porkins @ porkins @sh.itjust.works

Posts

3

Comments

240

Joined

2 yr. ago

Or, you could buy YouTube TV, which gives you YouTube Premium as a undisclosed bonus I’ve found. A great option because it helps content creators and allows you to cut cable. I may have some bias on the topic of paying for media content services, but in general pirating hurts the creators. I hate that I’m old and wise enough that I might have been more receptive to Metallica’s arguments during the Napster era. I do feel though that it is in the best interest of creators for certain content to be previewable. The problem with YouTube video monetization are that most are not going to be rewatched.

I want to have a serious conversation on this if possible. As devil’s advocate, if I want to start a business that helps people, what would I have to do to not run afoul and garner this type of criticism? Are you indicating that I must relinquish my business once it gets too big and that I am only entitled to a certain amount of success? Are you indicating that I must pay my workers far beyond what the free market dictates they are worth? Trying to understand how those are my issues. It would seem to me that these would need to change with far reaching government policies. Those policies in many ways go against capitalist principles when you start to consider having to pay a janitor for a company hundreds of thousands of dollars if the company is successful and employees are paid in revenue share. That makes far less sense than the owner of the company reaping the benefit of their innovation. I would also argue that an entrepreneur will potentially use these earnings more interestingly than a janitor, potentially to start additional businesses that help the public by increasing offerings and jobs.

Came here for the LOTR reference. Was not disappointed.

When I was in business school, one of our lecturers in our ethics class was one of the main consultants that worked the Steam project to create regional price differences and other geofencing. It was a very interesting class. The takeaway is that it can be seen as morally responsible to charge someone is a poorer country less for the same game. It is called price discrimination and it is done in many industries including air travel and pharmaceuticals. Otherwise, you would price an entire market out of a product. In many respects, the richer countries are subsidizing the poorer countries. The argument that the price should be the lowest one on the board anywhere is not realistic because a company needs to generate margins high enough to make the opportunity worthwhile otherwise it is not going to produce the product. In other words, Companies will not make a product if they are going to lose monkey selling it, but they will charge one market more to sell to another market at a loss if there is other intrinsic value like user adoption to create a community. They are selling digital content in this instance, but it still took money to make and money to distribute, so the argument that the product is easy to replicate over and over again is a moot point. Getting some money in a market versus no money is beneficial. If people pirate that games en masse by even just purchasing them VPN at a lower rate hurts the developers. I believe in some piracy under certain circumstances, such as when you truly can’t afford something when you are growing up. It is in the marketers best interest to let kids get hooked at a young age.

Just so you youngsters know, that legend of a person was David Bowie.

We cannot afford a green light for dishonest schools to continue harming students

This also should apply to skyrocketing tuition rates due to the institutions knowing that students would be pressured to take the predatory government loans. The government shouldn’t have been willing to pay that much to begin with, which would force the universities to lower their rates.

• Newgrounds
• Homestar Runner
• AIM
• Yahoo chat rooms
• MUDs
• Not internet, but Leisure Suit Larry holds a special place in my memories.