zlacker

>>ksec+(OP)
I know it's morally dubious, but I'm completely back in pirateland because of all the changes/price hikes/partitioning in the streaming space. My interests make it so I only watch 1-2 shows per platform so I'd be approaching ~100$/month.

And even if I was swimming in money, it's often easier to just download the shows I want and watch them on Plex/Jellyfin than trying to navigate the (often ad-riddled) interfaces of the various platforms and finding where the content I want is.

One example is Rick and Morty, it's made by Adult Swim, but they don't have a streaming service in Canada. It seems to be on Primevideo but under a different system than their regular content. The other way to watch it is to buy it from my cable provider (I don't have cable). So to watch a 20-minutes animated show I'd have to take a +40$ subscription.

>>belval+Qg
I don't find this particularly morally dubious. These companies are approaching monopoly powers and using it to squeeze consumers. Disney owns about 1/3 of all box office revenue. The government has shown they're unwilling to break up monopolies, or even really limit them in any meaningful way.

Also, I don't quite know my feelings on this yet, but there is something real about some shows and movies being part of the milieu. Something doesn't sit quite right about repeatedly increasing the pricing via anti-consumer acquisitions on products that are contributing a substantial part of how the society collectively feels and thinks. It feels like you have to make more money to live in the same society.

>>nscalf+FE
Nobody has the right to obtain copyrighted entertainment products. Unlike, say, having access to food or water, or even education, there's no coherent moral framework that says that you are obligated to the latest TV shows or movies under your own terms.

> that are contributing a substantial part of how the society collectively feels and thinks

First of all, I straight-up don't believe this. I had very little exposure to TV/movies/books/the internet growing up, and yet I feel virtually no disconnect with my friends and co-workers - even when I don't understand a particular cultural reference they make, they either explain it and we engage in a fun tangent about it, or we just laugh and move on.

Second, even if that were true - then the problem is that culture is being built off of copyrighted works in the first place. Solve that. Doing otherwise shows that this is just a convenient excuse to secure access to personal entertainment.

>>throw1+ER
> Second, even if that were true - then the problem is that culture is being built off of copyrighted works in the first place. Solve that.

I mean - the natural state of these works has ALREADY solved that, they are easily copied and distributed. The only prevention is arbitrary law/policy that says we (the royal one) shouldn't.

So you're essentially arguing that no one has the right to a product, but they do - in a natural state, copying and sharing those items IS THE DEFAULT.

In fact - copyright law is insanely new, as far as laws go - dating back only about 300 years (1710 - Statute of Anne).

Personally - I think the whole thing was a mistake, and we've seen complete erosion of public access to works of all sort (not to mention education) under these new laws. That said - they're wildly successful if the goal is to subvert culture for private gains.