The creators of this campaign decided that "Purchase should not exceed the cinema price." Really? What if we did that for, say, organic bread. "I won't buy organic bread unless it's x3 or less than the cost of the generic white bread. If it is more expensive, I'm entitled to steal it."
Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not to steal it.
EXACTLY. Yes, downloading a movie isn't exactly stealing, but it's still taking something without permission and it should be frowned upon just as much as stealing is. If a person pirates a movie they're taking something without reimbursing the rights owner with what they want. People aren't judged for stealing because it costs the store owner money, they're judged because it's immoral! When someone steals a DVD from walmart nobody says "Whoa, you stole $9.99 worth of product! You should be ashamed!" they say "You stole something you weren't allowed, you should be ashamed". Why online does it suddenly become about the cost?
it doesn't matter how ridiculous their demands are, if Disney want $100,000 per copy of their latest film, that's their choice, if you disagree then don't buy it that doesn't mean you should just take it.
The whole idea behind this website is self entitlement, nobody is entitled to someone else's creation and the idea that this website is doing the content creators a favour is laughable. If someone creates content (or someone owns the rights to created content) it should be their choice how people consume and acquire it, whether that's free, $9.99 or $100,000, that's their choice and we should abide by it. Pay what they want or don't have it.
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. One could always ask: "Why is it immoral to steal?" and the answer usually revolves around how stealing deprives the owner of something he had a legitimate claim to, etc. etc. That's how our moral intuitions have evolved over thousands of years.
The fact that this age-old intuition no longer seems to apply online is exactly why piracy creates a moral conundrum. You can't resolve the conundrum by fiat. Copyright infringement is a different crime from stealing, and rightly so, because piracy has different moral and economic implications than stealing has.
taking ? Or copying?
Something? Or some representation?
A problem with these discussions is that people use common words as if everyone had the same understanding of their meaning and application.
If I download a movie, I'm not taking that movie. And what I end up with is not a thing; if I then move it over to another drive, no thing has moved, yet the movie can be watched.
Now, in the end, this action it may or may not be wrong or immoral or whatever, but arguments based on physical notions of "take", "thing", "own" are putting the cart before the horse.
I would counter that it isn't necessarily always morally wrong to steal. Suppose I need some medicine to survive and I have neither the money for it nor the ability to get the money legally. I would argue that since I will die if I don't get the medicine, it's then morally acceptable to either steal the money necessary to purchase it or to outright steal the medicine itself, provided doing so doesn't have the foreseeable consequence of putting the victim of my theft into a similar life-or-death situation.
Would you agree that in this one situation, theft can be morally justified? If not, then say there were 10, 100, or 1000 people in need of the medicine; is it OK to steal to get it then? If not, is there a particular N such that it's OK to steal to save N people? It's just not that simple, and saying "stealing is immoral" doesn't cut it (IMO) as an argument against piracy, even if you buy the argument that piracy == stealing.
They're making the point that legal movie distribution channels are worse products - by those criteria - than piracy. Put another way, there are other reasons for choosing to pirate a movie besides not wanting to pay for it. It's unrealistic to demand all of the things this manifesto does, but actually the sum of their demands doesn't seem like a bad ideal to aim for.
It's deliberate.
That and they provide no reasoning as to their points. They want the purchase price to not exceed the cinema price. But cinema price is dependent upon the area and theater, so it's not so easy to peg purchase to cinema.
That and why should the purchase price be pegged to the cinema price? A visit to the cinema is a one time event. A purchase entitles you to unlimited viewing. That's worth more to me.
Why should TV shows be 1/3 the price of movies? Most TV shows exceed the length of a film many times over. Yet we're supposed to pay less for more content?
They also want to dictate how movies are distributed. They want access to every movie ever made. Nothing gives you that except piracy. The cost for Netflix to do such a thing would be astronomical. And for that, these benevolent individuals are willing to bestow upon the providers of these services 3 movie tickets, or (by their other claims) the price of 3 films. Why? You have instant access to every movie ever made. Watching over 3 movies in a month using this service diminishes the price you are paying per movie. Watching a movie a day makes your movie watching habits cost 1/10 of a film using the service.
That and their filtering suggestions are stupid. Why should a third party service let you sort by IMDb ID? Why should they care what a movie's IMDb ID is?
This isn't a plea to studios to get them to change their "evil ways", it's a way for over-entitled douches to feel good about ripping people off.
If any of these were real concerns of pirates, movies out in theaters wouldn't be pirated.
To illustrate, I bought a bluray movie a few years ago, and put the digital copy on my computer. And since I had just purchased a new video mp3 player, I thought it would be cool to play the movie on there. It even worked great, that is until I accidentally deleted the movie from that device. Too bad the DRM on the digital copy would not let me make another. This was a legally purchased copy that was more restrictive than any pirated version.
Content creators are treating their customers like criminals first, sources of money second, and customers third. So yes, "don't make me steal" does have some arbitrary demands, but a lot of what they say just makes good business sense.
Post-scarcity is funny that way.
No seriously - we are not post-movie-scarcity because making a blockbuster costs a vast amount of money - and much of that is people's salaries, people not unlike you - and it's a risky business (e.g. Kevin Costner might be involved) and if that cost is not recouped... Well the industry is going to go only for safe bets (sequels/remakes).
It's like another thread on here at the moment, about it taking 5 minutes to upload a favicon. Sure, but that's not how much time it takes to get from scratch to actual deliverable.
If you look back over my comment history, you will see that I have argued the other side of this issue too. That is because it is a hard problem that doesn't fit well with the moral intuitions that we developed for other kinds of property.
To make matters worse, US copyright laws are way more strict than most people's moral intuitions of what intellectual property should be like. Even if you think the author should have some right to the content they produced, few people think creative works should be locked up until 75 years after the author's death. I have downloaded books illegally from authors that died in the 70s and I feel no moral qualms about it.
No, that's not a "good society". That is a sick and corrupt society.
I think we can do this all day.
Of course it's not the same to duplicate information as it is to remove a physical item, but both are based on an artificial legal concept of property.
The natural state of things is indeed that I can copy any information coming my way, and copyright artificially restricts my right to do so in the eyes of the law.
Then again, the natural state of things is also that if you have a physical item and I want it, then if I am bigger than you/have a bigger gun than you/have more friends than you, then that item is now my possession and not yours, and theft-related statutes artificially restrict my right to take it in the eyes of the law.
In the end, copyright, like physical property, is an economic tool. Society gives it the force of law to make sure that people don't game the system unfairly. It makes no sense to debate that law, in either letter or spirit, without considering the economic implications of breaking it. Those implications are not zero just because information that already exists can be reproduced with near zero marginal cost and time overhead using modern technology.
In other words, many philosophers do draw a morally relevant distinction between these categories of rights.
Also, I'm sure you can see how those who are copying/stealing/whatever you want to call it might wish to call it copying instead of stealing, as that implies a lesser moral judgment (deservedly imo).
What alternatives would you suggest?
It would be like saying "I won't walk outside until the city cleans the streets!" It's a promise a majority of people simply won't, or can't, keep.
TPB -> "The Italian Job" + 3 hours = me happy. There is NO legal alternative for me. No, I'm not walking 30 miles to Best Buy to waste $30 on a DVD that won't play in my computer that doesn't have a DVD drive. And I don't consider running Win7 in a VM to be reasonable at all.
Please don't pretend anyone somehow forced you to break the law. You chose to do that yourself.
2. Netflix has no client or support for Linux. Microsoft won't license the DRM components and Netflix refuses to change.
I never, ever mentioned that I was forced into breaking the law, but thanks for putting those words into my mouth. Make no bones about it. I broke the law because it is more convenient. I would pay for the movies if, as I already stated, I wasn't forced to borrow someone's car to buy a frickin DVD.
Surely, you can understand that "Don't consume the content at all" is as much of a copout as someone saying they were "forced" to steal the content. Both I and the movie industry would benefit from me having easier access to the content that I would happily pay for.
This is partly why I'm hopeful to see what Amazon has in store.
Yes there is. You choose not to use them because they are inconvenient. You are not entitled to dl a copy of the movie instead.
I did NOT come here to justify my actions, piracy or to complain and nothing in my post can be construed as an attempt to do so. I came to point out that watching a movie, legally, in Linux is a complete disaster, to the point that it's not worth the hassle for me. I understand it's breaking the law. I'd rather break the law than go through the nightmare of obtaining the movie legally.
How am I supposed to watch "The Italian Job" legally in Linux? I'm listening, because I would happily pay for it rather than torrent it.
Convenience? Now you're getting completely unreasonable. If you can't filter by all metadata you're going to "steal"? Come on...
"I have access to the audio in every language that has been produced."
Even the subtitle issue is complicated. Are these fan-made subtitles? Otherwise, again, you're entering a minefield and the chances of something like that ever happening within a unified interface — as requested — are slim.
Something like that would require a fundamental change to how films and especially TV Shows are distributed in other countries. Not to mention the technical issues that will occur due to certain countries getting a slightly modified (whether censored or extended or just modified) version of the original.
You're far more likely to get somewhere if what you're asking is at least somewhat reasonable.
The filter thing was because yes, some services do not presently allow you to search for all movies that are dubbed in language X. If you are trying to watch something with your kids, it is pretty annoying to have to look for a movie, then go in the language selection, then choose the language of your liking, and then at the end be told it's not available. It's basic UX imo, but if people don't do it right now, it's worth static.
1)It implies that copyright infringement is stealing. 2)It implies lack of responsibility, as in someone is making you do a certain action. You have a choice.
No streaming movie I've ever purchased has required me to pay for the privilege of doing arithmetic.
or a bunch of redditors/chaners.
Movies are delivered adds free.
Q: How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?
A: We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it's only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.
This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?
In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it.
http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O...
So for him to say, "Oh you can make money other ways, make films for art's sake. Look at me, I'm a wine-maker" is a bit disingenuous.
This being said, I already follow this. I also don't illegally download media. I just don't watch stuff that's not available in a reasonable way. It seems silly, given that paying $10/month for Netflix gets me access to more content than I could ever possibly watch.
If only it worked on Linux. My Win PC is basically a "Netflix box" these days.
I think the Wii has Netflix streaming that doesn't require a disc or secondary subscription as well. And those can be found in the $200 range.
(I'd suggest the XBox 360 but it requires a $60/year Gold subscription on top of the price of the console.)
I'd consider it a suitable alternative if I didn't have a Windows box laying around.
I wonder if most pirates are pirates of convenience who will convert into paying customers if there is a convenient way to do so. I do get a little angry at content companies who are a decade behind the times in technology.
"Outside US we are people too. Here, take our hard-earned money""Rent should not exceed 1/3 of the cinema price. Purchase should not exceed the cinema price."
Rent/purchase and cinema are completely different businesses, with different expenses. Going to the cinema doesn't give you a permanent copy. I'm pretty sure movie ticket prices are subsidized by sales of overpriced popcorn, drinks, and snacks. Online sales/rentals might be better compared to brick-and-mortar sales/rentals rather than cinema. Either that or offer a breakdown of how it might be viable for a company to charge those prices.
"I have access to pretty much every movie ever made."
This isn't possible using any other legitimate method that I know of; the only reason pirates can do it is because they don't have to worry about the legal issues, pay for licensing, etc. They just need access to a physical or digital copy which is far easier to do. This will probably be even harder when combined with the pricing demands since it limits how much companies can pay for licensing. If you mean major films/TV shows only, "most" might be a better word, otherwise it sounds like you want them to chase down every indie filmmaker who's put out a movie that a dozen people might be interested in watching.
"Pricing of TV shows is about 1/3 of movies. I pay for the content, not for bandwidth."
These seem almost contradictory to me. I'm guessing the pricing of TV shows should be 1/3 that of movies because they're 1/3 as long, but if "content" means "length" then the second point doesn't mean very much in most cases. If content is some measure of quality/popularity then there's no reason why TV shows would cost less than movies. (Especially since, from my POV, there are far more good TV shows right now than good movies.)
(edited for formatting and grammar.)
I do ask this both as a jab and as a legitimate curiosity.
I love Photoshop, but Adobe charges more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then.
I love Wolfram-Alpha's database, but Mathematica costs way more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then.
Does this not seam like a ludicrous attitude to you?
"I have access to the audio in every language that has been produced." and "Once I bought a movie, I can watch it in every available language."
I agree pirating is morally indefensible. But the reality is consumers will never be swayed by those arguments. Give consumers the product they want, at the price point they would like to pay. That is the only practical solution to this issue, regardless of how loudly the content industries screams about "stealing."
Failure to accept this reality will only lead to piracy continuing if not increasing.
I hope that a store like this exists soon. But given the track record of the studios, it's not likely that they'll become sane anytime soon.
No one cares what you think is the 'right price'. If you don't want to pay, don't buy it.
No amount of whining is an excuse for stealing. Grow up!
"ad free", not "adds free".
Please. I beg you.
Oh c'mon.
Digital Media Consumption ManifestoI closed the page at this point.
Mainly because it's basis comes down to, "I want a pony, Daddy. And I want it now! And it must pink! And made out of licorice!" And I don't agree with arguments like that because unless you yourself (the person desiring the pony) are the one who's making/building/providing the pony, then you're in the weakest possible position to be making such specific demands. "I'd like a pony too, little Virginia, but I have to figure out how much it costs, I have to go find one, figure out where to keep it, feed it, make sure it stays healthy, etc. And if it's not pink how the fuck do I make it pink? Don't even talk to me about licorice."
Note that I'm not saying that all consumers should conform their desires to whatever the producers feel like producing and providing it under. But I do think it requires give and take on both sides, and the folks on the producer side are much more likely to be constrained by Physical Reality, whereas the consumer role can prance around in Fantasy Land. Wanting convenience is fine. Wanting "fairness" is more problematic, because it's not always clear what is fair when you have to consider things from the provider's position, not just the consumer. And some consumer demands are arbitrary or undefensible. For example, what reasonable basis would one have for demanding that you should not have to pay more money to own a product (a DVD/video) than you would to rent it (watch movie in theatre)? There are arguments for why each should be more expensive than the other, and the "cost plus" model is only part of the consideration. Value-based pricing is also fundamental to economics and market-making. Yes, artificial scarcity can make prices for a thing higher than what it would be otherwise. However, if you're not the one producing the thing in question, you're not in the position to decide whether or how much to turn that dial. As a consumer you can choose not to buy a thing under terms you don't like, but you're not in a position to demand or force a provider to match your ideal terms. You are always free to get off your ass and go make the very thing you want. But if you lack the creativity, energy, intelligence, skills, willpower, etc. to make that thing, then you will absolutely be (at least somewhat) at the mercy of those that do overcome and perform those things in order to provide it. Thus the give and take, and thus a market where price and terms must be reached by compromise on both sides.
Don't make me steal? Don't make me laugh.