Piracy is necessary and doesn't hurt revenues

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Let's take the example earlier in the thread of the person who claimed that they "had" to pirate "Game of Thrones" because it wasn't available to watch where they lived. That person clearly had the choice of waiting for the DVD release, and then buying the DVD, but chose to pirate it instead. That's a clear case of economic damage to the producer.

I downloaded all of last year's Doctor Who episodes the same evening they were broadcast in Britain simply because they weren't available in Germany (I even got the 50th anniversary special even though I was lucky enough to have watched it in the cinema); but this didn't stop me from paying the BBC-inflated prices for the BluRay discs.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you suggesting that rights holders should not have the right to sell their content to different buyers in different parts of the world? That all sales should be world-wide? The net result of that would almost certainly be an even greater stranglehold on content by a small number of large corporations than we have at present.

The rights holders should have the right to sell the content to different buyers in different parts of the world but that doesn't mean it has to be exclusive rights and it doesn't mean that the control has to (or should extend) beyond the point of sale to the consumer.

The technology needs to be considered. The world wide web was never designed to have geographical or state boundaries. On the contrary is was designed to intentionally ignore those boundaries. If you want to distribute digital files across that technology you have to recognize that you can't enforce geographical restrictions. If you were selling analog broadcasts it's recognized that you can't stop the analog signals at a countries borders and there are going to be signal overlap, you recognize that limitation and don't try to enforce exclusive delivery. You enforce at the point of origin.

It's fine to define geographic restrictions on fixed/known parameters such as the consumers billing address or the companies head office location. The problem is that the rights holders have ignored the experts that told them they can't effectively control geographical restrictions on the world wide web and listened to the sales people (that were trying to sell them technology) that claimed they could control it. The technology is imperfect and doesn't handle all the use cases. The decisions were based on what they wanted to have and not what the technology can deliver. Instead of recognizing the failure they've tried to fix the problem in the terms and conditions of the contracts and let the consumer feel the pain. Now they've build a rats nest and even some people that make their living producing content (like the original blogger) can't defend it.

If they maintain control on the point of sale and ignored trying to enforce it afterwards then everything would be fine. It's not simple to reverse bad decisions though.

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by ST-One

I downloaded all of last year's Doctor Who episodes the same evening they were broadcast in Britain simply because they weren't available in Germany (I even got the 50th anniversary special even though I was lucky enough to have watched it in the cinema); but this didn't stop me from paying the BBC-inflated prices for the BluRay discs.

It's what I did with TV shows back when I still watched stuff. Yes, I'm not entitled to immediate access of something, but since I live in a global world, and have friends all over the world - friends who watch the same shows, live - and would really like to be able to participate in discussions, to have the right to not stumble across spoilers (difficult if not impossible to avoid for many things if you use any social media at all), and all that, I didn't find it particularly immoral to download and watch immediately and then buy & import the DVDs later, once they became available.

I still have boxes upon boxes of shrinkwrapped DVDs in my shelf that I never plan to watch, bought just because I felt that was the right thing to do.

As someone who doesn't live in a major market and therefore gets basically no legal access to anything directly (without months of waiting and then importing at a high cost), while I acknowledge I'm not entitled to anything, I admit I find it rather uncomfortable whenever people in large markets discuss this in these terms - it comes off a lot like "that rabble over there doesn't need all these things we take for granted; it's not one of life's bare necessities, so they can go without". Even when I'm quite sure it's not meant as such.

It was much easier to deal with this before the days of the Internet - yes, we still didn't have access to all those things, but it wasn't a problem in the way it is now: if no one you know has access to those things, the problems of wanting to participate, not having to fear spoilers, and other such issues don't exist.

I'd have gladly paid for a chance for immediate / near-immediate online access to the things I wanted to watch back then, instead of accumulating physical media that I don't want. These days I just opt to not watch anything instead, because I really can't afford to cram even more DVDs to a space I don't have for them. At least iTunes is now cautiously selling/renting some movies even to us, even if the selection is still very tiny, so there's hope for the future.

[pwalker8]

Some pretty good points, Yapyap.

To a great extent, much of the business models and IP laws were designed for a less connected world. Physical media is more easily controlled than digital media. Trying to Geo-restrict digital media is akin to ordering the waves to stop. It may be the law, or it may be in the T&C, but it's basically futile and IMPO causes those legalities to be held in contempt.

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some pretty good points, Yapyap.

To a great extent, much of the business models and IP laws were designed for a less connected world. Physical media is more easily controlled than digital media. Trying to Geo-restrict digital media is akin to ordering the waves to stop. It may be the law, or it may be in the T&C, but it's basically futile and IMPO causes those legalities to be held in contempt.

Agreed. I understand that creators wish to retain the right to sell their creations in different ways in different markets, but the way things are working now, it's sort of ... not really working in an optimal way for either creators or the consumers, I'd say.

Obviously there will always be people who will pirate just because - whether it's to "stick it to the man", or because they want everything free and it's there to be had, for "sport" not because of real interest, etc, but equally obviously there is a significant amount of people who just want that content (and want it "now" to avoid that really not pleasant feeling of being left out, especially from something everyone around them is enjoying and discussing now, not six months later) and would gladly, happily pay for it if there was a legal way for them to access/acquire that content directly.

I also understand that for larger markets in particular, content creators and distributors - and local companies/publishers - would prefer to have a different approach and not let people access the original UK/US content immediately, but on the other hand, for small markets, there's a 99% chance that the thing in question will never be bought by a local distributor anyway.

I hope that these issues will find some kind of resolution in the near future

[Indio777]

Originally Posted by cybmole

exactly, what "region" is a guy in, on a cruise ship or an aeroplane who is streaming a video. Its it really reasonable for the movie to cut out as the transport passed over some arbitrary line on a map ?

Region 8 DVDs are for planes, cruise ships and even spacecraft.

[speakingtohe]

I am not condemning or condoning piracy. It is taking someone else's property without their permission but if it is necessary for your health and well being or without it you must forfeit your first child to Rumpelstiltskin, well then who could cast blame.

I don't yell at people who pirate just because they can, or explain that it is not legal etc. Same as I don't chase down jaywalkers blowing a whistle. I do intervene physically if necessary in cases of violence against others and have reported an testified in cases of abuse and assault. So it is not a fear of getting involved.

The discussions I get drawn into are the ones where people attempt to justify their actions or encourage others to do the same, as if they won't feel as guilty somehow. If a person feels they are right, why the need for excuses? The only people who will agree are the ones with the same motivations.

And a lot of the motivations are pretty reasonable and a lot of the restrictions are damned silly. I can probably list 100 if I tried that are pretty defensible and have at one time or other been perfectly legal. None to do with ebooks though that I can think of other than the Rumpelstiltskin one.

If you are sure you are doing right, there should really be no need to justify.

Helen

[Yapyap]

I don't feel guilty about those years of downloading first, paying (i.e. buying DVDs) later, even if I don't do it any more for the simple reason that I can't afford to accumulate more physical media in my limited-space home.

I don't think the person in the article, who paid first and then upon realising they wouldn't be allowed to actually watch the paid-for content (regardless of whether they should have realised it before signing up or not) should feel guilty either. They've paid; the content creator gets what is theirs.

Is this illegal? Possibly. (Downloading for personal purposes, I've gathered, isn't illegal in all jurisdictions - so depending on how they download something, whether directly or uploading at the same time, and where they are located, it may not even be illegal.) Is it immoral? Not to me.

It often happens that what one person sees as justifications and excuses are meant as explanations. People explaining their reasons in a thread that directly calls for people to explain their motivations is IMHO not necessarily either justification or making excuses.

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by Indio777

Region 8 DVDs are for planes, cruise ships and even spacecraft.

we are discussing streaming rights, mostly. how are the rights to stream content to trains & boats & planes, ( and spacecraft) managed.

[ Mr Bacharach needs to update his lyrics ]

If I have the rights to stream in UK but not France, or vice verse, is there some imaginary line drawn midway down the English Channel. can I stream only when the ferry is still in territorial waters..... will my eurotunnel stream cut out half way through the tunnel ( assuming eurotunnel does wi-fi - at the prices they charge they ought to ! )

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

It's what I did with TV shows back when I still watched stuff. Yes, I'm not entitled to immediate access of something, but since I live in a global world, and have friends all over the world - friends who watch the same shows, live - and would really like to be able to participate in discussions, to have the right to not stumble across spoilers (difficult if not impossible to avoid for many things if you use any social media at all), and all that, I didn't find it particularly immoral to download and watch immediately and then buy & import the DVDs later, once they became available.

Since it is impossible not to stumble on spoilers then if you cannot legally buy/pay for a show when it is first broadcast you cannot legally watch the show as it is intended to be watched (without spoilers). So it is not a question of being impatient and cannot wait. It is a question of if you want to watch it properly you have to get it through alternative channels.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Since it is impossible not to stumble on spoilers then if you cannot legally buy/pay for a show when it is first broadcast you cannot legally watch the show as it is intended to be watched (without spoilers). So it is not a question of being impatient and cannot wait. It is a question of if you want to watch it properly you have to get it through alternative channels.

Most people don't use Internet chat rooms to talk about TV shows. I believe there are "spoilers" for the upcoming new series of "Doctor Who" all over the Internet, but I've had no difficulty in not being "spoiled".

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Most people don't use Internet chat rooms to talk about TV shows. I believe there are "spoilers" for the upcoming new series of "Doctor Who" all over the Internet, but I've had no difficulty in not being "spoiled".

I am not talking about chat room. I am talking about big news blogs and other stuff. With GoT it is impossible to not be spoiled if you want to read blogs like engadget, boing boing and so on. Things like who dies and so on is extremely hard not to see.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Most people don't use Internet chat rooms to talk about TV shows. I believe there are "spoilers" for the upcoming new series of "Doctor Who" all over the Internet, but I've had no difficulty in not being "spoiled".

Well, to spoil it for you, turns out Cardinal Richelieu has nicked the tardis

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by tompe

I am not talking about chat room. I am talking about big news blogs and other stuff. With GoT it is impossible to not be spoiled if you want to read blogs like engadget, boing boing and so on. Things like who dies and so on is extremely hard not to see.

Exactly. And if you're at all active on some social media channels - Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and the likes - and at least some of your friends list is based on common interests, it'll be basically guaranteed that someone spoils something they watched earlier that night, or reblogs/retweets spoilery things from others, and so on.

And that's even not getting into if you're a fan of something - if you're a fan, and frequent forums, message boards, communities etc, not only will you encounter spoilers but you also just simply cannot participate. Obviously there is the "choice" to just stay away - but this is basically telling all foreign fans of a show to bugger off, this isn't a place for them, they have no business also wanting to share in the conversations and discussions and theories.

Or they can return 6-12 months later, after watching the DVDs, when 90% of the other fans have moved on to new seasons and new episode discussions and no one is interested in picking up the old discussions any longer...

This last point is not something likely to bother a casual viewer (but I'd guess the majority of people who go to the effort to download something fall more onto the "interested fan" than the "casual viewer" side of things), but yes, for the absolute blockbuster shows, it'll be difficult to avoid some spoilers even when staying away from strictly fannish places.

[pwalker8]

The fan aspect is, of course, a reason why it isn't a particularly good business model in the world wide connected digital world. Fan excitement tends to drive a lot of sales.

For the most part, copyright violation is a civil rather than a criminal matter. In civil matters in the US, there are two major criteria, first their must be damage, second there has to be a remedy. If either is not possible, then the matter is not actionable. It's kind of hard to argue that you are damaged with lost sells, when you do not sell a product in a particular area.