I 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 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.
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 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.
I agree, most people feel entitled to pirate, whatever the reason. But many times I have bought media, and it has been significantly more restrictive than a pirated copy.
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.
Yeah, but I would download a loaf of organic bread if I could. And I'd copy that loaf whenever I needed more for a sandwich, and I'd upload that bread pattern to all my friends, and give away free slices to any hungry people I came across.
What if the owner offers you the bread? Isn't that what happens when someone offers to let me copy a file from their harddrive over the internet?
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.
A "good society" is a society where corporations can run a legal extortion racket by creating artificial scarcity of the cultural products of said society and take draconian measures to protect said racket based on outdated legislation that was originally intended to achieve exactly the opposite?
No, that's not a "good society". That is a sick and corrupt society.
I don't think running a protection racket is the best way to get your point across. "I promise never to watch a movie until my demands are met" might actually carry some moral weight.
This wouldn't matter as the companies in question will just count that as a "sale lost to piracy" regardless. They already assume that their profits should be going up every year. Do you really think they care that you are taking a moral stand when it benefits them to label you as a "pirate" as opposed to just a lost sale?
I have some quibbles with the listed criteria, but I like the basic idea. When I was a pirate, I was a pirate of convenience. I barely pirate anything now that I have access to Amazon MP3, iTunes, and Netflix instant. The piracy I do partake in is mostly focused on ebooks since the Kindle store is so limited. But I also buy a lot of Kindle books when they are available.
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.
The whole "languages" section sounds like it was written by somebody with no understanding of how dubbing is produced, who pays for it, and the issues that arise with the rights to these different versions of a film. Often it gets even more complicated with TV Shows.
Convenience? Now you're getting completely unreasonable. If you can't filter by all metadata you're going to "steal"? Come on...
I'm guessing the point they were trying to get at was, you should be able to download and share subtitle files -- which are only useful to people who already have the movie -- without fear of prosecution.
We did have people in the workshop that were quite knowledgeable in those areas, but we had to keep the text short to avoid most people just skipping over everything. This is bound to create inaccuracies. As for this point in particular, of course it is unreasonable as it is, legal issues would prevent most of this, but the point is to start a discussion. We also had folks from the European Union there that were really enthusiastic about hopefully getting a case to present to (or rather against) detractors.
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.
Technically yes, but it is and always has been a shallow argument to claim that copyright infringement is not theft.
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.
I find it amusing that second-rate grammar (loose/lose) and spelling is the norm for some communities, but the second this topic comes up, everyone turns into a armchair semantic guru.
Don't agree with 'Purchase should not exceed the cinema price.' since that stuff comes with extra content and 20 years from now I'm sure whatever the cinema costs were will have become untenable due to inflation...
I agree with the general idea but the specific criteria sounds very good from a consumer POV and not very realistic for a company to offer.
"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.)
All the arguments below aside, are there any cases where an online petition has had its desired effect on an any large business, let alone an entire industry?
I do ask this both as a jab and as a legitimate curiosity.
I love iPads, but Apple charges more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal one until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then.
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 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 than I could ever possibly watch.
If only it worked on Linux. My Win PC is basically a "Netflix box" these days.
The music industry in particular is infamous for making it's fortunes via the deliberate exploitation of artist and musicians over the decades. So when those same industries turn around and try and take the moral high ground regarding piracy, for better or worse, consumers mostly laugh at the hypocrisy and continue pirating.
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.
[+] [-] rubidium|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] citricsquid|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] samstokes|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] buffalo476|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cmars232|15 years ago|reply
Post-scarcity is funny that way.
[+] [-] jacoblyles|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rickmb|15 years ago|reply
No, that's not a "good society". That is a sick and corrupt society.
[+] [-] krainboltgreene|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Goronmon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krainboltgreene|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jacoblyles|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] anatoli|15 years ago|reply
Convenience? Now you're getting completely unreasonable. If you can't filter by all metadata you're going to "steal"? Come on...
[+] [-] eli|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Seldaek|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] armandososa|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] phillijw|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jonpaul|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] baggachipz|15 years ago|reply
No streaming movie I've ever purchased has required me to pay for the privilege of doing arithmetic.
[+] [-] mike_esspe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Silhouette|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mattgreenrocks|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flatline|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jefe78|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btipling|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mitcheme|15 years ago|reply
"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.)
[+] [-] kemiller|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgs1019|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theDoug|15 years ago|reply
I do ask this both as a jab and as a legitimate curiosity.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] philfreo|15 years ago|reply
"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."
[+] [-] amalcon|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] zaidf|15 years ago|reply
Movies are delivered adds free.
[+] [-] caillou|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cadsby|15 years ago|reply
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.