Cable companies aren’t “forcing” people into piracy
marco.org
marco.org
However, it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing people from accessing the copyrighted content. Worse, copyright is being used to justify restrictions and prohibitions on new methods of distribution and entire new technologies.
They may not be forcing people to copyright, but they have lost the moral standing to complain about it.
Furthermore, it isn't copyright that is preventing people from accessing the content, but the fact that these corporations have not evolved their business model to the way consumers consume content these days.
There may be several reasons as to why that has not happened (they may still be making enough money with their old business model and are risk-averse to try new things) but claiming that the creators of something do not have the moral right to own their creations is an absurdity.
If you say "Nice Pic!" and paint your own copy, you have NOT done anything morally wrong, I have not been harmed. You HAVE broken copyright laws.
You can not have a moral right to ownership of an idea or thought.
Remember that, unlike land or physical items, copyright exists only as a societal convention without a rivalrous physical component.
Sure. You produce a tool, it's your very own tool. You produce a painting, it's your very own painting. You produce a pie, it's your very own pie.
Ralph sees your Very Own Tool and decides that'd be handy. Ralph knows taking your Very Own Tool would deprive you of your property and decides he won't do that. Not to mention it's a physical item and the law has something to saw about theft of physical items. So Ralph, being the upstanding citizen he is, makes another tool just like yours - his Very Own Tool. Ralph's also a bit of an extrovert and tells everyone about this great new tool and other people want one. So Ralph sets about making more of the tool you designed to sell to other people.
Do you have the right to be upset at Ralph for making money off your idea without compensation to you?
Controlling copying of your creations is what copyright is about. It says that with respect to certain works, you as the creator own the right to make copies ... or to license other people (or companies) to make copies.
P.S. Now don't get me wrong - I understand that a tool design is probably best protected by patents. Maybe this "tool" is a sculpture that's also useful to accomplish a task. My argument is about "intellectual property" in general.
That's why I personally don't pirate.
At all.
What are you referring to here? When I think of the piracy debate, I think of the things that are most commonly pirated, and I can't think of any examples from that set where society is being "held back" due to copyright on them.
But, I was actually thinking of things like the VHS/Beta or Blu-Ray/HD DVD where copyright holders had undue influence on the process. Or how long it took music to be come digital and how it is still second rate because of DRM issues. Or weird stuff like HDMI requiring a security layer that puts additional technical challenges in place for engineers.
Or, how the entire internet is twisted and malformed because of copyright laws including things like 3 strikes and you lose you internet access.
I'm even more confused now than I was before. Thanks for trying.
Which leaves you with an economic choice. Either copyright holders can have more availability and less piracy, or the other way around.
Now maybe they decide they want less availability and more piracy -- maybe they think (almost certainly incorrectly) that that will make them more money. But if that's the case then you might as well go ahead and give up on the pirates, because that's the decision you've made: The decision to create a supply shortage and therefore a market incentive for piracy sufficient to create a critical mass of pirates and commercial enterprises reliant on piracy who, once established, will fight for their own continued existence.
The best case scenario is that the outcome is less violent than the organized crime families created by prohibition or the drug cartels created by the War on Drugs.
Or you can make sure everybody can get their fix from legitimate sources. Then piracy becomes less profitable because it has less of an advantage over purchasing, and some existing pirates discontinue their pirating, which reduces the strength of the pirate community, reduces the demand for illicit releases and thus the incentive to supply them, etc.
But hey, it's your decision. Do whatever you want. If you want you can fight the market and then wail about morality when the inevitable economic consequences ensue. But I wouldn't.
I find it difficult to reconcile this with the near-constant moral tirades about it, such as those which claim piracy is not about people being cheap, or those which claim rightsholders are "forcing" people into piracy.
One might also recognize those arguments as the ones this post is actually addressing on its way to (as you say) "missing the point".
On the other hand, there are pirates who argue that if the content provider doesn't provide the content in a convenient format at an appropriate price then it's justifiable to pirate it (rather than just doing it whether it's justifiable or not). But that's not really an argument at all. It has to be justifiable because of something. And if it isn't then the pirates are in the same pit as the article: No reasoning and no plan. But maybe the pirate argues that copyright is unjustified whatsoever as a constraint on expression or what have you. Maybe they make an argument about the social contract, where copyright is granted to promote dissemination of new works, and works that are created but not sufficiently widely disseminated are a breach of the contract on the part of the copyright holder that justifies a breach on the part of the consumer. Maybe some other justification. But these are inherently economic and policy arguments with correspondingly clear plans of action: Abolish or reduce copyright, blunt the social cost of the copyright monopoly by allowing as fair use any use the copyright holder fails to supply to the market on reasonable terms, etc.
The article doesn't choose any such premise to attack, it just says "no, dirty pirates are bad and piracy is wrong." That isn't rebutting anything. It doesn't solve anything. There is no plan of action. It's just "no" -- how is that good for anything?
The problem is that there are things that never are going to eventually become available, for example:
- Culture specific or non-mainstream programming - Reality TV from other countries
Given that you're never going to even be given the option to pay for something, I think the argument breaks down.
Because I'd never sell them to you, do you have the right to take my fancy clothes without paying for them?
A better comparison: should the parent have the option to copy the clothing style when making their own clothes? As it happens, the limits of copyright permit that, though that constitutes less of a metaphor and more of just different parts of the same copyright law.
N.B. I don't like the use of "right" here I think it's ambiguous. Are we talking about laws, morals etc.? For simplicities sake I'll use "right" in my reply.
I also don't like the idea of trying to force digital goods to act like physical goods.
Another clothes-maker, noticing the popularity of your design and the growing frustration of your customers (and potential customers), creates clothes that look and feel exactly like yours, and make them available with free shipping online within a few hours of you making new designs.
Your customers (and potential customers) who don't live in Santa Monica, or those who can't make it to your store during business hours, or those who take public transit—frustrated with the roadblocks you've put between your clothes are their wallets—start buying from the pop-up e-tailer.
You complain about how this (and this alone) undermines your business. Your customers say you forced them into it. Neither of you is right.
People waving fistfuls of cash in your face isn't a bad problem to have.
And, no, that won't stop piracy. Some people just don't want to pay for something if they can get it for free. But those people are not taking dollars away from your income statement: they never would have bought in the first place.
A better comparison would be counterfeiting your fancy clothes, rather than stealing them, because piracy isn't theft, it's "copying".
Many elements of fashion design are not eligible for copyright in the US so it's conceivable that your design (minus the logos, etc) could be legally copied and mass produced by someone else who is willing to sell to customers that you are not. To me, that's a closer parallel to what is happening in the movie/tv industry today, except that in the media industries, copying the product costs virtually nothing, meaning everything is available as a copy, and distribution costs virtually nothing with the right technologies. Even more strange, those customers, who judging by the success of iTunes, Amazon and Google music stores, are perfectly willing to pay despite high quality, convenient, free copies being available a couple of clicks away.
I think most people follow a pretty simple ideology with this stuff: If you give me a way to pay for a TV show that moderately compares to the experience of watching the pirated version, I'll pay. If you refuse to sell the product to me in any way, I will not feel guilty about downloading one of the six different versions in three different file formats available to me via some other source. Your customers understand that as a business in the media industry you had a choice: (1) Give me a way to pay you or (2) Don't. Unfortunately, option #2 just means I now have to choose whether or not I'm willing to do something that, in my view, is only "morally questionable".
No, it doesn't. His argument is that if you can't get it through a legit source, don't watch it at all.
People are lazy. The only way to really get them riled up is if they fear for their future. Otherwise the whole "if enough people do it" argument is moot.
Want to make a difference? Hit people where it hurts. The legality and morality of how you do so is up to you, and is entirely dependent upon circumstance.
Actually, here's an "if enough people do it" argument that actually works: If enough people pirate shows because they can't find them via legitimate sources in the way they want, they'll expose a market opportunity. Now get off your goddam high horse.
Actions always trump words.
My point exactly.
I own a BluRay disc that I purchased new. I attempted to watch it on our "big screen," a projector with a DVI input but no HDMI. BZZZ. The fully legal software that came with my computer won't let me watch over a non-HDMI connection, and VLC can't handle this particular BluRay disc, even with the latest patches, extra files, and instructions I can find posted online.
WHY can't I watch it that way? Because some idiot executive somewhere thinks that it will make it easier to circumvent the DRM on BluRay, and therefore they screw paying customers who don't have the newest equipment.
Either that or it's Sony attempting to coerce people to upgrade their equipment so they can sell more TVs.
Either way it's unethical, and a technological violation of Copyright fair use rights: I should be able to consume a product however I like. I bought it, I want to watch it, and there's no technical reason I shouldn't be able to -- it's entirely a business reason, either way.
I'm not talking about a right necessarily ensconced in law (IANAL), but a moral right. I should also be able to rip and remix content under fair use. And in the case of BluRay, it may be illegal
Copyright law exists (in the US at least) for the benefit of the PUBLIC, not the benefit of the IP owners. Read the Constitution if you don't believe me (or this TechDirt article which provides additional support [1]); it's pretty clear and on point about why we have IP laws.
At the moment the laws are written to benefit IP holders and not the public. And it's that way simply because they have better lobbyists.
What did I do to watch the movie? Put it on my tiny laptop screen to watch in front of my whole family, and accumulated a bit more hatred of the MPAA and constituent companies. Piracy is illegal, but what they are doing now should be as well. And the sad truth is that, when you really hate someone, and they've harmed you, it becomes easier to justify "harming" them. Especially when the "harm" doesn't register in any but an abstract manner.
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120407/00171418416/yes-co...
Legitimate content providers have failed in a game called free market. Last time I heard free market was quite popular in the USA.
Really it just sounds kind of pathetic that you can't control yourself enough to simply not sit in a chair or whatever and watch this exact movie.
I think it'd be hard to argue that a system where people have to give up time and resources to produce something consumed by those who put nothing back into the system is sustainable.
Pirates benefit from the system without contributing to the system. That's morally wrong.
I find it hypocritical that the very software systems that enable people to pirate have built in algorithms to limit the activities of those who take more than they share. Those who take but don't give back are called leeches and even the leeches don't like leeches.
You owe a MASSIVE amount of money to the heirs of Shakespeare, anybody of Greek descent, Decartes/Leibniz/Newton, etc. etc. for your early education.
Because, if copyright really is a moral right it doesn't expire and you have a lot of back taxes to pay.
Cough it up.
Not really. The content owners stated that there are certain legal restrictions on their content. If you violate it, then you are expressly violating the owner's will and the law. I have yet to find a moral system that's OK with this outside of "the ends justify the means".
If you use the Lockean concept where use is applied to create ownership, piracy is fine. Put into an analogy, it's like this: you plant an apple tree. You do not eat the apples from this tree, and they fall to the ground in a public space. Walking over, I pick up and eat one of the apples. I have not diminished your utility from the tree as the apple would have spoiled.
Did I steal from you? It was originally your use that planted the tree, but you don't currently use all of the apples. You are deprived of nothing, and I am momentarily enriched by the consumption. How is that wrong?
You might choose to benefit from the work of others without compensating them as they've asked to be compensated, that's your choice. But don't pretend it's not wrong.
Content providers are pathetic because they have had all this time to grok that their business model is outdated, and yet they still haven't. What is so freaking hard about distributing movies and TV shows over the Internet?
But people who pirate, and then argue that it's OK because they have a "right" to watch what they want, when they want, are just as pathetic. Lots of people put in lots of work to make that TV show or that movie. If you watch what they make, you have, IMO, a moral obligation to compensate them. The fact that the content providers have a braindead business model does not relieve you of that obligation.
(Btw, I'm well aware that the "content providers" aren't the ones who actually put in all the work to make that movie or that TV show. I think the people who actually do do that--actors, directors, writers, and everyone else who actually does the hard work--are making a huge mistake by hitching their fates to the fates of the media companies. But that still doesn't give me the right to get the product of their hard work for free.)
Season not sold.
Watch something else.
Season not sold.
Play cards.
Season not sold.
It's not just about illegal downloading, it's about content providers not even trying to meet temporal demand.
By the way, I don't even have a TV. Liked your ad hominem though.
Let's look at two scenarios: They both involve a show that 100k people want to watch, but 20k of those people can't/won't watch it using the methods legally provided. (Fuzzy/simple math to illustrate the point.)
In scenario one, those 20k pirate the show instead. This means that the known demand for the show is 100k viewers, 80k using legal distribution, 20k using illegal distribution.
In scenario two (what Marco proposes), the 20k simply don't watch it at all. In that case, the known demand for the show is 80k viewers total, all of which obtained the show legally.
In scenario one, the content providers know there are 100k units of demand, 80k of which they are receiving revenue for - which implies 20% of the viewers want the show, but not for its current price/availability. Thus, they have a semi-accurate view of demand.
In scenario two, the content providers only know there are 80k units of demand. They don't know that the other 20k users even exist, or are at all interested in the product. They have less usable information, and no change is enacted - if they don't know those 20k exist, their absence can't be noted.
In this case, piracy provides an indicator of unfulfilled demand, whereas abstaining from piracy provides no feedback whatsoever. I think the concept of "protest via absence" in this situation isn't going to do anything useful.
Only if the content providers actually treat it as an indicator of unfilled demand. They're not; they're treating it as an indicator of criminal behavior.
If piracy is an indicator of unfilled demand, the correct response is to fill the demand by changing your method of distribution. It's not to sue people and try to buy ever more draconian government enforcement.
(edited further for clarity.)
So what? How does that fix the distribution problem that motivates people to pirate? And how does it affect the propensity of media companies to sue people who pirate, instead of fixing their broken distribution system?
Sooner or later that is going to catch up with those companies, and when it does, all the writers, artists, directors, etc. who have tied their fates to the fates of the media companies will go down with them. If anything, pirating, as opposed to just not watching, postpones the pain of that happening, which will make it even worse when it finally does.
To demand the ability to dictate terms of the arrangement and disregard the terms offered to you is enlightenment. (The special case of this is when an entity represses another with a monopoly, but that doesn't apply here as there is no single monopoly on all entertainment.)
You may be the shows, musicians, entertainments, etc's target audience but you are not in the current target market. As others routinely point out, content providers need address this. It is a failure for them to not capitalize on an audience.
The pragmatic solution is to sponsor organizations and entertainment that you are the both in the target audience and target market. Ad supported media, Humble Indie Bundle, Pay-what-you-want entertainment and Kickstarter projects are all ways you can easily support content on more respectable terms.
By pirating, you really are letting content providers off the hook by not forcing them to compete with providers that you favor. There is an opportunity cost that you pay by not investing in media where you were the target market and those vested parties respect you.
Edit: grammar
When the video isn't available that way, you bet I pirate. If your business model relies on your customers to avoid activities that are convenient, easy, and get them exactly what they want and the only argument against not doing it is that to the consumer, the activity rises to the standard of "morally questionable" at worst, your business model needs to be fixed. Everything I pirate is a lost sale not because the pirated version was available, but because the legal version was not. And the pirated version will always be available.
As the gatekeepers to the content, the movie/TV industries could provide an incredible product with an amazing customer experience and make money hand over fist. Doing that would push piracy off to only the "digital hoarders" who wouldn't be buying it anyway. But they aren't even getting the very basics. Start with giving consumers a way to pay for the product. I'm probably just a simpleton here, but to me the equivalent of their business model would be like walking into a grocery store and seeing a pile of fresh oranges with a sign that says "If you want one today, you'll have to steal it. Come by next Tuesday at 8:00 PM and we'll let you eat one while listening to a guy talk about how good bananas are for 4-6 minutes. We don't sell these". Not a perfect analogy since the act of stealing the orange doesn't make fewer oranges available, it just keeps the store from receiving more money.
There's a TV show called "Ed" that I enjoyed growing up. Because of a licensing mess surrounding the background music in several episodes, it will likely never be released in any format. I'm a rabid fan. I'd pay $200 a season for a legal release in any format that I could playback somewhere. Instead, I've got these horrible SLP VHS to overly compressed MPEG versions that I recorded when it originally aired. I still watch them, but on my larger television the picture is nearly indistinguishable from a Jackson Pollock painting.
Or, alternatively, if you're going to anyway what's the problem again?
Mass media is meant to be a convenient, efficient market. When it isn't the moral failing is not on the part of consumers.
"I think lots of people are too obsessive about their media consumption for their own good. The prevalence of torrents is symptomatic."
I'm not sure I'm following you. If I do understand you then I think you're wrong here. It's a bit like saying people are too picky about the music they listen to; the Billboard's top 50 should be enough for them etc.
Morally, is is questionable. You can program your video-recorder (if you still have device like that) and let it record the TV show when it airs and watch it later. Or you can skip recording it yourself (because constantly recording everything is boring and wasting resources) and download it from piratebay. Is there really a difference? And if the show in question is inaccessible in your country, should you wait years for it? I would not.
I suspect most of these companies still don't really understand the problem - for example I don't want to wait 6 months (in the UK) to see something that's already on TV in the US. I'd happily buy the series on DVD rather than wait. It's not about cost, but if I watch another way, no one who made it will get any money.
At some level, the copyright issue is just a question of "wants" vs "needs" of humans. When does "wanting something badly enough" become "needing" it? Are we addicted to content -- are Big Media the dealers leeching off our habit?
Everything after 1923 is in copyright, and thus affects an era even before movies with recorded sound were even invented.
The real discussion should, in my opinion, be held on the supply side of digital content for it still seems to be crowded with companies who for better or worse can not or will not deal with the ramifications of our new networked world and keep dwelling in poor service whilst preaching that piracy is sinful. Companies, whom I might add not so long ago, were happy to push for legislation that would alter the way our basic democratic freedoms work, all in the name of copyright.
I find anti-piracy crowd to be highly similar to politicians or policy-makers who advocate abstinence. In principle the argument is correct, you only need to forget that in the real world people don't quite work that way.
Piracy, in the end to me, is not a moral problem, but a service problem. If you care to fix it, that is.
I really don't understand the entitled argument. I don't get why consumers feel they are owed the right to be entertained by any particular piece of digital media.
Why not just watch something else? There's plenty of good stuff out there that can be obtained within the rules. Why not argue for all the legal options rather than the entitlement option?
Because it's illegal? Lots of things are, that's not persuasive in itself.
Hey Netflix stop saying you're sorry for not being available in Italy and please sort it out already.
If it's hurting your business, that sucks. Adapt.