[johnchristopher]

> No, it's like complaining that a chain of restaurant randomly takes dishes off the menu, and it's different in every country.

Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

All restaurants I know have dishes that are taken off (because if's off season, because a new chef, because they try something else, etc.).

Plus, the analogy is distorted, you can't complain about a different menu in another country, it's not like you can hop from countries to countries 20 times per evening to get your Mc Bulgogi Burger.

> Eventually you get fed up with unpredictable menu and stop going there.

Good, that's what competition is about between services.

[nextlevelwizard]

The food analogy is shitty because you know what I do when McDonalds takes burgers off of their menu? I go to the grill next door to get my burger.

With movies/shows the problem is that there is no alternative. If I want to watch Startrek I can't just put on the Simpsons as an alternative and if I've purchaced a streaming service explicitly because of Startrek then I'm going to feel like I was cheated.

You can argue until heat death of the universe whose fault it is, but in the mean time if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way. (and importing expensive DVDs in an erra where literally none of my devices have optical bays is not actual option)

[johnchristopher]

> The food analogy is shitty because you know what I do when McDonalds takes burgers off of their menu? I go to the grill next door to get my burger.

You don't pull a tantrum on an Internet forum about how you are now forced to hire an anon crew to get into a McDonald's warehouse to get your Mac Something ? Indeed you just go to another service provider to see if they have the Mac Something or something else to satisfy your palates. (sorry I kept the food analogy going).

> and if I've purchaced a streaming service explicitly because of Startrek then I'm going to feel like I was cheated.

Read the lines on the contract. No one is cheated. Especially for the price you are paying by the way. Netflix is still a rental service. (fun fact: Netflix doesn't even have full international rights on its own productions, see: orange is the new black, arrested development).

> You can argue until heat death of the universe whose fault it is, but in the mean time if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way.

I will argue until heat death that SG1 content owners are not forcing people to pirate their content. It's just hard cold facts. You may not like it because you feel like you are entitled to it or that it doesn't matter much that no one gets hurt or it's stupid or whatever, that's not really the point. The point is that they are not forcing you. It's on you when you decide to go torrent hunting, launch a DCC+, get popcorn, whatever.

> if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way

Doesn't mean you are entitled to it or that you are forced to do it. No one is forcing you to pirate SG1 or Star Trek Voyager. It's entirely on you, own up your actions.

I am not saying you should or shouldn't, I am not questioning the morality of it. All I am saying is "nobody forced you".

> (and importing expensive DVDs in an erra where literally none of my devices have optical bays is not actual option)

Again, that's on you. Not content owner's fault that you don't have a DVD player.

Now let's take a step forward. Imagine you pirated off those SG1 episodes. But then you get a letter from copyright holders and a fine from whatever judicial instances in your country manages these kind of things.

You don't want to pay the fine, you go to courts.

Do you believe for an instant arguments like "I pirated those episodes because they were not available anymore on Netflix, they basically forced my hand ; promised, once they are back up I'll subscribe again to Netflix" will fly ?

[ClumsyPilot]

"Especially for the price you are paying by the way."

Customer - Sir, there is cow shit in my burger instead of meat

Chef - you should be happy for the price!

Its their job to set the price, and they dont offer a premium subscribtion for $50 or whatever. I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.

"Read the lines on the contract. No one is cheated."

Thats a really bad argument, any lawyer can write a ccontract that will let you cheat or scam laymen. In UK we have been selling apartments with 'ground rent' fees that grow exponentially, pyramid schemes have contracts, people pressed into debt bondage have contracts.

[johnchristopher]

> "Especially for the price you are paying by the way."

> Customer - Sir, there is cow shit in my burger instead of meat

> Chef - you should be happy for the price!

> Its their job to set the price, and they dont offer a premium subscribtion for $50 or whatever. I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.

Did the chef force you to eat it ? No. The shit burger is on the menu and you decided to take one anyway. It's on you.

Are you complaining because there are shows you don't like on Netflix ? Aka the the shit in a burger ? What could you reasonably expect Netflix to do about that O_o ? Remove content you don't like ?

It's getting ridiculous but this takes the cake:

> I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.

You are literally whining about a metaphorical free burger that no one is forcing you to touch.

[dmitriid]

> Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

That's why analogies never work.

Here, it's simple:

- that person is already paying Netflix, legally

- SG1 was available on Netflix, so the money was going to whoever owns the right to SG1, too

- Then SG1 was not made available (for whichever reason, in 99% of the cases blame the rights owner, and you'll be right)

So now the rights owner earns exactly zero dollars for SG1 from people who are paying for Netflix.

If those people chose to pirate SG1, literally nothing in the equation will change: the owners will keep not getting the money.

And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.

[dylan604]

>So now the rights owner earns exactly zero dollars for SG1 from people who are paying for Netflix.

That's not how it works. Netflix pays the licensing fees to the content owners, and then hope to recover that money from subscribers. Maybe there's a clause that says they get extra money based on number of viewers, but very doubtful for some catalog title. The fees have to be paid upfront, and it's not a monthly pay as you go where if you miss a payment you get the license reposessed.

[johnchristopher]

> If those people chose to pirate SG1, literally nothing in the equation will change: the owners will keep not getting the money.

Wrong. The owners won't get money from people who pirated content once they make their content available again.

> And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.

No. The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.

[dmitriid]

> The owners won't get money from people who pirated content once they make their content available again.

1. Their own fault

2. It has been proven, time and again, that piracy goes down, significantly, once content is available.

So they will get their money even from people who pirated this content previously. Why? Because it's much easier to just pay Netflix and watch or re-watch.

> The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.

Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering. Except they did: they made their own content unavailable.

The person was willingly giving them money, legally. The owners made their content unavailable. Guess they didn't want money after all.

Edit. Oatmeal's evergreen take on this: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

[johnchristopher]

> > The owners won't get money from people who pirated content once they make their content available again.

> 1. Their own fault

Owners have made a bad commercial move but it doesn't force people to pirate their content. Nothing does. There are no pressure from SG1 owners to pirate their content, no incentives. On the contrary they will use digital rights laws to protect their assets. It's entirely their rights to do so and nothing in the commonwealth, US or European laws give the right to people to pirate SG1 content when it's not available on a streaming platform.

> 2. It has been proven, time and again, that piracy goes down, significantly, once content is available.

So ? It doesn't make piracy of SG1 content legal in any way.

> So they will get their money even from people who pirated this content previously. Why? Because it's much easier to just pay Netflix and watch or re-watch.

> > The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.

> Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering. Except they did: they made their own content unavailable.

Which is their entire freaking right to do so. Just like maintainers of open source projects don't owe their users anything the SG1 content owners don't owe anything to Netflix users.

> The person was willingly giving them money, legally. The owners made their content unavailable. Guess they didn't want money after all.

No, the person was willingly giving money to a third-party, Netflix.

> Guess they didn't want money after all.

Or maybe Netflix got greedy or maybe the contract between them had limit in time and Netflix agreed to that time limit or maybe SG1 content owners have another contract with another platform and then the person is free to subscribe to it. Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.

Whatever it is, the sole responsibility in pirating SG1 content is on the pirates. There are no way around it, at no point were they forced to pirate it. They are free agents of this world, they decided to obtain something from someone and that someone clearly didn't want to sell it.

I am pirating a lot of stuff but I am not hiding behind entitled justifications which don't make sense.

Edit. Oatmeal's evergreen take on this: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

I read it, I don't see new arguments in the comic ?

[dmitriid]

> It's entirely their rights to do so and nothing in the commonwealth

Literally no one said it wasn't their right to do so

> Which is their entire freaking right to do so. Just like maintainers of open source projects don't owe their users anything the SG1 content owners don't owe anything to Netflix users.

Literally no one said it wasn't their right to do so

> Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.

Literally no one said it wasn't up to them

> It doesn't make piracy of SG1 content legal in any way.

Literally no one said that.

Now. When you're ready to argue with what I'm saying, I will gladly continue this discussion. However, so far you're debating some points literally no one said.

[johnchristopher]

> Literally no one said that.

I am not saying people said that. All those sentences you dismiss are arguments I make to explain why the idea that content owners forced anybody to steal their content is wrong (and dishonest).

> Now. When you're ready to argue with what I'm saying, I will gladly continue this discussion. However, so far you're debating some points literally no one said.

On the contrary, I am debating a point you literally made.

Reminder, this is what you wrote and what I disagree with:

> And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.

So it is my understanding you are the one not arguing with what I am saying.

With that being said:

You don't say much besides "I am entitled to pirate any content I want if it's not available legally, content owners are forcing me to do it and it's their fault". And that is simply not true, they are not forcing you to do anything.

edit: I'll play that card too:

> Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering.

Literaly no one said that.

edit 2:

> > Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.

> Literally no one said it wasn't up to them

Then stop fucking complaining about how they don't give you access to their content for god's sake.

[kaba0]

> All restaurants I know have dishes that are taken off (because if's off season, because a new chef, because they try something else, etc.).

And it is perfectly okay to not spend money at that restaurant in the future when your favorite dish disappears.

Except that the analogy breaks down since it is a subscription model, where you are not really “constantly evaluate” whether this other month is worth it.

[johnchristopher]

Of course the analogy is weak (like all analogies), especially if you believe its purpose is to represent the whole of the Netflix responsibilities, flaws and success.

Doesn't mean you are entitled or forced by the content owners to pirate content that is not available on streaming platforms.

Netflix deals in TV shows and movies, not in access to drinking water.

[etripe]

> Good, that's what competition is about between services.

Except the competition isn't between services but between streaming services and local TV channels. It's between artificially maintained "content regions" that have no basis in technological reality. The choice to host content isn't up to consumers. The period of availability is hardly ever displayed. There are platform and operating system constraints.

Finally, the pricing model doesn't allow you to say you want to watch one series and that's it, either - you'd have to sign up for a month of services, a cable package, etc. In fact, it can't reflect the price of individual content at all given that everything is a package.

You have the right to disagree, but calling a dissenting opinion ridiculous is uncalled for, given that there are actual service and distribution failings in the sector.

[TeMPOraL]

> Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

Except they mostly have. That's one of their huge selling points: wherever you go in the world, whatever weird cuisine they have going on there, if you can find a McDonald's, you can feel comfort in knowing you have a fallback - a place where you can find good food you already know.

[johnchristopher]

> > Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

> Except they mostly have.

Which means they don't

So my point still stands.

You know, the point.

The one I made to demonstrate that even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere. Despite one of their huge selling points: wherever you go in the world, whatever weird cuisine they have going on there, if you can find a McDonald's, you can feel comfort in knowing you have a fallback - a place where you can find good food you already know.