758
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
758 points (99.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
53939 readers
306 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
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Priority for corporation will always be profit maximization. Users are secondary.
Yeah, and in cases where there is a monopoly or quasi-monopoly of a product it becomes really exploitative.
But in this case in particular, I'm gonna have to say it's the fault of the users.
They chose to pay more for a worst product that had already been declining in quality steadily, when there are tons of other streaming services with good content.
I guess that is the fault of not being aware of alternatives, or brand royalty.
Average Users just want to be comfortable with watch they already have and don't want to hassle to learn new habits.
Disney simply chose to skip the voting and went straight to forbid password sharing. They are hoping for gaining new customers like Netflix .
And that is why we need a new corporate contract where the betterment of its employees, communities and it's services/products is a corporations goal not endless growth for the sake of profit.
Unfortunately they are pushed by the investors to focus on generating profit for them.
If I would give money to someone to make more money. I would expect more and more not less or a fix amount.
If the corporate contract changes then the expectation of investors would have to change as well. Changing the corporate contract is fundamental to changing nearly everything. What's even better is that no one can argue it's "evil socialism/communism" because it just isn't but it still affects sweeping positive changes.
Whit this the company might risk the chance to loose some of their biggest investors, who are keeping the company alive.
The implementation of such change would take years to slowly modify and chisel as much money-loosing-holes as possible.
Plus there would be board meetings where the company have to come up with a short term plan to Convince every money oriented board member that the new corporate contract will shovel money to the business. It is not easy, trust me.
They can't afford to loose money first to gain money years later.