This isn’t so much an argument for piracy as it is an argument to not patronize Disney. Especially considering that Disney’s motion for arbitration is so far beyond baseless that it’s baffling they’d even attempt it.
AKA: No, Disney will not be able to force you to arbitrate a dispute just because you once (or still do) subscribed to Disney+. Their motion will be denied, and pirating their content will not - in any way - afford you legal protections in the future.
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.
WHERE CAN I GET THAT APR
A one time investment of $13.99 at 100% APR will be $207,620.61 in 10 years.
RIGHT!? JESUS CHRIST.
until the supreme court gets to hear a case like this. can't wait for another 6-3.
Was not expecting to hear "shut the fuck up you fucking corporate bootlicking simp" from Louis Rossman of all people. He's pissed and rightly so.
I'm generally pretty anti-piracy but it's getting harder and harder to rationalize the act of paying for things through legitimate channels when customers are punished in the oh-so-many ways Rossman described. Disney think this is a "GOTCHA" moment that will absolve them of legal responsibility for someone's death at one of their theme parks, but this is an absolute PR disaster for them.
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.
I'm not the original person in the thread, but I'm pretty anti-piracy. However, the bulk of my media spending is on musicians (with direct buying from an artist being my primary means of purchase).
With that said, I absolutely understand why so many people pirate movies/tv. Streaming for those is an absolute shit show.
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.
Even without taking into account Disney's legal "defence" (a cesspool of shit), anyone who has seen the news on this and kept their Disney+ subscription should be, for moral purposes, treated as someone who condones murder, as they're giving a murderous company the OK sign: "please continue doing things as usual".
People here are criticising Rossman's arguments based on Disney's "defence" being likely considered baseless, but on general grounds it's still a good point: piracy is a great way to avoid abusive contracts altogether.
(Also: if paying is not owning, piracy is not theft, simple as.)
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.
Can someone please summarize in a sentence or two for those of us who don't like watching videos?
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.
Ahh, ok. Yes, I'm aware of this fucked up situation. Thanks!
Would the following argument hold: if the forced arbitration clause didn't end after the trial period, then whatever access was granted to you during said trial will also not end, so you are allowed to pirate the previously granted content?
it seems to me the same thing that happened to Boeing need to happen to Disney when they tried to write off any culpability to human life when they tried to put a monetary value on it to their own benefit.
Also that policies in contracts will be null and void if a company tries to write any such thing into their contracts in future. Which sadly this needs to be a law.
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.
I wonder if you could make a donation platform for artists that also provides torrents. You would have to tie up the money pending proof of identification from an artist who participated in creating the work, then release a portion to them. I'm just speculating here but it seems like something that could be made.
And the best argument to never subscribe to D+
Who thinks capitalism is better than piracy?!’
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."
there is nothing wrong with paying for what you want. problem is, companies get away with changing rules on the fly, locking your shit down years after you bought it, cancelling it altogether, and just causing issues for actual paying customers.
I bought a nice knife for when I'm backpacking, camping. there is no way the company can remotely disable it, break it, take it from me, I got what I paid for and am happy.
too many tech services are the exact opposite and just treat people like shit, and we're tired of it.
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world