34 ms·

Sure. It's also stealing. And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you might enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I've done it for some things that I wanted

Sure. It's also stealing. And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you might enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I've done it for some things that I wanted to watch, but wasn't willing to pay for. But let's not pretend that everyone torrenting is a reasonable solution.

dml2135 4y ago
There are many lifetimes of content out there already. What if I'm fine with there being no money for future shows? I really fail to see how a world without high-budget Marvel films will be so bad. I'd be fine watching old movies and art-house productions for the rest of my life.
halfnormalform 4y ago
- CabSauce 4y ago
  More like I snuck onto a ride without buying a ticket. Or snuck into a theater without buying a ticket. Wouldn't you call that stealing? Edit: Call it digital trespass then. I don't really care what you call it. There are obviously fixed costs to creating content. Just because there aren't incremental costs incurred from piracy, doesn't mean there isn't harm. Lost revenue is harm.
  - vincnetas 4y ago
    Yes, it's not stealing.
  - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
    Legally that wouldn't be theft.
  - newman8r 4y ago
    In those cases, your mere presence costs the operator more (fuel cost/ wear and tear/limited number of seats) - so sure, those cases could be considered stealing, but I don't think they're in the same realm as downloading entertainment.
    - tzs 4y ago
      I have some used oil I need to get rid of. I could drive the 45 mile round trip to the county hazardous waste disposal site and get rid of it properly. Or I could wait until we get a good rain and pour it into the drainage ditch in front of my house, where it will eventually end up somewhere in Puget Sound. The amount of oil is small enough that it would have absolutely no measurable effect whatsoever on Puget Sound. Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it in the ditch?
      - orhmeh09 4y ago
        If the environmental impact assessment (you should already have conducted this) shows the impact of dumping your 1 ml - 1,000 l is less than the impact of your driving 45 miles, go for it!
      - newman8r 4y ago
        > Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it in the ditch? I'd say no - because it's decreasing the intrinsic value of a shared resource (whether or not it can be measured). Downloading a movie, on the other hand - doesn't decrease the intrinsic value of the media being copied.
  - fuckcensorship 4y ago
    I don’t think these are fair comparisons. A ride requires a vehicle, a driver, fuel, etc. You can’t freely copy a vehicle, a person’s time, or the fuel required to power the vehicle. A theater requires electricity, seating, space for seating, an audio and video system, etc. These are also things that you can’t freely copy.
    - dlp211 4y ago
      You are stealing the residuals of the actors, producers, stuntmen, grips, and all the other folks that help make content. Not everyone is a A-List celeb or director.
      - fuckcensorship 4y ago
        This logic is still flawed. If I stole a ride on a train, am I stealing from the people who made the train?
        dlp211 4y ago
        This doesn't make any sense and is an incorrect analogy. Trains don't pay residuals to the people that made the train every time someone rides it. Imagine a different world where the people who made trains make most of their money from train rider residuals. In that case, I would say yes, they are stealing.
  - Stunting 4y ago
    and then the carnival workers get fired, because there isn't enough income to pay 3 people. One person has to take tickets and run the rides, which is now more dangerous for you. So they shut it down, and all the cool rides leave town and you'll tell your kids how much cooler carnivals use to be and you'll never understand it's cause you stole income out of the workers pockets.
  - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
    > "Call it digital trespass then." The legal term you're looking for is probably "theft of services", e.g. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/). And, to the people trying to play semantic games with "steal" and "theft", theft of services does have laws defining it as a criminal offense, e.g. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 .
- redhedgehog12 4y ago
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic... If not, you're just being facetious. Just because a thing is digital and therefore copiable, doesn't mean there's no reason to ever pay for it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Joeri 4y ago
  Steal verb 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice Yes, piracy is stealing according to the dictionary, especially if done habitually. That the owner is left with a copy of the work is immaterial to the act of theft.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    You are stealing my content by viewing this.
  - bhaney 4y ago
    Oh, are we doing argument by dictionary now? Here's another one then: Take verb 1: remove (someone or something) from a particular place. Piracy doesn't remove something from a particular place, so it is not taking, so it is not stealing. You know, "according to the dictionary" (My point here is to show that quoting dictionary definitions to resolve technicalities is a worthless argument. I don't actually care whether or not piracy is classified as theft)
  - robbedpeter 4y ago
    It's not taken. It's copied. Digital piracy is not theft. It's unauthorized copying. It would be taking and theft if you deprived the owner of their content while copying it for yourself. Like stealing money with wire transfers. This isn't just semantics, it's important to not conflate theft and piracy. They're almost completely different, except in both cases the offender obtains something they didn't originally possess. "You wouldn't steal a car" is mafiaa newspeak intended to maintain control of rents.
    - Stunting 4y ago
      it's theft of the income of the workforce required to make movies. Whole departments receive residuals based on the post box office sales and that income is required to ensure that it is a viable career. That enables talented and safe people to continue making entertainment which in turn provides a better product.
      - 4y ago
- tzs 4y ago
  That's not how English works. "Stole", "steal", etc., have meanings beyond just illegally depriving someone of physical property. Here are several examples of correct usage of "steal" or "stole" that have nothing to do with illegally taking property. • Someone says they do not like cats and have no interest in having one as a pet. A cute stray kitten shows up on their doorstep, they take pity and feed it. They fall in love with it and keep it. They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart. • An actor playing a minor role in a play gives a performance that outshines the performance of the stars. Many would say that the actor "stole" the show. • An employee of a rival company poses as a janitor to gain access to your lab and takes a photo of a whiteboard containing the formula for a chemical that is a trade secret in your manufacturing process. It would be common to say that the rival company "stole" your secret formula. • When crackers gain access to a company's list of customer email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers, it is commonly said that the data was "stolen". • Alice is Bob's fiancé. Mallory woos Alice without Bob's knowledge. Alice elopes with Mallory. Most would find it acceptable if Bob said that Mallory "stole" his fiancé. • A team that has been behind since the start of the game but wins on a last second improbable play is often said to have "stolen" the game.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    > the kitten "stole" their heart. > the actor "stole" the show > A team has... "stolen" the game These examples are all obviously metaphorical and irrelevant, unless you want to talk about metaphorically stealing from people, which I don't understand to be the point of this thread. > Mallory "stole" his fiancé Bob has been deprived of his fiancé. > the rival company "stole" your secret formula > crackers gain access... the data was "stolen" These are the only two relevant examples, and they're sufficiently debatable that it's unlikely you'd be able to prosecute either for theft or larceny. In the case of the crackers breaching an email list, many laws are broken, but I doubt "theft," or anything like it, would be one of them. In the case of the corporate espionage, if this is theft, it's theft of intellectual property. And that makes it the most direct comparison to content piracy, but it doesn't advance the conversation because it's the same debate.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart. A great moral crime, no doubt... The problem is once you expand the definition of 'steal' well beyond what is legally considered theft, the immorality of "stealing" is no longer a given. People who accusatorily use the word in reference to copyright violation are leaning on the 'illegal acts of theft' meaning of the term to add apparent moral weight to their argument. But when challenged on that, they retreat into these more diverse meanings of the word and pretend they never meant it that specific way. It's a Motte-and-Bailey tactic.
- nevi-me 4y ago
  It doesn't matter how you rationalise it. Someone created content with the intention of it being consumed for a fee. You downloaded it, likely from someone who illegally copied/reproduced it. Maybe I didn't "steal", but I contributed to criminal activity. Sure, copyright laws can seem absurd, but if you disagree with the laws, consider the ethics. How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from you, and then go give random people your content? This especially when it starts to drive into your revenues. "Only digital copy" is disingenuous. If the cost of producing the digital copy is say $40mm (an amount article says some Netflix movies can cost). They're making copies from a digital copy, and their business is to sell access to them. If their model is "we'll replicate this copy 500 million times, and charge users $0.10 a view", every 10 copies viewed elsewhere is $1 lost. Should a service raise the fee to say $0.12 to better cover costs? Ultimately, theft is often subsidised by paying customers. I'm also guilty of this. I download torrents where: * I can't buy something because it's not available due to region restrictions, and I can't buy it via VPN (looking at Disney+) * I can't buy it anywhere altogether. Where I used to download maybe 50 torrents a year a decade ago, I probably do it <5 times a year now. It's stealing, or consuming stolen content. The pricing strategies of big corp is a separate accessibility issue.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    I agree with everything you say here, and torrent a bit more than you and get things via newsnet a lot. I maintain a large media server. The end result of my pirating is a media service that is easier to use, is higher quality and requires less effort than a streaming service (though initial costs and setup time were high). I also pay for 3 streaming services that go unused, and this covers about half or maybe 3/4 of what I watch. Streaming is in a dangerous place when piracy works better, looks better and is more convenient.
  - pineconewarrior 4y ago
    It really doesn't matter how you rationalize it either, within the frame of capital everything is immoral
  - dml2135 4y ago
    > How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from you, and then go give random people your content? This especially when it starts to drive into your revenues. I would consider that if I am selling a product that has absolutely no scarcity, such as digital files, I have a few approaches. - Introduce artificial scarcity with something like DRM - Create a business model focused on the service of providing the product, rather than the product itself I would not try to accuse my potential consumers of a crime in order to fix the flaws in my business model.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
  It’s always hilarious to see HN of all places get nitpicky about this distinction. If some megacorporation stole your code, we’d laugh them out of the room if they said this shit. “We didn’t steal your code, it’s still right there on github! We would have used it legally if you had licensed it differently!”
  - wtetzner 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure you'd still call it copyright infringement.
dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
The purpose is to be a signal to the distributor: "fix your payment model or we're not paying". I pirated for a long time. When Netflix became a thing, I stopped pirating (since it was easier). Now I pirate again. If a new company came along with a good model, or the industry as a whole decided this streaming debacle is stupid, I would definitely stop pirating and give my money to someone. Until then, why would I pay money for a worse service than what I can get for free?
- CabSauce 4y ago
  Wouldn't the appropriate choice be to not pay for the service AND not pirate? That seems like the best way to send the message. Pirating gives the impression that you want to view their content but not pay for it. So they should invest in locking down their content, not improve their experience.
  - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
    Yes, I'm interested in their content. I'm not interested in their byzantine ways of inventing 20 million new streaming services that I need to subscribe to in order to watch one single show I want. > So they should invest in locking down their content, not improve their experience. Good luck with that.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Then they would replace the content but not the system. If you like the content pirate it. They may add more drm like music companies or they may reduce prices or they may make streaming easier. Ignoring it sends a different message.
  - Stunting 4y ago
    purchase the shows you want to watch individually.
    - Hitton 4y ago
      How do I do that? For instance imagine I would like to watch Book of Boba Fett (just an example, I saw it mentioned somewhere today). I don't think that Disney allows to purchase it individually, but I can only guess, because in the sticks where I live (EU country), Disney+ isn't even available. That reminds me, what do you think about geoblocking these services? If one has a choice: buy the content, buy VPN and break the copyright by watching it in unsupported country or just break the copyright by pirating it outright, what should one do?
Shacklz 4y ago
> And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you might enjoy. Which means that dinosaur-industry would finally have to arrive in the 21st century. People are very much willing to pay for things they enjoy - see Twitch Subscribers and Patreons for examples. Paying for shitty catalogues where the parts that you actually enjoy are distributed across multiple services just isn't cutting it. Good riddance to all those copyright-attorneys and other parasites leeching off of the entertainment industry.
- CabSauce 4y ago
  I don't disagree. However, you can buy/rent movies and shows on an individual basis from amazon/google/apple now. The prices are just higher. There seems to be some benefit to bundling shows together into a service. You can also just jump around from service to service, which is what I do.
  - dolni 4y ago
    I don't "rent" anything online because the price is insane. Let's talk $1 to watch something once. That's reasonable and a price I'd pay. $4-5 to watch something in my own home is not.
    - jonathankoren 4y ago
      Ahh, but “buying” streamed content is a fool’s purchase. If the streamer loses the rights to film you “purchased”, you lose your purchase. This happened a few years ago with Disney content on Amazon. Better to buy a physical media.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
      I wonder if this is different based on number of people in the household. On amazon, I think it’s usually $3 (fucking $2.99 penny tricks), which amounts to $1.50 each for the two of us watching. In a family of four, it’s sub-dollar each. Which as a percent of the dinner you’re probably eating while you watch is very little. But renting for yourself alone feels at least twice as expensive!
rsync 4y ago
It’s been a while but my practice used to be: pay full price for the online offering (conducting the transaction in a browser) and then just download the content from BitTorrent. I would happily defend that practice in front of a jury of my peers.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  You'd probably lose. The thing they get you on with BitTorrent isn't the download part, it's the seeding part, where you're distributing the copyrighted content to other downloaders. You could turn off seeding, but that'll get you banned from a lot of torrent sites, and it's not a technical distinction I'd want to have to explain in court to lay people.
  - rsync 4y ago
    Again - it has been a while - but I did, indeed, use leech mode on the client … so no seeding.
glerk 4y ago
It’s been more than a decade since I had the opportunity to plug this educative video in an internet conversation: https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4 https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4
- CabSauce 4y ago
  Call it digital trespassing then. Semantics.
  - Stunting 4y ago
    It's stealing. You're stealing from the residual base of workers who require residuals to continue this career.
    - pineconewarrior 4y ago
      I'm okay with that. The business is unfair to those in it, particularly at the lower end, and also unfair to its consumers. It is not the job of consumers to fix or perpetuate that system.
      - Stunting 4y ago
        No, it's the union job to do that for sure. I'm only here to pop the balloon on the consumer's perception that "it's not theft." there's a face and a name that goes along with that theft. Thousands of them.
        petefromnorth 4y ago
        It's not theft, it's piracy.
        robonerd 4y ago
        Torrent client in one hand, blunderbuss in the other, I just hope the Royal Navy doesn't hang me.
gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
If there is anyone I wouldn’t feel bad stealing from, the US entertainment industry would not be far behind. Remember that whole Cuties debacle where Netflix sexed up a French coming-of-age about children ?
e40 4y ago
There were a few years were I literally stopped all torrenting. Netflix and Amazon had everything I wanted. Sure, there were a few things that didn't exist, but I was too lazy to go after that minor amount of content. I was fully legal and paying for everything. I was fine with it. Then, the great splintering happened. I currently pay for 5 services, but that doesn't cover even 1/2 of what I want to watch. All the content owners said to themselves "we can be Netflix or Amazon Prime, too" and they pulled their content into their own services. But the biggest problem: the user experience absolutely sucks now. It's so hard to find stuff and remember where things are, there's no universal search. I have to use justwatch.com on my phone when I want to sit down to watch something new, which might mean a trip to the computer to download it if one of the many services I already pay for don't have it.
- rajup 4y ago
  Google search does a pretty decent job of surfacing where something is streaming
  - sharperguy 4y ago
    Most results would just be buried somewhere in the middle of a four page article filled with ads and popups about cookies and newsletters and the like.
    - rajup 4y ago
      I'm not sure where you're located but for me, I prominently get a panel with the streaming options. Something like this https://searchengineland.com/google-search-tests-new-interface-for-movie-tv-show-streaming-options-309946 https://searchengineland.com/google-search-tests-new-interfa...
- Damogran6 4y ago
  In my case, it's where they wrapped up the long-tail movies. Want to watch Airplane!....$3 rental. Spaceballs? $3 rental Cannonball Run? $3 I am not going to pay to rent stuff I used to be able to encounter for free by surfing channels...well, on top of my dish/cable bill
CuriouslyC 4y ago
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement, and it's an act of protest. I paid for Netflix for years when the streaming catalog was good, but now the streaming video market feels like an anti-consumer predatory cash grab.
- jasonlfunk 4y ago
  It’s a pretty self serving protest. Just don’t watch it. You make your point without abandoning the moral high ground.
- Stunting 4y ago
  It's stealing, specifically from myself and others in my industry that you haven't heard of that. Making movies would be impossible to be without your - Lesser Known actors - Assistant Directors - Stunt Coordinators - 2nd Unit Directors - Stunt Performers and I'm sure there are others. Residuals factor into our income, allow us to qualify for health insurance, empower our unions, and provide a stable income to continue working in an unstable career. All so we can make better entertainment for you! When you pirate, you're stealing money from us.
  - delusional 4y ago
    Well when you spend your money you are literally stealing it out of the hands of my and my friends in banking.
    - Stunting 4y ago
      In this example, the banking provides the service of a safe place to keep my money until I spend it. That's what I pay for, in the form account fees and the banks ability to leverage my saved money for their financial gain.
    - brewdad 4y ago
      100% the opposite. Bankers make their money from the flows of cash streams. Putting my cash under a mattress or setting it on fire steals it out of the hands of your banking friends.
breakfastduck 4y ago
It is THE solution because its the only thing that will force them to change their model. See music streaming, the origin of video streaming, origin of steam etc
robonerd 4y ago
> And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you might enjoy. The last movie I pirated was directed by a man who died almost 30 years ago. Do you suppose if I subscribed to Netflix (which doesn't even have any of his movies at all as far I can tell), they'd hire a necromancer to get a few more movies out of his corpse?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > hire a necromancer to get a few more movies out of his corpse? We don't hire necromancers anymore, they’ve been replaced by training models on a corpus anchored by the creator’s existing work.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    You're probably right, and honestly the thought of this happening just makes me feel sad. That premise is just like the character Dixie Flatline in Neuromancer. Simply tragic.
TechBro8615 4y ago
If I pay for Netflix, which offers Friends in some countries but not my own, and I want to watch Friends, am I stealing it by torrenting it? Who has less property now than before I torrented the show?
hamstergene 4y ago
Piracy is a protest. 95% of those shows are worthless fillers that would have never been watched by the viewers if the full selection was available. Most of those future "originals" shouldn't be happening in the first place. The reason music streaming defeated piracy is because a single subscription gives access to most of the music in the world, including from other countries and languages as long as you can type the search query (Indian, Japanese, Turkish, Russian etc.) The reason video piracy is resurging is that every streaming service provides 2-3 good shows and hundreds of fillers, and to have a real selection of what is currently good one would have to pay $200-300 per month for dozens of apps. On top of that, pulling the show from one app and reappearing it on another loses watch history, which is no way in the interest of the customer. Sell what the users really want to buy, and they will pay.
beckman466 4y ago
i prefer not to pay for my own exploitation and being psychologically mindfucked by propaganda. i don't want to give money to Hollywood millionaires and the expensive product advertisements that classify as movies today
noncoml 4y ago
> Sure. It's also stealing How about “owning” a movie but not being able to resell it or loan it to friends. What’s that? Please don’t use physical item terms for digital items. Stealing something from you implied you don’t have to have it after I take it. It’s illegal and unethical, we agree on that. But it’s not stealing.

dml2135 4y ago

There are many lifetimes of content out there already. What if I'm fine with there being no money for future shows? I really fail to see how a world without high-budget Marvel films will be so bad. I'd be fine watching old movies and art-house productions for the rest of my life.

halfnormalform 4y ago

CabSauce 4y ago
More like I snuck onto a ride without buying a ticket. Or snuck into a theater without buying a ticket. Wouldn't you call that stealing? Edit: Call it digital trespass then. I don't really care what you call it. There are obviously fixed costs to creating content. Just because there aren't incremental costs incurred from piracy, doesn't mean there isn't harm. Lost revenue is harm.
- vincnetas 4y ago
  Yes, it's not stealing.
- dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
  Legally that wouldn't be theft.
- newman8r 4y ago
  In those cases, your mere presence costs the operator more (fuel cost/ wear and tear/limited number of seats) - so sure, those cases could be considered stealing, but I don't think they're in the same realm as downloading entertainment.
  - tzs 4y ago
    I have some used oil I need to get rid of. I could drive the 45 mile round trip to the county hazardous waste disposal site and get rid of it properly. Or I could wait until we get a good rain and pour it into the drainage ditch in front of my house, where it will eventually end up somewhere in Puget Sound. The amount of oil is small enough that it would have absolutely no measurable effect whatsoever on Puget Sound. Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it in the ditch?
    - orhmeh09 4y ago
      If the environmental impact assessment (you should already have conducted this) shows the impact of dumping your 1 ml - 1,000 l is less than the impact of your driving 45 miles, go for it!
    - newman8r 4y ago
      > Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it in the ditch? I'd say no - because it's decreasing the intrinsic value of a shared resource (whether or not it can be measured). Downloading a movie, on the other hand - doesn't decrease the intrinsic value of the media being copied.
- fuckcensorship 4y ago
  I don’t think these are fair comparisons. A ride requires a vehicle, a driver, fuel, etc. You can’t freely copy a vehicle, a person’s time, or the fuel required to power the vehicle. A theater requires electricity, seating, space for seating, an audio and video system, etc. These are also things that you can’t freely copy.
  - dlp211 4y ago
    You are stealing the residuals of the actors, producers, stuntmen, grips, and all the other folks that help make content. Not everyone is a A-List celeb or director.
    - fuckcensorship 4y ago
      This logic is still flawed. If I stole a ride on a train, am I stealing from the people who made the train?
      - dlp211 4y ago
        This doesn't make any sense and is an incorrect analogy. Trains don't pay residuals to the people that made the train every time someone rides it. Imagine a different world where the people who made trains make most of their money from train rider residuals. In that case, I would say yes, they are stealing.
- Stunting 4y ago
  and then the carnival workers get fired, because there isn't enough income to pay 3 people. One person has to take tickets and run the rides, which is now more dangerous for you. So they shut it down, and all the cool rides leave town and you'll tell your kids how much cooler carnivals use to be and you'll never understand it's cause you stole income out of the workers pockets.
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  > "Call it digital trespass then." The legal term you're looking for is probably "theft of services", e.g. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/). And, to the people trying to play semantic games with "steal" and "theft", theft of services does have laws defining it as a criminal offense, e.g. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 .
redhedgehog12 4y ago
Not sure if you're being sarcastic... If not, you're just being facetious. Just because a thing is digital and therefore copiable, doesn't mean there's no reason to ever pay for it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Joeri 4y ago
Steal verb 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice Yes, piracy is stealing according to the dictionary, especially if done habitually. That the owner is left with a copy of the work is immaterial to the act of theft.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  You are stealing my content by viewing this.
- bhaney 4y ago
  Oh, are we doing argument by dictionary now? Here's another one then: Take verb 1: remove (someone or something) from a particular place. Piracy doesn't remove something from a particular place, so it is not taking, so it is not stealing. You know, "according to the dictionary" (My point here is to show that quoting dictionary definitions to resolve technicalities is a worthless argument. I don't actually care whether or not piracy is classified as theft)
- robbedpeter 4y ago
  It's not taken. It's copied. Digital piracy is not theft. It's unauthorized copying. It would be taking and theft if you deprived the owner of their content while copying it for yourself. Like stealing money with wire transfers. This isn't just semantics, it's important to not conflate theft and piracy. They're almost completely different, except in both cases the offender obtains something they didn't originally possess. "You wouldn't steal a car" is mafiaa newspeak intended to maintain control of rents.
  - Stunting 4y ago
    it's theft of the income of the workforce required to make movies. Whole departments receive residuals based on the post box office sales and that income is required to ensure that it is a viable career. That enables talented and safe people to continue making entertainment which in turn provides a better product.
    - 4y ago
tzs 4y ago
That's not how English works. "Stole", "steal", etc., have meanings beyond just illegally depriving someone of physical property. Here are several examples of correct usage of "steal" or "stole" that have nothing to do with illegally taking property. • Someone says they do not like cats and have no interest in having one as a pet. A cute stray kitten shows up on their doorstep, they take pity and feed it. They fall in love with it and keep it. They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart. • An actor playing a minor role in a play gives a performance that outshines the performance of the stars. Many would say that the actor "stole" the show. • An employee of a rival company poses as a janitor to gain access to your lab and takes a photo of a whiteboard containing the formula for a chemical that is a trade secret in your manufacturing process. It would be common to say that the rival company "stole" your secret formula. • When crackers gain access to a company's list of customer email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers, it is commonly said that the data was "stolen". • Alice is Bob's fiancé. Mallory woos Alice without Bob's knowledge. Alice elopes with Mallory. Most would find it acceptable if Bob said that Mallory "stole" his fiancé. • A team that has been behind since the start of the game but wins on a last second improbable play is often said to have "stolen" the game.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  > the kitten "stole" their heart. > the actor "stole" the show > A team has... "stolen" the game These examples are all obviously metaphorical and irrelevant, unless you want to talk about metaphorically stealing from people, which I don't understand to be the point of this thread. > Mallory "stole" his fiancé Bob has been deprived of his fiancé. > the rival company "stole" your secret formula > crackers gain access... the data was "stolen" These are the only two relevant examples, and they're sufficiently debatable that it's unlikely you'd be able to prosecute either for theft or larceny. In the case of the crackers breaching an email list, many laws are broken, but I doubt "theft," or anything like it, would be one of them. In the case of the corporate espionage, if this is theft, it's theft of intellectual property. And that makes it the most direct comparison to content piracy, but it doesn't advance the conversation because it's the same debate.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart. A great moral crime, no doubt... The problem is once you expand the definition of 'steal' well beyond what is legally considered theft, the immorality of "stealing" is no longer a given. People who accusatorily use the word in reference to copyright violation are leaning on the 'illegal acts of theft' meaning of the term to add apparent moral weight to their argument. But when challenged on that, they retreat into these more diverse meanings of the word and pretend they never meant it that specific way. It's a Motte-and-Bailey tactic.
nevi-me 4y ago
It doesn't matter how you rationalise it. Someone created content with the intention of it being consumed for a fee. You downloaded it, likely from someone who illegally copied/reproduced it. Maybe I didn't "steal", but I contributed to criminal activity. Sure, copyright laws can seem absurd, but if you disagree with the laws, consider the ethics. How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from you, and then go give random people your content? This especially when it starts to drive into your revenues. "Only digital copy" is disingenuous. If the cost of producing the digital copy is say $40mm (an amount article says some Netflix movies can cost). They're making copies from a digital copy, and their business is to sell access to them. If their model is "we'll replicate this copy 500 million times, and charge users $0.10 a view", every 10 copies viewed elsewhere is $1 lost. Should a service raise the fee to say $0.12 to better cover costs? Ultimately, theft is often subsidised by paying customers. I'm also guilty of this. I download torrents where: * I can't buy something because it's not available due to region restrictions, and I can't buy it via VPN (looking at Disney+) * I can't buy it anywhere altogether. Where I used to download maybe 50 torrents a year a decade ago, I probably do it <5 times a year now. It's stealing, or consuming stolen content. The pricing strategies of big corp is a separate accessibility issue.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  I agree with everything you say here, and torrent a bit more than you and get things via newsnet a lot. I maintain a large media server. The end result of my pirating is a media service that is easier to use, is higher quality and requires less effort than a streaming service (though initial costs and setup time were high). I also pay for 3 streaming services that go unused, and this covers about half or maybe 3/4 of what I watch. Streaming is in a dangerous place when piracy works better, looks better and is more convenient.
- pineconewarrior 4y ago
  It really doesn't matter how you rationalize it either, within the frame of capital everything is immoral
- dml2135 4y ago
  > How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from you, and then go give random people your content? This especially when it starts to drive into your revenues. I would consider that if I am selling a product that has absolutely no scarcity, such as digital files, I have a few approaches. - Introduce artificial scarcity with something like DRM - Create a business model focused on the service of providing the product, rather than the product itself I would not try to accuse my potential consumers of a crime in order to fix the flaws in my business model.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
It’s always hilarious to see HN of all places get nitpicky about this distinction. If some megacorporation stole your code, we’d laugh them out of the room if they said this shit. “We didn’t steal your code, it’s still right there on github! We would have used it legally if you had licensed it differently!”
- wtetzner 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure you'd still call it copyright infringement.

dj_mc_merlin 4y ago

The purpose is to be a signal to the distributor: "fix your payment model or we're not paying". I pirated for a long time. When Netflix became a thing, I stopped pirating (since it was easier). Now I pirate again. If a new company came along with a good model, or the industry as a whole decided this streaming debacle is stupid, I would definitely stop pirating and give my money to someone. Until then, why would I pay money for a worse service than what I can get for free?

CabSauce 4y ago
Wouldn't the appropriate choice be to not pay for the service AND not pirate? That seems like the best way to send the message. Pirating gives the impression that you want to view their content but not pay for it. So they should invest in locking down their content, not improve their experience.
- dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
  Yes, I'm interested in their content. I'm not interested in their byzantine ways of inventing 20 million new streaming services that I need to subscribe to in order to watch one single show I want. > So they should invest in locking down their content, not improve their experience. Good luck with that.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Then they would replace the content but not the system. If you like the content pirate it. They may add more drm like music companies or they may reduce prices or they may make streaming easier. Ignoring it sends a different message.
- Stunting 4y ago
  purchase the shows you want to watch individually.
  - Hitton 4y ago
    How do I do that? For instance imagine I would like to watch Book of Boba Fett (just an example, I saw it mentioned somewhere today). I don't think that Disney allows to purchase it individually, but I can only guess, because in the sticks where I live (EU country), Disney+ isn't even available. That reminds me, what do you think about geoblocking these services? If one has a choice: buy the content, buy VPN and break the copyright by watching it in unsupported country or just break the copyright by pirating it outright, what should one do?

Shacklz 4y ago

> And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you might enjoy. Which means that dinosaur-industry would finally have to arrive in the 21st century. People are very much willing to pay for things they enjoy - see Twitch Subscribers and Patreons for examples. Paying for shitty catalogues where the parts that you actually enjoy are distributed across multiple services just isn't cutting it. Good riddance to all those copyright-attorneys and other parasites leeching off of the entertainment industry.

CabSauce 4y ago
I don't disagree. However, you can buy/rent movies and shows on an individual basis from amazon/google/apple now. The prices are just higher. There seems to be some benefit to bundling shows together into a service. You can also just jump around from service to service, which is what I do.
- dolni 4y ago
  I don't "rent" anything online because the price is insane. Let's talk $1 to watch something once. That's reasonable and a price I'd pay. $4-5 to watch something in my own home is not.
  - jonathankoren 4y ago
    Ahh, but “buying” streamed content is a fool’s purchase. If the streamer loses the rights to film you “purchased”, you lose your purchase. This happened a few years ago with Disney content on Amazon. Better to buy a physical media.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
    I wonder if this is different based on number of people in the household. On amazon, I think it’s usually $3 (fucking $2.99 penny tricks), which amounts to $1.50 each for the two of us watching. In a family of four, it’s sub-dollar each. Which as a percent of the dinner you’re probably eating while you watch is very little. But renting for yourself alone feels at least twice as expensive!

rsync 4y ago

It’s been a while but my practice used to be: pay full price for the online offering (conducting the transaction in a browser) and then just download the content from BitTorrent. I would happily defend that practice in front of a jury of my peers.

ceejayoz 4y ago
You'd probably lose. The thing they get you on with BitTorrent isn't the download part, it's the seeding part, where you're distributing the copyrighted content to other downloaders. You could turn off seeding, but that'll get you banned from a lot of torrent sites, and it's not a technical distinction I'd want to have to explain in court to lay people.
- rsync 4y ago
  Again - it has been a while - but I did, indeed, use leech mode on the client … so no seeding.

glerk 4y ago

It’s been more than a decade since I had the opportunity to plug this educative video in an internet conversation: https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4 https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4

CabSauce 4y ago
Call it digital trespassing then. Semantics.
- Stunting 4y ago
  It's stealing. You're stealing from the residual base of workers who require residuals to continue this career.
  - pineconewarrior 4y ago
    I'm okay with that. The business is unfair to those in it, particularly at the lower end, and also unfair to its consumers. It is not the job of consumers to fix or perpetuate that system.
    - Stunting 4y ago
      No, it's the union job to do that for sure. I'm only here to pop the balloon on the consumer's perception that "it's not theft." there's a face and a name that goes along with that theft. Thousands of them.
      - petefromnorth 4y ago
        It's not theft, it's piracy.
        robonerd 4y ago
        Torrent client in one hand, blunderbuss in the other, I just hope the Royal Navy doesn't hang me.

gunfighthacksaw 4y ago

If there is anyone I wouldn’t feel bad stealing from, the US entertainment industry would not be far behind. Remember that whole Cuties debacle where Netflix sexed up a French coming-of-age about children ?

e40 4y ago

There were a few years were I literally stopped all torrenting. Netflix and Amazon had everything I wanted. Sure, there were a few things that didn't exist, but I was too lazy to go after that minor amount of content. I was fully legal and paying for everything. I was fine with it. Then, the great splintering happened. I currently pay for 5 services, but that doesn't cover even 1/2 of what I want to watch. All the content owners said to themselves "we can be Netflix or Amazon Prime, too" and they pulled their content into their own services. But the biggest problem: the user experience absolutely sucks now. It's so hard to find stuff and remember where things are, there's no universal search. I have to use justwatch.com on my phone when I want to sit down to watch something new, which might mean a trip to the computer to download it if one of the many services I already pay for don't have it.

rajup 4y ago
Google search does a pretty decent job of surfacing where something is streaming
- sharperguy 4y ago
  Most results would just be buried somewhere in the middle of a four page article filled with ads and popups about cookies and newsletters and the like.
  - rajup 4y ago
    I'm not sure where you're located but for me, I prominently get a panel with the streaming options. Something like this https://searchengineland.com/google-search-tests-new-interface-for-movie-tv-show-streaming-options-309946 https://searchengineland.com/google-search-tests-new-interfa...
Damogran6 4y ago
In my case, it's where they wrapped up the long-tail movies. Want to watch Airplane!....$3 rental. Spaceballs? $3 rental Cannonball Run? $3 I am not going to pay to rent stuff I used to be able to encounter for free by surfing channels...well, on top of my dish/cable bill

CuriouslyC 4y ago

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement, and it's an act of protest. I paid for Netflix for years when the streaming catalog was good, but now the streaming video market feels like an anti-consumer predatory cash grab.

jasonlfunk 4y ago
It’s a pretty self serving protest. Just don’t watch it. You make your point without abandoning the moral high ground.
Stunting 4y ago
It's stealing, specifically from myself and others in my industry that you haven't heard of that. Making movies would be impossible to be without your - Lesser Known actors - Assistant Directors - Stunt Coordinators - 2nd Unit Directors - Stunt Performers and I'm sure there are others. Residuals factor into our income, allow us to qualify for health insurance, empower our unions, and provide a stable income to continue working in an unstable career. All so we can make better entertainment for you! When you pirate, you're stealing money from us.
- delusional 4y ago
  Well when you spend your money you are literally stealing it out of the hands of my and my friends in banking.
  - Stunting 4y ago
    In this example, the banking provides the service of a safe place to keep my money until I spend it. That's what I pay for, in the form account fees and the banks ability to leverage my saved money for their financial gain.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    100% the opposite. Bankers make their money from the flows of cash streams. Putting my cash under a mattress or setting it on fire steals it out of the hands of your banking friends.

breakfastduck 4y ago

It is THE solution because its the only thing that will force them to change their model. See music streaming, the origin of video streaming, origin of steam etc

robonerd 4y ago

> And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you might enjoy. The last movie I pirated was directed by a man who died almost 30 years ago. Do you suppose if I subscribed to Netflix (which doesn't even have any of his movies at all as far I can tell), they'd hire a necromancer to get a few more movies out of his corpse?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> hire a necromancer to get a few more movies out of his corpse? We don't hire necromancers anymore, they’ve been replaced by training models on a corpus anchored by the creator’s existing work.
- robonerd 4y ago
  You're probably right, and honestly the thought of this happening just makes me feel sad. That premise is just like the character Dixie Flatline in Neuromancer. Simply tragic.

TechBro8615 4y ago

If I pay for Netflix, which offers Friends in some countries but not my own, and I want to watch Friends, am I stealing it by torrenting it? Who has less property now than before I torrented the show?

hamstergene 4y ago

Piracy is a protest. 95% of those shows are worthless fillers that would have never been watched by the viewers if the full selection was available. Most of those future "originals" shouldn't be happening in the first place. The reason music streaming defeated piracy is because a single subscription gives access to most of the music in the world, including from other countries and languages as long as you can type the search query (Indian, Japanese, Turkish, Russian etc.) The reason video piracy is resurging is that every streaming service provides 2-3 good shows and hundreds of fillers, and to have a real selection of what is currently good one would have to pay $200-300 per month for dozens of apps. On top of that, pulling the show from one app and reappearing it on another loses watch history, which is no way in the interest of the customer. Sell what the users really want to buy, and they will pay.

beckman466 4y ago

i prefer not to pay for my own exploitation and being psychologically mindfucked by propaganda. i don't want to give money to Hollywood millionaires and the expensive product advertisements that classify as movies today

noncoml 4y ago

> Sure. It's also stealing How about “owning” a movie but not being able to resell it or loan it to friends. What’s that? Please don’t use physical item terms for digital items. Stealing something from you implied you don’t have to have it after I take it. It’s illegal and unethical, we agree on that. But it’s not stealing.