[mc32]

Maybe it's more akin to Boycotting.

It's not robbing someone but it is removing some potential revenue. And, so I don't come across as hypocrite, I also circumvent the vast majority of subscriptions, but I realize I am denying some miniscule revenue and over time, all added up, could be something.

So the problem is _both_ friction and circumvention in the least, as well as overcharging. Would I pay for Cable? No. Would I pay for Netflix? Why not. They offer a good product at a very reasonable price with little friction and I would not try circumvention, because there is no reason.

[mehrdada]

> but it is removing some potential revenue

Dozens of studies about music have proven this theory false. In fact music “piracy” likely has increased their revenue because they spread music. Intuitively you can see why labels have gave in to free as supported YouTube models as opposed to locking them down; they wouldn’t have done this had CD sale revenue was higher, but in aggregate having people’s attention is worth more. Similarly, I can for sure let you know that I would not pay for WSJ if I couldn’t read their articles under any capacity. For me not to be able to read it just decreases their network and thus their value in other ways. And now that I’m more familiar with them I might pay one day.

[mc32]

YT, unless you subscribe, shows ads. News sites which let you browse unimpeded show ads --but have those ads blocked by many. So, when they try to make a quid pro quo bargain (ads for content) people often don't like complying with their end of the bargain.

Music has evolved into paid services or ad supported services. News content so far has failed with the ad supported model and unless they create some cartel (a spotify for news, let's say) they have little alternative beside the direct subscription model.