sure piracy is as much their thing as it is for millennials.
Still, if it gets that bad, I'm sure they'll find a way!
I think it just takes different forms than we're used to. Millennials think of pirating as downloading a torrent (or at least that's what I think of) but from what I've seen of younger people,...
but I'm not sure piracy is as much their thing as it is for millennials.
I think it just takes different forms than we're used to.
Millennials think of pirating as downloading a torrent (or at least that's what I think of) but from what I've seen of younger people, they are much more likely to find what they want uploaded to some sort of illegal streaming site or even on YouTube and watch it there.
A lot of them are still young enough to only have access to what their parents subscribe to. If a 15 year old wants to watch Good Omens but their parents don't have Amazon Prime, they'll find a way to watch it.
I think you have your date range wrong for millennials. Most definitions (from wikipedia) put millenials currently at 23-39 years old. The youngest definition is as low as 19 years old. Most...
I think you have your date range wrong for millennials. Most definitions (from wikipedia) put millenials currently at 23-39 years old. The youngest definition is as low as 19 years old. Most millenials are out of college (at least the usual 4-5 years). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials?wprov=sfla1
Sounds about right. The incentive is even greater for international customers. The great thing about Netflix is it's already available worldwide. Sure, the specific selection is different in every...
Sounds about right.
The incentive is even greater for international customers. The great thing about Netflix is it's already available worldwide. Sure, the specific selection is different in every country, but at least it's there. These new services will presumably be US-only at first, but IP owners might still want to hold on to their properties in preparation for future expansion abroad. There are few things that piss me off more than seeing a product that is exclusively available on a service that won't even take my money because I'm in the wrong country.
To me, this new "walled-garden" means that I pay to be in the garden that looks best to me, and none of the other gardens exist. I don't even think about them or what they contain. If someone is...
To me, this new "walled-garden" means that I pay to be in the garden that looks best to me, and none of the other gardens exist. I don't even think about them or what they contain. If someone is talking about a different garden and all the cool things there, I'm like "cool" and either decide to pay to be there, or I stop thinking about it. Much like if someone is telling me about their amazing SO, I don't think "oh I'm gonna wait till they aren't looking and get me some of that." I don't need access to all the things all the time.
Because I have never understood this: Why is piracy acceptable to people?
Why is media piracy unacceptable to you? Do you believe it to be wrong or do you simply follow every law in your jurisdiction? While I can certainly see an argument that media piracy is morally...
Why is media piracy unacceptable to you? Do you believe it to be wrong or do you simply follow every law in your jurisdiction?
While I can certainly see an argument that media piracy is morally wrong, personally i find it MORE wrong in some cases than others. For instance, I think pirating an independent artist’s work is worse than pirating something like Game of Thrones.
I also believe it’s wrong when private companies use the government to prop up their outdated business model or prevent a better consumer experience through technology. Copyright is an example - it’s been lobbied so far from its original intent (to encourage artists) that it’s actively stifling artists.
If you understand the ideas that some piracy is worse than others, and that some companies are using the government to create anti-consumer, anti-creator environments, you can probably understand why I have no issue with most media piracy.
I can’t speak for others, but to me it’s a natural response to the ways that media companies have been acting.
Our social contract grants artists control over how and when their work is distributed because otherwise they wouldn't realistically be able to make a living off of it, and our economic system...
Our social contract grants artists control over how and when their work is distributed because otherwise they wouldn't realistically be able to make a living off of it, and our economic system demands that people earn money in order to survive. If everyone overnight decided "I'm not going to pay for movies, TV, or music because it's free on the internet", then the livelihood of most artists collapses. Pirates only enjoy an unlimited supply of free content because most people follow the rules, thus preserving the flow of new content.
Now this is all pretty arbitrary and silly, but so is the concept of money in general. It's OK to disagree with it, but you can't argue that IP laws aren't necessary under our current economic model without also arguing for a fundamental change in how our economy works. Just deciding you disagree with the social contract and ignoring it seems a bit petty, and usually doesn't go over so well.
Our sense of ethics is focused on making sure the artists get paid, but our IP system is geared towards making sure lawyers, distributors, and other gatekeeping senior executives get paid. The gap...
Our social contract grants artists control over how and when their work is distributed because otherwise they wouldn't realistically be able to make a living off of it, and our economic system demands that people earn money in order to survive.
Our sense of ethics is focused on making sure the artists get paid, but our IP system is geared towards making sure lawyers, distributors, and other gatekeeping senior executives get paid.
The gap between what the socially beneficial goal is and where the legal reality is ends up being where piracy finds its moral justification.
I don't quite buy that. This is how it ends up, largely because most artists would prefer to let these people shoulder the financial risk of creating film and television in exchange for the bulk...
Our sense of ethics is focused on making sure the artists get paid, but our IP system is geared towards making sure lawyers, distributors, and other gatekeeping senior executives get paid.
I don't quite buy that. This is how it ends up, largely because most artists would prefer to let these people shoulder the financial risk of creating film and television in exchange for the bulk of the reward. Disney wouldn't have handed Joss Whedon $200m to make an Avengers movie if Disney wasn't going to benefit the most from it, and Joss Whedon certainly doesn't have the wherewithal to make a $200m movie on his own without significant financial investment.
For people who like content that is expensive to produce, then Disney turning a profit on films like Avengers is still socially beneficial. There's certainly an argument to be made that big budget productions like this are soulless cash grabs and we don't really need them, but this is clearly not a popular opinion, and anyone who really feels this way probably shouldn't pirate art they claim to not like when they could be watching something they actually do.
Disney reaps outsized benefits because they have outsized market power, not because artists are making a rational or fair trade off. This is a deal they take or leave because it’s the only deal on...
Disney reaps outsized benefits because they have outsized market power, not because artists are making a rational or fair trade off.
This is a deal they take or leave because it’s the only deal on the table. It’s disingenuous to pretend this is a fair or good-faith exchange going on.
While Disney does presently hold a tremendous amount of power, (an unfair amount in my opinion), I don't think it goes as far as forcing artists into unfair tradeoffs. It could be argued that...
While Disney does presently hold a tremendous amount of power, (an unfair amount in my opinion), I don't think it goes as far as forcing artists into unfair tradeoffs. It could be argued that artists hold more control and reap more benefits today than they did under the old studio system.
I don't think this is a good justification for piracy. I have an ethical issue with harming artists just because I'm ultimately causing more harm to someone I disagree with.
You could, if you're willing to accept a massive change to how the entertainment industry functions, as well as the disappearance of heavily funded productions, short of some weird exceptions like...
but you can't argue that IP laws aren't necessary under our current economic model without also arguing for a fundamental change in how our economy works
You could, if you're willing to accept a massive change to how the entertainment industry functions, as well as the disappearance of heavily funded productions, short of some weird exceptions like rich patrons. That does leave you in a strange position, but I can at least imagine a person where that lines up with their values. While the entertainment industry would collapse, removing an economic incentive does not destroy art itself...you can't stop people from making art. If someone only values that art, or maybe sees the art that is made without an economic incentive as the only truly "authentic" work or something like that, it's possible to hold that position without contradicting yourself.
That said, it's a lot less of an awkward position to hold if you also have political beliefs that would allow artists to create art without that art being something to be bought and sold. There's a pretty wide range there...I would argue that it would make the most sense if you're some kind of socialist, but this also makes a lot of sense for certain kinds of people who support UBI (even if you shouldn't be with the latter for other reasons 👀).
That's essentially where I'm at. I participate—buy art—sometimes out of convenience and sometimes out of goodwill toward a specific artist, but I view it as mostly unrelated to my own morality or beliefs. I'm willing to accept that if more people act like 'me' (not actually me since I do buy a lot but you know what I mean), the industry will collapse. That's okay with me. Beyond that, my radical political views leave plenty of room for artists to survive while making art without that art being a commercial product. Without trying to provoke an argument about the details of those beliefs themselves, they're at least internally consistent.
I think a lot of people who pirate don't grapple with the morality and politics of it as much as they should. Not because they should stop pirating...but because their support for piracy should lead to some serious thoughts about their other views.
I think this is true. I also don't believe this mindset actually applies to the vast majority of pirates. If it did, the most pirated content would be small budget independent films, not Game of...
You could, if you're willing to accept a massive change to how the entertainment industry functions, as well as the disappearance of heavily funded productions, short of some weird exceptions like rich patrons. That does leave you in a strange position, but I can at least imagine a person where that lines up with their values.
I think this is true. I also don't believe this mindset actually applies to the vast majority of pirates. If it did, the most pirated content would be small budget independent films, not Game of Thrones and Avengers. The reality is, people love this kind of content, so the world isn't going to accept a new entertainment model that makes it largely disappear.
I would argue our current social contract actually favours people taking (I.e stealing) artists work and using it to make money (via social media). In fact, only large, non-artist entities...
I would argue our current social contract actually favours people taking (I.e stealing) artists work and using it to make money (via social media). In fact, only large, non-artist entities (distributors and publishers) have the means to use the current system to ‘protect’ the art under their purview. In my opinion, our current social contract is as messed up as the laws meant to enforce them.
I accept I can only enjoy certain things because others pay for it - I’m ok with that. If that art (or future sequels) couldn’t be created without my support, I’m fine with it not existing. I do pay for some art, and that is the art I don’t want to live without.
I could argue that CURRENT IP laws are unnecessary and possibly a hindrance to progress, but I don’t have time or the desire at the moment. Just understand one thing: it seems like what you’re calling a ‘social contract’ is an absolute, immutable law of nature in your mind. I don’t agree with that at all. Social contracts are not the same as laws, and I don’t believe in absolute laws of nature or absolute right or wrong. Your opinion of what’s involved in the social contract may be completely different than mine, and comparing me to some crazy sovereign citizen doesn’t make me open to your point of view - it makes me think you’re closed-minded.
I think this is absolutely true, which is why I can be a little fluid on the subject of piracy. I've downloaded a few older games and films that simply aren't readily available while still being...
I could argue that CURRENT IP laws are unnecessary and possibly a hindrance to progress
I think this is absolutely true, which is why I can be a little fluid on the subject of piracy. I've downloaded a few older games and films that simply aren't readily available while still being protected under our obnoxiously long copyright terms.
This is also a problem that can be feasibly remedied without making fundamental alterations to our economic system.
It is unacceptable to me because I don't feel the right to infringe upon another entities property. Like it feels wrong to take something that does not belong to me without the express permission...
Why is media piracy unacceptable to you? Do you believe it to be wrong or do you simply follow every law in your jurisdiction?
It is unacceptable to me because I don't feel the right to infringe upon another entities property. Like it feels wrong to take something that does not belong to me without the express permission of the owner of said thing. I feel the same way about digital and print things as I do physical things. I would not go into my artist friend's home and take her art because I want to hang it on my wall. I would not go into a furniture store and steal a couch because that store has one that is better than the one I have. I use to clean a house owned by a nasty couple who treated me like dog shit. I could have stolen any number of things from them, but I am not a thief. And I guess that is the essence of how I feel about piracy, it is thievery. I do not understand how the character of the owner has any bearing on how I comport myself.
I feel differently about things that are needed to survive. I am okay with someone stealing the proverbial loaf of bread, but I would still feel bad for the maker of the bread, less bad if it were a mass maker of bread. Regardless of how I feel about the companies that own media, I do not need those things to survive, so if I cannot afford them, I stop thinking about them -- they are not for me to own.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I've often wondered how the my thoughts differ from another person's thoughts in regards to piracy. I think I sound judgemental in my response, and I am to an extent, but that does not mean I think I am a better person, just different.
Honestly we have a lot of overlap in our views. There are lots of things I choose not to think about simply because I don’t want the hassle of acquiring them, and I don’t need them to live. A lot...
Honestly we have a lot of overlap in our views. There are lots of things I choose not to think about simply because I don’t want the hassle of acquiring them, and I don’t need them to live. A lot of media fits into this category. When I pirate something, it’s usually due to restrictions on access rather than costs.
For instance, I’m a big user of the library, and a certain ebook has been out of stock for weeks. I might pirate it. If I like it, I will buy it, remove the DRM, and share it with people who I believe would be inspired by it. To me, the barrier of access to first be inspired and then to inspire others is far too high.
On the opposite note: I haven’t seen Avengers: Endgame. I want to, but family commitments have prevented it from happening. I won’t pirate it because it’s still in theatres (I’d rather see it big screen) AND because I can live without it. If either of those changes, i might pirate it.
I also don’t view media piracy as straight-up theft as much as a physical good, so that might have something to do with my actions.
Side note - your responses dont seem too judgmental to me. I understand my views are perhaps unorthodox, and I appreciate you asking questions rather than talking at me.
Your post prompted me to speak with one of my sons about this late last night. We had a great discussion, so thank you for giving us discussion material!
Your post prompted me to speak with one of my sons about this late last night. We had a great discussion, so thank you for giving us discussion material!
Consumers have X amount of power. Corporations have Y amount of power. X is generously a 1 to Y's 1,000,000. Piracy gives the consumer the increase in their power required to say "your decisions...
Consumers have X amount of power. Corporations have Y amount of power. X is generously a 1 to Y's 1,000,000. Piracy gives the consumer the increase in their power required to say "your decisions are terrible and I am not going to conform to them".
For example, I live in Australia. We pay an 'Australia Tax' (not a real tax) due to the perception of companies that we either can or should pay more. We also suffer from drastically delayed release dates. Piracy lets me give a resounding fuck off to the tax and the delays.
This is a great point and one I hadn’t been able to articulate as well until I read your comment. The balance of power isn’t in the hands of artists, it’s in corporations’. I’m hoping the balance...
This is a great point and one I hadn’t been able to articulate as well until I read your comment. The balance of power isn’t in the hands of artists, it’s in corporations’.
I’m hoping the balance swings back: as corporations exert more control over the way we consume media, the natural response is to create tools to circumvent their control.
This is a really bad analogy. I have never had anyone tell me “you would really like my wife, you should check her out.” But that’s usually how 99% of conversations where people talk about shows I...
This is a really bad analogy.
I have never had anyone tell me “you would really like my wife, you should check her out.” But that’s usually how 99% of conversations where people talk about shows I haven’t seen yet go.
as a little aside and update to this, we now have the more refined date for their launch as april 2020 and a better idea of what's supposed to draw people into it:
as a little aside and update to this, we now have the more refined date for their launch as april 2020 and a better idea of what's supposed to draw people into it:
[...]we know that it will play host to The Office after NBC’s existing deal with Netflix expires at the end of 2020. However, Comcast admitted that the “vast majority” of content viewed on the platform is initially likely to be acquired from outside the company. The platform is also likely to host content from Sky Studios, which Comcast purchased last year as part of its acquisition of Sky.
I honestly think that people are overreacting to 'streampocalypse'. The most surprising thing about this is that apparantly The Office and Friends were the most popular shows on Netflix. I can get...
I honestly think that people are overreacting to 'streampocalypse'.
The most surprising thing about this is that apparantly The Office and Friends were the most popular shows on Netflix. I can get why so many people watch The Office, since it's still really relavent today, but I'm really surprised about Friends. I grew up with Friends, too, but the show is very dated. People watching it now remind me of the "old people" who kept watching Taxi and Cheers reruns when I was a kid.
Personally speaking, I'm fine with new streaming services coming up. If they're bad, they will fail and the rights for those shows will likely be picked up by a bigger better streaming service. If they succeed, that means that they probably have a ton of good content and are going to be worth subscribing to. And just because some of these streaming services seem bad now, that doesn't mean that they always will be. CBS All Access was struggling for a while, but it has apparently shown quite a bit of growth this year because of how they have changed their programming.
I don't think it's the apocalypse, but here's a counterpoint. I don't have a lot of money to spend on entertainment. I used to pirate music. Now I don't. I pay for a premium subscription to...
I don't think it's the apocalypse, but here's a counterpoint. I don't have a lot of money to spend on entertainment. I used to pirate music. Now I don't. I pay for a premium subscription to Spotify, even if sometimes I might go a month without using it. I like the idea of being able to listen to any song I want, ad-free, and I'm willing to pay their monthly fee for it. Almost every song I've ever wanted to listen to is on Spotify, and what isn't, is available for free on soundcloud or youtube and I'm not enough of an audiophile to recognize or care about any difference in audio quality. If I had to subscribe to 4-5 different paid music streaming services to get the same selection I now get from a combo of Spotify and free services, I couldn't afford that. I would either begin pirating the stuff or simply go without it.
Currently, I have access to a family account on Netflix that I don't personally pay for (which is completely within their ToS), as well as online streaming of my parents' cable subscription. Occasionally, if there's something I really want to watch ASAP, I might pay for a month or two of a subscription to one streaming service. I've paid for a month or two of HBO Nordic to watch GoT as soon as it airs, no torrenting or waiting required. Every once in a while, there might be some other streaming service I'm willing to temporarily subscribe to to watch something legally the moment it airs. But I can't afford to pay for more than 1 service a month.
For someone in my economic position, the way the music business works, where I can get anything I want legally through free services and one paid subscription, is ideal. If the film/tv space is going to splinter completely, my options would be go without access or turn to piracy. It's not a particularly attractive prospect, especially given that recent changes mean that the tv license I didn't have to pay for previously to access public broadcasting in Norway will now become a mandatory tax, rather than a per-household license, which is equivalent to one more monthly service to "subscribe to", except I can't even choose not to subscribe, as long as I have a device capable of connecting to their services whether I use it or not.
To add to that, being from a minor European nation, many of these new services will not even be willing to take my money for years, even if I could afford it, but will likely pull international licensing long before they launch a service of their own in my country.
It's not the apocalypse and it's definitely a first-world problem, but it's not a very attractive prospect.
I'm in a similar situation, used to pirate music all the time, and since I got Spotify I haven't done it again. On the other hand, I used to pay for Netflix too, even if it was already a little...
I'm in a similar situation, used to pirate music all the time, and since I got Spotify I haven't done it again. On the other hand, I used to pay for Netflix too, even if it was already a little too expensive for me. But in my country they have very few good series or movies, and a small catalog in general, and I can't (and probably wouldn't if I could) pay for more subscription services. So about a year ago I cancelled my subscription and have been torrenting again.
An issue not often addressed is that there are some old shows or movies that you can only find pirated, you can't pay for them even if you're willing to. Would people that find piracy morally objectionable find torrenting those to be objectionable as well?
I watched the first rounds of Nick at Nite sitcoms when I was a kid and it’s not like Bewitched and I Dream of Genie weren’t super dated by then. I think young people like getting a sense for what...
I grew up with Friends, too, but the show is very dated. People watching it now remind me of the "old people" who kept watching Taxi and Cheers reruns when I was a kid.
I watched the first rounds of Nick at Nite sitcoms when I was a kid and it’s not like Bewitched and I Dream of Genie weren’t super dated by then. I think young people like getting a sense for what it might have been like for their older peers and parents.
That's a very different scenario, though. A lot of the reason why I watched those shows as a kid was because there was no decent programming on at that time; now kids will just stream whatever...
That's a very different scenario, though. A lot of the reason why I watched those shows as a kid was because there was no decent programming on at that time; now kids will just stream whatever they want whenever they want. This is an era where a huge percentage of professionally produced shows are currently available for on-demand streaming. Kids have millions of hours worth of cartoons available for them to watch; when are they going have time to get into old sitcoms?
Beyond that, it's the adults who have the buying power for the household, and they are the ones choosing the streaming services. My specific observation was about adults watching reruns of shows from their childhood. I get how it can be comforting (heck, Buffy is that show for me). I just think that continuing to pay a monthly fee to have access to them, or to keep coming back to them frequently, is not a wise or healthy behaviour.
As the adult in my house with the buying power, I don't actually have as much decision-making authority as that might imply. I'm literally paying $50 a month so my wife has access to Bravo. If the...
As the adult in my house with the buying power, I don't actually have as much decision-making authority as that might imply. I'm literally paying $50 a month so my wife has access to Bravo. If the kids wanted to watch Friends because it's the thing their friends are into and referencing all the time I doubt I'd put up much resistance to that either.
Currently upping my totally rewatchable tv show dvd and bluray collections - commercial free. For new content, digital air channels and a good mute button. And books. And library. I save my money...
Currently upping my totally rewatchable tv show dvd and bluray collections - commercial free. For new content, digital air channels and a good mute button. And books. And library. I save my money for important things. After all:
The world is so full of a number of things,
I'm sure we all should all be as happy as kings.
Where I live, it's the opposite. The cable companies have jacked up the price of high-speed internet to the point where it's only like $20 extra to bundle in TV and get 100+ channels. And with...
Where I live, it's the opposite. The cable companies have jacked up the price of high-speed internet to the point where it's only like $20 extra to bundle in TV and get 100+ channels. And with that, you also get access to on-demand streaming for dozens of cable networks. I've tried to cut the cord several times. I can never manage to crunch the numbers so that I'm actually saving money.
my family still has a decent sized cable package for basically this exact reason even though we don't watch that much TV and it otherwise probably wouldn't be worth it. high-speed internet gets...
my family still has a decent sized cable package for basically this exact reason even though we don't watch that much TV and it otherwise probably wouldn't be worth it. high-speed internet gets bundled with cable around here because the cable/ISPs around here basically run a duopoly and they can pull that sort of shit, so if you want any sort of high-speed internet around here you also end up with a cable package unless you want to fork over considerably more money.
Luckily, the utility company in the city I live in built out a small fiber network about 10 years ago. It only reaches maybe 20 apartment complexes, but the threat of them expanding it has kept...
Luckily, the utility company in the city I live in built out a small fiber network about 10 years ago. It only reaches maybe 20 apartment complexes, but the threat of them expanding it has kept Cox from raising their internet prices too much (it still creeps up a few dollars every year anyway).
I've been thinking a lot recently about how much money I spent on streaming content each month. It's already more than I'd like (YouTube TV + Amazon Prime + Netflix + Shudder + Criterion...
I've been thinking a lot recently about how much money I spent on streaming content each month. It's already more than I'd like (YouTube TV + Amazon Prime + Netflix + Shudder + Criterion Collection = about $100 per month). A big chunk of that is YouTube TV for my dad, since he isn't willing to cut the "cable" cord quite yet.
I have a list of hundreds of movies and shows that I want to watch on Letterboxd, but 70% of them aren't available on streaming services. You either have to find the DVDs or not watch them. $100 per month buys a decent amount of physical media.
Part of me sees stuff like this article and wants to just cancel everything and go back to buying what I want to watch.
All I can say is I am not going to get all these services. I have Netflix, cause I like their originals. I have Amazon Prime cause it comes with my shipping. I will not have Disney+ because I will...
All I can say is I am not going to get all these services.
I have Netflix, cause I like their originals.
I have Amazon Prime cause it comes with my shipping.
I will not have Disney+ because I will not reward them for taking stuff from Netflix that I was enjoying.
I will not have NBC/ABC/whatever +online+namegimmick because I am not paying them for shit I used to get over the air for free because OF ads, that will still include adds.
I don't have to see every damn thing that comes out, I have limited time and still enjoy reading, which does not make me get a subscription to 10+ publishers, because Libraries are still a thing.
Now all those companies you switched over to in the name of cutting the cord, are going to jack up their rates to the point we pay more than we used to and get a poorer service for it.
Now all those companies you switched over to in the name of cutting the cord, are going to jack up their rates to the point we pay more than we used to and get a poorer service for it.
If cordcutting has taught me nothing else it's that I don't need TV et al as much as I thought I did. Sure, Game of Thrones or Stranger Things are nice, but there are plenty of other ways that I...
If cordcutting has taught me nothing else it's that I don't need TV et al as much as I thought I did. Sure, Game of Thrones or Stranger Things are nice, but there are plenty of other ways that I can waste my time that won't nickle and dime me to death. We all wanted to move away from cable's bundling. Now, everything is moving to an a la carte approach.
I'm in the camp that's predicting a silver age of piracy in this new walled-garden world. The barrier to getting content was so low that piracy didn't really make sense for a lot of people (myself included). Now that I'll have to get 5 memberships instead of 1 means piracy is more convenient again.
It's been shown over and over again that convenience reduces piracy. It's certainly been true for me—I used to pirate a lot, but I haven't pirated a game in over 10 years because Steam made buying them so convenient. I don't pirate music any more because I can easily get everything I want between Bandcamp and the streaming services.
But TV is going in the wrong direction, and while I haven't started pirating it again yet, I did cancel my Netflix account this month after subscribing for over 6 years. I only intend to subscribe temporarily now when there's something specific I want to watch, it's not worth paying to keep it available with the selection constantly dropping as everyone pulls their content to try launching their own services.
Interesting your decision on Netflix. We made the decision that as long as they don't give us ads, we'll keep it as our streaming service. Though they have dropped a lot of shows that we liked, we've also been exploring more of their foreign selections that so far has been able to fill the time we may have watched something else. Additionally, since we don't like the fracture happening in the streaming-verse, we decided to keep supporting the company we've liked doing business with.
Ads are my line in the Sand for streaming services.
I can only imagine piracy countermeasures and the ability to issue takedown notices have gotten better though. If rates start going up again you can bet on the companies having crawlers hunting for files to issue takedown notices on or even seeding trackers with corrupted copies or even malware.
Me too. Just wait until the younger Gen Zs start leaving home. Zoomers have never watched actual TV and piracy is second nature to them. I think media companies are going to be in for a big surprise if they are expecting Gen Z to pay £50+ just on "TV" like their grand/parents generation.
You think?
It seems to me like they're the most accustomed to streaming being the norm, to the point where something becoming available on a streaming service is an event nearly on par with a show coming out in the first place. They definitely don't have much experience with TV, but I'm not sure piracy is as much their thing as it is for millennials.
Still, if it gets that bad, I'm sure they'll find a way!
I think it just takes different forms than we're used to.
Millennials think of pirating as downloading a torrent (or at least that's what I think of) but from what I've seen of younger people, they are much more likely to find what they want uploaded to some sort of illegal streaming site or even on YouTube and watch it there.
A lot of them are still young enough to only have access to what their parents subscribe to. If a 15 year old wants to watch Good Omens but their parents don't have Amazon Prime, they'll find a way to watch it.
I think you have your date range wrong for millennials. Most definitions (from wikipedia) put millenials currently at 23-39 years old. The youngest definition is as low as 19 years old. Most millenials are out of college (at least the usual 4-5 years). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials?wprov=sfla1
I think JXM was contrasting millennials with GenZ's, but just wasn't super clear about it. I think they meant that the 15 year old is a GenZ.
As @gotfoundout said, I was comparing millennials to a 15 year old, not saying that 15 year olds were millennials.
Sounds about right.
The incentive is even greater for international customers. The great thing about Netflix is it's already available worldwide. Sure, the specific selection is different in every country, but at least it's there. These new services will presumably be US-only at first, but IP owners might still want to hold on to their properties in preparation for future expansion abroad. There are few things that piss me off more than seeing a product that is exclusively available on a service that won't even take my money because I'm in the wrong country.
To me, this new "walled-garden" means that I pay to be in the garden that looks best to me, and none of the other gardens exist. I don't even think about them or what they contain. If someone is talking about a different garden and all the cool things there, I'm like "cool" and either decide to pay to be there, or I stop thinking about it. Much like if someone is telling me about their amazing SO, I don't think "oh I'm gonna wait till they aren't looking and get me some of that." I don't need access to all the things all the time.
Because I have never understood this: Why is piracy acceptable to people?
Why is media piracy unacceptable to you? Do you believe it to be wrong or do you simply follow every law in your jurisdiction?
While I can certainly see an argument that media piracy is morally wrong, personally i find it MORE wrong in some cases than others. For instance, I think pirating an independent artist’s work is worse than pirating something like Game of Thrones.
I also believe it’s wrong when private companies use the government to prop up their outdated business model or prevent a better consumer experience through technology. Copyright is an example - it’s been lobbied so far from its original intent (to encourage artists) that it’s actively stifling artists.
If you understand the ideas that some piracy is worse than others, and that some companies are using the government to create anti-consumer, anti-creator environments, you can probably understand why I have no issue with most media piracy.
I can’t speak for others, but to me it’s a natural response to the ways that media companies have been acting.
Our social contract grants artists control over how and when their work is distributed because otherwise they wouldn't realistically be able to make a living off of it, and our economic system demands that people earn money in order to survive. If everyone overnight decided "I'm not going to pay for movies, TV, or music because it's free on the internet", then the livelihood of most artists collapses. Pirates only enjoy an unlimited supply of free content because most people follow the rules, thus preserving the flow of new content.
Now this is all pretty arbitrary and silly, but so is the concept of money in general. It's OK to disagree with it, but you can't argue that IP laws aren't necessary under our current economic model without also arguing for a fundamental change in how our economy works. Just deciding you disagree with the social contract and ignoring it seems a bit petty, and usually doesn't go over so well.
Our sense of ethics is focused on making sure the artists get paid, but our IP system is geared towards making sure lawyers, distributors, and other gatekeeping senior executives get paid.
The gap between what the socially beneficial goal is and where the legal reality is ends up being where piracy finds its moral justification.
I don't quite buy that. This is how it ends up, largely because most artists would prefer to let these people shoulder the financial risk of creating film and television in exchange for the bulk of the reward. Disney wouldn't have handed Joss Whedon $200m to make an Avengers movie if Disney wasn't going to benefit the most from it, and Joss Whedon certainly doesn't have the wherewithal to make a $200m movie on his own without significant financial investment.
For people who like content that is expensive to produce, then Disney turning a profit on films like Avengers is still socially beneficial. There's certainly an argument to be made that big budget productions like this are soulless cash grabs and we don't really need them, but this is clearly not a popular opinion, and anyone who really feels this way probably shouldn't pirate art they claim to not like when they could be watching something they actually do.
Disney reaps outsized benefits because they have outsized market power, not because artists are making a rational or fair trade off.
This is a deal they take or leave because it’s the only deal on the table. It’s disingenuous to pretend this is a fair or good-faith exchange going on.
While Disney does presently hold a tremendous amount of power, (an unfair amount in my opinion), I don't think it goes as far as forcing artists into unfair tradeoffs. It could be argued that artists hold more control and reap more benefits today than they did under the old studio system.
I don't think this is a good justification for piracy. I have an ethical issue with harming artists just because I'm ultimately causing more harm to someone I disagree with.
You could, if you're willing to accept a massive change to how the entertainment industry functions, as well as the disappearance of heavily funded productions, short of some weird exceptions like rich patrons. That does leave you in a strange position, but I can at least imagine a person where that lines up with their values. While the entertainment industry would collapse, removing an economic incentive does not destroy art itself...you can't stop people from making art. If someone only values that art, or maybe sees the art that is made without an economic incentive as the only truly "authentic" work or something like that, it's possible to hold that position without contradicting yourself.
That said, it's a lot less of an awkward position to hold if you also have political beliefs that would allow artists to create art without that art being something to be bought and sold. There's a pretty wide range there...I would argue that it would make the most sense if you're some kind of socialist, but this also makes a lot of sense for certain kinds of people who support UBI (even if you shouldn't be with the latter for other reasons 👀).
That's essentially where I'm at. I participate—buy art—sometimes out of convenience and sometimes out of goodwill toward a specific artist, but I view it as mostly unrelated to my own morality or beliefs. I'm willing to accept that if more people act like 'me' (not actually me since I do buy a lot but you know what I mean), the industry will collapse. That's okay with me. Beyond that, my radical political views leave plenty of room for artists to survive while making art without that art being a commercial product. Without trying to provoke an argument about the details of those beliefs themselves, they're at least internally consistent.
I think a lot of people who pirate don't grapple with the morality and politics of it as much as they should. Not because they should stop pirating...but because their support for piracy should lead to some serious thoughts about their other views.
I think this is true. I also don't believe this mindset actually applies to the vast majority of pirates. If it did, the most pirated content would be small budget independent films, not Game of Thrones and Avengers. The reality is, people love this kind of content, so the world isn't going to accept a new entertainment model that makes it largely disappear.
I would argue our current social contract actually favours people taking (I.e stealing) artists work and using it to make money (via social media). In fact, only large, non-artist entities (distributors and publishers) have the means to use the current system to ‘protect’ the art under their purview. In my opinion, our current social contract is as messed up as the laws meant to enforce them.
I accept I can only enjoy certain things because others pay for it - I’m ok with that. If that art (or future sequels) couldn’t be created without my support, I’m fine with it not existing. I do pay for some art, and that is the art I don’t want to live without.
I could argue that CURRENT IP laws are unnecessary and possibly a hindrance to progress, but I don’t have time or the desire at the moment. Just understand one thing: it seems like what you’re calling a ‘social contract’ is an absolute, immutable law of nature in your mind. I don’t agree with that at all. Social contracts are not the same as laws, and I don’t believe in absolute laws of nature or absolute right or wrong. Your opinion of what’s involved in the social contract may be completely different than mine, and comparing me to some crazy sovereign citizen doesn’t make me open to your point of view - it makes me think you’re closed-minded.
I think this is absolutely true, which is why I can be a little fluid on the subject of piracy. I've downloaded a few older games and films that simply aren't readily available while still being protected under our obnoxiously long copyright terms.
This is also a problem that can be feasibly remedied without making fundamental alterations to our economic system.
It is unacceptable to me because I don't feel the right to infringe upon another entities property. Like it feels wrong to take something that does not belong to me without the express permission of the owner of said thing. I feel the same way about digital and print things as I do physical things. I would not go into my artist friend's home and take her art because I want to hang it on my wall. I would not go into a furniture store and steal a couch because that store has one that is better than the one I have. I use to clean a house owned by a nasty couple who treated me like dog shit. I could have stolen any number of things from them, but I am not a thief. And I guess that is the essence of how I feel about piracy, it is thievery. I do not understand how the character of the owner has any bearing on how I comport myself.
I feel differently about things that are needed to survive. I am okay with someone stealing the proverbial loaf of bread, but I would still feel bad for the maker of the bread, less bad if it were a mass maker of bread. Regardless of how I feel about the companies that own media, I do not need those things to survive, so if I cannot afford them, I stop thinking about them -- they are not for me to own.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I've often wondered how the my thoughts differ from another person's thoughts in regards to piracy. I think I sound judgemental in my response, and I am to an extent, but that does not mean I think I am a better person, just different.
Honestly we have a lot of overlap in our views. There are lots of things I choose not to think about simply because I don’t want the hassle of acquiring them, and I don’t need them to live. A lot of media fits into this category. When I pirate something, it’s usually due to restrictions on access rather than costs.
For instance, I’m a big user of the library, and a certain ebook has been out of stock for weeks. I might pirate it. If I like it, I will buy it, remove the DRM, and share it with people who I believe would be inspired by it. To me, the barrier of access to first be inspired and then to inspire others is far too high.
On the opposite note: I haven’t seen Avengers: Endgame. I want to, but family commitments have prevented it from happening. I won’t pirate it because it’s still in theatres (I’d rather see it big screen) AND because I can live without it. If either of those changes, i might pirate it.
I also don’t view media piracy as straight-up theft as much as a physical good, so that might have something to do with my actions.
Side note - your responses dont seem too judgmental to me. I understand my views are perhaps unorthodox, and I appreciate you asking questions rather than talking at me.
Your post prompted me to speak with one of my sons about this late last night. We had a great discussion, so thank you for giving us discussion material!
Consumers have X amount of power. Corporations have Y amount of power. X is generously a 1 to Y's 1,000,000. Piracy gives the consumer the increase in their power required to say "your decisions are terrible and I am not going to conform to them".
For example, I live in Australia. We pay an 'Australia Tax' (not a real tax) due to the perception of companies that we either can or should pay more. We also suffer from drastically delayed release dates. Piracy lets me give a resounding fuck off to the tax and the delays.
This is a great point and one I hadn’t been able to articulate as well until I read your comment. The balance of power isn’t in the hands of artists, it’s in corporations’.
I’m hoping the balance swings back: as corporations exert more control over the way we consume media, the natural response is to create tools to circumvent their control.
This is a really bad analogy.
I have never had anyone tell me “you would really like my wife, you should check her out.” But that’s usually how 99% of conversations where people talk about shows I haven’t seen yet go.
You are absolutely right. I regret making that analogy.
Least I will finish out the Good Place before then.
I do love it when they announce that right up front, saves me wasting any time looking into their service. :)
as a little aside and update to this, we now have the more refined date for their launch as april 2020 and a better idea of what's supposed to draw people into it:
I honestly think that people are overreacting to 'streampocalypse'.
The most surprising thing about this is that apparantly The Office and Friends were the most popular shows on Netflix. I can get why so many people watch The Office, since it's still really relavent today, but I'm really surprised about Friends. I grew up with Friends, too, but the show is very dated. People watching it now remind me of the "old people" who kept watching Taxi and Cheers reruns when I was a kid.
Personally speaking, I'm fine with new streaming services coming up. If they're bad, they will fail and the rights for those shows will likely be picked up by a bigger better streaming service. If they succeed, that means that they probably have a ton of good content and are going to be worth subscribing to. And just because some of these streaming services seem bad now, that doesn't mean that they always will be. CBS All Access was struggling for a while, but it has apparently shown quite a bit of growth this year because of how they have changed their programming.
I don't think it's the apocalypse, but here's a counterpoint. I don't have a lot of money to spend on entertainment. I used to pirate music. Now I don't. I pay for a premium subscription to Spotify, even if sometimes I might go a month without using it. I like the idea of being able to listen to any song I want, ad-free, and I'm willing to pay their monthly fee for it. Almost every song I've ever wanted to listen to is on Spotify, and what isn't, is available for free on soundcloud or youtube and I'm not enough of an audiophile to recognize or care about any difference in audio quality. If I had to subscribe to 4-5 different paid music streaming services to get the same selection I now get from a combo of Spotify and free services, I couldn't afford that. I would either begin pirating the stuff or simply go without it.
Currently, I have access to a family account on Netflix that I don't personally pay for (which is completely within their ToS), as well as online streaming of my parents' cable subscription. Occasionally, if there's something I really want to watch ASAP, I might pay for a month or two of a subscription to one streaming service. I've paid for a month or two of HBO Nordic to watch GoT as soon as it airs, no torrenting or waiting required. Every once in a while, there might be some other streaming service I'm willing to temporarily subscribe to to watch something legally the moment it airs. But I can't afford to pay for more than 1 service a month.
For someone in my economic position, the way the music business works, where I can get anything I want legally through free services and one paid subscription, is ideal. If the film/tv space is going to splinter completely, my options would be go without access or turn to piracy. It's not a particularly attractive prospect, especially given that recent changes mean that the tv license I didn't have to pay for previously to access public broadcasting in Norway will now become a mandatory tax, rather than a per-household license, which is equivalent to one more monthly service to "subscribe to", except I can't even choose not to subscribe, as long as I have a device capable of connecting to their services whether I use it or not.
To add to that, being from a minor European nation, many of these new services will not even be willing to take my money for years, even if I could afford it, but will likely pull international licensing long before they launch a service of their own in my country.
It's not the apocalypse and it's definitely a first-world problem, but it's not a very attractive prospect.
I'm in a similar situation, used to pirate music all the time, and since I got Spotify I haven't done it again. On the other hand, I used to pay for Netflix too, even if it was already a little too expensive for me. But in my country they have very few good series or movies, and a small catalog in general, and I can't (and probably wouldn't if I could) pay for more subscription services. So about a year ago I cancelled my subscription and have been torrenting again.
An issue not often addressed is that there are some old shows or movies that you can only find pirated, you can't pay for them even if you're willing to. Would people that find piracy morally objectionable find torrenting those to be objectionable as well?
I watched the first rounds of Nick at Nite sitcoms when I was a kid and it’s not like Bewitched and I Dream of Genie weren’t super dated by then. I think young people like getting a sense for what it might have been like for their older peers and parents.
That's a very different scenario, though. A lot of the reason why I watched those shows as a kid was because there was no decent programming on at that time; now kids will just stream whatever they want whenever they want. This is an era where a huge percentage of professionally produced shows are currently available for on-demand streaming. Kids have millions of hours worth of cartoons available for them to watch; when are they going have time to get into old sitcoms?
Beyond that, it's the adults who have the buying power for the household, and they are the ones choosing the streaming services. My specific observation was about adults watching reruns of shows from their childhood. I get how it can be comforting (heck, Buffy is that show for me). I just think that continuing to pay a monthly fee to have access to them, or to keep coming back to them frequently, is not a wise or healthy behaviour.
As the adult in my house with the buying power, I don't actually have as much decision-making authority as that might imply. I'm literally paying $50 a month so my wife has access to Bravo. If the kids wanted to watch Friends because it's the thing their friends are into and referencing all the time I doubt I'd put up much resistance to that either.
Fair enough. You have a very different household than the one I grew up in. But then again, I almost didn't survive my adolescence.
Currently upping my totally rewatchable tv show dvd and bluray collections - commercial free. For new content, digital air channels and a good mute button. And books. And library. I save my money for important things. After all:
The world is so full of a number of things,
I'm sure we all should all be as happy as kings.
At least where I live, the cost of (quality) cable still greatly exceeds the cost of paying for multiple streaming services.
Where I live, it's the opposite. The cable companies have jacked up the price of high-speed internet to the point where it's only like $20 extra to bundle in TV and get 100+ channels. And with that, you also get access to on-demand streaming for dozens of cable networks. I've tried to cut the cord several times. I can never manage to crunch the numbers so that I'm actually saving money.
my family still has a decent sized cable package for basically this exact reason even though we don't watch that much TV and it otherwise probably wouldn't be worth it. high-speed internet gets bundled with cable around here because the cable/ISPs around here basically run a duopoly and they can pull that sort of shit, so if you want any sort of high-speed internet around here you also end up with a cable package unless you want to fork over considerably more money.
Luckily, the utility company in the city I live in built out a small fiber network about 10 years ago. It only reaches maybe 20 apartment complexes, but the threat of them expanding it has kept Cox from raising their internet prices too much (it still creeps up a few dollars every year anyway).
Does the cost of multiple services exceed the cost of Netflix? That's the real comparison here.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how much money I spent on streaming content each month. It's already more than I'd like (YouTube TV + Amazon Prime + Netflix + Shudder + Criterion Collection = about $100 per month). A big chunk of that is YouTube TV for my dad, since he isn't willing to cut the "cable" cord quite yet.
I have a list of hundreds of movies and shows that I want to watch on Letterboxd, but 70% of them aren't available on streaming services. You either have to find the DVDs or not watch them. $100 per month buys a decent amount of physical media.
Part of me sees stuff like this article and wants to just cancel everything and go back to buying what I want to watch.
All I can say is I am not going to get all these services.
I have Netflix, cause I like their originals.
I have Amazon Prime cause it comes with my shipping.
I will not have Disney+ because I will not reward them for taking stuff from Netflix that I was enjoying.
I will not have NBC/ABC/whatever +online+namegimmick because I am not paying them for shit I used to get over the air for free because OF ads, that will still include adds.
I don't have to see every damn thing that comes out, I have limited time and still enjoy reading, which does not make me get a subscription to 10+ publishers, because Libraries are still a thing.
Now all those companies you switched over to in the name of cutting the cord, are going to jack up their rates to the point we pay more than we used to and get a poorer service for it.
If cordcutting has taught me nothing else it's that I don't need TV et al as much as I thought I did. Sure, Game of Thrones or Stranger Things are nice, but there are plenty of other ways that I can waste my time that won't nickle and dime me to death. We all wanted to move away from cable's bundling. Now, everything is moving to an a la carte approach.
This is the downside to getting what you want.
I pirated before, I’ll pirate again.