[juleiie]

I don’t live in US or five eyes so I pirate all the stuff basically Scot free.

I understand that it’s not so easy for Americans whose internet activity is constantly scrutinized. I’ve had the privilege of choosing exactly who and what I pay.

I usually don’t subscribe to any streaming service, but when I do choose to pay for something, my money goes to smaller entities that I don’t actively want to see fail.

In my book, none of the Hollywood deserves a single cent. It’s an amazing feeling to be in the power to dictate this.

[WarmWash]

>In my book, none of the Hollywood deserves a single cent. It’s an amazing feeling to be in the power to dictate this.

Then you don't consume it...you boycott it. Freeloading on honest consumers isn't some kind of moral high ground. If Hollywood is corrupt and full of shitheads, letting someone else pay for your ticket doesn't make you a morally pure viewer.

It's fine if you just own that you don't want to pay for what you consume. But don't try and paint yourself like some kind of saint, lol

[chrischen]

The whole concept of intellectual property rights is a social and legal construct designed to promote innovation in an economy. If you don't care about that, then there really isn't any moral or immoral aspect to it. The immorality of it and associating it with stealing was just MPAA propaganda to try to shame people into paying for stuff.

If I found some DVD lying on the ground and watched it and I didn't pay for it, it's really up to me to decide if I want to pay the creator so they can continue to produce content. If I don't pay then obviously it doesn't help them produce more content... but the consumption of the content itself neither felt nor heard by the creators.

[WarmWash]

The bedrock of the argument is that you give for what you take. This is very fundamental, not just some capitalist drivel. You'd be hard pressed to find a single level headed individual who could form a coherent argument against it (generally speaking, not just protracted edge cases). Even your most hippie communist commune requires giving in order to receive.

People act (many even think) like this doesn't apply to digital goods, since copying has no material cost. But producing that digital good costs time and money (anyone on HN care to disagree?). So then you have to decide who are the ones who pay and who are the ones who get free copies. Conveniently, everyone who is getting a free copy thinks that they have a rightful stake to it for free. And because nothing is actually free (see the first line), the ones paying are the ones also covering the cost for those who get is free.

I wouldn't expect teenagers to grasp this, after all we were the teenagers who devised this "piracy as a moral crusade" back in the 90's/00's (how convenient that a side effect of this moral crusade was all the free content your dead broke ass could imagine). But now, if you are in your 30's or older and still haven't logic'ed this out, it's time to catch up.

[ndriscoll]

Simple: people who want it to exist can fund its creation. People who are indifferent or don't want it to exist can choose not to, and once it exists, there's obviously no moral question either way. We already have lifetimes of media available. It costs nothing to replicate infinitely. Do we need to specifically incentivize more?

I think the world would also be a lot better off if software could all be freely distributed and if warranty law required software sales to come with source as well. If you need the computer to do something, you pay a programmer to make it so. You or that programmer can then share the solution with others. The goal is to solve more problems and build a wealthier society for our children, not create rent extraction machines.

Likewise with things like the textbook racket. The government should just commission updates for k-12 books (including AP, so basic uni) every ~15 years or so. Most of this stuff is not changing. It should be "done".

[47282847]

> Even your most hippie communist commune requires giving in order to receive.

I was born into a hippie commune/network and the basic premise was that everybody gives voluntarily by mere existence and free desire to do so, and that whatever ends up being given can be taken/distributed. There was no “requirement to give” since what you provide often cannot even be identified or accounted for (and there was explicitly no interest in doing that). Maybe you’re a good listener, or good in helping with the kids. And so on. Actually, I know plenty of open communities that more or less work that way. In the US, they generally need a bit more safeguards against random external freeloaders (hurt people not familiar with community care) than in Europe but they exist just fine.

Apart from commune experiences: I do believe every human has a deep-seated desire and need to contribute positively and “give back” to their social environment. You don’t need to be forced or nudged to do it; you get sick/depressed if you’re not allowed to bring your talent to the table. (I understand that sometimes there’s too much pain/hurt on the surface that needs recognition before people can return to more natural ways of “giving back”; but more often than not, it is related to the desire to give but being rejected than any taking.)

And more back to your point: I disagree with the notion that every giving and taking is (or needs to be) a distinct and direct transaction. Even in capitalism. The money/time/talent a person “saves” on “freeloading” will be “spent”/given back elsewhere.

[grep_name]

> But producing that digital good costs time and money (anyone on HN care to disagree?)

Not disagree, but it is more nuanced than this I think. I spend a fair amount of money going to movie theaters, usually independent movie theaters but sometimes big ones, to see new releases. As I understand it, the production and funding model relies almost entirely on the box office numbers. I think when dealing with older releases, the waters are much murkier.

I end up seeing new things in person and paying a huge premium to do so. I won't pretend I do it for moral reasons or even strictly to support the creators (although I do it in part to support the independent theater itself). It does keep me from feeling bad for also running a media server, on which maybe 1% of the content is newer than 5 years old, though.

I have almost never bought a physical copy of a movie -- and in my mind the IP holders are usually terrible curators of their own content. Physical media is provided in a horribly limited and anti-consumer format, tied to ephemeral standards and technology and often embedded with advertisements and few subtitle options. Digital products are, somehow, worse. Tied to a walled garden, with no true 'ownership', sometimes platforms like Amazon video will even make their own edits to movies, removing crucial parts for no apparent reason (the wicker man, avatar) and without marking it as abridged. They often make decisions that scream 'cash grab' (i.e. years ago when TNG came on netflix, I went to stream it and was shocked at the potato quality. Later re-releases were released in an un-cropped widescreen that included things like boom mikes because of the original intended aspect ratio of the show.) DRM is a nightmare. The product I want -- a file containing the media and only the media, which I can view however I want without logging into anybody's servers -- does not exist. And if it did exist, well, I do also take issue with paying full price for a file of a 40 year old movie, for example. I know there are costs associated with remasters, etc, but most of these are not remasters (and those costs are also much much lower than outright movie production).

A notable exception is outfits like Vinagar Syndrome, who as a labor of love dig up lost media and often re-cut or remaster / distribute it, and due to the low scale and lack of demand likely do not make much if any profit off it. I often do see showings of Vinegar Syndrome releases at my indie theater though or rent them from the one remaining video rental place (I'm unsure whether or not that benefits the production company).

It probably gets more hairy for people who watch a lot of new serialized media, which I do not.

I kind of wish people would think critically about the gradient of potential consumption habits when making their media choices rather than separating into pro / anti piracy stances, because it's an interesting and multi-faceted topic with a lot of considerations to be made.

[ndriscoll]

I don't consume it because it's crap, but IMO someone who doesn't give money to Disney (a company that pushes gambling on people and is a major reason our copyright laws are broken in the first place) is more moral than someone who does, and the downloading itself is amoral. So if you're going to watch it, might as well pirate.

[3form]

>But don't try and paint yourself like some kind of saint, lol

They didn't do that. Listed considerations were purely practical.

[dpoloncsak]

Any $10/mo VPN solves this, and probably advertises it as a selling point.

Of course, then you're spending $10 to save $10....

I have the whole *arr stack setup with Plex running in the US just fine, but that's for sure not for everyone and was a few headaches to get up and running

[gruez]

>Of course, then you're spending $10 to save $10....

Most VPN subscriptions are around $5, whereas netflix with ads costs $8, and $18 without ads. Even at $18 though, it's still not 4K, whereas you can easily pirate 4K versions with your VPN subscription.

[encom]

Netflix won't even sell me 4K content at any price, because don't use any of their approved spyware operating systems. But the Torrent Store will.

[dpoloncsak]

Appreciate the reality check. Mullvad has been a bill I don't think about twice when it comes around, and I cancelled streaming services years ago.

To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. I'm sure better hardware fixes this, but that's higher cost. YMMV based on what hardware you have on hand to repurpose

[gruez]

>To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well.

Unless you're doing reencodes processing power shouldn't matter. You can serve 4K video on a 2010s router if you wanted to. If you're doing reencodes, why bother? Download an encode that's appropriate for how you're watching it. 4K for the big screen and 1080p for mobile. Skip reencoding altogether.

[dpoloncsak]

Huh...maybe I'm just doing something wrong then. I'll re-examine tonight, thanks for the tip!

[Forgeties79]

Plex is as turnkey as it gets and manually adding content isn't that bad tbh.

[quickthrowman]

Piracy is dead simple these days. Search for “[media name] free streaming” on Yandex and you get a high quality stream with subtitles and multiple audio choices. This works for most stuff, though not everything is available this way.

[dfc]

If you think Hollywood content is worthless why bother pirating it at all? It seems like you would just not consume it.

[juleiie]

I don’t think it’s totally worthless. I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender.

There is a difference.

If you have any sort of conscience you simply don’t want to fund these people. Don’t enable them. Let it wither. Nothing of particular value will be lost.

[bombcar]

You let it wither by not consuming it at all; saying "At least I didn't pay for the corrupt sex-propaganda" isn't really an amazing high-ground.

[juleiie]

I actively derive pleasure from stealing it and watching for completely free.

[gruez]

>I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender.

This applies to everything that comes out of Hollywood?

[juleiie]

This applies to every big corpo that exists and especially degenerate cesspit of Hollywood.

Big corporation - just inhumane greed beyond mortal comprehension.

Holywood - not only greed but also complete moral decay

It would even apply twice if it could but you cannot really steal a movie twice. Unfortunately.

[parineum]

These greedy, inhumane and morally decayed people produce content that you enjoy consuming after stealing. What does that say about you?

[jmye]

> Don’t enable them. Let it wither.

Then why consume the stuff at all? What a weird stance. "They're all vile and evil, but I like watching shows, so whatever, tee hee - piracy is morally good now as long as I have this invented fiction in my head!"

[05]

Surely even the poorest of Americans can pay a couple bux a month for a seedbox?

[arvid-lind]

The way I see it, you can get a top tier VPN (mullvad) and a seedbox for the cost of one streaming service per month.

[juleiie]

This is a good question. If it is so cheap and easy then why not? I think it is a matter of american government and corporate terror tactic.

They make these few rare cases when they catch somebody so loud and showy that the rest of the flock prefers to sign all the TOS and don’t have this additional worry. It is a success story of manipulative scare techniques that copyright corpos mastered.

Most people prefer to be civilians than to be anti corporate combatants, even if it is perfectly safe in practice. This is normal.

[dfedbeef]

Surely these tent dwellers have a few dollars a month for streaming content