Make it easy for me to get the shit that I want and maybe I won’t pirate. It’s fucking easier to just pirate shit than to sign up for a bunch of services and deal with asscunt companies. Fuck you.
Exactly. If there was a Spotify-like service for video where i could get 99.9% of all tv and movies of all time in one place without ads, then I'd be willing to pay like 40 bucks a month, maybe even 50. But since no video service is even remotely close to that, then i just pirate instead, which provides exactly that type of service, and costs zero dollars a month.
Shit dude, give me access to most things I want to watch and most of the stuff I've forgotten about and that's worth $50/month as a minimum.
I've come full circle back to wearing an eye patch. I was using amazon, hulu, hbo and paramount, usually letting some lapse or pause to watch stuff on the other ones but they have all gone to shit. It's impossible to find what you might be interested because just like netflix they show the same shows/movies in multiple categories and their search sucks ass plus they are all missing a ton of good shows.
Now I am slowly downloading shows from the past that I don't already have in my library and haven't watched in years while I keep an eye out for new shows I might be interested in. I use showrss to auto download current shows that it has in its DB to a vps and I have sync setup to mirror it to my nas so I can stream it to my TV with vlc. So much easier than opening hulu, finding the show I want to catch up on, etc.
I’ve gone through the effort to build a 50terabyte media center. And am slowly filling it with tv shows, movies, and documentaries I like. It’s expensive and inconvenient. But still a fun hobby.
But the reason I do it is because I can have everything in one spot. Easily accessible. I control it. Never going back.
This is the way. It's just me who watches stuff off my nas and I'm fine with vlc so I don't use plex or jellyfin or whatever. I have an old (at this point) qnap nas that I've been doing the same with. Mine is a total of 40tb'ish iirc. I definitely need to get a second nas and some more drives but for now what I have is enough though I am going to run out of space soonish.
And they also shouldnt require specific browsers and a CPU that is less than 2 years old to stream content in resolutions above 720p.
Its not because its not possible, its because it lacks some bullshit copyright protection.
I find it interesting, how Spotify is often mentioned as the standard service because last time I used it, it struggled with similar issues as the video streaming platforms, that not every song I want to listen to is available
There's one thing that's preventing me from doing exactly that and that is, as a non-native English speaker with tinnitus, the constant struggle to find good subtitles that are properly synced.
My lazy ass just wants to enjoy a movie at a normal volume without having to force myself to be super-focussed in order not to miss the whole goddamn plot of the movie.
If buying is not owning, copying is not stealing. Simple as that.
I can't find it now, but there was that one text post that went something like "1. Copying a movie costs the studio money, 2. Download a movie, 3. Make 1000 copies, 4. Studio goes bankrupt"
I saw one where it went:
Publish a copyrighted work
Sell it for 10 bucks
Have a friend pirate it 100 million times
Declare bankruptcy
Have the friend delete his copies
You're a billionaire now
Trolls ripped me a new one for saying that. I hope they wont do the same to you. But yes I agree.
If your business model needs undercover advocates to fake grassroots legitimacy you may have a problem.
Whos going to tell them?
Bankruptcy court?
I think bribing politicians to make it illegal to own anything is more likely.
But stealing is not owning so QED
I started this meme and have been having a ball watching it go wild. 😁
FYI, the original context was about a software company that bricked it's customers' lifetime licenses to force them into a subscription model.
I‘m pretty sure I remember the article about the incident.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. It's definitely stealing. This is a piracy community. Don't feign moral superiority. They offer a product, you don't want to buy the product so you find it for free elsewhere. A digital file that you experience for a cost is no different than a book you buy from a store, regardless of the state of ownership after the fact. And regardless if it's a locally published author or a multi billion dollar studio, there's a cost of entry. Semantics is all you're arguing, not the legitimacy of piracy, when you share that copypasta.
"Theft" has a legal definition that at least in my jurisdiction is not met by downloading copyrighted materials. So, no, copying is not stealing.
Actually, even if you are an EU citizen, downloading copywritten material for free is very much considered theft. Ever read those FBI or Interpol statements at the beginning of films?
It's legally called "Copyright Infrigement" and it's not even part of Criminal Law in most Legal Jurisdictions, unlike Theft.
You're talking off your arse so hard that by now you must hovering on your own farts.
In many places, downloading is legal. It's the uploading that's illegal.
You are wrong. You are talking about copyright infringement, which is a civil matter and not a criminal one. That means the party whose rights have been infringed must prove that and sue you. But you won't go to jail if convicted, you'll have to pay damages. That's why the Netherlands, for example, used to be safe for torrenting. It wasn't legal, but copyright holders did not have the right to get account details from providers for IP addresses that were caught sharing content (sharing, not downloading) and thus had no one to sue. If it were a criminal matter, the state would be after you and they have a lot more rights.
In this case, the phrase's become more popular because people buy digital goods and, due to business shenanigans, they lose access to it, like buying a digital copy of a movie, "owning it", then no longer being able to access it because Sony couldn't be arsed to get the rights sorted out.
There's also the numerous situations where you can't legally own media, simply because it's not up for sale, like the vast majority of content on streaming sites. There's no way to own and consume some media except through the provider. It's still illegal, it's still an unauthorized copy, but in this case, it's the only way to "own" something.
Despite crappy licensing agreements and the tenuous relationship between consumers and ownership of a thing, finding a way to circumvent paying for a thing that is for sale in one form or another, is theft.
By that definition making coffee at home and taking it with you to work instead of buying is theft.
Even further anytime you make a product or do a service yourself or get a free alternative (for example, open source software instead of a close-source alternative) instead of buying would be theft by that definition.
That's not the legal definition of "theft", it's not even the historical or common sense definition of "theft", it's some kind of neo-Capitalist Dystopia definition of "theft" that only makes sense if you're starting from a foundation of there being a "right to make money".
How dare you cook dinner for yourself when McDonald's is right there? How will the franchise owners or the brand owners be able to buy meals for their children!?
Look man, I get that piracy isnt an ethically clean solution, but the current state of legal digital media is nowhere near ethically clean either, and I'm far more likely to root for a person than I am for a corporation. Especially since its because of corporations that the digital ownership sphere is so fucked
I will gladly take a position of moral superiority, because copyright has evolved from a very limited monopoly, intended to encourage creativity while balancing public access, into a licence for corporations to seek rent.
So, call it stealing if you like, I will sleep well tonight regardless.
You're taking a thing that costs money, for free. I don't see how it's anything other than stealing.
If you go to a theme park, and they want $20 for you to enter, and you decide you don't want to pay, you'll be in violation of their rules. Those that did pay will leave the park at the end of the day with a great experience, but with no presumption of ownership of the park. This is analogous to piracy by copying a movie. You didn't want to pay the entrance fee, so you found a way to have the same enjoyment for free. The people that paid for their media, however shitty the licensing agreement is, received the agreed upon service with no presumption of ownership.
I'm not here to defend streaming services or crappy licensing deals, but to pretend that it's not stealing, gaslighting everyone here into following your train of thought, is the definition of unearned moral superiority. You're not entitled to free media.
The only theft going on is the ongoing theft from the public domain, due to corruption of copyright law by special interests enabled by law for hire. Your analogy is irrelevant as the marginal cost of operating a park for an extra visitor is not zero.
He didn't take the movie/music from them. They still have it. It still exists on their tape/film/drive. If you are going to argue, at least argue in good faith, with words that mean what you are trying to say.
It's like refusing to pay the $20 park entrance fee and then making your own copy of the park in your backyard. Is that stealing $20 from the park?
I mean it's still possibly copyright and/or trademark infringement, but...
It's not stealing unless you delete the original when you download it. It's forgery at best
I prefer the term appropriation:
the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission
Still doesn't fit, because you're not taking anything, you're making a copy.
Those Ads at the beginning of legitimate copies of DVDS and movies, really bugged me, like why are you annoying the people who actually bought the product!? Also the people downloading stuff online seemed cool in those videos so I think the ads had the opposite effect a lot of the time.
That shit bothered me as far back as in the 80's on VHS rentals. They've never treated viewers as anything other than a sales opportunity. The motion picture industry has always been disgusting and dehumanizing.
Plus they come off like those ridiculous anti-drug ads that make it seem like a single puff of weed will make you shoot your friend in the face and run your dog over. They're just way over the top to the point that they're comical and easy to mock.
We are cool get in it with us chud.
I would absolutely download a car, sounded like the coolest shit to me as a 14 year old
Check out the cool hoodie!
Might have to cop that hoodie, but I'm not watching bros camrip 💀
Agreed, they're the worst!
Weirdly enough I used to enjoy camrips when I was broke and depressed, kinda gave me the feeling I was in a room with people.
My favourites were the ones where people couldn't sit still, felt good yelling at someone to sit the fuck down, knowing they cant hit me.
That's actually really sweet ahhh
hella 90s
Give me the means and hell yea I'd download a car!
This is Chad. Chad downloaded the movie from a pirate site, then smoked a joint and got a blowjob. Don’t be like Chad.
I would gladly pay good money to just download an MP4, but they have never given me that option.
Hello, yes i would like to buy high res music files, please show me a store that has a large catalog that I can choose from. Oh there are non?
I guess I'll have to look else where
There's qobuz but they don't have everything
Also Bandcamp.
Bot they also don't have a lot (i buy from both those sites btw)
Qobuz has a lot of DRM-free high-res music.
Oh thanks i haven't heard of that store I'll check em out
The media corps have people hooked on non downloadable streaming services. Today's youth don't know what an mp3 or a flac file is. Hell, a lot of them have never owned a CD. They're buying vinyl records (lol) and don't even own a vinyl record player.
Qobuz and Bandcamp have almost everything
I've been using bandcamp mostly for the indie artists i listen to, seems like Qobuz has a pretty decent selection of more mainstream artists
Bandcamp now is most user friendly, but even the creators cheat by deleting their 1$ offerings, and Yes I hate bundles of 600 albums for a price of 1$
It poses a significant challenge to creative economies worldwide, costing industries billions annually.
Other studies found, that piracy actually increases sales, offsetting the (always oversestimated) loss of revenue.
So, no, that's a lie.
The real challenge to creative economies are the billionaires sucking all the profit from album sales or deleting television shows from the face of the earth for a tax writeoff.
Agreed. I copied that exact quote to see if someone called it out already. Also this one:
educational messages tend to try and educate the consumer on the moral and economic damage of piracy.
Citation fucking needed.
As an anecdotal example, I pay for Netflix, Spotify, Prime, and Kindle Unlimited (and CBC Gem partly through taxes), I regularly buy videogames and ebooks (and pay for a library with taxes), and I buy phone apps. I'm paying as much as I comfortably can for media in various forms.
I also pirate TV/film content, books, games, apps, operating systems, etc. A lot.
But about half the TV/film piracy is content I have already paid to get streaming access to simply because it's easier to pirate than figure out which service it's on, and the other half is mostly freely available on YouTube at garbage quality.
The content industry, net everything, is getting all the cash out of me that they ever will. Piracy has 0 net effect on my media spending; I'd just consume different content, content at a lower quality, spend more time on Where To Stream, and get books from the library a bit more often.
i remember when valve's steam completely killed nearly all video game piracy just by existing
There was a golden age of Netflix where I basically stopped pirating movies and TV too.
Now streaming is a fragmented ad-ridden nightmare and I pirate more than ever before. It's not like it's free either, I pay for a VPN, disk storage, let alone the time and maintenance.
If I could buy (and actually own) high quality digital copies of movies/tv with no bullshit at a reasonable price that would be a serious value proposition that would beat out the hassles that come along with piracy.
Fully agree. Why is renting a movie the same cost as a month of some random subscription service? Then you also get a copy you can only watch for like 24 hours. If you "buy" you still dont get access to the file, just some digital copy that can be taken away at any point.
I mean I always knew digital renting was kind of a lame idea, but I didn't put together how monumentally bad it is until you said that...
I don't think Steam's business model works well for Movies/TV. Besides delivering the game files after your initial purchase Steam also continues to host and deliver update files for games over time, as well as lots of extras like syncing game saves, the workshop for mods, etc. I like having a centralized service that offers these features and acts a launcher for games because it's very convenient. These features are a huge value add that makes the service very attractive over piracy.
But for Movies/TV the main thing I want is the ability to watch the content, at a high quality, on whatever device I want, whenever I want to watch it. Theoretically this shouldn't be to hard, but with the way all the rights work it's effectively impossible for any streaming service to offer this. Content gets removed all the time, it's spread across a ton of different services that all offer a different experience. In a vain attempt to thwart pirates it's a pain in the ass to watch content offline so it's unreliable at best.
The only way to get the experience I want with Movies/TV is to pirate the content.
And Spotify pretty much killed music piracy . Although you could argue they just changed who did the robbing
I think people still pirate music by downloading them off of youtube
To the point where a lot of gamers have paid for more games than they'd ever have time to play.
Hey... I only have 600 Steam Games and i don't remember half of them... But don't worry, I will play them, after Dragons Dogma 2 and the Elden Ring DLC of course.
After I'm finished doing the same shit over and over again for another 7-800 hours in warframe I'm sure I'll get around to playing some of the games I actually paid money for.
This is the truth man, I will even buy games on Steam that I've pirated in the past with no intention of playing them again. We all largely stopped pirating movies and TV for almost a decade when the streaming experience was superior.
If there was a steam like service for movies and tv and music that worked on all my platforms I would pay for it just like I paid for a home server running the *arrs.
"You wouldn't put on a tricorn hat, would you?"
I actually would, if I could find a nice one...
"...and leave your job to sail the seas?"
... That's an option? I didn't even consider-
"And you certainly wouldn't drink rum, and fire cannons, and carry a saber and tell silly parrot related puns."
I love it when corpos remind us that there is an alternative to purchasing their add bloated products.
We only started pirating after Amazon refused to let us play movies we paid for because our hardware was too old for their DRM. It was a 2014 PC made of recycled parts. At the time, it was less than 10 years old. We pirated the same movie and realized it was easier to find, higher quality, and surprise, surprise, capable of playing on a PC we kept out of the landfill.
When I see anti piracy measures that punish people that don't pirate, such as massive performance hits or privacy violating features, it makes me want to pirate more.
720 streams run from strange websites in timbucktoo have higher fidelity than the 4K stream I paid good money for.
Here's a great price and you can share it with your friends. Wait not those friends. Wait your phone isn't authorized anymore. Okay you authorized your phone but you need to authorize it again. Okay we just doubled the price and cut the quality again. Now you can't watch the movies that you downloaded for offline viewing without an internet connection. Now your ad-free service has ads.
Netflix can take a long hard suck on my pudding factory, they're never going to see another penny of my money again, and this is from somebody that goes back to the DVD days of Netflix.
Oh yeah, and we changed the movie too.
I rented a car to do Uber with while I apply for jobs, and the car is an electric. They had no gas powered cars available.
It is such a pain in the ass. I’ve only had
it for a couple of days, but so far I’ve spent 2.5 hours today waiting for charge, and about 5 hours driving passengers.
I’m ready. I want to download a car. Just need someone to point me in the right direction.
I don't really understand the gender difference thing, because I would think that in general it comes down to understanding what "ownership" is and that it has been taken from us, replaced with "licensing" where we have to buy the same movie every 10 years on a new format, and now that streaming is THE format, companies have made The Producers real, where they can make a whole movie, shitcan it, and get a tax break. We're dealing with items we've paid for being removed from our digital storage boxes, because the "rights ran out." It's wild, because it used to be that you bought a movie and it didn't matter that the rights ran out you could still watch your fucking movie in your own home. Same for old video games. If you have old copies of Grand Theft Auto, you can still listen to the great soundtrack, because they hadn't stripped the music they lost licensing for out of the new copies.
When the fines for all piracy that exists would be bigger than the amount of money that exists, its clear that the system is fucking broken and has been.
The rightsholders did this to themselves by making it increasingly draconian.
When cops are playing copyrighted music when they're being filmed so people can't post it online without it being auto-removed for having copyrighted music in it, things are flat out fucked and everybody knows it.
It's akin to living the end stages of the Soviet Union with Hypernormalization. Everything is totally fucked, but everyone is running around trying to pretend that nothing has changed and everything is fine.
For citizens who get nothing but working themselves to death and taxes that do nothing for them, piracy is one of those small "fuck you"'s that we can give to the rich.
[^1]: "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) estimates that filesharing website LimeWire owes it over $72 trillion dollars (£46 trillion) in damages. ... Given that the combined wealth of the entire planet is around $60 trillion (£38 trillion), the RIAA likely has no hope of securing this in damages, but believe this is what it is owed, reports Computerworld.com."
I think its simply, at least for a while, the tech space was male dominated. And depending on the type of piracy, it requires an amount of tech skills
Probably the reason, pretty valid point here.
Also, there's so much "free" content that a lot of young ones don't even bother or care about learning about piracy and how to do it
This as well. I will say even the time where i would normally spend watching shows on stuff like dailymotion primewire etc i know most just watch youtube channels
As a woman into tech I’ll chime in. We seem to have a mild case of ignorant as shit. My friends are all completely blind to tech and piracy. Now I don’t blame them because they’ve been taught by capitalist culture to care about pointless things since birth, but god does it hurt sometimes and make me want to claw my eyes out. Patience and education will solve the gap.
What is even more painful is seeing friends glued to TikTok on their phones all day when they have STEM degrees. I didn't grow up in a typical household, so I have a hard time relating to other women, but I don't get it either. Do your friends with kids seem to be this way more than those without?
Indeed. Piracy is good because it is preservation
I would think that in general it comes down to understanding what "ownership" is and that it has been taken from us, replaced with "licensing"
Your mistake is thinking that the average person
Knows that this is happening/has happened, since it's rarely clearly or prominently stated,
Understands what it means, since it doesn't often affect them,
And in the uncommon scenario where both 1 and 2 are met: actually cares at all.
It's wild, because it used to be that you bought a movie and it didn't matter that the rights ran out you could still watch your fucking movie in your own home.
I understand the concern and I'm sure it does happen, but I have literally never heard this complaint from a single person that I actually know. What movies/services has this actually happened to?
No argument against anything you said related to copyright laws, just to be clear.
Here's an article that was discussed extensively on HackerNews about how Apple has the rights to remove items you've paid for from your digital library:
Here's an example where Amazon removed books from people's Kindles, although to be fair to Amazon they did attempt to change how they handled situations like this. However, the licensing issue should have been handled before customers could buy it, yet in this instance customers were initially punished for something they had no control over (how are they supposed to know Amazon is offering ebooks without proper licensing?).
On Friday, it was “1984” and another Orwell book, “Animal Farm,” that were dropped down the memory hole by Amazon.com.
In a move that angered customers and generated waves of online pique, Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them.
Here are two separate examples of Warner Bros. canceling finished movies wholesale because it's a "wise business decision." These are completed films that will not be released.
Lots of shows/films are being licensed to streaming services and then disappearing altogether, since there was never a "physical" copy available to begin with. Here's a short list of some that you can't find anywhere anymore.
Finally, every company has a right to not do business with you. If Microsoft, Apple, Google, or any other content providers decide to ban your account (a very effective way to choose not to do business with a person), all your digital purchases are gone with it. That alone should be proof enough that you don't and never "owned" any of it. In the "olden times" Blockbuster couldn't come into your home and take back all the movies you ever bought from them (I know they mostly did rental, but they did sales, too) and smash your VHS so you couldn't watch anything anymore.
Two examples I'm aware of for that last part, I believe, are the TV shows House M. D. and Quantum Leap. For House, the intro music in most places you can find it has been replaced by the music in the end credits, and with Quantum Leap, i think a number of songs on the show have been swapped out due to rights and licensing
I'm not 100% sure on either of those if my memory is correct or the reasoning matches, but I do know there are other examples
Scrubs has different music in many places in the streaming episodes compared the original broadcast and DVDs.
I understand the concern and I'm sure it does happen, but I have literally never heard this complaint from a single person that I actually know. What movies/services has this actually happened to?
Pretty much every digital platform at some point or another.
Piracy is a service issue. Give people the option to stream all of their media with an option to download for the nerds, and sell it at a reasonable price, you will hurt piracy. Splintering all media up into a thousand streaming services and implementing black box licensing agreements is what pushes people to piracy.
Also, the number of seeds are a good measure for popularity of media that one might not had in their radar at all. Meanwhile, platforms try to push all sort of content only because they produced it, recommendation algorithms are needed (and insufficient), because there a huge load of crap being produced at such a high rate...
I remember the commercials "Piracy is not a victimless crime" pissed me off so hard, and drove me to download much more than I otherwise would have
People who bought the movie seeing anti-piracy ads: 🤡
People who pirated the movie not seeing anti-piracy ads because they've been cut out: 😎
Classic: punish the law abider while the law breakers have it made
I’m suspicious of the idea that women respond favorably to those notices.
“You wouldn’t download a car…”
Women: Gee, officer, that’s a good point.
Riiiiiiight…
Yeah, proper cohort attribution seems to be a little lacking by this data analyst. I'd say gender bias has already occured before your specific sample point... bro
Lol piracy intentions :P
now we need a follow up study comparing gender differences between who gets caught more.
"You wouldn't download a house."
Fuck you, I would if I could.
Real women use VPN’s. /s
I mean I do.
They work on my mother, but she has the kind of faith in the system I honestly envy. It seems like a much more tranquil existence.
This is the same woman who thinks the Judge Rotenburg center must not be that bad, because otherwise it would have already been closed down. She just...can't imagine a regulatory failure that big actually happening.
"what's the Judge Rotenburg Center?"
looks it up
"Jesus"
Couldn't even finish reading the Wiki article
Ok, I had to stop reading at the shock collars for mentally disabled kids. That's some introduction paragraph.
According to the article, these were threatening messages (one about potential viruses, another about legal penalties). It fits gender stereotypes perfectly for women to seek to mitigate risks while seek someone to hold their beer.
So the result of the study is “it’s pretty easy to scare women into submission”? Sounds like a great use of their time and resources. 🤮
You wouldn't break into someone's house and smash the DVDs they legally bought over the years would you?
The MPAA absolutely would. I'm happy they don't know where I live.
You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then STEAL IT AGAIN!
Username checks out and I have officially read all your comments in Richard Ayoade's voice.
Watch me
Here, hold my tea.
What? I'm not a fan of beer, and I'm out of cider. I'll just do this all hopped up on bergamot and tea.
You know what reduces copyright infringement? Making content available, affordable and accessible.
In the golden days of Netflix, I hardly torrented anything.
Shout out to Steam's regional pricing. Stopped my 3rd-world ass from piracy since 2012.
"oh, right. If I had just pirated this my content wouldn't be delayed by these stupid piracy warnings."
Sony lost any moral high ground when they put a commercial for a Toyota on my Blu-ray of 1408 which retailed for $35 at the time. And of course, you can't skip it.
That reminded me about those long, unskippable previews on DVDs... extremely annoying. VLC at least could skip straight to the disc menu though, pretty much ditched Windows Media Player and PowerDVD after that.
Now here I am on the high seas, with all my media consumption devices running some flavor of Linux. Have not had a single annoyance since.
I've been sailing the high seas since BBS's reigned supreme. Btw, there are telnet BBS's.
I have two hypotheses to explain the gender gap.
1. The effectiveness of the threats is inversely proportional to the tech expertise of the person being threatened. And your typical woman knows less about files, piracy, internet and the likes than your typical man.
If this hypothesis is true, then splitting cohorts based on tech expertise should show a smaller gap between men and women.
2. Society trains women and men to react differently to threat. In simple words: men are expected by society to fight back, while women are expected to passively accept the threat and play along.
If this hypothesis is true, you should be able to see and measure the different answers in other situations that don't involve piracy.
With that said, "perhaps" those anti-piracy messages would be more effective if they didn't rely on bullshit, to the point that sounds a lot like "I expect the viewers of this message to be both tech-illiterate and gullible".
Or, in my situation, it usually goes something like this.
[Woman] Hey honey, I wanna watch (insert movie name here)
[Man] Ok, gimme a bit and I'll have it for you.
I could go into the technical details on how I aquirred the media, but it's a waste of time and she doesn't give a shit anyway.
20 minutes later it's on Plex and things are balanced in the world.
My with set up Overseearr so that I can request things myself and don't have to ask her anymore.
No shit. How have they not figured this out 15 years ago when every DVD had non-skippable anti-piracy messages?
I thought it was sorted 35 years ago when they put the FBI warnings on VCR tapes.
We had an ad that actually said "piracy funds terrorism" here in the UK. Made me laugh my arse off.
This is a return to office movement all over again hahaha
I'm curious now, what was the justification for that claim?
There was none. The full quote from the ad is "Piracy funds terrorism, and will destroy our development and your future enjoyment". Whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Which terrorists are we funding?
Either way, those anti-piracy ads are stupidly hilarious.
Buying pirated DVDs is one example I assume?
The conclusion doesn't follow the study.
Threatening messages decrease piracy by women by over 50%, while increasing piracy by men by 18%.
So, unless there are three times as many male pirates as female, those messages are effective at reducing piracy.
I would suspect there are many times more male pirates than female.
Why?
Because of the technical skill required for pirating and the tech industry being mostly men currently.
My wife set up an ARR stack, because she didn't like downloading individual episodes. It's not that hard.
The point is that your wife is in the minority. The vast majority of people wouldn't consider torrenting, let alone *arrs. People with a greater willingness to tinker and learn technical stuff are the ones who'll consider it, and that group is overwhelmingly composed of men as of right now.
Result of gender stereotypes affecting the behaviour of female and male children, so male children grow up to be more encouraged to learn about technology and engage in risk taking behaviour.
Also inclination to risk taking behaviour is much higher in biological men than biological women, which would also give a potential reason why this advertisment works on women but not on men.
As always these attributions only represent the average of the women and men populations as a whole. Ofc. there is risk averse men and tech savvy women.
The word cis or cisgender is right there my friend. Trans people are still biological, after all.
So, unless there are three times as many male pirates as female, those messages are effective at reducing piracy.
That would not surprise me at all.
If I put the over/under at 10x male pirate to female, are you taking the under?
Complete garbage website. Tons of conflicting info, suppositions, and when you bother to look at the sources, their claims quickly fall apart. For example,
In 2022, pirate website visits hit a record of 215 billion.9
-9. "Average Teenager's iPod Has 800 Illegal Music Tracks" by The Times - written June 2008
I agree, but I haven't been able to find a lot of good studies past about 2005; and a lot has changed since then.
I guess we'll just have to take their word for it since they don't actually link to anything or provide the data. In fact, that whole statement doesn't even appear to be attributed to the University of Amsterdam. It appears the preceding statement about 25-34 year olds pirating is what's attributed to the university.
Don't have time to read the research paper linked by the article at the moment...
But isn't the research just looking at how people view the message and not "were you pirating stuff and now you're not?"
Men would literally rather maintain a seed ratio for private trackers and operate a seedbox than pay for movies.
good
If I could pay a fair price for the product I'm getting off torrents (no drm media files I can use on any device I want) I'd consider it. I buy books off humble bundle like all the time.
TIL that I'm a man.
You wouldn’t download an anti-piracy message.
Unironically, I have that ad saved under comedic commercials.
For a while when I had trailers enabled on Plex I would put the anti-piracy one up lol
One of my favourite anecdotes is that the agency stole the music in that ad. After a lot of effort the guy that made it finally got them to pay royalties.
Fuck you I won't do what you tell me.
Now you do what they told ya... now you're under control
Unexpected (...but Expected) rage
*Expected rage
I guess I should have capitalized the R.
You mean to tell me, people have "you can't tell me what to do" attitude, especially among men?
I only torrent if the show or movie I want to watch is unavailable on Netflix, and I don't want to pay for subscription to another streaming service if such shows are available in those. I'm not made of money.
So peculiar how it was easy to attract customers by having a single streaming service with plenty of content, a sane price, and no ads; and yet it is difficult to attract customers by having dozens of services with minimal content, inflating subscriptions, and also ads. Why are customers so hard to understand?
Netflix would have loved to have kept everything on their platform, but once they proved it was profitable, everyone yanked their stuff off and made their own streaming services. Of course, Netflix has shown that it would have become enshittified regardless.
It's actually advertising. "Ha, that's right, I can just clone the files."
It's the equivalent of "no balls, you won't"
My balls just got 18% bigger when you said that.
I've always said, if you can't sell me something based on interest and quality entertainment, then I'm pirating it, because I never would have bought it anyways.
"Oh, that's an option?"
I'm just waiting for that glorious day when I can, in fact, download a car.
Technically you can do so now. But you would need a metal 3D printer to build it (or make it out of plastic I guess). I remember reading something about a dude who bought a industrial 3D printer setup just so he could print out a Rolls Royce Phantom.
you wouldn't go to the toilet in a policeman's helmet
"You wouldn't mail it to his grieving widow?!"
You wouldn't then steal it again!
Downloading films is stealing. If you do it you WILL face the consequences!
I sure AF would download a car then seed a car for all my homies
Men. 🏴☠️
Nothing besides better pricing/permanent availability would stop me from piracy
I actually spent time on ripping the 'you wouldn't steal...' video from the first DVD that I had with it on it, just for the sheer irony. 😅
well yeah you simply cannot convince me that copying a sequence of 1s and 0s between two computers is tantamount to stealing
Yeah, it's silly. It's an entire industry built on "frivolous", optional consumption. They are making a killing even WITH piracy. They (the studios, etc.) make so much money that they can afford to selectively offer their product only to certain streaming services, region locked, and some of them have even paid to develop their own streaming platforms just for fun.
All they have to do is put their product on the real market, let any platform stream it for a licensing fee, and offer things that people actually want to buy: physical media and silly trinkets.
They're trying to squeeze blood from a stone. If they were struggling, they'd just let me buy their product for a reasonable fee instead of making me jump through hoops and watch commercials.
Dudes rock
Statistic is a really funny science. So some man who just pirate a 1 h 40 long movie will be inspired to also pirate a sitcom episode from the antipiracy campagne?
If a paid streaming service give users a worse experience than pirating, that's on them!
Ai summary because it seems like folks aren't reading the article:
The study finds that threatening anti-piracy messages aimed at deterring digital piracy have the opposite effect on men, finding they increase piracy behaviors by 18% in men. However, such messages can reduce intended piracy in women by over 50%. The research also showed educational messages had no impact on intended piracy for both men and women. Notably, those with more favorable views of piracy saw even higher increases in intended piracy when exposed to threatening messages. The findings suggest anti-piracy groups should tailor their messages for different genders and consider alternative educational approaches to avoid unintended consequences like increasing piracy.
Seems like threatening messages specifically drive piracy up in men, but not for women. If you have a favorable view on piracy then the aggressive ads make it more likely that you'll follow through.
It's pretty much saying that the industry may want to reconsider the way they frame their warnings because it may actually be influencing people to take action.
Machine-made brief made by a machine that didn't read the article because human isn't reading the article:
Yes 👍
tldr
"Womens, get your mans to pirate you the latest season of Outlander"
Make it easy for me to get the shit that I want and maybe I won’t pirate. It’s fucking easier to just pirate shit than to sign up for a bunch of services and deal with asscunt companies. Fuck you.
Exactly. If there was a Spotify-like service for video where i could get 99.9% of all tv and movies of all time in one place without ads, then I'd be willing to pay like 40 bucks a month, maybe even 50. But since no video service is even remotely close to that, then i just pirate instead, which provides exactly that type of service, and costs zero dollars a month.
Shit dude, give me access to most things I want to watch and most of the stuff I've forgotten about and that's worth $50/month as a minimum.
I've come full circle back to wearing an eye patch. I was using amazon, hulu, hbo and paramount, usually letting some lapse or pause to watch stuff on the other ones but they have all gone to shit. It's impossible to find what you might be interested because just like netflix they show the same shows/movies in multiple categories and their search sucks ass plus they are all missing a ton of good shows.
Now I am slowly downloading shows from the past that I don't already have in my library and haven't watched in years while I keep an eye out for new shows I might be interested in. I use showrss to auto download current shows that it has in its DB to a vps and I have sync setup to mirror it to my nas so I can stream it to my TV with vlc. So much easier than opening hulu, finding the show I want to catch up on, etc.
I’ve gone through the effort to build a 50terabyte media center. And am slowly filling it with tv shows, movies, and documentaries I like. It’s expensive and inconvenient. But still a fun hobby.
But the reason I do it is because I can have everything in one spot. Easily accessible. I control it. Never going back.
This is the way. It's just me who watches stuff off my nas and I'm fine with vlc so I don't use plex or jellyfin or whatever. I have an old (at this point) qnap nas that I've been doing the same with. Mine is a total of 40tb'ish iirc. I definitely need to get a second nas and some more drives but for now what I have is enough though I am going to run out of space soonish.
And they also shouldnt require specific browsers and a CPU that is less than 2 years old to stream content in resolutions above 720p.
Its not because its not possible, its because it lacks some bullshit copyright protection.
I find it interesting, how Spotify is often mentioned as the standard service because last time I used it, it struggled with similar issues as the video streaming platforms, that not every song I want to listen to is available
There's one thing that's preventing me from doing exactly that and that is, as a non-native English speaker with tinnitus, the constant struggle to find good subtitles that are properly synced. My lazy ass just wants to enjoy a movie at a normal volume without having to force myself to be super-focussed in order not to miss the whole goddamn plot of the movie.
If buying is not owning, copying is not stealing. Simple as that.
I can't find it now, but there was that one text post that went something like "1. Copying a movie costs the studio money, 2. Download a movie, 3. Make 1000 copies, 4. Studio goes bankrupt"
I saw one where it went:
Trolls ripped me a new one for saying that. I hope they wont do the same to you. But yes I agree.
If your business model needs undercover advocates to fake grassroots legitimacy you may have a problem.
Whos going to tell them?
Bankruptcy court?
I think bribing politicians to make it illegal to own anything is more likely.
But stealing is not owning so QED
I started this meme and have been having a ball watching it go wild. 😁
FYI, the original context was about a software company that bricked it's customers' lifetime licenses to force them into a subscription model.
I‘m pretty sure I remember the article about the incident.
It's a Louis Rossmann video.
https://youtu.be/tkmOddW1vu8
Thats possible! Thanks for sharing.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/tkmOddW1vu8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. It's definitely stealing. This is a piracy community. Don't feign moral superiority. They offer a product, you don't want to buy the product so you find it for free elsewhere. A digital file that you experience for a cost is no different than a book you buy from a store, regardless of the state of ownership after the fact. And regardless if it's a locally published author or a multi billion dollar studio, there's a cost of entry. Semantics is all you're arguing, not the legitimacy of piracy, when you share that copypasta.
"Theft" has a legal definition that at least in my jurisdiction is not met by downloading copyrighted materials. So, no, copying is not stealing.
Actually, even if you are an EU citizen, downloading copywritten material for free is very much considered theft. Ever read those FBI or Interpol statements at the beginning of films?
It's legally called "Copyright Infrigement" and it's not even part of Criminal Law in most Legal Jurisdictions, unlike Theft.
You're talking off your arse so hard that by now you must hovering on your own farts.
In many places, downloading is legal. It's the uploading that's illegal.
You are wrong. You are talking about copyright infringement, which is a civil matter and not a criminal one. That means the party whose rights have been infringed must prove that and sue you. But you won't go to jail if convicted, you'll have to pay damages. That's why the Netherlands, for example, used to be safe for torrenting. It wasn't legal, but copyright holders did not have the right to get account details from providers for IP addresses that were caught sharing content (sharing, not downloading) and thus had no one to sue. If it were a criminal matter, the state would be after you and they have a lot more rights.
In this case, the phrase's become more popular because people buy digital goods and, due to business shenanigans, they lose access to it, like buying a digital copy of a movie, "owning it", then no longer being able to access it because Sony couldn't be arsed to get the rights sorted out.
There's also the numerous situations where you can't legally own media, simply because it's not up for sale, like the vast majority of content on streaming sites. There's no way to own and consume some media except through the provider. It's still illegal, it's still an unauthorized copy, but in this case, it's the only way to "own" something.
Despite crappy licensing agreements and the tenuous relationship between consumers and ownership of a thing, finding a way to circumvent paying for a thing that is for sale in one form or another, is theft.
By that definition making coffee at home and taking it with you to work instead of buying is theft.
Even further anytime you make a product or do a service yourself or get a free alternative (for example, open source software instead of a close-source alternative) instead of buying would be theft by that definition.
That's not the legal definition of "theft", it's not even the historical or common sense definition of "theft", it's some kind of neo-Capitalist Dystopia definition of "theft" that only makes sense if you're starting from a foundation of there being a "right to make money".
How dare you cook dinner for yourself when McDonald's is right there? How will the franchise owners or the brand owners be able to buy meals for their children!?
Look man, I get that piracy isnt an ethically clean solution, but the current state of legal digital media is nowhere near ethically clean either, and I'm far more likely to root for a person than I am for a corporation. Especially since its because of corporations that the digital ownership sphere is so fucked
I will gladly take a position of moral superiority, because copyright has evolved from a very limited monopoly, intended to encourage creativity while balancing public access, into a licence for corporations to seek rent.
So, call it stealing if you like, I will sleep well tonight regardless.
You're taking a thing that costs money, for free. I don't see how it's anything other than stealing.
If you go to a theme park, and they want $20 for you to enter, and you decide you don't want to pay, you'll be in violation of their rules. Those that did pay will leave the park at the end of the day with a great experience, but with no presumption of ownership of the park. This is analogous to piracy by copying a movie. You didn't want to pay the entrance fee, so you found a way to have the same enjoyment for free. The people that paid for their media, however shitty the licensing agreement is, received the agreed upon service with no presumption of ownership.
I'm not here to defend streaming services or crappy licensing deals, but to pretend that it's not stealing, gaslighting everyone here into following your train of thought, is the definition of unearned moral superiority. You're not entitled to free media.
The only theft going on is the ongoing theft from the public domain, due to corruption of copyright law by special interests enabled by law for hire. Your analogy is irrelevant as the marginal cost of operating a park for an extra visitor is not zero.
He didn't take the movie/music from them. They still have it. It still exists on their tape/film/drive. If you are going to argue, at least argue in good faith, with words that mean what you are trying to say.
It's like refusing to pay the $20 park entrance fee and then making your own copy of the park in your backyard. Is that stealing $20 from the park?
I mean it's still possibly copyright and/or trademark infringement, but...
It's not stealing unless you delete the original when you download it. It's forgery at best
I prefer the term appropriation:
Still doesn't fit, because you're not taking anything, you're making a copy.
It's copyright infringement.
Cocksucking cabin is over there --> https://www.motionpictures.org/
Ever been to a library? Try it. They don't bite.
Those Ads at the beginning of legitimate copies of DVDS and movies, really bugged me, like why are you annoying the people who actually bought the product!? Also the people downloading stuff online seemed cool in those videos so I think the ads had the opposite effect a lot of the time.
That shit bothered me as far back as in the 80's on VHS rentals. They've never treated viewers as anything other than a sales opportunity. The motion picture industry has always been disgusting and dehumanizing.
Plus they come off like those ridiculous anti-drug ads that make it seem like a single puff of weed will make you shoot your friend in the face and run your dog over. They're just way over the top to the point that they're comical and easy to mock.
We are cool get in it with us chud.
I would absolutely download a car, sounded like the coolest shit to me as a 14 year old
Check out the cool hoodie!
Might have to cop that hoodie, but I'm not watching bros camrip 💀
Agreed, they're the worst!
Weirdly enough I used to enjoy camrips when I was broke and depressed, kinda gave me the feeling I was in a room with people.
My favourites were the ones where people couldn't sit still, felt good yelling at someone to sit the fuck down, knowing they cant hit me.
That's actually really sweet ahhh
hella 90s
Give me the means and hell yea I'd download a car!
This is Chad. Chad downloaded the movie from a pirate site, then smoked a joint and got a blowjob. Don’t be like Chad.
I would gladly pay good money to just download an MP4, but they have never given me that option.
Hello, yes i would like to buy high res music files, please show me a store that has a large catalog that I can choose from. Oh there are non?
I guess I'll have to look else where
There's qobuz but they don't have everything
Also Bandcamp.
Bot they also don't have a lot (i buy from both those sites btw)
Qobuz has a lot of DRM-free high-res music.
Oh thanks i haven't heard of that store I'll check em out
The media corps have people hooked on non downloadable streaming services. Today's youth don't know what an mp3 or a flac file is. Hell, a lot of them have never owned a CD. They're buying vinyl records (lol) and don't even own a vinyl record player.
Qobuz and Bandcamp have almost everything
I've been using bandcamp mostly for the indie artists i listen to, seems like Qobuz has a pretty decent selection of more mainstream artists
Bandcamp now is most user friendly, but even the creators cheat by deleting their 1$ offerings, and Yes I hate bundles of 600 albums for a price of 1$
gnutella
I liked beatport
Like GOG, but for movies. GOM?
Other studies found, that piracy actually increases sales, offsetting the (always oversestimated) loss of revenue.
So, no, that's a lie.
The real challenge to creative economies are the billionaires sucking all the profit from album sales or deleting television shows from the face of the earth for a tax writeoff.
Agreed. I copied that exact quote to see if someone called it out already. Also this one:
Citation fucking needed.
As an anecdotal example, I pay for Netflix, Spotify, Prime, and Kindle Unlimited (and CBC Gem partly through taxes), I regularly buy videogames and ebooks (and pay for a library with taxes), and I buy phone apps. I'm paying as much as I comfortably can for media in various forms.
I also pirate TV/film content, books, games, apps, operating systems, etc. A lot.
But about half the TV/film piracy is content I have already paid to get streaming access to simply because it's easier to pirate than figure out which service it's on, and the other half is mostly freely available on YouTube at garbage quality.
The content industry, net everything, is getting all the cash out of me that they ever will. Piracy has 0 net effect on my media spending; I'd just consume different content, content at a lower quality, spend more time on Where To Stream, and get books from the library a bit more often.
i remember when valve's steam completely killed nearly all video game piracy just by existing
There was a golden age of Netflix where I basically stopped pirating movies and TV too.
Now streaming is a fragmented ad-ridden nightmare and I pirate more than ever before. It's not like it's free either, I pay for a VPN, disk storage, let alone the time and maintenance.
If I could buy (and actually own) high quality digital copies of movies/tv with no bullshit at a reasonable price that would be a serious value proposition that would beat out the hassles that come along with piracy.
Fully agree. Why is renting a movie the same cost as a month of some random subscription service? Then you also get a copy you can only watch for like 24 hours. If you "buy" you still dont get access to the file, just some digital copy that can be taken away at any point.
I mean I always knew digital renting was kind of a lame idea, but I didn't put together how monumentally bad it is until you said that...
Imagine if steam sold movies and TV shows
They did that 10 years ago. Right around the time they added the video stuff. Didn't work out. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/steam-stepping-back-from-selling-films
Around 50 are still available if you know how to look for them: https://store.steampowered.com/search/?sort_by=Released_DESC&category1=992
Watch Kung Fury if you want to test it. I loved the cheese: https://store.steampowered.com/app/374570/Kung_Fury/
I don't think Steam's business model works well for Movies/TV. Besides delivering the game files after your initial purchase Steam also continues to host and deliver update files for games over time, as well as lots of extras like syncing game saves, the workshop for mods, etc. I like having a centralized service that offers these features and acts a launcher for games because it's very convenient. These features are a huge value add that makes the service very attractive over piracy.
But for Movies/TV the main thing I want is the ability to watch the content, at a high quality, on whatever device I want, whenever I want to watch it. Theoretically this shouldn't be to hard, but with the way all the rights work it's effectively impossible for any streaming service to offer this. Content gets removed all the time, it's spread across a ton of different services that all offer a different experience. In a vain attempt to thwart pirates it's a pain in the ass to watch content offline so it's unreliable at best.
The only way to get the experience I want with Movies/TV is to pirate the content.
And Spotify pretty much killed music piracy . Although you could argue they just changed who did the robbing
I think people still pirate music by downloading them off of youtube
To the point where a lot of gamers have paid for more games than they'd ever have time to play.
Hey... I only have 600 Steam Games and i don't remember half of them... But don't worry, I will play them, after Dragons Dogma 2 and the Elden Ring DLC of course.
After I'm finished doing the same shit over and over again for another 7-800 hours in warframe I'm sure I'll get around to playing some of the games I actually paid money for.
This is the truth man, I will even buy games on Steam that I've pirated in the past with no intention of playing them again. We all largely stopped pirating movies and TV for almost a decade when the streaming experience was superior.
If there was a steam like service for movies and tv and music that worked on all my platforms I would pay for it just like I paid for a home server running the *arrs.
"You wouldn't put on a tricorn hat, would you?"
I actually would, if I could find a nice one...
"...and leave your job to sail the seas?"
... That's an option? I didn't even consider-
"And you certainly wouldn't drink rum, and fire cannons, and carry a saber and tell silly parrot related puns."
buys a tricorn hat
Steals a tricorn hat
FTFY
Downloads a Tricorner hat
You wouldn't!
I love it when corpos remind us that there is an alternative to purchasing their add bloated products.
We only started pirating after Amazon refused to let us play movies we paid for because our hardware was too old for their DRM. It was a 2014 PC made of recycled parts. At the time, it was less than 10 years old. We pirated the same movie and realized it was easier to find, higher quality, and surprise, surprise, capable of playing on a PC we kept out of the landfill.
When I see anti piracy measures that punish people that don't pirate, such as massive performance hits or privacy violating features, it makes me want to pirate more.
720 streams run from strange websites in timbucktoo have higher fidelity than the 4K stream I paid good money for.
Here's a great price and you can share it with your friends. Wait not those friends. Wait your phone isn't authorized anymore. Okay you authorized your phone but you need to authorize it again. Okay we just doubled the price and cut the quality again. Now you can't watch the movies that you downloaded for offline viewing without an internet connection. Now your ad-free service has ads.
Netflix can take a long hard suck on my pudding factory, they're never going to see another penny of my money again, and this is from somebody that goes back to the DVD days of Netflix.
Oh yeah, and we changed the movie too.
I rented a car to do Uber with while I apply for jobs, and the car is an electric. They had no gas powered cars available.
It is such a pain in the ass. I’ve only had it for a couple of days, but so far I’ve spent 2.5 hours today waiting for charge, and about 5 hours driving passengers.
I’m ready. I want to download a car. Just need someone to point me in the right direction.
I don't really understand the gender difference thing, because I would think that in general it comes down to understanding what "ownership" is and that it has been taken from us, replaced with "licensing" where we have to buy the same movie every 10 years on a new format, and now that streaming is THE format, companies have made The Producers real, where they can make a whole movie, shitcan it, and get a tax break. We're dealing with items we've paid for being removed from our digital storage boxes, because the "rights ran out." It's wild, because it used to be that you bought a movie and it didn't matter that the rights ran out you could still watch your fucking movie in your own home. Same for old video games. If you have old copies of Grand Theft Auto, you can still listen to the great soundtrack, because they hadn't stripped the music they lost licensing for out of the new copies.
I mean, going back to when the music companies were suing music fans for downloading music, the RIAA sued Limewire for so much that if the max payout was given to every rightsholder for all the piracy going on, that it would be a bill larger than the amount of money that actually existed.[^1]
When the fines for all piracy that exists would be bigger than the amount of money that exists, its clear that the system is fucking broken and has been.
Nobody respects copyright, and that started when Disney fucked us all over with the Mickey Mouse Protection Act in the 1990's.
The rightsholders did this to themselves by making it increasingly draconian.
When cops are playing copyrighted music when they're being filmed so people can't post it online without it being auto-removed for having copyrighted music in it, things are flat out fucked and everybody knows it.
It's akin to living the end stages of the Soviet Union with Hypernormalization. Everything is totally fucked, but everyone is running around trying to pretend that nothing has changed and everything is fine.
For citizens who get nothing but working themselves to death and taxes that do nothing for them, piracy is one of those small "fuck you"'s that we can give to the rich.
[^1]: "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) estimates that filesharing website LimeWire owes it over $72 trillion dollars (£46 trillion) in damages. ... Given that the combined wealth of the entire planet is around $60 trillion (£38 trillion), the RIAA likely has no hope of securing this in damages, but believe this is what it is owed, reports Computerworld.com."
I think its simply, at least for a while, the tech space was male dominated. And depending on the type of piracy, it requires an amount of tech skills
Probably the reason, pretty valid point here.
Also, there's so much "free" content that a lot of young ones don't even bother or care about learning about piracy and how to do it
This as well. I will say even the time where i would normally spend watching shows on stuff like dailymotion primewire etc i know most just watch youtube channels
As a woman into tech I’ll chime in. We seem to have a mild case of ignorant as shit. My friends are all completely blind to tech and piracy. Now I don’t blame them because they’ve been taught by capitalist culture to care about pointless things since birth, but god does it hurt sometimes and make me want to claw my eyes out. Patience and education will solve the gap.
What is even more painful is seeing friends glued to TikTok on their phones all day when they have STEM degrees. I didn't grow up in a typical household, so I have a hard time relating to other women, but I don't get it either. Do your friends with kids seem to be this way more than those without?
Indeed. Piracy is good because it is preservation
Your mistake is thinking that the average person
I understand the concern and I'm sure it does happen, but I have literally never heard this complaint from a single person that I actually know. What movies/services has this actually happened to?
No argument against anything you said related to copyright laws, just to be clear.
Here's an article that was discussed extensively on HackerNews about how Apple has the rights to remove items you've paid for from your digital library:
https://theoutline.com/post/6167/apple-can-delete-the-movies-you-purchased-without-telling-you
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17970197
Here's an example where Amazon removed books from people's Kindles, although to be fair to Amazon they did attempt to change how they handled situations like this. However, the licensing issue should have been handled before customers could buy it, yet in this instance customers were initially punished for something they had no control over (how are they supposed to know Amazon is offering ebooks without proper licensing?).
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
Here are two separate examples of Warner Bros. canceling finished movies wholesale because it's a "wise business decision." These are completed films that will not be released.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/batgirl-movie-shelved-dc-studios-head-peter-safran-1235506921/
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2024/2/12/24070471/coyote-vs-acme-movie-canceled-new-yorker-article-news-warner-wbd-zaslav
Lots of shows/films are being licensed to streaming services and then disappearing altogether, since there was never a "physical" copy available to begin with. Here's a short list of some that you can't find anywhere anymore.
https://www.looper.com/1333407/best-streaming-shows-you-cant-watch-anywhere/
Finally, every company has a right to not do business with you. If Microsoft, Apple, Google, or any other content providers decide to ban your account (a very effective way to choose not to do business with a person), all your digital purchases are gone with it. That alone should be proof enough that you don't and never "owned" any of it. In the "olden times" Blockbuster couldn't come into your home and take back all the movies you ever bought from them (I know they mostly did rental, but they did sales, too) and smash your VHS so you couldn't watch anything anymore.
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/xbox/forum/all/do-you-really-lose-offline-access-to-all-digital/297c0f39-51ff-45f3-b0ff-7edf2a57b195
Also, I'm pretty well aware that most average people don't understand this subject at all.
Two examples I'm aware of for that last part, I believe, are the TV shows House M. D. and Quantum Leap. For House, the intro music in most places you can find it has been replaced by the music in the end credits, and with Quantum Leap, i think a number of songs on the show have been swapped out due to rights and licensing
I'm not 100% sure on either of those if my memory is correct or the reasoning matches, but I do know there are other examples
Scrubs has different music in many places in the streaming episodes compared the original broadcast and DVDs.
Pretty much every digital platform at some point or another.
Relevant xkcd
Piracy is a service issue. Give people the option to stream all of their media with an option to download for the nerds, and sell it at a reasonable price, you will hurt piracy. Splintering all media up into a thousand streaming services and implementing black box licensing agreements is what pushes people to piracy.
Also, the number of seeds are a good measure for popularity of media that one might not had in their radar at all. Meanwhile, platforms try to push all sort of content only because they produced it, recommendation algorithms are needed (and insufficient), because there a huge load of crap being produced at such a high rate...
I remember the commercials "Piracy is not a victimless crime" pissed me off so hard, and drove me to download much more than I otherwise would have
Won't somebody think of the shareholders?!
People who bought the movie seeing anti-piracy ads: 🤡
People who pirated the movie not seeing anti-piracy ads because they've been cut out: 😎
Classic: punish the law abider while the law breakers have it made
I’m suspicious of the idea that women respond favorably to those notices.
“You wouldn’t download a car…”
Women: Gee, officer, that’s a good point.
Riiiiiiight…
Yeah, proper cohort attribution seems to be a little lacking by this data analyst. I'd say gender bias has already occured before your specific sample point... bro
Lol piracy intentions :P
now we need a follow up study comparing gender differences between who gets caught more.
"You wouldn't download a house."
Fuck you, I would if I could.
Real women use VPN’s. /s
I mean I do.
They work on my mother, but she has the kind of faith in the system I honestly envy. It seems like a much more tranquil existence.
This is the same woman who thinks the Judge Rotenburg center must not be that bad, because otherwise it would have already been closed down. She just...can't imagine a regulatory failure that big actually happening.
"what's the Judge Rotenburg Center?" looks it up "Jesus"
Couldn't even finish reading the Wiki article
Ok, I had to stop reading at the shock collars for mentally disabled kids. That's some introduction paragraph.
According to the article, these were threatening messages (one about potential viruses, another about legal penalties). It fits gender stereotypes perfectly for women to seek to mitigate risks while seek someone to hold their beer.
So the result of the study is “it’s pretty easy to scare women into submission”? Sounds like a great use of their time and resources. 🤮
You wouldn't break into someone's house and smash the DVDs they legally bought over the years would you?
The MPAA absolutely would. I'm happy they don't know where I live.
You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then STEAL IT AGAIN!
Reference season 2 episode 3 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Username checks out and I have officially read all your comments in Richard Ayoade's voice.
Watch me
Here, hold my tea.
What? I'm not a fan of beer, and I'm out of cider. I'll just do this all hopped up on bergamot and tea.
You know what reduces copyright infringement? Making content available, affordable and accessible.
In the golden days of Netflix, I hardly torrented anything.
Shout out to Steam's regional pricing. Stopped my 3rd-world ass from piracy since 2012.
"oh, right. If I had just pirated this my content wouldn't be delayed by these stupid piracy warnings."
Sony lost any moral high ground when they put a commercial for a Toyota on my Blu-ray of 1408 which retailed for $35 at the time. And of course, you can't skip it.
That reminded me about those long, unskippable previews on DVDs... extremely annoying. VLC at least could skip straight to the disc menu though, pretty much ditched Windows Media Player and PowerDVD after that.
Now here I am on the high seas, with all my media consumption devices running some flavor of Linux. Have not had a single annoyance since.
I've been sailing the high seas since BBS's reigned supreme. Btw, there are telnet BBS's.
I have two hypotheses to explain the gender gap.
1. The effectiveness of the threats is inversely proportional to the tech expertise of the person being threatened. And your typical woman knows less about files, piracy, internet and the likes than your typical man.
If this hypothesis is true, then splitting cohorts based on tech expertise should show a smaller gap between men and women.
2. Society trains women and men to react differently to threat. In simple words: men are expected by society to fight back, while women are expected to passively accept the threat and play along.
If this hypothesis is true, you should be able to see and measure the different answers in other situations that don't involve piracy.
With that said, "perhaps" those anti-piracy messages would be more effective if they didn't rely on bullshit, to the point that sounds a lot like "I expect the viewers of this message to be both tech-illiterate and gullible".
Or, in my situation, it usually goes something like this.
[Woman] Hey honey, I wanna watch (insert movie name here)
[Man] Ok, gimme a bit and I'll have it for you.
I could go into the technical details on how I aquirred the media, but it's a waste of time and she doesn't give a shit anyway.
20 minutes later it's on Plex and things are balanced in the world.
My with set up Overseearr so that I can request things myself and don't have to ask her anymore.
SMB share and VLC is where it's at
No shit. How have they not figured this out 15 years ago when every DVD had non-skippable anti-piracy messages?
I thought it was sorted 35 years ago when they put the FBI warnings on VCR tapes.
We had an ad that actually said "piracy funds terrorism" here in the UK. Made me laugh my arse off.
This is a return to office movement all over again hahaha
I'm curious now, what was the justification for that claim?
There was none. The full quote from the ad is "Piracy funds terrorism, and will destroy our development and your future enjoyment". Whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Which terrorists are we funding?
Either way, those anti-piracy ads are stupidly hilarious.
Buying pirated DVDs is one example I assume?
The conclusion doesn't follow the study.
Threatening messages decrease piracy by women by over 50%, while increasing piracy by men by 18%.
So, unless there are three times as many male pirates as female, those messages are effective at reducing piracy.
I would suspect there are many times more male pirates than female.
Why?
Because of the technical skill required for pirating and the tech industry being mostly men currently.
My wife set up an ARR stack, because she didn't like downloading individual episodes. It's not that hard.
The point is that your wife is in the minority. The vast majority of people wouldn't consider torrenting, let alone *arrs. People with a greater willingness to tinker and learn technical stuff are the ones who'll consider it, and that group is overwhelmingly composed of men as of right now.
I'm seeing 3:1 male female from this source, but I figure data collection on torrent users is tricky: https://marketsplash.com/torrent-statistics/
Result of gender stereotypes affecting the behaviour of female and male children, so male children grow up to be more encouraged to learn about technology and engage in risk taking behaviour.
Also inclination to risk taking behaviour is much higher in biological men than biological women, which would also give a potential reason why this advertisment works on women but not on men.
As always these attributions only represent the average of the women and men populations as a whole. Ofc. there is risk averse men and tech savvy women.
The word cis or cisgender is right there my friend. Trans people are still biological, after all.
That would not surprise me at all.
If I put the over/under at 10x male pirate to female, are you taking the under?
Bittorrent is also only a portion of pirating, but that's showing 3:1 globally, https://marketsplash.com/torrent-statistics/
Complete garbage website. Tons of conflicting info, suppositions, and when you bother to look at the sources, their claims quickly fall apart. For example,
-9. "Average Teenager's iPod Has 800 Illegal Music Tracks" by The Times - written June 2008
I agree, but I haven't been able to find a lot of good studies past about 2005; and a lot has changed since then.
46% of pirates in the UK were women in 2018.
Based on what data?
University of Amsterdam Institute for Information Law, indirectly sourced from here: https://dataprot.net/statistics/piracy-statistics/
I guess we'll just have to take their word for it since they don't actually link to anything or provide the data. In fact, that whole statement doesn't even appear to be attributed to the University of Amsterdam. It appears the preceding statement about 25-34 year olds pirating is what's attributed to the university.
Don't have time to read the research paper linked by the article at the moment...
But isn't the research just looking at how people view the message and not "were you pirating stuff and now you're not?"
Men would literally rather maintain a seed ratio for private trackers and operate a seedbox than pay for movies.
good
If I could pay a fair price for the product I'm getting off torrents (no drm media files I can use on any device I want) I'd consider it. I buy books off humble bundle like all the time.
TIL that I'm a man.
You wouldn’t download an anti-piracy message.
Unironically, I have that ad saved under comedic commercials.
For a while when I had trailers enabled on Plex I would put the anti-piracy one up lol
One of my favourite anecdotes is that the agency stole the music in that ad. After a lot of effort the guy that made it finally got them to pay royalties.
Fuck you I won't do what you tell me.
Now you do what they told ya... now you're under control
Unexpected (...but Expected) rage
*Expected rage
I guess I should have capitalized the R.
You mean to tell me, people have "you can't tell me what to do" attitude, especially among men?
I only torrent if the show or movie I want to watch is unavailable on Netflix, and I don't want to pay for subscription to another streaming service if such shows are available in those. I'm not made of money.
So peculiar how it was easy to attract customers by having a single streaming service with plenty of content, a sane price, and no ads; and yet it is difficult to attract customers by having dozens of services with minimal content, inflating subscriptions, and also ads. Why are customers so hard to understand?
Netflix would have loved to have kept everything on their platform, but once they proved it was profitable, everyone yanked their stuff off and made their own streaming services. Of course, Netflix has shown that it would have become enshittified regardless.
It's actually advertising. "Ha, that's right, I can just clone the files."
It's the equivalent of "no balls, you won't"
My balls just got 18% bigger when you said that.
I've always said, if you can't sell me something based on interest and quality entertainment, then I'm pirating it, because I never would have bought it anyways.
"Oh, that's an option?"
I'm just waiting for that glorious day when I can, in fact, download a car.
Technically you can do so now. But you would need a metal 3D printer to build it (or make it out of plastic I guess). I remember reading something about a dude who bought a industrial 3D printer setup just so he could print out a Rolls Royce Phantom.
Printing the externals is doable today, though definitely expensive, simply from the volume of material needed, even if you can outsource or rent a big enough 3D printer (I'd probably print out of nylon powder or something similar)*.
With the exterior printed, just slap an electric motor somewhere and you're golden (after setting up the whole rest of the car, of course)
*Actually, i'd probably print a neat looking bike frame and maybe some protection, way less material needed
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
I'd probably print out of nylon powder or something similar
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
you wouldn't go to the toilet in a policeman's helmet
"You wouldn't mail it to his grieving widow?!"
You wouldn't then steal it again!
Downloading films is stealing. If you do it you WILL face the consequences!
I sure AF would download a car then seed a car for all my homies
Men. 🏴☠️
Nothing besides better pricing/permanent availability would stop me from piracy
I actually spent time on ripping the 'you wouldn't steal...' video from the first DVD that I had with it on it, just for the sheer irony. 😅
well yeah you simply cannot convince me that copying a sequence of 1s and 0s between two computers is tantamount to stealing
Yeah, it's silly. It's an entire industry built on "frivolous", optional consumption. They are making a killing even WITH piracy. They (the studios, etc.) make so much money that they can afford to selectively offer their product only to certain streaming services, region locked, and some of them have even paid to develop their own streaming platforms just for fun.
All they have to do is put their product on the real market, let any platform stream it for a licensing fee, and offer things that people actually want to buy: physical media and silly trinkets.
They're trying to squeeze blood from a stone. If they were struggling, they'd just let me buy their product for a reasonable fee instead of making me jump through hoops and watch commercials.
Dudes rock
Statistic is a really funny science. So some man who just pirate a 1 h 40 long movie will be inspired to also pirate a sitcom episode from the antipiracy campagne?
If a paid streaming service give users a worse experience than pirating, that's on them!
I have just the song for this effect
Thanks, i needed this 🙏
You're very welcome 🙂
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
just the song
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Dudes rock
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Dudes rock
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Women amiritr
Ai summary because it seems like folks aren't reading the article:
The study finds that threatening anti-piracy messages aimed at deterring digital piracy have the opposite effect on men, finding they increase piracy behaviors by 18% in men. However, such messages can reduce intended piracy in women by over 50%. The research also showed educational messages had no impact on intended piracy for both men and women. Notably, those with more favorable views of piracy saw even higher increases in intended piracy when exposed to threatening messages. The findings suggest anti-piracy groups should tailor their messages for different genders and consider alternative educational approaches to avoid unintended consequences like increasing piracy.
Seems like threatening messages specifically drive piracy up in men, but not for women. If you have a favorable view on piracy then the aggressive ads make it more likely that you'll follow through.
It's pretty much saying that the industry may want to reconsider the way they frame their warnings because it may actually be influencing people to take action.
Yes 👍
tldr
"Womens, get your mans to pirate you the latest season of Outlander"