After a lengthy $10,000,000 lawsuit, TorGuard has conceded to movie studios and is now banning BitTorrent traffic and is now keeping logs on American users and servers.

  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    Guess what? While you’re pirating the content you watch, the rest of the world that doesn’t know how to pirate is paying for Fast 45 and Transformers 27… Geee…I wonder why they keep making those movies and not the ones you like?

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is the implication here that the average pirate has statistically different entertainment preferences than the general population? That it’s pirates fault that investors choose an established safe brand over novel, compelling, yet risky storytelling? I find myself skeptical.

      • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I’m understanding, which I doubt, it sounds to me like what we need is more education so people know how to pirate movies.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s response to a complaint. Vote with your dollar. Just as with voting in elections, you don’t get to complain when you’re not participating in any capacity that has an impact on the result.

        • sapient [they/them]@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Vote with your dollar means rich people get way more votes.

          <insert explanation of the fundamental contradiction vetween capitalism and democracy here> ;p

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not necessarily. There would be no point to someone paying multiple times for content. Rich people do, however, get to overwhelmingly produce the content which is exactly why it’s most important to support creators and pay for their content. If you want to build a meritocracy within a capitalist society, your dollars are the most important means of change.

            • TeddE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Looks at Nintendo that sells the same game from 1985 to it’s customer base again and again every new console.

              Looks back in history at Blockbuster, a company that would sell someone the same content multiple times.

              Looks at any rent-to-own store that effectively charges 2x - 10x the price of their content for the mere privilege of taking longer to buy it.

              Looks to me that people pay for content multiple times anytime a corporation can get away with it.

              The rest of your statement is at best a very naïve approach to capitalism.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Those are dishonest comparisons. The OP was saying that rich people get more votes. None of those things you mentioned are a vote for content. They are votes for the mechanisms of the content and, guess what, people vote for them every time by buying them, rich or not. Nintendo selling the same title for a different system is something people do whether they’re rich or not. A rich person doesn’t buy multiple copies of a re-released game for a single Switch. A rent-to-own store doesn’t deal with movies or music or content, they deal with goods.

                My last statement isn’t naive. It’s literally what capitalism is. Ingesting content is not a need. We’re not talking about Nestle buying up all the food companies. We’re talking about completely optional products.

                • TeddE@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I bristle a bit at being accused of dishonesty and I think that limiting the conversation to the money spent in the production of the original work and wholesale dismissal is distribution is unnecessarily restrictive - it’s not like capitalism is a system limited to the original production of media.

                  That said, I think we can agree that it’s worthwhile to funnel money into direct payment to artists whenever possible. Middlemen like the record studios offer terrible value, seeming to exist solely to siphon away as much value as possible.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not unnecessarily restrictive. It was the entire point of discussion. Opening that up to more general straw men does nothing to further that discussion. Bristle all you want but I can see no other reason to ignore the point and argue against things that were never mentioned other than to be dishonest.

                    It’s ludicrous that people here can’t be honest with themselves. Piracy is theft, of one form or another. No, it’s not the same thing as stealing a physical object but no one is pretending it is. The gymnastics all over this sub are childish and tiring.