Half of Young Norwegians Justify Piracy as Streaming Costs Soar 149
Half of young Norwegians find online piracy acceptable when streaming services are too expensive, according to a new government survey released this week. The Ipsos poll of 1,411 respondents found that 32% of all Norwegians justify using pirate sites to save money, with acceptance rising to 50% among those under 30.
The rates increase further when specifically asked about pirating due to high streaming costs. Despite concerns about piracy, 61% of Norwegians paid for streaming services in the past year, including 64% of those under 30. Among active pirates, 41% said they would stop if legal services were more affordable, while 35% wanted broader content per service. Only 47% of respondents believed piracy supports organized crime, with 24% expressing uncertainty about this connection.
The rates increase further when specifically asked about pirating due to high streaming costs. Despite concerns about piracy, 61% of Norwegians paid for streaming services in the past year, including 64% of those under 30. Among active pirates, 41% said they would stop if legal services were more affordable, while 35% wanted broader content per service. Only 47% of respondents believed piracy supports organized crime, with 24% expressing uncertainty about this connection.
It's not piracy that supports organized crime (Score:4, Informative)
It's the MAFIAA that opposes piracy.
Re: It's not piracy that supports organized crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Opposing piracy is one thing, while inflexibility in licensing models is another. If the second item was addressed, then Iâ(TM)d like to believe theyâ(TM)d need to put less energy into the first.
Piracy also provides a way of watching your content whenever you want and does not depend on the existence of upstream provider or whether they still have a license for it.
Buying a video on line, with DRM, is really just a long term rental. This is why piracy or physical media are still the better options.
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy is wrong because you have zero right's to other people's creations. If you don't want to pay the lousy amount of money to streaming service XYZ, then you can go without. We're not talking about food, clothing and housing. We are talking about CHEAP entertainment.
The only reason I'd say piracy is okay is if the content is a) really old, like decades or b) no long available for purchase.
I see zero problem with someone pirating a 60 year old music track. Copyright should be restricted to 20 years. Max.
I
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. If you own hard copies, I see zero problems with making personal backups that can then be watched on any screen you want. That doesn't mean you get to run a streaming service for your friends and family though.
Re: (Score:2)
I am glad posts like this are now so weak they hide behind anonymous coward.
I have not been able to get a straight answer as to why anyone thinks AI training is copyright violation.
AI training relies on the same legal position as search engines rely on concerning copyright: Fair Use Doctrine, Public Access and Consent, Transformative Use.
However, drawing a parallel between the youth "learning" from material distributed by someone violating copyright and AI training would infer that the material that the AI
Re:It's not piracy that supports organized crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Never bothered to think too much of the copyrigth angle, but here's my shot. Copyright is not just about making copies, although it seems ai will happily output copyrighted material verbatim if it feels like it. Copyright usually includes reproduction, control over derivative works, distribution, public performance, and moral rights such as attribution (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf) I'm not really a fan of the current copyright regime, but that's doesn't have to keep me from analyzing it as it currently functions in the world.
I'd call the biggest issue is about making derivative works, which also fall under the copyright of the source material. AI gobbles up works made by someone else, makes derivative works based them - there's 0% originality in any of AI output - and peddles it to subscribers. All of the rightsholders, from real people to copyright farms, and everything in between, feel the AI companies are profiting off of their IP, without compensation. And they will be 100% right on that the very second an AI company actually turns a profit. My intuition says this is a bit of a far cry from fair use, since an act of fair use is meant to be a small part of a bigger work. Depends on the courts, I guess; my take is that it's a totally new kind of a phenomena that calls for new legislature, and once AI starts to turn a profit, there will be major court battles to exploit the void.
As to who is making the copy, I'd say it's muddy water. Uploading pirated material, and not downloading, seems to be the copy making act. In that case the AI outputting it's whatever is also the copy making act, and if in that output you can show original works belonging to some other rights holder, there you have it. Or if one should argue it's the user giving the prompt that is making the copy, then also the AI crawling the web is making the copy. Catch-22.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you bring up the prime issues of copyright violation on the output.
I have heard the argument that potentially the person prompting the AI is liable for the copyright violation? The AI is treated as a tool, like a word processor, you typed in something and got out copyrighted material, that is your fault?
I like the idea of treating the AI services such as ChatGPT legally as a black box. Inside the black box is a person that may or may not have a computer running some software, either way the person i
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I don't know that "training" is copyright violation but from what I've heard regarding the picture/video creating AIs, those are clearly just regurgitating "Other people's work", which IS copyright violation unless those content creators gave permission.
Same lesson the music industry learned early on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same lesson the music industry learned early on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same lesson the music industry learned early on (Score:5, Interesting)
... but it's become Cable 2.0.
It just white washed Greed 1.0, like a yard sale full of dusty old salt shakers priced at $100 each. Yeah, were gonna copy, print, and substitute other sources. I can't tell if my copy of 1984, or Metropolis is in copyright, but I'm not buying it either way. I generally go by what the rule was in 1958 when I was born, if powers want to retcon copyright length I'm not playing along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Same lesson the music industry learned early o (Score:5, Insightful)
Films should look to make the lions share of revenue in the first few months of release and then should be less demanding as time moves on.
Also if a film is no longer economical to host or stream, then these should be immune from crack down, otherwise it will likely be lost to the dust of time.
Re: (Score:2)
> happy to pay reasonable prices for accessible media
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Same lesson the music industry learned early o (Score:2)
I'm in Japan at the moment. I was wondering why hotels, pretty much all of them have VOD (video on demand) machines, for which you have to pay 1000 yen a night.
Well, turns out it's the same reason why Japan has 66 Tower Records locations (and many other large and small record stores). Japan still consumes physical media. Some artists like Tauro Yamashita could become legendary in the west, but they "refuse to sell for less than they think they are worth" so they only sell records in Japan (a new CD costs ar
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If your product is overpriced, badly supported and easy to copy or pirate, your sales will suffer. That is not really a difficult thing to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Time for the consumers to set the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
The real pirate is indefinite copyright.
I would prefer to see less corrupt politicians elected to correct the problem and make the law respectable, but such is life.
Re: (Score:2)
There are now international treaties to prevent individual countries from making their own rules.
Re:Time for the consumers to set the rules (Score:4, Insightful)
There are now international treaties to prevent individual countries from making their own rules.
America pressured other countries to make those treaties as harsh as possible, then complained about the harsh terms.
This is yet another reason foreigners think Americans are dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case it's young Norwegians looking to pirate content in potential violation of said treaties.
Re: (Score:2)
My response would be that it wasn't me. I was a kid when the last extension was passed, and I have advocated against the sheer length since I became politically aware of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Enshittification (Score:5, Insightful)
I have bought my music on vinyl.
I have re-bought my music on CD.
I keep paying for my music on streaming.
I'm done paying.
Re:Enshittification (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Enshittification (Score:2)
Unless you have a desktop or a recent USB-C based iPhone or iPad. Granted youâ(TM)ll need an adapter, but it is doable.
Re: (Score:2)
If an Apple user is willing to be ripped off with Apple products and services, why would they mind being ripped off by streaming services?
Re: (Score:2)
I started with a Mac 512KE...yeah, back in the '80's
I have Macs at work
For Me (the only person that matters ) the Apple products work closer to the way I do than alternatives. Your needs are different.
However I have ZERO subscriptions.
My music is all ripped off CDs, and I buy CDs 2nd hand for $1-2 each, they are my physically owned property
Re: Enshittification (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My local library has lots of movies and TV shows on DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because your average Western doesn't like reading. Average mind you. I know many avid readers but the average person seems much more obsessed with tiktok or tv then reading books or even news articles.
The opposite of enshittification (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop using terms you don't understand. Providing you various options is not "Enshitification", it's the exact opposite of it. In fact the progression through your list shows very real value provided to you at each step: vinyl > CD is a sound quality increase. CD > streaming is a usability increase. In each case you paying again for a different format is a choice entirely of your own making which at no point were you forced into and at no point where the things you paid for removed, reduced, or in any way enshitified.
Just because you part with money doesn't make something enshitification.
Here read the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Charging me over and over again for the same thing on the Internet is enshittification via the Internet.
Would you prefer that I call it robery, a scam, corruption, greed, corporate control, capitalist entitlement? I think enshittification is a good term that covers the capitalist greed that is taking over our lives.
Re:The opposite of enshittification (Score:4, Insightful)
Charging me over and over again for the same thing on the Internet is enshittification via the Internet.
You were not charged for anything. You still have what you had. You could still use what you had. You chose to buy the thing in a different format with different properties.
That's not enshittification. That's complaining that you bought two donuts because you couldn't decide if you wanted red or blue glazing.
Would you prefer that I call it robery, a scam, corruption, greed, corporate control, capitalist entitlement?
I would prefer you take ownership of your purchasing decision. If your vinyl record came with a use by date then you'd have a point. At no point have you been robbed of anything. The products you bought you still have. You're also legally entitled to format shift them in most jurisdiction. The fact you also subscribed to a service is on you. You don't need that service. The fact that it is provided to you is not enshitification, again it's the exact opposite of it, you are literally getting more choice in how you spend your money with no choice forced on you.
Read the definition. Use the word properly. There's a single word in your rant that actually meets the definition of your complaint, and that one is greed, those greedy corporations providing you something in multiple ways and charging for each of them. But hey I'm here to help let's look at the others:
Robbery: (now with an extra b) - What was taken from you? Did someone come in to your house and take your CD away?
Scam: - Did your vinyl record not arrive and play after you paid for it? Is Spotify not working despite paying for the subscription?
Corporate control: - Do you need to call someone for permission before spinning your vinyl record or CD?
Capitalist entitlement: - Actually this one is correct as well along with greed. In a capitalistic environment a provider has the choice of what price to set for their product or service.
Enshitification: - A pattern of a decline in quality for the same thing or service. What has declined? I've already pointed out that each succession provided a benefit to you.
Use words correctly.
Re:The opposite of enshittification (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the "purchaser" already bought a license to listen to the songs, which is the lion's share of the cost of physical media. Content Shifting from one physical media format to another, for personal use, is already protected under Fair Use, though companies try to block that with DRM.
For what you write to make sense, the music companies would have had to give a steep discount on purchasing a different format, because the individual already owned a license for in-home use. There is no reason but greed to charge a person three times for something they already bought a license for.
You used to see this with software where once you bought a license, you could buy replacement physical media for a nominal fee. It was the license that counted.
The one time I bought a CD on Amazon years ago, I was immediately given access to all of the mp3's on the CD, proving that it's possible to do this in a cost effective manner and the main thing was the license.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how the distribution model is setup, how would this even work? You don't buy your CDs directly from the publisher. You tend to buy them from a retailer that gets those physical items from a warehouse that got a delivery from the manufacturer.
Now, if you bought directly from say, Sony, then sure, you should, in theory, be able to get a new format for reduced price since you already have a license for that media. Except, we can't buy direct from Sony (that I'm aware of anyway).
Otherwise, I agree that wo
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just saying that isn't enshittification. The GP bought something on vinyl. He has it on vinyl. He bought it on CD. He has it on CD. At no point are either of those products declining over time. At no point did the RIAA push an update to his vinyl player that lifts the needle and inserts an ad mid song. This isn't enshittification.
It could be considered greed, but then format shifting is legal in most places, so in reality what it is is the OP paying for the convenience of h
Re: (Score:2)
Providing you various options is not "Enshitification", it's the exact opposite of it.
What are you smoking? People don't have the option to buy things anymore.
I have no options if companies reserve the right to change things after I "buy" them, revoke my license, or otherwise pull the rug out under my feet at any time for any reason. All under binding arbitration, to boot. LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you smoking? People don't have the option to buy things anymore.
*stares awkwardly at a CD which just arrived in the mail from a record store*
I think the problem we have here is your ignorance, not someone else's enshittificaiton. And even if you couldn't still buy CDs (you can) or vinyl (you can too, we've covered this multiple times on slashdot) the fact that something is no longer on the market isn't enshittification. Enshittification is something you have reducing in usability over time.
Wake me when the RIAA pushes an update to your CD player that forces it to play a
Re: (Score:2)
"I have bought my music on vinyl.
I have re-bought my music on CD."
That probably means you aren't young.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am old.
My music is old.
I don't listen to anything newer than the 60s
Re: (Score:2)
Missing out on 60 years worth of music? Still pinning for that 50s Christmas no doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just that nothing compares to the music of the 60s and 70s.
Sorry... Justin Beber just doesn't do it for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I have bought my music on vinyl.
I have re-bought my music on CD.
I keep paying for my music on streaming.
I'm done paying.
I have bought my music on vinyl.
I have re-bought all my music on CD.
I continue to buy CDs, mostly used but occasionally new, and rip them so I can listen to them anywhere.
Paying for streaming is not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah to paid streaming services. I prefer my local storages. If I want to stream, then I will do my own with my own ripped medias from my bought discs
The other half ... (Score:5, Informative)
Morally questionable (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is "I can't afford it" justification for misappropriating something you're not entitled to?
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen a religious leader say it's excusable for very basic necessities like bread if you can't afford it.
But I think in the case of the media it's more a matter of: what is considered a reasonable price.
TV meant cable for most people, you had a pretty simple pricing system in most European countries over a decade ago, you got 1 price for the basics and could pay pay more for a large package (nothing to choose). Most people choose the large package, because the basics were really basic. Then many years l
Re: (Score:2)
For pure entertainment media, any price the creator decides is appropriate because you don't need to consume that content. If consuming that content is that important, then fucking pay for it. It's not like that content just popped into existence. No, it cost another person(s) time and probably money to produce that content. So really, by not paying, you are stealing someone else's productivity. Zero justification for this. Hence, it's entitlement.
We're not talking about stealing baby formula so your child
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is "I can't afford it" justification for misappropriating something you're not entitled to?
Taken in isolation it's pretty easy to agree with you.
I would suggest that the way we have structured our society has engrained a sense of "make money any way you can get away with"; just look at any successful person/business and ask if they can (or would even bother to) justify all the actions they take in the pursuit of money. When the winners of society don't seem to have a sense of morality as it pertains to money, why should the average person hold themselves up to a higher standard?
I'm not refuting y
Re: (Score:2)
When the winners of society don't seem to have a sense of morality as it pertains to money, why should the average person hold themselves up to a higher standard?
Looking at the state of the world today, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that morality is altogether irrelevant.
Nobody cares (Score:5, Insightful)
But the actual answer is, if you're looking for sympathy for this view, go hang out with anti-porn crusaders. They know where this goes - nobody cares until you have to the power to make people stop looking.
A different answer is that not all human enterprises should be for-profit, at least as that's modeled by western markets. To pick particular things, education and medicine all scale super poorly. You will never get market-acceptable results over the long term doing them well, so running them as market participants is a terrible idea.
The Idiot Box is not as important as education or medicine, but it suffers from the same problem - the market demands growth that is simply impossible at some point. So managers have to continually squeeze just a little more more juice, which means less of what customers want for more money.
It'll never happen, but I personally like the idea of giving copyright different teeth. Keep offering the limited monopoly for whatever time period folks can agree on, but on expiry, reproduction rights automatically assign to a public trust which "licenses" works on a FRAND basis for just enough funds to keep running the trust and secure and maintain the library.
Re:Morally questionable (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it moral to take from the public domain and never give back? Laws and what is morally right are not the same thing, these laws have be bought and sold to the people who can pay the politicians the most.
Is it moral to charge some $100 that cost you $1 to make. I get it there are fixed costs however at some point you have recovered those and made a profit (or need to cut your loses) is it morally justified that you keep charging people indefinitely even though you have made your money back?
I actually think the attitude that says it is moral to screw people over as much as I can is one of the major reason for the moral decline in society, this even extends to letting people die because they can't pay for health care. I think that is much more immoral than pirating a few movies that you couldn't have afforded to pay for (direct answer to your question) in the first place, and costs the producer nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it moral to take from the public domain and never give back? Laws and what is morally right are not the same thing, these laws have be bought and sold to the people who can pay the politicians the most.
Is it moral to charge some $100 that cost you $1 to make. I get it there are fixed costs however at some point you have recovered those and made a profit (or need to cut your loses) is it morally justified that you keep charging people indefinitely even though you have made your money back?
I actually think the attitude that says it is moral to screw people over as much as I can is one of the major reason for the moral decline in society, this even extends to letting people die because they can't pay for health care. I think that is much more immoral than pirating a few movies that you couldn't have afforded to pay for (direct answer to your question) in the first place, and costs the producer nothing.
No mods points today but your post is spot on. Many (most) other people's goal in life is to screw you as much as they can. Your goal in life, should you choose to accept, is to screw them back every chance you get. Anyone who told you life is fair was lying. It's dog eat dog. Bon Appetit.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it moral to take from the public domain and never give back? Laws and what is morally right are not the same thing, these laws have be bought and sold to the people who can pay the politicians the most.
Is it moral to charge some $100 that cost you $1 to make. I get it there are fixed costs however at some point you have recovered those and made a profit (or need to cut your loses) is it morally justified that you keep charging people indefinitely even though you have made your money back?
I actually think the attitude that says it is moral to screw people over as much as I can is one of the major reason for the moral decline in society, this even extends to letting people die because they can't pay for health care. I think that is much more immoral than pirating a few movies that you couldn't have afforded to pay for (direct answer to your question) in the first place, and costs the producer nothing.
Yep.
The market for media has been artificially constrained for far too long, with pricing being deliberately predatory because up until recently we've had no choice but to pay. Piracy is just the market correcting this. The MAFIAA can fight it, but it's like fighting the tide.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't justify it, they just do it. Many people are unprincipaled in that they don't consider the moral implications of their actions.
Many people look at the producers and publishers/rights holders for said video content and ask themselves: are they making enough money to survive and produce more content? And if the answer appears to be yes in both cases, they pirate without concern.
Doubly so for those priced out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone even considers your second line. They could give two shits if the content creators are "surviving" or not. They got theirs in that moment and nothing else matters. If in the future no more new content is available, well, someone else is probably making something and I can go not pay them for that as well.
Sadly, our society seems to be continuing down the path to rock bottom in behavior.
I'd also argue that if you can't afford a lousy $20 for a streaming service (you don't need them all a
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is "I can't afford it" justification for misappropriating something you're not entitled to?
I am sure, if they are ever in a situation where their living depends on things they created, they'll be OK if people simply take it for free because tehy think the price is too high.
Re: (Score:3)
That's actually an accurate description of what AI companies are doing with all the content. Just taking it because having to *BUY* rights to every single word, would be too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually an accurate description of what AI companies are doing with all the content. Just taking it because having to *BUY* rights to every single word, would be too expensive.
It will get interesting when someone finds out a way to use AI to give up its data to train another AI tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet it seems that the losses incurred by the "thieves" apparently capable watching content through the window, as it were, aren't hurting the major players in any significant way. Consider it "pirate" music tape recording, which was going to kill music altogether, back then, according to some.
Re: (Score:2)
One wrinkle there. When you steal a necklace or a pair of shoes, the owner is deprived of it. When you copy a movie you couldn't have afforded anyway, the owner literally loses nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression a lot of these streaming services are actively losing money. If that's true (I've no idea), then every time someone pirates from them, they are literally contributing to that companies losses. If that continues, peoples' jobs will be at stake. If that's a publicly traded company, they may eventually go bankrupt. Now you've contributed to many people losing their jobs and other people's 401k plans are now taking a hit.
I get it though. You can watch your content for free and that's
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm not flying the Jolly Roger. I can afford the streaming, so I can't argue that there's no money on the table in my case. I'd just like a more objective view of what is really happening here and a sense of proportion.
How is the streaming company losing money because of people who do fly the Jolly Roger? If they couldn't afford streaming, they couldn't contribute to the company's success if they wanted to.
Re: Morally questionable (Score:3)
Though there are artists that depend on the revenue, on the condition the labels get it to them.
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, successful music acts rely on merch more than anything else. Streaming revenues for artists are low, and only a few elite acts can make bank on a tour from ticket sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense if you're the one printing the money. Darn artists!
Re: Morally questionable (Score:5, Insightful)
If you couldn't afford it, there was no money from you on the table in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue the morality until you're blue in the face and it would make absolutely zero impact on the issue. If you want to reduce piracy, make consuming content easy. If you spread out the tv and movies people want across countless services, all with their own subscriptions and no way to tie it together, then people will look for easier ways to get what they want. It's exactly what Valve/Steam. People will pay if it's easy.
It's not just spreading content across services, it's also the weird licensing issues that means content moves without a moment's notice. Several times in the past I've been in the middle of watching an older show and it disappears, and I have to go looking for it, only to find a different streaming service has licensed it for this new time period, with no specific end. One show I chased across three platforms. I can seem to bring myself to care enough to sign up for any of them in my new home. I'm tired of
Re: (Score:2)
If I know I like the show, I'll buy the box set.
Except now there are a lot of stream-original series with no sign of a physical release. I just ignore them as though they didn't exist, and I don't have the time to watch streaming shit anyhow. But when I do find a season DVD box of something I appreciate at a by-weight thrift store, I'll snap it up.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also borrow stuff from the local libraries. This is especially easy if you live in or near a major metro.
Reprobates... (Score:2)
Because they think access to streaming services is necessary for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Entitlement strikes again (Score:2)
That is what this boils down to. That streaming costs money is just another in a long line of excuses. They, and others on here as well, believe they are entitled to all the work and effort someone put into creating a product, and not compensating that person or company. Which is highly amusuing considering just yesterday, this comment [slashdot.org] in a story about Coca-Cola using AI to create its commercial mentio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- The MAFFIA, and entitled internet commenters probably.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck "generative AI," it's nothing more than a plagiarism engine.
Generative AI actually steals a job from human creators. Why would you pay a human to create your waste of electrons when more electrons (paid for by those you put out of work) will do it for free?
If the industry is perfectly willing to fire creators, it shouldn't be surprised when the market fires the industry.
Copying a work isn't theft. The entitled little piece of shit, who thinks that their excrement MUST be profitable regardless of production costs, market conditions, or public willingness to pay,
Only half??!? (Score:2)
I would've expected 80% or something. Hah, conformists!
Simple economic substitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Making it illegal is artificially inflating the cost of the first product.
If there was no piracy, *no ability for substitution" then price gouging will happen, like medicines in America.
When broke, many people will steal things (Score:2)
In the 1980s, you had bootleg copies of movies and illegal copies of games were the way young teenagers would get the things they didn't have the money for. The real key is, do people have enough money to buy the things they want or need, and then, they have to decide if the risk of getting caught is too high for what they are doing. Streaming is what they were asked about, but you could just as easily ask if people illegally download games, and get a similar response.
The older people get and the more t
Half of... (Score:2)
Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll (Score:2)
These kids should stop streaming and go make some noise.
Yeah, duh, you can't afford luxury goods that your grandparents can.
That's how it works.
A decent prophylactic is about $1.
here comes the entitled (Score:2)
This is a pure case of people feeling entitled to content that they cannot afford.
Wait... (Score:2)
I thought all Norwegians were essentially middle class and they are bitching about a couple hundred dollars for streaming services? Do they know you don't need them all?
Re:Theft is still wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Difficult to feel bad for an industry that has an accounting method dedicated to screwing people over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Hollywood was built on infringement and theft. https://www.inverse.com/articl... [inverse.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Its ok to steal content because its not actually stealing you are not depriving anybody of anything if you can't afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone pirated, you'd have no content because the creators are not getting paid. Also, you can't afford $10-$20? GTFO of here with that shit. Probably waste more on coffee in 3 days.
I think most people that pirate are doing it because it's easy to hand wave away the losses and because getting caught is next to impossible. ISPs don't even really care unless you turn around and start to distribute.
So I agree it's not stealing but that doesn't make it a victimless crime. You are actually, ever so slightly
Re: (Score:2)
the same misdeeds of its inventor
Do you know why Hollywood is in Hollywood? Because they were using motion picture cameras in violation of Edison's patents (which do not last 75 years plus tip!), and they got tired of him sending out goons to enforce said patents, so they packed up and went to the other coast.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone here is saying it is OK to enter a store and steal a DVD or CD, so no stealing is happening.
Re:Theft is still wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am entertained. Tell me more about "my kind." While you're doing that, look up the difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods.
Note that plagiarism is not unapproved copying, but copying and representing the copied work as your own. I doubt the Norwegians are trying to claim authorship of the copied shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there is no possible justification for theft of entertainment.
I can actually afford whatever content I want, but he MAFIAA is evil and the abject enemy of a free internet so I very much enjoy fucking them every chance I get. Till they die in a fire that is as good as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are evil, why are you consuming their content then? Shouldn't you be boycotting all MAFIAA content? I'm sure there are a few independent content creators that don't let those people publish for them. Heck, I know https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Stick Figure straight up started his own record label and even has it printed on the CD jewel case that other people may make copies (never seen that before but it's there).
So you don't have to consume MAFIAA content. You just won't be consumer "popular" st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but what? Every single streaming service I've ever used ran just fine in both Firefox and Chrome and on Windows, Linux and Android. How is this a proprietary client issue at this point in time?
I suppose you can call each website's UI a proprietary experience but geesh, what a lame excuse to pirate content that's really cheap to just pay for.