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 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?
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?
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)
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.
Also as counterexample, lots of people pay for Netflix.
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.
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.
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.
So on that note, people should have to pay to watch Jerry Springer, if that's what the content producer wants.
I do not gain or lose anything (aside from my time) from watching or not watching Jerry Springer, or any other TV show. Perhaps I am lucky that none of my friends watch TV, but TV is a luxury. If you want to be part of a group whose "culture" involves watching the latest TV shows, joining expensive gyms, or even starting companies, then that is your choice. The value you gain from paying for these activities is in part feeling more connected to your friends, feeling part of a privileged group, or just personal satisfaction. Clearly, there is no inherent "need" to watch any TV show.
How convenient it is that media companies can perpetually turn last year's luxury into today's necessity, yet when their opponents use the same argument against them, they feel free to roll back the clock and declare everything beyond basic caloric sustenance a luxury once again.
I don't see how this could possibly be ethically wrong.
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?
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
(In fact Steam probably makes most of their money from sales where hoarder-type personalities buy hundreds of games they never even play.)
It's not analogous to stealing a Porsche, but it's not analogous to nothing either.
There's nothing particularly novel about it, people have been stealing services in ways that don't directly deprive anyone else for... well, quite some time. They've been sneaking into theaters, sneaking onto buses, and otherwise dishonestly using services that the honest people pay for, and which couldn't exist without them. It's just the old free rider problem.
Morally there's nothing "new" about it. And it's not particularly difficult to work out the answer to a question about "is it morally acceptable to sneak into a non-full movie theater?" The only question is whether you're prepared to behave immorally to save a few bucks.
Personally I value my self-respect a bit higher than that.
His point is that if he CAN'T pay for it, having no avenue to give them revenue, then it doesn't hurt the content creator for the OP to consume the video for free.
eg, Fox will let you watch their content on Hulu 8 days after broadcast. But you don't want to wait 8 days, so you go pirate it. Fox makes no money.
If you'd waited the 8 days, Fox would show it to you via Hulu, and show you some ads, and they and Hulu would have made some money.
The distributor is a very important part of the creation process at the moment.
But, by your logic, purchasing any non-expiring stored media, such as a DVD, would deprive "the content creator (well, a distributor) the chance to make money from you consuming the content at some point in the future."
...if Fox gets a cut of the Hulu subscription cost regardless of whether that individual watches any Fox content during the subscription period or not.
> But, by your logic, purchasing any non-expiring stored media, such as a DVD, would deprive "the content creator (well, a distributor) the chance to make money from you consuming the content at some point in the future."
Yes. But they've made your money off your consumption of that content at some point in time.
Awesome!