Here's what I really don't understand. What exactly do they believe gives them the "right" to watch a given movie / tv show?
Probably something along the lines of "it is in front of them".
Don't Make Me Steal
131–140 of 143 posts
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> $10.00 or $2.70, it's a moot point to the issue at hand. The baker has lost something. He has lost something of value only if he was going to sell that loaf of bread to a paying customer. How can you be sure that anyone was going to buy it? If no-one bought it before the end of the day then it would just be waste anyway, right?
You'ce still robbed him of the right of disposing of it as he sees fit. Here in the UK we have a chain of sandwich stores called Pret, at the end of the day they give their food away to the homeless - so by stealing something even if it was due to be given away, you're harming someone.
> You've still robbed him of the right of disposing of it as he sees fit.
Sure, but do you not see the parallel with copyright here? You are assuming a priori that the baker has a right to dispose of his goods as he sees fit, and that taking that right from him is a bad thing even if the disposal would have made him no profit anyway. I see no ethical problem with such a position, but you can apply much the same argument to intellectual property as to the physical kind.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'ce still robbed him of the right of disposing of it as he sees fit. Here in the UK we have a chain of sandwich stores called Pret, at the end of the day they give their food away to the homeless - so by stealing something even if it was due to be given away, you're harming someone.
> You've still robbed him of the right of disposing of it as he sees fit. Sure, but do you not see the parallel with copyright here? You are assuming a priori that the baker has a right to dispose of his goods as he sees fit, and that taking that right from him is a bad thing even if the disposal would have made him no profit anyway. I see no ethical problem with such a position, but you can apply much the same argum…
Yes of course he has that right - it's his property!
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You've still robbed him of the right of disposing of it as he sees fit. Sure, but do you not see the parallel with copyright here? You are assuming a priori that the baker has a right to dispose of his goods as he sees fit, and that taking that right from him is a bad thing even if the disposal would have made him no profit anyway. I see no ethical problem with such a position, but you can apply much the same argum…
Yes of course he has that right - it's his property!
Do you not see the implicit assumption you are making here? Why should anyone have an automatic right to control something just because it is in their possession at that particular time?
The entire concept of property is an artificial convention, which most societies have decided is beneficial and therefore worthy of respect/legal protection. But physical property is no more "natural" an idea than intellectual property. Both are just social agreements that we choose to value.
As a relevant aside, many societies/cultures throughout history have chosen not to recognise the concept of personal property and instead to hold that everything belongs to the group. In most cases, this has not worked very well on a large scale, which is perhaps why most modern societies have collectively taken the other view.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ris…
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. Bob is in the business of making blickits. Bob has given his time and money in order to produce blickits in the street. Bob is entitled to recompense from people for them seeing his blickits. Really? "Entit…
In Bob's case, he's now busking. He's doing something in the public space. He's essentially forcing his performance on others or gifting it to passerbys with his actions.
Movies do shoot on location, and people do watch when movies are shooting in their area, and the studio doesn't charge for that.
Now, if Bob were to either record his performance and sell it on the street or build a box around himself and charged people to enter to see him blickit, the situation becomes analogous. You're trying to essentially paint me as saying that a baker can force you to buy a loaf of bread by shoving it in your hands. I'm not.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ris…
In a traditional theft of services, the service is only performed because of the promise of a thief. I.e., a taxi will not drive across town unless I promise to pay them - thus, the driver is deprived of that time/effort. In contrast, both movie pirates and people who choose not to view the movie made no promise to a movie studio. Sneaking into a concert without a ticket is trespassing.
People who choose not to view the movie are irrelevant to the discussion. Don't try and attach pirates to that group. One group is moral, the other not so much.
Taxis say "I will drive you across town if you promise to pay".
Movie studios say "I will show you this performance if you promise to pay".
The promise is implicit in the act of watching/riding. You don't get in a taxi and explicitly say "I will pay you to drive me around". No, you get in a taxi and say "Take me over there". The promise of payment is implicit.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#137I also want my TV to be ad-free if I'm paying for it. I prefer to pay for it than to watch the ads, because my time has value, but I don't demand that this alternative be offered. Yet. 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 th…
You could always get a PS3 to use as a Netflix box. $300 and it can stream Netflix, play DVD and BluRay titles, various formats found in AVI containers, it's a DLNA receiver, and if you get bored with all that you can play PS1 and PS3 games.
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.
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a traditional theft of services, the service is only performed because of the promise of a thief. I.e., a taxi will not drive across town unless I promise to pay them - thus, the driver is deprived of that time/effort. In contrast, both movie pirates and people who choose not to view the movie made no promise to a movie studio. Sneaking into a concert without a ticket is trespassing.
People who choose not to view the movie are irrelevant to the discussion. Don't try and attach pirates to that group. One group is moral, the other not so much. Taxis say "I will drive you across town if you promise to pay". Movie studios say "I will show you this performance if you promise to pay". The promise is implicit in the act of watching/riding. You don't get in a taxi and explicitly say "I will pay you to dr…
[deleted]
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a traditional theft of services, the service is only performed because of the promise of a thief. I.e., a taxi will not drive across town unless I promise to pay them - thus, the driver is deprived of that time/effort. In contrast, both movie pirates and people who choose not to view the movie made no promise to a movie studio. Sneaking into a concert without a ticket is trespassing.
People who choose not to view the movie are irrelevant to the discussion. Don't try and attach pirates to that group. One group is moral, the other not so much. Taxis say "I will drive you across town if you promise to pay". Movie studios say "I will show you this performance if you promise to pay". The promise is implicit in the act of watching/riding. You don't get in a taxi and explicitly say "I will pay you to dr…
[deleted]
Re: Don't Make Me Steal
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it wouldn't, because the people companies make money from aren't willing to stop watching movies . 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.
So, you're saying, if a company is successful at creating and marketing its product and I don't like the price I can steal it?
I didn't say that at all, but thank you for putting words in my mouth.
What I did say is that suggesting the American populace stop seeing movies if they don't like the treatment is silly. The American populace isn't going to ever stop seeing movies.
It wont happen, and so suggesting that it happen is moot.