This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet. It’s not like they’re making DVDs of pirated movies and selling them on the street corner; they were basically just aggregating content and the service they were providing was making it easily searchable and accessible, not doing the actual pirating, from the sound of it, unless I’m misunderstanding the situation.
Oh I don’t care that the IP owner don’t get money.
IDK, I just don’t like the ethics of pirating media for profit, the entire idea is that it should be accessible to everyone, not just those with money. Cover your operational cost? Sure…Making millions in subscriptions? That is an asshole move IMO. If you’re paying, you might as well pay the people who are making the media in the first place instead of some rando that had nothing to do with it.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 months ago
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet.
i would think it would be a little different from usenet, considering that usenet would be a service that you pay for, and people who use that service would host content on it, so that other users can download that content. Which effectively removes the immediate liability that you would have in this case, where you are explicitly hosting a pirated streaming service, and then charging for it, for the explicit purpose of streaming said pirated content.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 months ago
Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.
Grippler@feddit.dk 3 months ago
I don’t have an issue paying my ISP to access pirated content, that’s the same as paying for Usenet IMO. I’m paying for network access for a lot of different things, pirated content just happens to be part of it.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
yeah, from an end user perspective, it’s the same.
But i was referring mostly to the legal technicalities there, where one would be significantly more spicy than the other.
Nice root instance btw, getting jumpscared by pawb.social is a rather funny timeline to live in.
sunzu@kbin.run 3 months ago
All fair points.
I think the issue is that IP owners are mega corps, ie people who made the content don't own it and can't provide it anyway.