• Void_Sloth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most people don't want to be pirates they just don't want to pay for an inferior service. You want people to pay then make a product worth paying for that's prorated by country, and they gladly will.

    As an example of just how bad it is, pirate streaming sites have sort by date, country, IMDb score, genre, etc. but most paid services don't have any sort feature beyond genre. This effectively makes paid services unusable for a lot of people.

    • Arrakis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-piracy by any means, and I'm as bothered by the changing of services as the next person. I just found it amusing that people seemed to disagree that pirating would have an impact on the bottom line of the execs, so that life was imitating art.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because you're pretending like pirating is any different to the bottom line than not buying the product.
        There is no difference. They're going to make a marvel movie next year. If I don't go see it did the company lose any money?
        No.
        Same if I pirate it. Whether or not you actually watch the movie is irrelevant.

        • Arrakis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you want to see a TV show, but pirate it instead, did the company lose any money*? Yes.

          This thread is hilarious.

          • Dkarma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, dude whether or not I watch a movie has NOTHING to do with the movie company's income.

            • Arrakis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Stay in high school then once you get past learning basic economics, have another go at thinking.

              • Pheonixdown@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The point the other person is trying to make is that if a person wants to watch something, but the price is higher than they value or can afford for the experience they will not pay the price, so the company will not profit. If the person then pirates the content to view it, the company has lost nothing additional.

                However, one could also make the argument that the viewer having the ability to pirate lowers what they are willing to pay, thus the company does lose some amount of profit in aggregate over time. This though is not necessarily true for those who lack the means to pay, rather than just the willingness.

                Ultimately for people who do have the means, piracy is a symptom more of a service issue rather than a price issue. People generally will follow the path of least resistance to acquire what they desire. For most people a small payment and easy access will lead them not to pirate, but as prices rise, content fractures and UIs enshitify, the aggregate effort crosses the line and they start to withdraw and turn to other methods.

                Everyone has their own willingness to pay for things on the demand curve, if companies pick an optimal price, they maximize profits, and aren't harmed by people who cannot or will not pay that price utilizing a non-consumable resource without payment.