That’s a far worse hypothetical crime than you realize: it harms the profits of billionaires. Why don’t you think about all those poor oligarchs you’re hurting?
How will they be able to buy politicians and judges if people stopped giving them money?
I just want those large, deep pocketed, sue-happy corporation’s legal teams to know I’m a good consumer that never violates DMCA or other intellectual property laws: it’s wrong. I mean, that’s what they say and obviously we should trust them.
I can’t imagine much worse than violating the inalienable rights of amoral multi-billion dollar industries, except maybe bragging online about it afterwards.
Zero guilt, never pay. Bonus: no guilt for dropping something midway through out of disgust at its poor quality, because you just wasted X dollars on it. You can go through hundreds of options without trying to evaluate them indirectly pre-purchase, and read-watch whatever you feel like whenever.
Back to piracy …
Removed by mod
That is an alternative I´m not going to argue against, you wholesome motherfucker 🌻 🌼 🌷
That was one of the main reasons I cut cable years ago.
The amount of content worth watching (let alone worth paying for) had become far too low.
Combine that with the constant price increases and worsening of the content-to-commercials ratio, and it was a easy decision to make.
It’s going to be even worse for a while with the writers strike.
I would never pirate anything since it’s illegal and immoral.
But I imagine the selfish criminals that do like the fact they can limit their media consumption to the occasional worthwhile thing.
If you could download a car, you bet your ass you would
That’s a far worse hypothetical crime than you realize: it harms the profits of billionaires. Why don’t you think about all those poor oligarchs you’re hurting?
How will they be able to buy politicians and judges if people stopped giving them money?
I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling.
Also, “limiting their consumption to the occasional worthwhile thing” can also be written as:
“spend their well-earned time actually watching something worth the investment”
And “they might even assuage their guilt by paying for it…” as:
“if they find content they enjoy, they’d like to show that monetarily and hopefully boost the production of more content of that same caliber”
I just want those large, deep pocketed, sue-happy corporation’s legal teams to know I’m a good consumer that never violates DMCA or other intellectual property laws: it’s wrong. I mean, that’s what they say and obviously we should trust them.
I can’t imagine much worse than violating the inalienable rights of amoral multi-billion dollar industries, except maybe bragging online about it afterwards.
Zero guilt, never pay. Bonus: no guilt for dropping something midway through out of disgust at its poor quality, because you just wasted X dollars on it. You can go through hundreds of options without trying to evaluate them indirectly pre-purchase, and read-watch whatever you feel like whenever.
I actually feel more guilt dropping things I downloaded since I wasted bandwidth and storage on it.
If you haven’t spent extra money on that bandwidth and storage, what’s the problem? Just delete it and download something else?
But I spend more time and stuff on it then I would on a streaming service’s series.
For streaming I don’t lose anything by dropping a series, it’s not like I spent any extra money or time or anything getting the series.
Fair enough, that makes sense for streaming. I was thinking more along the lines of books and videogames, but this thread is about streaming.
In what world is it immoral? Where do your morals stem fom ? A child’s book ?.
Especially since these services will drop their original content after awhile…
Is Willow considered lost media yet?