ook

Yes, you almost got it. Well done. I'll leave you with that.

No, the point is that just because you pirated it, it doesn't mean you would have paid for the content if there were no way to pirate it.

Hell no. Too much drama.

It wasn't about the time setting. I mean they jumped around in time. It had two main issues, one was the strong focus on Michael Burnham as the main character. It had to be Michael coming up with all the important solutions or helping others to find their solutions. It got a bit better over the seasons, but then the second issue was the same as also the Picard series was suffering under. A grand start into a season, big issues, weird things happening but by episode 3 or 4 the writers fail to bring it all together in a manner that makes sense.

Somehow not happening in SNW. Although watching the first episode of this new season made me wonder why we needed a cliffhanger for that at the end of the last season.

You basically wrote what I did, but from a different viewpoint.

Your example with the cinema is also a typical apple and oranges example comparing a digital distribution with a physical service. Yes, when you sneak into a cinema the cinema provider is losing revenue because you take a seat someone else might have paid for. So at some point the cinema is full and cannot accommodate any more people that paid which would prompt the provider to check tickets.

There is no such scenario for digital distribution. You are not taking anyone's space. The provider can sell their product infinitely often. You even already pay for the traffic you cause with your internet connection. It is a very different situation but is always equated because online piracy is of course the worst problem ever.

You got no ticks over there?

"The pay-TV provider suffered damage in the millions as a result," the ZCB announced without providing further details. The content providers speak of high revenue losses due to piracy on an "industrial scale".

Natürlich. Jeder hätte auf jeden Fall das legale Angebot abonniert, gäbe es da nicht diesen illegalen Service. Klar, macht Sinn. Gibt auf keinen Fall die Möglichkeit, dass die Leute dann einfach nichts abonnieren, natürlich nicht, nein.

Edit: sorry, didn't realise this might be an English community. Just wrote sarcastically that obviously everyone who subscribed to the illegal service will now certainly go for the legal alternative. Which is why it totally makes sense to mark these as lost revenue. Absolutely not possible that people might just no subscribe to the legal service, nope.

Surprise, banks also pull disgusting shit. Who would have thought about that.

Cause she took off her bra

Article in Finnish.

Don't worry! It'll come back at a different time, under a different name, with less announcements around it.