|
|
|
|
|
by dtx1
1947 days ago
|
|
no, that comparison doesn't really work. If your buisness model requires large scale censorship of the internet to remain profitable, then your buisness model is broken. This was true in the 90s where downloading a few thousand mp3s was the most you could get out of your modem and it's true today for complete 4k blueray rips. Spotify and co have obliterated music piracy on the internet. It's hard to find torrents for music these days and even the best private trackers can't compete with Spotifys ever growing catalog. Add to that the availability of Spotify on linux, android and basically every other device that has a DAC in my household and i wouldn't even bother trying to pirate music anymore. There was a time, when this was true for netflix, or at least it felt true to a degree. But the movie and tv industry chose to split their catalog between an ever growing number of competing offers, thus movie piracy is alive and well. The same is true for most games these days. Why bother pirating a game, requiring complicated installation, slow download speeds and a lack of updates when i can buy it on steam and get the convenience of fast downloads, automatic updates, reliable only gameplay etc.? The reality is that copying bits of data has become so trivial, it's impossible to monetize it. That's why everything's a SaaS in the cloud these days. Trying to restrict that is a fools errand at best. For piracy to die, it has to become inconvenient and the legal alternatives have to be priced reasonable. |
|
Eh? Maybe it depends on a musical genre, but from my experience musical piracy is about as popular as it ever was, with a lot of new releases every day (although I admit that it didn't really grow). I can still find anything I'm interested in less than a minute.
I also think, that having your own musical library is more convenient than spotify. As an example - https://ibb.co/VLTh5fD and https://ibb.co/fnxnMmG