• s20
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well, hell. I guess I’ll go back to watching less and buying DVDs. I’m not watching commercials on a service I pay for. That’s a non starter.

    Worst comes to worse, I can dust off my eye patch, grab my parrot, and take to the high seas. I don’t wanna, I prefer to pay for stuff, but ffs, if they can’t be reasonable, I guess it’s back to arrr me hearties.

      • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        People used to do it with cable TV. It cost a fortune and was full of ads.

      • HughJanus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        No one pays to watch ads. They pay to watch movies and shows, which are (optionally) supplemented in cost by ads.

          • HughJanus
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            …what are you talking about? No it’s not.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                There are many things that are free if you just ignore the law. Cars are free. Groceries are free. People’s wallets are free!

              • HughJanus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                You mean should they choose to steal them? No shit, everything is free if you steal it. Not everyone wants to be a thief.

                • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  24
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  It’s not theft, because it doesn’t deprive the original owner of anything.

                  But if it did, theft from billionaire hollywood studio owners is cool and good.

                  You’re not paying the wages of the hollywood workers, you’re just increasing the funds the studios have to break the worker’s strikes and further depress their conditions.

                  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    It’s legally theft. You can try as much mental gymnastics as you want to try and convince yourself you’re not breaking the law, but you are.

                    It’s probably the most victimless theft that there is, but it’s still theft.

                  • HughJanus
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    It’s not theft, because it doesn’t deprive the original owner of anything.

                    That’s not how theft works. It’s called intellectual property. You are depriving the creator of compensation for the work they have dedicated resources to producing.

                    If it wasn’t, no one would ever develop any kind of software or scientific research or write a book or produce any kind of intangible work whatsoever.

                    This is complete nonsense fabricated by entitled children and it is exhausting.

                    theft from billionaire hollywood studio owners is cool and good.

                    You can justify it however you want. That’s what any criminal does. It doesn’t make it not theft.