Wouldn't the appropriate choice be to not pay for the service AND not pirate? That seems like the best way to send the message. Pirating gives the impression that you want to view their content but not pay for it. So they should invest in locking down their content, not improve their experience.

That sends the wrong message.

If you're interested in the content, but dislike the delivery mechanism, ignoring the content entirely sends the signal: "I am not interested in the content you're producing". The companies will attempt to address that signal by changing the content, to try and find content that attracts larger audiences.

Piracy sends a different signal: "I am interested in the content, but not the price or the delivery mechanism". The companies will attempt to address that signal differently. Maybe they lower the price. Maybe the ease the friction on the delivery mechanism. Maybe the increase the friction on the delivery mechanism (by adding DRM). But the signal from piracy sends a more clear message to the content companies that ignoring the content.

Then they would replace the content but not the system. If you like the content pirate it. They may add more drm like music companies or they may reduce prices or they may make streaming easier.

Ignoring it sends a different message.

Yes, I'm interested in their content. I'm not interested in their byzantine ways of inventing 20 million new streaming services that I need to subscribe to in order to watch one single show I want.

> So they should invest in locking down their content, not improve their experience.

Good luck with that.

purchase the shows you want to watch individually.

How do I do that? For instance imagine I would like to watch Book of Boba Fett (just an example, I saw it mentioned somewhere today). I don't think that Disney allows to purchase it individually, but I can only guess, because in the sticks where I live (EU country), Disney+ isn't even available.

That reminds me, what do you think about geoblocking these services? If one has a choice: buy the content, buy VPN and break the copyright by watching it in unsupported country or just break the copyright by pirating it outright, what should one do?

Boba fett is not provided individually. The cost value of producing that show is driving people to a subscription system. If you don't want to do that, don't sign up for it.

If you want to watch that show but you don't want to pay for subscription, let DIsney know. If the market demanded it by way of retracting their subscription dollars, they would notice.

But if you steal it because that's just how you want to do things, you're a thief.

It was your suggestion to purchase individual shows.

>If the market demanded it by way of retracting their subscription dollars, they would notice.

One could say that pirating is the act of retracting the subscription dollars, but I digress. I can't retract my subscription dollars, because they won't even offer me the subscription (which I mentioned in my comment).

Could you as an knowledgeable insider actually answer the part of my previous comment you conveniently skipped, that part about what is person supposed to do if the Disney doesn't even offer the service in their country? And don't say "let Disney know", something actionable please.

>But if you steal it because that's just how you want to do things, you're a thief.

1) it's not theft, it's digital "piracy"

2) And I didn't say I pirate their stuff, the show was just an example. But I still feel discriminated on account of country I am from by them refusing to sell me their subscription service. And everyone knows that racism is worse than stealing.

What is a "good model" to you?

Effort of buying legally < effort of downloading illegally

Netflix did it (once upon a time. no, not the movie). I don't really care for reasons why this is hard for the industry or really anything else. As long as it doesn't economically make sense for me to give money to someone (doesn't reduce my own effort/time expenditure or provide something I can't have otherwise), I will not give money to someone. Morals be damned.

You can rent on many of the streaming services for like $3, which blows a hole in the “it’s just effort” argument.

You still have to find which service it's available on, enter payment information, download an app... And even then if you're not in the USA the selection is distributed across more apps, and lots of content isn't available easily even if you want to pay.

That's Amazon AFAIK, I don't know of any others. It's a step in the right direction but the price is still too high (it's usually $4-$5 in my experience). I only get to watch it once, not keep it, and I pay you double what I used to pay Blockbuster? No thanks.

Blockbuster new releases were $3 in 1990 dollars ($6.60 today). This was in a mid-sized town in the midwest, not Manhattan or LA. Blockbuster was also far less convenient.

Fair, I forgot about inflation.

acquiring currency requires effort. Considerable effort, for some. One can click on a torrent link way faster than they can earn $3

Plus, this rental will not be available in all locales, for every video, etc

When I open IMDB database a drop down with links appears. If publisher decided not to provide movie for purchase - these are links to torrent files to download movie in HD, FHD and 4k with preselected language and subtitles settings. If publisher decided to provide movie for purchase - links to buy it with comparable price to a movie ticket. But you buy Movie not an HD+English+SpanishSubs file version and you don’t have access to 4k video. You can also buy subscription to IMDB which will include 100-200 hours worth of content per month. You don’t buy movies this way. You stream them and they don’t belong to you once your subscription ends. Publishers get their money based on minutes of content watched by users.

It won’t work?