Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ATV and piracy

Wow. Ok. So it's ok to steal from companies? You do realize that companies are made up of people? People who have families to care for and such. And most of them are not exactly making a lot of money in the industry. So your "stand" against companies is really a stand against the people who work in those industries. Shouldn't they deserve to be paid for their work?

You argue by comparison with taking a pen home, etc. Yes, those things either break ordinances or are stealing, too. It varies by degree but I'll call the spade a spade. The laws in the US on ripping a DVD are not as clear as you seem to imply when it's for your own backups or personal use.

I certainly haven't found the pirates and thieves to be more trustworthy than the average person. But that may be because I associate myself with genuinely honest and trustworthy people thus skewing the comparison.

So maybe you should consider helping out your fellow human beings who work to create and market and distribute the things you're taking.
 
Two quick points

The entertainment industry is much more of an oligopoly than perfect competition from an economic poit of view.

I have friends that torrent crappy avi versions of their children's DVDs that they actually own. That's bc on an older MacBook, it's faster to torrent than use handbrake, without discussing the legal grey area.

Bonus points:

The digital copy that comes with DVDs cost more than the standard DVD package, at least the last I checked.
The digital copy with Blu-Rays is only SD, not 1080 or 720, so that's useless VS ripping Blu-Ray to a 720 iPad and AppleTV version.

I looked at getting the entire series of "The West Wing" on iTunes and Amazon.
The historical low sale price of the amazon version has been at least 50% saving over the iTunes version that never goes on sale.

I don't plan on ripping 40+ DVDs to have the Amazon discount but I'm not paying twice as much for the iTunes version that is restricted. Also, the 720 iTunes version is $100 more than their standard def, making it 3x as expensive as the Amazon low sale price.

So I am willing to spend the money, if I'm not retsricted so much, otherwise I'm not buying, meaning not buying or getting a 50GB torrent for free.

Every way is a pita
 
I agree that piracy is too easy and that the entertainment industry are also helping it with their high prices although in the UK Blu-rays come out at £17.99 online and sometimes they go even further down and you get the 'Price Guarantee' so you could get them for as low as £8 on release day :eek: (rare but it still happens).

Personally I only buy Blu-rays once they have gone down in price but if they are Pixars and have Slip covers I am all over them release day to pay RRP :D
 
If you're poor, why buy an Apple TV? Why not use a cable from your computer? Free Hulu!

Oh and blu-rays can be cheap if you wait, or know where to shop and look for coupons. I pulled Up and Monster's Inc for $12 FOR BOTH. Just got lucky that a bunch of coupons added up along with some price matching.
 
This is a good thread... and I congratulate you on the move towards less piracy.

I have never had a problem paying for content I truly want. My family was in the music business, and I know first hand what music royalties meant to our family growing up. Now, I'm in the publishing business, and its what feeds my family. While I know piracy is out there and that some will never be curbed or convinced to pay for anything, I also know the value of putting out a good product and culling a loyal audience. I think the major labels and movie studios have their touch on the 1-to-1 relationship with their customers. People no longer idolize the studios or labels - they idolize their artists and actors. Even in publishing, the larger imprints have lost their individual luster, its more about the authors.

Do your best to support those companies you respect. If they're making content you appreciate, please support them.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

nwcs said:
Wow. Ok. So it's ok to steal from companies? You do realize that companies are made up of people? People who have families to care for and such. And most of them are not exactly making a lot of money in the industry. So your "stand" against companies is really a stand against the people who work in those industries. Shouldn't they deserve to be paid for their work?

You argue by comparison with taking a pen home, etc. Yes, those things either break ordinances or are stealing, too. It varies by degree but I'll call the spade a spade. The laws in the US on ripping a DVD are not as clear as you seem to imply when it's for your own backups or personal use.

I certainly haven't found the pirates and thieves to be more trustworthy than the average person. But that may be because I associate myself with genuinely honest and trustworthy people thus skewing the comparison.

So maybe you should consider helping out your fellow human beings who work to create and market and distribute the things you're taking.
Click to expand...

Is breaking into Pixar labs and stealing Toy Story the same as making a copy for my kids?

Hmm weird.

Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.
 
Sparky9292 said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)



Is breaking into Pixar labs and stealing Toy Story the same as making a copy for my kids?

Hmm weird.

Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.
Click to expand...

I wrote a book. If you photocopy it instead of buy it, I don't get paid. You are stealing from me. I worked damn hard puting it together and just because you might think the end product is expensive, it doesn't justify you stealing it.

There are plenty of real people who make their living from the entertainment industry, not just faceless corporations.
 
Just because copyright infringement isn't stealing doesn't mean it isn't wrong. It just means it isn't stealing.
 
SAIRUS said:
If you're poor, why buy an Apple TV? Why not use a cable from your computer? Free Hulu!
Click to expand...

We tossed around the idea of getting a Mac Mini as a media center but 300-800 dollars for a media center vs. 99 bucks was a no brainer.

It's all about cutting the cord. We dropped cable because it's too expensive and we're not rich. 7.99 a month for Netflix streaming, YouTube offerings, and all the other ATV2 goodies seemed a pretty good deal as opposed to paying 80 bucks a month for 200 channels of nothing.

And I'm not saying I'm going to stop committing copyright infringement - just no more torrents, Icefilms, FastPassTV, stuff like that.

I'm still going to copy stuff from the local library onto my ATV2. I typically watch the movies before they're due back to the library, anyways, and frankly, it's easier to watch them through my computer than to be fiddling with stupid discs that get lost, scratched, etc., and also dealing with all the annoying unskippable previews/FBI warnings/etc.

Anyways, I don't consider this much different, qualitatively, than when I went to the library as a kid and rented CDs and tapes and copied them for my own collection.
 
peterjcat said:
Just because copyright infringement isn't stealing doesn't mean it isn't wrong. It just means it isn't stealing.
Click to expand...

So what makes copyright moral? If copyright laws that were in existence when I was a kid were still in effect today, Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck and the like would all be in the public domain. But because mega-corporations have Congress in their pockets they've stretched the duration of copyrights to ridiculous durations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

Sometimes copyright infringement isn't morally wrong. There's certainly room in my (admittedly maturing) moral compass for respecting intellectual property, but that respect goes both ways - they're has to be respect for the concept of public domain and fair use as well, and I think the latter has taken a beating over the years.
 
I don't mean that copyright infringement is morally wrong either -- I just think it's a discussion we should have using language that's accurate, it's complicated enough -- for the reasons you mention and more -- without muddying things further!
 
diminiko said:
I wrote a book. If you photocopy it instead of buy it, I don't get paid. You are stealing from me. I worked damn hard puting it together and just because you might think the end product is expensive, it doesn't justify you stealing it.

There are plenty of real people who make their living from the entertainment industry, not just faceless corporations.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say your example is stealing at all, more another copyright violation. The person isn't taking the physical copy of the book that is professionally printed and bound, on proper paper stock, that DID cost the publisher money to produce; they are taking an inferior copy that cannot be compared in quality to the original product. Which makes me ask - what about libraries? Sure, you'll get royalties from the library originally purchasing your book, but what about the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people that would end up borrowing your particular book? You wouldn't earn a single cent from them. Even though it will get returned, no doubt, they are still using your work that you worked your butt off to produce, yet in the end you are still not earning money from it despite this being through a legit source.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you - I definitely do. I just like playing devil's advocate at times to help with a discussion. :)
 
Ivan P said:
I wouldn't say your example is stealing at all, more another copyright violation. The person isn't taking the physical copy of the book that is professionally printed and bound, on proper paper stock, that DID cost the publisher money to produce; they are taking an inferior copy that cannot be compared in quality to the original product. Which makes me ask - what about libraries? Sure, you'll get royalties from the library originally purchasing your book, but what about the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people that would end up borrowing your particular book? You wouldn't earn a single cent from them. Even though it will get returned, no doubt, they are still using your work that you worked your butt off to produce, yet in the end you are still not earning money from it despite this being through a legit source.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you - I definitely do. I just like playing devil's advocate at times to help with a discussion. :)
Click to expand...

Your argument only works if the physical book was the thing people pay money for. It isn't. People pay for the content that gets fed into their mind and that's what you are stealing when you photocopy a book without paying for it. By the time a book gets to the library, the potential sales have dried up and it's made available to the rest of the people as a social service and to promote the author. Same with movies and music. You are stealing the art of creation. You are getting a unique experience without paying for all the effort and money it took to create it. Only people in the creative arts seem to understand this concept.
 
I work in the creative arts and I don't think "You are stealing the art of creation" makes any sense. Stealing is depriving someone of the thing stolen. Copyright infringement is breaching someone's statutory rights. There are good and important reasons to enforce copyright but it's only stealing if "stealing" means just about every illegal thing.

To my mind copyright infringement is most like trespass. I build a bridge over a river, which takes time and effort. Thanks to the law of trespass I am legally entitled to choose who goes over the bridge and how much to charge them. I choose to charge $10. Some kids sneak over in the middle of the night without paying. Have they really stolen from me? If so, what have they stolen? $10? What if I chose to charge $10,000? Does that mean every kid has stolen $10,000 from me? I would say no, that doesn't make sense. They've breached my rights, but anything they've stolen is so abstract that it can't really be called stealing. Again, if everyone snuck over the bridge without paying then nobody would build any bridges, so these things should be enforced (though with exceptions). But I don't think it helps anyone to call things what they're not.
 
peterjcat said:
I work in the creative arts and I don't think "You are stealing the art of creation" makes any sense. Stealing is depriving someone of the thing stolen. Copyright infringement is breaching someone's statutory rights. There are good and important reasons to enforce copyright but it's only stealing if "stealing" means just about every illegal thing.
Click to expand...

Stealing is taking something of value without giving that value in return. Crossing your bridge has value because, presumably, it saves the person travel time. They should pay for that convenience and kids stealing that convenience hurts not only the bridge builder but those people who actually pay for the convenience because if the bridge builder doesn't make their money back quickly enough because of too much stealing, the toll will probably go up. You are having trouble distinguishing between extrinsic value and intrinsic value. You are selling convenience, not a bridge. They are stealing convenience value and breaking the social covenant to not screw up things for everyone else, not stealing your bridge.

Copyright infringement is taking something from someone and claiming the right to use it as if you own the rights to it. A person could buy the movie legitimately and then charge people to watch it in their house instead of a movie theater to make money off it, which would not benefit the studio. People who steal movies aren't saying they have the right to own the movie because they created it. They are saying "I'm too cheap to buy this movie but think it's valuable to have so I'm just going to take it and the people who created it are SOL." Same as any petty thief. When they give it to all their friends when they have no right to distribute it, that could be called copyright infringement.
 
Well, obviously I'm not selling the bridge. I'm selling access to the bridge. Just as a studio is selling the right to watch a movie. I agree that the bridge builder should be compensated and that people who sneak across the bridge are acting counter to my rights, breaking the law and maybe even the social covenant too. I just don't think they're stealing, because in the end I don't agree with this:

Stealing is taking something of value without giving that value in return.
Click to expand...

Maybe every instance of stealing involves taking something of value etc, but not every instance of taking something of value without giving that value in return is stealing. If it were, then we wouldn't even need copyright law, since theft has always been against the common law. Maybe not much turns on the distinction, but I do get annoyed by the "You wouldn't steal a car" campaigns when stealing real property and "stealing" "convenience value" are qualitatively and in many cases morally different.
 
peterjcat said:
Well, obviously I'm not selling the bridge. I'm selling access to the bridge. Just as a studio is selling the right to watch a movie. I agree that the bridge builder should be compensated and that people who sneak across the bridge are acting counter to my rights, breaking the law and maybe even the social covenant too. I just don't think they're stealing, because in the end I don't agree with this:



Maybe every instance of stealing involves taking something of value etc, but not every instance of taking something of value without giving that value in return is stealing. If it were, then we wouldn't even need copyright law, since theft has always been against the common law. Maybe not much turns on the distinction, but I do get annoyed by the "You wouldn't steal a car" campaigns when stealing real property and "stealing" "convenience value" are qualitatively and in many cases morally different.
Click to expand...

I don't see any moral difference. Valuable is valuable. By your logic, anyone who creates something valuable that isn't a physical entity can't expect to be paid for their work and investment. Anything they create can be stolen by other people and they have nothing to cry about. I'd love to know what creative industry you're in that would be ok with working hard, investing money and not getting paid in the end. Are you a starving artist and happy with that? You don't seem to value things that can't be touched and that's sad. Many valuable products are nothing more than experiences and they have value that should be protected.
 
peterjcat said:
Maybe every instance of stealing involves taking something of value etc, but not every instance of taking something of value without giving that value in return is stealing. If it were, then we wouldn't even need copyright law, since theft has always been against the common law. Maybe not much turns on the distinction, but I do get annoyed by the "You wouldn't steal a car" campaigns when stealing real property and "stealing" "convenience value" are qualitatively and in many cases morally different.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said that every instance of taking something required value in return. But in this case it is. The producer is selling a product to a consumer through legal channels where specific values have been firmly established. By circumventing these legal channels, you are stealing. Physical property has nothing to do with it.

Copyright laws are necessary for completely different reasons. They are there to regulate what you can do with said property once you've obtained it legally.
 
my 2 cents worth

For what it is it is.. I would say laws need to agree all over the globe ....

ya right. like that is gonna happen.

I must admit, i've been "on the dark side" for quite a while, only to give up on the whole idea and moved over to the "greener side of the grass"

The idea of piracy and all is still a thing i keep in mind, but then you hear that little voice inside ya head that says "well... u spent a load of cash of ya house, or ya car." "Why wouldn't ya spend a mere $30 odd"

Still... that may be a good. (set a good example for the kiddies)

Then again, what happens when they get older ?

I would go for Netflix as a legal source if i lived in the US.... Even though there are ways get there outside (I'm not about to tell people how), it would be limited to streaming on computer... And as for pricing here in Australia, they charge "per move/show" as we all wanna make money... Where as Netflix charged per mouth for unlimited. They have the right idea

Having said that Netflik doesn't really have the movies i'm after, yet still good.

I suppose, whichever way you look at piracy, there is a fine line.. Do it, if you must, but know the consequences.

No different than crime now a days when you think about it :)
 
laurim said:
I don't see any moral difference. Valuable is valuable. By your logic, anyone who creates something valuable that isn't a physical entity can't expect to be paid for their work and investment. Anything they create can be stolen by other people and they have nothing to cry about. I'd love to know what creative industry you're in that would be ok with working hard, investing money and not getting paid in the end. Are you a starving artist and happy with that? You don't seem to value things that can't be touched and that's sad. Many valuable products are nothing more than experiences and they have value that should be protected.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that at all. I agree that many valuable, non-physical entities should be protected. I'm glad there are copyright laws and I rely on them. All I'm saying is that breach of copyright laws is different from theft as theft has been understood from time immemorial. Theft is depriving someone of the thing stolen, NOT having an experience without having paid what the controller of that experience would like you to pay for it. There are plenty of things that may be illegal and/or immoral but aren't theft. Copyright infringement is one of them. It's useful to have different words for things that are different.
 
handsome pete said:
Copyright laws are necessary for completely different reasons. They are there to regulate what you can do with said property once you've obtained it legally.
Click to expand...

This part is true. I should have said that we wouldn't need copyright laws to create a separate offence of copyright infringement if copyright infringement was theft. We would only need copyright laws to provide exceptions to the general principle that stealing is illegal: eg, stealing is not illegal if you're doing it for the purposes of parody, etc.
 
peterjcat said:
I'm not saying that at all. I agree that many valuable, non-physical entities should be protected. I'm glad there are copyright laws and I rely on them. All I'm saying is that breach of copyright laws is different from theft as theft has been understood from time immemorial. Theft is depriving someone of the thing stolen, NOT having an experience without having paid what the controller of that experience would like you to pay for it. There are plenty of things that may be illegal and/or immoral but aren't theft. Copyright infringement is one of them. It's useful to have different words for things that are different.
Click to expand...

You've twisted your mind to justify your stealing. period. Become an adult and pay for your entertainment like the rest of us decent, mature people. If you can't afford a $5 movie (or a $1 movie from Redbox for chrissake), don't watch it. Go to the library and check a movie out. Go to a friend's house who owns the movie and watch it there. We're not talking about people starving here. Piracy is one of those things kids do, like illegally drinking until you puke on yourself or taking people's hood ornaments. If you're still doing it after 21, it's just pathetic.

steal (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.
4. To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.
5. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
6. Baseball To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
 
Last edited:
peterjcat said:
I'm not saying that at all. I agree that many valuable, non-physical entities should be protected. I'm glad there are copyright laws and I rely on them. All I'm saying is that breach of copyright laws is different from theft as theft has been understood from time immemorial. Theft is depriving someone of the thing stolen, NOT having an experience without having paid what the controller of that experience would like you to pay for it. There are plenty of things that may be illegal and/or immoral but aren't theft. Copyright infringement is one of them. It's useful to have different words for things that are different.
Click to expand...

I think you're still missing the point.

Downloading a movie, song, book, etc. through illegal means is stealing. It's no different than walking into a Best Buy and walking out with the DVD an not paying for it. Tangibility of the product has nothing to do with it.

Distributing that file through peer to peer sharing is a form of copyright infringement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back