964
The era of cheap streaming is officially over
(www.cnn.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
964 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
34836 readers
18 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Back to piracy ...
That is an alternative I´m not going to argue against, you wholesome motherfucker 🌻 🌼 🌷
That was one of the main reasons I cut cable years ago.
The amount of content worth watching (let alone worth paying for) had become far too low.
Combine that with the constant price increases and worsening of the content-to-commercials ratio, and it was a easy decision to make.
It's going to be even worse for a while with the writers strike.
I would never pirate anything since it's illegal and immoral.
But I imagine the selfish criminals that do like the fact they can limit their media consumption to the occasional worthwhile thing. They might even assuage their guilt by paying for it when possible after they establish it isn't garbage.
If you could download a car, you bet your ass you would
That's a far worse hypothetical crime than you realize: it harms the profits of billionaires. Why don't you think about all those poor oligarchs you're hurting?
How will they be able to buy politicians and judges if people stopped giving them money?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.
Also, "limiting their consumption to the occasional worthwhile thing" can also be written as:
"spend their well-earned time actually watching something worth the investment"
And "they might even assuage their guilt by paying for it..." as:
"if they find content they enjoy, they'd like to show that monetarily and hopefully boost the production of more content of that same caliber"
I just want those large, deep pocketed, sue-happy corporation's legal teams to know I'm a good consumer that never violates DMCA or other intellectual property laws: it's wrong. I mean, that's what they say and obviously we should trust them.
I can't imagine much worse than violating the inalienable rights of amoral multi-billion dollar industries, except maybe bragging online about it afterwards.
Zero guilt, never pay. Bonus: no guilt for dropping something midway through out of disgust at its poor quality, because you just wasted X dollars on it. You can go through hundreds of options without trying to evaluate them indirectly pre-purchase, and read-watch whatever you feel like whenever.
I actually feel more guilt dropping things I downloaded since I wasted bandwidth and storage on it.
If you haven't spent extra money on that bandwidth and storage, what's the problem? Just delete it and download something else?
But I spend more time and stuff on it then I would on a streaming service's series.
For streaming I don't lose anything by dropping a series, it's not like I spent any extra money or time or anything getting the series.
Fair enough, that makes sense for streaming. I was thinking more along the lines of books and videogames, but this thread is about streaming.
In what world is it immoral? Where do your morals stem fom ? A child's book ?.