Hacker News Reader

Comment by endisneigh | Hacker News Reader

Why pay when you can take for free, is the idea?

More like, don’t pay until they curtail their segmentation of content across myriad of services, each adding n number of dollars and mental overhead of automatically renewing subscriptions bundled with certain must-pay-on-delivery for certain content that’s not available any other way.

We see their model, we need to stop the growth of it.

if you don't find value don't consume or purchase it and it will stop growing. it grows because people pay. piracy is a strange rationalization

Piracy got us the accessible model we have today. It was a positive force. If it didn’t exist, don’t be shocked if these publishers would have sold you a Blu-ray with a digital code that expires for the digital version.

It is not a zero sum game.

A better phrase would be: "Why pay when you can copy for no cost".

I think the idea is that it’s problematic to pay for many different streaming services to get the content. Spotify got it right for music - one subscription, everything i want is there. Movies etc, not even close.

How is one to fight back? The traditional way worked for music. I’m happy to pay but I’m not going to be taken advantage of.

if you don't like it don't consume, no? seems simple to me. seems like a strange rationalization

I think that’s fine if en mass that was happening.

What causes corporations to sit up and take note is that when things are presented as a paid option with reasonable terms, people pay. However unreasonable terms (as we see with multiple streaming services, with adverts or minimal good content unless you pay again) increase piracy, not underconsumption.

What motivation would people have, when they feel they are being ripped off, and are presented with an alternative with no demonstrable downsides, to not consume?

People would happily pay but it’s impossible to do so in a reasonable or indeed fair way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com