• KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      yeah, from an end user perspective, it’s the same.

      But i was referring mostly to the legal technicalities there, where one would be significantly more spicy than the other.

      Nice root instance btw, getting jumpscared by pawb.social is a rather funny timeline to live in.

    • Grippler@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I don’t have an issue paying ISPs to access pirated content either, that’s the same as paying for Usenet access IMO. You’re paying for network access for a lot of different things, pirated content just happens to be part of it. Paying a streaming service specifically for pirated content is vastly different from paying for general network access, even from an end user perspective.