3 ms·

Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? Practically speaking, yes, people will pirate it if it's not ea

Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? Practically speaking, yes, people will pirate it if it's not easily available otherwise. But that doesn't make it morally right.

Barrin92 7y ago
>Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? pirating something that you can't even legally purchase is about as close to a victimless crime as it gets. If anyone actually feels guilty about this they can donate the value to the against malaria foundation and have done the world a net good honestly, I find the IP mentality of large companies like Disney immoral who hoard IP like a dragon hoards a lair of gold. I'd be in favour of 'use it or lose it'
- sneak 7y ago
  Copying information is already victimless. No one is harmed or wronged by magnetizing some disks or tape a certain way in your house.
- katbyte 7y ago
  As much as I hate copyright if someone doesn’t want to sell something to you or licence it or share it they are under no obligation to. I’m sorry but why do you feel you have a right to any content? It’s just a movie/tv show/book. Thou as a write this I consider the implications of it was educational and only available to a nation or race and not having it would put one at a disadvantage ala scientific papers...
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    The thing is; they do want to sell it to me; it will appear in a few months/years. At least in case of films/shows. So that ‘the copyright holder does not want’ is not true; they just signed contracts with actors, writers etc for a certain region to pay less and/or get more %.
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    Copyright is a specific legal right granted to authors, with the (ostensible) intent of balancing the rights of authors against the rights of readers. Copying a bunch of bits is legal by default, but we specifically outlaw copying certain bits under certain specific conditions. Copyright is not unconditional, universal or perpetual. In the EU, there is an element of "use it or lose it" due to the Orphan Works Directive - if the copyright holder cannot be located, then national libraries have the right to digitise and distribute the orphan work. In the digital age, there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for some kind of "unavailability exception" to protect the rights of readers in poorly-served markets and prevent anti-competitive hoarding of copyrighted works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive
  - Shish2k 7y ago
    You're arguing "you don't have a [legal/moral] right" (which is true) They're arguing "it's a victimless crime" (which is also true) These are related things, but they aren't contradictory
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > pirating something that you can't even legally purchase is about as close to a victimless crime as it gets. I dunno. I’d say pirating something the owner isn’t willing to provide you at any price is at least as victimful (and a greater offense against the victim) than doing so for something that they are willing to sell you, but at an unacceptable price.
Retric 7y ago
Nobody owns content as ownership does not expire. People are incentivized to create content with a limited monopoly of finite duration. However, this means when they fail to licence it and thus chose to forgo revenue there is zero moral obligation to respect the monopoly.
- millstone 7y ago
  Watterson famously refused to license Calvin and Hobbes. That does not give you the moral right to start selling C&H branded content.
  - kungtotte 7y ago
    Jumping from pirating for personal consumption to selling someone else's IP is a bit much, don't you think?
  - Retric 7y ago
    It’s kind of an interesting edge case. Trademarks don’t have set expiration dates, yet 1/4 of Disney’s toys are for someone else’s original IP. Snow White, Peter Pan, etc and nobody seems to have a problem with this. In fact the oldest US trademark in use fall under the same heading with a Biblical figure Samson wrestling a lion. And in fact Trademarks do go away without Defence. Which means they can be abandoned at which point it’s fine to use em.
  - raydev 7y ago
    No one's talking about reselling Disney+ content.
tluyben2 7y ago
Well, I would I agree that watching and not paying is wrong, but I am paying. In the end the show will appear on one of the streaming services I subscribe to and pay for. Like in the olden days I downloaded shows because of this region crap and then bought them on dvd when they came out even though I already watched them. The content owner apparently does want to offer it to me, just not here (sometimes I can drive for one hour across the border and then I can get it; how insane is that; also how is that different than switchting on a proxy of my neighbouring country?) and that is not acceptable (to me and many others).

Barrin92 7y ago

>Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? pirating something that you can't even legally purchase is about as close to a victimless crime as it gets. If anyone actually feels guilty about this they can donate the value to the against malaria foundation and have done the world a net good honestly, I find the IP mentality of large companies like Disney immoral who hoard IP like a dragon hoards a lair of gold. I'd be in favour of 'use it or lose it'

sneak 7y ago
Copying information is already victimless. No one is harmed or wronged by magnetizing some disks or tape a certain way in your house.
katbyte 7y ago
As much as I hate copyright if someone doesn’t want to sell something to you or licence it or share it they are under no obligation to. I’m sorry but why do you feel you have a right to any content? It’s just a movie/tv show/book. Thou as a write this I consider the implications of it was educational and only available to a nation or race and not having it would put one at a disadvantage ala scientific papers...
- tluyben2 7y ago
  The thing is; they do want to sell it to me; it will appear in a few months/years. At least in case of films/shows. So that ‘the copyright holder does not want’ is not true; they just signed contracts with actors, writers etc for a certain region to pay less and/or get more %.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  Copyright is a specific legal right granted to authors, with the (ostensible) intent of balancing the rights of authors against the rights of readers. Copying a bunch of bits is legal by default, but we specifically outlaw copying certain bits under certain specific conditions. Copyright is not unconditional, universal or perpetual. In the EU, there is an element of "use it or lose it" due to the Orphan Works Directive - if the copyright holder cannot be located, then national libraries have the right to digitise and distribute the orphan work. In the digital age, there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for some kind of "unavailability exception" to protect the rights of readers in poorly-served markets and prevent anti-competitive hoarding of copyrighted works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive
- Shish2k 7y ago
  You're arguing "you don't have a [legal/moral] right" (which is true) They're arguing "it's a victimless crime" (which is also true) These are related things, but they aren't contradictory
dragonwriter 7y ago
> pirating something that you can't even legally purchase is about as close to a victimless crime as it gets. I dunno. I’d say pirating something the owner isn’t willing to provide you at any price is at least as victimful (and a greater offense against the victim) than doing so for something that they are willing to sell you, but at an unacceptable price.

Retric 7y ago

Nobody owns content as ownership does not expire. People are incentivized to create content with a limited monopoly of finite duration. However, this means when they fail to licence it and thus chose to forgo revenue there is zero moral obligation to respect the monopoly.

millstone 7y ago
Watterson famously refused to license Calvin and Hobbes. That does not give you the moral right to start selling C&H branded content.
- kungtotte 7y ago
  Jumping from pirating for personal consumption to selling someone else's IP is a bit much, don't you think?
- Retric 7y ago
  It’s kind of an interesting edge case. Trademarks don’t have set expiration dates, yet 1/4 of Disney’s toys are for someone else’s original IP. Snow White, Peter Pan, etc and nobody seems to have a problem with this. In fact the oldest US trademark in use fall under the same heading with a Biblical figure Samson wrestling a lion. And in fact Trademarks do go away without Defence. Which means they can be abandoned at which point it’s fine to use em.
- raydev 7y ago
  No one's talking about reselling Disney+ content.

tluyben2 7y ago

Well, I would I agree that watching and not paying is wrong, but I am paying. In the end the show will appear on one of the streaming services I subscribe to and pay for. Like in the olden days I downloaded shows because of this region crap and then bought them on dvd when they came out even though I already watched them. The content owner apparently does want to offer it to me, just not here (sometimes I can drive for one hour across the border and then I can get it; how insane is that; also how is that different than switchting on a proxy of my neighbouring country?) and that is not acceptable (to me and many others).