• Blueshift@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad, they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.

    Therefore yes, it becomes ok in my book to violate copyright (which does not equate to stealing, the owner hasn’t lost the original).

    As soon as I can have a choice of service that has virtually all of the content (like you do with music, or groceries), and I can pick the storefront based on its usability and cost rather than its catalogue, piracy numbers will go right down. Because it becomes less of a hassle to get it legally rather than pirate.

    • RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      I did both to be honest. And I don’t want to pirate media, I’m fine with sane pricing for good quality. It’s just that currently they focus on neither, so I’m just stopping to give them money.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad,

      Really? How do you interpret the very first sentence?

      Instead you could stop making shitty movies and reheating successful recipes. And stop inventing three new streaming services every week.

      That seems to be saying it’s bad to me.

      they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.

      You know what I do when a product I want is unacceptably expensive or whatever? I don’t buy it. It’s not like we’re talking about food or medicine. This is all lame rationalization.