Fortunately it is impossible to steal non-rivalrous goods.
Maybe they thought dontmakemeinfringe.com didn't have the same 'zing'.
Don't Make Me Steal
101–110 of 143 posts
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#102I sympathise a great deal with the spirit of that manifesto. However, I don't full agree with it.
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.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#103 Digital Media Consumption ManifestoRe: Don't Make Me Steal
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, you can look at most real physical theft in the same terms and see how silly this "copying, not stealing" argument is. If I steal a $10 loaf of bread, how have I harmed the baker? Most people would say, "you took $10 worth of goods from the baker". But of course you didn't, says the pirate: you took $0.50 worth of flour and water and yeast from the baker, $0.20 in energy costs, and $2.00 in labor costs; you…
I don't think this is really a common pro-piracy argument. Most of the arguments I see stop at "it costs them nothing for me to copy it" and completely ignore the lost sale side of things. Those that address the lost sale aspect just say that they wouldn't have payed for it either way. Personally, I sit somewhere in between. I consider piracy immoral but not as bad as actual theft.
I wouldn't pay for it. Most Hollywood content is so bad IMHO that I feel that they should owe me for my time having watched it. I never rent movies and very rarely will go to them and get ripped off for the popcorn.
On the other hand, if movies were plain files on my computer and as accessible as, say, the anime available on bittorrent, I would be happy to pay a small amount to obtain it initially. Maybe even a monthly fee for getting new stuff. But only if it were in an open standard format with no DRM.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#105All I want is for any TV or movie on iTunes that is purchasable to also be rentable. I don't have any desire to buy, say, The Social Network for $20, but I'll rent it for $5. This goes double for TV shows. I love Fringe, but if I miss an episode I don't want to spend $3 to buy it, watch it once and never see it again. Let me rent it for $1 and I'll be happy.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#106If you don't like the law, make your own 'content' then you can set prices, etc.
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!
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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: immorality of theft. 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…
Related: poorer nations flout IP rights on some drugs, arguing that poorer people can't afford to pay the full price in order to get access to the drugs they need.
"....in developing countries, especially Africa, counterfeit products were commonly available to treat life-threatening conditions such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/Aids, it said."
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Counterfeit_drugs_polar...
(Not a great article, there are better ones available to go into the issue further. But it does illustrate the point somewhat.)
The issue of the morality of "theft" becomes decidedly grey when lives are on the line, but using this argument doesn't help us tease out the pros and cons of the original argument - the morality of flouting copyright on movies. Using the example of medicine is an edge case where piracy/stealing/copyright infringement is concerned.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#108I really don't like the "don't make me steal" attitude. It undermines a good society. 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…
The way the "manifesto" is worded does unfortunately reek of entitlement, but they do make a valid point. If you see their bullet points as rows in a product comparison table between legal movie distribution channels, most of them score badly on most of those points, whereas piracy ticks nearly all of them. (It would of course be a fairer comparison if there was a row for "is legal".) They're making the point that le…
They've unfairly tipped the scales in favor of piracy though. That's why the entire thing reeks of entitlement and why no legal service satisfies their demands.
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.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, you can look at most real physical theft in the same terms and see how silly this "copying, not stealing" argument is. If I steal a $10 loaf of bread, how have I harmed the baker? Most people would say, "you took $10 worth of goods from the baker". But of course you didn't, says the pirate: you took $0.50 worth of flour and water and yeast from the baker, $0.20 in energy costs, and $2.00 in labor costs; you…
$10.00 or $2.70, it's a moot point to the issue at hand. The baker has lost something. If I have the same pattern of bits on my hard drive that a movie studio has on theirs, the movie studio has lost $0.00. That's the fundamental difference between piracy and theft. If you want to assert that we, as a society, have made an agreement to limit people's freedom to configure their bits as they see fit in order to encoura…
Bullshit.
Movie studios are in the business of providing a service. The studios have given their time and money in order to produce a motion picture. They are entitled to recompense from people in exchange for performances.
Think of a film as a performance caught in time. The actors, directors, grips, etc. were all fronted money by the studios for their performances. In doing so, the studio has assumed all of the risk for putting on the performance. Therefore, when you copy a movie you are essentially sneaking into a concert without a ticket. You are stealing services.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way the "manifesto" is worded does unfortunately reek of entitlement, but they do make a valid point. If you see their bullet points as rows in a product comparison table between legal movie distribution channels, most of them score badly on most of those points, whereas piracy ticks nearly all of them. (It would of course be a fairer comparison if there was a row for "is legal".) They're making the point that le…
Yes! Copying things without paying for them is in fact more consumer-friendly than any conceivable paid option.
You obviously have an axe to grind, but you missed the point: the situation is such that people would choose to pirate movies even if it cost just as much as acquiring them legally. Indeed I'm guessing that there are private BitTorrent trackers which offer just that, presumably offering better seeder ratios or quality controls on content to justify the price.
I imagine if this "manifesto" were a blog post by a Silicon Valley celebrity, and it began "There's a huge opportunity being missed..." rather than "I will keep stealing your stuff until...", but had otherwise identical content, this thread would have a lot less discussion of the immorality of piracy and a lot more of how startups could disrupt existing distribution methods.