This is so strange to me. I guess people enjoy being ripped off and getting less and less value for their money.

  • Copernican@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m aware of how media subs work and pw sharing works. But for me, I pay for the subscriptions I want access to. If pw sharing gets cut off, that is a free gift I used to give to other people as a bonus, but it doesn’t impact how I chose which subs I pay for to access the content I watch. That’s why I am curious why the primary sub holder of a service would cancel a sub if there’s a PW share crackdown if they are the sole person paying for it and it’s a subscription they enjoy utilizing.

    • MudMan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Again, you’re looking at it wrong. Or weird, at least. It’s like asking why I’d be mad that the brand of cookies a member of my family eats gets a price hike if I don’t like them myself. They’re still in my shopping cart every week.

      I don’t have a concept of a “primary sub holder”. It’s stuff a group of people gets for the group, and who is paying for which specific parts of the fixed expenses is lost to the mists of time.

      I get that US and anglo cultures in general are less collectivist, but this seems more extreme than that. Surely the concept of a close-knit group of people sharing costs without much precise bookkeeping is not completely alien to you. Do you split grocery shopping with the rest of your household? I mean, I did that when I was sharing an apartment during university, so maybe it’s an age thing?