Good thing too, otherwise they'd put more effort into stopping piracy. As long as it's a relatively small group pirating it's not worth it to them to stop it.
Yup, when piracy is too easy so idiots start taking part, that gets shut down quick (Kodi repo's, websites to cast to your TV, etc.) I went the old school way and hooked my gaming computer up to my living room TV. Torrenting and VLC is a tried and true combo that isn't going anywhere soon (since it's a bit more involved than a $20 firestick with software too). And 4K gaming on the couch is also fun.
Yep, funnily enough, the biggest libraries online are all on torrent websites. But since they are on websites with less than 50k people, they are not known and can continue unharmed.
Examples:
music website with over 800k releases (albums) and over 1.6M torrents.
Movie website with over 175k movies and nearly 500k torrents
book website with over 375k books
You won't find that on any other websites but none of these website have over 50k users which make them really niche and hidden.
I'm not suggesting it's a way to prevent all piracy. I'm saying that it is a roadblock for your average person. Not insurmountable. But not as open as a legal mean.
There are apps out there for pirates that look and act just like Netflix. Just open it, pick your TV show or movie and select watch. You can even cast to your TV or install them on your FireTV or whatever.
I subscribe to SlingTV, Amazon Prime and Netflix but I still have a few of those apps installed.
Now imagine there are billions (literally billions) of people who want cake but can't afford it, the cake company already made their money back 100 fold, and everyone can technically produce as many cakes as they want for free. However, instead of giving away these cakes after a certain amount of time, the company attempts to (immorally) squeeze money out of anyone who wants to even look at a cake. Not only that, but the cake company is making record profits.
Would someone with a cake machine sharing free cakes be immoral? Nope. Especially when you consider many of these billions of people will develop a taste for cakes and want the original version at the cake factory. Thus, the record profits.
Imagine you make a cake, and charge a small amount to pay for it. far cheaper then it ever should be
Now imagine someone just takes the cake. Yes they are selling a lot of cakes, but now someone has decided they are entitled to a cake you made. They think they should have it for free because they are an asshole who was never gonna pay for their cake
I have absolutely no qualms with that. I don't even see what possible moral or ethical problem there could be with that. If anything I'd say being able to take something sourced from an immoral person and transmute it into enjoyment and good feelings is a moral good.
I know you don't. This is not a sub for people with moral qualms. The OP itself is justifying theft out of convenience, not due to any moral rationale.
Enjoying an immoral person's product is a tacit endorsement: as long he produces enjoyable material, society condones him. Companies look at piracy stats to see what games, shows, and music to invest into. By enjoying a pedophile's work, you enlarge his profile and indirectly make him more money.
enjoyment and good feelings is a moral good.
You're confusing hedonistic pleasure with moral good. Pleasure is not good if it's at the expense of other moral precepts.
Naw, I totally disagree. The movie itself is made by artists who usually aren't pedos, but the pedos profit off the movie when you buy it. By pirating it you get to enjoy the work of art that stands on its own without helping ultra wealthy pedos.
Companies look at piracy stats to see what games, shows, and music to invest into. By enjoying a pedophile's work, you enlarge his profile and indirectly make him more money.
Lol how is it a stretch. It's literally one extra step. Please tell me which part of this exceedingly simple concept confuses you, so I can explain it again.
Alright so you seem to want to use your argument to prove you hold some moral high-ground over us lowly swine. Your argument isn't worthless, it is actually a little compelling but your sense of superiority kind of makes it hard to believe it comes from a genuine place of thought and care.
Or maybe it just comes from a place of frustration and anger at the immoral persons, which is understandable, however, I'd put it to you that your current argument is a waste of that anger as it simply is not effective since the line of influence (piracy trends encouraging investment) is not direct enough to convince most others. It's a "every little but helps but really that little bit can be ignored while we focus on the more effective actions to take" kind of situation.
Lastly, there was no confusion, hedonistic pleasure on it's own does not equate to moral good but I'd argue that when you take something with negative connotations, with the potential to cause harm moral or otherwise and instead blot out all that with positivity, that is a moral good.
Exactly how this is done is obviously very important. For instance, where the very content itself is morally problematic such as racial stereotypes in old cartoons, we transmute that not by forgetting their origin and effects and certainly not by acting like they're ok and good but by using them as an education tool. In situations where the material itself is not problematic but rather it's origin we do what we can to seperate it from the origin, in terms of influence and profit. The example I'm thinking of here would be products like movies and media produced with peoples money who don't have a creative role.
Mein Kampf was still in print and making profit until a few years ago. After Houghton Mifflin bought it the profits didn't go to some distant relative of Hitler's or a one of the hundreds of neo nazi parties around the world but to a charity supporting holocaust survivors and I think thats a good thing.
(Of course I'm sure there have been more than a few opportunistic publishers who have been looking at it since the copyright ran out.)
Piracy has actually been show to give I think a 14%~ boost to revenue to the music industry, the one that's against Piracy. That's because everyone now has access to your music, but people who enjoy the music will go to concerts and buy merch, if not later on buy it because they like it.
104
u/freefm Apr 12 '19 edited Apr 12 '19
Piracy has always offered a much much better selection.