And, to those saying "This is for non-copyright/author approved stuff", I say "I was not born yesterday".
And personally, I spend sparing time looking at art on deviantart from the some hundred or so artists I follow, listening to the music and podcasts I follow on bandcamp / rss, watching youtube videos, and read the books and novels of authors from all over the Internet that publish their works online. Plenty of stuff to occupy oneself with.
Not trying to argue in the OPs favor, just saying inherent to an Internet connection is access to effectively infinite material.
In short, you steal because you don't want to pay or you can't pay (either not available in your market or you don't have the money).
One thing is peer pressure. People want to watch what their friends are watching, because they want to be able to discuss about the last movie or the last episode of a series.
Another thing is that when someone wants to watch something, he is not casually browsing for any content, but wants to see something specific. Trailers and commercial do a really good job to captivate the interest of people. The effect, though, is that they will want to see that exact content, no matter how.
I agree with you, but I don't think "peer pressure" is the right way of stating it. It's more about existing in the same social context. It's also why a lot of people's conceptions of poverty are often far too limited. Poverty isn't just about not having money for food or shelter – you can have both and still be poor. It's about not being able to exist in that same realm as your peers.
It's like if you are running around town looking for a parking spot. You find a place where you could park your car, it's not bothering anyone and doesn't block anyone and anything else it just isn't marked.
If you have a cheap real parking near, you probably wouldn't park in the unmarked spot. But if the first legal alternative is 5 miles away, a private parking charging you 10 bucks every hour, a maximum 5 minutes parking then you probably stop in the unmarked spot.
It's legal ? No. It's actively bothering anyone other than the policeman writing you the ticket if he finds out ? No. You hope that they won't find out, and won't write you a ticket ? of course you do.
(I think the analogy might be getting overloaded at this point)
Sure you can use a VPN and hack around a way to use Netflix, but that's a lesser experience than that offered by Popcorn Time.
(I don't use either, I cry.)
Next bizarre justification for benefiting from other peoples' commercial work without paying?
But the speed and UX of this app is quite obviously the next stage of evolution for the movie business.
Sorry but I'm tired of overpriced popcorn and people slurping sodas next to me in the theater. I think Big Movie need to be forced into action and an app like PT makes "C&D letters" less and less of an option.
Since I do not think the value proposition of piracy is in my favor, I simply do without recently released content. However, if it existed in an easy to use home view capacity, I would definitely pay for it.
You ask why not, but it's you who are trying to define limits to action, so it's you who should justify why.
Every single person who has legitimate access to it has given the owner something in return for a license to use the product, with the agreement that they're not going to share it with other people.
So that's why. Now explain to me why you're exempt from that? You're knowingly benefiting from someone else breaking their word. How are you not acting immorally?
The owner can say whatever he or she wants. I can say you owe me money for reading my posts (which, by the way, are also under copyright!). That doesn't make it wrong for you to not pay it.
Every single person who has legitimate access to it has given the owner something in return for a license to use the product, with the agreement that they're not going to share it with other people.
It wasn't an agreement, they are terms set by an unjust monopoly that rests upon force. I consider it no more unfair than eating the salt collected during the Salt March.
Reading? No (you agreed to allow your comments to be read when you posted them). Using your comments elsewhere without attribution? Yes. You never agreed to that.
And it was an agreement, and no it was not unjust. Yes, it is a monopoly, and no it doesn't rest on force, but does that matter?
You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.
It does rest on force. People who refuse to accept the imposed rules can go to jail. And that does matter to me.
You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.
Of course not. If I thought that I'd be suing or somehow forcing the copyright holders to give me copies of their work. I'm not entitled to anything, I'm merely accepting what is being shared with me. It's the other copyright (and patent) holders who think they are entitled to have special protections paid for by the rest of society.
By the way, they might call it property, but that concept only makes sense as a system for dealing with scarce, rivalrous goods. In this case, it's nothing but a marketing term.
I accept private property, when it's justified by reality, not when it's imposed for the profit of a few minorities.
Your arrogance literally makes me want to vomit.
I also refuse to purchase DRMed content, for obvious reasons.