
A VC: Anatomy Of A Pirate - Swizec
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/anatomy-of-a-pirate.html
======
fredoliveira
This is certainly nothing new. The reason why this is interesting is because
Fred is actually trying to buy something off the UK and can't because he's an
american, and typically the opposite is true (people outside the US being
shown road-blocks and random impediments to actually spending their money in
US-based services).

To give you a practical example: I steal just about every TV series I watch,
because being back in Europe, I can't use Hulu, can't grab them off iTunes,
and generally TV stations delay broadcasting for about 1 season (probably to
keep prices down). Grabbing them off of torrents is as simple as waiting for
the episodes to show up on my "downloads-tv" folder, thanks to RSS and a
torrent client. This usually happens about 20 minutes after the original
broadcast in the east coast - I just have go about my life and wait for them
to be ready to watch.

Back to the topic: these legal hurdles that force you to buy things locally
will eventually go away (they're already gone for a few things). That's the
one true problem here. Some people will always pirate, and some people will
pirate because it's _convenient_. It's certainly easier than using proxies,
faking an address somewhere and generally lying about you because you want to
give someone money. This whole deal boggles the mind.

 _TL;DR:_ Some people pirate things because it's more convenient. Companies
should make it more convenient to actually purchase music/tv/movies/games
online.

~~~
Swizec
Same here, I download every tv show I watch.

But I would argue that I am _not_ pirating tv shows. I paid for them by
watching the same product placement as my american counterparts.

Remember, with tv shows _you_ are the product, not the tv show. Therefore they
are essentially unstealable because every time you "steal" a tv show, you're
adding one more product to the content owner's roster.

~~~
eftpotrm
And do Geico and Home Depot get much possible value from your viewing their
adverts?

I'm not wholly against you on this; the current media market setup is patently
flawed in the Internet age and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that so's
the broadcast content model for anything but inherently live content such as
sports and _maybe_ rolling news. _But_ , that content is paid for by
advertisers trying to reach prospective customers. Overseas viewers are,
almost without exception, not prospective customers of the advertisers so
they're not interested in paying to talk to you.

~~~
Swizec
I don't watch the adverts.

Funny thing, though, is that 90% of the product placement happening in US
shows are things I can buy right here at home. Or I can buy some sister
product the same umbrella corporation produces.

Furthermore, it is increasingly the case that product placement is happening
for online products. I've especially noticed this with The Big Bang Theory
(possibly because it's a geek show)

Hell, just take this for example: The only reason I went to the Cheesecake
Factory on my US visit last year was because I saw it mentioned on a tv show I
pirated.

------
rubidium
>But if you put enough hurdles in front of them, they will become pirates. As
I did this morning.

People are seriously re-prioritizing their "needs". There's a prayer about
having enough so you're not tempted to steal. It's supposed to be about food
and daily necessities.

Apparently some people need music so much that it's worth stealing for. Can't
you just move on with your life, and decide to not listen to that music?

Relevant discussion was "don't make me steal":
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2176804>

~~~
_delirium
I don't see how it would have helped anyone if he had just moved on with his
life and not downloaded the album. Isn't the usual justification for
intellectual property that it rewards the creator? If you compare the
"download the album" and the "move on and don't listen to the album at all"
alternatives, the creator gets no reward either way, so it seems ethically
neutral--- contrary to the case where he could've paid the creator and instead
chose not to, where the creator actually loses out on a sale.

Now perhaps you could say that it's unethical because if he hadn't downloaded
this album, he would've paid for someone else's, so he's not stealing from the
creator of _this_ album, but indirectly from the creators of other albums that
he didn't buy instead. But that seems like an argument that proves too much;
in that scenario, is it also unethical to listen to CC-licensed music, because
doing so steals business from non-CC-licensed music?

~~~
mhb
So what if you don't see what the motivations are of the people who own the
content or the distribution network? Can you imagine a world in which those
people are making decisions whose justification they don't wish to share with
you?

Maybe they've done A/B testing on the way to release content to maximize their
profit or some other good that they value and think that revealing the results
to you would affect the outcome.

~~~
_delirium
I suppose I don't see that as part of the copyright social contract, though
some people do argue for a complete ability to control (for a temporary period
of time) the use of a work. The model of copyright that makes sense to me is
intended to provide a mechanism for creators to be compensated for _published_
work, i.e. to prevent readers/listeners/etc. from bypassing the paid
distribution channel. The justification is that if everyone is funneled
towards the paid distribution channel, that will provide funds and
encouragement for more such work to be created and published.

But if the work isn't being published (or isn't being published to a
particular audience), then that side of the social contract isn't being
upheld, so the purpose of copyright (to encourage such material to be produced
and made available) isn't being fulfilled, and therefore I don't see copyright
as ethically applicable (or ethically applicable to that audience).

I guess a shorter version of the obligation I feel users of a work have is:
_Compensate the creator, if they'll take your money_.

~~~
mhb
Invoking copyright just obfuscates the straightforward moral question. Someone
has produced something which they wish to sell on whatever terms they make up.
The decision of a potential consumer is to agree to the terms or not.

If you and the musician are face-to-face and she says you can have an MP3 of
her music for $1000, it's not right to take it if you think it's too
expensive.

~~~
_delirium
I disagree; I don't believe there is any moral right to "sell on whatever
terms they make up". I do think copyright is justified in an ethical sense, as
a social contract that encourages the production of more creative works. (I
was speaking in the ethical sense; my comment was certainly not accurate as a
_legal_ analysis of current U.S. copyright law.)

But I think the proper way to analyze ethical issues involving creative works
is, therefore, to see who is upholding or violating the social contract that
we call "copyright". I don't think there's any separate moral issue, and it
certainly isn't a form of property (due to being non-rivalrous).

~~~
mhb
What do you mean by "non-rivalrous"?

~~~
winthrowe
It is a fairly common economic term.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)>

------
robryan
It's a same with TV shows, which persist with ridiculous region based rules,
what chance does legit content have when you go there wallet open and it won't
let you buy. I guess in the short term they are getting more money from the
overseas networks they are syndicating to, but eventually that money won't be
there because nobody bothered to wait till they got around to showing it.

~~~
notahacker
As a particularly ludicrous example, I pay for subscription sports channels
and then have to use low grade foreign streams to watch any Premier League
football match kicking off at 3pm (FA rules: they're worried that wider UK TV
access to all top division games will reduce attendances at lower league games
played simultaneously). Is it really unethical to violate copyright laws when
the copyright holders _refuse to take my money_?

From the point of view of the consumer, international price discrimination for
digital goods also appears no more ethically justifiable than piracy.

~~~
robryan
Yeah for AFL here we have probably 3 free to air games a week which are
screened delayed in an attempt to improve attendances, I would happily pay to
watch live for some of these games but the option just isn't there.

At least with cricket they have given up on showing only half the play if the
match was in your city. Attendances are as good as ever...

------
sfk
"It was listed on Amazon US as an import that would be available on Feb 15th,
but only in CD form. I'm not buying plastic just to rip the files and throw it
out."

What a hurdle indeed.

~~~
GFischer
Ha. Try living in Uruguay (South America).

I can't buy most of the stuff I'd like legally, even though I wouldn't mind
paying for it (even if I do buy it from, say, Amazon US, it's still illegal
!!!). (Edit, fredolivera beat me to it and has a better argument here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2192699> )

I'll lobby for a change in laws, but the music, movie and software*
distribution industries need to change as well (* by software I mean big
software like Microsoft, Oracle et al, which have pernicious software
licensing agreements which vary by country, etc.).

~~~
sfk
Try reading the article. The author lives in the US and refuses to buy from
Amazon US. In short, he (and many other people in this thread) are complete
hypocrites.

~~~
GFischer
Well, it is true that he has a legal avenue to acquire the files (as long as
he waits for the delay imposed by Amazon US).

But I wouldn't call them complete hypocrites. Globalization has made us desire
stuff we then can't acquire - very often artificially, in the case of
entertainment, by way of publicity, positive reviews like in this case, etc.

Hypocrite: "a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. 2.
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

The author is rationalizing (as I often do as well), but I wouldn't say he's
an hypocrite, unless he refuses to pay at the time when he has a legal avenue
to do so. (BTW, I did read the article - I might have taken the wrong
conclusions, but still)

------
dspillett
I've experienced this with Disney's Fantasia some years ago, looking for a
copy generally for me but specifically to show a friend a particular sequence.
I searched high and low for a legal DVD copy and only found second hand
dealers and other traders who wanted an extortionate amount, people the other
side of the Atlantic which would have made postage+duty similarly expensive
and a few VHS copies. So I downloaded the thing from a disreputable source
(there being no real legitimate download sources for this sort of thing back
then).

Maybe it is available now. Maybe I'll search later and consider buying a copy
if it is officially available as a DVD or via download in a good quality
format. Though my interest has dropped off considerably in the intervening
years.

On other occasions I've hit the "we can't show you this in your country"
thing. My reaction has always been "fair enough, there is an Internet awash
with other things I can watch and I have plenty of other things to distract
myself with at home too". A couple of times the restricted item has been a
film trailer/preview - those productions may have lost the chance to garner my
interest in paying to see them when they are released over here.

This isn't quite the same problem as the linked article discusses - this was
an older item that was effectively out-of-print rather than a new item that
wasn't available in all territories. The entertainment industry does shoot
itself in the foot quite often with staged roll-outs though - either because
people who might buy if they could easily obtain the content by other means or
because people have a chance to happen upon negative reviews that put them off
or have a chance to be distracted by other things and forget about this
particular thing. While it can be excused to a certain extent with physical
mediums (manufacturing and distribution logistics could make a coordinated
global release difficult to manage, and a risky undertaking if initial demand
for the product is not easy to judge) it simply makes no sense with content
that is being distributed digitally.

Oh, and on a point of pettyness... Hello Mr In The US And Can't Get Content
That Is Available to UKians Waaa Waaa Waaa. Welcome to what the rest of the
world often experiences!

------
orky56
So if something is too much work to acquire, we are allowed to obtain content
illegally? I'm a little surprised Fred is openly admitting that he committed a
crime. Isn't this enough for the authorities to pursue legal action?

The fact that the content is more expensive or harder to get is all the more
reason to give up. This is not a moment of failure. It is a warning and a
notice that hurdles have been set to prevent acquisition.

~~~
steveklabnik
> Isn't this enough for the authorities to pursue legal action?

Where's the actual evidence? You'd have to actually find his IP address
downloading something from somewhere.

~~~
orky56
How about having enough evidence to pursue a warrant? Taking a big name to
trial over something like this might actually be worth their effort.

~~~
steveklabnik
Assuming he used Bittorrent, how are you going to find the logs? Where was the
torrent from? Nobody observed him actually doing it...

I'm pretty sure that the evidence would be lost in the aether by now, but I'm
no security expert...

------
mortice
Exactly the same story currently exists in reverse for the album 'Kaputt' by
Destroyer.

It (used to be!) available to stream in full at
<http://hypem.com/#%21/artist/Destroyer>. It's available to download at
Amazon's US MP3 store for $5.99. It's not available to download from the UK
MP3 store, and Amazon UK are charging £22 for a CD copy. That's _6 times_ the
price!

I think I'll just torrent it and get it in lossless format, thanks very much.

~~~
fredwilson
great record. Kaputt and Computer and Blues are my two favorites so far this
year

------
jrwoodruff
Same thing is happening (has happened?) to video online - just try watching
Hulu Plus on Roku or your iPad - no It's Always Sunny, no Top Chef and many,
many other popular shows are missing. Apparently that's 'web only' content.

Didn't know I'd left the Web.

~~~
eftpotrm
It's this sort of thing (among others) that's why I have a PC hooked up to my
TV for streaming media. As far as every provider is concerned it's Just
Another PC so I don't have to worry about compatibility or this sort of silly
artificial restriction.

Works very nicely BTW, I'd recommend it to anyone.

~~~
jrwoodruff
Agreed. I've done it myself, but my main problem with it is simply that it's
just not fun to use. It's clunky, having a keyboard and mouse on the couch or
having to bounce between the couch and my computer desk. Roku and Apple TV on
the other hand are, generally, very nice and actually fun to browse with.
They've honestly changed the way I think about TV.

Plus the prices (and form factors) are awesome. $69 (Roku) for a plug and play
box that can sit on the shelf with my other components.

But I guess the point here is: If I can hook a computer up to a TV, why do
networks try and differentiate between 'computer,' 'tv,' and even 'tablet?'

~~~
eftpotrm
Wireless keyboard with integrated trackpad :-) Worked very nicely as a remote
control until it broke, but that's another story.

In fairness, I don't use this machine just as a media player; it's also a file
and print server for me, and where my backups run, so it being a full computer
has other fringe benefits for me. That said, I'm still not sure I'd choose an
Apple TV over it; I like the added functionality of it being a real, normal
computer.

------
EdiX
Same thing happens with every TV show produced in US if you do not live in the
US yourself.

~~~
charlesdm
Been having the same problem.

Seems like a decent startup idea if you can get the content contracts.

~~~
alextgordon
Consider that the selection of US TV shows on iTunes UK is mediocre. If
_Apple_ can't do it with all their money and clout, what hope does a startup
have?

~~~
charlesdm
True -- however it might also be because iTunes is global that they want to go
after the global market rather than really focussing on a specific country.

For example, if you look at the way Spotify operates, they negotiate rights
and open up their service on a per country basis. A system like that might be
more feasible for a startup.

Licensing content for a couple of EU countries might take less time and be
cheaper than for the US.

------
thewordpainter
The IFPI came out with a staggering statistic in 2009 that 95% of all
downloads were done "illegally." Yet, (if I'm not mistaken) that 95% amounted
to something like $4,700,000,000. Just imagine if that 5% illegally consumed
was doubled -- we're talking $10bil!!

As we say in our promo cards at <http://gorankem.com> , we want to help you
find the songs you were always meant to hear. Not only is so much music not
paid for at the moment, but so much great music is completely lost in the
shuffle. If our crowdsourced resource can help others more easily find the
hidden gems, that consumption pie will expand even further...and maybe, just
maybe, the labels will start to realize what direction to take the variable
pricing model (i.e. not $1.29...)

------
marquis
In some other countries in Central/South America you'll see pirated cam
recordings of anything that came out in the US within days. It's cheaper to
buy a DVD like this from a stall at the metro than it is to go to the cinema,
so it's a matter of economics. If I am waiting to see a film I am really
anticipating to see at the theatre I have to ask friends not to talk about it
in front of me, as they've all seen it from a pirated (and not-great-copy)
DVD. 3-4 months later the film comes out and the theatres aren't full except
for the big 3D films. A different economic issue for sure, and it's
interesting to see here because the internet isn't widely adopted to where
most people can download a film or TV show so they look out for it at their
local bootleggers.

------
Bvalmont
Subscription models, vanity lists and social networks should be provided in an
app store as a service that gives the digital content more meaning.

Steam is doing it. I pirate everything I see but since Steam I'd rather buy
some games simply because they are then in my "Steam games list".

I would easily give up piracy on music if Spotify became legal here in
Belgium, but it hasn't so I combine my LastFM subscription with rapidshare
account.

Same for TV shows and Movies, I don't see the point in owning it, but I would
pay for a Netflix account in a heartbeat.

------
steveklabnik
Oh man, this stuff is frustrating. Two stories:

A girl and I wanted to watch a movie on a spare evening. We had been talking a
few days before about how we'd never seen Scott Pilgrim[1], and so we decided
to actually go down to Blockbuster, because it'd be quaint. I was surprised it
was still around...

Anyway, so we get there, and we wander around, looking for it. We didn't see
it, but we did see that they had 35 new copies of some other release, which
seemed kind of ridiculous. So we ended up asking the people who worked there,
and they said that it came out on DVD the next day. So we just went home, and
about 15 minutes later, we were watching it in full high def. "Well, we tried
to do it the right way, and all it did was waste an hour." Silly rules about
waiting on physical products meant that they missed out on my $2.

Last week, I was with some friends. I mentioned how I'd just seen the premier
of Archer[2], and how I was surprised it was as good as Season 1. My friends
hadn't seen it, but were interested. So I told them to bring up Netflix,
because all of Season 1 was on it. So we looked... and now that Season 2 was
on TV, Season 1 was back to 'DVD only.' Ten minutes later, the first episode
was torrented, and by the time we'd finished watching episode 1, the entire
rest of the season was done. I was specifically trying to get my friends
hooked on their product, yet they wanted to make it harder for me to do so.
It's so dumb.

99% of my media consumption is legal, because most of the time, I don't mind
what I'm watching or listening to. But when I'm trying to find something
specific, it always seems really hard to actually get, and there's also
this[3]. But torrents have everything, and it's fast, and no-bullshit.

1: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446029/>

2: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486217/>

3:
[http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5008519733_757bc53e18_z....](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5008519733_757bc53e18_z.jpg)

------
dhimes
I like reading Fred's stuff, but I must say I'm a bit surprised that he's just
discovering this problem now. I thought he read this site.

~~~
fredwilson
i've been writing about this issue since i started the AVC blog in 2003. it
really frustrates me that nothing has really changed in the music business

------
citricsquid
So pirate it and when it IS available pay for it. It's what everyone else who
wants to pay for music does.

~~~
fredwilson
that is what i said i was going to do in my post

------
rdouble
Nobody likes the record labels, so they are always a convenient bogeyman for
these arguments. However, what if the artists themselves dictate distribution
terms you don't like? Is it still 'ethical' to pirate their material?

------
fedd
i don't understand. the West taught my country that IP is the same as physical
property, and it would be stealing to violate IP.

now an owner of a property decided to release the album in the UK on 4th of
February, and in the US only on the CDs 10 days later.

 _what else is the evidence of having rights on the intangible property, if
not a right to make such decisions?_

i'm confused :)

------
cmars232
Never listened to The Streets before. Downloading to see what they sound like.

------
guelo
Boring, another overly-entitled whiny consumer.

------
Raphael
Rip from SoundClound.

~~~
harph
Gotta love Download Helper.

