• kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      15·
      9 days ago

      Honestly im not even angery at Facebook for illegally torrenting 81tb of books from Libgen, im pissed that Facebook torrented 81tb of books from libgen and then didnt seed (apperantly they didnt want to be caught but they could have used a vpn like the rest of us).

          • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
            3·
            9 days ago

            Shareholders own the business; workers, even the ceo, technically, work for the shareholders to create profit. The authority of the directors to direct comes from the shareholders who own.

            Sure, if you own 0.00001% of a business, you can’t do much if 99% want profit made in a particular way (or “in whatever most profitable way”), but you still own that 0.000001%; 0.000001% of the work and profit is done for you.

            • viking@infosec.pub
              11·
              8 days ago

              Shareholders don’t individually sanction business decisions, only targets. And often they are not even aware what the company did until the next board meeting. If it’s mentioned at all. So calling them complicit is a long shot, and shows that you don’t really know anything about the matter.

              • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
                2·
                8 days ago

                I think you’re evading responsibility.

                I agree shareholders don’t direct the individual decisions - that’s the directors’ job. And the directors don’t write the individual programs, that’s the programmers’ job. There’s an awkward hierarchy that makes culpability difficult to ascribe. But look at it another way round:

                The legal system obliges executives to increase shareholder value. Because the company belongs to the shareholders, not to the execs - the exec is just a person appointed, contracted, to do a job for the company. The exec is required to increase value, because that’s what the shareholders require. And for public companies, the law adds a layer of stability, so that people can buy and sell shares on a large scale smoothly.

                But still, the decisions made by the company employees (including CEO) are, in principle, work contracted by the company to fulfil the wishes (get more money) of its members (the shareholders).

                So, although the shareholders didn’t sanction some particular decision, what they did do, is bestow authority on the directors/etc to make that decision on their behalf. Then after the decision the directors are accountable to the shareholders who, if they disagree, can either request the directors change their decisions, or fire them and appoint new directors in their place to better fulfil their wishes. The directors act on the authority of the shareholders. Unless they violate that authority, then the authority-giver bears a responsibility. And if they do violate that authority, the authority-giver bears a responsibility to separate the company from that wrong act done by its employed director. Even the minority shareholder, who has no practical control of the company, willingly profits from the actions of those employed for their sake - and can willingly sell up and not be part any more.

                The machinery of capitalism smooths this over, and provides legal safeties and legal frameworks, to make it easy for money to flow. But - though my original comment was a light-hearted reply to a light-hearted jibe - in my actual opinion this machinery of capitalism makes it easier to profit from evil decisions and feign innocence. “I didn’t decide to do that evil thing, I just profited from it. …Oh, and I’m keeping the profits.”

                So, in the end, I do call shareholders complicit. Complicit in part, because you might say, “I agree with decisions A, B and D; not C; but on balance I will still support this business as it is, as a member of the company of owners.” But still complicit.

  • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    571·
    9 days ago

    Offer a better service for a better price.

    Streaming services don’t sell content, they sell convenient access to content, and it’s been getting less convenient as time goes on. So less people feel like it’s worth paying them.

    • Ech@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      9 days ago

      Also just overall shittier. Every time I stream something these days, it’s pretty much guaranteed to pause/buffer or atomatically lower the quality even over fiber. I’m not going to pay for a subpar product.

  • BobTheDestroyer@lemm.eeEnglish
    41·
    9 days ago

    they “watch what they want, when they want, where they want, and they don’t pay for it.”

    Damn. Are these guys trying to sell me on being a striminal now?

  • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    37·
    9 days ago

    I’m a millennial, but I don’t stream any pirated content whatsoever.

    I download it from Usenet or sometimes torrents in its entirety. That way I don’t have to worry about the site I use getting shut down.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    9 days ago

    streaming content without paying for it

    • Watching TV at a friend’s house
    • Watching videos off a PLEX server or other private local network
    • Watching freemium with ad blockers

    I’m sure I’m missing a few more. But there are so many ways to watch - even without explicit piracy - that the MPAA considers should be deemed illegal because they’re not getting paid per viewer.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    25·
    9 days ago

    I’m Gen X and I’ve been pirating since we bought a second VCR when I was a kid and used it to duplicate tapes and then return them to the rental store. Then they added copy protection, so we got a dual-deck VCR that beat it. Then DVDs came out, so we got a dual-deck DVD copier.

    Did I mention that my dad was a film historian?

    He also would sometimes xerox entire books for himself. And he got himself a CD duplicator and a cassette duplicator later on and started doing the same thing with CDs and audiobooks he got from the library.

    Miss you, dad. You would love torrenting if you could figure it out.

      • TheAthena@lemmy.world
        8·
        9 days ago

        I’ve got another 80Tb on the way. Entirely because you’re the first random person I’ve seen who has more than me.

      • psivchaz@reddthat.com
        3·
        9 days ago

        I swear I saw an article a while back of someone who set up a multi-SD card reader with an obnoxious number of SD cards as an external drive. I can’t find it now but I think that’s the only way I could afford that much storage.

        • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          3·
          9 days ago

          Saves up that $20-$500 a month you’d spend on steaming and keep an eye on shucks.top for when prices hit all time lows.

          Typically around Black Friday and other common sale event that hide main steam media.

          Either use them as is or shuck them (crack them open) and install as internal hard drives.

          There are guides around setting up these things, look for a tutorial that mentions Plex, Radarr or Sonarr and go with what works best for your available hardware.

          And you too will be a data hoarder in few short months.

          • psivchaz@reddthat.com
            2·
            9 days ago

            Oh I’m a data hoarder. Just with 12TB right now. The trouble is I have to double everything to expand the NAS at my friend’s house that I’m doing encrypted off-site backups to…

  • piyuv@lemmy.world
    22·
    9 days ago

    Meta torrented terabytes of pirated books for their AI, and they’re the 4th biggest company in US

  • mydoomlessaccount@infosec.pub
    22·
    9 days ago

    I fucking love committing strime. I fucking love committing strime.

    I don’t want to do anything else but commit strime all damn day.

    I FUCKING LOVE COMMITTING STRIME