The industry argument for that is "you're stealing our potential revenue". I personally subscribe to one streaming service. That's it. If what I want to watch isn't on that, I hoist the anchor and set sail.

The predictable way that video streaming services became content islands and actually a worse user experience than cable really shows how the industry would rather provide worse experience and cash grab than attract more customers naturally. By contrast, I can subscribe to one music service, and listen to literally every artist I can possibly want to. As soon as video streaming does that (at a reasonable price), piracy for video will plummet like it did for music.

[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem.

Gabe Newell

[–] plz1@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Within reason, yeah. If the video industry came out with a platform that had all you can stream and all the content in one place, but wanted $150/month for it, that would be a pricing problem. My ceiling is more like $40-50/month.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

you’re stealing our potential revenue

Which is ridiculous. It's like suing someone for tapping you on the shoulder while you're deep in thought, claiming that you almost came up with a great invention but their interference meant you lost your train of thought. Therefore, by tapping you on the shoulder, they owe you millions of dollars of lost potential revenue from that invention.

In addition, you have to consider whether they're morally justified in receiving that revenue. Say someone manages to bribe the government so that they get paid $1 every time someone says "shazam". If you say "shazam" and don't pay them, they lose $1 in potential revenue. But, is this potential revenue that they are morally justified in collecting? Copyright law is just as ridiculous as "shazam" law. In both cases the government came up with a rule that allows someone to collect revenue simply because the government says so.

IMO the entertainment industry has ridiculously warped copyright. It used to be that copyright was a 14 year term, renewable for another 14 years if the author was alive. Under that rule, Forrest Gump would just have had its copyright expire. That seems pretty reasonable. It cost them $55 million to produce, and it brought in $678 million, it's probably mostly done making money for them. Time for their rights to expire, right? Nope, they get to keep their monopoly until 2114. It's fucking ludicrous.

Copyright is supposed to be a balance between what's good for people creating something, and the general public. The creator is given a short-term monopoly as an incentive to create, that's how they benefit. The public benefits because after a short time that creation becomes public. The alternative is no copyright, where creators need to be paid up-front by someone like a patron, and what they create becomes public immediately. The patronage system is responsible for all kinds of magnificent art like most classical music, the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. The argument for copyright is that the patronage system wasn't good enough, and the public could benefit even more by allowing a short monopoly for the creator. But, with the lobbying of the entertainment cartel, the public benefit is far worse. You now still effectively have the patronage system controlling what art gets made (the entertainment cartel), they then also keep that art from the public for more than a century.

So, yeah. Fuck copyright.

[–] WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

If you didn't buy something today, you're stole potential revenue. Louis Vuitton needs that money to survive!