Yeah, but don't forget it's also up to the consumer not to steal the producer's creation. This kind of mentality pervades society today. "It's the job of someone else to entertain me. If not, I'm going to kick and scream until they do." Bread and circuses, right?
What a useless argument. I will give you a very specific example which happened to me the other day, that will show you that content producers/distributors are (for lack of a better word) fucking it all up for their paying customers.
I live in Australia, so things on iTunes are not always available due to licensing deals. These licensing deals however sometimes have their little quirks.
I went looking at TV episodes a few weeks ago, some shows were available, some were not.
The worst offenders were the shows that had missing seasons. Specifically, there was one show that I remember that had only seasons 1, 3 and 5.
Now I at the time was a PAYING customer, willing to put up my CASH to obtain content LEGALLY - yet was unable too. Why? Bad distribution deals.
Now if I was to jump onto any torrent tracker, I could have downloaded all of those episodes, from all seasons for FREE with a MUCH larger selection of shows than what was legally available.
The fact is, that content producers/distributors are providing a bad experience for end users.
Ever tried accessing hulu from outside the US without using some kind of hack to make you pretend your within the US? You can't - there goes another legal distribution point.
Right now, for the end user, these torrent trackers are not only beating the content producers/distributors on price point (free) but also on ease of accessing that information.
There is something very wrong when the path of least resistance is often unlawful.
If they really want to fix the problem, they really need to look at it from the users perspectives.. which is to make it as simple as possible for someone to pay for that content, with a good end user experience and make that content convenient and readily available.
Anything less is unacceptable, the rules have changed - they should at least make a reasonable attempt at playing the new game.
EDIT - Lastly regarding the film industry (and this is my favourite ironic point that I like to bring up) you have an industry that glorifies theft in their films. Ever watched Gone in 60 Seconds, The Italian Job, Inside Man, The Oceans 11 movies etc... Who are the heroes of these films?
Loot on.
"There is something very wrong when the path of least resistance is often unlawful."
Oh man, this is just perfect. Welcome to our future, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm more than happy to pay them for that content, they just need to be able to make it easy, convenient, available and affordable for the consumer. Right now they're pretty much failing on all four points.
EDIT - glad you edited your comment after I replied, so allow me to reply to that too.
Oh man, this is just perfect. Welcome to our future, ladies and gentlemen.
This isn't the future, this is the present, and this IS something that they can change.
Unfortunately, they just don't have the balls to do so.
You have a group of film producers that glorify theft, violence, murder and other heinous acts (many of which are morally questionable) in their films for the "entertainment" of the end users. Do you really think consumers are particularly thinking about content producers copyright when they're getting images of decapitation and bloodshed force fed to them?
Or to use their own campaigns against them - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU
"you wouldn't steal a car" - no, but stealing 50 (aka, gone in sixty seconds) is ok. In fact, Hollywood frames the car thief's actions as a noble thing.
Personally, I don't think people should pirate stuff (even though it's been happening for longer than the internet has been readily available), but the Pandora's box HAS been opened - it's out there now and we're only seeing filesharing becoming more widespread.
Rather than fighting a losing battle, they should instead focus on providing a viable alternative.
Instead of trying to stop those consumers who will never pay for content, why not make it stupidly easy for those who will to do so.
The music industry caught on, unfortunately the Film/TV industry's ships are still sinking.
I can't believe I'm quoting Reddit comments, but:
"you wouldn't steal a car" - "I would if I could download a car!"
Your argument is still nonsensical; just because Hollywood glorifies theft (which of course they would; it's the allure of the rebel mentality) doesn't make it rational or acceptable.
You bless weakness and the rationalization of cowardice.
You make a fact-like statement for what is actually one of the most debated arguments in philosophical history. I disagree, morality is subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Parent: "morals are absolute"
You: "no, because lots of people argue about it"
So, if lots of people argued about whether 1+1=2, does that make it false? Reality isn't consensus based.
Plus, disagreeing that morality is objective is incoherent. If it isn't objective, then what's wrong with stating that it is objective?
Anyways, if morality isn't objective, why get offended when someone insists that it is? He isn't doing anything immoral...
Well then by your "easy" definition, theft (within the context of piracy) is not a threatening force, is not fraudulent nor does it require force.
So you have just defined Piracy as a moral thing to do.
You just lost your own original argument by your own definition. Nice job.
You are forcefully (and wrongly) obtaining media in that you have not first obtained the consent of the owner or producer.
Edit: the physical meaning of force ("I forced the lock") doesn't really apply either...
It's certainly not force or threat, so it must be fraud. In which case:
Can you explain how one determines, in an objective way, whether or not an act is fraudulent?