| |
| ▲ | wlesieutre 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable. https://www.escapistmagazine.com/Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Pir... | |
| ▲ | klik99 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | IIRC the interview that quote was from came with the story - Russia was seen as a lost cause by the game industry, there was so much piracy that nobody even bothered trying to give legitimate ways to purchase, why invest in distribution when they’ll just pirate? Now of course Steam does heathy business there so that’s obviously not true. But indicates writing off piracy is a self fulfilling prophecy | |
| ▲ | ninjalanternshk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Spotify is always my example. Spotify (and Apple Music I assume) is far more convenient, for a modest price, than pirating music. It’s a shame the TV and movie people can’t seem to learn this. Most music is available on Spotify and Apple and probably other places as well. They toyed with exclusivity for a while and I’m sure there’s still some stuff that’s exclusive to one or the other, but any time I hear a song and look it up, it’s on Spotify. Done. Such a contrast to the stupid game of figuring out which streaming service has the show I want. | | |
| ▲ | auggierose an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Music is very different to TV and movies. You only watch a show or a movie once, maybe twice. And it costs much more to produce it. | | |
| ▲ | th0raway 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The biggest difference there isn't production costs, but the physical costs of maintaining the giant library, in a way that is reasonable streamable at a good cost from any device, with many dubbings, and even video differences per version. Go see how many little differences are there in a random Pixar movie due to localization. The infrastructure per hour watched is relevant, and there's a lot of differences between one is willing to spend on something that is being watched hundreds of thousands of times today, and some 30 year old episode of a series nobody followed. It's a much different production than sending music files over. Even with licensing costs at zero, the infra of Youtube, the closest thing to Spotify for video, is a very different beast. And I'd argue youtube doesn't go far enough. | |
| ▲ | hack1312 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | somewhatgoated 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most of the music i listen to doesnt exist on Spotify and I think their business model is very predatory against artists. most artists cant pay their bills with Spotify fees, they just need to be on there to get visibility for their actual revenue streams. I think a better example is bandcamp - it’s actually sustainable for artists and just as convenient as pirating. Plus you get to actually own what you pay for as opposed to Spotify controlling what you can / cant listen to. | |
| ▲ | davsti4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except that Spotify is now becoming enshittified (battery and UI). When I have to think too much to attempt to use a UI, its time to find alternatives. | | |
| ▲ | jasomill 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | As opposed to streaming video services, which, aside from the content they provide, have been shit from day one. While the web UIs suck compared to local media players, they work well enough that I can cope. But most services restrict 4K (and at least historically 1080p) web playback, even on Windows with a GPU that supports top-tier hardware DRM and an HDCP display. My desktop display is a recent 55" LG OLED smart TV, and the streaming service apps on the TV work fine when my attention is devoted to whatever I'm watching, even if they tend to be slightly shittier than the already mediocre web UIs. But when task switching or multitasking, my only options are reduced video quality, borrowing or purchasing a physical copy if available, or piracy. Given how quickly everything shows up on public torrent trackers, I struggle to understand why the 4K limitations remain in place, as it obviously doesn't stop whoever uploads the torrents, and there has to be a vanishingly small number of paying customers who'd prefer to crack DRM locally or record HDMI instead of simply downloading the torrent. Do streaming services get kickbacks from smart device vendors? |
|
| |
| ▲ | throw28573 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Original interview with Gabe: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EQweFurRz4g | |
| ▲ | jaapz an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Even Youtube is no longer less hassle than piracy now. YouTube premium is hassle? | | |
| ▲ | NewsaHackO an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I think he means that you can’t watch regular videos on YouTube unless you use a IP that is easily traceable to a subscriber or a YouTube account that requires everything short of a DNA sample to be valid. | |
| ▲ | jack_pp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | since youtube premium and various methods to skip ads now even Joe rogan who has 200+ million dollars does ad reads directly in video. | | |
| ▲ | Scoundreller a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | The guy got his start on NewsRadio and I always wonder how much that influenced his path today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsRadio | |
| ▲ | derektank 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s not a problem with YouTube, that’s a problem with the content creator. YouTube Premium accounts actually pay out more per watch than free users, and YouTube also provides a Skip Ahead button that will appear at the start of most ad reads (it’s a bit hit or miss, I think it relies on data from other people scrubbing past them). | |
| ▲ | VorpalWay 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You might be interested in the SponsorBlock[1] browser extension for Firefox and Chromium based browsers. It deals with this issue, and is open source. [1] https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock |
| |
| ▲ | iso1631 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't see any hassle with youtube, but I'm willing to pay. I do see hassle on things like disney and iplayer, which put now put adverts for shows I don't want to watch in front of Rivals. It's fortunately very rare that happens (on Disney), but its getting close to what I did when Amazon brought that in, and cancelled my subscription. Just like I stopped buying DVDs when they brought adverts in. I wouldn't have any moral problem in downloading Rivals from piratebay though, as far as I'm concerned I'm paying for it. But sometimes though there's no option to buy the thing. I want to buy the audio version of "a stitch in time" by Andrew Robinson (Garak from Star Trek). It's not available in my country on audible -- only the German translation. I haven't acquired it via other means yet, I'm still on the look out for another supplier which will take my money, and if I can trust that's a legitimate supplier so at least some of my money goes to the copyright holder (and thus pays for the people that create it) I don't have a CD player so not much use, but technically it is available for £142 from "Paper Cavalier UK". That's second hand, the creator won't make any money from me doing that. To my mind if someone won't "shut up and take my money", it's acceptable to acquire via another means. |
|
|
