
Don't Make Me Steal - caillou
http://dontmakemesteal.com
======
rubidium
I really don't like the "don't make me steal" attitude. It undermines a good
society.

The creators of this campaign decided that "Purchase should not exceed the
cinema price." Really? What if we did that for, say, organic bread. "I won't
buy organic bread unless it's x3 or less than the cost of the generic white
bread. If it is more expensive, I'm entitled to steal it."

Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not to steal it.

~~~
citricsquid
"Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not to steal it."

EXACTLY. Yes, downloading a movie isn't _exactly_ stealing, but it's still
taking something without permission and it should be frowned upon just as much
as stealing is. If a person pirates a movie they're taking something without
reimbursing the rights owner with what _they_ want. People aren't judged for
stealing because it costs the store owner money, they're judged because it's
immoral! When someone steals a DVD from walmart nobody says "Whoa, you stole
$9.99 worth of product! You should be ashamed!" they say "You stole something
you weren't allowed, you should be ashamed". Why online does it suddenly
become about the cost?

it doesn't matter how ridiculous their demands are, if Disney want $100,000
per copy of their latest film, that's their choice, if you disagree then
_don't buy it_ that doesn't mean you should just take it.

The whole idea behind this website is self entitlement, nobody is entitled to
someone else's creation and the idea that this website is doing the content
creators a favour is laughable. If someone creates content (or someone owns
the rights to created content) it should be their choice how people consume
and acquire it, whether that's free, $9.99 or $100,000, that's their choice
and we should abide by it. Pay what they want or don't have it.

~~~
jamesbritt
"but it's still taking something "

 _taking_ ? Or copying?

Some _thing_? Or some representation?

A problem with these discussions is that people use common words as if
everyone had the same understanding of their meaning and application.

If I download a movie, I'm not _taking_ that movie. And what I end up with is
not a _thing_ ; if I then move it over to another drive, no _thing_ has moved,
yet the movie can be watched.

Now, in the end, this action it may or may not be wrong or immoral or
whatever, but arguments based on physical notions of "take", "thing", "own"
are putting the cart before the horse.

~~~
citricsquid
taking = gaining possession of [item]

taking doesn't have to be negative and it's not a word associated with either
side of the discussion, it's just a _word_. I can take $10 from my mum to pay
for dinner, or take a magazine from a shop (after paying for it), it's just
the opposite of give. You can take with permission, that's why I stated take
_without_.

~~~
kijinbear
When you take $10 from your mom, your mom no longer has that $10. When you pay
money to buy a magazine, the shop no longer has that magazine and you no
longer have the money. Taking in the usual sense is _moving_.

But pirates insist that they can "take" without depriving the owner of
anything. That's _copying_ , which is a different kind of taking. It gets even
more complicated if somebody first purchases a legitimate copy of a song or a
movie, and then produces more copies to share with other people. You run the
fallacy of equivocation when you use the word "taking" in both senses.

~~~
citricsquid
My usage of "take" is insignificant, it's just a word in my argument. You can
"take help" you can "take ideas" and they're not physical.

Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument :|

~~~
kijinbear
Your actual argument _depends_ on the sense of the word "take" that you use.

(a) It is a well-established norm in any modern society that it's immoral to
take (move) something without permission.

(b) It is _not_ well-established -- or at least, pirates would like to say
that it's controversial -- that it's immoral to take (copy) something without
permission.

(c) It's even less well-established that it's immoral to take (purchase)
something _with_ permission and then crack the DRM or produce further copies
to share with other people.

Nobody disagrees with you about (a). But you're extrapolating that view to (b)
and (c), and that part of the argument seems to hinge upon an equivocation of
the different senses of "take".

Content producers have a shaky argument because they want to use the "moving"
sense of the word "take" to argue that (b) is immoral, while using something
like the "copying" sense of the word "take" to argue that (c) is immoral. (If
ownership of the movie was actually moved when you purchased it, it's none of
their business what you do with the DVD you now own!) Don't make the same
mistake of equivocation. This is not an argument that piracy is OK. I'm just
trying to point out that there are good and bad ways to argue against piracy.

------
defen
I don't think running a protection racket is the best way to get your point
across. "I promise never to watch a movie until my demands are met" might
actually carry some moral weight.

~~~
krainboltgreene
No it wouldn't, because the people companies make money from _aren't willing
to stop watching movies_.

It would be like saying "I won't walk outside until the city cleans the
streets!" It's a promise a majority of people simply won't, or can't, keep.

~~~
markstansbury
So, you're saying, if a company is successful at creating and marketing its
product and I don't like the price I can steal it?

~~~
tptacek
I PROMISE not to steal the 2011 BMW M3 Coupe SO LONG AS you price it no higher
than cost + 5%.

------
jacoblyles
I have some quibbles with the listed criteria, but I like the basic idea. When
I was a pirate, I was a pirate of convenience. I barely pirate anything now
that I have access to Amazon MP3, iTunes, and Netflix instant. The piracy I do
partake in is mostly focused on ebooks since the Kindle store is so limited.
But I also buy a lot of Kindle books when they are available.

I wonder if most pirates are pirates of convenience who will convert into
paying customers if there is a convenient way to do so. I do get a little
angry at content companies who are a decade behind the times in technology.

------
anatoli
The whole "languages" section sounds like it was written by somebody with no
understanding of how dubbing is produced, who pays for it, and the issues that
arise with the rights to these different versions of a film. Often it gets
even more complicated with TV Shows.

Convenience? Now you're getting completely unreasonable. If you can't filter
by all metadata you're going to "steal"? Come on...

~~~
eli
I'm guessing the point they were trying to get at was, you should be able to
download and share subtitle files -- which are only useful to people who
already have the movie -- without fear of prosecution.

~~~
anatoli
Here's the relevant bit from the "manifesto":

"I have access to the audio in every language that has been produced."

Even the subtitle issue is complicated. Are these fan-made subtitles?
Otherwise, again, you're entering a minefield and the chances of something
like that ever happening within a unified interface — as requested — are slim.

Something like that would require a fundamental change to how films and
especially TV Shows are distributed in other countries. Not to mention the
technical issues that will occur due to certain countries getting a slightly
modified (whether censored or extended or just modified) version of the
original.

You're far more likely to get somewhere if what you're asking is at least
somewhat reasonable.

~~~
jokermatt999
Actually, there are pretty good methods of this for piracy. If you search for
the torrent title (IE: "Battleship Potemkin aXXo", etc) and "subtitle", you
can generally find a subtitle for your version in my experience. Have a
listing for movie, then version of movie (German edition, Director's Cut,
terrible American theatrical release that cuts out the bit where last part was
all a dream, etc). If piracy and fans can solve an issue like that, surely the
studios can too.

------
armandososa
I'll better sign a petition that is like: letmebuy.com, and the only clause
will be

    
    
         "Outside US we are people too. Here, take our hard-earned money"

------
tptacek
My partner Dave asks when we can expect the MPAA/RIAA to put up "DON'T MAKE US
SUE".

------
jonpaul
This name is awful.

1)It implies that copyright infringement is stealing. 2)It implies lack of
responsibility, as in someone is making you do a certain action. You have a
choice.

~~~
baggachipz
The page itself seems as if it was written by fifth graders: "Movies are
delivered adds free."

No streaming movie I've ever purchased has required me to pay for the
privilege of doing arithmetic.

~~~
jacoblyles
>"The page itself seems as if it was written by fifth graders"

or a bunch of redditors/chaners.

------
mike_esspe
This can start a copyright flame, but in order to be fair, "steal" should be
replaced with "copy".

~~~
mattgreenrocks
I find it amusing that second-rate grammar (loose/lose) and spelling is the
norm for some communities, but the second this topic comes up, everyone turns
into a armchair semantic guru.

~~~
randallsquared
There hasn't been a decades-long campaign to deliberately confuse the concepts
of "lose" and "loose". It's just a mistake.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
My meta-commentary was on the fact that the issue of semantics seems to serve
as a all-too-convenient cognitive escape hatch in these discussions, diverting
them from the harder topic at hand: that of intellectual property rights. I
find it regrettable that it is employed, as it hinders being able to discuss
the problem in a mature, logical fashion.

------
flatline
The implication is that by signing the petition, my intent is to "steal" a
movie unless certain terms are met. No, thanks.

------
jefe78
Cool project but I'd rather not have to sign with Facebook/Twitter. Can you
implement an alternative please?

~~~
caillou
We considered many different authentications and chose Facebook and Twitter
because they make it really easy to show avatars of the people who sign.

What alternatives would you suggest?

~~~
jefe78
A simple registration form with some default avatars would be ideal, in my
opinion.

~~~
Seldaek
Another factor was the really short time we had for development, so
implementing those two allow us to cover the largest part of our target
audience with a simple UI.

------
btipling
Don't agree with 'Purchase should not exceed the cinema price.' since that
stuff comes with extra content and 20 years from now I'm sure whatever the
cinema costs were will have become untenable due to inflation...

------
mitcheme
I agree with the general idea but the specific criteria sounds very good from
a consumer POV and not very realistic for a company to offer.

"Rent should not exceed 1/3 of the cinema price. Purchase should not exceed
the cinema price."

Rent/purchase and cinema are completely different businesses, with different
expenses. Going to the cinema doesn't give you a permanent copy. I'm pretty
sure movie ticket prices are subsidized by sales of overpriced popcorn,
drinks, and snacks. Online sales/rentals might be better compared to brick-
and-mortar sales/rentals rather than cinema. Either that or offer a breakdown
of how it might be viable for a company to charge those prices.

"I have access to pretty much every movie ever made."

This isn't possible using any other legitimate method that I know of; the only
reason pirates can do it is because they don't have to worry about the legal
issues, pay for licensing, etc. They just need access to a physical or digital
copy which is far easier to do. This will probably be even harder when
combined with the pricing demands since it limits how much companies can pay
for licensing. If you mean major films/TV shows only, "most" might be a better
word, otherwise it sounds like you want them to chase down every indie
filmmaker who's put out a movie that a dozen people might be interested in
watching.

"Pricing of TV shows is about 1/3 of movies. I pay for the content, not for
bandwidth."

These seem almost contradictory to me. I'm guessing the pricing of TV shows
should be 1/3 that of movies because they're 1/3 as long, but if "content"
means "length" then the second point doesn't mean very much in most cases. If
content is some measure of quality/popularity then there's no reason why TV
shows would cost less than movies. (Especially since, from my POV, there are
far more good TV shows right now than good movies.)

(edited for formatting and grammar.)

------
kemiller
"Hey RIAA lawyers, here's a list of people who download movies!"

~~~
cgs1019
RIAA = Record Industry Association of America MPAA = Motion Picture
Association of America

~~~
kemiller
Ooops. Well, point remains. :)

------
protomyth
Here's what I really don't understand. What exactly do they believe gives them
the "right" to watch a given movie / tv show?

~~~
nooneelse
Probably something along the lines of "it is in front of them".

------
theDoug
All the arguments below aside, are there any cases where an online petition
has had its desired effect on an any large business, let alone an entire
industry?

I do ask this both as a jab and as a legitimate curiosity.

------
SoftwareMaven
I love iPads, but Apple charges more than I think they should be allowed to
charge. I'm going to steal one until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy
one then.

I love Photoshop, but Adobe charges more than I think they should be allowed
to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the price. I promise I'll
buy one then.

I love Wolfram-Alpha's database, but Mathematica costs way more than I think
they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the
price. I promise I'll buy one then.

Does this not seam like a ludicrous attitude to you?

------
philfreo
I don't think these are really fair to include in the criteria:

"I have access to the audio in every language that has been produced." and
"Once I bought a movie, I can watch it in every available language."

------
amalcon
I also want my TV to be ad-free if I'm paying for it. I prefer to pay for it
than to watch the ads, because my time has value, but I don't demand that this
alternative be offered. Yet.

This being said, I already follow this. I also don't illegally download media.
I just don't watch stuff that's not available in a reasonable way. It seems
silly, given that paying $10/month for Netflix gets me access to more content
than I could ever possibly watch.

If only it worked on Linux. My Win PC is basically a "Netflix box" these days.

~~~
bena
You could always get a PS3 to use as a Netflix box. $300 and it can stream
Netflix, play DVD and BluRay titles, various formats found in AVI containers,
it's a DLNA receiver, and if you get bored with all that you can play PS1 and
PS3 games.

I think the Wii has Netflix streaming that doesn't require a disc or secondary
subscription as well. And those can be found in the $200 range.

(I'd suggest the XBox 360 but it requires a $60/year Gold subscription on top
of the price of the console.)

I'd consider it a suitable alternative if I didn't have a Windows box laying
around.

------
zaidf
Typo:

Movies are delivered _adds_ free.

~~~
caillou
Ahh... that would be my dyslexia. Will fix it ASAP.

~~~
kissickas
Dyslexia? Just wanted to make sure you know it should be "ads free," not "adds
free."

------
Cadsby
The music industry in particular is infamous for making it's fortunes via the
deliberate exploitation of artist and musicians over the decades. So when
those same industries turn around and try and take the moral high ground
regarding piracy, for better or worse, consumers mostly laugh at the hypocrisy
and continue pirating.

I agree pirating is morally indefensible. But the reality is consumers will
never be swayed by those arguments. Give consumers the product they want, at
the price point they would like to pay. That is the only practical solution to
this issue, regardless of how loudly the content industries screams about
"stealing."

Failure to accept this reality will only lead to piracy continuing if not
increasing.

------
daniel02216
This seems like 'I want a store like the iTunes Music Store for videos' that
doesn't have the movie-company BS that the actual iTunes movie store does.
(i.e. DRM free, has absolutely everything, doesn't cost a ridiculous amount
for TV shows, etc) They'd need to add on 'simultaneous worldwide availability'
and Linux compatibility, maybe subscriptions, and the subtitles stuff, but
it'd get close to satisfying this manifesto.

I hope that a store like this exists soon. But given the track record of the
studios, it's not likely that they'll become sane anytime soon.

------
anonymoushn
Fortunately it is impossible to steal non-rivalrous goods.

~~~
pyrmont
Maybe they thought dontmakemeinfringe.com didn't have the same 'zing'.

------
Skroob
All I want is for any TV or movie on iTunes that is purchasable to also be
rentable. I don't have any desire to buy, say, The Social Network for $20, but
I'll rent it for $5. This goes double for TV shows. I love Fringe, but if I
miss an episode I don't want to spend $3 to buy it, watch it once and never
see it again. Let me rent it for $1 and I'll be happy.

------
redthrowaway
I agree with everything except yes to pay and no to ads. There really should
be a way to provide free, ad-supported video, and premium, ad-free video. Once
you purchase a movie it is free for all time, but every time you watch it for
free it's ad-supported.

------
AppDev054
If you don't like the law, make your own 'content' then you can set prices,
etc.

No one cares what you think is the 'right price'. If you don't want to pay,
don't buy it.

No amount of whining is an excuse for stealing. Grow up!

------
siglesias
_This_ should compel you not to steal:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative>

------
jacques_chester
As a former classifieds phone operator, please note:

"ad free", not "adds free".

Please. I beg you.

------
kmfrk
> I have access to pretty much every movie ever made.

Oh _c'mon_.

------
ivankirigin

      Digital Media Consumption Manifesto

Clearly should have been "agreement" instead of a "manifesto". Then they would
have made a new DMCA.

------
dotBen
"Movies are delivered adds free"

I closed the page at this point.

------
pavel_lishin
Why is the most important point made last?

~~~
Seldaek
Because importance is subjective :)

------
wazoox
Too bad I haven't a facebook nor a (personal) twitter account :)

------
lotusleaf1987
Francis Ford Coppola:

Q: How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and
commerce?

A: We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that
it's only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with
money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the
state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had
another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But
I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five
in the morning and write your script.

This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not
necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age,
maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to
download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said
art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?

In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could
make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then
you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record
royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea
of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it.

[http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-
Coppola-O...](http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-On-
Risk-Money-Craft-Collaboration)

~~~
bena
Yes, I'm totally convinced by the words of the son of a professional concert
flautist who gets paid 7 figures to make films and was able to buy that winery
with those proceeds.

So for him to say, "Oh you can make money other ways, make films for art's
sake. Look at me, I'm a wine-maker" is a bit disingenuous.

------
drivebyacct2
If I could watch content on Hulu, Netflix or other in Linux and I didn't want
to throw myself in front of the lunatic-driven University bus, I'd be happy.

TPB -> "The Italian Job" + 3 hours = me happy. There is NO legal alternative
for me. No, I'm not walking 30 miles to Best Buy to waste $30 on a DVD that
won't play in my computer that doesn't have a DVD drive. And I don't consider
running Win7 in a VM to be reasonable at all.

~~~
Silhouette
There are plenty of legal alternatives for you. Indeed, you just mentioned
several of them, and another is not to consume that particular content at all
and to find your entertainment in some other way.

Please don't pretend anyone somehow forced you to break the law. You chose to
do that yourself.

~~~
drivebyacct2
1\. Hulu in Linux is effectively impossible. It's completely broken in Chrome
and it stops after 10 minutes of playback in Firefox. More importantly, it
does not have the movies I'm interested in.

2\. Netflix has no client or support for Linux. Microsoft won't license the
DRM components and Netflix refuses to change.

I never, ever mentioned that I was forced into breaking the law, but thanks
for putting those words into my mouth. Make no bones about it. I broke the law
because it is more convenient. I would pay for the movies if, as I already
stated, I wasn't forced to borrow someone's car to buy a frickin DVD.

Surely, you can understand that "Don't consume the content at all" is as much
of a copout as someone saying they were "forced" to steal the content. Both I
and the movie industry would benefit from me having easier access to the
content that I would happily pay for.

This is partly why I'm hopeful to see what Amazon has in store.

------
mkramlich
I sympathise a great deal with the spirit of that manifesto. However, I don't
full agree with it.

Mainly because it's basis comes down to, "I want a pony, Daddy. And I want it
now! And it must pink! And made out of licorice!" And I don't agree with
arguments like that because unless you yourself (the person desiring the pony)
are the one who's making/building/providing the pony, then you're in the
weakest possible position to be making such specific demands. "I'd like a pony
too, little Virginia, but I have to figure out how much it costs, I have to go
find one, figure out where to keep it, feed it, make sure it stays healthy,
etc. And if it's not pink how the fuck do I make it pink? Don't even talk to
me about licorice."

Note that I'm not saying that all consumers should conform their desires to
whatever the producers feel like producing and providing it under. But I do
think it requires give and take on both sides, and the folks on the producer
side are much more likely to be constrained by Physical Reality, whereas the
consumer role can prance around in Fantasy Land. Wanting convenience is fine.
Wanting "fairness" is more problematic, because it's not always clear what is
fair when you have to consider things from the provider's position, not just
the consumer. And some consumer demands are arbitrary or undefensible. For
example, what reasonable basis would one have for demanding that you should
not have to pay more money to own a product (a DVD/video) than you would to
rent it (watch movie in theatre)? There are arguments for why each should be
more expensive than the other, and the "cost plus" model is only part of the
consideration. Value-based pricing is also fundamental to economics and
market-making. Yes, artificial scarcity can make prices for a thing higher
than what it would be otherwise. However, if you're not the one producing the
thing in question, you're not in the position to decide whether or how much to
turn that dial. As a consumer you can choose not to buy a thing under terms
you don't like, but you're not in a position to demand or force a provider to
match your ideal terms. You are always free to get off your ass and go make
the very thing you want. But if you lack the creativity, energy, intelligence,
skills, willpower, etc. to make that thing, then you will absolutely be (at
least somewhat) at the mercy of those that do overcome and perform those
things in order to provide it. Thus the give and take, and thus a market where
price and terms must be reached by compromise on both sides.

Don't make me steal? Don't make me laugh.

