this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
240 points (99.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55085 readers
259 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I think a common factor on why torrents are having a resurgence and illegal streaming services are getting more traction, is subscription fatigue. Subscription fatigue doesn't only contain itself to streaming services, movies or music, nowadays you're also expected to subscribe to every app you download. Whether it's a meditation app, a budgeting app (looking at YNAB that went from a one-time purchase to a really expensive subscription model), the Adobe suite, the MS Office suite, your Peloton bike that you've already paid hundreds of dollars for (referencing the earlier article on them establishing a startup fee for buying used bikes), or a podcast app where the money doesn't even go to the podcasters themselves.

Is there a peak for this? I feel like subscriptions are becoming more of a rule than an exception. Having the ability to directly purchase digital goods seems more like a thing of the past. It's just so stupid. But apparently people don't care? They just keep paying for this? Apparently it's still worth it for companies to establish a subscription model, even if there are no benefits for the customer, just the company. What are your thoughts? What can we do to stop it?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Thorned_Rose@sh.itjust.works 54 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I think some amount of it is apathy, or modern-life time-poor induced apathy where people just want something to work and work quickly without much effort or time and so they just pony up. And with so many people not keeping a budget, $10 a month here and there or $30 once a month doesn't seem like much if you're not adding up all those subs combined over a month or a year or 5 years. Really, some subs could fall into the category of a dark pattern because $10 a month doesn't seem like much compared to say $100 up front even though over the course of a year (or 2, 3, 5+ years) that sub costs you more than just buying software up front. (Think also Sam Vines Boot Theory).

I see some people are getting fed up (I'm one of them) but sadly plenty more who mindlessly keep paying more and more.

[–] Treedrake@fedia.io 5 points 4 months ago

Absolutely. I constantly revisit the services I subscribe to, but to be honest, I still keep some streaming services on a constant subscription even though my viewing patterns differ from month to month. In that case I'm just too lazy, and it's not a huge hit to my disposable income. I pay for it to be available when I want to use them. I think this might be the case for many others, and coupled with not having a budget and/or financial sense, this can definitely add up for many. I also think many people just forget what services they are subscribed too, and barely even watch their bank account/credit card slip and what's being withdrawn.

[–] smegger@aussie.zone 48 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When it's only one or two a month it's manageable, but now everything worth accessing is split over a dozen services. I gave the legal option a go and it became excessively expensive, so back to piracy. Both cheaper and more convenient.

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Word!

A pal of mine his parents subscribe to basically every streaming service under the sun, but when he and I wanted to watch a movie and he already painfully searched it using the arrow keys on the remote of his smart TV, we'd figure torrenting it for a few minutes was easier. (and yes I shared back to a ratio over ×1.00)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I used to have a program called netlimiter (needed to throttle individual aop downloads on a shared WISP that was slow as balls). I bought a lifetime license like 10 years ago because I liked the software. A couple years ago they got rid of the old version and bumped me up to the new version. About a year ago I got an email saying something along the lines of "pay our new subscription fee or you lose your access" and basically put me on a trial account. I pirated their old version years ago to see if I liked the software enough after a couple months. I no longer use that software.

Another time I bought a lifetime access for a game on patreon. About 2 years later the dev switched to a subscription only fee to access all the new content and never released anything from updated versions to the older public release. So essentially I bumped down to a free tier of access to a game I paid for.

I will pirate until I die. Fuck these douchebags.

[–] azerial@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 months ago

Omg same. I have been burnt so many times on "lifetime" scams, im done. I want to invest in your product, but part of that agreement is you doing what you say. I've had it!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I am too radicalized now. I refuse to fund my oppressors, and fuck all they can do about it.

I will teach my kids how to do it and advise them to never pay for engagement slop.

FAFO hollycreeps and recording studios, whatcha gonna about it, bitches ?

[–] diyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

I refuse to fund my oppressors

Bingo. I live by this philosophy.

Although more precisely: I refuse to ~~fund~~ feed my oppressors. The reason for s/fund/feed/ swap is that our oppressors profit from our data too. So e.g. I won’t even email a gmail user because my data would then feed Google (an oppressor because of how they dictate e-mail terms among other oppressions).

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I was thinking about this the other day when I heard Chick-fil-a wants to start their own streaming service. I feel like...it's starting to feel like every big business is squeezing us like lemons. Not only do they artifically increase prices for their goods, but now they want us to pay for subscription services too.

It's starting to feel extremely invasive. Surely, you would think there is a tipping point. But I also said that about the inflation of groceries and the general cost of living. But we haven't seem to hit that point either, lol.

[–] Treedrake@fedia.io 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Chick-fil-a starting a streaming service sounds like the worst idea ever.

[–] nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 7 points 4 months ago

They have to compete with the kfc console somehow.

[–] kirk781@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 4 months ago

Everything is a streaming service now. I like to think of even Peloton first as a content driven business and second as a hardware seller.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 1984@lemmy.today 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think if you run Linux, you don't notice it so much. Don't need office suite or Adobe suitsäe or mediation apps or whatever.... There are many decent free ones.

I don't pay for any software at all actually, and my job pays for chat gpt...

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My prediction is that now that tech has run out of its endless growth runway the- industry will begin to consolidate and they will have massive ecosystems that you can join for like 200 bucks a month

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 6 points 4 months ago

You mean cable packages, which have been on the comeback

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Is there a peak for this? I feel like subscriptions are becoming more of a rule than an exception. Having the ability to directly purchase digital goods seems more like a thing of the past.

You may have heard the saying: "you'll own nothing, and you'll be happy". Maybe there's some real agenda supporting this way of life for us peasants, and this is the manifestation of it.

[–] Treedrake@fedia.io 8 points 4 months ago

And wasn't that what we were promised by capitalism? That we could own our land, our homes and our lives. But even that, they're turning back on, except for the privileged few. Back to feudalism it is.

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

That's the beauty of late stage capitalism.

Never. Red like must always ascend lest the gnashing of teeth from the shareholder comes to past.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (15 children)

I know I'm in the minority but I am also a software developer, and I think subscriptions are a much healthier payment model for everyone. The issue IMO is not recurring payments but the total cost of ownership.

"Digitial goods" is very rarely just a thing that you produce once and then it's done. The OS is regularly updated which causes incompatibilities, app stores introduce new demands, and there's a constant stream of security vulnerabilities in your dependencies that need to be patched. Failing to adress any of these things breaks the social contract and causes rage among your users ("I PAID FOR THIS, WHY ISN'T IT WORKING/WHY AREN'T YOU FIXING BUGS/etc"). Even movies and music need to be maintained because new media formats are introduced, streaming services have to be kept responsive and up to date etc.

A subscription models the cost distribution over time much better, and it does benefit the users because it means the company can keep updating their shit even if new sales drop, instead of going bankrupt.

I don't think this stops with just digital goods. Manufactured products (and the environment) would also benefit from a subscription model because it means there's no incentive for planned obsolescence. It's an incentive for keeping the stuff we already built working for a long time, instead of constantly producing new crap and throwing the old in a landfill.

But, the caveat is that this shift must not result in higher total cost of ownership for the end users over time. In fact, it should reduce the cost because repairing and updating is cheaper than building new stuff. The way many companies are pricing subscriptions today, they are being too greedy.

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

I completely agree with you in principle for people who want their software updated, but there is some software that is standalone and doesn't depend upon changing codecs/APIs etc. Something like myfitnesspal or a thermomix shouldn't be a subscription, there is no major updates to how someone tracks their exercise uses a hot blender that justifies it beyond users being locked in.

In the example of thermomix, you've already paid top dollar for the hardware, getting locked out of functionality you've paid for stings.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

In the olden days software used to be sold by individual major versions. You paid for version 9, you paid for version 10. Or you skipped versions you didn't need. You could use versions side by side. The newest installed would import its data from the older ones. etc.

App stores have made this very awkward or almost impossible. There's no concept of separating major versions. You'd have to buy and install completely different apps to be able to pay for them separately and to use them side by side, but if they're separate apps they can't import your data from each other. Not to mention that people seem to hate having "too many apps" for some reason.

Software subscriptions switch the "support per major version" to "support per time of use". It's obviously shittier but it's more realistic than a one-time price and expecting to use the app in all future versions in perpetuity. The one time price would have to be very large to be realistic.

[–] Treedrake@fedia.io 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is an interesting point as well. Before, if you weren't happy with an update or whatnot, you could just keep running the older version. But nowadays that's impossible in many cases.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 5 points 4 months ago

TBF in most cases forced app obsolescence is on the developers. Some of them are super aggressive and will force you to update without really needing it. Like, come on, package tracking app, I really don't believe you're unable to show me the package pick-up barcode without updating. 🙄

But yeah, on iOS it's completely impossible to get older versions, once you've updated something that's it. And even on Android I've noticed that it's become impossible to downgrade some apps even if I have the old apk, the Google installer simply fails to install it if I've ever had a newer version installed.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Treedrake@fedia.io 13 points 4 months ago

I see your point. But as someone else mentioned, there are many programs, apps and what not that shouldn't require a subscription just by looking at how the software or hardware is set up.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think a lot of the blame lies on the shoulders of platform makers:

Apple constantly churning their already-working OS so software makers have to keep working just to keep already-working software running

Google constantly fucking with web browser standards/frameworks so it’s an endless stream of work to keep a web app up to date.

The basic productivity software that computers run hasn’t changed in functionality for literally my entire lifetime, yet there is an endless supply of software engineers working hard on these same basic tools for no apparent gains.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 months ago

I would pay if à la carte was remotely economical. For example a digital DRM movie rental should cost $1 in whatever resolution, on any device capable of playing it. A TV show should cost like $5 for a season or $0.5 per episode. To rent, not to own of course. I don’t care about ownership. With that model I would probably end up spending like $10-15/month on media, but I would feel better about it knowing the studio could pay more to those specific individuals who worked on the programs I am enjoying.

A subscription is a blank check to the studio to make whatever they think draws in subscribers, and to pay everyone involved as little as possible with no bonuses for blockbusters.

[–] PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

Don't forget the subscription to be able to start your car from your phone, or if you have really poor taste in vehicles the subscription to heat your seats or unlock other already-built-in features.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

My peak was one. For like 5-6 years Netflix had enough content to keep me entertained by itself. When the other media companies started pulling their stuff off Netflix to make their own services I started pirating again. Why would I bother keeping track of multiple services when I can get one VPN subscription and have it all plus stuff that isn't on any of them?

load more comments (3 replies)

What can we do to stop it?

But apparently people don’t care? They just keep paying for this?

Is your goal to attempt to stop other people from falling for subscriptions? You would be setting yourself up for disappointment.

Or do you mean "what can we do to stop it [from harassing us personally]"?

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s telling that my piracy of music all but disappeared when Apple Music came along. (Almost) Everything I want to hear is right there on my phone. I don’t have to switch between different services to find artists.

Now, whether such enormous consolidation of the record companies, allowing that kind of setup, is a good thing is another discussion…

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›