$30/yr for a VPN service so your isp doesn't disconnect you for torrenting, at least in the US

Don't torrent at home. If you're going to share Linux ISOs (because that's all p2p is good for) pay for a dedicated seedbox. You don't have to worry about cutting into your own bandwidth but for downloading once. It's more expensive, but it's cheaper than Netflix.

I have no idea why a person would pay for a VPN to trickle torrents when they could pay the same to get usenet and download 1080p movies in a couple of minutes, or 4k in ~10.

> I have no idea why a person would pay for a VPN to trickle torrents when they could pay the same to get usenet and download 1080p movies in a couple of minutes, or 4k in ~10.

I don't know what services you're using, but I can download 4k in sub-10 minutes from my seedbox. My understanding was usenet did not have as many options.

I don't really watch TV anymore, but when I did my experience was that Usenet was very good for anything English-language (movies, TV shows), but I had to torrent same-day anime releases.

openvpn on a vps you already run, or some dirt cheap box. If you're buying dvds and cds every year you're more than likely spending more than you would on a vpn setup, or just use safer trackers. You could probably use nothing and any fines you eventually probably won't get would be less than the cost of the hard media anyway.

So 2 months of Netflix?

> $30/yr

so, $2.5/month and you get access to all of the content on netflix, all of the content on hulu, all of the content on amazon prime, etc.

> isp doesn't disconnect you for torrenting

in places with isp competition, they don't even disconnect you.

e: and i'm downvoted because...?

I don't know how the used market affects the creators' pockets, but let people who want to pay, pay. Enough people still need to pay to make it worthwhile for the creators to publish the content.

I only made my comment because they were already in the used market and I don't think most people who buy movies do so with an eye towards the resale value, so there is minimal impact on the creators' pockets at all.

The reason to switch from resold to infringed is that infringed is a superior substitute. However, these are not the only two substitutes in the market, and given that the consumer is consuming a stream of items over time, it is the case that by switching to infringed that the consumer will have less reason to ever buy, either at all or in the same quantity, the substitutes that make money for the creators, such as paid streaming or new discs, and so it is plausible (and for many individual consumers likely) that the impact on creators will be non-negligible.

I’m not sure that follows. Someone bought the content new. When someone else buys their old stuff, this gives them more money with which to buy new content. I suspect this is a very small effect, but I doubt it’s zero.

> I suspect this is a very small effect, but I doubt it’s zero.

As I said, minimal. If I save money by pirating content and then use that money to pay higher tips to service workers, then maybe they'll turn around and buy more content - helping content creators. These are very tenuous links.

The more clear link would be the used market shifting the demand curve for the new market outwards due to the resale value. I think this is a real effect, but a small one.