Otherwise if you're downloading stuff off the pirate bay it's either going to get you nailed pretty quickly for IP infringement, or you'll end up with fake files and a virus thats labeled as a codec you need to install.

Running a VPN or seedbox or any of the other numerous things to get around this (usenet is my own weapon of choice) results in what may be for you and I an easy or even fun activity, but not for my sisters kid or whatever.

I don't know much about private trackers because I don't actually torrent illegally (I pretty much only use torrents to seed Linux distros). But I'm skeptical "getting nailed" is actually much of a concern. I had a roommate not long ago who torrented illegally quite frequently. The only reason we know it was happening is we'd receive love letters from the ISP every few weeks, and while I suspect I know who was doing it, I'm not 100% sure. As far as I know there were never any consequences beyond that.

> you'll end up with fake files and a virus thats labeled as a codec you need to install

I am pretty skeptical that this is as common as you think it is. Certainly the kind of naive person who is installing codecs that unexpectedly were packaged with their files is not going to have an easy time on any part of the internet. And if you're using a site like EZTV the chances of this approach negligible.

> Running a VPN or seedbox or any of the other numerous things to get around this (usenet is my own weapon of choice) results in what may be for you and I an easy or even fun activity, but not for my sisters kid or whatever.

I use NordVPN (again, not for illegally torrenting--I originally got it for testing internationalization, but nowadays mostly use it because it's a middle ground between the privacy of Tor and the speed of un-proxied internet). The toolbar icon makes it pretty easy. I suspect the main barrier here would be even knowing that VPNs exist and wanting to pay for it, not actually using a VPN service once you have it.

Peer blacklists aren't perfect, but they can cut your chances of getting busted by known IP cops quite a bit.

1. Search Google for movie you want to watch.

2. Google shows a handy "Available on" frame at the top of the page, with prices (if applicable) and services that it's on.

3. Click the link.

4. Watch.

And you can rest easy knowing that you're not breaking the law because you're cheap and for some reason feel entitled to getting things for free.

Does it, though? https://imgur.com/Yxac3mL

I turned off my ad blocker and all other Chrome extensions and tried again before taking this screenshot, and really have no idea what you're talking about.

Still, the fact that Google has a workaround for this issue shows that it is an issue.

I've seen plenty of sites that also combine all the streaming service lists and let you search for specific movies or just browse based on genre.

Could it maybe be easier? Sure. But I'd argue it's still a lot easier than pirating...

It is sad to me that this is how you consider your fellow human beings.

Putting aside how disrespectful this assumption is to your users, I don't think it's true for all your users. It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing, but I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch, that some significant number of them are going to go elsewhere. Some of those who leave will go pirate the content they want.

Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive, and harmful to users, so it shouldn't be surprising that some users are looking outside platforms for their content.

>It may be true for enough of your users that it looks like a good idea in A/B testing

It's really impossible to say since everyone's numbers are biased and no one shares them. But what I was getting at originally was that the use case highlighted by OP was not the common case. Users don't search various services looking for a specific piece of content, they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog, where the twisted incentives come into play is when a user finishes the content and the platform tries to keep them hooked.

>I'd guess there are enough users who don't want to be treated like a child being told what to watch

I mean that's fair, but also a bad characterization. There are certainly bad incentives at play when you want to do everything to keep content discovery in a feedback loop, but there's not exactly an alternative when the people you need to license content from are your streaming competitors.

>Ultimately, I think bundling content with your platform and trying to force users to buy one to have the other is anticompetitive

I get the arguments for that, and I agree with some of them. But right now services compete on the merits of content itself, and as a result we have more content being created that's more diverse and at lower prices. When HBO Max and Disney+ go up we'll see how massive back catalogs affect the space, but right now the prevailing wisdom is to throw money at content creators - and I appreciate that as a content consumer.

If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years.

This is a very black and white statement, and as such I can directly say it is wrong because I do this.

If you meant "most users", I'd like to see what the breakdown is. Even if "most" is true, if a significant portion don't, then a significant portion has an incentive to pirate because streaming services don't fit their use case.

> they usually pull up to follow what they were watching previously or to browse a catalog,

Following what they were watching previously is looking for a specific piece of content...

It's a fairly simple case to solve, but it also breaks when the streaming service you're subscribed to no longer licenses the show you were watching--again, going back to the problem of needing multiple streaming services to gain access to all content.

> If you want the opposite of streaming, look at movie theaters. They don't compete on content availability

Huh? Yes they do. Maybe at one time people went to the movies and just saw whatever was playing, but now people look up what's showing online, and if there isn't anything they want to see, they don't go. It would be inconvenient not to, because you might show up at a time when no movies are starting and have to wait.

> - yet the diversity of content is down, barrier to entry is high, and prices have been rising for years.

There are a lot of confounding factors here.