9 ms·

There's a huge amount of books/music/movies/games that I have no means of obtaining legally. There's also tons of stuff I don't have convenient way to buy (e.g.

• 6d6b73 10y ago
  It is theft whether you like it or not. They don't have to provide you with the service if they don't think you're not the right customer or if you can't afford it. You are in no way entitled to watching that single TV show if you don't have the subscription.
  • imgabe 10y ago
    Theft deprives the owner of something. Making a copy leaves the original intact. Technically HBO would not be providing them with the service. HBO provided the service to someone who paid for it. That person then made a digital copy and gave it to someone else. HBO is not involved in the second transaction. After I purchase something, am I not entitled to do what I wish with it, including giving it away?
    • seren 10y ago
      What about identity theft ?
      • imgabe 10y ago
        The victim of identity theft is deprived of their credit rating, reputation, etc. Credit is a resource that gets used up as you use more of it or take out loans and don't pay them back. Making a copy of a digital file has no similar effect on the original owner of the file.
        • Gargoyle 10y ago
          Time and labor are resources that get used up too. You're paying for the creator's time and labor. Taking the product of that time and labor without compensation is theft.
          • Freak_NL 10y ago
            That is the common rebuttal, but if someone illegally downloads a film he or she never intended to purchase or rent anyway, then that argument does not hold. Even if the choice is between buying something legally and downloading it for free illegally, that word does not apply. Loss of income does not equal theft. Whether you have then been wronged or not is another discussion with valid arguments on both sides.
            • 6d6b73 10y ago
              If you did not want "to purchase or rent " legally why is it ok to do it illegally? Is it that you did not purchase or rent it because you knew that you could simply steal it?
              • Freak_NL 10y ago
                I am neither condemning nor condoning illegal downloading when you had no intention of paying for it — merely stating that it is not theft; the differences are just too great due to the nature of digital content (i.e., being able to effortlessly copy an item without incurring more than trivial costs). Why not call it copyright infringement if you want a more neutral term?
        • seren 10y ago
          Even if, you leave the original in a pristine state, the fact that multiple copies are available and can be used (for good or nefarious purpose), dilutes or erodes the value of the original. And this is true for both digital content or something as intangible as an identity. So I am not really convinced by the simple argument that since the original still exists untouched, everything is fine. Yes, this is surely convenient and better for the original author/owner/creator, but not enough to say nothing harmful happened.
      • wolfgke 10y ago
        > What about identity theft ? This is also a inconvenient word, though for different reasons.
      • Freak_NL 10y ago
        Your identity may be intangible, but you can certainly be deprived of its proper use by someone successfully impersonating you. So unlike digital piracy (for want of a better term) something is taken from you in a manner that precludes your own use of it. More to the point though, labelling the act of downloading the latest film as theft is not conductive to a discussion about the moral justification of piracy, because you are using loaded language to condemn it even before presenting an argument. That is, there appears to be no strong consensus that piracy falls under what is commonly referred to as theft. (I am under the impression that the term digital piracy did stick regardless of one's position in that debate.)
      • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        There really is no such thing as identity theft. Rather, some organizations occasionally fail at authenticating people (that is: they fail to correctly determine the identity of people). Usually because they use obviously unreliable methods for doing so (like, asking for information that is semi-public, like date of birth or SSNs, which obviously cannot be used to reliably determine your identity). Then, after they failed at that, and believed some random person's unsubstantiated claim that they were you, and as a result gave that person access to something that they shouldn't have, they try to deflect their responsibility for that failure by claiming some bullshit about "identity theft".
    • chris_va 10y ago
      > After I purchase something, am I not entitled to do what I wish with it, including giving it away? There is clear precedent that you are not. In this case, HBO is a business trying to make profit. It spends enormous amounts of money producing shows. Giving away a copy of their product for free arguably reduces their ability to stay solvent. Thus, theft.
      • imgabe 10y ago
        Reducing a business's ability to remain solvent does not constitute theft. If a competitor emerged and offered better shows for less money, that would also reduce HBO's ability to remain solvent, but is obviously not theft. HBO does not "own" expected profits from their business. Spending an enormous amount of money does not entitle anyone to a profit, just ask Webvan.
      • hiou 10y ago
        So if I start a pizza place across the street from another pizza place I'm a thief? Or even worse gave away free pizza!? The horror. Didn't realize it was a basic human right for a business to make a profit. Nor did I realize it was the governments responsibility to ensure a business makes a profit. Enlightening stuff I'm learning today.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • chris_va 10y ago
          Sarcasm aside, I think you missed the point of my statement. If you illegally take away income from a business, it can be classified as theft. If you do something else illegal that doesn't take away income, it would be hard to classify it as theft. Apologies if I was cryptic.
    • Smoofer 10y ago
      Are you not depriving HBO of the money from the subscription you would presumably buy if not for the free copy you obtained?
    • ehnto 10y ago
      The answer is no, you are not entitled to do that. Whether or not you agree with them, laws were brought in that stop you from doing that for the sole purpose of protecting the copyright owners. The laws were brought in, because people were abusing the ability to copy digital media and profiting off of it. Essentially making money off of someone else's hard work. That is what the laws are there to stop. The unfortunate side effect is that even legitimate copying of digital media is being restricted, and while that is a bummer, it also isn't the end of the world. But in some ways, you are just trying to shift the entitlement from the person wanting a free ride back onto yourself, suggesting that you should be able to do whatever you want with someone else's work (which it still is, even though you have a copy of it). That simply isn't true. It is no different to Intellectual Property. If you started photo copying and distributing Pokemon cards, you and others would be benefiting from someone elses work, without them getting compensation for it. Even if you're not profiting monetarily, those other people are certainly profiting in some way. I am in no way a copyright evangelist, but the argument that just because you didn't deprive them of it means that it is okay just doesn't reside in reality. I agree that in most cases, torrenting or streaming something for free when you should be paying is not a big deal. But to pretend it's ethical is a stretch.
      • Dolores12 10y ago
        What kind of profit do i get giving my copy of something to my parents to watch?
        • ehnto 10y ago
          I don't think there is anything wrong with that and I don't think that is what we are discussing here. Maybe I read the parent post wrong, but my argument is against distribution of many copies not just handing the one copy around.
      • angersock 10y ago
        The laws you are referring to were basically just Autodesk enforcing a monopoly position, and these laws directly harmed consumers. The big elephant in the room is that distribution and maybe even production do not require publishers anymore...and so instead of changing to adapt to the market they are out cracking down on supposed pirates. It takes a lot of ignorance of the business model of publishers to defend their status as on par with artists.
    • 6d6b73 10y ago
      >Theft deprives the owner of something. Making a copy leaves the original intact. When you create that original you estimate that you have to sell X-number of copies to get back your money that you put into creating the original. If you want to watch/listen to/read that work you at least partially agree with the author that it's worth something. It may be in your opinion worth less then the price, but it's not up to you to set that price, as you have no idea how much work and resources did the author put into creating it. You have only one right - agree or disagree with the author and either pay him for this work or look for something else that was priced in your range.
      • icebraining 10y ago
        I don't have the right to punch someone in the face, but that doesn't make it stealing. Reusing that word is just attempting emotional manipulation, in my opinion.
  • guelo 10y ago
    I mostly agree with your sentiment but copyright infringement is not "theft".
    • 6d6b73 10y ago
      While you're not stealing in a sense that you're taking something physical, you are stealing in a sense that you are not compensating author for their work. Let's say you are graphics designer. You are hired to create logo for a company. Company likes your work and they just copy the file you've sent to them but they decided they are not going to pay you. Are they stealing from you or is it "just" copyright infringement ?
      • gakada 10y ago
        That would be a breach of the contract between designer and the company. If you quote someone a rate, they agree, you do the work, but they don't pay you, then you can sue them regardless of whether a copyrightable work was created. Copyright infringement without breach of contract is more like people stealing the Transmit logo https://panic.com/extras/ripoff/ https://panic.com/extras/ripoff/
        • 6d6b73 10y ago
          Isn't it breach of contract when you copy tv show, when it clearly states that copying of that show is prohibited? When you buy that dvd, book or whatever it is, you agree to the 'terms' which usually say - copy in any form shape or size prohibited.
          • angersock 10y ago
            Shitty click wrap that nobody should care about. Why are you bootlicking so hard?
          • Nullabillity 10y ago
            And presumably, if I pirate something, I never entered into that contract to begin with.
  • vinceguidry 10y ago
    Let's say I made a video. If I wanted to sell you a performance of that video and not your brother, and your brother manages to watch it anyway, fine, an offense has been committed. But what if I sold the publishing rights to that video to a corporation who is bound by law to maximize revenue for my benefit? I've declared by releasing my video for public consumption that my interest is purely commercial. That corporation does not generally have the legal ability to restrict who buys the rights to watch my video. Let's say the corporation decides to price viewings at $100 a pop. Your brother pirating my video and sharing it with his friends would arguably be doing more good for me than the alternative of fewer people watching it and me making a somewhat smaller amount of money. Now the ethics are way more muddled. I'm not saying copyright is a bad thing or that infringement is a good thing. What I'm saying is that technological, cultural, and legal hurdles have made the content distribution market non-efficient and therefore non-optimal for content producers. It's virtually impossible for pricing mechanisms to maximize revenue, so there's always going to be situations where piracy makes sense because the content creators won't be able to make money on every viewing, but still derives a benefit from broader consumption anyway.
• segmondy 10y ago
  Listen, you have no right to someone's else own work. If you don't want to pay HBO NOW to watch a single TV show. No problem. If you do however pirate their show, then that's stealing and the owner has a right to call you a thief. If HBO decides to charge $1,000 per episode, that would be very outrageous, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal their show. BTW, I know the pain, I really want to watch Showtime's "Billions" but I'm not willing to pay $12.95 for one month to watch it. I pay for Netflix and all my shows is restricted to Netflix, youtube and what's on TV.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • deepnet 10y ago
    Everyone has the legal right to view something. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing. Downloading, streaming, or attending an unlicensed performance is not copyright infringement. Without Copyright, and when it expires, the natural state of culture is to be copied, that is how it evolves - all works exist naturally in the public domain. Copyright is a limited right to encourage the arts by providing a temporary monopoly. The word theft is entirely out of place in discussions of copyright.
    • 6d6b73 10y ago
      You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. If they say that you can view it after you pay, that's their right. If you pay and are allowed to view it you can describe it in any way you want to other people, but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author. If you at the same time use your copy to make money, taking that potential income from the original owner how is that not a theft?
      • deepnet 10y ago
        It is legal to view something, regardless of whether the source is licensed. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing - it does not cover viewing or downloading. You may not agree with the law but nonetheless there is no prohibition against viewing an unauthorised copy. -- can't reply below ? So replying here. > as legal as buying a stolen tv. Buying stolen goods is an offense in law. Buying an unauthorised copy is not. > How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two. Yes, but it is not copyright infringement. Making a local copy for the purposes of viewing a web page, a picture or other digital media is not copyright infringement, this is well established by precedent.
• te_chris 10y ago
  So you want an 'acceptable service', despite admitting you're not willing to pay for multitude available to you already (iTunes/Play/Amazon for one offs and then all the Sub ones for library access)?
  • tdsamardzhiev 10y ago
    I'm not opposing the subscription model in general. It's just that I don't find the particular implementation appealing. I am currently subscribed to iTunes, iCloud, and several other services.
  • hrehhf 10y ago
    If I would rather not be tracked and profiled by these companies, which service would you suggest? In the terms of service of iTunes, Play store, and Amazon it appears those three do track and profile users. Is it too much to ask? How much more would digital copies cost for the 'privilege' of not being tracked and profiled?
• deepnet 10y ago
  There is no law prohibiting 'watching infringing material'. One may think downloading is immoral or should be illegal, I am simply stating there is no law against it. Thus you can and do obtain it legally, so long as you don't publish or share the work. The original uploader or unlicensed streaming site or seller of unlicensed DVD copies is commiting copyright infringement - the downloader or viewer is not. Drug users are punished with posession, not as smugglers or distributors. Equivalenty downloaders are not infringing copyright.
  • softawre 10y ago
    > Drug users are punished with posession That's a counter-example. Drug punishments aren't related to this at all, but we do charge people for possession AND we charge people for distribution.
    • deepnet 10y ago
      You would be right if there was a law 'watching infringing material', equivalent to 'receiving stolen goods' - but there is no such law. I have received a lot of emotive disagreement and conflation of terms but where is the statute or precedent that says downloading is illegal ? There is none. Sadly or happily depending on ones position. Yet I don't understand all this disagreement with the facts. Please if you believe I am wrong it would be quite easy to substantiate the argument by a citation of statute or precedent. I have looked into this matter quite extensively and there is no such legal prohibition.
• rhino369 10y ago
  HBO puts their shows on iTunes as one off downloads a couple months after premiere. If you aren't willing to wait that long you should be willing to pay full price to subscribe. HBO now is an acceptable service. One pirates demanded for years. The lack of which they used to justify piracy. And now I see pirates have now decided it's too much. Let's face it, your piracy is due to be cheap ass.
  • phn 10y ago
    Maybe the price is still too high, especially if you only watch a couple of shows/movies.
  • vibrio 10y ago
    You've constructed a nice straw man. "pirates* demand for years" "pirates have decided" Pirates* and pirates are likely different groups. Arrr, but ye shall remember...pirates will be pirates matey!!
• andrewla 10y ago
  When you say "convenient" you're really saying "inexpensive". At least in the US, HBO NOW is only $14.99, which for a season of a TV show is not ridiculous (by comparison to what other shows cost on DVD or streaming through Amazon), made less ridiculous by the fact that you actually have access to all seasons of that show. As for whether it's stealing or not, it seems difficult to rationalize it. Is sneaking in to see a movie stealing? Is stealing perishable food stealing (or is it only stealing if all of the rest of the food is purchased before it spoils)? Legalities aside, ethically it seems pretty clear; if everyone acted as you propose to act, then there would either be no reward for producing content, or content producers would need to physically lock down the ability to view the content (like having movies or TV shows only available in theaters).
  • soperj 10y ago
    In Canada you can't get HBO Now without a tv subscription, which kind of defeats the purpose.
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      I think you are confusing HBO GO (the TV subscription companion streaming app) with HBO Now (the independent-of-TV-subscription streaming service); it is more accurate to say "HBO Now is not available in Canada". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_Now