Thread

Disney+: New user agreement allows ads before movies in all subscriptions

509 points · 372 comments · DeepLogin

cynicalsecurity · 1789987718 · focus · HN ↗
Meanwhile pirates don't see any ads. Make this make sense.
1. chrisstu · 1789987796 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. rwmj · 1789987884 · focus · HN ↗
    Cash is rivalrous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
    chrisstu · 1789995142 · focus · HN ↗
    A fancy word, presumably used in this context in an attempt to make the argument that stealing copyright material has no negative consequences.
  2. Daneel_ · 1789988098 · focus · HN ↗
    Taking the cash from a bank deprives others of the money. Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything.
    Piracy is simple: when you make your product more convenient than piracy, people use it. Steam is popular for a reason - no crap, enormous game selection.. it’s just better than pirating. Netflix used to be the same - great selection, no ads.. now look: terrible selection and price is too high.
    Brendinooo · 1789989520 · focus · HN ↗
    If a production crew of 1000 people makes a movie and everyone pirates it, you don't think those people will be deprived of anything?
    mitxela · 1789990876 · focus · HN ↗
    The production crew is getting peanuts anyway. If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead.
    Also maybe it's their job to come up with a business model that everyone doesn't hate. If they'd just syndicate to all streaming platforms, piracy wouldn't be a problem for them.
    Brendinooo · 1789991432 · focus · HN ↗
    >The production crew is getting peanuts anyway
    1000 people on a feature film, you're looking at about $70 million in salary. That's peanuts to you?
    > If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead.
    In other words, you're conceding the point that they would be deprived of something if everyone pirates their work.
    chrisstu · 1789995229 · focus · HN ↗
    His argument has all the intellectual strength of a newborn lamb.
    rwmj · 1790063673 · focus · HN ↗
    What sort of an argument is this? Just because you overspent on production doesn't entitle you to be paid.
    Brendinooo · 1790091614 · focus · HN ↗
    Right! If the price is too high, I can decide I don't want to pay it.
    It's quite a leap from that to "I personally think that an animator's salary is too high, and I have the right to benefit from the fruit of their labor, therefore it is morally acceptable for me to enjoy this film without paying anyone" or whatever.
    exe34 · 1789993611 · focus · HN ↗
    In what world is everyone able or willing to pirate? I think your ad-absurdum is just absurd here.
    Brendinooo · 1789994915 · focus · HN ↗
    >Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything
    This was the claim. I said what I said to point out that if everyone acted on this belief for a feature film, there would be a thousand people who ultimately don't get compensated for their work.
    You are right: not everyone is able or willing to pirate. Piracy is only able to exist because of these people who pay for art. That's definitely true, and definitely different than the claim that no one is being deprived of anything.
    exe34 · 1789999526 · focus · HN ↗
    What are they being deprived of when somebody who was never going to pay makes a copy?
    Brendinooo · 1790000077 · focus · HN ↗
    The motive of the pirate doesn't matter: they are deprived from the revenue that was circumvented.
    exe34 · 1790001986 · focus · HN ↗
    No they can't be deprived of imaginary revenue.
    Brendinooo · 1790005042 · focus · HN ↗
    They are deprived of the payment they asked for in exchange for someone viewing their work.
    Also, "the pirate was never going to pay" is a far more imaginary thing here; it's an unproven claim (especially since it's often paired with "pirates would pay if it was cheaper/more convenient to access).
    Regardless, it strikes me as a particularly arrogant kind of entitlement for you to violate someone's terms to enjoy their thing while telling them you think it's worthless.
    exe34 · 1790015509 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm personally happy to pay to watch without adverts. I'm not willing to pay for adverts. If they only sell it with adverts, then I'm never going to pay for it. Whether or not I watch it, they don't lose a dime.
    Brendinooo · 1790023356 · focus · HN ↗
    I understand the idea of refusing service you don't like, but there's just no way that disliking a service gives you the right to rewrite terms.
    I dunno man. If you're gonna benefit from the hard work of others without compensating them, so be it. It's the pretension that you're doing something other than that, for motives other than pure self-interest, which really bothers me.
    exe34 · 1790055522 · focus · HN ↗
    > for motives other than pure self-interest, which really bothers me.
    What motives have I claimed?
    Brendinooo · 1790092309 · focus · HN ↗
    You haven’t explicitly claimed one. If you have a motive besides wanting to see the thing without feeling like you stole something, I'd like to hear it.
    exe34 · 1790107487 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's the pretension that you're doing something other than that, for motives other than pure self-interest, which really bothers me.
    Brendinooo · 1790110141 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, it's very hard for me to see your motives as being something other than pure self-interest.
    Am I wrong?
    exe34 · 1790113456 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't that the whole point of the free market? Make the total cost/effort for something lower than the alternative, and people will pay for it. I paid for Netflix for ages when they had every show/movie that I wanted to watch, instead of stuff being fragmented across 20 services.
    Brendinooo · 1790160674 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, that's the point of the free market. But anywhere else in the free market, we don't say "I don't want to pay for this/deal with the inconvenience, so I'll just take it for free".
    The only way people try to make this work logically is to talk about how a digital good has a nominal real cost - but that's a very different argument.
    exe34 · 1790179286 · focus · HN ↗
    > to talk about how a digital good has a nominal real cost
    So once again, they can't lose imaginary income.
    Brendinooo · 1790181367 · focus · HN ↗
    Are physical goods priced solely to cover nominal real costs?
    If they are, then you have an argument. If they aren't, then whatever that price is covering other than nominal real costs is being stolen in this case as well.
    exe34 · 1790183874 · focus · HN ↗
    Is the question "what is a free market"?
    Brendinooo · 1790188349 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mahboi · 1790007587 · focus · HN ↗
    Some were going to pay. They already want to watch the show badly enough to jump through the hoops of pirating it.
    mahboi · 1790008931 · focus · HN ↗
    And they're taking a risk that the movie turns out bad. It does seem like newer movies have become mediocre because they don't want to take risks anymore.
    Daneel_ · 1790032663 · focus · HN ↗
    If I wasn't willing to pay for the movie/streaming service/etc then the objective answer is no.
    If I would pay to watch it then yes, but I'm not going to pay money to a streaming platform only to watch ads.
    Brendinooo · 1790035269 · focus · HN ↗
    Setting aside the fact that you didn't actually answer my question: the objective answer is not "no". That's just a frame and some assumptions you'd like everyone to hold in order to justify yourself.
    Daneel_ · 1790043454 · focus · HN ↗
    I can’t speak for everyone else’s take on it, but I do feel like I addressed your question.
    A significant portion of piracy is opportunistic as far as I’m aware, in that people say “well, since it’s free I’ll grab it”. The opportunity cost is effectively zero.
    What I’m getting at is that if you have 100 people who pirate the film, perhaps only 5 of those might have been willing to pay to see it, if only there was a convenient opportunity to do so. No money was lost through the other 95 - their decision was between ‘pirate’ and ‘don’t watch it’.
    Of the remaining 5, yes, it’s lost revenue, but that’s because there likely wasn’t a convenient service with no ads at a price where people think they’re getting value. It’s all about convenience at the end of the day - if it’s more convenient to pirate it then your service is going to suffer. You have be more convenient.
    Brendinooo · 1790091404 · focus · HN ↗
    >I do feel like I addressed your question
    The point of my question was to note that, if everyone acts like pirates do, then the people who make the thing make zero dollars, which would hurt them greatly - they will be deprived of something meaningful. So the idea that piracy does not do this at all is false.
    Pirates violate the terms that the creators ask in exchange for their work, and get to enjoy content at no cost to them by free-riding off of people who pay, and then try to argue that this is Actually Fine because they weren't going to pay for it anyways.
    "I wouldn't pay for it anyways" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and it's a bad moral code anyways: the only difference between me doing an Actually Fine thing and an Actually Bad thing is my own personal judgment about whether or not I was going to pay for it.
    >if it’s more convenient to pirate it then your service is going to suffer. You have be more convenient.
    So you are conceding that the service will suffer if people pirate?
    Regardless, that's completely separate from the question of whether or not mild inconveniences give you the right to enjoy non-essential-for-life fruits of the labors of others without compensating them for it.
    charcircuit · 1790009093 · focus · HN ↗
    They are deprived of the license fee they are entitled to for the copy made.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.