AnonStoleMyPants @ AnonStoleMyPants @sopuli.xyz

Posts

4

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

Are you suggesting a case in which it's funded by some billionaire who does not need to charge money in order to cover the cost of hosting?

This is a fair point. I doubt anybody would do this, or the monetization would be done through ads which might fall into the commercial aspect? Don't actually know, but this is already a thing and not something I was really thinking about. Relating to this actually, it would be interesting to know how much licencing fees are in comparison to server costs for the current streaming services.

I was thinking something more like a program that just pulls data from torrents directly, so no need for a central server. Yes, probably not feasible using the current system as everyone would just leech, but maybe one would have to also share things you watch or something. Yes, again, this would complicate things but I don't think that is necessarily has to. I feel like there has been a service like this (popcorn time or something), I think I used something like this aaaaages ago.

Definitely there would be technical challenges for something like this but to me it does not sound impossible. I just feel like that if something like this system would exist (if piracy were legal), it would completely nuke the cash flow for tons of companies. It would not remove all of it, some people would donate just like they do for open source projects.

At least for me personally, I am willing to pay for stuff in order for it to be legal. Should the need to pay be removed, while keeping things legal, I'd have no incentive to pay. The only incentive would be convenience, but I don't think there would be any reason for piracy to be less convenient than non-piracy; it's already more convenient for tons of use cases I'm sure.

When iTunes came along, it instantly ate up the vast majority of Limewire/Frostwire/IRC traffic for music.

Definitely true, just as happened with movies etc when Netflix and the like popped up. However, one can also argue that this was not due to convenience, but due to now there being a legal way of doing things. In reality I'm sure that everyone weighs legality and convenience (and the cost of the service) differently and makes their own decision.

Currently the convenience factor is going down due to enshittification (among other things), while price is going up. I feel like piracy is up but it's not like I can get a non-biased view from Lemmy (or reddit) and I have not actually looked into it.

It'll be interesting to see the direction in a few years.

But streaming proved that people won't do that if they have a less onerous way to do it, whether it be Spotify or Netflix.

This is true to an extent, but if you would have a legal streaming platform that is free with all the same content then everyone would use that, no? The only reason someone would want to pay for Netflix is to donate to Netflix because they like it. But we all know how small of a percentage that would be. Reason why people use streaming services is that they're simple and legal, and they are willing to pay for it.

Most video games don't contain DRM, and can be found as torrents online, and yet video game sales are through the roof.

True. Though literally no clue about how much DRM there is. However, if piracy is fully legal then there would be no reason to purchase the games (assuming they're as convenient). People are prepared to pay for things that are legal.

You're literally just rehashing all the tired MPAA/RIAA talking points claiming that piracy would kill music and movies, that never panned out despite piracy always still existing.

Not really. I am arguing against piracy being legal. I am not arguing that piracy in its current form is killing anything.

If it comes from their copy, sure.

As in this argument.

Yeah alright makes sense. Sometimes it hard to know what people are exactly arguing about.

Sure, they are procuring something worth money without paying for it. But this is a very different argument than you would not pirate something if you would not also be prepared to pay it.

and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work?

But by this definition then, it should be ok for only one person to buy the item and then just copy and give it to everyone else, and the original author receives payment from a single item?

So are you arguing that turnstile jumpers are harming the company, but they are not stealing the service / train / ride? Like the literal word "steal".

If you weren't going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That's the thing, if you're interested enough in a product to want it then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.

I don't agree with this at all. There are tons of things someone might want to use or have but not enough that they'd be willing to pay for it. Or over a certain amount of money.

And nothing of value is lost. Good riddance.

Honestly, just go with Ubuntu. If there are any problems you can very easily find answers. Second option would be the get something Ubuntu based, like Mint and Pop OS. Being based in it basically means they take Ubuntu and modify a bit to their liking but at the core they're Ubuntu, meaning that almost everything you find for Ubuntu will work for them.

You can always switch later to something else if you feel like it.

You can definitely do this with a few commands.

Not op but I would not care much. Sure things could be better but it's not my problem. There is enough shit to worry about and music (or Spotify) is nowhere near the top half.

Same argument about standing up to someone's livelihood being at stake can be said literally about everything. I got a limited amount of fucks to give. I'm happy if people want to fight this stuff and make music better for everyone but I ain't part of that crew.

That's not really how they work, or that is not the only way. Their point is to put the logo, slogans, company etc into your memory. This way when you're shopping for something specific, then the brand pops out to you because you've seen it and it gives you a sense of familiarity and hence, higher trust.

Something like docuwiki maybe, it looks like Wikipedia so everyone would immediately feel at home there.

Weird that it is entirety of Europe. In Finland it is only asked if you've been in or lived in the UK in the 90s iirc.

I kinda agree. I understand the idea, just like the article states, environment is often a very important side in a battle. But i feel like this would've been a great time to figure out something else that other RTS games cannot do or haven't done. Shift the focus elsewhere. And especially when they mention that the macro scale decisions are more important, focus on that.

No idea, sorry.

Are you talking about YouTube? At least currently ublock is working fine in there and I have not encountered popups.

The thing I dislike the most is not directly the cold, but it is the feeling that nobody is outside just for the sake of it and nobody is enjoying it. Like, when summer comes everything feels alive. Not just the nature but people, hiking, walking, doing picnics, hanging our, eating ice cream etc. People outside look like they're enjoying life. But during winter? Fuck no. And everyone looks the same, oh look 10 people in thick as balls black / grey / dark winter coats who look like round blobs. A bit of a hyperbole but that's how I always feel like.

And the darkness sucks. Fun to go to down when it is pitch black and it is again pitch black when you get back home.

Lmao what the fuck Plex.

Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to have this thing be opt out instead of opt in? Well actually, I'm sure they realised that nobody would opt in because nobody fucking wants this garbage. So the only option is to make it opt out, right guys?

Sounds like a weird saying.

It assumes that the people with bigger wallets also use a larger portion (absolute money, not percentages) on the "thing" to begin with. If the billionaire and the middle class man uses 10€ on the same thing a month, and both stop doing it, then they both got the same amount of "votes". Much more fitting would be: "if you vote with your wallet, people who spend more money get more votes".

Of course this only applies if you're talking about boycots etc, and not about buying stuff.

And yes, people with bigger wallets probably have more sway and power when it comes to get getting their way if they want to, but when people talk about voting with your wallet, they're not talking about this.