Several piracy-related arrests spark fears of high-level crackdown(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Several piracy-related arrests spark fears of high-level crackdown
https://torrentfreak.com/several-piracy-related-arrests-spark-fears-of-high-level-crackdown-231127/
249 comments
I simply can't find my favorite Graphic Novels in DRM-free format outside pirate streams. I want to pay for them, but there is no scenario where I'll shell out hundreds of dollars to rent content from big DRM providers like Amazon.
I'm not as afraid of completely losing our cultural memory exactly because "piracy" can't be ultimately defeated: As long as people can consume their DRM-protected content, there will be always a way to remove the DRM and offer it through alternate means. I understand the risk of civil disobedience, however it seems that there has never been a time without the risk-takers that effectively protect our cultural heritage.
Despite the immense power of the immoral US Copyright law, it's not all-powerful as places like sci-hub prove.
I'm not as afraid of completely losing our cultural memory exactly because "piracy" can't be ultimately defeated: As long as people can consume their DRM-protected content, there will be always a way to remove the DRM and offer it through alternate means. I understand the risk of civil disobedience, however it seems that there has never been a time without the risk-takers that effectively protect our cultural heritage.
Despite the immense power of the immoral US Copyright law, it's not all-powerful as places like sci-hub prove.
The media giants did this, with exactly what you mentioned. DRM.
I can download a movie for free, or I can spring $20-30 for the DVD, then sit through forced FBI warnings, then previews, etc. when I really just wanted to watch a damn movie.
They shifted the burden to the consumer (time wasted) and in a world with piracy, good luck with that model.
I can download a movie for free, or I can spring $20-30 for the DVD, then sit through forced FBI warnings, then previews, etc. when I really just wanted to watch a damn movie.
They shifted the burden to the consumer (time wasted) and in a world with piracy, good luck with that model.
It’s even worse. For example 4K blu-ray cannot be played on new laptops no matter what. Also 4K is not supported by Netflix, Disney+, Prime video, HBO Max, etc on PCs. So I can only watch them if I “purchase” them on YouTube, Amazon, etc to stream them. Hell no.
I wouldn't know, since I've never purchased a blueray movie.
To those that want to do this the legal way, purchase it, throw it in a box, then pirate a version of the movie that doesn't treat you like a clown.
To those that want to do this the legal way, purchase it, throw it in a box, then pirate a version of the movie that doesn't treat you like a clown.
https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/library/4k-titles-on-netfli...
Netflix has a bunch of stuff in 4k. Do they not count for some reason?
Netflix has a bunch of stuff in 4k. Do they not count for some reason?
They do count, but count less every time they raise prices, while dropping titles from their catalogs, and ending popular series within 1-2 seasons, etc.
They are racing to become the very thing that got them the traction they had in the beginning. People are fucking tired of paying more for less, while being told how fucking great it all is.
They are racing to become the very thing that got them the traction they had in the beginning. People are fucking tired of paying more for less, while being told how fucking great it all is.
Yes, they have, but you can’t watch them in 4K on PC/Mac.
This reminds me of advertising in movie theatres now. I show up to a movie 15 minutes late to skip the insane number of ads.
Previews are pretty annoying to me too but I’m curious: if you like movies, how do you find out about them? I don’t watch ad-supported TV and opt out of ads wherever I can (YouTube Premium, Hulu etc).
When I was in my early 20s in the 2000s, I could go to a theater and just know what the deal was for 90% of the movies that were playing at a 20-plex automatically just from TV ads and a few late-night-show actor interviews. Today I know zero (other than recognizing which one is some Marvel thing). If you dropped me off at the movies I wouldn’t know what to watch without googling them all.
When I was in my early 20s in the 2000s, I could go to a theater and just know what the deal was for 90% of the movies that were playing at a 20-plex automatically just from TV ads and a few late-night-show actor interviews. Today I know zero (other than recognizing which one is some Marvel thing). If you dropped me off at the movies I wouldn’t know what to watch without googling them all.
I'm more of a reader than a movie watcher, but the way I find out about new movies:
1. Word of Mouth 2. Internet reviews 3. IMDB 4. it's up on l33. ;)
1. Word of Mouth 2. Internet reviews 3. IMDB 4. it's up on l33. ;)
I've got slightly less sympathy (but still sympathy) for you than the GP - your issue is that it's not available on your terms, OP's issue is that it's not available legally.
> available on your terms
Why does this desire make them less sympathetic?
The irritating thing about this is that one may be unable to find some movie or song which they’ve already seen or heard. Even in a case where it is officially available, gating some record of culture behind a fee is just holding said culture hostage to ransom it back.
More charitably, it’s someone attempting a business model which is thwarted by how inexpensive it is for individuals to copy and share digital media. I instead lack sympathy for the people with an obviously bad business strategy and prefer to recognize this culture-renting as farcical.
(That question I asked wasn’t rhetorical; I am genuinely interested in the answer but I also wanted to explain a different perspective.)
Why does this desire make them less sympathetic?
The irritating thing about this is that one may be unable to find some movie or song which they’ve already seen or heard. Even in a case where it is officially available, gating some record of culture behind a fee is just holding said culture hostage to ransom it back.
More charitably, it’s someone attempting a business model which is thwarted by how inexpensive it is for individuals to copy and share digital media. I instead lack sympathy for the people with an obviously bad business strategy and prefer to recognize this culture-renting as farcical.
(That question I asked wasn’t rhetorical; I am genuinely interested in the answer but I also wanted to explain a different perspective.)
Saying "I refuse to use the media as you provided it, will pirate it for my personal use" is akin to walking into a greengrocer, taking a 1kg bag of carrots and pulling two of them out and demanding to only pay for them because you only want two.
Particularly when it comes to arts - games (disclaimer: I work in games), music (disclaimer I make music), art, theatre, there is usually another person I the other side of it who has made decisions to get that to you in the first place. Saying "my way or the highway" doesn't show Amazon that you're not willing to engage with the Kindle DRM and will buy it if they provide CC licensed prints, it shows them you're willing to dodge paying $10 instead.
> it’s someone attempting a business model which is thwarted by how inexpensive it is for individuals to copy and share digital media. I instead lack sympathy for the people with an obviously bad business strategy and prefer to recognize this culture-renting as farcical.
An over idealistic belief of free market being the only way that a product can exist, and throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise.
Compromising is the basis of any transaction - I want the item for free and you want to be recognised for it, so we come to an agreement.
Particularly when it comes to arts - games (disclaimer: I work in games), music (disclaimer I make music), art, theatre, there is usually another person I the other side of it who has made decisions to get that to you in the first place. Saying "my way or the highway" doesn't show Amazon that you're not willing to engage with the Kindle DRM and will buy it if they provide CC licensed prints, it shows them you're willing to dodge paying $10 instead.
> it’s someone attempting a business model which is thwarted by how inexpensive it is for individuals to copy and share digital media. I instead lack sympathy for the people with an obviously bad business strategy and prefer to recognize this culture-renting as farcical.
An over idealistic belief of free market being the only way that a product can exist, and throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise.
Compromising is the basis of any transaction - I want the item for free and you want to be recognised for it, so we come to an agreement.
I mean if we're playing analogies...
What if all the shops that sold chocolate near you bar one decided to shut down? This chocolate shop (ChocStix) keeps selling, but says you need to keep eating it in the store or in an authorised location to ensure you don't share or give away the chocolate.
You can at this stage give up chocolate all together, or find an alternative. The manufacturer isn't at fault here. However if they've signed an exclusive deal to only sell chocolate to ChocFlix in your area, it's not unreasonable to buy your chocolate from a dodgey looking dude selling it out the back of a van.
The big issue is exclusive rights over media on broad scales here, not some niche demand for a specific use case.
What if all the shops that sold chocolate near you bar one decided to shut down? This chocolate shop (ChocStix) keeps selling, but says you need to keep eating it in the store or in an authorised location to ensure you don't share or give away the chocolate.
You can at this stage give up chocolate all together, or find an alternative. The manufacturer isn't at fault here. However if they've signed an exclusive deal to only sell chocolate to ChocFlix in your area, it's not unreasonable to buy your chocolate from a dodgey looking dude selling it out the back of a van.
The big issue is exclusive rights over media on broad scales here, not some niche demand for a specific use case.
So your viable alternative is for the customers to just get screwed by some shysty company that rolled out a beta as a GOLD release game? Maybe we should pay MORE for them taking the time to sell me a product, that I came to rely on, then suddenly, there is now a subscription model? Not because of costs, not because of added services, but because PROFIT.
You have a point, but this lacks the context that caused people to stop being shafted more and more and MOAR, making it more pollyanna, than useful, imo.
YMMV.
You have a point, but this lacks the context that caused people to stop being shafted more and more and MOAR, making it more pollyanna, than useful, imo.
YMMV.
> it shows them you're willing to dodge paying $10 instead
They assume what they want of my actions. They may instead choose to think that I don't like using their service; perhaps I don't like the licensing terms that a copyright owner might choose to not offer their stuff on Amazon anymore leaving me SOL on my purchase. I buy games on Steam because their service doesn't suck for consumers. Valve recognizes that Steam's revenue comes from people choosing to use the platform to purchase games and they act like it.
> music (disclaimer I make music)
How do you feel about the settlement between Tom Petty and Sam Smith[0]? Do you think your music is infringing copyright because you independently made a song that happens to contain a copy of a part of another song's melody? Does the other song writer deserve their 12.5% cut of your music "as is usual for writers of sampled or interpolated work" even if they clarify that they don't think your interpolation was intentional? I personally wouldn't think so; seems to me that it's just a cartel doing its thing. Even if said interpolation was unintentional, you, the song writer, made the mistake of not knowing that the melody in your song had already been popularized.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_with_Me_(Sam_Smith_song)#...
> I want the item for free
No, this is just a common assumption that people make. I bought the item already, lost it, and recognize that making another copy is practically free. I no longer have my copy of Pokemon Red that I had as a kid and I'm not apologizing to Nintendo or Game Freak just because I found a ROM online to use instead. Let's take a more recent personal example: Monster Sanctuary[1]. I have purchased this game no less than 3 times (Steam, Playstation, Switch) because it was more convenient and reliable than pirating it in every instance.
1: https://monster-sanctuary.com/
> throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise
Like how every time anyone speaks out against the copyright cartel it's immediately framed to be because they want something for nothing by someone who disagrees. Pot, meet Kettle.
I will stand by that statement. This copyright shit is a farce. 10-year terms would be fine but Disney didn't want to lose Mickey Mouse. Tom Petty doesn't need to go after Sam Smith for supposedly copying the melody of a song that was written 34 years ago. You personally shouldn't lose revenue on your own songs just because you accidentally copied the melody of a song you heard when you were 6.
------------------------
Where do you offer your music for sale?
They assume what they want of my actions. They may instead choose to think that I don't like using their service; perhaps I don't like the licensing terms that a copyright owner might choose to not offer their stuff on Amazon anymore leaving me SOL on my purchase. I buy games on Steam because their service doesn't suck for consumers. Valve recognizes that Steam's revenue comes from people choosing to use the platform to purchase games and they act like it.
> music (disclaimer I make music)
How do you feel about the settlement between Tom Petty and Sam Smith[0]? Do you think your music is infringing copyright because you independently made a song that happens to contain a copy of a part of another song's melody? Does the other song writer deserve their 12.5% cut of your music "as is usual for writers of sampled or interpolated work" even if they clarify that they don't think your interpolation was intentional? I personally wouldn't think so; seems to me that it's just a cartel doing its thing. Even if said interpolation was unintentional, you, the song writer, made the mistake of not knowing that the melody in your song had already been popularized.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_with_Me_(Sam_Smith_song)#...
> I want the item for free
No, this is just a common assumption that people make. I bought the item already, lost it, and recognize that making another copy is practically free. I no longer have my copy of Pokemon Red that I had as a kid and I'm not apologizing to Nintendo or Game Freak just because I found a ROM online to use instead. Let's take a more recent personal example: Monster Sanctuary[1]. I have purchased this game no less than 3 times (Steam, Playstation, Switch) because it was more convenient and reliable than pirating it in every instance.
1: https://monster-sanctuary.com/
> throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise
Like how every time anyone speaks out against the copyright cartel it's immediately framed to be because they want something for nothing by someone who disagrees. Pot, meet Kettle.
I will stand by that statement. This copyright shit is a farce. 10-year terms would be fine but Disney didn't want to lose Mickey Mouse. Tom Petty doesn't need to go after Sam Smith for supposedly copying the melody of a song that was written 34 years ago. You personally shouldn't lose revenue on your own songs just because you accidentally copied the melody of a song you heard when you were 6.
------------------------
Where do you offer your music for sale?
Do libraries in Canada loan DVDs and/or Blu-rays (and I suppose do you have something to play those, a PS5 for example)?
Just checked my local library system and there are 7 available copies of Heavenly Creatures, I could get it and watch it in a few days via inter library loan. But I'm in the States.
95% of the films I watch via the library I would venture. But it depends on your system.
Just checked my local library system and there are 7 available copies of Heavenly Creatures, I could get it and watch it in a few days via inter library loan. But I'm in the States.
95% of the films I watch via the library I would venture. But it depends on your system.
I do not own a DVD or Blu-ray player! I'm sure I could buy the DVD/Blu-ray on ebay (I saw it on Amazon for over $40!) and then buy a DVD/Blu-ray player. Or maybe it's on VHS or Laserdisc and I could obtain a physical copy of one of those and the necessary machines. That seems like a lot of work for a 2 hour movie. Probably faster to pay for a VPN and then stream from a region where it is available.
Of course, none of that has anything to do whatsoever with the point. As we transition as a society away from physical goods and towards digital goods, we are placing ourselves at risk of companies erasing those digital goods. For now we have backups (like DVDs) and workarounds (like VPNs). Reasonably soon that won't be the case. It is possible that the favorite content of toddlers today (e.g. on Disney+) might just be totally inaccessible to them one day.
Of course, none of that has anything to do whatsoever with the point. As we transition as a society away from physical goods and towards digital goods, we are placing ourselves at risk of companies erasing those digital goods. For now we have backups (like DVDs) and workarounds (like VPNs). Reasonably soon that won't be the case. It is possible that the favorite content of toddlers today (e.g. on Disney+) might just be totally inaccessible to them one day.
Goodwill (or similar) is your friend here. Physical media players are likely to get purged when someone's de-cluttering their home.
If I understand correctly, the point is this won't be possible in the future with where things are headed. There won't be any physical media to play on it. It's not about what you can find at Goodwill or the library today. This is forward looking.
Secondhand stores are also great for picking up CDs and DVDs for cheap.
You can also buy USB DVD-ROM drives for $15 or so, then rip. I'm in the middle of doing that to my DVD collection.
Why won’t you just buy a $100 USB hdd with whatever TB (3? 4?) it is these days, and store your movies there? Is it some legal issue here? Is the optical disk somehow different?
Not really a direct comparison. Yes they can store it on a hard drive, but where are they going to acquire the actual bytes? A cheap optical drive and a secondhand disc is a pretty good strategy and carries zero risk of legal issues because it leaves no trace outside your own PC, as opposed to say, BitTorrent. It’s just possibly much less convenient if the disc is hard to come by.
Also (IANAL) but if you acquire the disc, back it up and then keep or destroy the original, it’s even fully legally sound.
Also (IANAL) but if you acquire the disc, back it up and then keep or destroy the original, it’s even fully legally sound.
Yes, I use the DVD-ROM to rip, and store them on a cheap HD.
What’s the difference, monetarily?
The library bought one copy of the dvd/BR and shares it with as many users as they can. How is that fundamentally different than downloading an “illegal” copy on file sharing? In either case, someone acquired the source material (afaik, “pirated” content is bought with actual money most of the time) and then shared without further revenue for the publishers.
Isn’t that fundamentally the same except for saying that libraries can do it but not scene groups?
Libraries are just a more convoluted and restrictive way of doing the same thing imho. While not everyone everywhere has access to a library system (let alone a well funded one), virtually anyone can download off the internet.
The library bought one copy of the dvd/BR and shares it with as many users as they can. How is that fundamentally different than downloading an “illegal” copy on file sharing? In either case, someone acquired the source material (afaik, “pirated” content is bought with actual money most of the time) and then shared without further revenue for the publishers.
Isn’t that fundamentally the same except for saying that libraries can do it but not scene groups?
Libraries are just a more convoluted and restrictive way of doing the same thing imho. While not everyone everywhere has access to a library system (let alone a well funded one), virtually anyone can download off the internet.
By downloading you create an additional copy of the work. Renting a dvd doesn't create a copy, the library doesn't retain access to a dvd it rented to you.
Isn't that a technicality though? 99% of the content I watch, I only watch once and never again personally. It's deleted/returned as soon as I'm done with it but I do keep a permanent copy in my memory as having read the book/watched the movie/tv show.
It’s not a technicality, in fact the spirit of the law is what matters. When you stream a movie on Netflix or hell even on actual over the air digital TV, by any definition bytes are being copied there too. However, you aren’t intending to copy it, just to consume the media and the “copy” is a technical implementation detail. When you rip the library‘a disk or BitTorrent the movie, you are making a copy on purpose, a copy you could keep (and I bet you or anyone would keep it if you enjoyed it so much you wanted to rewatch it many times). When you choose to erase it afterward, it doesn’t erase your infringing act you did in the first place.
Note: None of this is a commentary on what’s “right” just discussing the legal ramifications. I don’t personally care what anybody does or have energy to convince anyone of anything.
Note: None of this is a commentary on what’s “right” just discussing the legal ramifications. I don’t personally care what anybody does or have energy to convince anyone of anything.
Anecdote, but I've gone back to public library DVDs and Blu-rays for titles unavailable on streaming for similar reasons to what you've described.
I'm in the States, so it's less of an issue of region/market lock-out and more an issue of no one being able to own their own media any more.
I'm in the States, so it's less of an issue of region/market lock-out and more an issue of no one being able to own their own media any more.
This is so frustrating. I went from Netflix+Disney Plus+Prime Video to just Netflix, because every single time I wanted to watch something specific, it’s not available on any platform. I kept Netflix because they fill the « I don’t know what to watch, give me something » correctly, and I have a few shows in progress. For the rest, I’m back to TPB, torrent is once again more convenient than the alternatives.
There was a TV show starring JK Simmons called Counterpoint. I was able to watch it at one point but now it is completely unavailable in the UK. Can’t even buy the series!
Despite subscribing to the Showtime channel on Amazon Prime, I cannot watch Homeland. I can watch it on Netflix though and the audio and quality is absolute shit. And I don’t want to give Netflix 20 quid a month for that.
Why homeland? Was on a Damien Lewis binge. Love that guy’s work.
Despite subscribing to the Showtime channel on Amazon Prime, I cannot watch Homeland. I can watch it on Netflix though and the audio and quality is absolute shit. And I don’t want to give Netflix 20 quid a month for that.
Why homeland? Was on a Damien Lewis binge. Love that guy’s work.
Counterpart. Was a really good show. It's available in the US but it looks like you have to buy or rent.
That’s the thing. Can’t do it. Unless it was released on physical media.
I really wanted to watch it again considering severance s2 has been in limbo for ages.
I really wanted to watch it again considering severance s2 has been in limbo for ages.
It seems to be available on DVD in the US. Though going forward--and given the number of people who don't even own DVD players any longer (even some older folks think it's weird I still have one)--I expect more and more things won't be released on physical media any longer.
> Was on a Damien Lewis binge
Guessing Band of Brothers, Billions, what else?
Guessing Band of Brothers, Billions, what else?
Life was a good one. Sadly, not enough people agreed and it was cancelled after 2 seasons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(American_TV_series)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(American_TV_series)
That crime procedural where he was a Good Cop who went to jail on a bad rap or whatever it was?
E: Should have refreshed before replying.
E: Should have refreshed before replying.
Don't forget about Life. The show that ended too early.
Worth watching the 2 seasons that were made? Will I be annoyed when it ends abruptly?
Watch Wolfhall if you haven’t
In the US (and perhaps elsewhere) I recently witnessed this with Angels & Insects, the 1995 movie based on a novella by A.S. Byatt (who died last week). Not only does it not appear to be available streaming, but the DVD is out of print and used copies seem to be going for $40+.
Some, someday? Most are already not available, it's about half of all produced that are available. There are online archives that try to assemble access to many of these lost or otherwise inaccessible films or other media, but they get shut down or lock access over time.
Recently I tried to purchase an exercise book to find that the printed copy released in 2013 was nowhere to be found new or used although I remember it being for sale as recently as last year. Instead there is only a kindle version available.
I pay for prime currently and Netflix in the past
I still used torrents for content that I had access to because it was significantly more convenient to have an mp4 file. I prefer to use my player of choice. Also stupid restrictions on quality per device. You can’t get more than 720p on Netflix unless you use edge. That kind of restriction is so boneheaded stupid.
The economics of it all is so insane anyways. How much money is a company getting if I watch their film once on Netflix vs how much are they getting if I buy it on physical media. The difference is difficult for me to justify . Also I don’t want to have a bunch of physical media taking up space.
Do I rip them and sell the discs? Throw them away? Donate them? What is the morality of that?
Anyways instead of trying to square the ethics of capitalism with the content I like, I’ll just do it on my own terms. Things do go down the memory hole though even in piracy. Less obscure stuff vanishes entirely.
I still used torrents for content that I had access to because it was significantly more convenient to have an mp4 file. I prefer to use my player of choice. Also stupid restrictions on quality per device. You can’t get more than 720p on Netflix unless you use edge. That kind of restriction is so boneheaded stupid.
The economics of it all is so insane anyways. How much money is a company getting if I watch their film once on Netflix vs how much are they getting if I buy it on physical media. The difference is difficult for me to justify . Also I don’t want to have a bunch of physical media taking up space.
Do I rip them and sell the discs? Throw them away? Donate them? What is the morality of that?
Anyways instead of trying to square the ethics of capitalism with the content I like, I’ll just do it on my own terms. Things do go down the memory hole though even in piracy. Less obscure stuff vanishes entirely.
Yandex searches another section of the internet. That’s how I saw Ahsoka.
Is it this one? Available at Youtube: https://youtu.be/gyCMRwHkGCw
My trick is to just google it and click the videos tab, filter by video length. Surprisingly often you find it.
My trick is to just google it and click the videos tab, filter by video length. Surprisingly often you find it.
[deleted]
Our cultural memory and our ability to develop it and pass it on was erased when we decided that a small group of people had to be in charge of writing, recording and broadcasting it. Recorded culture is dead and frozen culture.
>Our cultural memory and our ability to develop it and pass it on was erased when we decided that a small group of people had to be in charge of writing, recording and broadcasting it.
When did we decide that? It's never been easier for an ordinary person to write, record, and broadcast...
When did we decide that? It's never been easier for an ordinary person to write, record, and broadcast...
Write, record and broadcast what? What happened to the stories, music and performance handed down by cultural tradition? Unless you think Mr Beast qualifies. “Broadcast” is also part of the problem. Audience size is the goal, not the story, moral or history.
You're free to tell stories and perform to whatever size audience you want.
[deleted]
When my son was younger he liked Paw Patrol, so we bought several season of Paw Patrol, I now have a duaghter that is the same age and likes Paw Patrol. I pulled up my handy Youtube subscription, went into my bought movies and found out that the Paw Patrol season I had bought and paid for was no longer available because it was now only available on KidsToons+ or PreimerParenting or some other bull hockey like that.
I decided at that point if they can yank away media I had already paid for on a whim, we no long had a contract. Now I am working on buying myself a fine sailing ship, and unfurling the jolly roger to sail the high seas seeking booty and plunder and buried treasure.
I decided at that point if they can yank away media I had already paid for on a whim, we no long had a contract. Now I am working on buying myself a fine sailing ship, and unfurling the jolly roger to sail the high seas seeking booty and plunder and buried treasure.
Consumer rights have taken a huge hit with digital distribution. For example, it's not possible to resell most "digital goods" as you could with physical media. Losing access to stuff you paid for with no recourse is another example.
It's closer to a rental than a "purchase".
It's closer to a rental than a "purchase".
And it's closer to independent backup than "piracy"
Are you implying there aren't masses of roving scoundrels lying in wait on the high seas, just waiting for cargo ships with holds full of DVDs to wonder by?
Certainly, the very word "piracy", the terrorism of its day (the days when "piracy" was first used to describe copyright infringement), wasn't used to get sympathy and support for tyrannical measures, was it?
Certainly, the very word "piracy", the terrorism of its day (the days when "piracy" was first used to describe copyright infringement), wasn't used to get sympathy and support for tyrannical measures, was it?
I had always wondered, if they were going to try to give copyright infringement the name of a worse crime to dissuadde people, why would they pick something as cool and popular as PIRATES?
I had no idea the usage was so old. It makes sense now, thanks!
I had no idea the usage was so old. It makes sense now, thanks!
It dates at least from the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Article 12 uses the word "piracy".) I presume the Berne Convention wasn't the first hyperbolic use of "piracy" to describe copying without permission.
The Barbary Pirates were still somewhat operating until France took Algiers in 1830. I'm not sure which other pirates would have been around after 1830, but the real threat of piracy was within living memory in 1886.
Murder and plunder on the high seas is so much more exciting to claim you're fighting, rather than admit you're cracking down on someone in a basement with a printing press.
The Barbary Pirates were still somewhat operating until France took Algiers in 1830. I'm not sure which other pirates would have been around after 1830, but the real threat of piracy was within living memory in 1886.
Murder and plunder on the high seas is so much more exciting to claim you're fighting, rather than admit you're cracking down on someone in a basement with a printing press.
Its a good time to get into it with Black Friday deals on usenet providers. Can snag year long subscriptions on the cheap.
Or just pay $5 to Mullvad per month and torrent like everyone else.
As the other commenter mentioned, they dont support port forwarding which kills torrenting ratios. Share ratios are extremely important for private trackers, which is where almost all the value in torrents are.
Its _much_ more straigtforward to get a couple usenet indexers, hook up a VPN (or dont even bother since its over SSL anyways), and call it a day with full internet bandwidth available and no fuss about share ratios.
Its _much_ more straigtforward to get a couple usenet indexers, hook up a VPN (or dont even bother since its over SSL anyways), and call it a day with full internet bandwidth available and no fuss about share ratios.
You can't have nonzero share ratio on private trackers anyway, because seedboxes will inevitably steal all your leechers.
Not good for us seeders anymore due to port forwarding being dropped.
Usenet is so nice though.
Once you try it, it's kinda hard to go back to caring about seed ratios and whatnot.
Once you try it, it's kinda hard to go back to caring about seed ratios and whatnot.
Kids TV episode naming ESPECIALLY Paw Patrol is horribly inconsistent when sailing the seas, which leads to child revolt when they want to see a specific episode and the file names are all wrong.
Bandcamp does this too, which surprises me. Individual record labels can yank releases whenever, and bandcamp purges it so thoroughly I'd think they were trying to convince me I never bought it in the first place. Not in my collection, not in my purchase history, etc. They don't mention this happening on their "where did my music go FAQ" page. I only confirmed it by searching my email history to find the receipt.
Sure, there's stolen music, but some record labels just delete and recreate the product pages for no reason (or maybe to prevent purchasing individual tracks? not sure why that would require a replacement).
There's another option, to mark a release as private, where purchasers can still view/download their music.
Sure, there's stolen music, but some record labels just delete and recreate the product pages for no reason (or maybe to prevent purchasing individual tracks? not sure why that would require a replacement).
There's another option, to mark a release as private, where purchasers can still view/download their music.
Do you even get a refund ?
plunder and buried treasure == pirate bay?
Pianola Bot: Delilah runs a house of ill repute in back.
Fry: "Ill"? You mean a hospital?
Pianola Bot: I mean a cathouse.
Fry: A pet store?
Pianola Bot: A brothel.
Fry: A soup kitchen?!
Pianola Bot: Yeah... A soup kitchen.
Fry: "Ill"? You mean a hospital?
Pianola Bot: I mean a cathouse.
Fry: A pet store?
Pianola Bot: A brothel.
Fry: A soup kitchen?!
Pianola Bot: Yeah... A soup kitchen.
YouTube does not remove purchased videos, those are yours to keep watching for as long as YouTube retains the right to keep distributing them (which is separate from the right to rent/sell them; generally the rightsholder agrees to indefinite distribution rights for sales as a basic contractual provision since it would otherwise render the "sales" right meaningless).
Note that it is the exceptional case that YouTube would lose the right to show Paw Patrol to purchasers. Given the popularity of the show, something like that would have made national news. Politicians would be talking about it right now.
Note that it is the exceptional case that YouTube would lose the right to show Paw Patrol to purchasers. Given the popularity of the show, something like that would have made national news. Politicians would be talking about it right now.
All that sounds reasonable, but you have much more faith than I do that the studios won’t just do whatever they want anyway. This is the same YouTube which will demonetize or take down any content for having seven seconds of a song overheard in the background just because the rightsholder asks them to. YouTube’s very existence is only at the mercy of content rightsholders to not sue them into oblivion like they almost did 15 years ago. In my experience, those entities will do whatever the fuck they want and YouTube will happily comply.
I have faith that large corporations will not openly do things that would cause them billions of dollars in direct damages and billions of dollars in reputational harm, in addition to the criminal charges they would be facing in the E.U. for such an act.
Simply put, the story doesn't make any sense, and a deep dive into the Paw Patrol reddit forums didn't reveal any other person having this issue.
Simply put, the story doesn't make any sense, and a deep dive into the Paw Patrol reddit forums didn't reveal any other person having this issue.
Nobody’s paying billions of dollars because they made someone’s TV show disappear. If anyone sued over it class-action the end result would be a small settlement paid in the form of coupons (and yes, money for lawyer fees). And how did you know anyone in EU was affected?
Anyway I have no way of knowing if that person had that exact thing happen, or if he forgot which account it was bought under, but it’s hilarious to suggest there are ironclad legal protections here for us mere “licensees” of IP. Read the terms and conditions on any site that “sells” content to find all the giant loopholes they created for themselves, including the final “we reserve the right to change this whole deal without notice at any time and you agree that that is okay and waive your rights to sue.”
Anyway I have no way of knowing if that person had that exact thing happen, or if he forgot which account it was bought under, but it’s hilarious to suggest there are ironclad legal protections here for us mere “licensees” of IP. Read the terms and conditions on any site that “sells” content to find all the giant loopholes they created for themselves, including the final “we reserve the right to change this whole deal without notice at any time and you agree that that is okay and waive your rights to sue.”
If steam and gog proved anything, it is that piracy is a service level issue. It is so much easier for me to purchase from of those, because I can trust ( at least until Gabe dies in Steam's case ) to some reasonable extent that they won't try to pull a rug from under me.
CD Projekt is a public company now, but you CAN download raw ISOs if you are so inclined.
If there was a similar reasonable repository for other media. Right now.. what we have almost the exact opposite that will likely result in a spike of piracy. I have 3 streaming services ( wife's bidding; don't judge ), but it is going to end up soon if they don't have anything worthwhile on it -- and I already argue that they do not.
CD Projekt is a public company now, but you CAN download raw ISOs if you are so inclined.
If there was a similar reasonable repository for other media. Right now.. what we have almost the exact opposite that will likely result in a spike of piracy. I have 3 streaming services ( wife's bidding; don't judge ), but it is going to end up soon if they don't have anything worthwhile on it -- and I already argue that they do not.
A number of years back, an analyst friend of mine made a claim in a talk that Napster was more about convenience (i.e. near instant access) than it was about cheapness. I didn't buy the argument at the time but habits that have developed in the time since suggest there's a lot of truth in what he said. Video is more complicated than music because of fragmentation and outright unavailability of a lot of content. But most people with even remotely mainstream music tastes are very widely fine with just streaming.
I’d happily pay $50/m for a streaming service with a single UI that had all the shit my piracy server does, and a guarantee that things won’t disappear (or at least a track record of that rarely happening). Hell, I might pay as much as $100/m. Maintaining the server and pirating stuff takes time, and hard drives cost real money.
It’s only the combo of money savings, higher quality (most steams are shit), unavailability of what I want (the best versions of several TV shows and movies are piracy exclusives, for one thing), and unified UI that make it worth it. Start chipping away at those, and it gets not-worth-it pretty fast. Apple tried with their unified streaming service UI on Apple TV, but several big players who hate their paying customers refused to implement it, so that’s a dud.
Hell, I in-fact still pay for like five streaming services despite all the above. I’d gladly pay one higher bill if it let me stop fussing with this crap.
It’s only the combo of money savings, higher quality (most steams are shit), unavailability of what I want (the best versions of several TV shows and movies are piracy exclusives, for one thing), and unified UI that make it worth it. Start chipping away at those, and it gets not-worth-it pretty fast. Apple tried with their unified streaming service UI on Apple TV, but several big players who hate their paying customers refused to implement it, so that’s a dud.
Hell, I in-fact still pay for like five streaming services despite all the above. I’d gladly pay one higher bill if it let me stop fussing with this crap.
> Apple tried with their unified streaming service UI on Apple TV, but several big players who hate their paying customers refused to implement it, so that’s a dud.
It’s not just that companies like Netflix didn’t implement it, but that it also shows you stuff you don’t have access to. I can’t count the number of times I get a notification about $sportsteam being in a close game, and clicking it, only for it to show me a link to subscribe to yet another “plus” service that likely will have the game blacked out anyway.
The “unified” Apple TV app has absolutely no idea what you actually are subscribed to, so it just shows you links to everything, and it’s a guessing game whether any of it will work. So it fails on both counts: it doesn’t show things you have, and it does show things you don’t have.
It’s not just that companies like Netflix didn’t implement it, but that it also shows you stuff you don’t have access to. I can’t count the number of times I get a notification about $sportsteam being in a close game, and clicking it, only for it to show me a link to subscribe to yet another “plus” service that likely will have the game blacked out anyway.
The “unified” Apple TV app has absolutely no idea what you actually are subscribed to, so it just shows you links to everything, and it’s a guessing game whether any of it will work. So it fails on both counts: it doesn’t show things you have, and it does show things you don’t have.
> but several big players who hate their paying customers refused to implement it, so that’s a dud.
Only Netflix in my experience.
Only Netflix in my experience.
Could’ve sworn (HBO) Max and Disney don’t work through it, either.
They work for me, I can search any Max or Disney media and it shows up.
Unfortunately, Steam has indeed engaged in some degree of "rug-pulling". Their client has locked out older OSes, and thus prevented users from continuing to be able to play the games they purchased for those given OSes.
I've been on Steam since 2004, just a few months after it launched, and I have purchased some ~600 titles on there since that time. Of course, there are countless titles that are no longer playable because Steam will no longer run on the OSes some of the earliest titles were designed for. In some cases the titles will run in a newer version of Windows, but a computer that initially ran Windows XP can't realistically be upgraded to Windows 10.
I still have ~every computer I've ever owned, and that includes the one I originally ran Steam on. So, after buying a ton of games, nothing changed on my end, but Valve decided to end access to my purchases because they decided I need to buy a new computer so I can continue to play what already ran just fine since 2004.
There was quite a long time that I didn't foresee this inevitability with Steam and purchased a ton of games, but now I only buy them on steep discount because I know I'm only getting a "temporary pass" to play them until Valve decides my computer is too old.
Oh yeah needless to say, GOG is awesome in this regard. All my purchases are backed up on my NAS. I can play them on my Windows XP/7 computers if I want to. As much as it's a hassle to store all that stuff (and not have cool social/network features like Steam does), at least I can keep and play my games as long as I want, without limitation.
I've been on Steam since 2004, just a few months after it launched, and I have purchased some ~600 titles on there since that time. Of course, there are countless titles that are no longer playable because Steam will no longer run on the OSes some of the earliest titles were designed for. In some cases the titles will run in a newer version of Windows, but a computer that initially ran Windows XP can't realistically be upgraded to Windows 10.
I still have ~every computer I've ever owned, and that includes the one I originally ran Steam on. So, after buying a ton of games, nothing changed on my end, but Valve decided to end access to my purchases because they decided I need to buy a new computer so I can continue to play what already ran just fine since 2004.
There was quite a long time that I didn't foresee this inevitability with Steam and purchased a ton of games, but now I only buy them on steep discount because I know I'm only getting a "temporary pass" to play them until Valve decides my computer is too old.
Oh yeah needless to say, GOG is awesome in this regard. All my purchases are backed up on my NAS. I can play them on my Windows XP/7 computers if I want to. As much as it's a hassle to store all that stuff (and not have cool social/network features like Steam does), at least I can keep and play my games as long as I want, without limitation.
I'm from the region and every regular person pays for streaming these days, especially youngsters.
I've searched for content on danish trackers once, for content that wasn't on any services, and i think a few people use it for that, ie. fans or film buffs.
Often whole seasons are removed, content jumps around, or stuff just disappears forever even if you've paid for it.
So this operation seems very excessive.
Maybe there's an active strategy to remove old stuff to keep people interested in the newer?
Either way this weird cultural goldfish-memory is tragic. There's so much out there not on streaming these days.
I've searched for content on danish trackers once, for content that wasn't on any services, and i think a few people use it for that, ie. fans or film buffs.
Often whole seasons are removed, content jumps around, or stuff just disappears forever even if you've paid for it.
So this operation seems very excessive.
Maybe there's an active strategy to remove old stuff to keep people interested in the newer?
Either way this weird cultural goldfish-memory is tragic. There's so much out there not on streaming these days.
I can understand people wanting to share rare local stuff which would be otherwise harder to find. In New Zealand even though tvnz has streaming, all the older material still hasn't been digitised.
> cultural goldfish-memory
Goldfish having short memories is a myth. See https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-63242200 and https://factmyth.com/factoids/goldfish-have-a-three-second-m... (contains sources) for instance.
Goldfish having short memories is a myth. See https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-63242200 and https://factmyth.com/factoids/goldfish-have-a-three-second-m... (contains sources) for instance.
akikoo(3)
I wanted to watch a special by my favourite comedian Stewart Lee. It's only available on BBC iPlayer and most VPNs I have tried don't seem to work with it. Is it really unethical for me to torrent that special that I literally can't pay for even if I wanted to? Information wants to get out (almost like a gas), and as long as it's suppressed, torrenting will remain relevant.
It's even more "fun" when it's the same streaming service, but your region is not amongst the blessed ones. One still has to pay the same price for the subscription as those that get a better catalogue, not to mention the differences in purchasing power. I struggle to see how avoiding in some sense unethical business practices is (as) unethical.
EUIPO nicely published a study recently that very clearly says that it's primarily a service and economic issue. The amount of available service providers and the amount of piracy heavily correlated.
EUIPO nicely published a study recently that very clearly says that it's primarily a service and economic issue. The amount of available service providers and the amount of piracy heavily correlated.
Yes, it is unethical to pirate content you don’t own the rights to.
The problem comes from the false belief of entitlement to the media. The common argument that it’s the “only way” to obey certain content forgets the alternative, which is to not consume that content.
You aren’t entitled to watch what you want.
Obviously this is closer to “littering” than it is to murder, but technically it’s unethical.
The problem comes from the false belief of entitlement to the media. The common argument that it’s the “only way” to obey certain content forgets the alternative, which is to not consume that content.
You aren’t entitled to watch what you want.
Obviously this is closer to “littering” than it is to murder, but technically it’s unethical.
What do you mean when you say that it's "unethical"? I understand that something is "unethical" when it contravenes some code of correct behavior. I'm not sure what code is contravened in the following scenario:
* Steve sells secrets for a fee.
* I want to buy a secret from Steve but he refuses to sell to me specifically.
* Steve sells his secret to Bob.
* Bob is willing to tell Steve's secret to me for free, so he does so.
It seems to me that in this scenario everyone got what they wanted. Steve got to sell his secret to Bob and not to me, and Bob and I got to learn Steve's secret. I think it would be unethical to force Steve to sell his secret to me if he doesn't want to, but I don't see what's unethical in learning his secret from someone else even if he refuses to sell it to me directly.
* Steve sells secrets for a fee.
* I want to buy a secret from Steve but he refuses to sell to me specifically.
* Steve sells his secret to Bob.
* Bob is willing to tell Steve's secret to me for free, so he does so.
It seems to me that in this scenario everyone got what they wanted. Steve got to sell his secret to Bob and not to me, and Bob and I got to learn Steve's secret. I think it would be unethical to force Steve to sell his secret to me if he doesn't want to, but I don't see what's unethical in learning his secret from someone else even if he refuses to sell it to me directly.
It's a fair question, but you are ethically responsible for knowingly obtaining ill-gotten goods, and pirated media violates the original purchaser's agreement with the IP owner.
Basically, Bob agreed with Steve that Bob would not give anyone else the secret, and Steve only sold Bob the secret because he made that agreement, but then Bob turned around and gave it to you for free.
So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical.
Again, all kinds of modifiers and caveats apply to the severity here. I really have little sympathy for Steve when he's a gazillionaire already, and the marginal value lost isn't meaningful enough to stop Steve from making more secrets, but technically speaking it appears to be an immoral act to pirate.
Basically, Bob agreed with Steve that Bob would not give anyone else the secret, and Steve only sold Bob the secret because he made that agreement, but then Bob turned around and gave it to you for free.
So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical.
Again, all kinds of modifiers and caveats apply to the severity here. I really have little sympathy for Steve when he's a gazillionaire already, and the marginal value lost isn't meaningful enough to stop Steve from making more secrets, but technically speaking it appears to be an immoral act to pirate.
>ill-gotten goods
I reject that there's such a thing as "ill-gotten bits".
>So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical.
If unethicality is transitive like this then the concept of what's ethical or unethical dissolves into meaninglessness. Everyone's actions affect everyone else in form or another. How many murders and thefts am I currently indirectly benefiting from just by existing, or by using this computer? Even if I count just the ones I know about and the ones I can infer, I think the number is too large to care about.
I'm willing to concede that Bob's behavior is unethical, but not that "my" behavior is, by transitivity.
I reject that there's such a thing as "ill-gotten bits".
>So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical.
If unethicality is transitive like this then the concept of what's ethical or unethical dissolves into meaninglessness. Everyone's actions affect everyone else in form or another. How many murders and thefts am I currently indirectly benefiting from just by existing, or by using this computer? Even if I count just the ones I know about and the ones I can infer, I think the number is too large to care about.
I'm willing to concede that Bob's behavior is unethical, but not that "my" behavior is, by transitivity.
But I'm not talking about "affecting", I'm talking about the direct action of knowingly obtaining stolen goods. That's not indirect, that's direct!
We can look at law as an example of an application of ethical concepts; it's illegal to knowingly purchase stolen goods.
That said, if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods.
You also probably don't have a great deal of respect for property ownership generally, or capitalism, so there are more foundational issues that can't really be resolved in this context.
We can look at law as an example of an application of ethical concepts; it's illegal to knowingly purchase stolen goods.
That said, if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods.
You also probably don't have a great deal of respect for property ownership generally, or capitalism, so there are more foundational issues that can't really be resolved in this context.
>I'm talking about the direct action of knowingly obtaining stolen goods. That's not indirect, that's direct!
"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them and is now trying to give them to you, probably in exchange for money. If Bob purchases a secret from Steve and tells me "hey, do you want to hear this thing Steve told me? I'll tell you for free", at what point does the secret Bob tells me become "stolen"? How can an action that takes place after the acquisition of a thing have an effect on the legitimacy of the owning of the thing (in this case, a copy of the secret)? It seems to me that the only possible answers to these questions are "never" and "it can't", respectively.
>if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods.
I believe in the ownership of bits. If we understand that control is a fundamental part of ownership, then it stands to reason that bits (or, more accurately, sequences of bits) are owned by keeping them secret. Therefore, if you reveal a secret you give up ownership of it, in the same way that you give up ownership of something when you hand it over to someone else.
That aside, do you think bits are exactly the same as physical goods? Why would you think that someone who rejects ownership of bits rejects ownership of property in general?
"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them and is now trying to give them to you, probably in exchange for money. If Bob purchases a secret from Steve and tells me "hey, do you want to hear this thing Steve told me? I'll tell you for free", at what point does the secret Bob tells me become "stolen"? How can an action that takes place after the acquisition of a thing have an effect on the legitimacy of the owning of the thing (in this case, a copy of the secret)? It seems to me that the only possible answers to these questions are "never" and "it can't", respectively.
>if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods.
I believe in the ownership of bits. If we understand that control is a fundamental part of ownership, then it stands to reason that bits (or, more accurately, sequences of bits) are owned by keeping them secret. Therefore, if you reveal a secret you give up ownership of it, in the same way that you give up ownership of something when you hand it over to someone else.
That aside, do you think bits are exactly the same as physical goods? Why would you think that someone who rejects ownership of bits rejects ownership of property in general?
Your definition of stolen goods is circular; stolen goods aren't stolen because someone stole them; they're stolen because consent was not granted by the owner. You can however contingently be sold a good, which means you are only allowed to have the good if you agree to certain conditions. Once you violate those conditions, you are forfeiting your ownership of that good if that's what you agreed to (and it is in the case of most digital content).
As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car.
What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do. Are you ethically obligated to not lie? If so, when Bob tells Steve that he (Bob) isn't going to share Steve's secret with anyone else without Bob's permission, he would then break his word if he subsequently shared Bob's secret with you. You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable.
This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount.
As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car.
What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do. Are you ethically obligated to not lie? If so, when Bob tells Steve that he (Bob) isn't going to share Steve's secret with anyone else without Bob's permission, he would then break his word if he subsequently shared Bob's secret with you. You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable.
This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount.
Stolen goods are also not in the possession of the original owner. Anything still in the possession of the original owner isn't stolen, by definition. The notion of "stealing" doesn't really work for piracy.
Stealing: perpetrator has 1 apple, victim has 0 apples.
Piracy: perpetrator has 1 apple, victim has 1 apple.
A better analogy is required than "possession of stolen property". Saying it's stolen is like saying "someone copied the movie, and therefore the studio can no longer stream it".
Stealing: perpetrator has 1 apple, victim has 0 apples.
Piracy: perpetrator has 1 apple, victim has 1 apple.
A better analogy is required than "possession of stolen property". Saying it's stolen is like saying "someone copied the movie, and therefore the studio can no longer stream it".
> Stolen goods are also not in the possession of the original owner.
Right. Unauthorized use of property that does not deprive the owner is trespass [0], not theft.
[0] to land for real property, to chattels for tangible personal property; trespass to intangible personal property is usually a whole mess of specific statutory torts and/or crimes with names that don't have "trespass" in them for particular classes of intangible personal property.
Right. Unauthorized use of property that does not deprive the owner is trespass [0], not theft.
[0] to land for real property, to chattels for tangible personal property; trespass to intangible personal property is usually a whole mess of specific statutory torts and/or crimes with names that don't have "trespass" in them for particular classes of intangible personal property.
> stolen goods aren't stolen because someone stole them;
They literally are, the act of stealing a good that makes it a stolen good. There is nothing circular about that, its linear from A to B, with no loop back.
It's perhaps not helpful, because what you really need is not to just to define "stolen good" but to define "stealing", and so the definition is unsatisfying. But, that's solvable, "stealing", or "theft", is the act of intentionally taking the personal property of another without permission and with the intent to deprive the owner of the property.
> You can however contingently be sold a good, which means you are only allowed to have the good if you agree to certain conditions. Once you violate those conditions, you are forfeiting your ownership of that good if that's what you agreed to (and it is in the case of most digital content).
That's not a contingent sale, its conditional license where the original owner remains the owner. (If the original owner has the right to claim the property back but it does not automatically revert with an action to exercise that rgight, then it is still probably a conditional license, and that is the most simple way of doing that, but it could nearly-equivalently -- but for the additional complication in execution -- be a sale, part of the consideration of which is a commitment made to the original owner and secured by a lien against the property.)
> as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity
Artificial scarcity is older than capitalism.
They literally are, the act of stealing a good that makes it a stolen good. There is nothing circular about that, its linear from A to B, with no loop back.
It's perhaps not helpful, because what you really need is not to just to define "stolen good" but to define "stealing", and so the definition is unsatisfying. But, that's solvable, "stealing", or "theft", is the act of intentionally taking the personal property of another without permission and with the intent to deprive the owner of the property.
> You can however contingently be sold a good, which means you are only allowed to have the good if you agree to certain conditions. Once you violate those conditions, you are forfeiting your ownership of that good if that's what you agreed to (and it is in the case of most digital content).
That's not a contingent sale, its conditional license where the original owner remains the owner. (If the original owner has the right to claim the property back but it does not automatically revert with an action to exercise that rgight, then it is still probably a conditional license, and that is the most simple way of doing that, but it could nearly-equivalently -- but for the additional complication in execution -- be a sale, part of the consideration of which is a commitment made to the original owner and secured by a lien against the property.)
> as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity
Artificial scarcity is older than capitalism.
Fine, it's tautological, if not circular. The point remains it's useless on its own, i.e. in the context of this conversation.
And yes, we get into the difference between ownership and licensure in... another comment somewhere, I don't recall specifically where.
And can you say more about the introduction of artificial scarcity predating capitalism? I'm sure you're right now that you say it, but I'm curious what you think is most relevant.
And yes, we get into the difference between ownership and licensure in... another comment somewhere, I don't recall specifically where.
And can you say more about the introduction of artificial scarcity predating capitalism? I'm sure you're right now that you say it, but I'm curious what you think is most relevant.
Again, it's neither tautological nor circular. It would be tautological to say "stolen goods are stolen goods". It would be circular to say "stolen goods are stolen. Something is stolen if it's a stolen good". What I said was
>"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them
There's nothing tautological about that. I'm laying out the relationships between the words "stolen" and "steal", and between "stolen" and "stolen good". The sentence isn't void of information, particularly in a discussion where you were arguing that something could become stolen retroactively regardless of the manner in which it was acquired. You can't have in your possession a good that nobody stole, that is also a stolen good because of actions you took after it came into your possession. That's nonsense. If you have such a confusion of ideas, I have no option but to state the obvious: something is stolen if someone stole it.
>"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them
There's nothing tautological about that. I'm laying out the relationships between the words "stolen" and "steal", and between "stolen" and "stolen good". The sentence isn't void of information, particularly in a discussion where you were arguing that something could become stolen retroactively regardless of the manner in which it was acquired. You can't have in your possession a good that nobody stole, that is also a stolen good because of actions you took after it came into your possession. That's nonsense. If you have such a confusion of ideas, I have no option but to state the obvious: something is stolen if someone stole it.
Stolen goods being stolen because they're stolen is tautological. Not sure why this is a point of contention?
And you absolutely can have in possession something that was stolen that you did not steal, as the nature of your relationship with a good can change in ways other than possession.
And you absolutely can have in possession something that was stolen that you did not steal, as the nature of your relationship with a good can change in ways other than possession.
>Your definition of stolen goods is circular
No, it's not circular. A good is a stolen good if it has been stolen. That's not circular. There's a distinction between something being stolen and something being a stolen good, and the definition of the latter rests upon the definition of the former. I didn't define "stealing" because I didn't think it was necessary, as I thought we all know what it means. But it seems we actually don't agree on what "stealing" means. I think you "steal" something if you remove someone's possession of an item without their permission. If there's such a thing as agreement between two parties that if violated can void one of the parties rights to exploit an item then that's not stealing. When you purchase something you acquiring complete ownership over the thing. If there's strings attached that can turn the purchase into a "theft" then it's not a purchase. Perhaps it's a lease of some kind.
>As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car.
You're using control in a different sense than I. What I mean is that you can decide what to do with the object as you like, with regards to the object itself. No, you can't drive your car anywhere you like, but you can sell or gift your car to anyone you like, and you destroy it you like, or you can leave it parked forever if you like. None of these are things you can do with a car you don't own, are they?
>You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable.
Well, let's stick to one thing at a time, eh? If you have yet to convince me that my behavior is unethical, much less are you going to convince me that it's immoral.
>What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do.
I don't think a person has an ethical obligation to keep promises that are based on unethical grounds. Such as attaching strings to things that you sell. If you *sell* me a car and make me sign a contract that says I can't gift it to whoever I please, you bet I'm going to do whatever I please. Your contract is nonsensical and opposite to the notion of property. If you sell me something you relinquish all rights to the thing you sell me and acknowledge my right to do as I please with it. If you don't relinquish those rights then you can't call it a sale, and you have to price the transaction accordingly.
>This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount.
If you want to say that capitalism cannot exist without intellectual property rights then I'll have to ask you to argue for it.
No, it's not circular. A good is a stolen good if it has been stolen. That's not circular. There's a distinction between something being stolen and something being a stolen good, and the definition of the latter rests upon the definition of the former. I didn't define "stealing" because I didn't think it was necessary, as I thought we all know what it means. But it seems we actually don't agree on what "stealing" means. I think you "steal" something if you remove someone's possession of an item without their permission. If there's such a thing as agreement between two parties that if violated can void one of the parties rights to exploit an item then that's not stealing. When you purchase something you acquiring complete ownership over the thing. If there's strings attached that can turn the purchase into a "theft" then it's not a purchase. Perhaps it's a lease of some kind.
>As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car.
You're using control in a different sense than I. What I mean is that you can decide what to do with the object as you like, with regards to the object itself. No, you can't drive your car anywhere you like, but you can sell or gift your car to anyone you like, and you destroy it you like, or you can leave it parked forever if you like. None of these are things you can do with a car you don't own, are they?
>You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable.
Well, let's stick to one thing at a time, eh? If you have yet to convince me that my behavior is unethical, much less are you going to convince me that it's immoral.
>What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do.
I don't think a person has an ethical obligation to keep promises that are based on unethical grounds. Such as attaching strings to things that you sell. If you *sell* me a car and make me sign a contract that says I can't gift it to whoever I please, you bet I'm going to do whatever I please. Your contract is nonsensical and opposite to the notion of property. If you sell me something you relinquish all rights to the thing you sell me and acknowledge my right to do as I please with it. If you don't relinquish those rights then you can't call it a sale, and you have to price the transaction accordingly.
>This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount.
If you want to say that capitalism cannot exist without intellectual property rights then I'll have to ask you to argue for it.
So you must believe that Steve can't condition the sale of his secret with Bob upon Bob's behavior, according to you? Steve can't say, "Bob, this is yours as long as you don't tell fluoridation. If you break this, you forfeit ownership of this secret, and it is now mine again."
What mechanism prevents Bob and Steve from entering into such an agreement? To me, that would be a violation of freedom, to limit the kinds of agreements people can enter into.
Besides, if one could enter into such an agreement, what would you call the deliberate violation of the agreement, resulting in you knowingly possessing what then becomes Steve's secret again upon sale to you? To me, knowingly possessing something that does not belong to you seems like a fair definition of theft.
If you don't believe people are free to enter into contingent ownership agreements, I do think you'll have a pretty large problem with capitalism, even separate from intellectual property, as it questions the very nature of both freedom and ownership. Even by your own definition of "control", wouldn't I not have control over something if I can't concoct whatever rules for that thing that I like?
What mechanism prevents Bob and Steve from entering into such an agreement? To me, that would be a violation of freedom, to limit the kinds of agreements people can enter into.
Besides, if one could enter into such an agreement, what would you call the deliberate violation of the agreement, resulting in you knowingly possessing what then becomes Steve's secret again upon sale to you? To me, knowingly possessing something that does not belong to you seems like a fair definition of theft.
If you don't believe people are free to enter into contingent ownership agreements, I do think you'll have a pretty large problem with capitalism, even separate from intellectual property, as it questions the very nature of both freedom and ownership. Even by your own definition of "control", wouldn't I not have control over something if I can't concoct whatever rules for that thing that I like?
> What mechanism prevents Bob and Steve from entering into such an agreement? To me, that would be a violation of freedom, to limit the kinds of agreements people can enter into.
I don't know of any country in the world that allows anything and everything to be put in a contract and for good reason. Why do you think that it is so?
> Even by your own definition of "control", wouldn't I not have control over something if I can't concoct whatever rules for that thing that I like?
When you sell it? Absolutely not. Why do you think that you should have control over something when you sell it?
I don't know of any country in the world that allows anything and everything to be put in a contract and for good reason. Why do you think that it is so?
> Even by your own definition of "control", wouldn't I not have control over something if I can't concoct whatever rules for that thing that I like?
When you sell it? Absolutely not. Why do you think that you should have control over something when you sell it?
To be clear, we limit freedom in a great many ways. There's nothing wrong with that, in principle, but it is a limitation of freedom.
By reading the rest of this comment, you agree to give me all your money forever. (edited to emphasize "rest of" which OP apparently missed)
Assuming you're still here, what's the ethical difference between this and "by purchasing this DVD you agree to blah blah"? In neither case did anyone agree to anything.
Assuming you're still here, what's the ethical difference between this and "by purchasing this DVD you agree to blah blah"? In neither case did anyone agree to anything.
I didn't have a choice in reading your "contract", but I do have a choice in purchasing a DVD.
>What mechanism prevents Bob and Steve from entering into such an agreement? To me, that would be a violation of freedom, to limit the kinds of agreements people can enter into.
Nothing prevents anyone from entering into such an agreement, but it can't be called a "sale". Like I said, perhaps it's a lease of some kind, but selling something and putting special conditions on the transfer are mutually exclusive. If you sell me something then I own it, can I do whatever I want with it (destroy it, gift it, sell it, etc.); if can't do whatever I want with it then I don't own it, and you haven't sold it to me.
>what would you call the deliberate violation of the agreement
At this point we're probably talking about contract law, not ownership rights, so "violation" seems perfectly adequate.
>To me, knowingly possessing something that does not belong to you seems like a fair definition of theft.
Just as example, when someone misses a payment on a purchase and it's repossessed, they're not said to have "stolen" the item, they're said to have "defaulted" on the debt. Your usage of the word "theft" is one I've never seen before.
>If you don't believe people are free to enter into contingent ownership agreements
You can enter into all sorts of agreements that entitle you to limited prerogatives over something. Those agreements go by different names, and so does the relationship between you and the thing that the agreement is about while the agreement is current. "Contingent ownership" is a term that refers to nothing that exists, as ownership involves total decision power over something, and a sale is a particular agreement that involves the transfer of that power in its entirety.
>Even by your own definition of "control", wouldn't I not have control over something if I can't concoct whatever rules for that thing that I like?
Yes, again, you can enter into agreements with other people over something you own and impose whatever terms you like without transferring ownership of the thing. It's not a sale until you relinquish all rights over the thing. Hell, you can even do a sort of timed sale where you reserve the right to claw back the thing for a limited time; in such a case one could not say the sale is complete before that time elapses, and before then the person doesn't have complete ownership.
Nothing prevents anyone from entering into such an agreement, but it can't be called a "sale". Like I said, perhaps it's a lease of some kind, but selling something and putting special conditions on the transfer are mutually exclusive. If you sell me something then I own it, can I do whatever I want with it (destroy it, gift it, sell it, etc.); if can't do whatever I want with it then I don't own it, and you haven't sold it to me.
>what would you call the deliberate violation of the agreement
At this point we're probably talking about contract law, not ownership rights, so "violation" seems perfectly adequate.
>To me, knowingly possessing something that does not belong to you seems like a fair definition of theft.
Just as example, when someone misses a payment on a purchase and it's repossessed, they're not said to have "stolen" the item, they're said to have "defaulted" on the debt. Your usage of the word "theft" is one I've never seen before.
>If you don't believe people are free to enter into contingent ownership agreements
You can enter into all sorts of agreements that entitle you to limited prerogatives over something. Those agreements go by different names, and so does the relationship between you and the thing that the agreement is about while the agreement is current. "Contingent ownership" is a term that refers to nothing that exists, as ownership involves total decision power over something, and a sale is a particular agreement that involves the transfer of that power in its entirety.
>Even by your own definition of "control", wouldn't I not have control over something if I can't concoct whatever rules for that thing that I like?
Yes, again, you can enter into agreements with other people over something you own and impose whatever terms you like without transferring ownership of the thing. It's not a sale until you relinquish all rights over the thing. Hell, you can even do a sort of timed sale where you reserve the right to claw back the thing for a limited time; in such a case one could not say the sale is complete before that time elapses, and before then the person doesn't have complete ownership.
If I defined "contingent ownership" as a "perpetual license for use that only expires if either party violates the terms of the contract," would all of this make much more sense? Then, Bob never owns Steve's secret and is only permitted to use it in certain circumstances, none of which include Bob making Steve's secret available to you. In fact, Steve explicitly disallows Bob from doing that in the contract, and Bob agrees to this.
If Bob violates his agreement, breaks his word, and you know he did that but accept Steve's secret anyway, is that immoral, to you?
If Bob violates his agreement, breaks his word, and you know he did that but accept Steve's secret anyway, is that immoral, to you?
Well, it's sort of an "all bets are off" deal.
The purpose of copyright was a tradeoff: exclusivity, for a while, but then cultural content is available and preserved. The latter part of the deal has been broken. And this is a deal with no teeth. There's no penalties to the copyright holder for something just becoming completely unavailable, despite that availability being part of the original intent.
So, if they let down their end of the social contract, anything goes.
The purpose of copyright was a tradeoff: exclusivity, for a while, but then cultural content is available and preserved. The latter part of the deal has been broken. And this is a deal with no teeth. There's no penalties to the copyright holder for something just becoming completely unavailable, despite that availability being part of the original intent.
So, if they let down their end of the social contract, anything goes.
Steve didn't want you to have them. Depending on what they actually are, it could be important. If you're North Korea, and they're the secret to nuclear weapons, Bob is in a lot of trouble with Steve. Or if it's Steve's mom's ashes, and you did something to her that Steve didn't like. Regardless of how you got them, you got them, when Steve didn't want you to have them. You might as well have broken into Steve's house and stolen them yourself. That you had a third party, Bob, to get you those secrets doesn't contravene the fact that Steve didn't want you to have them.
Of course, I used the word "secret", but it really is the wrong word. A secret is something you don't tell anyone, because you can't afford the wrong person finding out. The game we play with copyright is pretending that cultural artifacts are secrets, even though culture by definition exists in the transmission from one person to another.
If Steve didn't want me to have his secret at all he shouldn't be selling it to Bob or anyone else.
If Steve didn't want me to have his secret at all he shouldn't be selling it to Bob or anyone else.
What does it mean to "own rights" to the distribution of information? It's effectively a restriction on everybody else's freedom of speech for the benefit of the rights holder. Whether this is a net benefit to society or not is very situational, so the ethics here are not as clear cut as you imply.
> You aren’t entitled to watch what you want.
The rights holder is not entitled to stop me from sending certain streams of bits in all circumstances.
Edit: While calling IP "property" can be a useful abstraction in some cases, it leads you astray in others. For example, the only way to measure "losses" from piracy is as loss of potential sales since the owner is not deprived of the "property" in the process. But what are the losses when media not available in a given geography is pirated in that geography? There was no "potential revenue" that could be recognized there because the media was not for sale. Thus one could argue that the losses are precisely $0.
> You aren’t entitled to watch what you want.
The rights holder is not entitled to stop me from sending certain streams of bits in all circumstances.
Edit: While calling IP "property" can be a useful abstraction in some cases, it leads you astray in others. For example, the only way to measure "losses" from piracy is as loss of potential sales since the owner is not deprived of the "property" in the process. But what are the losses when media not available in a given geography is pirated in that geography? There was no "potential revenue" that could be recognized there because the media was not for sale. Thus one could argue that the losses are precisely $0.
The rights holder isn't entitled to stop you from doing what you like; you are entitled, however, to agree not to do things in order to obtain information.
That's what pirating is based on; you've explicitly agreed not to make available content for others when you agreed to purchase the content.
By providing content for pirating, you are breaking your word. Further, by consuming pirated content, you have a reasonable assumption that the person providing you with the pirated content obtained that content through deception, which ropes you in on the culpability of the ethical violation.
Nobody's freedom of speech is violated because nobody has been compelled to do or say anything! Rather, you are knowingly benefitting from the deception of others.
That's what pirating is based on; you've explicitly agreed not to make available content for others when you agreed to purchase the content.
By providing content for pirating, you are breaking your word. Further, by consuming pirated content, you have a reasonable assumption that the person providing you with the pirated content obtained that content through deception, which ropes you in on the culpability of the ethical violation.
Nobody's freedom of speech is violated because nobody has been compelled to do or say anything! Rather, you are knowingly benefitting from the deception of others.
The ethical distance between this and littering is about as large as the one between littering and murder, though.
If it’s unethical, it’s somewhere around running a stoplight that’s plainly not registering your presence and hasn’t turned for ten full minutes, with perfect straight mile-long views either way and not a car or person in sight. Not really unethical at all.
If it’s unethical, it’s somewhere around running a stoplight that’s plainly not registering your presence and hasn’t turned for ten full minutes, with perfect straight mile-long views either way and not a car or person in sight. Not really unethical at all.
I like the littering analogy because it's a kind of tragedy-of-the-commons problem. If everyone pirated, clearly there'd be a problem around capitalistic incentives for making intellectual property, similarly to how if everyone littered, there'd be a problem around environmental cleanliness.
But I don't think most people would argue that everyone should pirate IP.
That's a good follow-up question though; for those who believe pirating is ethical, do you a) believe everyone should pirate, and b) if not, what makes your pirating acceptable but other pirating unacceptable?
But I don't think most people would argue that everyone should pirate IP.
That's a good follow-up question though; for those who believe pirating is ethical, do you a) believe everyone should pirate, and b) if not, what makes your pirating acceptable but other pirating unacceptable?
Littering is actually a terrible analogy. First of all, a place becomes littered, everyone there is affected. Piracy only hypothetically harms a select few who probably make more money you can imagine.
Furthermore, in a world where everyone pirates, everyone is still free to give money. You can pirate and buy a steam game or a bandcamp album. They're not mutually exclusive. Here the littering analogy breaks down again.
I don't believe "everyone should pirate", I think the model of ownership as archaic, it is trying to uphold an old model of material goods, through power alone, into a technological model.
If I make a ceramic cup, and you steal it, I don't have it anymore. I can't drink my tea or look at it and smile.
If you made an exact replica of it, if I find out and I'm petty maybe I'll be mad, or maybe I'll fantasize about how you were maybe gonna buy it from me, but I sure can't complain that you took my cup away from me.
Being able to reproduce media at virtually no cost is a new concept. As such, it deserves new mindsets, not old models based around material goods.
I believe this exposes that the new model should be one of higher trust, where customers use their money as reward, not to obtain.
In regards to b) I think it's pretty simple. A steam game currently could take 20% or 2% of minimum wage based solely on where you live. There's emulated games too, what benefit, what real consequence is carried upstream to anyone that deserves it, when I take my time to find a used copy of an old game, buy a used CD reader, and rip the game legally, as opposed to two clicks from a torrent site. Show me the real harm, where in that chain is anything of consequence being done? Is it just about performing the dance that the authorities tell you to do?
Furthermore, in a world where everyone pirates, everyone is still free to give money. You can pirate and buy a steam game or a bandcamp album. They're not mutually exclusive. Here the littering analogy breaks down again.
I don't believe "everyone should pirate", I think the model of ownership as archaic, it is trying to uphold an old model of material goods, through power alone, into a technological model.
If I make a ceramic cup, and you steal it, I don't have it anymore. I can't drink my tea or look at it and smile.
If you made an exact replica of it, if I find out and I'm petty maybe I'll be mad, or maybe I'll fantasize about how you were maybe gonna buy it from me, but I sure can't complain that you took my cup away from me.
Being able to reproduce media at virtually no cost is a new concept. As such, it deserves new mindsets, not old models based around material goods.
I believe this exposes that the new model should be one of higher trust, where customers use their money as reward, not to obtain.
In regards to b) I think it's pretty simple. A steam game currently could take 20% or 2% of minimum wage based solely on where you live. There's emulated games too, what benefit, what real consequence is carried upstream to anyone that deserves it, when I take my time to find a used copy of an old game, buy a used CD reader, and rip the game legally, as opposed to two clicks from a torrent site. Show me the real harm, where in that chain is anything of consequence being done? Is it just about performing the dance that the authorities tell you to do?
> That's a good follow-up question though; for those who believe pirating is ethical, do you a) believe everyone should pirate, and b) if not, what makes your pirating acceptable but other pirating unacceptable?
Pirating something, I see as gaining access to something when the official or preferred channel is either unreasonably expensive, or the product itself is unknown.
Piracy is an effective way to try before you buy, at your own pace. On one hand, sure, once you pirate something you don't need to buy it, but my own dabbling has resulted in MORE purchase activity, not less. I could buy games or movies or shows knowing I would enjoy them and be satisfied with my purchase.
There were totally games and whatnot that I downloaded, tried, and then ignored or deleted. Was anyone really damaged by that? I see that as the equivalent of window shopping. It's what you do after you try it that forms the ethical stance, in my opinion.
Are you a struggling student pirating AfterEffects or something else so you can earn money and then buy a real copy? Some might say that's ethical pirating because there's an intent to be legit about it but there are obstacles. "Don't buy or get it" one might say, and forever lock themselves out of opportunity.
Choosing to keep a pirated version of something is as much a social and political commentary as it is a technical violation of monopoly. Someone who can afford something they pirated, that they liked and kept, may be seen as a cheapskate.
But honestly, there are many games and music albums and shows I would never have tried out if I didn't have an easy and accessible means to just give'em a whirl.
So you could say I see no harm in "explorative" piracy, or pirating that then gets deleted when you find out you don't like it. In the rights-owner's world, that person should be out money, and disappointed in their purchase! Seems like more moral harm than making sure you like what you're buying.
Pirating something, I see as gaining access to something when the official or preferred channel is either unreasonably expensive, or the product itself is unknown.
Piracy is an effective way to try before you buy, at your own pace. On one hand, sure, once you pirate something you don't need to buy it, but my own dabbling has resulted in MORE purchase activity, not less. I could buy games or movies or shows knowing I would enjoy them and be satisfied with my purchase.
There were totally games and whatnot that I downloaded, tried, and then ignored or deleted. Was anyone really damaged by that? I see that as the equivalent of window shopping. It's what you do after you try it that forms the ethical stance, in my opinion.
Are you a struggling student pirating AfterEffects or something else so you can earn money and then buy a real copy? Some might say that's ethical pirating because there's an intent to be legit about it but there are obstacles. "Don't buy or get it" one might say, and forever lock themselves out of opportunity.
Choosing to keep a pirated version of something is as much a social and political commentary as it is a technical violation of monopoly. Someone who can afford something they pirated, that they liked and kept, may be seen as a cheapskate.
But honestly, there are many games and music albums and shows I would never have tried out if I didn't have an easy and accessible means to just give'em a whirl.
So you could say I see no harm in "explorative" piracy, or pirating that then gets deleted when you find out you don't like it. In the rights-owner's world, that person should be out money, and disappointed in their purchase! Seems like more moral harm than making sure you like what you're buying.
The problem with that is, of course, the lack of consent from the property owner. This is the "entitlement problem"; the options are not listed by asking, "How will I obtain this content?" they're listed by asking, "How will the content provider allow me to consume their content?" Sometimes, the answer is, "There is no way to consume this content."
If the owner of AfterEffects doesn't want to allow students to use their software, that's their right as the property owner. Students have no entitlement to that software. Violating the owner's property rights is an immoral act.
If the owner of AfterEffects doesn't want to allow students to use their software, that's their right as the property owner. Students have no entitlement to that software. Violating the owner's property rights is an immoral act.
And business has no entitlement to profit. Business models do not have to be respected, they must be validated through market success. And the intellectual property model is invalid. Copying an idea does not rob another person of that idea.
"But it's law", I don't care, law is religion for the ruling class and judges are essentially priests. They work on doctrine, adjacent to indoctrination. They operate with the attitude that the judge, and by extension the state, can do no wrong. That's already operating from a place of moral invalidity.
If I shared something to the world, even under license, and people copied it endlessly, I'd be told that I have personal responsibility, and what did I expect to happen when I shared. Victim blaming, essentially.
But the moment it's a business, the moment money's involved, suddenly we aren't entitled to anything and business deserves every last dollar they can squeeze.
The understanding is flipped. Businesses are second class entities to citizens. They deserve no more consideration than an individual, and indeed already enjoy too many privileges they've done nothing to earn.
They aren't entitled to money.
"But it's law", I don't care, law is religion for the ruling class and judges are essentially priests. They work on doctrine, adjacent to indoctrination. They operate with the attitude that the judge, and by extension the state, can do no wrong. That's already operating from a place of moral invalidity.
If I shared something to the world, even under license, and people copied it endlessly, I'd be told that I have personal responsibility, and what did I expect to happen when I shared. Victim blaming, essentially.
But the moment it's a business, the moment money's involved, suddenly we aren't entitled to anything and business deserves every last dollar they can squeeze.
The understanding is flipped. Businesses are second class entities to citizens. They deserve no more consideration than an individual, and indeed already enjoy too many privileges they've done nothing to earn.
They aren't entitled to money.
So if a business owns something, it cannot contingently sell that thing to a person?
I'm not sure I agree with that. Businesses are ultimately owned by people, and in reality, a "business" sale boils down to one person exchanging goods for payment with another person. Sometimes those goods are digital, and sometimes those digital goods are only sold contingently. By agreeing to the contingencies, you're giving your word to someone that you will abide by the conditions of the sale.
Or are people not free to enter into contracts, in your view? I strongly disagree with that, but that's the only way what you're saying would work, based on my understanding.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Businesses are ultimately owned by people, and in reality, a "business" sale boils down to one person exchanging goods for payment with another person. Sometimes those goods are digital, and sometimes those digital goods are only sold contingently. By agreeing to the contingencies, you're giving your word to someone that you will abide by the conditions of the sale.
Or are people not free to enter into contracts, in your view? I strongly disagree with that, but that's the only way what you're saying would work, based on my understanding.
Many contracts have illegal terms in them that explicitly also add durability clauses so that illegal terms in a jurisdiction are already thrown out but the rest of the contract stays.
That established, what business contracts are entered, executed, and completed ethically and with equal respect to the rights of the contracting parties? Very few, if any. In practice, the ability to enter a contract is the ability to go into moral debt and be slave to a document.
So no, I don't think contracts should be entered freely because most contracts are actually one-sided as fuck and generally have no room for negotiation.
That established, what business contracts are entered, executed, and completed ethically and with equal respect to the rights of the contracting parties? Very few, if any. In practice, the ability to enter a contract is the ability to go into moral debt and be slave to a document.
So no, I don't think contracts should be entered freely because most contracts are actually one-sided as fuck and generally have no room for negotiation.
If you don't think contracts should be entered into freely, then you have a problem with one of the core tenets of capitalism -- ownership of goods. I disagree with you, but capitalism has many flaws!
Indeed, I am against tenets of capitalism. It is a vehicle through which people commit exploitative acts and pass it off as merit. Money does not come from thin air, and profits to one entity means loss of value to another. Profit only comes when you charge more for something than it cost to produce or service, therefore the way to succeed in capitalism is to mislead, connive, haggle down where possible, and overcharge where possible. That's quite a list of moral hazards that, when cast out into an aggregate, results in social decay.
Ownership is also an illusion; government can confiscate anything it wants and there's no recourse. They can even take your home if the right boxes are checked. So how exactly is that tenet being respected?
On some level, yes, I see that there should be respect between an object someone works for and them. The issue is the value of each person's labor is completely subjective and up to the opinions of owners. There is no benefit to being working class, for example. There is only benefit for owners under capitalism, and even that gain comes at the cost of screwing over your neighbors.
It is not a system that can take the entirety of a human group and raise them up. It picks a handful, plays "Some of you May Die", shrugs, and leaves the citizens to themselves to fight over resources.
Freely enterable contracts mean one-sided contracts will be allowed. That's not a freedom worth protecting, because it invites exploitation. Just the same, allowing endless exclusive ownership means the owners control everything, and will create ways to block entry to their class or other efforts at equality. Capitalism does nothing to address its weaknesses, and were it not for extreme sacrifice from the working class and token placating acts of regulation from government, it could not function as a legitimate economy or way of life. It rewards the worst in humanity, and then has somehow convinced most of society that it's okay to fuck each other over.
Ownership is also an illusion; government can confiscate anything it wants and there's no recourse. They can even take your home if the right boxes are checked. So how exactly is that tenet being respected?
On some level, yes, I see that there should be respect between an object someone works for and them. The issue is the value of each person's labor is completely subjective and up to the opinions of owners. There is no benefit to being working class, for example. There is only benefit for owners under capitalism, and even that gain comes at the cost of screwing over your neighbors.
It is not a system that can take the entirety of a human group and raise them up. It picks a handful, plays "Some of you May Die", shrugs, and leaves the citizens to themselves to fight over resources.
Freely enterable contracts mean one-sided contracts will be allowed. That's not a freedom worth protecting, because it invites exploitation. Just the same, allowing endless exclusive ownership means the owners control everything, and will create ways to block entry to their class or other efforts at equality. Capitalism does nothing to address its weaknesses, and were it not for extreme sacrifice from the working class and token placating acts of regulation from government, it could not function as a legitimate economy or way of life. It rewards the worst in humanity, and then has somehow convinced most of society that it's okay to fuck each other over.
My argument for sure collapses once you don't accept capitalism, so fair enough! There are problems with capitalism, and property ownership has a lot of downsides.
Following the example from the original comment, I would argue that if the content is otherwise unavailable for purchase or rent, then yes, it is ethical for anyone and everyone to pirate it.
Conversely it is unethical to retain the rights to shared cultural artifacts and _not_ provide a way for people to access them.
I'm papering over some grey area where if it's not available for purchase but you could get it from the library, maybe via inter-library loan, then maybe in aggregate it's better ethically to do that.
Conversely it is unethical to retain the rights to shared cultural artifacts and _not_ provide a way for people to access them.
I'm papering over some grey area where if it's not available for purchase but you could get it from the library, maybe via inter-library loan, then maybe in aggregate it's better ethically to do that.
Weren't we talking about the situation where there's no way to buy? Piracy there isn't going to undermine the incentive to create.
If everyone litters in public areas where trash cans are reasonable to expect, but have not been installed, a likely and good outcome is that trash cans get installed. (But in a more accurate analogy, the trash cans would cost negative money to install!)
If everyone litters in public areas where trash cans are reasonable to expect, but have not been installed, a likely and good outcome is that trash cans get installed. (But in a more accurate analogy, the trash cans would cost negative money to install!)
That's a problem, however, because it presumes an entitlement to content. Maybe there is no way to buy, and that's on purpose. You don't have an inherent right to consume content; that ought to be up to the owner of that content, even if they decide to arbitrarily limit access to their content.
It's up to them, and when you take that decision away from them, you commit an immoral act.
It's up to them, and when you take that decision away from them, you commit an immoral act.
Again, that depends on what you think the purpose of copyright is.
If you consider public domain to be the default, then you do have an inherent right to consume content. The limitations placed on this right are done for a purpose, to promote more creation via sales. And if sales won't happen, then there's no reason for the copyright.
If you consider public domain to be the default, then you do have an inherent right to consume content. The limitations placed on this right are done for a purpose, to promote more creation via sales. And if sales won't happen, then there's no reason for the copyright.
This doesn't account for the fact that someone can hold a copyright (or a physical item) and decide not to sell it at all. After all, they either hold the rights to it or they don't. It's not only theirs if they manage it "well".
It doesn't really account for that, true. But copyright isn't the only control. If you've never distributed something, that generally falls under basic privacy.
But if you've already put 50 thousand copies out into the world, it should stay available in some reasonable form.
But if you've already put 50 thousand copies out into the world, it should stay available in some reasonable form.
Why? Why do you lose rights to something when you share it, even if everyone you share it with agrees not to also share it?
I used 50 thousand as the example number for a reason. At that point it's clearly public distribution.
Nope, each and every one of those 50k agreed not to share your content publicly. You wouldn't have let them see what you made if they hadn't!
You made the case of "knowingly taking something", that in the knowing that it was "unethically" obtained, there's wrong doing.
However I'd posit that media businesses "knowingly get into the business where it's easy to copy your content". If you don't want your content to be reproduced easily, then don't get into a business where it is virtually costless and harmless to make millions of copies immediately very easily. You're not entitled to put people in jail because you willingly chose to take part of a business that's at the mercy of technology.
To me this is like deciding to open up a grocery and then getting upset at the amount of produce you have to throw away because it goes bad when people don't buy it all, that's just a known factor of the nature of the business. If you don't like it, you're not entitled to shape the world to your liking. Get into blacksmithing or glass working instead.
However I'd posit that media businesses "knowingly get into the business where it's easy to copy your content". If you don't want your content to be reproduced easily, then don't get into a business where it is virtually costless and harmless to make millions of copies immediately very easily. You're not entitled to put people in jail because you willingly chose to take part of a business that's at the mercy of technology.
To me this is like deciding to open up a grocery and then getting upset at the amount of produce you have to throw away because it goes bad when people don't buy it all, that's just a known factor of the nature of the business. If you don't like it, you're not entitled to shape the world to your liking. Get into blacksmithing or glass working instead.
Right, people will copy your content if it's easy, but should they? These are separate questions.
A chance to bring up my favorite philosophical concept, the "is-ought problem" aka "Hume's Guillotine"! [0]
> An ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred based on purely descriptive factual statements.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
A chance to bring up my favorite philosophical concept, the "is-ought problem" aka "Hume's Guillotine"! [0]
> An ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred based on purely descriptive factual statements.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Yes, companies will bitch about piracy, but should they? :)
That depends on what you think the purpose of copyright is.
If someone is unwilling to pay for the media under any circumstances, the damage to the "victim" is zero. So it's actually infinitely far better than even littering.
> Obviously this is closer to “littering” than it is to murder
Littering leaves behind something that costs money (effort) to deal with. Trespassing is a better analogy: temporarily using something that doesn't belong to you, in a way that is undetectable if no one catches you in the act.
Littering leaves behind something that costs money (effort) to deal with. Trespassing is a better analogy: temporarily using something that doesn't belong to you, in a way that is undetectable if no one catches you in the act.
> technically it’s unethical.
For some technical definition of ethicality on which I'm sure we can all agree :)
For some technical definition of ethicality on which I'm sure we can all agree :)
Humans are exceedingly adept at determining fairness and adjust their own actions to match fairness levels[1]. If you pay for something and becomes unavailable, because someone else messed up and effectively lowered the value of your purchase[2], there is a simple argument to be made that maybe lack of ethics on one side is almost negligible when compared to that of a multimillion faceless conglomerate. In other words, it may be unethical, but it is hard for me to argue that it is not warranted.
[1]https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/fai... [2]https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/27/17292836/gta-4-soundtrack-...
[1]https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/fai... [2]https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/27/17292836/gta-4-soundtrack-...
>Yes, it is unethical to pirate content you don’t own the rights to.
It is difficult for me to tell from context the definition of "to pirate content" you (and others) are using. Pirating content means: using copyrighted materials to which you hold no rights for the purpose of making money.
Most important to the conversation: "pirating content" does not include the act of watching a video; listening to a song; reading something; etc that is online. Just as it is not illegal to listen to a song being played in the park; or to watch a movie being broadcast against the side of a building; or to read a book left on a park bench.
If you try to sell any of those things, then that is illegal. But you can listen or watch or read all you want. In the public park or the public internet.
If you have something that indicates otherwise, I would be very appreciative if you would provide me the details so I can read it directly. Thank you.
It is difficult for me to tell from context the definition of "to pirate content" you (and others) are using. Pirating content means: using copyrighted materials to which you hold no rights for the purpose of making money.
Most important to the conversation: "pirating content" does not include the act of watching a video; listening to a song; reading something; etc that is online. Just as it is not illegal to listen to a song being played in the park; or to watch a movie being broadcast against the side of a building; or to read a book left on a park bench.
If you try to sell any of those things, then that is illegal. But you can listen or watch or read all you want. In the public park or the public internet.
If you have something that indicates otherwise, I would be very appreciative if you would provide me the details so I can read it directly. Thank you.
>Yes, it is unethical to pirate content you don’t own the rights to.
If I'm not entitled to media, why are they entitled to have no 'piracy' with digital technology? If you decide to spread information, don't be surprised if it spreads.
If I'm not entitled to media, why are they entitled to have no 'piracy' with digital technology? If you decide to spread information, don't be surprised if it spreads.
The justification given for copyright law is typically to "promote the arts". In a situation where they refuse to sell the product, that justification is essentially gone.
If you violate a law that doesn't benefit anyone, who is harmed?
If you violate a law that doesn't benefit anyone, who is harmed?
That's debatable. It's illegal to torrent, but not necessarily unethical. Is it really unethical to make an identical copy of a file? How would you feel if I made an identical copy of your car and drove off with the copy?
Furthermore the people involved in making the content put a lot of time and effort into making this work of art. (Whether it is good art is for the perciever to decide) and now the distributor is preventing audiences from viewing/accessing the art for no good reason. Is that ethical?
I see torrenting as a case of civil disobedience. Yes it is not legal, but it IS ethical. It is protesting stupid laws and policies. When distributers don't let you legally access content, they should get fucked over, and people should pirate it to send a message: "We would have paid for this, but you didn't want to let us. So fuck you, we will get it for free then. See how much blocking legal access helps you."
Furthermore the people involved in making the content put a lot of time and effort into making this work of art. (Whether it is good art is for the perciever to decide) and now the distributor is preventing audiences from viewing/accessing the art for no good reason. Is that ethical?
I see torrenting as a case of civil disobedience. Yes it is not legal, but it IS ethical. It is protesting stupid laws and policies. When distributers don't let you legally access content, they should get fucked over, and people should pirate it to send a message: "We would have paid for this, but you didn't want to let us. So fuck you, we will get it for free then. See how much blocking legal access helps you."
It's unethical if the content owner expects you to pay for bandwidth, computing, and local storage, and then also charge you to make a perfect digital copy that you are entirely paying the costs for.
why am i paying severe amounts of tax money to protect the investment [1] of some garbage software, movie, and music firms whose product quality for the last 20 years have been at an all time disgraceful low to the point where i'm basically getting scammed if i buy their products but there is a cartel of such companies so no matter what alternative i choose it's just as bad.
1. and not even. the threat of piracy is just theoretical
1. and not even. the threat of piracy is just theoretical
ha, your comment reminds of that quote from the mentor:
"We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals"
"We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals"
>why am i paying severe amounts of tax money
Define "severe"?
Define "severe"?
All the court costs for litigating copyright issues are explicitly costs, the lack of creativity from people not being able to use previously created media an implicit cost.
Societies want to incentivize creating media, not creating a monopoly for 100+ years. Copyright protections should last 10 years.
Societies want to incentivize creating media, not creating a monopoly for 100+ years. Copyright protections should last 10 years.
crack down all ya want, the scene will continue. see comments here as to why. no apologies here for flying the jolly roger. reckon piracy is a response to shit business practices. i'm not jumping through VPN hoops to watch what i want to. i'm not dealing with content being removed for whatever reason. feels like it's even worse in the sports arena. local blackouts etc. bunch of nonsense. now where's my rum?
The big official content providers live in an expansive bubble world of sustaining themselves enough through legally sanctioned, DRM protected content streaming under restrictive moat conditions that they can afford to ignore the obvious stupidities of their distribution models. At the same time, they continue to lobby for anti-piracy controls without even slightly recognizing the deep flaws in their methods.
Why? Because enough rent gets extracted from things as they are, from millions of consumers who are just content enough to keep paying, that it doesn't really matter to do anything innovatively different. Instead, the existing balance between lobbying legally against piracy and maintaining a strangled content distribution system works just well enough.
This is why we keep seeing idiocies of DRM restrictions and policies that seem designed for a world in which the fully global internet and flow of information wasn't even a thing. You thus get situations where certain content is absurdly blocked in certain places without a single good practical reason because the balance I describe above isn't badly enough affected, at least for now.
However if they keep pushing along this path, things will change, and possibly in nasty ways against their interest to a point where they'll have to open up more or deal with genuine damage to their rigged markets. Technology often (though sadly not always) has a funny way of suddenly breaking down dams in unexpected moments. In this case it would be especially easy for this to happen because the infrastructure of piracy is already here and easily available to anyone who puts in a modicum of effort. New innovations aren't even really necessary. it only (again, for now) lacks the incentives that could make it surge.
Why? Because enough rent gets extracted from things as they are, from millions of consumers who are just content enough to keep paying, that it doesn't really matter to do anything innovatively different. Instead, the existing balance between lobbying legally against piracy and maintaining a strangled content distribution system works just well enough.
This is why we keep seeing idiocies of DRM restrictions and policies that seem designed for a world in which the fully global internet and flow of information wasn't even a thing. You thus get situations where certain content is absurdly blocked in certain places without a single good practical reason because the balance I describe above isn't badly enough affected, at least for now.
However if they keep pushing along this path, things will change, and possibly in nasty ways against their interest to a point where they'll have to open up more or deal with genuine damage to their rigged markets. Technology often (though sadly not always) has a funny way of suddenly breaking down dams in unexpected moments. In this case it would be especially easy for this to happen because the infrastructure of piracy is already here and easily available to anyone who puts in a modicum of effort. New innovations aren't even really necessary. it only (again, for now) lacks the incentives that could make it surge.
Canada will eventually make anything illegal that doesn't contain a Canadian actor or something equally dumb. So practice practice practice all your circuitous downloading and cryptography skills boys and girls
I think back in the Amiga days the major groups were Trilogy and Paradox late 80s-92
[deleted]
Surprise surprise, people using services that announce their IP address and intention to seed torrents get caught because they were announcing their IP addresses.
It's weird that experts go to length to seed large amount of copyrighted work, only not to use a VPN, for 3$/month. These are IT experts too. Is it arrogance?
You need port forwarding to be an effective seeder, and many VPNs do not offer this feature anymore. Mullvad was the most recent one to announce they're pulling port forwarding support.
So then, you're stuck with spinning up your own VPN, which pretty much means you're stuck renting a server from some cloud provider, which then have your info and payment information so any warrant would give you up. Could find a provider that allows crypto payment, but then it's definitely not $3/m. Not to mention bandwidth costs.
So then, you're stuck with spinning up your own VPN, which pretty much means you're stuck renting a server from some cloud provider, which then have your info and payment information so any warrant would give you up. Could find a provider that allows crypto payment, but then it's definitely not $3/m. Not to mention bandwidth costs.
This is why the concept of the seedbox exists. Many can be paid for with crypto!
Torguard offers port forwarding, and has thing handy guide/discount code to go with it ; )
https://trash-guides.info/Misc/How-to-setup-Torguard-for-por...
https://trash-guides.info/Misc/How-to-setup-Torguard-for-por...
HBO got rid of all seasons of Westworld for a tax write off and now nothing make sense.
You ever play an arcade game called Wack-A-Mole?
If so, this should seem familiar.
I have the same level of compassion as the media companies that have made a business model out of shitting on the talent, the writers, the authors, the customers, etc.
If so, this should seem familiar.
I have the same level of compassion as the media companies that have made a business model out of shitting on the talent, the writers, the authors, the customers, etc.
What are some good ways to automate getting all the latest torrents based on some patterns? Also, are private trackers still a thing? What are some good ones? I had access to a good invite-only tracker but lost it ages ago.
nothing to do with the scene
Not surprised this is happening.
Disney has had 10 major film bombs in row.
Alot of executives must believe it's due to piracy.
Blaming piracy is just lazy, and I'm embarrassed for those execs.
We're in the middle of a historic glut in entertainment options and there are only so many hours in a day to consume it all. Profits have collapsed over the past decade[1] as a result.
> Professionally produced film and TV has more competition for attention than ever before. People spend more time (and money) on video games than they do on movies, and they spend more time watching YouTube than any other TV network.
> This is fine for the business of culture since we’re all spending more time consuming media. But it’s bad news for the legacy players and for people who like to make traditional scripted programming. It’s harder to justify spending $200 million on a TV series when people can also watch a bunch of TikToks that cost nothing to make.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-25/film-a...
We're in the middle of a historic glut in entertainment options and there are only so many hours in a day to consume it all. Profits have collapsed over the past decade[1] as a result.
> Professionally produced film and TV has more competition for attention than ever before. People spend more time (and money) on video games than they do on movies, and they spend more time watching YouTube than any other TV network.
> This is fine for the business of culture since we’re all spending more time consuming media. But it’s bad news for the legacy players and for people who like to make traditional scripted programming. It’s harder to justify spending $200 million on a TV series when people can also watch a bunch of TikToks that cost nothing to make.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-25/film-a...
100% guaranteed said execs won't be watching South Park: Into the Panderverse, which is literally directly about them. You couldn't pay me to watch that Disney crap.
I highly doubt that most of Disney's fan base is actually fed up because their movies aren't "edgy" enough. Perhaps some of the Lucasfilm fans, but Kathleen Kennedy (the target of the South Park ribbing), seems to be doing fine. I believe at least one of her Star Wars movies is the 2nd highest grossing Star Wars movie ever.
You're confusing quality with gross revenue. First thing that comes to my mind: Marvel movies gross an absolute shit ton of dollars, but the quality of the story is absolute dogshit. Yeah, she won't lose her job, but the quality of said movies lacks.
Sure, but the thing that "Into the Pandaverse" seems to make fun off (according to the description in the GP comment, I haven't seen it) doesn't lead to better quality. Edginess doesn't equal quality, even if some people seem to think just dialing up the edginess-meter would make the films magically better.
It can be part of a quality experience, such as so-called "woke" content can be, if it's done in the right way. But that needs good content creators, with enough leeway and time to make a good experience, same as everything else.
It can be part of a quality experience, such as so-called "woke" content can be, if it's done in the right way. But that needs good content creators, with enough leeway and time to make a good experience, same as everything else.
You moved the subject, not everybody cares about 'quality' of movies like movie buffs (like me) do.
Marvel is popcorn fun, sometimes better, sometimes worse. These are not even planned as some art-aspiring movies, so as long as expectations are managed everybody is fine, earnings at least says so and if you don't like whole genre then simply skip them.
Actually, snobbish bashing of Marvel became such a cheap 'look at me' desperate attention grab attempt of teenagers that I don't take it seriously. In same vein as globalization protesters focus on McDonald for some reason. You have endless line of say family movies that are absolute nauseating crap from cinematography, storytelling, character development etc., among other fails of hollywood, anybody wanting to be actually taken serious would start with those 'gems'.
Marvel is popcorn fun, sometimes better, sometimes worse. These are not even planned as some art-aspiring movies, so as long as expectations are managed everybody is fine, earnings at least says so and if you don't like whole genre then simply skip them.
Actually, snobbish bashing of Marvel became such a cheap 'look at me' desperate attention grab attempt of teenagers that I don't take it seriously. In same vein as globalization protesters focus on McDonald for some reason. You have endless line of say family movies that are absolute nauseating crap from cinematography, storytelling, character development etc., among other fails of hollywood, anybody wanting to be actually taken serious would start with those 'gems'.
>> Alot of executives must believe it's due to piracy.
> 100% guaranteed said execs won't be watching South Park
Oh, really? Well, did you know that over one fourth of the people in America think that 9̶/̶1̶1̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶p̶i̶r̶a̶c̶y̶ random metrics are meaningful? Are you saying that one fourth of Americans are r......?
> 100% guaranteed said execs won't be watching South Park
Oh, really? Well, did you know that over one fourth of the people in America think that 9̶/̶1̶1̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶p̶i̶r̶a̶c̶y̶ random metrics are meaningful? Are you saying that one fourth of Americans are r......?
Huh, since when did HN have strike through support.
That is U+0336 COMBINING LONG STROKE OVERLAY
Ah got it. For a second i thought markdown support had been expanded.
Honestly I just google it every time because I can't be bothered to learn the keyboard shortcuts.
As a follower of all things arrrrrrrr, the reason I didn't watch the Disney stuff was because I'm fucking fed up with their fucking garbage. I don't steal it or watch it in the cinema!
Watched all marvel movies up to endgame at the cinema. After that watched a few at home and gave up. It's not piracy it's repetitive uninspiring plots, bad special effects, and characters that we don't care about.
The Critical Drinker has a series of videos about what's wrong with movies these days, even if he's always exaggerating his points are spot on. https://youtube.com/@TheCriticalDrinker?si=IwnFx_y3YCA-zBzU
The Critical Drinker has a series of videos about what's wrong with movies these days, even if he's always exaggerating his points are spot on. https://youtube.com/@TheCriticalDrinker?si=IwnFx_y3YCA-zBzU
Just watched a couple of those. Absolutely nailed it.
Same. I don't subscribe to any services and honestly, if it wasn't for my SO I wouldn't watch much of anything. They don't know how to appeal to me and I finish most movies wishing I had written some code instead.
Even gaming is going that way with the bad business practices and over-reliance on filler content like crafting to extend a game's life.
So it'll be funny when these media giants blame piracy, it gets studied, and found that even pirating for their stuff is less common than it used to be. Sometimes markets just shrink. Hollywood wasn't going to bust blocks forever.
Even gaming is going that way with the bad business practices and over-reliance on filler content like crafting to extend a game's life.
So it'll be funny when these media giants blame piracy, it gets studied, and found that even pirating for their stuff is less common than it used to be. Sometimes markets just shrink. Hollywood wasn't going to bust blocks forever.
Yeah gaming is terrible. I just sold my GPU because I don't need it because the games are all shit.
Can't say I'd sell a GPU over it unless it sucked, but I see where you're coming from. Those things sell for over a grand now! I remember when a high end GPU (one or two steps below the best) could be had for a cool $400-500...
Lots of the genre TV shows these days—like the Netflix Marvel stuff, or most of the Star Wars or Disney Marvel tv shows—can only be saved by fan edits because of the absurdly slow plotting, used to stretch a bit over a movie of plot to fill three or more movies worth of time. The scripts and editing are beyond flabby, they’re morbidly obese. Even if you’re paying for the service, the best version of the product’s usually coming from pirates.
> Content so bad it's not worth stealing.
Even torrents take time away from something else I could download that's better -- like all the movies made before it all went to shit.
Naturally the solution is to erase the past by memory-holing old content so people will not have anything for comparison to make the current content look bad.
Even torrents take time away from something else I could download that's better -- like all the movies made before it all went to shit.
Naturally the solution is to erase the past by memory-holing old content so people will not have anything for comparison to make the current content look bad.
They are now producing a product that isn't even worth minimal effort to steal.
I could see why they might blame piracy for faltering Blueray or streaming sales. But piracy rates for movies still in the theater must be quite low. At least, I assume most people are not watching Cam footage of the screen with its terrible quality.
The underlying assumption here is that their accusation has to make sense, but that's not the case. It only has to sound reasonable to Wall Street, so the managers can get money for a bit longer, until people are fed up.
Unsurprisingly, I think that piracy - whether blueray or streaming - isn't in any measurable way relevant to the current woes of Hollywood or even more specific Disney. They've made their bed, now they have to lie in it.
Unsurprisingly, I think that piracy - whether blueray or streaming - isn't in any measurable way relevant to the current woes of Hollywood or even more specific Disney. They've made their bed, now they have to lie in it.
Alot of executives must believe it's due to piracy.
A lot of people think it's because they're woke. It's not even that - they're just bad movies. I watched Moana a few times and realized they're making fundamental story mistakes. Characters never resolve their conflicts, jokes are prioritized over theme, and important character traits are shown too quickly to the point where you can miss it if you blink.
We really need Disney to slow down and understand that the story comes first with these movies and that good stories take a long time to develop. Frozen took like fifty years to finally make. BatB took four plus numerous failed iterations over decades.
I highly recommend that everyone read the Katzenberg memo[0] from the 90s that was sent out right before Disney went from middling studio to international powerhouse.
[0]https://sriramk.com/memos/katzenberg.pdf
A lot of people think it's because they're woke. It's not even that - they're just bad movies. I watched Moana a few times and realized they're making fundamental story mistakes. Characters never resolve their conflicts, jokes are prioritized over theme, and important character traits are shown too quickly to the point where you can miss it if you blink.
We really need Disney to slow down and understand that the story comes first with these movies and that good stories take a long time to develop. Frozen took like fifty years to finally make. BatB took four plus numerous failed iterations over decades.
I highly recommend that everyone read the Katzenberg memo[0] from the 90s that was sent out right before Disney went from middling studio to international powerhouse.
[0]https://sriramk.com/memos/katzenberg.pdf
> A lot of people think it's because they're woke. It's not even that - they're just bad movies.
Every time I hear this claim "It's not that it's 'woke', it's that it's a bad movie" I ask myself: "what does 'woke' mean, then?"
I don't consider myself to be a conservative. I lean left on a lot of issues, especially social issues. I love Star Trek and a lot of left-leaning art. Yet I can't stand "woke" movies and tv series.
Why is that?
In my opinion, part of being a "woke" movie IS being a bad movie. It's not that it has a message or a point of view. There is tons of great art out there has a left-leaning message. To me, "woke" suggests that any combination of character, plot, theme, development or production design was neglected in favour of tokenization (or "pandering" as South Park put it). The implication being that the movie was supposed to do well because, allegedly, "modern audiences" are seeking titles with heavy handed messages and tokenization because that's what they are looking for, versus well thought-out writing and production. A "woke" movie is one where bad reviews can and are blamed on various *ists.
Every time I hear this claim "It's not that it's 'woke', it's that it's a bad movie" I ask myself: "what does 'woke' mean, then?"
I don't consider myself to be a conservative. I lean left on a lot of issues, especially social issues. I love Star Trek and a lot of left-leaning art. Yet I can't stand "woke" movies and tv series.
Why is that?
In my opinion, part of being a "woke" movie IS being a bad movie. It's not that it has a message or a point of view. There is tons of great art out there has a left-leaning message. To me, "woke" suggests that any combination of character, plot, theme, development or production design was neglected in favour of tokenization (or "pandering" as South Park put it). The implication being that the movie was supposed to do well because, allegedly, "modern audiences" are seeking titles with heavy handed messages and tokenization because that's what they are looking for, versus well thought-out writing and production. A "woke" movie is one where bad reviews can and are blamed on various *ists.
What are some "woke" movies and shows, by your definition?
The accusations I see are almost always aimed at either the basic and valid choices of theme, or complaining about some character's demographic when it doesn't come at the cost of anything else. And for the latter, often complaining about over-representation when that is not in fact happening.
The accusations I see are almost always aimed at either the basic and valid choices of theme, or complaining about some character's demographic when it doesn't come at the cost of anything else. And for the latter, often complaining about over-representation when that is not in fact happening.
> Every time I hear this claim "It's not that it's 'woke', it's that it's a bad movie" I ask myself: "what does 'woke' mean, then?"
I think the idea here is that "woke" is a loaded and controversial term. Even people who agree that "woke" movies are, by definition bad, can disagree on what exactly "woke" means.
But for these movies we can skip that whole argument because even if you forget about the wokeness argument, the movies are still bad. Even if all woke movies are bad, you can have bad movies that aren't woke, or are both woke + bad for other reasons. By removing the wokeness argument it makes it easier to form a consensus that the movies are still bad.
I think the idea here is that "woke" is a loaded and controversial term. Even people who agree that "woke" movies are, by definition bad, can disagree on what exactly "woke" means.
But for these movies we can skip that whole argument because even if you forget about the wokeness argument, the movies are still bad. Even if all woke movies are bad, you can have bad movies that aren't woke, or are both woke + bad for other reasons. By removing the wokeness argument it makes it easier to form a consensus that the movies are still bad.
You might have the wrong movie. Moana spent 5 years in development, made almost $700m at the box office, and has a 95% RT rating (critics rating) and an A CinemaScore (audience rating). Nobody else seems to have noticed the "fundamental story mistakes."
> critic reviews
Irrelevant. You can buy a thousand glowing critic reviews for <1% of these films' budgets.
Irrelevant. You can buy a thousand glowing critic reviews for <1% of these films' budgets.
"realized they're making fundamental story mistakes. Characters never resolve their conflicts, jokes are prioritized over theme, and important character traits are shown too quickly to the point where you can miss it if you blink."
Isn't that a common theme, in allmost all mainstream hollywood movies?
Isn't that a common theme, in allmost all mainstream hollywood movies?
"A lot of people think it's because they're woke. It's not even that - they're just bad movies."
That may be just an aftereffect of woke.
The younger generation is heavily exposed to ideas like "you must not offend anyone ever, otherwise your career is over" or "teams must be diverse first and foremost, results don't matter as much, but you must tick all the required identity boxes".
I can see how combination of those two results in production of bland, superficial art, regardless of the genre or medium used.
That may be just an aftereffect of woke.
The younger generation is heavily exposed to ideas like "you must not offend anyone ever, otherwise your career is over" or "teams must be diverse first and foremost, results don't matter as much, but you must tick all the required identity boxes".
I can see how combination of those two results in production of bland, superficial art, regardless of the genre or medium used.
I think one of the reasons people are so tired of wokeness in movies is that they can sense the fact that it's fake justice corpo-speak.
It's what happens when you vacuum any substance from the original justice movements leaving only identity without any critique of the actual power brokers of the world; the war machines, the financial exploitation, the industrial complexes.
It's more sinister than having no social commentary at all.
It's what happens when you vacuum any substance from the original justice movements leaving only identity without any critique of the actual power brokers of the world; the war machines, the financial exploitation, the industrial complexes.
It's more sinister than having no social commentary at all.
"Woke" movies end up being greenlit like sequels are, on the basis of something about them not on their individual strengths. That's why spiritually correct movies (Lionsgate makes them too, it's not just Disney) and sequels are often worse than one-off productions that slip through the extremely challenging filtering process. If you combine ideology and sequels, you get some of these remakes. The only thing saving us from a live action remake of Chronicles of Narnia is that it was live action to begin with.
What was woke about the Chronicles of Narnia movies?
The books are famously super-Christian, and the movie adaptation was produced by Walden Media, owned by the ultraconservative Philip Anschutz.
The books are famously super-Christian, and the movie adaptation was produced by Walden Media, owned by the ultraconservative Philip Anschutz.
I don't think this is actually what most people really think when they throw out accusations of films being "woke", but if you take GP at their word:
> "Woke" movies end up being greenlit like sequels are, on the basis of something about them not on their individual strengths.
Then pretty much any Christian movie that is primarily marketed on the basis of being a Christian movie would be woke, and Narnia was heavily marketed in Christian circles and I remember Christians at the time certainly feeling that this was a Christian fantasy movie that was made for them that was going to serve as an alternative to more secular fantasy movie series.
Modern Christian cinema is basically the definition of prioritizing a message and a demographic over any other cinematic feature or quality; these are films that get greenlit because they espouse a Christian ideology and because a subset of the market will pay to see any movie that explicitly espouses a Christian ideology regardless of its quality or how obviously the film is shallowly pandering to them.
The broader Christian entertainment market even captures the sense of cynicism in that definition. A lot of Christian media is made by non-Christians not because of some holy purpose but because it's easy and profitable to pander to certain Christian denominations. If you don't know how to make good movies, a good fallback is to quote some Bible verses in a bad movie and then see if you'll get support from an audience that mostly just cares about being represented on a movie screen.
----
Again, I'm not saying that I think this is a great definition to use. I think it's kind of reductive: good movies have themes, that's part of what makes them good. And good movies get made because people care about the themes and care about the finished product and how it will affect viewers. The idea that films having a message or political point of view is intrinsically counter to their quality -- it's just not a great way to approach film criticism. Theme/telos can't be fully separated from a film's quality.
But if we're talking about message over substance, it's not at all surprising to me that someone would call a Christian or Conservative movie woke. It's only surprising because we know deep down that generic criticism of "message over substance" is not really what most people mean when they call a film "woke".
> "Woke" movies end up being greenlit like sequels are, on the basis of something about them not on their individual strengths.
Then pretty much any Christian movie that is primarily marketed on the basis of being a Christian movie would be woke, and Narnia was heavily marketed in Christian circles and I remember Christians at the time certainly feeling that this was a Christian fantasy movie that was made for them that was going to serve as an alternative to more secular fantasy movie series.
Modern Christian cinema is basically the definition of prioritizing a message and a demographic over any other cinematic feature or quality; these are films that get greenlit because they espouse a Christian ideology and because a subset of the market will pay to see any movie that explicitly espouses a Christian ideology regardless of its quality or how obviously the film is shallowly pandering to them.
The broader Christian entertainment market even captures the sense of cynicism in that definition. A lot of Christian media is made by non-Christians not because of some holy purpose but because it's easy and profitable to pander to certain Christian denominations. If you don't know how to make good movies, a good fallback is to quote some Bible verses in a bad movie and then see if you'll get support from an audience that mostly just cares about being represented on a movie screen.
----
Again, I'm not saying that I think this is a great definition to use. I think it's kind of reductive: good movies have themes, that's part of what makes them good. And good movies get made because people care about the themes and care about the finished product and how it will affect viewers. The idea that films having a message or political point of view is intrinsically counter to their quality -- it's just not a great way to approach film criticism. Theme/telos can't be fully separated from a film's quality.
But if we're talking about message over substance, it's not at all surprising to me that someone would call a Christian or Conservative movie woke. It's only surprising because we know deep down that generic criticism of "message over substance" is not really what most people mean when they call a film "woke".
Art transcends conservatives-versus-liberals and so does the principle of substituting propaganda for art. That's why I don't like what Hollywood has taken away from itself; people who would accept the bad movies if they were preaching who-knows-what-else can speak for themselves. It's a common refrain that people criticize these new movies as a way to secretly criticize what they represent, but to be honest, it's just a lot of really bad movies...
Hollywood doesn't accept the bad movies just because they're preachy.
You speak of Hollywood as if it were a monolithic entity, but it's not. It's liberal, and conservative, socialist and libertarian, worships the rural life and the urban life, tells stories of heroes and villains.
Hollywood isn't even united by the desire for profit. While the major studios are driven by profit, a large portion of Hollywood makes movies to be "art" (which usually means serious character-driven movies that aren't about anything in particular.) The smallest portion of Hollywood makes movies to preach...which is the part you seem to be opposed to.
You speak of Hollywood as if it were a monolithic entity, but it's not. It's liberal, and conservative, socialist and libertarian, worships the rural life and the urban life, tells stories of heroes and villains.
Hollywood isn't even united by the desire for profit. While the major studios are driven by profit, a large portion of Hollywood makes movies to be "art" (which usually means serious character-driven movies that aren't about anything in particular.) The smallest portion of Hollywood makes movies to preach...which is the part you seem to be opposed to.
Consider that moana was before they went completely downhill. Give elementals a try and you'll see what I mean.
It's not even piracy - it's their own streaming services. Why would I pay to watch a mediocre Disney movie in theatres when I already pay for the streaming service I know it's going to end up on in a few weeks? On demand, in the comfort of my home, without having to spend my precious non-work time making plans to drive to a theater?
> Not surprised this is happening. Disney has had 10 major film bombs in row.
Which were they? The last Disney movie I think I saw was Elemental and that ended up doing pretty well in terms of money and reviews.
Which were they? The last Disney movie I think I saw was Elemental and that ended up doing pretty well in terms of money and reviews.
Its not 10 outright failures in a row, but they've been doing poorly for most of 2023.
Keep in mind that ~2X the official production budget is roughly the minimum threshold for a movie to break even, after factoring in marketing and the theater take:
Elemental was a modest success earning $495.9M against a $200M budget.
The Little Mermaid maybe barely broke even at $569.6M against a $297M budget.
Indiana Jones bombed hard, earning $384M against a $300M budget.
The Marvels is trending towards about $200M against a $274.8M budget.
Wish opened terribly this weekend, pulling in $49M in its first weekend against a $200M budget (will likely finish between $120-150M)
Edit: Forgot about Haunted Mansion, earning $117.5M against $150M.
Keep in mind that ~2X the official production budget is roughly the minimum threshold for a movie to break even, after factoring in marketing and the theater take:
Elemental was a modest success earning $495.9M against a $200M budget.
The Little Mermaid maybe barely broke even at $569.6M against a $297M budget.
Indiana Jones bombed hard, earning $384M against a $300M budget.
The Marvels is trending towards about $200M against a $274.8M budget.
Wish opened terribly this weekend, pulling in $49M in its first weekend against a $200M budget (will likely finish between $120-150M)
Edit: Forgot about Haunted Mansion, earning $117.5M against $150M.
I looked up their meta critic scores out of curiosity:
Elemental - Metacritic score of 58/100
The Little Mermaid - Metascore of 59/100
Indiana Jones - Metascore of 58/100
Wish - Metascore of 48/100
Haunted Mansion - of 47/100
Elemental - Metacritic score of 58/100
The Little Mermaid - Metascore of 59/100
Indiana Jones - Metascore of 58/100
Wish - Metascore of 48/100
Haunted Mansion - of 47/100
Could perhaps also be due to them charging a subscription and demanding extra money to view the movie in addition.
Just an idea..
Just an idea..
I think you might be on to something. People already paying $XX/mo. might be more inclined to wait for the streaming release. I'd love to see some stats on viewership split by streaming subscriptions.
That's me. I would have watched Wish already if it was a simultaneous stream + theatrical release. I don't think it's worth taking the family to the theatre to see it but (despite lukewarm reviews) I'm still looking forward to watching it on Disney+ nonetheless.
I think it's due to TikTok and YouTube as well superhero movie fatigue.
I personally canceled all streaming services and binge YouTube and some TikTok /reels when not socializing with friends or family.
I personally canceled all streaming services and binge YouTube and some TikTok /reels when not socializing with friends or family.
"Disney has had 10 major film bombs in row"
Excuse me, I don't follow movies much, which are the 10 bombs? I would like to learn more about what happened.
Excuse me, I don't follow movies much, which are the 10 bombs? I would like to learn more about what happened.
Honestly they are so dull and lifeless they are not even worth pirating. Like the recent Assassin's' creeds.
I would like to see the same enthusiasm in the prosecution of financial crimes committed by Wall Street & Co.
“Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
― John Harrington
― John Harrington
> I would like to see the same enthusiasm in the prosecution of financial crimes committed by Wall Street & Co.
What about corrupt politicians?
What about corrupt politicians?
That's the "& Co", for the company of collaborators, conspirators, and corrupt cohorts.
You would have to be able to subscribe to Justice+. It's costly but subscriptions come with government handouts so I think you end up making money.
The other day I saw Netflix promoting they were streaming the WIZ (The 1970s movie With Michael Jackson FFS)... No new edit of the movie even, just a 40 year old movie that is now re-released for the 120th time, on streaming.
There is often little to no value in new media, it's just rising costs in light of no alternative options for entertainment. Any other business doing that would fail, but these companies are having a field day on re-runs and low-effort content because social media encourages everyone to be isolated indoors on the Internet 24/7 when they're not working for large companies. A lot of the independent films being released rival that of major studios now, and no one is really citing the disparity in quality amidst the rising costs of online entertainment.
I still kept most of my DVDs and a DVD player for the same very reason... I'll replay old movies if there are no new options forever and be happy if I need to. Most modern movies and shows are low-effort and rehashed ideas anyways, especially as Ai editing comes into play, the quality will decline in volumes of lazy work IMO...
The single best way we can send a firm message is by not playing into funding the corruption. Instead of gamified Wall Street investing, high yield saving accounts and gambling on my own business ideas is still risky, but potentially far more profitable and stable than the markets in this new capitalist model.
Don't play the game if the field is skewed for you to lose.
There is often little to no value in new media, it's just rising costs in light of no alternative options for entertainment. Any other business doing that would fail, but these companies are having a field day on re-runs and low-effort content because social media encourages everyone to be isolated indoors on the Internet 24/7 when they're not working for large companies. A lot of the independent films being released rival that of major studios now, and no one is really citing the disparity in quality amidst the rising costs of online entertainment.
I still kept most of my DVDs and a DVD player for the same very reason... I'll replay old movies if there are no new options forever and be happy if I need to. Most modern movies and shows are low-effort and rehashed ideas anyways, especially as Ai editing comes into play, the quality will decline in volumes of lazy work IMO...
The single best way we can send a firm message is by not playing into funding the corruption. Instead of gamified Wall Street investing, high yield saving accounts and gambling on my own business ideas is still risky, but potentially far more profitable and stable than the markets in this new capitalist model.
Don't play the game if the field is skewed for you to lose.
Training humanity in the art of subversive communication and preparing it for the downfall into despotism.
can you imagine going to prison over dreck like Indiana Jones:Dial Of Destiny or The Marvels?
You can never go home again, so to speak, to watch the first Indiana Jones film cold. But Last Crusade and Dial of Destiny were IMO perfectly good (though not great) films.
I think any person who saw The Marvels trailer could have told you that movie was going to bomb.
They released multiple trailers hinting to come back of older characters and yet it bombed. It wasn't just the plot in this case but the characters didn't have neither the star power behind nor the coherence that characters like iron man and captain america had.
Marvel movies kept upping the stakes with every movie reaching the point where it makes no sense why other superheroes don't join in to help. For example where were the avengers during the events of The Eternals?
Marvel movies kept upping the stakes with every movie reaching the point where it makes no sense why other superheroes don't join in to help. For example where were the avengers during the events of The Eternals?
The Marvels failed because it was vomitus garbage
I'm fairly certain many executives believe those movies failed due to piracy.
I'm confused by this article. They seem to equate the scene with p2p. Admittedly I did only skim read TFA.
It made me realize that we are very much at risk of losing our cultural memory. For this particular movie I could use a VPN I suppose, but I imagine that some movies/music/books will someday not be available in any region in any form.
1. https://www.justwatch.com/ca/movie/heavenly-creatures
2. https://www.entoin.com/entertainment/heavenly-creatures-on-n...