“If Western brands do not want to fight piracy in a particular country, it means that they are actually legalizing piracy of their content”
hilarious
‘preventing legal avenues for this material means we have to work harder to prevent piracy’
ya know, you could maybe just not invade a neighboring sovereign nation.
Well, to be fair, some countries do something equally bad with a so-called democracy and have never had any problems
ive heard bad things are moving into canada from the US… like a conservative disease
“… and some, I assume, are good people.”
The title of the article is a bit misleading, as upon reading it you may came to conclusion that Russian pirate infrastructure is actively hunted by goverment. That’s not really true and the article itself adds some significant nuances.
Long story short: Piracy in Russia over last two years has greatly increased overall (in both demand and supply) due to sanctions making legal options unavailable. Number of piracy takedown requests has also increased, but only reason for that is local streaming services hunting for local content. This effectively means that it’s enough for siteop to remove some Russian titles from the library (or hide them for Russian IPs) to keep operating without any significant legal problems.
So pirates worldwide are benefiting from more pirate services with more content and better speeds that their Russian fellows keep bringing them.
Western companies no longer operating in the Russian market, but still producing desirable content. … Western companies have ‘legalized’ piracy in Russia.
100% this.
Media is culture, and IMO people have a right to participate in culture. If it’s excessively difficult or impossible to legitimately access culture, one has the moral right to illegitimately access culture, and share it so others also have access.
It’s inexcusable to refuse to directly sell media. The internet has made it easier than ever to trade access to media for money. Geo-restricted subscription services should be a nice add-on option for power-consumers, not the only way to get access to something.
It’s also punishing the citizens of Russia for the crimes of its government.
Denying their participation in culture is a plan doomed to fail, much like prohibition.
That’s the point as the people are enabling the government
If Donald Trump wins the Presidency illegitimately, will you say the same of US citizens?
So, in a country where the elections are clearly a sham, and have been for decades, it’s the people’s fault, is that what you’re saying?
I couldn’t roll my eyes at this bullshit any harder.
Firstly, Putin has decent support in spite of the elections being a sham.
Secondly, there’s literally nothing else you can do to make a regime change happen from the outside. Except war, which no one wants.
So keep rolling your eyes in ignorance.
That is very easy to say when you are not a dissident living in one of these countries.
Literally why I used the US as an example.
EDIT: Also, you’re literally reducing their access to non-Propaganda media sources.
Did you just call western media for non-propaganda? Dude, it’s working then.
Don’t dissidents want regime change to happen more than they want Netflix?
So what would you suggest then?
In today’s world limiting access to content by location and government is stupid. If they would open their content worldwide, even if charging money, I bet they would get a lot more money.
deleted by creator
