Their motion will be denied, and pirating their content will not - in any way - afford you legal protections in the future.

We don't know that yet. I want that to be true. I hope it's true. But it isn't true yet.

It is an argument for piracy. Want to watch a Disney show but don't want to give Disney money in any way? Piracy

pirating their content will not - in any way - afford you legal protections in the future

Premium subscription - 13.99 a month. 13.99 a month invested getting 12.4% apr a year, reinvested will net you $40k in 30 years. I’m sure you could afford some legal protections with that.

until the supreme court gets to hear a case like this. can't wait for another 6-3.

Pirating their content doesn't afford you legal protections but agreeing to their license agreements could definitely turn out to have been a big mistake.

If you're just itching for that content, pick your poison.

Why are you generally pretty anti-piracy?

As someone who has never had much disposable income, piracy has helped me and countless folks enjoy things we otherwise would not have been able to realistically afford. It also helps make educational material far more accessible, particularly when it comes to textbooks, academic papers (i.e. SciHub thanks to Alexandra Elbakyan), even complete semester university-level lectures.

If wages were higher and media was offered in a format that was a) not subscription based and b) reasonably priced, people would be more likely to buy content instead of pirate it.

Beyond that, people are sick and tired of things like their favorite TV show or my music disappearing because the streaming site lost the streaming rights to a competitor. Or an artist's discography missing a huge chunk of their music because of some record label legal nonsense.

The problem is that everything is becoming subscription based these days and it's weird to require that kind of committment if you just want to listen to one artist's album, or a few episodes of a nature documentary.

Personally, I pirate terabytes of content and I try to buy used Blu-Ray 📀 discs and CDs every now and then. I have a nice external disc readers/writer connected to my PC and an elaborate multi-output audio setup, but most people don't have a disc reader these days. So the problem is instead of just giving people the option of purchasing an actual file like an MKV, FLAC + MP3 files, these companies insist on forcing a subscription as the only feasible option since they know 99% of people don't have or want to deal with disc readers and physical media.

I get that your comment was less about anti-piracy and I'm kind of going on a rant here, but I really hope my comment helps you better understand at least some of the reasons why people pirate stuff. Even when I did research science, we'd all use SciHub because it was a million times easier to just go on there and search for one or several papers, instead of having to use our login credentials to get into several different databases for multiple papers in different fields. So so so annoying!

I think with piracy, there are many measurable and immeasurable benefits felt by society because of piracy.

This is the same company that defended themselves by claiming that a "no swimming" sign was good enough warning after a families young kid was eaten alive by an alligator.

Nah, my country just does not allow these kinds of clauses. You know.. like a sane country does.

kept their Disney+ subscription

No, no, the problem is that once you've had a Disney+ subscription, even a free trial, you're fucked for life (and beyond), according to Disney. You (and probably any descendants you might ever have) are restricted to arbitration for ever. Cancelling the subscription at this point won't help, you're already doomed.

The only ones who can save themselves are people who've never had a subscription (and to be safe I'd stay away from anyone who's ever had one, just in case Disney somehow managed to make the contract contagious).

(Of course you can still cancel on moral grounds if you're already infected, but given the precedent Musk is trying to set with advertisers who quit Xitter, Disney will probably be able to forcibly arbitrate you into subscribing again. You and your descendants are Disney serfs now, for ever and ever.)

anyone who has seen the news on this and kept their Disney+ subscription should be, for moral purposes, treated as someone who condones murder

Bro, not gonna lie, this is a bad take. My grandparents just want to watch their soap operas, my parents really like star wars.

It's like global warming. Blaming individuals for not recycling is not the move - taking action against huge corporations is the only realistic way to make change. By blaming random people, we end up looking like crazy people.

not just murder, but the murder of specifically their own loved ones, someone having a disney+ (or any) subscription is basically an announcement that they're a fucking psychopath, or otherwise have nobody they love.

Disney's argument in the recent lawsuit, where they killed a dude's wife at a restaurant, after assurances were made that they could handle preparing food that wouldn't have what she was allergic to, and failed to do so, resulting in her death. It boils down to: you signed up for Disney+ for a free trial 4 years ago, so you have to go to arbitration, not sue us. Therefore if he had pirated the content, he would likely already have a check because they would have settled out of court.

Where I live, at least when it comes to contracts involving jobs, you can not specify something that's less than the law would require. Like you can't agree to work all day without a break on less than minimum wage. Not legal despite any contracts.

You could technically give someone permission to assault you, but you couldn't give someone permission to aggravated assault you. The former being a crime that the victim decides to press charges or not, but the second one being so serious that it will be prosecuted no matter what was agreed.

But yeah your formatting would be way mroe extensive; if a company even tries some shenanigans to avoid consequences in the event of something like this happening, it voids the contract. I agree.

In theory Louis Rossman. He even says in this video that he has no issues paying for what he needs and wants. He takes issue when doing the "right thing" will lead to a worse result than doing the "wrong thing."