HBO Is Targeting Game of Thrones Pirates: What Does This Mean for You?(thoughtforyourpenny.com) |
HBO Is Targeting Game of Thrones Pirates: What Does This Mean for You?(thoughtforyourpenny.com) |
I absolutely understand why people abroad are pirating and put that at the feet of HBO. Wire cutters now have an option with HBO Now if they wish, and those who don't wish to pay, fair enough, but HBO's product is actually surprisingly good.
Ideally HBO should have seen a large drop in piracy this season due to HBO Now, however unfortunately with this four episode leak people are so paranoid about spoilers that a lot of people feel "forced" to pirate it even if they legitimately pay for either HBO Go or HBO Now.
Keep in mind that a GoT season is 10 episodes. So a four episode leak is almost 1/2 of an entire season.
I want to watch them in English and I live in Germany. Do I have any options apart from a cable subscription for a bunch of other bullshit I don't want. No of course not.
I could wait until the DVDs cone out in a years time, bit the fuckers will more than likely split the season into two releases to make you buy two separate box sets for double the money.
I could watch online but that would be illegal and I don't want to go there. I just don't watch. I'd pay a couple of Euros to watch each episode in the format I want (DNLAed off my Synology) it appears that they don't want my cold hard cash. It has been like that for years and I'm slowly tuning off from media completely. I wonder how many others are like me- abstainers?
He argues that somehow piracy caused innovation in the music industry, and thus the piracy of hollywood will somehow usher in a new era of innovation in streaming video. In some respects its true that Napster brought about innovation in digital music... BUT IT HASN"T STOPPED PIRACY!
There is a ton of more streaming options today, which is great for lawful netizens, we do have a lot of great options. But that doesn't excuse pirates from ethical obligations.
You don't have a right to someone's property just because you think you should.
Maybe I should just take refuge in your fancy-house just because I think it would be morally just because you have a nicer house than I do.
Thats essentailly the argument pirates make, and it doesn't hold water.
Yet, up to last year, HBO was saying it was good for business because it made even more people talk about it.
I wish they made up their mind if it's good or bad for business once and for all.
To further your analogy, it costs me approximately $0 to make an exact copy of fancy-house, it travels over the internet to you, and what you do with your copy doesn't affect me in the slightest.
I am very willing to give you a copy of my fancy-house under such a scheme, and you are completely welcome to do with it whatever you want.
Either don't pirate, or pay for your media. People shouldn't steal.
Maybe they should be patient and wait until the films come into the public domain if they're too cheap to pay.
The unethical people in these equations are the ones who try to bend the world to their whims of "intellectual" order. They see no problem with violence on human beings over literal duplication of information. Economically speaking, a lesser degree of unethical behavior surrounds only people who duplicate data who would have paid for said content. A minority of content spreads worldwide on that basis. Hundreds of millions of teenagers and adults getting online can barely afford an internet connection if even a personal computer. Meanwhile, the amount of content and producers exponentially increases. They are not "completely unethical" for taking part in fleeting, frivolous entertainment -- the vast amount of it they wouldn't deem worthy to purchase in place of other choices. Everyone's situation is different. Rarely in the human condition is something "completely unethical", especially in the context of data and non-violent actions. Streaming services like Spotify are a good start. They respect the nature of information more. They try to appeal to hearts and minds. That's healthy.
Then there are industries where net positives exist along with piracy. Growing the size of a user/fan base becomes an added dependency of future success. Industry sets adoption. Adoption sets industry. Piracy by individuals is tolerated or even internally respected, while only the piracy of moderate and large businesses is targeted. The world, for instance, was awash with Windows cracks and serials in the 90s and early 2000s, having a tremendous impact globally on people who couldn't afford it or who wouldn't buy it. In the absence of such piracy, such as by a hypothetical corporate-fascist state putting people to death or by magical DRM, Linux would be in millions of more households by now.
Okay, I'll take you up on your offer. Can you please set up a server where I can download a disk image of your desktop computer? By one press of the button, I can have a copy of your "house"... no harm to you, right?
Let me just have every piece of data you own... just a harmless copy... just because I want and value it.
It's a lot different when it's your things people want versus other people's things.
The irony is now I want people to pay me to write software ?
Maybe I am just an unproductive scum on earth, mooching off other people's work. But I was homeless for a month this year so not like I have had much options.
I do not feel at least bit sorry about stealing.
You have the choice not to consume any content or to consume free content. You are entitled.
Maybe that if people paid for things that are on the web, you wouldn't have so much problem getting paid for software work. Maybe that would've kept you from the street.
Over the years that I've watched this discussion, I've come to notice that people who advocate for paying for stuff seem (though it might just be my perception) to use expressions like "consume content" more often than those who don't.
It's rather uninspiring, and I suspect it's counter-productive. No one wants to "consume content". They want to watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained. I doubt anyone ever invited a date round "to consume beverages and content".
No judgement, I pirated games when I was in school. I still pirate TV.
Also, there are many things that I feel I have an obligation to be informed about (like junk on CNN / Fox News, or war propaganda like "Zero Dark Thirty" or "American Sniper"), but I would be ethically opposed to paying for.
Personal desire for privacy is wholly separate from whether or not your duplicating a house harms me. It's baffling logic to suggest otherwise. But I'll play along. In this hypothetical, you value some data and I don't want you to have it. Therefore, our interests clash. Acknowledging reality on my end would mean attempting to safeguard the data from you. That means taking realistic measures to do the opposite of making it free or widely available for a price.
There's an intellectual world. There's a physical world. Ethics is not particular laws subjecting people at arbitrary points in time. Ethics is discussion of real-world damage and recourse. It's philosophy that must be perpetually debated before it swirls down a corporate drain along with any other semblance of "justice" flushed with it to churn out prisoners and chilling effects. Caring about reality starts with recognizing reality. Duplicating binary information is easy. Information can spread across the world in seconds. Some obstacles are effective at earning support and capital from information. Other obstacles are not effective. Security is generally weak. Some people are naturally curious and hungry. Some people suck. Most people are generally good. That's reality. People who have disposable incomes often want to encourage the producers they value -- with money, without friction. That's why crowdfunding exists.
Why would you say it's counter productive to label it consumption? The truth is, if you're sucking up entertainment without providing anything or incentivizing production, you're a net loss in the system.
I say this as someone who has pirated things -- pretending you're not a burden on the production system if you're just pirating things is delusional. The argument that people make towards pirating and paying for content which they liked is much more consistent. Rather than pay people off for marketing/hype and support bad content in the future, you can fund solely content that you think is worthwhile. But again, this is just changing the way in which you're consuming material.
If you consume something you are making it impossible for someone else to consume that same thing. You can consume a beverage (no one can drink it after you did) but you can't consume digital content. Here[1] it is explained by someone more knowledgable than me. (incidentally, the FSF also suggests to avoid the word 'piracy' to describe illegal file sharing)
Also, when saying pirating is a net loss to the system, maybe you can say it about piracy as a whole, but for the individual I would not be so sure. Suppose I wouldn't have bought the content anyway (that is, my alternatives would have been pirating it or not seeing it). How am I causing a loss in this conditions?
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consume
I don't always I pay for what I watch, sometimes I use a VPN to watch Louis Theroux on the BBC's website (you want me to be specific right ?) and I will never say that I didn't have a choice because it is ridiculous. Saying that the act of not paying for something is imposed to you is counter-productive.
I could have said "watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained", I chose "consume content" because it is shorter. I could enumerate every aspect of content consumption but that would be counter-productive as well.