- cross-posted to:
- videos@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- videos@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
This isn’t so much an argument for piracy as it is an argument to not patronize Disney. Especially considering that Disney’s motion for arbitration is so far beyond baseless that it’s baffling they’d even attempt it.
AKA: No, Disney will not be able to force you to arbitrate a dispute just because you once (or still do) subscribed to Disney+. Their motion will be denied, and pirating their content will not - in any way - afford you legal protections in the future.
Their motion will be denied, and pirating their content will not - in any way - afford you legal protections in the future.
We don’t know that yet. I want that to be true. I hope it’s true. But it isn’t true yet.
It is an argument for piracy. Want to watch a Disney show but don’t want to give Disney money in any way? Piracy
A Disney movie? Believe it or not, piracy.
(Sorry, had to)
Hahaha
Like Pirates Of The Caribbean?
The actual solution in that case is just don’t watch a Disney show. You won’t die from not watching shows.
That was the argument before this case, and in the virtually certain case the judge denies Disney’s motion, there is no additional argument besides “Disney is even more petty and scummy than we all thought.”
pirating their content will not - in any way - afford you legal protections in the future
Premium subscription - 13.99 a month. 13.99 a month invested getting 12.4% apr a year, reinvested will net you $40k in 30 years. I’m sure you could afford some legal protections with that.
WHERE CAN I GET THAT APR
A one time investment of $13.99 at 100% APR will be $207,620.61 in 10 years.
RIGHT!? JESUS CHRIST.
Any decent large growth fund. Hell, the S&P will get you 13% on average.
Pirating their content doesn’t afford you legal protections but agreeing to their license agreements could definitely turn out to have been a big mistake.
If you’re just itching for that content, pick your poison.
until the supreme court gets to hear a case like this. can’t wait for another 6-3.
It’s still more trouble than piracy tho.
Was not expecting to hear “shut the fuck up you fucking corporate bootlicking simp” from Louis Rossman of all people. He’s pissed and rightly so.
I’m generally pretty anti-piracy but it’s getting harder and harder to rationalize the act of paying for things through legitimate channels when customers are punished in the oh-so-many ways Rossman described. Disney think this is a “GOTCHA” moment that will absolve them of legal responsibility for someone’s death at one of their theme parks, but this is an absolute PR disaster for them.
Why are you generally pretty anti-piracy?
As someone who has never had much disposable income, piracy has helped me and countless folks enjoy things we otherwise would not have been able to realistically afford. It also helps make educational material far more accessible, particularly when it comes to textbooks, academic papers (i.e. SciHub thanks to Alexandra Elbakyan), even complete semester university-level lectures.
If wages were higher and media was offered in a format that was a) not subscription based and b) reasonably priced, people would be more likely to buy content instead of pirate it.
Beyond that, people are sick and tired of things like their favorite TV show or my music disappearing because the streaming site lost the streaming rights to a competitor. Or an artist’s discography missing a huge chunk of their music because of some record label legal nonsense.
The problem is that everything is becoming subscription based these days and it’s weird to require that kind of committment if you just want to listen to one artist’s album, or a few episodes of a nature documentary.
Personally, I pirate terabytes of content and I try to buy used Blu-Ray 📀 discs and CDs every now and then. I have a nice external disc readers/writer connected to my PC and an elaborate multi-output audio setup, but most people don’t have a disc reader these days. So the problem is instead of just giving people the option of purchasing an actual file like an MKV, FLAC + MP3 files, these companies insist on forcing a subscription as the only feasible option since they know 99% of people don’t have or want to deal with disc readers and physical media.
I get that your comment was less about anti-piracy and I’m kind of going on a rant here, but I really hope my comment helps you better understand at least some of the reasons why people pirate stuff. Even when I did research science, we’d all use SciHub because it was a million times easier to just go on there and search for one or several papers, instead of having to use our login credentials to get into several different databases for multiple papers in different fields. So so so annoying!
I think with piracy, there are many measurable and immeasurable benefits felt by society because of piracy.
I’m not the original person in the thread, but I’m pretty anti-piracy. However, the bulk of my media spending is on musicians (with direct buying from an artist being my primary means of purchase).
With that said, I absolutely understand why so many people pirate movies/tv. Streaming for those is an absolute shit show.
The thing that kills me is there is no way to buy movies/tv shows without DRM. I don’t want my content locked to some service that can dissappear at any point.
Music, Games, books/comics, all have DRM free options (although games are more miss than hit in that regard).
Yeah, definitely a place where society is lacking.
I agree with (and experience) the problems surrounding access to media that you described, but I would also describe myself as pretty anti-piracy. You can be anti-middleman and anti-rent-seeking without being pro-piracy. While piracy circumvents the problems you mentioned, the question it leaves unanswered is how the creator of the pirated media will afford basic necessities like food and shelter. Alternatives to streaming are scarce, but they do exist-- especially DRM-free music and books. These are not static systems. The market will follow the money, so if folks buy into the false dichotomy of stream vs pirate, industry will continue to invest in DRM and anti-piracy measures and creators will continue to submit to streaming services / media silos. I’d prefer a system with as few layers as possible between creator and consumer. Piracy only offers a solution for the latter.
the question it leaves unanswered is how the creator of the pirated media will afford basic necessities like food and shelter.
Under the current capitalist system, they don’t. Scientists often have to pay the publisher to have their work published, often receiving nothing in return. Services like spotify pay next to nothing to creators that aren’t already at the top.
There will be no solution to this problem until the underling source (capitalism) is dealt with. Piracy is just a stop gap that fucks over the CEOs and shareholders until the problem is dealt with. An before anybody brings up indy games/music/etc bought directly from the creators, that’s a different story obviously.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. My only source of income for more than a decade has been creating media that people stream or watch in theaters, so I must disagree. Under the current capitalist system, people do get paid, but I’m with you that it’s exploitative. People commonly burnout and run themselves ragged trying to make ends meet. I know I did.
I’m skeptical that piracy hurts CEOs and shareholders as much as you think it does. Piracy is nothing new-- CEO wages and capitalism doesn’t seem to care. Those with power can increase prices on paying customers, decrease employee wages or headcounts, and/or start legally pursue pirates. The latter being least relevant to my point, but with digital steganography, watermarking, intrusive tracking, and corporate-friendly laws (see post)-- it’s worth making clear that CEOs and shareholders have plenty of tools already in place to make themselves whole. Heck, pirate from Prime Video and Bezos can increase AWS rates and extract it back from most folks via services they (or their families) do pay for.
Not to say it’s hopeless. I’d like to shine a gigantic spotlight on your last sentence:
indy games/music/etc bought directly from the creators
That’s the way forward. Heck, toss it on a jellyfin server and share it with a few close friends and family. The knowledge gap to do that is shrinking. When many folks know someone who knows how to host, they can start pooling their resources.
The false dichotomy of stream vs pirate mentioned in my first reply could be rephrased as: spending money and attention on media giants vs spending just attention on them. Why not spend neither money nor attention on media giants? Save it for individuals and small teams making cool things. That creates a market and draws in more people to make more cool things and does more damage than piracy. Personally, I don’t see anything on Disney+ (or prime, netflix, etc) worth prolonging the current state of media, so I don’t waste any time on it. I’ve come across a lot of good books, music, and inexpensive hobbies to fill the void in the meantime.
TL;DR: Current state of media sucks, but pays more than pirates. More pirates not paying is not as effective as retraining money and attention. If a pirate occasionally goes through the extra steps to pay someone instead of finding a torrent link, they’re still dedicating significant time engaging with the winners of the current capitalist system instead of seeking out and boosting better, lesser known options. It drags out the current state instead of nurturing existing solutions.
People commonly burnout and run themselves ragged trying to make ends meet. I know I did.
If that’s the case, then it sounds like people aren’t getting paid. At least not a living, stable wage, which was sort of the implication.
And this may at least be in a very small part be a good thing, because it incentivises creators to switch to direct from creator purchases, which we’re both in agreement is preferable.
CEO wages and capitalism doesn’t seem to care.
It still does seem to hurt them though. Because if it didn’t in some way hurt them, then they wouldn’t give a fuck about piracy.
Sure, the CEOs and execs just pass off potential lost revenue to buying users, but they can only do that to an extent. At a certain point, people are gonna say “fuck it, I don’t care to pay $80/month for music, I’ll switch to something else”.
At a bare minimum, piracy is an ever present threat to their business model, that if they push too hard with prices, everybody is gonna ditch them for piracy. Because at the end of the day nobody has a pathological need for any particular media. And if someone really likes a particular type of media, they’ll find some other way to get it without getting price gouged.
That’s the way forward.
I think we’re in full agreement of this section here. Fuck the current system.
This is the same company that defended themselves by claiming that a “no swimming” sign was good enough warning after a families young kid was eaten alive by an alligator.
Even without taking into account Disney’s legal “defence” (a cesspool of shit), anyone who has seen the news on this and kept their Disney+ subscription should be, for moral purposes, treated as someone who condones murder, as they’re giving a murderous company the OK sign: “please continue doing things as usual”.
People here are criticising Rossman’s arguments based on Disney’s “defence” being likely considered baseless, but on general grounds it’s still a good point: piracy is a great way to avoid abusive contracts altogether.
(Also: if paying is not owning, piracy is not theft, simple as.)
anyone who has seen the news on this and kept their Disney+ subscription should be, for moral purposes, treated as someone who condones murder
Bro, not gonna lie, this is a bad take. My grandparents just want to watch their soap operas, my parents really like star wars.
It’s like global warming. Blaming individuals for not recycling is not the move - taking action against huge corporations is the only realistic way to make change. By blaming random people, we end up looking like crazy people.
I get that your [grand]parents want to watch their stuff. Just like I want to eat chocolate*, even if it’s associated with child slavery in West Africa. But I don’t think that someone’s enjoyment should come at the price of ruining others’ lives.
And sadly, that’s exactly what happens here. Our conscious decisions to accept products and services from businesses that grossly disregard human life and dignity - like Disney and Nestlé - make us condoners. People who are still willing to pay for either have blood on their hands, like it or not.
We have other options. In your case, good ol’ piracy would let them have their fun without feeding the company.
It’s like global warming. Blaming individuals for not recycling is not the move - taking action against huge corporations is the only realistic way to make change. By blaming random people, we end up looking like crazy people.
I don’t think that we [people in general] should fall for a dichotomy like “either blame the company, or the individuals consuming their shit”. While the blame for the individuals is considerably lower, they still have some blame - for feeding the company. We should be fighting in both fronts.
*I’m comparing the situation with chocolate because IDGAF about Disney but I care a lot about food, so it’s easier for me to put myself in the shoes of your family this way.
not just murder, but the murder of specifically their own loved ones, someone having a disney+ (or any) subscription is basically an announcement that they’re a fucking psychopath, or otherwise have nobody they love.
Can someone please summarize in a sentence or two for those of us who don’t like watching videos?
Disney’s argument in the recent lawsuit, where they killed a dude’s wife at a restaurant, after assurances were made that they could handle preparing food that wouldn’t have what she was allergic to, and failed to do so, resulting in her death. It boils down to: you signed up for Disney+ for a free trial 4 years ago, so you have to go to arbitration, not sue us. Therefore if he had pirated the content, he would likely already have a check because they would have settled out of court.
Ahh, ok. Yes, I’m aware of this fucked up situation. Thanks!
it seems to me the same thing that happened to Boeing need to happen to Disney when they tried to write off any culpability to human life when they tried to put a monetary value on it to their own benefit.
Also that policies in contracts will be null and void if a company tries to write any such thing into their contracts in future. Which sadly this needs to be a law.
Where I live, at least when it comes to contracts involving jobs, you can not specify something that’s less than the law would require. Like you can’t agree to work all day without a break on less than minimum wage. Not legal despite any contracts.
You could technically give someone permission to assault you, but you couldn’t give someone permission to aggravated assault you. The former being a crime that the victim decides to press charges or not, but the second one being so serious that it will be prosecuted no matter what was agreed.
But yeah your formatting would be way mroe extensive; if a company even tries some shenanigans to avoid consequences in the event of something like this happening, it voids the contract. I agree.
I wonder if you could make a donation platform for artists that also provides torrents. You would have to tie up the money pending proof of identification from an artist who participated in creating the work, then release a portion to them. I’m just speculating here but it seems like something that could be made.
Amanda Palmer was proposing something like this using block chain.
Would the following argument hold: if the forced arbitration clause didn’t end after the trial period, then whatever access was granted to you during said trial will also not end, so you are allowed to pirate the previously granted content?
No.
This succinctly summarizes his channel and society. https://imgur.com/a/MqJjqVE
Who thinks capitalism is better than piracy?!’
In theory Louis Rossman. He even says in this video that he has no issues paying for what he needs and wants. He takes issue when doing the “right thing” will lead to a worse result than doing the “wrong thing.”
there is nothing wrong with paying for what you want. problem is, companies get away with changing rules on the fly, locking your shit down years after you bought it, cancelling it altogether, and just causing issues for actual paying customers.
I bought a nice knife for when I’m backpacking, camping. there is no way the company can remotely disable it, break it, take it from me, I got what I paid for and am happy.
too many tech services are the exact opposite and just treat people like shit, and we’re tired of it.
It’s like Disney was watching The Boys and didn’t understand that the show was satirical… They seemed to think people would legitimately cheer them on if they just straight up acted like Vought… and even then Vought at least offered a fucking check + Homelander Meet & Greet when A-Train killed Robin.
Isn’t it weird that Hughey got the check for Robin’s death and not her family? I mean she was just his girlfriend right? I don’t think they were actually married, but whatever knowing the showrunner that was probably either a reference to the actual comic or a commentary on the whole “Women in Refrigerators” phenomenon (When a female character is killed off solely to further the story of a male character, named for a scene in a DC book where Green Lantern finds one of his super heroine colleagues chopped up and in his fridge to kick off the plot.)
Huh. I never noticed that about the check but you’re right.
Maybe Vought paid off the family separately?
