Piracy is necessary and doesn't hurt revenues

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A very peculiar definition of "necessary". She claims that it is "necessary" to pirate TV shows because geographical restrictions prevent her from watching them legally when living in another country, but that suggests some sort of inherent "right" to be able to see a TV show. What law grants her that right, I wonder?

Author Declines Amazon-Sponsored UK Book Award

When companies like Amazon cheat—paying 0.1% on billions, pretending it is earning money not in the UK, but in Luxembourg

And yet you support Amazon's outrageous tax-dodging? Why do you support a corporation stealing, but not an individual?

[Greg Anos]

Two issues combined as one...

1. Economic. - If it isn't for sale legally, how can there be economic damage?

2. Power/control. - The viewpoint that the copyright owner has control over the material, no matter where situate, and can control access. That may be legally correct, but practically wrong, as technology has obsoleted that viewpoint. "All the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." Nor can they put copyright control back in force again.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Two issues combined as one...

1. Economic. - If it isn't for sale legally, how can there be economic damage?

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.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by mbovenka

Indeed it doesn't. But only in a world of Platonic ideals would that be an absolute barrier. We do not live in such a world, and in practice such things are always weighed between perceived damages of the act to others, the strength of the want/'need' and the perception of the personal consequences of the act.

Only the physical laws of nature are truly absolute; all others are, in the end, only guidelines.

Good point. Some posters here seems to believe they live in a world of platonic ideals. There are no grey places for them. Piracy=bad because it is against the law. Corporate theft from the community=good because it is not against the law. They appear unable to recognize that the law can be wrong and the law-makers can be corrupt.

[EowynCarter]

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.

Nope, I wouldn't have bought the dvd anyway. No room in apartment. I sometimes buys DVD, for shows I really want to see again, but only after the serie is complete.

Now we can watch game of thrones on OCS, the next day. And at reasonable price. Deal. Problem fixed for everyone.

They get my money, I'm happy not to have to mess up with poor quality stream. Win win situation.

[GERGE]

I don't watch movies or TV shows if there is no legal way to watch them, but it could be argued that it you have no legal way to watch something, piracy might not be illegal. I don't buy into that argument but it has some validity. I also should say that this from a continental point of view, I have no idea whatsoever about anglo-saxon law.

I don't really have time to discuss in detail (I am writing an essay about breach of trademark right now, a topic that is under the same branch of law and shares many common points) but I will summarize it, keep in mind that this is largely academic and - in my humble opinion - not true:

1. Piracy is monetary harm.
2. It could be likened to tort.
3. For a tort to happen, there must be damage. (this is actually non-negotiable in continental law. No damage, no tort)
4. By pirating a geographically restricted work, you damage no legal person.
5. Thus this kind of pirating is not illegal.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by GERGE

I don't watch movies or TV shows if there is no legal way to watch them, but it could be argued that it you have no legal way to watch something, piracy might not be illegal. I don't buy into that argument but it has some validity. I also should say that this from a continental point of view, I have no idea whatsoever about anglo-saxon law.

I don't really have time to discuss in detail (I am writing an essay about breach of trademark right now, a topic that is under the same branch of law and shares many common points) but I will summarize it, keep in mind that this is largely academic and - in my humble opinion - not true:

1. Piracy is monetary harm.
2. It could be likened to tort.
3. For a tort to happen, there must be damage. (this is actually non-negotiable in continental law. No damage, no tort)
4. By pirating a geographically restricted work, you damage no legal person.
5. Thus this kind of pirating is not illegal.

It is illegal for sure. Just not immoral.

This is 2014, internet is a reality, they should use it, rather than fight it.

[Greg Anos]

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.

But only if the DVD was released in the region the person was in. If it isn't, you still have the same problem.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But only if the DVD was released in the region the person was in. If it isn't, you still ahve the same problem.

I don't know about the situation elsewhere, but certainly in Europe, multi-region DVD players are commonplace. They can play DVDs from any region.

[mgbino]

I personally don't pirate things, and I really don't like people making excuses when they do.

For books, geographic restrictions are an absolute joke, and anyone who spends 5 minutes on a Google search can figure out how to BUY digital content from another country, ensuring that the creator gets paid. For TV and movies, wait until it get's a home release and buy the Blu-Ray or DVD.

@Harry ... In the U.S. , region-free DVD players are very easy to find for cheap. Blu-Ray players are easy to find, but not cheap.

[GERGE]

Well, law has nothing to do with morality or moral justice. Law defines what is just, not a moral sense of justice or morality in general. If there is morality in law, it is only when the word of law permits it.

I am about to become a judge by the way, I just have to pass one more exam some months later.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know about the situation elsewhere, but certainly in Europe, multi-region DVD players are commonplace. They can play DVDs from any region.

HarryT, by your own definition, using a multiregional player is piracy...

[GERGE]

Originally Posted by mgbino

anyone who spends 5 minutes on a Google search can figure out how to BUY digital content from another country, ensuring that the creator gets paid.

Using a VPN and a postbox, while has a muddy legality, is usually a breach of contract. But sanction depends on complaint. But don't use a fake address, go to Borderlinx or something.

That said, I do it too for Hulu and Netflix =)

Another disclaimer: I know nothing about anglo-saxon law.

And I need to get back to work =)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

HarryT, by your own definition, using a multiregional player is piracy...

Nonsense. Buying out-of-region DVDs (and players) is perfectly legal. Please quote where I said otherwise, or retract your statement.

[mgbino]

... thinking about it, there really isn't anything authors/publishers can do about e-book piracy anyway. Obviously DRM doesn't work. It creates a hassle for legitimate purchasers and does nothing to prevent piracy. I highly doubt any company will be able to create a DRM scheme that can't be cracked in a matter of months.

And let's face it... pirated e-books existed well before the commercial e-book industry took off. Even if it was impossible to crack DRM, pirates can (and will) still just grab a copy of a book from the library, scan it, and send it off to one of the pirate groups that fix OCR errors.

According to TOR and Baen (one very large genre publisher and one very small genre publisher, neither of whom use DRM) piracy hasn't impacted their bottom line at all.