AnonStoleMyPants

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.

Yea illegal in the US, but not everywhere.

Yeah kinda what I thought has to happen.

$2800 is pretty nice for a shift.

I wonder how this would apply (or does apply) to e.g., hospitals. I agree that striking is a right, but still I have an issue with the thought of having an entire ICU just striking and stopping to provide health care to the people in it. The state, or whomever, is responsible for the ICU to remain in operation, so I suppose they would have to buy the services (rent) from a third-party who is not striking. Which makes sense, and yet, it rubs me the wrong way.

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.

I remember that at least the Finnish reason for abstaining is that Hamas was not mentioned nor their attack condemned in any way in the cease fire resolution. Canada started a petition to change the wording of the resolution and most countries who abstained voted for this.

And nothing of value is lost. Good riddance.