6 ms·

> It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or

> It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. I'm with you, up until here. If I buy some content (e-book, movie, TV show, etc.), and then DRM malfunctions or is senselessly restrictive (client doesn't exist for some platform, etc.), I feel it is justifiable to "pirate" the content which I paid for. Particularly in the case of malfunctioning DRM (which is unfortunately common for PC games these days), it is the provider who failed to hold up their end of the bargain (whatever their EULA may say). But of all the things studios do, deciding where to sell or not sell content is something that they actually have every right to do. We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists. If HBO doesn't want to release Game of Thrones during the season to Amazon, etc. because they want people to watch it on their network, what right do I have to steal it because I don't want to pay for cable?

rocky1138 11y ago
Because it's dumb that they want you to suck it through their straw.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  So you deserve a particular piece of entertainment because it exists and you pay someone else for an internet connection? What exactly are your criterion for the thinness of the straw before you feel justified in routing around it? It sounds like a moving target to me.
  - rocky1138 11y ago
    Essentially, as long as I am able to pay a decent price for content without them telling me how I can consume it, I'll do it. If the price is too high I'll wait until it comes down and not pirate it (see: waiting for a game to be cheaper during a Steam sale). If the company tries to control how I consume the content in a way that is illogical or very inconvenient, I'll get it by other means or just avoid it altogether. Examples: 1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time. 2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me. 3. Apple requires the use of Safari to view their live streams, for no valid technical reason. So, I don't listen or pay attention to anything during their keynotes. At the office, headphones go on. From my perspective, they don't want me as a customer anyway, so there's no point in giving them any mindshare.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      > 1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time. So you pay Netflix, but Netflix didn't pay Comedy Central for Rick and Morty. So why does Comedy Central get penalized because they didn't make a deal with a content provider you consider convenient? Also, in this particular case, you can watch it for free (legally) here[1] (please do, it would be a shame for such a good show to get cancelled because they think nobody is watching). > 2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me. I feel your pain. However, my approach is to pay for the games, and then download cracks when the DRM (inevitably) malfunctions. It is some small inconvenience, but I think it is far more fair than paying nothing at all. Also, going that route ensures that game companies will (1) make the DRM even worse in a vain attempt to make it "uncrackable" (2) give up on PC games that aren't entirely online based. Though I think it may be too late already. [1]: http://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/ http://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/
      - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        I bet he's paid Comedy Central for thousands of things that he never even asked for if he's ever had a cable bill. Look at the big picture. We live in a society full of corruption and greed; people are naturally going to "steal" from the big greedy corporations who constantly use their advantage to turn the screws and make society pay for their faulty business plans.
      - rocky1138 11y ago
        Why don't Comedy Central and Netflix have an agreement? Secondarily, thank you for pasting that link. I didn't realize it was available to watch for free directly. I'll watch the ones that are open to me there then.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    Whether they like it or not, they're competing with free. The poster stated they prefer to pay for convenient services, but they have no qualms about free and convenient when they find the paid product is more inconvenient than the free product. This is what 'content producers' are competing against. You may not like it, but that's reality.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      I have no doubt it is reality, and that my comment would do nothing to change it, but that doesn't mean I'll think it's right or not say anything. Brick walls were made to be punched.
  - oe 11y ago
    Releasing movies and TV shows simultaneously around the world would cut piracy a lot. That's one pretty clear criteria: the content is sold in a digital format somewhere but not in your home country. Take the Sherlock TV series for example: who wants to wait for two years for a new season, and then an additional two months for it to arrive in your particular country? In Finland the series is shown on a state-funded channel who don't even get any money from you watching the show on their channel.
coldtea 11y ago
>We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists. To play the devil's advocate. Why not though? The "because it's illegal" I can understand. But if one's to argue it's also "immoral", then this pressuposses a whole complicated ethics based on a human invention like "copyright", which I'm not sure why people need to respect.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  At bottom, its not about respecting 'copyright'. Its about respecting authors. There's a system in place so they can dedicate some part of their lives to creation, and get compensated for that. To flout that system because complex moralizing disrespects authors, right at home where it hurts - their compensation.
  - klibertp 11y ago
    I'd say the blame is on their editors for not caring enough for the authors to try selling their work wherever possible. If I can't buy their work, I won't, so they won't see any money from me. Whether I saw their work - from the authors' point of view - is irrelevant.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      I'd say that might go under 'complex moralizing'. Their work is available; it may take more than a google or a click to obtain. Too much work to walk down to the store? That is what I meant by disrespecting the author. I suspect much pirating is rooted in entitlement, and the moralizing comes after.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        That is probably true in most cases, not just of pirating, but of all interactions. We act, we feel, then we justify why we acted and felt such.
      - alextgordon 11y ago
speeder 11y ago
I need to disagree with you. In my whole life pirate content was present, sometimes more, sometimes less. I live in a third world country, with poor access to outside culture, and the culture present here is not that interesting to me (example: the most popular music genres, bands and groups all talk about extremely pornographic sex, and has heavy percussion emphasis, with little or no melody, the biggest national party is focused on that same music genres and debauchery). When I was a kid, the ONLY way to get computer stuff, was pirate it, sometimes some shareware software was for sale for about 10 USD (yep, I paid 10 USD on a SHAREWARE copy of Wolf 3D, having only the first episode), even to get pirated stuff sometimes was extremely hard (to get a copy of Doom 1 and 2, my dad made some engineering services do Kia motors, and agreed to give them a discount if their CEO, that was a known Doom player, gave us a copy, the guy gave my dad a box with about 20 floppies or something). So, just because I was born here, I have no right to have foreign culture? Because I was born here, I am supposed to settle for a culture about percussion music, debauched promiscuous sex and soccer? I have no right to coding books? Research papers? European music of all genres (from french eletronica to austrian classical)? I can't see excellent TV series from UK (like Sherlock) and instead must settle for local TV programs with melodramatic plots that praise villains that are adulterous swindlers and con artists? I seriously don't understand people that think that culture, knowledge and information is not a right, that think that poor people, or people from distant places must resign themselves to remain ignorant.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  My ire was directed at those who (like the author of the post I responded to) pirate things just because of minor inconvenience (e.g. not available on Netflix). In the case where there is no way for you to get the content otherwise, we're talking about a very different situation. As far as I can see, if the content provider makes it impossible for you to access the content legally, then it doesn't make much of a difference to them if you pirate it or not. That is one huge disparity between a good which is easily duplicated and something which is not that I'll agree with.
- rocky1138 11y ago
  We have similar problems in Canada. Shows which are available to everyone else in the world are not available to us, even though we would gladly pay for them. So, Popcorn Time it is.
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
I have been paying more than $100 a month to a cable company for a long time. So, I feel entitled to watch whatever I want, wherever I want because if I haven't already paid for it, I probably will soon.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  You may be paying for cable, but have you been paying HBO? They're the content producer, not Comcast or Cox or whoever you have.
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    Absolutely. I've had the "premium" level subscription for at least over a decade, which includes all of the content producers and all of the movies (and music). I've paid roughly $12k to $16k to these bloodsucking corporations in that time and I continue to pay even though I can only take advantage of a small percentage of what I'm paying for via Cable. So I really feel like I'm entitled to watch and listen to what I want to, how and when I want to.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      > So I really feel like I'm entitled to watch and listen to what I want to, how and when I want to. Did the cable company lie to you and say that their contract covered indefinite access to their content after termination of their service? Because if they did, you probably have some serious grounds for a lawsuit. If not, how would you feel if your employer decided he paid you for years, so he is justified in just stopping. Ah, but I forgot! You're dealing with a corporation, which means that you can m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶i̶z̶e̶ justify doing anything when they are involved. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
      - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        I do what I want to primarily because I can. And I'm not going to feel bad about that. Just because a law or contract exists does not make it good or right or moral to me. Look at the world we live in - Might makes Right is the ultimate law in this world. Corporations, governments (all just people really) do what they want and if nobody stops them, then I guess it's fine. That's why it's fine for me to do what I want. Secondly, I don't care about your moral code or your justifications, I care about mine - but I guarantee you that you personally don't live by the letter of the law or every contract you've ever signed. So, why should anyone listen to you? There are no absolutes and your laws and contracts are basically for people who wish follow them, but they're not for me because I don't live in a fantasy world where everything is perfect and everybody follows the rules.
Qwertious 11y ago
>We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists. Sorry, what? We absolutely do, if we're willing to pay. The point of copyright is to provide a monetary incentive for authors/makers of works to go make their works, via a temporary state-sanctioned monopoly. If they then take their state-sanctioned monopoly and refuse to sell to certain locations... Well, that's not what the state granted their monopoly for. They have no right to do that. Again: The purpose of copyright is generating more artistic works, and if they aren't interested in extracting profits via selling their works in a specific country, then what's the point of restricting the right to copy the work in that country in the first place? It violates the point of copyright, not to mention anti-trust laws.

rocky1138 11y ago

Because it's dumb that they want you to suck it through their straw.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
So you deserve a particular piece of entertainment because it exists and you pay someone else for an internet connection? What exactly are your criterion for the thinness of the straw before you feel justified in routing around it? It sounds like a moving target to me.
- rocky1138 11y ago
  Essentially, as long as I am able to pay a decent price for content without them telling me how I can consume it, I'll do it. If the price is too high I'll wait until it comes down and not pirate it (see: waiting for a game to be cheaper during a Steam sale). If the company tries to control how I consume the content in a way that is illogical or very inconvenient, I'll get it by other means or just avoid it altogether. Examples: 1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time. 2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me. 3. Apple requires the use of Safari to view their live streams, for no valid technical reason. So, I don't listen or pay attention to anything during their keynotes. At the office, headphones go on. From my perspective, they don't want me as a customer anyway, so there's no point in giving them any mindshare.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    > 1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time. So you pay Netflix, but Netflix didn't pay Comedy Central for Rick and Morty. So why does Comedy Central get penalized because they didn't make a deal with a content provider you consider convenient? Also, in this particular case, you can watch it for free (legally) here[1] (please do, it would be a shame for such a good show to get cancelled because they think nobody is watching). > 2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me. I feel your pain. However, my approach is to pay for the games, and then download cracks when the DRM (inevitably) malfunctions. It is some small inconvenience, but I think it is far more fair than paying nothing at all. Also, going that route ensures that game companies will (1) make the DRM even worse in a vain attempt to make it "uncrackable" (2) give up on PC games that aren't entirely online based. Though I think it may be too late already. [1]: http://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/ http://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/
    - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      I bet he's paid Comedy Central for thousands of things that he never even asked for if he's ever had a cable bill. Look at the big picture. We live in a society full of corruption and greed; people are naturally going to "steal" from the big greedy corporations who constantly use their advantage to turn the screws and make society pay for their faulty business plans.
    - rocky1138 11y ago
      Why don't Comedy Central and Netflix have an agreement? Secondarily, thank you for pasting that link. I didn't realize it was available to watch for free directly. I'll watch the ones that are open to me there then.
- mreiland 11y ago
  Whether they like it or not, they're competing with free. The poster stated they prefer to pay for convenient services, but they have no qualms about free and convenient when they find the paid product is more inconvenient than the free product. This is what 'content producers' are competing against. You may not like it, but that's reality.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    I have no doubt it is reality, and that my comment would do nothing to change it, but that doesn't mean I'll think it's right or not say anything. Brick walls were made to be punched.
- oe 11y ago
  Releasing movies and TV shows simultaneously around the world would cut piracy a lot. That's one pretty clear criteria: the content is sold in a digital format somewhere but not in your home country. Take the Sherlock TV series for example: who wants to wait for two years for a new season, and then an additional two months for it to arrive in your particular country? In Finland the series is shown on a state-funded channel who don't even get any money from you watching the show on their channel.

coldtea 11y ago

>We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists. To play the devil's advocate. Why not though? The "because it's illegal" I can understand. But if one's to argue it's also "immoral", then this pressuposses a whole complicated ethics based on a human invention like "copyright", which I'm not sure why people need to respect.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
At bottom, its not about respecting 'copyright'. Its about respecting authors. There's a system in place so they can dedicate some part of their lives to creation, and get compensated for that. To flout that system because complex moralizing disrespects authors, right at home where it hurts - their compensation.
- klibertp 11y ago
  I'd say the blame is on their editors for not caring enough for the authors to try selling their work wherever possible. If I can't buy their work, I won't, so they won't see any money from me. Whether I saw their work - from the authors' point of view - is irrelevant.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I'd say that might go under 'complex moralizing'. Their work is available; it may take more than a google or a click to obtain. Too much work to walk down to the store? That is what I meant by disrespecting the author. I suspect much pirating is rooted in entitlement, and the moralizing comes after.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      That is probably true in most cases, not just of pirating, but of all interactions. We act, we feel, then we justify why we acted and felt such.
    - alextgordon 11y ago

speeder 11y ago

I need to disagree with you. In my whole life pirate content was present, sometimes more, sometimes less. I live in a third world country, with poor access to outside culture, and the culture present here is not that interesting to me (example: the most popular music genres, bands and groups all talk about extremely pornographic sex, and has heavy percussion emphasis, with little or no melody, the biggest national party is focused on that same music genres and debauchery). When I was a kid, the ONLY way to get computer stuff, was pirate it, sometimes some shareware software was for sale for about 10 USD (yep, I paid 10 USD on a SHAREWARE copy of Wolf 3D, having only the first episode), even to get pirated stuff sometimes was extremely hard (to get a copy of Doom 1 and 2, my dad made some engineering services do Kia motors, and agreed to give them a discount if their CEO, that was a known Doom player, gave us a copy, the guy gave my dad a box with about 20 floppies or something). So, just because I was born here, I have no right to have foreign culture? Because I was born here, I am supposed to settle for a culture about percussion music, debauched promiscuous sex and soccer? I have no right to coding books? Research papers? European music of all genres (from french eletronica to austrian classical)? I can't see excellent TV series from UK (like Sherlock) and instead must settle for local TV programs with melodramatic plots that praise villains that are adulterous swindlers and con artists? I seriously don't understand people that think that culture, knowledge and information is not a right, that think that poor people, or people from distant places must resign themselves to remain ignorant.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
My ire was directed at those who (like the author of the post I responded to) pirate things just because of minor inconvenience (e.g. not available on Netflix). In the case where there is no way for you to get the content otherwise, we're talking about a very different situation. As far as I can see, if the content provider makes it impossible for you to access the content legally, then it doesn't make much of a difference to them if you pirate it or not. That is one huge disparity between a good which is easily duplicated and something which is not that I'll agree with.
rocky1138 11y ago
We have similar problems in Canada. Shows which are available to everyone else in the world are not available to us, even though we would gladly pay for them. So, Popcorn Time it is.

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

I have been paying more than $100 a month to a cable company for a long time. So, I feel entitled to watch whatever I want, wherever I want because if I haven't already paid for it, I probably will soon.

Jtsummers 11y ago
You may be paying for cable, but have you been paying HBO? They're the content producer, not Comcast or Cox or whoever you have.
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  Absolutely. I've had the "premium" level subscription for at least over a decade, which includes all of the content producers and all of the movies (and music). I've paid roughly $12k to $16k to these bloodsucking corporations in that time and I continue to pay even though I can only take advantage of a small percentage of what I'm paying for via Cable. So I really feel like I'm entitled to watch and listen to what I want to, how and when I want to.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    > So I really feel like I'm entitled to watch and listen to what I want to, how and when I want to. Did the cable company lie to you and say that their contract covered indefinite access to their content after termination of their service? Because if they did, you probably have some serious grounds for a lawsuit. If not, how would you feel if your employer decided he paid you for years, so he is justified in just stopping. Ah, but I forgot! You're dealing with a corporation, which means that you can m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶i̶z̶e̶ justify doing anything when they are involved. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
    - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      I do what I want to primarily because I can. And I'm not going to feel bad about that. Just because a law or contract exists does not make it good or right or moral to me. Look at the world we live in - Might makes Right is the ultimate law in this world. Corporations, governments (all just people really) do what they want and if nobody stops them, then I guess it's fine. That's why it's fine for me to do what I want. Secondly, I don't care about your moral code or your justifications, I care about mine - but I guarantee you that you personally don't live by the letter of the law or every contract you've ever signed. So, why should anyone listen to you? There are no absolutes and your laws and contracts are basically for people who wish follow them, but they're not for me because I don't live in a fantasy world where everything is perfect and everybody follows the rules.

Qwertious 11y ago

>We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists. Sorry, what? We absolutely do, if we're willing to pay. The point of copyright is to provide a monetary incentive for authors/makers of works to go make their works, via a temporary state-sanctioned monopoly. If they then take their state-sanctioned monopoly and refuse to sell to certain locations... Well, that's not what the state granted their monopoly for. They have no right to do that. Again: The purpose of copyright is generating more artistic works, and if they aren't interested in extracting profits via selling their works in a specific country, then what's the point of restricting the right to copy the work in that country in the first place? It violates the point of copyright, not to mention anti-trust laws.