[threedaymonk]

> You have the choice not to consume any content or to consume free content.

Over the years that I've watched this discussion, I've come to notice that people who advocate for paying for stuff seem (though it might just be my perception) to use expressions like "consume content" more often than those who don't.

It's rather uninspiring, and I suspect it's counter-productive. No one wants to "consume content". They want to watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained. I doubt anyone ever invited a date round "to consume beverages and content".

[nostrebored]

Are you producing content by watching a television show? No, that's absurd, you're consuming the content that others have produced. It's really not that far from consuming a beverage. People would say drink, or in this case, watch, but the truth is that those are just two verbs that describe the type of consumption you're doing.

Why would you say it's counter productive to label it consumption? The truth is, if you're sucking up entertainment without providing anything or incentivizing production, you're a net loss in the system.

I say this as someone who has pirated things -- pretending you're not a burden on the production system if you're just pirating things is delusional. The argument that people make towards pirating and paying for content which they liked is much more consistent. Rather than pay people off for marketing/hype and support bad content in the future, you can fund solely content that you think is worthwhile. But again, this is just changing the way in which you're consuming material.

[klez]

I have to disagree.

If you consume something you are making it impossible for someone else to consume that same thing. You can consume a beverage (no one can drink it after you did) but you can't consume digital content. Here[1] it is explained by someone more knowledgable than me. (incidentally, the FSF also suggests to avoid the word 'piracy' to describe illegal file sharing)

Also, when saying pirating is a net loss to the system, maybe you can say it about piracy as a whole, but for the individual I would not be so sure. Suppose I wouldn't have bought the content anyway (that is, my alternatives would have been pirating it or not seeing it). How am I causing a loss in this conditions?

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consume

[Versability]

Piracy doesn't cause any losses on the whole because it raises the brand image. I wouldn't know anything about Game of Thrones if not for piracy, and it increases my affection for HBO and media as a whole. if not for torrents, i would play outside, not buy GoT.

[simlevesque]

First of all, I am not an advocate for paying stuff. I just didnt like how he painted himself as a victim: he had plenty of choice and what he chose is his responsibility, not a curse.

I don't always I pay for what I watch, sometimes I use a VPN to watch Louis Theroux on the BBC's website (you want me to be specific right ?) and I will never say that I didn't have a choice because it is ridiculous. Saying that the act of not paying for something is imposed to you is counter-productive.

I could have said "watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained", I chose "consume content" because it is shorter. I could enumerate every aspect of content consumption but that would be counter-productive as well.