“If Western brands do not want to fight piracy in a particular country, it means that they are actually legalizing piracy of their content”
“If Western brands do not want to fight piracy in a particular country, it means that they are actually legalizing piracy of their content”
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?