3 ms·

Many people don't have the option to pay for HBO, either because they live in a country where it's not available, or because they don't have cable TV and it's n

by davmre 14y ago

Many people don't have the option to pay for HBO, either because they live in a country where it's not available, or because they don't have cable TV and it's not reasonable or affordable (for many people) to pay $60+/mo to Comcast just to have the privilege of then paying another $15+/mo for HBO. So yes, Game of Thrones is HBO's product to sell how they want. And if they choose not to make it available in some countries, or to people without cable TV, that's their choice. But they shouldn't be offended or surprised when the people they refuse to sell to end up finding other ways to watch their content. To his credit, David Petrarca seems to recognize that -- given that someone can't buy your content -- it's still better for everyone involved if they pirate it, discuss it with friends, and contribute to its mindshare. The alternative is that they ignore it completely, in which case HBO gets no money and no buzz.

res0nat0r 14y ago
Is Ferrari "refusing to sell" to me since I can't afford to pay $150k for a car?
- davmre 14y ago
  No. But if Ferrari a) had no dealerships in your country, and provided no legal way for you to import, and/or b) decided they would only sell their $150k cars to owners of $1M houses, then (assuming you don't own a $1M house) they'd be refusing to sell to you. And in that circumstance, if there existed some way for you to acquire a free Ferrari in a way that didn't involve taking value away from anyone else, but in fact helped advertise the Ferrari name, then both you and Ferrari would benefit from your doing so. Of course, this is an absolutely ridiculous metaphor because physical property and intellectual property are very different things. When I steal physical X, the owner doesn't have X anymore. When I pirate intellectual X, the owner still has X. There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favor of IP protection and against piracy -- and those arguments can be and have been made on HN -- but given how well-established that basic distinction is, whenever you equate piracy with stealing physical objects you're essentially giving up any pretense of discussing these issues in good faith.
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    That's a lot of convoluted reasoning to try and justify that you are not paying for something when you know you should be. Since you can't legally pay for it, you should go without.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

by davmre 14y ago

res0nat0r 14y ago

Is Ferrari "refusing to sell" to me since I can't afford to pay $150k for a car?

davmre 14y ago
No. But if Ferrari a) had no dealerships in your country, and provided no legal way for you to import, and/or b) decided they would only sell their $150k cars to owners of $1M houses, then (assuming you don't own a $1M house) they'd be refusing to sell to you. And in that circumstance, if there existed some way for you to acquire a free Ferrari in a way that didn't involve taking value away from anyone else, but in fact helped advertise the Ferrari name, then both you and Ferrari would benefit from your doing so. Of course, this is an absolutely ridiculous metaphor because physical property and intellectual property are very different things. When I steal physical X, the owner doesn't have X anymore. When I pirate intellectual X, the owner still has X. There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favor of IP protection and against piracy -- and those arguments can be and have been made on HN -- but given how well-established that basic distinction is, whenever you equate piracy with stealing physical objects you're essentially giving up any pretense of discussing these issues in good faith.
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  That's a lot of convoluted reasoning to try and justify that you are not paying for something when you know you should be. Since you can't legally pay for it, you should go without.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]