• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet.

    i would think it would be a little different from usenet, considering that usenet would be a service that you pay for, and people who use that service would host content on it, so that other users can download that content. Which effectively removes the immediate liability that you would have in this case, where you are explicitly hosting a pirated streaming service, and then charging for it, for the explicit purpose of streaming said pirated content.

    • KoboldCoterie
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        yeah, from an end user perspective, it’s the same.

        But i was referring mostly to the legal technicalities there, where one would be significantly more spicy than the other.

        Nice root instance btw, getting jumpscared by pawb.social is a rather funny timeline to live in.

      • Grippler@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I don’t have an issue paying ISPs to access pirated content either, that’s the same as paying for Usenet access IMO. You’re paying for network access for a lot of different things, pirated content just happens to be part of it. Paying a streaming service specifically for pirated content is vastly different from paying for general network access, even from an end user perspective.