Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dylan604 1806 days ago
> But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations.

Those expectations are unrealistic, and quite frankly entitled. When did Netflix ever state that any content available now will be available for ever? It's the nature of the business that content is only made available for a set amount of time. What does complaining about it on the internet expect to do anyways?
2 comments
ClumsyPilot 1806 days ago
"Those expectations ... entitled."

He is the customer, Netflix is asking for his money

link
abnry 1805 days ago
Right, he's the customer, but he violates the customer-supplier social contract by pirating.
link
ClumsyPilot 1805 days ago
Well my grandma doesn't, and Netflix doesn't let her watch SG1 either, so how is this relevant?
link
sillysaurusx 1806 days ago
What's wrong with being entitled?

We're entitled to our entertainment. If we don't get it, we torrent it.

link
abnry 1805 days ago
You are not entitled to entertainment. If there is literally anything as petulant and first-world narcissistic it is the belief that one is entitled to entertainment.
link
sillysaurusx 1805 days ago
But... we are, because we can pirate it if it's not available to us.

I suppose "entitled" isn't the correct word. Is there a word for "That's just the way it is"?

Basically, there exists a way to acquire entertainment. It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us at a reasonable market value. If the market value exceeds the threshold of reasonableness, then we downshift into torrenting the entertainment.

It's a business opportunity. The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.

link
dylan604 1805 days ago
>"That's just the way it is"?

How many sins of the past have used that as an excuse? It's just a very immature way of looking at life.

>It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us

And that doesn't sound entitled??? Wow. Not that we are lucky for someone providing us entertainment (within the confines of how they choose to share it)?

>The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.

Did they though? Really learned it? Seems like they got what the wanted where nobody actually owns anything and is only able to rent the content from them.

link
sillysaurusx 1805 days ago
It’s an interesting question. I think I’ll meet you halfway and debate it.

The central question here seems to be ethics. Is it moral to download entertainment when someone doesn’t want you to?

My view is, nobody is harmed. You could argue that there was financial harm to the original show — in this case, Stargate SG-1. But I would say they’ve failed to give us a way to reasonably enjoy the show, when the best alternative is to simply torrent it.

Suppose the show was made available for $2,000. Would you still argue that it’s wrong to torrent it?

If so, we’ll have to agree to disagree; my view is that if nobody is harmed, then it’s usually fine.

If not, then there exists a price threshold beyond which it would become unreasonable to expect someone to pay. The person you were replying to was saying that they felt the show crossed that threshold.

link
dylan604 1805 days ago
An honest debate. I'm kind of shocked.

I still come back to the fact that there is no right/expectation of anyone to be able to view anything. The fact that something exists and someone says they should be able to watch it is the entitled bit in my opinion. There is no "god given right" to entertainment. There is no "pursuit of entertainment" set out in the US Constitution. If someone graciously allows you to watch/view their work, then that's great and we hope you were entertained. The expectation one should be able to watch/view anything at anytime is a bit petty. If someone asks to be paid to view that entertainment but in a very controlled/restricted manner (ex: buying a ticket to a limited capacity venu), this seems to be accepted. However, once it was allowed to be broadcast/streamed with certain restrictions (for a limited 3 month period), people feel like this is not acceptable.

At the end of the day, it is the content owner's discretion to allow/disallow as they see fit. People do not like calling it stealling because no physcial copy has been removed from the owner's possession, but the owner is still be wronged by not being allowed to control the thing they created. I do not know what to call that.

link