“How does “not purchasing” … the disputed content do anything for the creators?”

It’s entirely based on the unfounded belief that it would mean that people with funds to purchase would not be able to do without and therefore would buy.

“Even if it does somehow do “irreparable damage” to the rights holders, what’s stopping them from just erecting a streaming site of their own? Or at least something much better than what exists now in various crippled forms? The attempts to shut these sites down seem to indicate that massive amounts of potential earnings are being siphoned away.”

The argument here, is another digital to analogue comparison that actually doesn’t work but you can see how people get there. People who steal actual physical goods, often sell them on for vastly less than they are worth, or at least a lot less than they normally cost. For the person who has had a $1000 laptop stolen from them for example, the loss requires another $1000 to replace, but the criminal is relatively happy with the $50 or $100 he gets for same laptop. He’s happy because it cost him nothing at all, the actual owner would never be happy with that return as it represents a massive loss to him.
An owner would never sell his $1000 computer for $100 and replace it for another $1000. It would be a cost to him of nearly double the original price.
Obviously this does not translate to the digital world, but for those who don’t understand that; it seems a reasonable argument that pirate sites can be making money while getting far too little revenue for the actual creators to be making money and in doing so are costing the creators much more money.

The industry is perfectly comfortable wearing the hat that suits them at any particular moment.

Artists getting screwed out of royalties? Time to put on the business hat. “They should have gotten better contracts. It’s not like its a moral issue if creators aren’t compensated fairly. It’s just business.”

Someone watched Game of Thrones without paying for it? Time to remove the business hat and put on the moral hat. “Not compensating creators fairly is just wrong. This is a moral issue not a business issue.”

Talking about the fact that someone not consuming the media or pirating it is exactly the same (or worse) from a business perspective is totally lost on them because if we’re talking about piracy they want to have a a moral discussion, not a business discussion.

I get so sick of analogies where piracy is compared to theft.

“I can write an open letter asking the food companies to do better on calories/taste/freshness/whatever and until they do, I’ll feel free to just shoplift whatever I want…”

That’s not a fair comparison. When you shoplift, you’ve taken physical goods from a manufacturer who can no longer profit from those goods. If the MPAA only allowed 1000 copies of a movie to be disseminated, and pirates subtracted from that amount when they copied it, then it might be a fair analogy. But no one is downloading physical DVDs with packaging from a store, nor preventing the manufacturer from profiting from the sale of that object.

?Pirated content is usually free of DRM, regional restrictions, limited installs, etc. Why is it free of this? Because piracy is efficient. Not needing to serve hundreds of masters with licensing/royalty fiefdoms, pirated goods are streamlined to deliver what potential customers actually want: content. The price is just icing on the cake.?

Firstly, Pirated content is USUALLY free of DRM? Are you telling me that some pirates actually put their own DRM in place of the rights holder?s DRM? I find that highly unlikely. Then you go on to proclaim that this is because piracy is efficient. So adding their own ?pirate? DRM makes them efficient? Yes, I am being snarky, your writing style is filled with snark so let?s snark it up. I am glad that you understand that what people actually want is CONTENT. It doesn?t matter what your distribution method is (even if you could magically compress an entire season?s worth of 1080p content into a file the size of a 16px X 16px GIF file) without content (whether that is USER generated or produced by a professional crew) no service will flourish. I think that the point you are trying to make is that people pirate ?becuz of the DRMz?, which is oversimplifying to the point that it is absurd. The content industry could argue that people pirate because they don?t want to spend any money. Everyone knows that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some people will NEVER pay for content. Some people WOULD pay for content if they couldn?t find it on a pirate site. Some people WOULD pay for content if they could get it. Some people are frustrated with DRM and use that as an excuse to pirate. Some people will NEVER pirate even if it means they cannot access content.

?Whenever this pro-piracy argument is broached, usually in the form of “This is why I pirate,” or “Pirated x doesn’t have this problem,” it is responded to with shocked gasps of “I can’t believe you feel entitled to just take something if it’s not available/at the right price point/otherwise nonexistent.” The person pushing this take generally starts telling those talking up piracy that they could “just go without.” To do otherwise means the commenter (or post author) is nothing more than a child with an outsized sense of entitlement.?

It IS childish to expect the entire world to supply you with entertainment without compensation. The rights holders are people just like you and I, they have the right to market their creative works as they see fit. The free market (free as in free of controls, not as in free as in free of cost) will dictate their level of success. Piracy circumvents the free market, it introduces artificial competition because you aren?t competing against another creative work or another form of entertainment, you are competing against your own content (I am using the word ?you? ambiguously to mean any and all rights holders). You will notice that I used the words ?rights holder? in lieu of content creator, this is because the content creator in many cases sells the rights to someone else. In many cases the content creator is paid by the distributor, which might be the big bad wolf (BIG HOLLYWOOD).

?But let’s look at this in a more realistic way. What exactly does “doing without” do for the content creator? How does “not purchasing” (or not having the option to purchase) the disputed content do anything for the creators? Because the bottom line in both scenarios is that $0 has made its way from the potential customers to the people desiring the income.?

Why is YOUR way more realistic than simply doing without? The reality distortion field is strong with this one! In opposition to your ?reality? I present the following: If the content creator doesn?t create something, the consumer will be doing without, right? You know how to make sure a content creator doesn?t create something new, simply pirate their work and ensure that they don?t make any money. You seem to think that FANS = SUCCESS but I can show you countless cases where that simply isn?t true. So arguments that ?piracy HELPS? are anecdotal at best and almost always cognitive dissonance (people are rationalizing their unethical behavior because it makes them feel better about themselves).

?A bit of the old infringement? Ahhh, the use to casual colloquialisms to endear readers to your side. Not that anyone reading this fluff piece on the virtues of piracy would have any problem discerning pro-piracy stance, but still, it is somewhat tired.

?Then there’s the infringement itself. It takes many forms. Some of it is just watching uploads on YouTube. I’ve caught some BBC series I can’t purchase here in the US via the ‘Tube. Or there are shadier streaming sites that serve a ton of ads along with even rarer uploaded video or stuff YouTube has content-matched right off its servers.?

?..just watching uploads on YouTube?, as if watching pirated content that someone else uploaded is any better than BT downloads. The end result is the same, the person doing this is accessing content to which they are NOT entitled.

?Streaming video is infringement? (Or was, pre-Posner.) Or somehow morally wrong? That’s a position I can’t even fathom.?

Stealing cars is illegal? But I want Chevy to lease me a 2013 Camaro for $1/day. I refuse to pay more. I?m willing to pay but they won?t meet my demands. Plus I want one that gets 100MPG, so until they can provide that should I be allowed to infringe on their rights and just borrow one, RIGHT?

?I realize that ad revenue or DVD sales are “lost” when this happens but I have a hard time believing a temporary video stream represents a true loss to the creators. It’s not as though it’s residing on my hard drive and being transported to and fro by portable devices. It’s not a replacement for an actual product I can use in a more versatile fashion.?

If I just borrow the car, I don?t retain permanent ownership so it isn?t theft, RIGHT? People who stream illegally distributed content instead of purchasing a legitimate stream are taking something. They are taking the experience of watching the content and doing so without providing compensation to the rights holder.

To me, streaming video is about as “infringing” as going over to a friend’s house to watch their TV. True, the internet gives me a bigger selection of “friends” and a bottomless DVD selection. Other than that, when I’m done with the stream I “leave my friend’s house” and the “DVD” stays with “him.” If I want to watch it again, I can’t do it from my TV. I have to visit him again.

Let me be clear on this, the 700 people on your Facebook account are not really your ?friends?. The thousands of people using BT to get the latest Batman installment are not even acquainted. Your comparison of going to your friends? house with downloading movies from BT shows how strong your reality distortion field really is. Watching a movie at a friend?s house actually is providing a service to the rights holders, you are exposing that person to something he or she might purchase. Providing an always available, easily accessible, free, pirated copy of a movie to millions of people simply abets infringers. (I firmly believe that Judge Posner?s opinions will be overturned or simply ignored when considerations of precedent occur)

?Even if it does somehow do “irreparable damage” to the rights holders, what’s stopping them from just erecting a streaming site of their own? Or at least something much better than what exists now in various crippled forms? The attempts to shut these sites down seem to indicate that massive amounts of potential earnings are being siphoned away. If so, why put up with it? Build your own and collect the ad revenue, just like the operators of these sites do.?

I agree in principle that part of the responsibility for some of the infringement lies with rights holders? neglecting the digital marketplace. I would much rather purchase content directly from the rights holder, that way I know I am reimbursing the appropriate person or organization. Ideally I could see a wholesale marketplace so that competitors can choose to lower their prices. Unfortunately, I can?t see that ever happening, there are too many power players pushing for exclusive distribution rights. You can actually blame part of the problem on Apple, Amazon, Vudu, etc?

My guess is: not enough money. Ad-supported streaming sites can’t match the licensing fees these companies can extract from other services. So we’re right back where we started: money being left on the table.

Absolutely, RIGHT! The first thing you have said that I have no argument against.

How about all these file lockers that are such a threat to the American Way of Life? that we need to send the combined forces of the local SWAT team and FBI in order to show that We Are Indeed Serious About Pirates? Aren’t they making a killing? Christ, look at Dotcom. Virtually swimming in opulence and personal tanks. He’s a multi-millionaire. Do what he does. Throw all your stuff onto some servers, get the links passed around the internet, sell faster access for monthly rates and start re-living the life you always thought you’d be living.

I don?t think shoehorning everyone into an ad sponsored business model is the thing to do, and I know I am not alone in this. Many people are tired of seeing ads on almost everything around us. It?s advertising overload, I would rather pay a reasonable fee to free myself from advertising than pay nothing and be forced to watch ads. Yes I know about ad blockers, I chose not to use them because I do try to provide the content creators, Techdirt included, with a revenue stream.

?Can’t figure out how to do any of the above without dealing with a nightmarish tangle of royalties, licensing and release windows? Don’t look at me. I never thought any of those things were good ideas. Here’s a suggestion: create a blanket licensing group for this new venture a la ASCAP. Dump it all into a big pool and trickle the monies down on the usual suspects. Or, you know, go one better and use all this precise info you’ll be gathering to actually pay the creators appropriately.?

As I said earlier, it?s the YouTube?s, the Netflix?s, the Vudu?s that are causing part of the problem. You seem to want to put all the blame on the content industry, but it?s the distributors that have caused this mess. Everyone wants exclusive content to draw people to their business.

I don’t know what’s more annoying: the moral ground cowboys who would rather the creators made no money than fix their broken delivery systems or the industry “titans” who are constantly being outdone by any techie who can set up a decent file locker.

I am not a ?moral ground cowboy?, nor am I a pro-piracy shill sent by the Pirate Party, I am a pragmatist. Ultimately what needs to happen is that content needs to made available digitally, in diverse formats, at reasonable prices and consumers should be forced to go through legitimate channels to obtain that content. If you take away all of the DRM arguments: ease of use, availability, file size, time-shifting, place-shifting, etc. There would still be people who would choose to pirate. Nothing will ever prevent piracy but more can be done to limit piracy. Just like more can be done by the industry to provide access to the content.

P.S. This argument also bugs me: “X is an asshole so I’m going to pirate the shit out him.” Really? I don’t know how someone can argue “piracy’s effect is overstated” or “piracy is a convenient scapegoat for the content industries” and then make a grand statement that you’re going to punish someone by doing something ineffectual, only ANGRIER. Vindictive piracy makes absolutely no sense.

Whole-heartedly Agree! If you pirate content just to spite them, it provides ammunition for them. They can point to the levels of piracy as being a cause of action on the part of the legal system. If there is very little piracy there is little reason for the industry to be reactionary.

The answer to it all is simple, folks, and I’m surprised the media companies haven’t done it before now. All they have to do is force everyone in the world back onto Dialup Internet Access, and that will stop _ALL_ the behaviors they whine about to the US Government. The media companies own ALL the Cable/DSL/Satellite internet connections directly or via a subsidiary, so they don’t even have to ask for permission to discontinue the services. Just be willing to cut off that revenue stream, and piracy will end IMMEDIATLY.