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.
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.
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.
The thing that kills me is there is no way to buy movies/tv shows without DRM. I don’t want my content locked to some service that can dissappear at any point.
Music, Games, books/comics, all have DRM free options (although games are more miss than hit in that regard).
I agree with (and experience) the problems surrounding access to media that you described, but I would also describe myself as pretty anti-piracy. You can be anti-middleman and anti-rent-seeking without being pro-piracy. While piracy circumvents the problems you mentioned, the question it leaves unanswered is how the creator of the pirated media will afford basic necessities like food and shelter. Alternatives to streaming are scarce, but they do exist-- especially DRM-free music and books. These are not static systems. The market will follow the money, so if folks buy into the false dichotomy of stream vs pirate, industry will continue to invest in DRM and anti-piracy measures and creators will continue to submit to streaming services / media silos. I’d prefer a system with as few layers as possible between creator and consumer. Piracy only offers a solution for the latter.
the question it leaves unanswered is how the creator of the pirated media will afford basic necessities like food and shelter.
Under the current capitalist system, they don’t. Scientists often have to pay the publisher to have their work published, often receiving nothing in return. Services like spotify pay next to nothing to creators that aren’t already at the top.
There will be no solution to this problem until the underling source (capitalism) is dealt with. Piracy is just a stop gap that fucks over the CEOs and shareholders until the problem is dealt with. An before anybody brings up indy games/music/etc bought directly from the creators, that’s a different story obviously.
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.
The government that I pay taxes to doesn’t allow this sort of abusive clause either. However, this is a lot like Nestlé’s slavery chocolate: it’s still harming someone in the world, and the business is showing signs that it would gladly do it against us if allowed to do so.
Yep, government needs to regulate businesses.
But in this particular case I would suggest the judge “asks” whoever signed off on this lawsuit to come to court and sentence that person and the lawyer to 60 days hard labor, just for thinking of the heinous use of this clause.
Besides that, clauses that extend beyond the duration of a contract should also be heavily regulated.
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.
I get that your [grand]parents want to watch their stuff. Just like I want to eat chocolate*, even if it’s associated with child slavery in West Africa. But I don’t think that someone’s enjoyment should come at the price of ruining others’ lives.
And sadly, that’s exactly what happens here. Our conscious decisions to accept products and services from businesses that grossly disregard human life and dignity - like Disney and Nestlé - make us condoners. People who are still willing to pay for either have blood on their hands, like it or not.
We have other options. In your case, good ol’ piracy would let them have their fun without feeding the company.
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.
I don’t think that we [people in general] should fall for a dichotomy like “either blame the company, or the individuals consuming their shit”. While the blame for the individuals is considerably lower, they still have some blame - for feeding the company. We should be fighting in both fronts.
*I’m comparing the situation with chocolate because IDGAF about Disney but I care a lot about food, so it’s easier for me to put myself in the shoes of your family this way.
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.
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.
