“This is inconvenient and expensive which gives me the unilateral right to steal your intellectual property”.
It’s an interesting take, that you get to steal anything you like if it isn’t priced and sold how you want.
It’s an interesting take, that you get to steal anything you like if it isn’t priced and sold how you want.
Nobody has to watch the content but they want to. You have fly-by-nights and unethical operations abounding that make everything only a google search away, sometimes with a single click. I agree that people should not be entitled to the intellectual property of others. However, like the war on drugs and sex education sometime the best answer is to recognize the reality and stop pushing teetotalism.
Content providers had a good thing going with Netflix and Hulu. Those two services had a recognized impact on content piracy. Yet here we are, repeating the mistakes of the past while the customer takes the path of least resistance. Right now if I pull up “Doctor Who” on my Apple TV I can watch all the episodes. I just have to switch between 3 different services, sometimes in the middle of a season, to do it. Yes I pay for those services, one included with my cable subscription.
But all of this is pretty silly to argue about to be honest. We’re absolutely spoiled with so much entertainment and media at our fingertips. The “us” of 20 years ago would wonder WTF were arguing about and pay out the nose for these capabilities.
Somebody uploaded the entire The Queen's Corgi on YouTube in pristine 720p quality (they must have had access to a BluRay to get this quality) and it's not even out in the USA yet (I am not even sure it'll even be released at all). No tricks, no visual artefacts to hide it, nothing. It's been up since May 28 and apparently noone cares.
> The “us” of 20 years ago would wonder WTF were arguing about and pay out the nose for these capabilities.
Maybe 20 years ago but not for long. In 2001 we had the xvid codec and boy, did movie piracy take off with xvid compressing DVDs to CDs. A slower burner already was under 100 USD and you needed a CD player anyways http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/news01m08/index.html also some combined DVD - CD-RW units were below 180 USD: https://books.google.ca/books?id=3uyMhR-uNRwC&pg=PA179&lpg=P.... Blank disks were cheap -- 30 cents wholesale. Pirated movies and TV collections were not only on CD-R disks but hard disks as well, in 2002 we had 200GB disks https://www.storagereview.com/articles/200210/20021018WD2000...
Online P2P networking also skyrocketed at this time. In 2001 we had eDonkey2000 with ShareReactor and DC++ for the Direct Connect network. In 2003, Demonoid and Pirate Bay launches.
Interesting rabbit hole, that one. Seems to be a movie to cash in on "The Secret Life of Pets" which itself was probably a movie made to cash in on whatever Pixar had at the time. Release dates are wonky - it's been out in Belgium for months, which is probably how it appeared online.
I hadn't heard about the movie before - but because someone pirated it maybe I'll watch it now.
The future I want looks like what GoG is for games, or Bandcamp is for music.
Amazon trying to battle Google results in chx's purchased hardware not being supported by Amazon's service despite the fact it's a very standard streaming device.
It by no means gives any rights to breaching intellectual property laws, but Amazon are making a commercial decision to leave out Chromecast support because they believe it'll make them more money overall, with the express knowledge that it could drive some potential customers to alternative methods, which includes breach of intellectual property laws ("piracy"). It's not like "piracy" isn't known to be a potential option when the likes of Amazon and Google and all the others make business decisions.
No, it's not a justification of illegality, but it's an understandable position to take as an offset.
Definitely interesting on both sides.
"...and sold how you want"
We're not debating the views of piracy from the parent -- that was already established.