I know a lot of us, myself included, like to believe that piracy allows us to consume problematic media without supporting artists we do not like. But piracy demand also indicates to companies an untapped market that they could tap if they create the right product. HBO is absolutely keeping tabs on piracy of their show now and seeing our traffic the same way Crunchyroll used to keep tabs on pirated fan-translated anime back when they cared.

Also, there is a similar ethical zero-sum game with all other Harry Potter media and products. Normally we can buy on the secondary market if we need a hard copy to scan and rip but don’t want to support the creators. But almost every Harry Potter book in circulation is purchased by someone with intention to sell for a profit, and HBO is also likely keeping tabs on sales and resales of DVDs of the old movies. Every time money leaves your bank account for Harry Potter media, you are directly feeding the ecosystem which sustains the Queen of the TERFs.

It’s honestly pretty incredible how morally radioactive this one human is. Orson Scott Card is equally repugnant, but the Ender’s Game series doesn’t even have a small fraction of the market share of Harry Potter (IMHO this is the fault of that movie being just okayish, not good or bad, but that’s another topic.) Trump’s MAGA movement is comparable in badness, but there really isn’t much most of us can do other than voting and never shutting up about how unconstitutional the things he is doing is. Rowling really is comparable to Disney or Nestlé, and she’s just one person, not a whole company.

Right now, the only ethical way to consume Harry Potter is watching or reading movies and books on your copies that either:

  • you obtained before 2020
  • were given to you for free in some non-trackable way, e.g. offline or sneakernet.

There is no ethical Harry Potter consumption within capitalism. We will have to see if this changes once she is dead.

  • ZeroGravitas@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    99·
    11 days ago

    I’m just here to bring to your attention Lev Grossman’s “The Magicians”, both the books and the assorted TV show, which is quite awesome in its own right, even if it diverges from the books by quite a bit. There’s a whole world of awesome outside of HP, and even if it wasn’t, I refuse to recast in my theater of the mind the extremely talented and deeply regretted Alan Rickman and Dame Maggie Smith.

    • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      23·
      11 days ago

      The Magicians show lost me with the sudden graphic rape, that was then portrayed a good thing. Sucks you got raped but you get a consolation prize of extra powerful magic! Also the rapist has magic semen, and they need to get more.

      • BrinkBreaker@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        12·
        11 days ago

        Look. You’re not wrong that there is a really scary (I would perhaps say very intense and absolutely triggering, but not explicitly graphic. There’s definitely graphic violence, but yeah.) scene with SA. But the god semen thing was a different deity and they gank the original trickster deity that did the SA.

        When watching I do have the timestamps for that scene written down and do skip it. I skipped it when I introduced my wife to the show.

        Not telling you what to do, but there is good content there. That’s probably the single scene in the series I seriously tell people to avoid.

        I’m sorry it upset you the way it did. And now I’m seriously feeling like typing this is not the right thing, but my tism brain wants to explain more and better.

        • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          11 days ago

          It’s all good, i enjoy a good explanation! I did mix those 2 up, I got farther in the series than I remembered. I had to go look it up and it’s still bad. The way all of her remaining friends(because her friends were murdered before the rape) just brushed her off afterwards was unpleasant. She wanted justice and they didn’t help her, so she went for it on her own. That messed up their plans and they were pissed in addition to being “concerned” she was turning dark. When they had originally abandoned her and looked down on her because of her lack of magic, now all of a sudden they “care”. Quinten was such a shit friend. After all that, she chose to save them, by takeing a part her rapists to make her a goddess. Yeah, her whole arc was rage inducing. I tried to only watch what was necessary.

          Yeah, I tried to get past it but there were a couple other plot lines that were fairly disturbing. The living ship, that also was SA somehow or something. Creepy Russian teacher watching them fuck as foxes. The magic system had a lot of tie ins with sex and it was ick. The guy who got stuck in the the past or something and lived a life that was erased. Idk it was just a lot.

    • Ildsaye [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      19·
      11 days ago

      I’ll add, the manga Witch Hat Atelier is a much better execution than Potter of the premise of “a young orphan is abruptly brought over into a secretive world of mages overlapping with the mundane, but for mysterious reasons repeatedly draws the attention of dark forces.”

    • TheMadCodger@piefed.socialEnglish
      5·
      11 days ago

      I read the books as they came out and loved them. i tried watching the series as it was coming out but they really were so different from the books that when I had to wait for the next season I never picked it back up.

      Are they worth watching though? If I go into it knowing it’ll be basically something loosely related?

      • BrinkBreaker@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        5·
        11 days ago

        I think it’s really good. The books… were frankly hard for me to get through. Not bad, but I only read the first few.

        If you are going to watch the series, understand that the main cast are written as kind of assholes and are written like real people with real emotions and it’s stupid, but stupid good. Also there is an SA scene that can honestly be skipped Season 1, Episode 13 running roughly from the 40:00 to 42:00 mark.

        Once you get through the first season it’s pretty smooth sailing through to the end of season 3. Then they have cancellation hanging over them so seasons 4 and 5 aren’t quite as… grand as they should have been.

  • Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.caEnglish
    72·
    11 days ago

    I’m barely aware it exists and almost never see anything about it.

    Making a post called “Reminder: do not watch HBO’s Harry Potter.” Is literally marketing it and forcing people to think about it.

  • jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    61·
    11 days ago

    I feel like by this logic you shouldn’t have even brought it up since they also track Internet engagement…

    • m4a@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      34·
      11 days ago

      That’s a fair criticism. I’m gonna hope their scrapers aren’t looking at Lemmy, but they probably are.

      • MeetMeAtTheMovies [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        17·
        11 days ago

        Lemmy is well known by every major AI. It can even talk about the histories between various instances with some accuracy. Unless there’s some reason that commercial scraping companies would include Lemmy for an AI corpus but not include it for a marketing department’s research file, I’d say it’s safe to assume we’re included in that.

      • PerogiBoi@lemmy.caEnglish
        16·
        11 days ago

        All scrapers look at Lemmy. When you search on google, Lemmy pops up in the results. You can’t reasonably expect to be NOT scraped when you put things online.

    • inlandempire@jlai.luEnglish
      11·
      11 days ago

      Marketing teams only track engagement on major social media, having a discussion about it on lemmy is not going to impact their metrics or even be considered

  • bdonvr@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    53·
    11 days ago

    In any case, aside from JKR being a piece of shit who deserves zero support:

    These remakes seem completely and utterly unnecessary and of questionable production quality anyway. Why rehash the classic movies that were actually decent adaptations of the source material? Is this one arc really the only story worth telling in that universe?

    Boycott it because JKR is a Nazi. Don’t watch it because it’s yet more Hollywood remake slop.

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      13·
      11 days ago

      Is this one arc really the only story worth telling in that universe?

      JKR tried with the fantastic beasts films, it failed so hard it only get three out of the five planned films.

      • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        14·
        11 days ago

        they did not fail:

        collectively grossed over US$1.8 billion across three films, three times more than the budgeted costs

        they just weren’t as successful as the Harry Potter movies, and the second and third films had bad reviews (because they weren’t very good movies. but still, they had audience polls of B+)

  • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    50·
    11 days ago

    Agree 100%. I’ve been in some tough conversations with fellow LGBTQ+ allies over my participation, however minor, in the Harry Potter fandom. I’m seeing a lot of “it’s fine if you liked it before we learned JKR was a bigot” but I’m also seeing a lot of people with the same story as mine — discovered the franchise back then, enjoyed it, but do not like what JKR is doing to the trans community — but also criticising me for the same. Like it’s “fine” (to some extent?) if you’re trans and JKR betrayed you, but if you’re not trans, you’re held to a higher standard as an ally. I dunno. It’s confusing. I will not, however, back down from my claim that I enjoyed the first four (+HBP) books and the first four films before I learned she was crazy… and that this year I rewatched Philosopher’s Stone in 4K (and yes, it holds up).

    All that being said, the fears and concerns in the trans and LGBTQ+ community are valid. They may be jerks about it online, but as an ally, I can only ever strive to be a better one. I can’t change what I liked in the past and I will not deny it, even to history revisers. But I can change what I do in the present, and I can always strive to Do Better.

    I don’t like the new Harry Potter series because of why it exists. JKR was disappointed the stars of the film series did not share her transphobic views, so she immediately made a point to recast Hermione and to make her completely different from Emma Watson’s portrayal, as Watson was her most outspoken critic. She didn’t make Hermione a Black girl to be inclusive, she did it to distance Watson from the character because Watson isn’t transphobic. JKR further muddied the waters by saying that Dumbledore was gay and always had been (though no evidence of this is in the books — he’s essentially treated as ace, as in, asexual, as in, his sexuality is undetermined and probably doesn’t exist, which is fitting as the entirety of his character’s relevance is mentorship to an adolescent boy). When the rest of the cast basically stood against her, she set out to recast all of them.

    The new Harry Potter series looks like it might be fun, but I cannot in good conscience watch the new series. There are so many more things out there to see. Watching it with infinite time would be one thing, but I haven’t got that, have I? I was fully grown when Philosopher’s Stone came out, and I had no intention of seeing it. A coworker slipped me a bootleg copy (while it was still in cinemas!) and I watched it… twice. Then I went and saw it in cinema. I then collected the books and read them, and watched the movies, though I didn’t like it after the fourth one. It stopped being fun. I’m currently reading Dungeon Crawler Carl, and by that I mean, of course, I’m listening to the audiobooks. I’m in the second to most current book, the seventh one, and it’s still fun. It’s gotten serious, but it’s still fun. And, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, Matt Dinniman (the author) and Jeff Hays (the audiobook narrator) are not bigots. That’s the magical adventure series I’m looking forward to.

    • Cass.Forest@beehaw.orgEnglish
      12·
      11 days ago

      As a trans person, I have no idea why people are harping on you for liking HP before learning JKR was a bigot. As such, I never ascribe bigotry to people who simply purchase HP-related stuff. They may not know and may not be as online as I am to know the harm that they are contributing towards. However, if after they do find out, they continue to patronize said thing, I consider them as a bigot or at least that bigotry isn’t a dealbreaker for them. I believe the saying is if you sit down at a table with 10 Nazis, there are 11 Nazis at the table.

      To cap this off, though, I will paraphrase the idea of perfection being the enemy of progress.

      • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        6·
        11 days ago

        Spot on. If you’re okay with someone being racist, a bigot then that means at least you’re cool with such bigotry being in our society. Which I see as a morale failing. Attention to such is still attention, kind of like there’s no bad PR.

  • someone@lemmy.todayEnglish
    48·
    11 days ago

    It’s shocking to me someone would want to watch this.

    Harry Potter was never good. Why would someone even want to read a Harry Potter book obtained before 2020???

    The TERF stuff didn’t make Harry Potter bad. It always sucked, and people only realized after the TERF stuff.

    • call_me_xale@lemmy.zipEnglish
      10·
      11 days ago

      I’ll die on the hill that Cuarón’s Prisoner of Azkaban adaptation is the only good HP media.

      And not just for the sneaky sex scene in the credits. ;)

      • mushroommunk@lemmy.todayEnglish
        44·
        11 days ago

        Part of the difference is Rowling still holds so much cultural weight (somehow). So many people still know and watch and purchase Harry Potter stuff. Seinfeld only really holds that weight amongst older conservatives. He’s only popular amongst the people perpetuating the hate. Rowling’s stuff is popular amongst those who should know better.

        I do agree we should boycott more (I personally do boycott a fair bit), but comparing the current impact of Rowling to the current impact of Seinfeld is crazy.

      • Section Ratio General@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        16·
        11 days ago

        Yeah, lots of people are either terrible people, or have enough money to fund hate crimes, or are willing to act on their beliefs. Rowling is special because she is both a raving bigot, rich, and 100% willing to pour all her money into making sure no trans person feels safe again. You know, Morgoth’s Trinity: Resources, Hatred, and Will to Power.

  • remon@ani.socialEnglish
    33·
    11 days ago

    I doubt I’ll watch it, still gonna download it and put on my media server regardless. Other people will want to watch it so it’s better they watch it pirated on plex than on an official stream.

  • loutr@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    32·
    11 days ago

    At this point it’s only a matter of principle. JKR is a billionaire, her activism isn’t limited by money. And most HP fans don’t care or even know about her hateful views, so anything they put out will still make her millions.

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachtsEnglish
    31·
    11 days ago

    There is so much far better content out there to absorb other than Harry Potter. I can go without and be perfectly fine. I think we already have some of the books and DVDs from ages ago. So if my wife or I suddenly have the desire to revisit, we’re not consuming anything HBO or anyone else can even remotely trace.

  • eurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
    31·
    11 days ago

    There’s a bunch of flaws in your logic here, not the least of which is:

    There is no ethical Harry Potter consumption within capitalism.

    Piracy isn’t capitalism

    Edit: let me be more clear–

    You’re trying to resolve one ethical dilemma with another unresolved ethical dilemma: You’re trying to resolve: “Can one appreciate an artist’s work while acknowledging that the artist is detestable?” with the same logic as “Is digital piracy an ethical workaround to media capitalism?” and combine the two arguments into one solution: “Is it ethical to pirate Harry Potter media from HBO, even though I find both Rowling, HBO, and capitalism detestable?”

    It’s like asking, “As a strict environmentalist, is it ethical to drive my EV to the market if I know I had to charge it from an energy grid powered by coal plant (that I had no choice but to use)?” Because no matter how much personal opinion and moral relativism enters the ethical calculus, there’s a logical breakdown at the crosspoint of systemics, when individual participation merges into participation at scale, how much your choice is actually a choice at all, how much your choice would make any difference, and on and on…

    but before all of that, it doesn’t make any logical sense to even go down that path since trying to resolve one ethical dilemma with another - especially expecting a black-and-white answer - is just a bit silly.

    • zloubida@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      17·
      11 days ago

      But privacy doesn’t cancel capitalism. HBO doesn’t need to know who downloaded, just how much people downloaded.

      • eurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
        15·
        11 days ago

        Capitalism is going to happen regardless of piracy. HBO is going to make the show regardless of how many people pirate it.

        HBO doesn’t need to know who downloaded, just how much people downloaded.

        They don’t need to know either of those things

        But privacy [sic] doesn’t cancel capitalism.

        It kinda does, but that’s not really the point

        • Section Ratio General@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          5·
          11 days ago

          Piracy is in a sense the purest form of capitalism. It costs slightly more than nothing to send a file over the internet, and so if the efficient market hypothesis was true everyone would be pirating all the time. The suits and the corpos know full well that their products compete with piracy’s offerings at the low, low price of free + a VPN or Usenet subscription or a 3D printer. The smarter corpos know that they can gague a market by keeping track of torrents of their movies/shows. We aren’t insulated from the free market down here just because we don’t pay for shit.

          • eurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
            7·
            11 days ago

            Piracy is anti-capitalism. And while it may cost you something to send a file over the Internet, it doesn’t necessarily cost me anything. And if capitalism is producing something and selling it for a profit, piracy is the opposite of that: taking a copy for free, regardless of the method. Thus: anti-capitalism

            Just because of the method of piracy you happen to choose may cost you money doesn’t change those underlying facts. especially because it is perfectly possible to engage in piracy without engaging in capitalism whatsoever. just because in the example you have cited, you have chosen to commingle the two does not mean they cannot be mutually exclusive.

            • Section Ratio General@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              6·
              11 days ago

              I think you are equating capitalism to money changing hands instead of the generation of capital. The glib version of my argument is “Piracy drives word-of-mouth advertisement which drives sales, therefore piracy increases sales.” Its obviously more complex than that, but I hope you see my position.

              • eurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
                6·
                11 days ago

                I don’t see the difference between the two things you just described, no… except for the circuitousness of the path of the profit/value generation. The end result is the same.

                But the argument you’re making also makes a huge amount of assumptions about the individual versus about engagement in piracy by society in general. On the micro scale versus the macro scale. Is piracy of a particular piece of media ethical as an individual versus is piracy of a particular piece of media ethical at scale. The crux of your argument seems to be the value generation of “word-of-mouth“. So now you’re just arguing a matter of degrees and pedagogy.

                So you’re not really arguing about capitalism or piracy at all, now you’re arguing about passing undeserved value, and the methods by which that is done and how piracy is being co-opted via capitalism.

                And what this whole argument really is about is whether or not you can separate the art from the artist and still appreciate a piece of work, even though you find the artist repulsive. And none of this has to do with piracy at all, but whether you can find a way to consume an artist work without endorsing the artist. where Percy comes into the conversation is whether or not that is an acceptable means to that end, and people will always disagree on that.

                The whole “capitalism” chestnut isn’t a means to untangle that because piracy is, as I’ve said, mostly anti-capitalism, and isn’t self reliant on capitalism, so the logic of that argument doesn’t really work out. It’s mostly down to personal opinion, and there really isn’t any logic to that at all.

    • m4a@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      6·
      11 days ago

      My man, the reason I said that is I’m giving you an out. Direct downloads can’t be tracked in the way that streams and torrents can. Get a Google Drive link from somebody or get a Usenet subscription. I thought I was clear that I meant “within capitalism” as “everything the suits can measure and react to”.

      • eurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
        10·
        11 days ago

        Not only is what you said definitely not true for a lot of different reasons, but if you’re gonna be this condescending, I don’t see why I should continue having a conversation with you.