The whole system makes eminent sense. Content that has been permitted by the owner is released in your country, when the owner permits. If you are resort to piracy because of this, you are still stealing.
Content that has been permitted by the owner is released in your country, when the owner permits.
There is no legal means for someone to restrict where and when I can and cannot choose to view or use content I own, as much as they would love to think so. And they indeed love to think so: I've actually seen companies claim that it is illegal to use the software they sell outside of the country they sell it in.
If a movie by company X is released in country A but not country B, company X cannot prevent me from watching their movie in country B. I may have to go out of my way to import a copy, but there is nothing illegal about doing so (at least not under the laws of typical Western countries).
If this wasn't true, it would basically be illegal to take any sort of media-carrying device (laptop, iPod, etc) outside of the country where you bought the relevant media.
And so you can import it, assuming your country's laws permit.
But if you want the content owner to sell it to you directly, you'll have to wait for them want to do so. The reasons for them not wanting to do so could include laws, expenses, or other craziness that you aren't aware of.
Believe it or not, we experience the same crap here in the US in regards to foreign stuff. BBC shows are really popular here, but are usually delayed at best. Trying to find foreign-language stuff is almost impossible.
So while I share your pain, I also know that there's more to it than it might appear at first glance.
> But if you want the content owner to sell it to you directly, you'll have to wait for them want to do so.
.. or use BitTorrent!
If the content owner refuses to sell the content to someone, then that person isn't depriving them of any income by pirating it. If an activity harms no-one, then it can't be immoral to do it. If the law says otherwise, it's a bad law.
The content owner would argue something along the lines that you're depriving them the opportunity to have a market to sell that show to a distributor (TV channel, DVD wholesaler, etc) in your area.
The potential value of any distribution deal falls as the original need is satisfied via the use of unauthorized distribution methods.
Having said that, I don't feel particularly bad about downloading stuff that's never released in my market.
If someone refuses to sell you the Mona Lisa for the price you want, it's okay to copy it?
Because let's be honest, they aren't just refusing to sell the TV episode to you... They're refusing to sell it at market rates. If you offered them a million dollars for the latest episode of XYZ show, they'd make it happen on your schedule.
What you're saying is that if you can't have it your way, it's perfectly ethical to just take it. And I can't agree with that.
It's a bit more than that because content consumption has become a large part of 'our' culture. So this encroaches more and more into the realm of restricting culture to the benefit of business.
A couple of points:
1. When you (content companies) spend exorbitant amounts of money on advertising/PR in an attempt to whip up a frenzy around consumption of your content, then don't act surprised when people mimic hard-drug addicts and lying,cheat,steal,etc just to be able to consume that content when they are prevented from consuming it otherwise. You're basically spending a lot of time trying to increase demand for your product. Now you've got so much demand that people are finding 'alternative' ways to obtain your product because you are unwilling or unable to provide a more legit avenue for them to obtain it.
2. The large and wide success of large content companies has brought content consumption (especially for particular brands) into the realm of popular culture. As the world becomes smaller and smaller due to the globalization effects of the Internet (amongst other things), the idea that you can easily divide people up by who is or isn't allowed to participate in that culture (and expect people to just abide by those proclamations) is foolish.
In Denmark they passed a law some years ago making it illegal for shops to import region 1 DVDs to resell. And I doubt we're the only country with laws like that.
> I've actually seen companies claim that it is illegal to use the software they sell outside of the country they sell it in.
This isn't directly relevant to copyright, but there are indeed export controls on some technologies to prevent them from leaving the country and it is illegal to export them.
Releasing content per country is simply a carry over from the broadcast days where radio signals or cables are naturally constrained by geography. In the internet era it makes no sense either.
Now I don't pirate, as I am on a WAN (plus I do distance learning through a UK University and have to use their proxy server so iPlayer works for me too) and don't seem to be discriminated against by Hulu, or some other sites (Hulu could be breaking some laws though, by allowing me to see the content, or more likely just breaking a license agreement).
Even Germans I know are encouraged to use proxies (is that really pirating?) because they want their shows when they are released, not months later, and they don't necessarily want them overdubbed into German. The system encourages this, by thinking the internet can be divided up into countries like a broadcast signal.
It always amazes me that people who consider it an ethical issue by equating copyright infringement with "stealing", have no ethical problem with the fact that copyright law is being blatantly abused to achieve exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do, i.e. maximizing the distribution of original work.
Copyright laws exist to serve society, not just a handful of corporations.
Legally speaking you are correct but that is irrelevant to any serious discussion on the topic.
Laws should be the strictest manifestation of societies expectations. This is clearly not the case here, most people consider this kind of privacy to be about as bad as crossing the street at a red light.
As long as expectations don't change and they clearly won't, people will continue to resort to piracy as long as it is the most convenient way to fulfill their needs.
If people could easily buy music in a lossless format and videos without artificial geographical restrictions at a reasonable price, I seriously doubt that piracy would still be such a "serious" problem.
I'm not a total fanatic, I have no problem with DRM systems if they make sense for e.g. renting movies. I buy all my games via Steam which I consider an awesome platform. However piracy is still the most convenient way to get music/videos quickly in (most of) Europe and it seems very clear who is to blame for that.
There's no point in rehashing the semantic argument; it's still theft in the eyes of the law, and while renaming it may help assuage your conscience, it doesn't really add much to the argument.
The law was written way before there was possible to make an exact copy of something while leaving the original intact and way before the cost of such act is so close to zero than even those who have no money to buy original still are able to make the copy.
One can apply the same laws, but doing so is stretching them too much.
Consider the possibility of you making exact copy of a car just by pressing a button on some device. Let's say the neighbor has a car you like and you have no money to buy such a car. You press the button and you get the copy of the car. Did you steal it from your neighbor? No, he still has his. Did you steal it from the manufacturer? Well, some may say that, because you got something that they produce without paying them, but: a) you'd never buy that car from them anyway (see condition #2), b) they still got all the money for the cars they produced, there is not a single missing.
So, whom did you steal the car from?
No consider more realistic scenario: I torrent the movie. You may call this a theft.
Now slightly modified scenario: I buy the DVD on amazon.com, but while it's shipping I torrent the same movie and watch it. Is it still a theft?
Or if I torrent the movie first, like it a lot, go to see it in cinema, then go to see the second time with my wife, and to top all that I also buy a DVD? How about now, is it still the theft?
My point is: there is a real difference between an illegal copy and a theft, not just some semantics.
If I torrent something "getting for free" is never the reason to do that. The reasons are either availability or convenience. If there was a way to buy movies in digital format (I cannot even buy music on iTunes in my country, only apps) I'd spend a lot more money on them. App Store and Mac App store are the good indicator of that.
You have some interesting points and possible scenarios there which seem near altruistic in their style.
What if we consider what I'll deem the 'general public' when THEY download movies, music and videogames? Is their mindset as enlightened as you, myself and others on HN and similar places?
When someone posts on Facebook or whatever the equivalent is (Myspace, ICQ or whatever) for that time period "How do I use x" with x being torrents, Napster or whatever, they seem for the most part to simply want to get something without paying for it.
I can think back then and being the 'computer guy' I'd get asked how to use Kazaa or whatever was popular, right now it's torrents. Why did they want to know? Because they wanted to get something without paying for it and technology simply streamlined that ancient human desire of wanting something for nothing which desire is one of the bases that man ever once stole.
In my younger days I would pirate much though nowadays I have essentially stopped. I would once play the newest games whether I was able to pay for them or not, now I go without, for the time being, like with Portal 2 - I haven't played it yet and I guess I won't till I buy it though I could easily pirate it. Am I 'missing out'? Apparently.. meh. I did recently buy Sparrow, the email client, and it is excellent.
But hey, we all know Linux users are willing to give billions of dollars for good software - the Humble Bundle has proved that. ;)
The law has nothing to do with "making a copy" or "leaving the original intact."
Wiring into the neighborhood cable-tv network without paying is an example of "theft of services", as is sneaking into a movie theater.
Making an illegal copy still takes money out of somebody's pocket. Saying that you wouldn't (or couldn't) have bought the product makes no difference-- the demand is still being alleviated, and non-zero.
I do not take money out of anybody’s pocket when I’m pirating something I can not and will never be able to buy. (Reality is never quite that clear cut but what you are saying is, strictly speaking, not true.)
b) they still got all the money for the cars
they produced, there is not a single missing
It doesn't work like that - in the event of a magical button that can replicate a car, all the cars they'll be able to produce and sell is exactly 1.
In such an event the car maker won't be able to recuperate its sunk costs, and the writing would be clearly on the wall, so such a magical car will never be produced, unless there's legislation in place that prevents people from giving away free cars.
In software or creative endeavorers, where the sunk cost is mostly measured in time spent on the task, there are always people willing to give away their work for free (having other incentives than money). Internet also makes it easier to find other people with the same interests and collaborate.
But make no mistake about it - hobbyists will never be able to create something like an Audi, or an Avatar or an Adobe Photoshop for that matter (yes, I'm a happy GIMP user, it ain't and never will be on the same level as Photoshop).
I buy the DVD on amazon.com, but while it's
shipping I torrent the same movie and watch it.
Is it still a theft?
Yes and No, depending on the perspective - No because you already payed for the privilege of watching it, Yes because torrents are usually of poor quality, which may make you give bad reviews to people whom would otherwise watch it themselves.
Imagine you're Da Vinci, and I'm displaying a copy of Gioconda in my museum, half the size, with the hue changed, with less details and cropped, saying to people that that's just like the original Gioconda ... after all the hard work you've put, I'd imagine you'd get upset too.
On the other hand it isn't right for people to get charged multiple times for the same movie. So I guess piracy itself is as morally-wrong as these ripoffs.
If I torrent something "getting for free"
is never the reason to do that.
IMHO, I'm also torrenting stuff because I want to check out what I'm buying ... people should really learn to make better demo versions and price their stuff according to the provided value.
Personally I'm sick of bad movies that lured me to see them because of a fancy trailer that exhibited non-representative traits of the movie.
Also for software, 30 days valuation periods are not enough for complex software like Office or Photoshop. Also, software like Photoshop Elements should be free of charge, or you should get some sort of refund when buying Photoshop.
Your comment doesn't follow from mine because I touched on both (a) quality and (b) legislature that makes distribution or possession of copies illegal.
This is an economy of scarcity -- people tend to buy the cheapest product that fulfills their needs. Those needs many-times include not getting sued to oblivion and risk huge penalties.
I was going to reply with all the legal stuff on TPB, but I wanted to point out that even the biggest-budget and most popular content can survive even if it's available for free. There are a lot of producers who distribute primarily on P2P and it doesn't seem to be any harder for them to make money. I think http://vodo.net/ is the biggest example that comes to mind right now, and individual artists like http://www.pronobozo.com/ are doing OK on their own as well.
You're touching on alternative business-models. Alternative as in different than creating shit then selling it directly ... a general business model that has worked since money where invented.
And the problem with these business models is that they aren't general enough (working on a case by case basis) and don't even survive the onslaught of technological evolution.
Music artists can make money from concerts (they always did). But in case you haven't noticed, theaters are in big trouble, artists many times having to seek out employment in sitcoms/trashy TV shows to make a living. One month ago I also watched an opera show in 3D with surround sound ... it was like being there and it will only get better.
Yes, you can find artists that do well by riding the Internet wave / the freemium business model. That doesn't mean it works on a bigger scale or that it will continue to work 5 years from now.
Creating shit and selling it if it provides value is the only sustainable and general business-model. Society would be worse without it, unless you're talking about getting rid of money altogether.
These days 720p torrents are the norm if something is at the point where you can buy the DVD, mainstream stuff anyway. So I doubt your going to really be getting something of lower (drastically at least) quality.
"The law was written way before there was possible to make an exact copy of something while leaving the original intact and way before the cost of such act is so close to zero than even those who have no money to buy original still are able to make the copy."
Piracy is a form of counterfeiting, not stealing.
"and to top all that I also buy a DVD? How about now, is it still the theft?"
Because most people who pirate don't do this.
"My point is: there is a real difference between an illegal copy and a theft, not just some semantics."
Well, it still has destroyed these industries. Over time, with more and more piracy available, people are going to feel that they should be getting this content for free. The market value will go down, and it will become increasingly difficult to make any money at all. With no money in an industry, that industry will most likely die.
The value of most digital goods are in the minds of the people that want to purchase it (similar to currency or a service). When this is devalued because of piracy, I don't know if I would necessarily call it 'theft', but it's still in the same family. The owners are losing money because of your actions. It's worse than theft because it's not like you can just buy another one. It devalues the entire product, forever.
"If I torrent something "getting for free" is never the reason to do that. The reasons are either availability or convenience. If there was a way to buy movies in digital format (I cannot even buy music on iTunes in my country, only apps) I'd spend a lot more money on them. App Store and Mac App store are the good indicator of that."
Right. Just like music? I've heard all these excuses before. 10 years ago, when Napster came out, the people that were justifying piracy came up with all these excuses too: They wanted to be able to "try before buying", cheap music, and to put a stop to "artists getting screwed".
Now, there are services like last.fm and pandora, music is cheap (99c or less is pretty damn cheap for a song), and artists don't need to be on a label to succeed (social networking FTW). Has piracy stopped? No, there are a new set of excuses and piracy is worse than ever.
I don't think it will ever stop. There will always be a new set of excuses to legitimize selfishness.
No, the industries have destroyed themselves by letting piracy go out of hand when they could have done something about the root causes of piracy. Instead, they have focused their efforts on treating the symptoms and not the disease.
What can they do now? They can make it available, convenient and priced reasonably. Piracy may never go away but giving people an option between illegal and legal means of obtaining content can improve their chances of making money.
Clearly there is a point to rehashing the argument as long as you're pointing to a wikipedia page on theft of services and claiming that bitorrenting a copy of a TV show is the same thing. Clearly they're not. Hacking a cable box to access channels without paying for them might be, but if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it.
if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it.
Huh? That's a completely specious claim.
The owner of the rights to the TV show may not be offering the product in your market--yet. The may choose to do so at some point in the future. Whether they do or not, it has no bearing on the fact that you are consuming their product (and infringing on their rights) without paying.
Your argument is essentially saying that it isn't theft of services if a 15-year-old sneaks into an R-rated movie, because the theater won't sell them a ticket.
No, it would be theft of services if they sneak into a theatre. On the other hand, if they stay at home and watch a bootleg DVD they bought from a criminal because they were refused admission due to their age, or because they want to watch films the cinema doesn't show, then it's no longer "theft of services", since they are no longer taking up a seat in the cinema. The "service" that is stolen is not the film itself but the delivery mechanism, much as you can steal a DVD from a shop.
You are right, it‘s a semantic argument (I think you are not at all right in claiming that copyright infringement is theft of services, the linked Wikipedia article certainly doesn’t support that claim) but I do think it’s important to rehash it.
The legislator has decided to not treat copyright infringement like theft. Copyright is not the same as property (so says the law), it would be wrong to act as though there is some sort of consensus in society that both are somehow equivalent. The law is not everything and the law might be wrong (there might be good reasons to treat both the same) but it is disingenuous to act as though there is not at least a controversy.
Yes, it's "stealing" something that has zero marginal cost and is not for sale. I think the world has more important problems than this, for instance, teaching ants to respect traffic rules ;-)
Although that might be legally correct, it will not stop people rating, and any tv/film company that bases it's online strategy on that theory will continue to fail and miss opportunities.
