
Cable companies aren’t “forcing” people into piracy - DaNmarner
http://www.marco.org/2012/11/29/forcing-people-into-piracy
======
Ensorceled
Just to be clear, there is no moral right to copyright. It's a legal artifact
we created to advance society by rewarding artists and other creators for
content created in the hope they'll create more/better stuff.

However, it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing
people from accessing the copyrighted content. Worse, copyright is being used
to justify restrictions and prohibitions on new methods of distribution and
entire new technologies.

They may not be forcing people to copyright, but they have lost the moral
standing to complain about it.

~~~
simbyotic
There is a moral right to own that which you have produced, and it is
definetely not an legal artifact but an expression of the concept of
individual rights.

Furthermore, it isn't copyright that is preventing people from accessing the
content, but the fact that these corporations have not evolved their business
model to the way consumers consume content these days.

There may be several reasons as to why that has not happened (they may still
be making enough money with their old business model and are risk-averse to
try new things) but claiming that the creators of something do not have the
moral right to own their creations is an absurdity.

~~~
delinka
"There is a moral right to own that which you have produced."

Sure. You produce a tool, it's your very own tool. You produce a painting,
it's your very own painting. You produce a pie, it's your very own pie.

Ralph sees your Very Own Tool and decides that'd be handy. Ralph knows taking
your Very Own Tool would deprive you of your property and decides he won't do
that. Not to mention it's a physical item and the law has something to saw
about theft of physical items. So Ralph, being the upstanding citizen he is,
makes another tool just like yours - his Very Own Tool. Ralph's also a bit of
an extrovert and tells everyone about this great new tool and other people
want one. So Ralph sets about making more of the tool you designed to sell to
other people.

Do you have the _right_ to be upset at Ralph for making money off your idea
without compensation to you?

Controlling _copying_ of your creations is what copyright is about. It says
that with respect to certain works, you as the creator own the _right_ to make
_copies_ ... or to license other people (or companies) to make copies.

P.S. Now don't get me wrong - I understand that a tool design is probably best
protected by patents. Maybe this "tool" is a sculpture that's also useful to
accomplish a task. My argument is about "intellectual property" in general.

~~~
waterlesscloud
You can make your very own Game Of Thrones. Start with finding a writer to
make you a script. Good luck.

------
AnthonyMouse
This argument strikes me as missing the point. Piracy isn't a morals problem,
it's an economics problem. Exhorting pirates to stop being pirates is likely
to be about as effective as Don't Copy That Floppy or trying to fight drug
cartels with Mr. Mackey and DARE -- they don't think what they're doing is
wrong, or they don't care, and you're not going to change their minds.

Which leaves you with an _economic_ choice. Either copyright holders can have
more availability and less piracy, or the other way around.

Now maybe they decide they want less availability and more piracy -- maybe
they think (almost certainly incorrectly) that that will make them more money.
But if that's the case then you might as well go ahead and give up on the
pirates, because that's the decision you've made: The decision to create a
supply shortage and therefore a market incentive for piracy sufficient to
create a critical mass of pirates and commercial enterprises reliant on piracy
who, once established, will fight for their own continued existence.

The best case scenario is that the outcome is less _violent_ than the
organized crime families created by prohibition or the drug cartels created by
the War on Drugs.

Or you can make sure everybody can get their fix from legitimate sources. Then
piracy becomes less profitable because it has less of an advantage over
purchasing, and some existing pirates discontinue their pirating, which
reduces the strength of the pirate community, reduces the demand for illicit
releases and thus the incentive to supply them, etc.

But hey, it's your decision. Do whatever you want. If you want you can fight
the market and then wail about morality when the inevitable economic
consequences ensue. But I wouldn't.

~~~
GHFigs
_Piracy isn't a morals problem, it's an economics problem._

I find it difficult to reconcile this with the near-constant moral tirades
about it, such as those which claim piracy is not about people being cheap, or
those which claim rightsholders are "forcing" people into piracy.

One might also recognize those arguments as _the ones this post is actually
addressing_ on its way to (as you say) "missing the point".

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I think we have to distinguish two arguments the pirates make. Some are saying
that they intend to consume your content one way or another, and if you offer
it in a convenient medium for an appropriate price then they'll buy it, and if
not then they'll pirate it. That's an economic argument. You could call it an
economic threat and try to make the moral argument that they shouldn't be
doing that, but unless you can actually stop them in a just and cost-effective
manner then you're just back to barking up the wrong tree if your goal is to
actually accomplish anything.

On the other hand, there are pirates who argue that if the content provider
doesn't provide the content in a convenient format at an appropriate price
then it's _justifiable_ to pirate it (rather than just doing it whether it's
justifiable or not). But that's not really an argument at all. It has to be
justifiable because of something. And if it isn't then the pirates are in the
same pit as the article: No reasoning and no plan. But maybe the pirate argues
that copyright is unjustified whatsoever as a constraint on expression or what
have you. Maybe they make an argument about the social contract, where
copyright is granted to promote dissemination of new works, and works that are
created but not sufficiently widely disseminated are a breach of the contract
on the part of the copyright holder that justifies a breach on the part of the
consumer. Maybe some other justification. But these are inherently economic
and policy arguments with correspondingly clear plans of action: Abolish or
reduce copyright, blunt the social cost of the copyright monopoly by allowing
as fair use any use the copyright holder fails to supply to the market on
reasonable terms, etc.

The article doesn't choose any such premise to attack, it just says "no, dirty
pirates are bad and piracy is wrong." That isn't rebutting anything. It
doesn't solve anything. There is no plan of action. It's just "no" -- how is
that good for anything?

------
zdw
The validity of Marco's argument rests on the fact that "if you just wait, you
can get the media through a legit source".

The problem is that there are things that never are going to eventually become
available, for example:

\- Culture specific or non-mainstream programming \- Reality TV from other
countries

Given that you're never going to even be given the option to pay for
something, I think the argument breaks down.

~~~
popup3
Nonsense. I'm a designer (say) that makes fancy clothes. I will only ever sell
to famous Hollywood types, so they'll wear my clothes and make them trendy.

Because I'd never sell them to you, do you have the right to take my fancy
clothes without paying for them?

~~~
basseq
Or, better example: you make some popular clothes. Hollywood is wearing them
and they are just THE RAGE. You'd like everyone to wear your clothes, but you
think it's better to force people to buy them from your Santa Monica boutique
that is only open on Sundays for an hour, and require a receipt from the
parking garage to get in the door. People who have been to your store in the
last month are allowed to order online, but only a month after you release a
new line. A year after you release a new line, you make everything available
online, but only if you buy the entire line at once.

Another clothes-maker, noticing the popularity of your design and the growing
frustration of your customers (and potential customers), creates clothes that
look and feel exactly like yours, and make them available with free shipping
online within a few hours of you making new designs.

Your customers (and potential customers) who don't live in Santa Monica, or
those who can't make it to your store during business hours, or those who take
public transit—frustrated with the roadblocks you've put between your clothes
are their wallets—start buying from the pop-up e-tailer.

You complain about how this (and this alone) undermines your business. Your
customers say you forced them into it. Neither of you is right.

~~~
popup3
That's fine. My point was simply that "they won't sell this to me" is an
absurd justification for simply taking it.

~~~
basseq
Agreed. But making the point that offering an alternative to piracy (a real
alternative... the point is simplicity) will solve part of the problem and is
good business sense. But it's change, so it's scary.

People waving fistfuls of cash in your face isn't a bad problem to have.

And, no, that won't stop piracy. Some people just don't want to pay for
something if they can get it for free. But those people are not taking dollars
away from your income statement: they never would have bought in the first
place.

------
kstenerud
I'm getting sick and tired of these "and if enough people do X, it will REALLY
send a message" exhortations.

People are lazy. The only way to really get them riled up is if they fear for
their future. Otherwise the whole "if enough people do it" argument is moot.

Want to make a difference? Hit people where it hurts. The legality and
morality of how you do so is up to you, and is entirely dependent upon
circumstance.

Actually, here's an "if enough people do it" argument that actually works: If
enough people pirate shows because they can't find them via legitimate sources
in the way they want, they'll expose a market opportunity. Now get off your
goddam high horse.

~~~
rmah
The only thing worse than spouting off about how other people should do
something is spouting off that other people doing something is useless.

Actions always trump words.

~~~
kstenerud
"Actions always trump words."

My point exactly.

------
rapala
So I'm in the market, looking for the next season of my favorite show not yet
aired here in Finland. Clearly I can't watch it from the TV. Netflix does not
offer the show in here in Finland. What options do I have?

Legitimate content providers have failed in a game called free market. Last
time I heard free market was quite popular in the USA.

~~~
chimi
Do without. Watch something else. Play cards. Go for a walk. Write some code.
Start a side project. I don't understand why that's a hard concept to grasp.

Really it just sounds kind of pathetic that you can't control yourself enough
to simply not sit in a chair or whatever and watch _this exact movie_.

~~~
moistgorilla
This argument is bad. First of all, piracy is not morally wrong, the morals of
it are ambiguous, just like everything else. Second of all, it's not JUST ONE
EXACT MOVIE. It's a plethora of films and shows and most people enjoy watching
them once in a while... Nowadays, we have this thing called the internet where
people can send information to others with minimal cost and effort. If a
content provider does not wish to make money by conveniently providing me with
entertainment I will oblige them by not giving them my money. I will still
watch the movies I want to see though. Some of us are pathetic and don't like
to wait when there is no reason to.

~~~
chimi
I think piracy is morally wrong. It's quite simple. Take your argument for
pro-piracy to the logical conclusion. Everyone consumes all media through
piracy. Does that world look as entertaining as the logical conclusion of
people pay money into the system that creates the entertainment?

I think it'd be hard to argue that a system where people have to give up time
and resources to produce something consumed by those who put nothing back into
the system is sustainable.

Pirates benefit from the system without contributing to the system. That's
morally wrong.

I find it hypocritical that the very software systems that enable people to
pirate have built in algorithms to limit the activities of those who take more
than they share. Those who take but don't give back are called leeches and
even the leeches don't like leeches.

~~~
Ensorceled
Well, let's take pro-copyright to it's obvious solution.

You owe a MASSIVE amount of money to the heirs of Shakespeare, anybody of
Greek descent, Decartes/Leibniz/Newton, etc. etc. for your early education.

Because, if copyright really is a moral right it doesn't expire and you have a
lot of back taxes to pay.

Cough it up.

------
holograham
By not watching the shows at all HBO (or other companies) cannot aggregate
consumer demand for their show. If you are interested in watching a show and
find it inconvenient then blatant pirating can actually help a cable company
quantify the demand for the time and mediums of distribution. (yes those
companies track aggregate pirating stats)

~~~
dlytle
Thank you for saying what I came here to say.

Let's look at two scenarios: They both involve a show that 100k people want to
watch, but 20k of those people can't/won't watch it using the methods legally
provided. (Fuzzy/simple math to illustrate the point.)

In scenario one, those 20k pirate the show instead. This means that the known
demand for the show is 100k viewers, 80k using legal distribution, 20k using
illegal distribution.

In scenario two (what Marco proposes), the 20k simply don't watch it at all.
In that case, the known demand for the show is 80k viewers total, all of which
obtained the show legally.

In scenario one, the content providers know there are 100k units of demand,
80k of which they are receiving revenue for - which implies 20% of the viewers
want the show, but not for its current price/availability. Thus, they have a
semi-accurate view of demand.

In scenario two, the content providers only know there are 80k units of
demand. They don't know that the other 20k users even exist, or are at all
interested in the product. They have less usable information, and no change is
enacted - if they don't know those 20k exist, their absence can't be noted.

In this case, piracy provides an indicator of unfulfilled demand, whereas
abstaining from piracy provides no feedback whatsoever. I think the concept of
"protest via absence" in this situation isn't going to do anything useful.

~~~
pdonis
_In this case, piracy provides an indicator of unfulfilled demand_

Only if the content providers actually _treat_ it as an indicator of unfilled
demand. They're not; they're treating it as an indicator of criminal behavior.

If piracy is an indicator of unfilled demand, the correct response is to _fill
the demand_ by changing your method of distribution. It's not to sue people
and try to buy ever more draconian government enforcement.

~~~
gdubs
False. Media companies do analyze peer-to-peer networks as part of their
viewer analytics. See, for example, "Big Champagne."

~~~
pdonis
How does that contradict what I said? I wasn't talking about whether or not
the companies have the data; of course they do. I was talking about what they
_do_ with the data.

~~~
gdubs
I don't think their outward actions are a reliable indicator of how they're
using these data internally. I _do_ think that these analytics can play a big
role in which shows get cancelled.

(edited further for clarity.)

~~~
pdonis
_I _do_ think that these analytics can play a big role in which shows get
cancelled._

So what? How does that fix the distribution problem that motivates people to
pirate? And how does it affect the propensity of media companies to sue people
who pirate, instead of fixing their broken distribution system?

~~~
gdubs
The 'so what' is that Marco is telling people to boycott cable companies by
not watching their shows, which would most directly hurt the writers, artists,
directors, etc, who have worked really hard on their shows.

~~~
pdonis
I don't see how pirating the shows, as opposed to not watching them, is any
better for the writers, artists, directors, etc. all things considered. Yes,
in the short term, a show might not get cancelled if pirated demand is taken
into account. But the global effect is that more and more people hate the
media companies because they prosecute ordinary people that just want to watch
shows and movies, instead of fixing their broken distribution system.

Sooner or later that is going to catch up with those companies, and when it
does, all the writers, artists, directors, etc. who have tied their fates to
the fates of the media companies will go down with them. If anything,
pirating, as opposed to just not watching, postpones the pain of that
happening, which will make it even worse when it finally does.

------
jamesmiller5
I think there is an obligation to obey the wishes and rights of the content
providers regardless of your respect for those obligations and whether or not
those arrangements serve you fairly.

To demand the ability to dictate terms of the arrangement and disregard the
terms offered to you is enlightenment. (The special case of this is when an
entity represses another with a monopoly, but that doesn't apply here as there
is no single monopoly on all entertainment.)

You may be the shows, musicians, entertainments, etc's target _audience_ but
you are not in the current target _market_. As others routinely point out,
content providers need address this. It is a failure for them to not
capitalize on an audience.

The pragmatic solution is to sponsor organizations and entertainment that you
are the both in the target audience and target market. Ad supported media,
Humble Indie Bundle, Pay-what-you-want entertainment and Kickstarter projects
are all ways you can easily support content on more respectable terms.

By pirating, you really are letting content providers off the hook by not
forcing them to compete with providers that you favor. There is an opportunity
cost that you pay by not investing in media where you were the target market
and those vested parties respect you.

Edit: grammar

------
mdip
Most of my video consumption is through legal means, be it recording to my
HTPC, or when I cannot, buying from Amazon Instant Videos (it fits my needs:
iPad/Roku/Bluray player apps).

When the video isn't available that way, you bet I pirate. If your business
model relies on your customers to avoid activities that are convenient, easy,
and get them exactly what they want and the only argument against _not_ doing
it is that to the consumer, the activity rises to the standard of "morally
questionable" at worst, your business model needs to be fixed. Everything I
pirate is a lost sale not because the pirated version was available, but
because the legal version was not. And the pirated version will _always_ be
available.

As the gatekeepers to the content, the movie/TV industries could provide an
incredible product with an amazing customer experience and make money hand
over fist. Doing that would push piracy off to only the "digital hoarders" who
wouldn't be buying it anyway. But they aren't even getting the very basics.
Start with giving consumers a _way_ to pay for the product. I'm probably just
a simpleton here, but to me the equivalent of their business model would be
like walking into a grocery store and seeing a pile of fresh oranges with a
sign that says "If you want one today, you'll have to steal it. Come by next
Tuesday at 8:00 PM and we'll let you eat one while listening to a guy talk
about how good bananas are for 4-6 minutes. We don't sell these". Not a
perfect analogy since the act of stealing the orange doesn't make fewer
oranges available, it just keeps the store from receiving more money.

There's a TV show called "Ed" that I enjoyed growing up. Because of a
licensing mess surrounding the background music in several episodes, it will
likely never be released in any format. I'm a rabid fan. I'd pay $200 a season
for a legal release in any format that I could playback _somewhere_. Instead,
I've got these horrible SLP VHS to overly compressed MPEG versions that I
recorded when it originally aired. I still watch them, but on my larger
television the picture is nearly indistinguishable from a Jackson Pollock
painting.

------
yarrel
"If you can’t watch something legally until it comes out on Netflix or
whatever service you use, you have only two justifiable options: either wait,
or don’t watch it."

Or, alternatively, if you're going to anyway what's the problem again?

Mass media is meant to be a convenient, efficient market. When it isn't the
moral failing is not on the part of consumers.

~~~
mdip
And the market is convenient, and efficient. It's just that the most
convenient and efficient market for much of Television/mass media happens to
be the black market. Until the legal market is as convenient, the problem
won't go away. And it is possible to beat a casual pirate this way. I haven't
pirated a music track in probably a decade thanks to iTunes and
Amazon/Google's music stores.

~~~
jivatmanx
Only if you don't care about Audio Quality. If you do the only way to get
music legit is to buy a CD, copying the files and tagging them yourself.
Except for classical and some other niche genres that have sites selling
sizable catalogs of lossless.

------
sarvinc
I'm not sure I see the point in arguing that piracy is or isn't justifiable.
It's happening and it seems to be increasing. The sad fact is that it's easier
to pirate than it is to pay. I pay for cable, HBO, Showtime, etc. but
exclusively use a Mac Mini and torrent everything. Do I feel that what I'm
doing is justifiable, no. Is it easier for me, yes.

~~~
Tycho
Only if you're obsessed with watching something specific. If I wanted to watch
a film, it's much easier to pick something off iTunes or Netflix than download
a torrent. If they don't have exactly the thing I wanted to watch, I could go
and pirate it... or, you know, just watch something else. I think lots of
people are too obsessive about their media consumption for their own good. The
prevalence of torrents is symptomatic.

~~~
sarvinc
Sorry for the late reply. "Only if you're obsessed with watching something
specific." I take issue with the word "obsessed" but I agree with you point.
I'll even, try to, do you one better; if I want to watch something it's easier
for me to turn on the T.V.

"I think lots of people are too obsessive about their media consumption for
their own good. The prevalence of torrents is symptomatic."

I'm not sure I'm following you. If I do understand you then I think you're
wrong here. It's a bit like saying people are too picky about the music they
listen to; the Billboard's top 50 should be enough for them etc.

------
vlasta2
Downloading TV shows is actually not illegal in many countries. Usually, only
uploading is illegal.

Morally, is is questionable. You can program your video-recorder (if you still
have device like that) and let it record the TV show when it airs and watch it
later. Or you can skip recording it yourself (because constantly recording
everything is boring and wasting resources) and download it from piratebay. Is
there really a difference? And if the show in question is inaccessible in your
country, should you wait years for it? I would not.

------
rythie
You can do this, but unless you complain too, most companies are not going to
notice for a long time.

I suspect most of these companies still don't really understand the problem -
for example I don't want to wait 6 months (in the UK) to see something that's
already on TV in the US. I'd happily buy the series on DVD rather than wait.
It's not about cost, but if I watch another way, no one who made it will get
any money.

------
stephengillie
Marketing campaigns make people "want very badly" what they can't have. Yet
they can, and they don't even have to pay for it.

At some level, the copyright issue is just a question of "wants" vs "needs" of
humans. When does "wanting something badly enough" become "needing" it? Are we
addicted to content -- are Big Media the dealers leeching off our habit?

~~~
jivatmanx
Not everything copyrighted is a throwaway popular culture movie. If they were,
perhaps it would be justifiable to completely eliminate public domain.

Everything after 1923 is in copyright, and thus affects an era even before
movies with recorded sound were even invented.

~~~
stephengillie
I've read this several times and I'm still not able to understand what you
mean. Part of your post seems like it's opposing mine, while another part is
supporting mine...

------
maurits
This argument is, I think, completely correct, but also to a certain extend
irrelevant.

The real discussion should, in my opinion, be held on the supply side of
digital content for it still seems to be crowded with companies who for better
or worse can not or will not deal with the ramifications of our new networked
world and keep dwelling in poor service whilst preaching that piracy is
sinful. Companies, whom I might add not so long ago, were happy to push for
legislation that would alter the way our basic democratic freedoms work, all
in the name of copyright.

I find anti-piracy crowd to be highly similar to politicians or policy-makers
who advocate abstinence. In principle the argument is correct, you only need
to forget that in the real world people don't quite work that way.

Piracy, in the end to me, is not a moral problem, but a service problem. If
you care to fix it, that is.

------
sigzero
Nothing really "forces" people into piracy. They "choose" to do it.

------
lmm
Realistically, many shows will never make it to my country. So my two choices,
in fact, are: 1) Don't watch it. 2) Watch it. It's not that I'm cheap or
impatient. It's not even that I'm lazy (though I am), unless you count not
being willing to move to the US.

~~~
chimi
Same is true for citizens living in the U.S. with regards to BBC and CBC shows
like Dragon's Den. I really like to watch BBC docs, but I don't feel the need
to go and download them illegally or anything. There's a lot of great stuff
from all over the world that USA people can't watch.

I really don't understand the entitled argument. I don't get why consumers
feel they are owed the right to be entertained by any particular piece of
digital media.

Why not just watch something else? There's plenty of good stuff out there that
can be obtained within the rules. Why not argue for all the legal options
rather than the entitlement option?

~~~
lmm
Turn that around. I have a friend in America who wants to show me one of their
shows, perhaps so we can talk about it afterwards. Why shouldn't she?

Because it's illegal? Lots of things are, that's not persuasive in itself.

------
mhb
Original essay:

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/28/why-are-
cab...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/28/why-are-cable-
companies-forcing-people-to-turn-to-piracy.html)

~~~
sarvinc
I'm not the original poster but I'm more interested in discussing Marco's post
than the original. The original is attacking a straw-man.

------
mark-r
Be sure to read the follow-up: <http://www.marco.org/2012/11/29/the-wrong-
movement>

------
mmariani
Marco has a point here. So, without further ado...

Hey Netflix stop saying you're sorry for not being available in Italy and
please sort it out already.

------
fnbaptiste
I recently ditched my cable company but not because I felt they were forcing
me into piracy. I agree with this article, though I do still occasionally
pirate television. Mostly I use Netflix on my XBox, which I pay for, but
Canadian Netflix is pretty lame. I agree pirating is morally questionable,
though I don't feel bad the slightest bit when I do it.

------
zaccus
Whether piracy is wrong or not is irrelevant. The fact is, as long as piracy
is possible, people will do it. And it will continue to be possible for the
foreseeable future. Complaining about it is as pointless as complaining about
the weather.

If it's hurting your business, that sucks. Adapt.

