7 ms·

I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus streaming (the latter of which still comes with ads). If it's not on there, I feel like I've done my due diligence and have no

I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus streaming (the latter of which still comes with ads). If it's not on there, I feel like I've done my due diligence and have no ethical dilemma with pirating.

absconditus 15y ago
Viewing videos is not a necessity. It is possible not to watch something at all.
- steverb 15y ago
  Do you have something useful to say, or do you just like moralizing at people?
  - coconutrandom 15y ago
    Do you?
- jrockway 15y ago
  When you pirate something, you're sending the message that you want the content. Whey you don't watch something, the producers can't be sure if it's because it's simply not to your taste, or that you just don't like the mandatory delivery mechanism. Network middlemen aren't interested in "alternate" distribution mechanisms, but the people that actually want get paid for producing content are. Every time you pirate something, the world is one step closer to one where you can just visit a TV show's website, pay $1, and download this week's episode. Let's get there faster. And anyway, is it even piracy when it was already broadcast into your house? (Anyone can watch Fox for free with a big enough antenna.) I can pay someone to clean my house; why can't I pay someone to videotape my TV shows?
  - danielsoneg 15y ago
    > When you pirate something, you're sending the message that you want the content. That, I think, is an undervalued point here - Piracy as a signaling mechanism is, I think, why an awful lot of what's currently out there for digital delivery (Hulu, especially) exists. The industry's still not entirely sure what a viable market model looks like - that's part of the reason why Fox pulled their 8-day move. Bittorrent's shown people will do it for free, Hulu's shown more people will do it if it's easier even if they have to watch ads, Netflix has shown people will pay for it (though recently they've shown the selection needs to be bigger), but nobody's hit the magic bullet that both consumers and industry will accept yet. In the mean time, piracy is certainly a valuable signal for the industry that demand exists - it's just that the price and mechanisms aren't right yet. (I'm sure the content producers feel the same way /s)
    - rick888 15y ago
      "In the mean time, piracy is certainly a valuable signal for the industry that demand exists - it's just that the price and mechanisms aren't right yet. (I'm sure the content producers feel the same way /s)" If you can get a show in HD quality, very fast, without commercials, and at no cost..nothing will compete with it that costs money. Content producers shouldn't have to consider pirates the competition. At this rate, the answer will be a forced monthly fee/tax through all of the major Internet providers.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        The present article suggests the opposite, if you replace "costs money" with "has ads". Else, why did piracy rates drop significantly when Hulu was launched, and spike again as shows were pulled? Also as counterexample, lots of people pay for Netflix.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    There's a startup for that. Saw it here on HN: http://www.bamboom.com http://www.bamboom.com
- ryanklee 15y ago
  I read an excellent argument against this idea not too long ago in an HN comment. I wish I could track it down because I am going to do an awful job paraphrasing it, but it basically amounts to this: To ask someone not to participate in media (watch videos) is tantamount to asking someone not to participate in culture. Cultural participation is a basic human need: people will go to great lengths, will in fact in despotic, tyrannical, totalitarian or fascistic regimes go so far as to actually risk their own lives and the lives of their loved ones to participate in unsanctioned culture. Whether the sanction comes by way of money or by way of politics, it is no matter. The idea that "not watching the videos" is somehow an option ignores this basic (desperate) human need to participate in culture. It's not going to happen. Media existed before money and before despots. Media is what happens when a culture expresses itself. People are going to watch Jerry Springer, The Sopranos, and listen to Lady Gaga and listen to Woodie Guthrie, money or no (though when payment is convenient, we all know what happens). They will in fact lay down their lives to do so if the circumstances demand it. If that's the case, (and we often find ourselves praising the bravery of such individuals in those cases), then it doesn't seem to me to make any sense to become moralistically reversed when the matter isn't of death but of a few measly dollars.
  - psyklic 15y ago
    Of course "not watching the videos" is an option. You decide your own culture. What if your friends don't watch TV? Then, you won't feel a need to view a show immediately upon release -- I certainly don't. All of your friends could go to a $100/mo gym. Sure, you would have a "need" to participate in this culture. But, "not going to the gym" is perfectly acceptable too. After all, your friends may like you for more than your gym membership! Or, you could find new friends. Or, you could make up an excuse. It's not the end of the world.
    - ryanklee 15y ago
      "You decide your own culture." This is a very narrow view of culture. If culture is simply any given activity, then yes, you decide your own culture. But if culture is simply any given activity, then we are talking about two different things. One can either go to the gym or not go to the gym and still be a part of the general culture in which one exists and be conversant in that culture. But one cannot abstain from all media and still be a part of that culture. We refer to such individuals as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated idiots. We in fact expect people to be conversant in culture through familiarity with available media. We say, "It is your responsibility to know yourself and know the world." One can do neither except via engagement with media. If there is a bureaucratic or fiscal or political lock-down on culture, we cannot say, "Well, too bad for those individuals, they'll just have to suffer their existence as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated, idiots." Yes, it is not that bad for anyone in the U.S. Yes, we are saturated with media. And, no, no one is suffering to any real extent because of the 8-day FOX hold on Hulu releases. But that's hardly the issue when someone says, "You don't like the price? Go eat worms." People have a right to watch Jerry Springer without paying a dime for it. Which isn't to say that one shouldn't charge a dime. Edit: I said "U.S." above, but I really mean any culture for whom Hulu is not just a gibberish word.
- DasIch 15y ago
  In this case piracy doesn't affect the willingness to buy the product and it also doesn't hurt the producer, in fact the producer may still make a profit through merchandise and a satisfied viewer may provide free advertisment. I don't see how this could possibly be ethically wrong.
biot 15y ago
I have a simpler standard: if the price being asked for digital content is less than or equal to the value I expect to receive, I'll purchase it. If it isn't and I can't find a legitimate lower price then I won't get the digital content. I have no problems rewarding businesses (or individuals) which produce content of value to me. If it's not of sufficient value that I'd pay for it, why would I watch it anyways?
mikeryan 15y ago
I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus streaming (the latter of which still comes with ads). If it's not on there, I feel like I've done my due diligence and have no ethical dilemma with pirating. I tried to find a $200 Porsche, but couldn't so I had no problem stealing one.
- bdhe 15y ago
  I tried to find a $200 Porsche, but couldn't so I had no problem stealing one. At first glance this might seem a fine refutation of the earlier point, but upon deeper inspection, it falls back on the fallacy that digital data is analogous to tangible property. By stealing a Porsche (whatever be your motivation) you are denying another person the right to his car. However, the same is untrue of pirating. I am firmly of the belief that until we abandon the false and forced analogies and treat digital data and IP as something new, something that requires us to work out ethics and moral of afresh, we'll be stuck in this rut of old business models forcing new technology to fit into their mold and the consumers suffering because of bureaucracy. I'll go further and state that the precise reason why Movie Studios and Recording Labels seemingly don't want to innovate and adopt new technologies to their benefit is precisely because of this thinking that immediately clouds all other possible arguments (oh, and maybe the people in charge of making decisions have got to the top because of their understanding of old technologies and therefore have little incentive to abandon that and embrace newer ways of doing business) /rant
  - drivingmenuts 15y ago
    The studios are terrified because the moment someone figures out an effective metric, they're toast. Physical unit sales are easy - one CD sold, X dollars received, with corresponding breakdown to show what value they actually add (lying about their value-add is another thing entirely). One digital download - it's not so clear.
    - klipt 15y ago
      Steam makes tons of cash from (relatively) cheap digital downloads. The studios are just way behind. (In fact Steam probably makes most of their money from sales where hoarder-type personalities buy hundreds of games they never even play.)
protomyth 15y ago
If the creator is only selling it on his/her website or on iTunes / Amazon, do you pay or pirate?
- chc 15y ago
  That would be a question of marketing for most people, I imagine.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    No, it's a question of respect. How can people expect the GPL to be honored when they won't honor the wishes of others in regard to their works?
    - sid0 15y ago
      The tacit assumption you're making is that all wishes should command equal respect. They shouldn't. If the wishes of a creator include his creation not being available to buy where I live, well then, fuck his wishes.
    - chc 15y ago
      I don't see how what you said has to do with what I said. You: If the author sold the work on his site, would you buy it there or pirate it? Me: I guess that depends on if people know to find it there. You: That's so disrespectful! What's the connection?
nitrogen 15y ago
Regardless of the ethical justifications, and even if you have an ostensible legal right to be watching a show (e.g. you have a cable subscription and you recorded the show with your DVR), their watchdogs will still send DMCA notices to your ISP if you happen upon a file they are watching.

I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus streaming (the latter of which still comes with ads). If it's not on there, I feel like I've done my due diligence and have no ethical dilemma with pirating.

absconditus 15y ago

Viewing videos is not a necessity. It is possible not to watch something at all.

steverb 15y ago
Do you have something useful to say, or do you just like moralizing at people?
- coconutrandom 15y ago
  Do you?
jrockway 15y ago
When you pirate something, you're sending the message that you want the content. Whey you don't watch something, the producers can't be sure if it's because it's simply not to your taste, or that you just don't like the mandatory delivery mechanism. Network middlemen aren't interested in "alternate" distribution mechanisms, but the people that actually want get paid for producing content are. Every time you pirate something, the world is one step closer to one where you can just visit a TV show's website, pay $1, and download this week's episode. Let's get there faster. And anyway, is it even piracy when it was already broadcast into your house? (Anyone can watch Fox for free with a big enough antenna.) I can pay someone to clean my house; why can't I pay someone to videotape my TV shows?
- danielsoneg 15y ago
  > When you pirate something, you're sending the message that you want the content. That, I think, is an undervalued point here - Piracy as a signaling mechanism is, I think, why an awful lot of what's currently out there for digital delivery (Hulu, especially) exists. The industry's still not entirely sure what a viable market model looks like - that's part of the reason why Fox pulled their 8-day move. Bittorrent's shown people will do it for free, Hulu's shown more people will do it if it's easier even if they have to watch ads, Netflix has shown people will pay for it (though recently they've shown the selection needs to be bigger), but nobody's hit the magic bullet that both consumers and industry will accept yet. In the mean time, piracy is certainly a valuable signal for the industry that demand exists - it's just that the price and mechanisms aren't right yet. (I'm sure the content producers feel the same way /s)
  - rick888 15y ago
    "In the mean time, piracy is certainly a valuable signal for the industry that demand exists - it's just that the price and mechanisms aren't right yet. (I'm sure the content producers feel the same way /s)" If you can get a show in HD quality, very fast, without commercials, and at no cost..nothing will compete with it that costs money. Content producers shouldn't have to consider pirates the competition. At this rate, the answer will be a forced monthly fee/tax through all of the major Internet providers.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      The present article suggests the opposite, if you replace "costs money" with "has ads". Else, why did piracy rates drop significantly when Hulu was launched, and spike again as shows were pulled? Also as counterexample, lots of people pay for Netflix.
- jeffool 15y ago
  There's a startup for that. Saw it here on HN: http://www.bamboom.com http://www.bamboom.com
ryanklee 15y ago
I read an excellent argument against this idea not too long ago in an HN comment. I wish I could track it down because I am going to do an awful job paraphrasing it, but it basically amounts to this: To ask someone not to participate in media (watch videos) is tantamount to asking someone not to participate in culture. Cultural participation is a basic human need: people will go to great lengths, will in fact in despotic, tyrannical, totalitarian or fascistic regimes go so far as to actually risk their own lives and the lives of their loved ones to participate in unsanctioned culture. Whether the sanction comes by way of money or by way of politics, it is no matter. The idea that "not watching the videos" is somehow an option ignores this basic (desperate) human need to participate in culture. It's not going to happen. Media existed before money and before despots. Media is what happens when a culture expresses itself. People are going to watch Jerry Springer, The Sopranos, and listen to Lady Gaga and listen to Woodie Guthrie, money or no (though when payment is convenient, we all know what happens). They will in fact lay down their lives to do so if the circumstances demand it. If that's the case, (and we often find ourselves praising the bravery of such individuals in those cases), then it doesn't seem to me to make any sense to become moralistically reversed when the matter isn't of death but of a few measly dollars.
- psyklic 15y ago
  Of course "not watching the videos" is an option. You decide your own culture. What if your friends don't watch TV? Then, you won't feel a need to view a show immediately upon release -- I certainly don't. All of your friends could go to a $100/mo gym. Sure, you would have a "need" to participate in this culture. But, "not going to the gym" is perfectly acceptable too. After all, your friends may like you for more than your gym membership! Or, you could find new friends. Or, you could make up an excuse. It's not the end of the world.
  - ryanklee 15y ago
    "You decide your own culture." This is a very narrow view of culture. If culture is simply any given activity, then yes, you decide your own culture. But if culture is simply any given activity, then we are talking about two different things. One can either go to the gym or not go to the gym and still be a part of the general culture in which one exists and be conversant in that culture. But one cannot abstain from all media and still be a part of that culture. We refer to such individuals as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated idiots. We in fact expect people to be conversant in culture through familiarity with available media. We say, "It is your responsibility to know yourself and know the world." One can do neither except via engagement with media. If there is a bureaucratic or fiscal or political lock-down on culture, we cannot say, "Well, too bad for those individuals, they'll just have to suffer their existence as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated, idiots." Yes, it is not that bad for anyone in the U.S. Yes, we are saturated with media. And, no, no one is suffering to any real extent because of the 8-day FOX hold on Hulu releases. But that's hardly the issue when someone says, "You don't like the price? Go eat worms." People have a right to watch Jerry Springer without paying a dime for it. Which isn't to say that one shouldn't charge a dime. Edit: I said "U.S." above, but I really mean any culture for whom Hulu is not just a gibberish word.
DasIch 15y ago
In this case piracy doesn't affect the willingness to buy the product and it also doesn't hurt the producer, in fact the producer may still make a profit through merchandise and a satisfied viewer may provide free advertisment. I don't see how this could possibly be ethically wrong.

biot 15y ago

I have a simpler standard: if the price being asked for digital content is less than or equal to the value I expect to receive, I'll purchase it. If it isn't and I can't find a legitimate lower price then I won't get the digital content. I have no problems rewarding businesses (or individuals) which produce content of value to me. If it's not of sufficient value that I'd pay for it, why would I watch it anyways?

mikeryan 15y ago

I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus streaming (the latter of which still comes with ads). If it's not on there, I feel like I've done my due diligence and have no ethical dilemma with pirating. I tried to find a $200 Porsche, but couldn't so I had no problem stealing one.

bdhe 15y ago
I tried to find a $200 Porsche, but couldn't so I had no problem stealing one. At first glance this might seem a fine refutation of the earlier point, but upon deeper inspection, it falls back on the fallacy that digital data is analogous to tangible property. By stealing a Porsche (whatever be your motivation) you are denying another person the right to his car. However, the same is untrue of pirating. I am firmly of the belief that until we abandon the false and forced analogies and treat digital data and IP as something new, something that requires us to work out ethics and moral of afresh, we'll be stuck in this rut of old business models forcing new technology to fit into their mold and the consumers suffering because of bureaucracy. I'll go further and state that the precise reason why Movie Studios and Recording Labels seemingly don't want to innovate and adopt new technologies to their benefit is precisely because of this thinking that immediately clouds all other possible arguments (oh, and maybe the people in charge of making decisions have got to the top because of their understanding of old technologies and therefore have little incentive to abandon that and embrace newer ways of doing business) /rant
- drivingmenuts 15y ago
  The studios are terrified because the moment someone figures out an effective metric, they're toast. Physical unit sales are easy - one CD sold, X dollars received, with corresponding breakdown to show what value they actually add (lying about their value-add is another thing entirely). One digital download - it's not so clear.
  - klipt 15y ago
    Steam makes tons of cash from (relatively) cheap digital downloads. The studios are just way behind. (In fact Steam probably makes most of their money from sales where hoarder-type personalities buy hundreds of games they never even play.)

protomyth 15y ago

If the creator is only selling it on his/her website or on iTunes / Amazon, do you pay or pirate?

chc 15y ago
That would be a question of marketing for most people, I imagine.
- protomyth 15y ago
  No, it's a question of respect. How can people expect the GPL to be honored when they won't honor the wishes of others in regard to their works?
  - sid0 15y ago
    The tacit assumption you're making is that all wishes should command equal respect. They shouldn't. If the wishes of a creator include his creation not being available to buy where I live, well then, fuck his wishes.
  - chc 15y ago
    I don't see how what you said has to do with what I said. You: If the author sold the work on his site, would you buy it there or pirate it? Me: I guess that depends on if people know to find it there. You: That's so disrespectful! What's the connection?

nitrogen 15y ago

Regardless of the ethical justifications, and even if you have an ostensible legal right to be watching a show (e.g. you have a cable subscription and you recorded the show with your DVR), their watchdogs will still send DMCA notices to your ISP if you happen upon a file they are watching.