Suggesting the stream operators will hack your bank account. Reminds me ot the "pirate media will ruin your VCR/CDDVD Player fake propaganda. Ironically... the virus came from a big reputable corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk....
A lot of industries would be in for some criticism and bad PR after that. But not these guys. They don't give a shit about reputation.
This has so much opportunity for improvement. ex: Blatant Lies Let Stupidity In
Bizarre that so many at the top will label ordinary people who don't like the idea of being gouged to watch their favorite team play as criminals.
It's pretty ridiculous
Take for example, Wes Anderson movies. They aren't ranking in the billions after a successful weekend, but they don't have too because the folks involved recognize it's a passion project. I mean the cast alone is indicative that they're willing to take on a role that pays maybe a quarter of what they normally receive in other flicks.
The amount of law enforcement resources we dedicate to piracy compared to, say, death threats, illegal weapons trade, etc seems completely disproportionate.
Is this a good position?
Why or why not?
See Steve Albini’s open letter to the music industry for the full accounting…from the nineties when labels made their artists •really• dance for their shekels…
Best example I know of Lawful Evil…
You keep using words that inherently equivocate between transfer-of-property acts and copying-of-property acts. Choose your words more carefully, and then make the same argument.
No, I don't think my sense of morality inherently has anything to say about downloading an mp3, one way or the other. There's no instinct in humans that pattern-matches on the idea of copying information that someone else created being a particular "cultural touchstone" or "human right", nor of it being "disgusting" or "taboo."
But something being "not immoral" doesn't make it okay. Without a clear sense of moral value to an action, that action's worth comes down to an ethical question — a question that has to be resolved with ethical arguments, questions of utility and harm and fairness and "the curtain of ignorance" and so forth.
And my point is that you're failing to make those arguments.
This does not pertain to downloading an MP3.
Like I said: make an ethical argument, not a moral argument. Stop attempting to rely on moral intuitions; there are no good moral intuitions for this, any more than there are good moral intuitions for e.g. the ethics of someone who can "fork off" copies of their mind, forcing those copies to merge back together with them. It's just not something that ever came up in our evolution!
What, exactly?
Doesn't EPL rights sell at around 5B per year?
Those are...a lot of 30$ subscriptions to sell and it excludes production costs...
Regardless, there have been an absorbent amount of studies on this subject, with various inconclusive results.
More reading here: https://techpolicyinstitute.org/publications/intellectual-pr...
Also here: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi....
But that's the problem: people want to send a "this should cost less" signal, forcing broadcasters to make these deals for less, forcing the sports organizations to accept less. There's no cheaper alternative that people can legally buy to send that signal; so the only alternative that actually does signal price sensitivity, is pirating the thing.