• sunzu@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    6 months ago

    redistribution = service?

    Why would they work for free?

    Not gonna pretend like this aint illegal but i don’t cry over some IP owners losing money… EVER, fuck 'em

    • Grippler@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh I don’t care that the IP owner don’t get money.

      IDK, I just don’t like the ethics of pirating media for profit, the entire idea is that it should be accessible to everyone, not just those with money. Cover your operational cost? Sure…Making millions in subscriptions? That is an asshole move IMO. If you’re paying, you might as well pay the people who are making the media in the first place instead of some rando that had nothing to do with it.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        All fair points.

        I think the issue is that IP owners are mega corps, ie people who made the content don’t own it and can’t provide it anyway.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet. It’s not like they’re making DVDs of pirated movies and selling them on the street corner; they were basically just aggregating content and the service they were providing was making it easily searchable and accessible, not doing the actual pirating, from the sound of it, unless I’m misunderstanding the situation.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet.

          i would think it would be a little different from usenet, considering that usenet would be a service that you pay for, and people who use that service would host content on it, so that other users can download that content. Which effectively removes the immediate liability that you would have in this case, where you are explicitly hosting a pirated streaming service, and then charging for it, for the explicit purpose of streaming said pirated content.

          • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              yeah, from an end user perspective, it’s the same.

              But i was referring mostly to the legal technicalities there, where one would be significantly more spicy than the other.

              Nice root instance btw, getting jumpscared by pawb.social is a rather funny timeline to live in.

            • Grippler@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I don’t have an issue paying ISPs to access pirated content either, that’s the same as paying for Usenet access IMO. You’re paying for network access for a lot of different things, pirated content just happens to be part of it. Paying a streaming service specifically for pirated content is vastly different from paying for general network access, even from an end user perspective.