Louis Rossmann And Piracy

[Naraxus]

Rossmann has a number of videos attempting to justify piracy and it has me wondering, IS piracy ever justified? It's certainly illegal which makes me curious as to why Youtube hasn't shut down his account when he advocates, and actively encourages, illegal activities such as piracy, but it it justifiable? I doubt any reasoning would hold up to scrutiny in a court but does he make a good point when he says that when companies make decisions like the one in the embedded video, then piracy is fully ok?

 

[Pakaku]

People resort to piracy when the corps don't offer easier ways to get it, don't offer the best version available, or if they even still sell it at all. Most people will take the legal route when it's convenient. So... how can piracy become unjustifiable when there are fewer and fewer good legal options.

 

[l.a.rossmann]

Everyone has a different definition of what is, and is not, right and wrong here. I don't think I've ever met a person who can agree on them all. Tell me where you are - from 1-15, a moral hierarchy of piracy.

1. I paid for physical media. The physical media has degraded, I did not back it up, and I cannot replace it as it is no longer for sale, so I grab a pirated copy.
2. I paid for physical media. The physical media has degraded, I did not back it up. I can buy the media again, I just don't want so since I already paid for it, so I grab a pirated copy.
3. I paid for digital media, I didn't back it up, it has been accidentally erased. I can't buy the media again since it is no longer for sale, so I grab a pirated copy.
4. I paid for digital media, I didn't back it up, it has been accidentally erased. I can buy it again as it is still for sale, I just don't want to since I already paid for it once, so I grab a pirated copy.
5. I PURCHASED digital media, where the commonly understood definition of PURCHASE in the United States by a layperson and 99% of all customers at this time is I OWN it, now & ever, and it... magically doesn't work anymore. Because in the world we live in now, everything connects to the internet & has the ability to stop working if someone on the other end of that connection says so.
6. I was using a streaming service advertised to me based on X content being available, but X content was removed from that streaming service. I paid for this service under the idea that what was advertised to me, was going to be available to me, and they will not refund me my money to use with another streaming service that now has exclusive rights to that content. Since I budgeted Y dollars to view this content, and paid the asking price of Y dollars to view this content, and cannot get that back, I do not wish to spend Y dollars again at another service for the same content: so I grab a pirated copy.
7. I rented digital media, and am mad that things are sold as rentals, so I got a pirated copy.
8. The media I paid for provided me with an upsell to a higher resolution/quality content that was not available to me because of restrictive DRM that requires I have a computer with a specific processor model, even though my processor is powerful enough to decode this 4k media at 100x. There was no notification on the upsell screen of this, or very tiny fine print at the end of a giant ass EULA they realize no one will read. Since I paid full price to the rights holder & content owner for 4k content, and they gave me 720p anyway unless I jump through bs hoops & buy a new PC, I will find a pirated copy.
9. I wish to pay for the media, but it is only available with restrictive DRM online that is unacceptable to me, or in a horribly low birate in contrast to the physical media. I could buy it without restrictive DRM & rip my own copy, but this means waiting a week for it to arrive in the mail. I buy the physical media so that I have paid for the content, but then find a pirated copy so that I do not have to wait for it to physically get here to view it.
10. I wish to pay for the media, but it is only available with restrictive DRM online that is unacceptable to me, or in a horribly low birate in contrast to the physical media I could buy it without restrictive DRM & rip my own copy, but this means waiting a week for it to arrive in the mail. I decide to NOT buy the physical media, NOT support the rightsholders & content owners that made the investments to make that content possible, and find a pirated copy.
11. I wish to pay for the media, but there is no way for me to do so because the media is region locked and they will not accept my money for the media, so I pirate the media. This typically only occurs with creators so large you will 99% of the time not find a personal donation page, paypal button, patreon etc. for them at this point, so compensating the content creator at this point without knowing a physical address to mail a check to that is monitored by them is damn near impossible.
12. I wish to support the content creator directly, but not all of those "evil" middlemen and "evil corporations" that want money. I donate to the content creator directly, and get a pirated copy.
13. I say I wish to support the content creator directly, but not all of those "evil" middlemen and "evil corporations" that want money. I say that very little of what you pay goes to the content creator and use that as an excuse to justify not paying anyone involved in the creation of art, software, or media that I love - and I NEVER donate to the content creator directly! I grab a pirated copy.
14. I say that restrictive DRM is the reason I pirate, but then go out of my way to continue pirating even when content is offered with no form of DRM, in a format of my liking. I continue to pirate, without ever donating to the content creator.
15. I don't even pretend to give a crap about the content creator or the process, I just want free ****. I don't believe in ever paying for the value I have received from content creators of any type, and I will use every excuse in the book to justify my freeloading behavior, regardless of what the software, movie, television, gaming, or music landscape looks like with regards to options for online purchasing, DRM, etc.

Many people who will say that piracy is completely justified will make this argument without really specifying where they are on this hierarchy - and I do believe it is a hierarchy. 1, 2, and 3 are massively different than 13, 14, and 15 in both their subjective morality as well as their impact on the economy, creators, and society.
Where are you?

 

[fanboy-ish]

Is piracy justifiable? I wouldn't say that, what I think is that sometimes people are "pushed" towards piracy, for example when content is region-locked, or when people are forced to subscribe to multiple services, when the legal way of accessing content is less convenient - in terms of easiness - than piracy.

And, I'd factor the economy in, piracy is growing again, in times when everything is more expensive, people will cancel their subscriptions and go back to piracy.

 

[madeirabhoy]

People resort to piracy when the corps don't offer easier ways to get it, don't offer the best version available, or if they even still sell it at all. Most people will take the legal route when it's convenient. So... how can piracy become unjustifiable when there are fewer and fewer good legal options.

this is it imho. Dont get me wrong, some people pirate because they would always pirate, just as many people would never pirate, and for some, cost is an issue.

However piracy becomes mainstream when pirating provides a better service. Often in practice the pirater spends as much money or almost as much as they would but get much more for it rather than saving money.

Lots of examples in the past. Recording vinyl onto cassettes that you could put into your walkman.

Who had a nintendo Wii and didnt jailbreak it? it wasnt about saving money, it was about the novelty of it being a game exploit, plus being able to fill a hard drive with games and select them from a menu rather having boxes of (mainly crap) games. The cost of the hard drive was the cost of few games and it made it make sense to pay your isp a bit more for faster internet, but there was no wasteage on buying any of the games that turned out to be really rubbish as many third party Wii games were.

Similarly Sony PSP, memory sticks with 4 or more games on them rather than pockets of cartridges, and again avoiding wasting money on the fair amount of games that werent up to their billing.

IPTV now, far higher usage among football fans because it gives every game. A celtic fan in the UK would have to pay for sky sports for league games, Viaplay for cup games, TNT for european games, and would still get less than half the games. IPTV gets them all.

 

[floral]

I don't think piracy is always justified (I try my best to pay when the creator is clearly struggling/independent) but for popular/mainstream stuff? I'm getting it for free.

 

[winxmac]

Region-locking and exclusivity are additional reasons... Even if connecting through a VPN helps, if the content is only available on a certain streaming service, piracy allows access to the restricted/region-locked content...

 

[icanhazmac]

People resort to piracy when the corps don't offer easier ways to get it, don't offer the best version available, or if they even still sell it at all. Most people will take the legal route when it's convenient. So... how can piracy become unjustifiable when there are fewer and fewer good legal options.

I would challenge this a bit and offer this... one reason people resort to piracy because they are lazy and feel entitled to convenience.

Every time MR reports a streaming service has increased prices members come out in droves crying about how the service is "no longer worth it". While "worth it" is completely subjective, I feel they mean it is not worth it to keep the subscription going 24/7 along with all the other services.

People are lazy. They complain about cable being >$200/mo but then they want Netflx, Hulu, Paramount, Disney, Prime, etc. etc. all at the same time and want to complain about the combined price.

Even if every steaming service was $50/mo, I challenge people to claim that it is not worth it if you are binging content, one service at a time. In my home we keep Hulu as the constant and then rotate the other services 1 at a time, sub, binge, unsub, rinse and repeat. The exception of course is Prime as that is tied to your Amazon membership.

IMHO, all of the major streaming services provide a good cost/content ratio when viewed standalone but you have a hard time justifying this when you have them all at the same time.

Reason 2 is they are tech savvy and have found out HOW to pirate. Just like the napster days, not everyone could figure out how to download music and burn a CD, especially one that acted like a retail CD versus just a burned collection of MP3s. The tech oriented folks had a field day. This speaks to your point about how most will legally purchase if it is more convenient.

 

[AlmightyKang]

You wouldn't steal a car.

Well I would if I could copy it this easily!

 

[Naraxus]

Everyone has a different definition of what is, and is not, right and wrong here. I don't think I've ever met a person who can agree on them all. Tell me where you are - from 1-15, a moral hierarchy of piracy.

1. I paid for physical media. The physical media has degraded, I did not back it up, and I cannot replace it as it is no longer for sale, so I grab a pirated copy.
2. I paid for physical media. The physical media has degraded, I did not back it up. I can buy the media again, I just don't want so since I already paid for it, so I grab a pirated copy.
3. I paid for digital media, I didn't back it up, it has been accidentally erased. I can't buy the media again since it is no longer for sale, so I grab a pirated copy.
4. I paid for digital media, I didn't back it up, it has been accidentally erased. I can buy it again as it is still for sale, I just don't want to since I already paid for it once, so I grab a pirated copy.
5. I PURCHASED digital media, where the commonly understood definition of PURCHASE in the United States by a layperson and 99% of all customers at this time is I OWN it, now & ever, and it... magically doesn't work anymore. Because in the world we live in now, everything connects to the internet & has the ability to stop working if someone on the other end of that connection says so.
6. I was using a streaming service advertised to me based on X content being available, but X content was removed from that streaming service. I paid for this service under the idea that what was advertised to me, was going to be available to me, and they will not refund me my money to use with another streaming service that now has exclusive rights to that content. Since I budgeted Y dollars to view this content, and paid the asking price of Y dollars to view this content, and cannot get that back, I do not wish to spend Y dollars again at another service for the same content: so I grab a pirated copy.
7. I rented digital media, and am mad that things are sold as rentals, so I got a pirated copy.
8. The media I paid for provided me with an upsell to a higher resolution/quality content that was not available to me because of restrictive DRM that requires I have a computer with a specific processor model, even though my processor is powerful enough to decode this 4k media at 100x. There was no notification on the upsell screen of this, or very tiny fine print at the end of a giant ass EULA they realize no one will read. Since I paid full price to the rights holder & content owner for 4k content, and they gave me 720p anyway unless I jump through bs hoops & buy a new PC, I will find a pirated copy.
9. I wish to pay for the media, but it is only available with restrictive DRM online that is unacceptable to me, or in a horribly low birate in contrast to the physical media. I could buy it without restrictive DRM & rip my own copy, but this means waiting a week for it to arrive in the mail. I buy the physical media so that I have paid for the content, but then find a pirated copy so that I do not have to wait for it to physically get here to view it.
10. I wish to pay for the media, but it is only available with restrictive DRM online that is unacceptable to me, or in a horribly low birate in contrast to the physical media I could buy it without restrictive DRM & rip my own copy, but this means waiting a week for it to arrive in the mail. I decide to NOT buy the physical media, NOT support the rightsholders & content owners that made the investments to make that content possible, and find a pirated copy.
11. I wish to pay for the media, but there is no way for me to do so because the media is region locked and they will not accept my money for the media, so I pirate the media. This typically only occurs with creators so large you will 99% of the time not find a personal donation page, paypal button, patreon etc. for them at this point, so compensating the content creator at this point without knowing a physical address to mail a check to that is monitored by them is damn near impossible.
12. I wish to support the content creator directly, but not all of those "evil" middlemen and "evil corporations" that want money. I donate to the content creator directly, and get a pirated copy.
13. I say I wish to support the content creator directly, but not all of those "evil" middlemen and "evil corporations" that want money. I say that very little of what you pay goes to the content creator and use that as an excuse to justify not paying anyone involved in the creation of art, software, or media that I love - and I NEVER donate to the content creator directly! I grab a pirated copy.
14. I say that restrictive DRM is the reason I pirate, but then go out of my way to continue pirating even when content is offered with no form of DRM, in a format of my liking. I continue to pirate, without ever donating to the content creator.
15. I don't even pretend to give a crap about the content creator or the process, I just want free ****. I don't believe in ever paying for the value I have received from content creators of any type, and I will use every excuse in the book to justify my freeloading behavior, regardless of what the software, movie, television, gaming, or music landscape looks like with regards to options for online purchasing, DRM, etc.

Many people who will say that piracy is completely justified will make this argument without really specifying where they are on this hierarchy - and I do believe it is a hierarchy. 1, 2, and 3 are massively different than 13, 14, and 15 in both their subjective morality as well as their impact on the economy, creators, and society.
Where are you?

For me, I don't stream my media, games, books and I rarely buy digital goods mainly because it's far too easy for for companies to yank the the purchased product out from under me. It's happened with a couple apps I used to use but they weren't something I sunk money into so their loss wasn't really a big deal to me. Plus I'm an old fart who prefers physical media as opposed to digital.

To those with large digital libraries such as music or movies, if you don't back up your stuff and one day you lose access to it, it sucks certainly, but that's entirely your fault, not the seller or provider of said goods. Does your negligence and failure to back up your digital items then give you a justification to resort to piracy to recover said goods? I would argue not. You know you should back things up. You're told constantly to back things up and when your failure to do so comes back to bite you in the ass, that doesn't give you carte blanche to go torrent all those missing movies, songs, tv shows or programs to get them back.

The same goes for streaming media. If you pay for a certain tier or level of quality and you don't get what you paid for does that entitle you to commit theft? Again, no it doesn't. You file complaints with the service, the BBB or if it really escalates, your State's Attorney General for redress.

I suppose this is a rather long way of me saying that while I appreciate your perspective on the matter, piracy is never justifiable.

 

[Zest28]

Rossmann has a number of videos attempting to justify piracy and it has me wondering, IS piracy ever justified? It's certainly illegal which makes me curious as to why Youtube hasn't shut down his account when he advocates, and actively encourages, illegal activities such as piracy, but it it justifiable? I doubt any reasoning would hold up to scrutiny in a court but does he make a good point when he says that when companies make decisions like the one in the embedded video, then piracy is fully ok?

Yes, it is justified. People just want to pay for Netflix and have all their content on this one subscription. When studios become greedy and remove their content from Netflix to start their own streaming service, screw them. They get what they deserve.

These days, people don't pirate music anymore. Why? Because you don't need to have a subscription for every gaddamn music label who have each their own streaming services, like what we have with movies and TV shows.

 

[Naraxus]

Yes, it is justified. People just want to pay for Netflix and have all their content on this one subscription. When studios become greedy and remove their content from Netflix to start their own streaming service, screw them. They get what they deserve.

These days, people don't pirate music anymore. Why? Because you don't need to have a subscription for every gaddamn music label who have each their own streaming services, like what we have with movies and TV shows.

So even though studios are not charities and can start their own streaming service if they wish, you consider it "greedy" of them to do so and because it's an inconvenience to you, therefore deem it perfectly ok to commit a felony?

 

[turbineseaplane]

With digital copies of things, it’s not nearly as binary as some make it out to be.

That’s why the “you wouldn’t steal a car” reference makes no sense here

Everyone has to live in a zone they are personally comfortable with.

 

[turbineseaplane]

So even though studios are not charities and can start their own streaming service if they wish, you consider it "greedy" of them to do so and because it's an inconvenience to you, therefore deem it perfectly ok to commit a felony?

Just be careful on the moral high ground here.

A LOT of lobbying money has gone into creating, reinforcing and maintaining rather ridiculous IP laws that often are really out of step with how things have evolved and are particularly one sided and favoring those with power and money who did the lobbying.

 

[Zest28]

So even though studios are not charities and can start their own streaming service if they wish, you consider it "greedy" of them to do so and because it's an inconvenience to you, therefore deem it perfectly ok to commit a felony?

Yes, it is greedy. You don't see specific cinema's in your city that only air Disney movies do you? Only with streaming services you have these crazy anti-consumer crap happening.

Disney shouldn't be crying because they created this problem themselves when they left Netflix. You do anti-consumer practises, don't start crying if people pirate your ****.

And as I said, nobody pirates music these days, because it is consumer friendly. That is how you fight piracy.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Everyone has a different definition of what is, and is not, right and wrong here. I don't think I've ever met a person who can agree on them all. Tell me where you are - from 1-15, a moral hierarchy of piracy.

1. I paid for physical media. The physical media has degraded, I did not back it up, and I cannot replace it as it is no longer for sale, so I grab a pirated copy.
2. I paid for physical media. The physical media has degraded, I did not back it up. I can buy the media again, I just don't want so since I already paid for it, so I grab a pirated copy.
3. I paid for digital media, I didn't back it up, it has been accidentally erased. I can't buy the media again since it is no longer for sale, so I grab a pirated copy.
4. I paid for digital media, I didn't back it up, it has been accidentally erased. I can buy it again as it is still for sale, I just don't want to since I already paid for it once, so I grab a pirated copy.
5. I PURCHASED digital media, where the commonly understood definition of PURCHASE in the United States by a layperson and 99% of all customers at this time is I OWN it, now & ever, and it... magically doesn't work anymore. Because in the world we live in now, everything connects to the internet & has the ability to stop working if someone on the other end of that connection says so.
6. I was using a streaming service advertised to me based on X content being available, but X content was removed from that streaming service. I paid for this service under the idea that what was advertised to me, was going to be available to me, and they will not refund me my money to use with another streaming service that now has exclusive rights to that content. Since I budgeted Y dollars to view this content, and paid the asking price of Y dollars to view this content, and cannot get that back, I do not wish to spend Y dollars again at another service for the same content: so I grab a pirated copy.
7. I rented digital media, and am mad that things are sold as rentals, so I got a pirated copy.
8. The media I paid for provided me with an upsell to a higher resolution/quality content that was not available to me because of restrictive DRM that requires I have a computer with a specific processor model, even though my processor is powerful enough to decode this 4k media at 100x. There was no notification on the upsell screen of this, or very tiny fine print at the end of a giant ass EULA they realize no one will read. Since I paid full price to the rights holder & content owner for 4k content, and they gave me 720p anyway unless I jump through bs hoops & buy a new PC, I will find a pirated copy.
9. I wish to pay for the media, but it is only available with restrictive DRM online that is unacceptable to me, or in a horribly low birate in contrast to the physical media. I could buy it without restrictive DRM & rip my own copy, but this means waiting a week for it to arrive in the mail. I buy the physical media so that I have paid for the content, but then find a pirated copy so that I do not have to wait for it to physically get here to view it.
10. I wish to pay for the media, but it is only available with restrictive DRM online that is unacceptable to me, or in a horribly low birate in contrast to the physical media I could buy it without restrictive DRM & rip my own copy, but this means waiting a week for it to arrive in the mail. I decide to NOT buy the physical media, NOT support the rightsholders & content owners that made the investments to make that content possible, and find a pirated copy.
11. I wish to pay for the media, but there is no way for me to do so because the media is region locked and they will not accept my money for the media, so I pirate the media. This typically only occurs with creators so large you will 99% of the time not find a personal donation page, paypal button, patreon etc. for them at this point, so compensating the content creator at this point without knowing a physical address to mail a check to that is monitored by them is damn near impossible.
12. I wish to support the content creator directly, but not all of those "evil" middlemen and "evil corporations" that want money. I donate to the content creator directly, and get a pirated copy.
13. I say I wish to support the content creator directly, but not all of those "evil" middlemen and "evil corporations" that want money. I say that very little of what you pay goes to the content creator and use that as an excuse to justify not paying anyone involved in the creation of art, software, or media that I love - and I NEVER donate to the content creator directly! I grab a pirated copy.
14. I say that restrictive DRM is the reason I pirate, but then go out of my way to continue pirating even when content is offered with no form of DRM, in a format of my liking. I continue to pirate, without ever donating to the content creator.
15. I don't even pretend to give a crap about the content creator or the process, I just want free ****. I don't believe in ever paying for the value I have received from content creators of any type, and I will use every excuse in the book to justify my freeloading behavior, regardless of what the software, movie, television, gaming, or music landscape looks like with regards to options for online purchasing, DRM, etc.

Many people who will say that piracy is completely justified will make this argument without really specifying where they are on this hierarchy - and I do believe it is a hierarchy. 1, 2, and 3 are massively different than 13, 14, and 15 in both their subjective morality as well as their impact on the economy, creators, and society.
Where are you?

An excellent, well argued, thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

 

[theluggage]

People are lazy. They complain about cable being >$200/mo but then they want Netflx, Hulu, Paramount, Disney, Prime, etc. etc. all at the same time and want to complain about the combined price.

The problem is that it is not a static situation: streaming has offered something and then taken it away. When streaming started, you could get maybe two of the big-name streaming services at $10/month or less each and have a choice of high-quality, ad-free materials from all the major studios that rivalled that $200 cable package. Now that streaming has more-or-less killed cable, surprise surprise, those prices are ramping up (or the old price points now have adverts and ad-free is premium) and every studio has started their own $10/mo streaming service for their new shows, and are gradually reclaiming their back-catalogues as contracts with the old-school streamers expire. Yes, the solution is to subscribe-binge-unsubscribe (they make their money from people who can't be bothered) but if enough people start doing that we'll soon start seeing minimum contract terms (or even higher prices for month-to-month) and other tricks (we're already seeing less shows released as whole seasons, and even the re-emergence of the mid-season hiatus to keep you subscribed).

Copyright violation isn't right (someone has to pay to create the content) but it shouldn't be theft (even if rent-a-legislator says otherwise). We are outraged by theft because it causes tangible loss: if I steal your car, your beef is that you have to walk to work, not that GM have lost a potential sale. The "losses" that media producers claim to suffer are grossly inflated based on the fantasy that every pirated copy is a lost, full-price sale. Any loss involved in "piracy" is purely notional, very hard to measure and should be a civil/contractual matter, not criminal - at least not for individual violators.

 

[theluggage]

Yes, it is greedy. You don't see specific cinema's in your city that only air Disney movies do you?

Disney: "Hold my beer!"
(I say "beer" but its probably Bud Lite...)

 

[laptech]

In my opinion the OP is being a bit flippant with how they have worded their post because Rossmann's argument regarding piracy in the video is totally different to that of peoples perception of piracy. In the video, Rossmann's argument is very specific in that it is in relation to those that legitimately own something but companies preventing them from using it. That is why the Reason software example given in the video is a very good example. Reason 7 works perfectly offline and it will continue to work fine even to this day. It does not need a constant connection to the internet for it to work but this is where planned obsolescence comes in to play because if there was ever to be a hardware crash, even though the person owns a physical version of the software, the software requires access to the software companies servers for the owner to re-register the software so they can be up and running again but the company has stopped the servers thus the software fails to register ergo the software cannot be used. Way to many companies use this approach to force owners of old products and software to purchase the latest versions.

I've seen this principle first hand in manufacturing. Many production machines and other machine types can last for years but what takes them down is when the software running them goes faulty and the company who built the machine say's the software that run's the machine is no longer supported or if the company has the software, they cannot install it because it needs online registration and the registration servers are no longer available, thus a new machine with supported software will have to be purchased. I've seen software controlled conveyor belt systems, automatic pick and placement machines, robotic controlled machines, test equipment (mainly radio comms test equipment), software controlled heating systems with the list going on and on, all having to be ripped out and replaced because the software controlling them went buggy and the software is no longer available or the machine is no longer supported and note, this being that ALL the machines still being fully functional except for the faulty/buggy software.

When people legitimately own the hardware and have purchased the software to go with it, there is a level of expectation that because they own it, they should be able to reinstall the software without any hassle but that has not been the case for many many years and has been slowly getting worse year in year out where now owners of stuff are told they only own a 'license' to the item they have purchased and because they are no longer classed as the 'owner', they no longer have the right to a life time of continued use.

The underhanded business practices of companies/businesses in the way they manage their software products forcing software owners to purchase new is what is causing the piracy that Rossmann is specifically talking about.

 

[Sanmi]

I don’t think OP expected this thread to turn out like this

Probably expected bashing Louis because he’s always at loggerheads with Apple

Thanks for the comments guys
Gives me hope that MacRumors comments aren’t a monolith

 

[Sanmi]

In my opinion the OP is being a bit flippant with how they have worded their post because Rossmann's argument regarding piracy in the video is totally different to that of peoples perception of piracy. In the video, Rossmann's argument is very specific in that it is in relation to those that legitimately own something but companies preventing them from using it. That is why the Reason software example given in the video is a very good example. Reason 7 works perfectly offline and it will continue to work fine even to this day. It does not need a constant connection to the internet for it to work but this is where planned obsolescence comes in to play because if there was ever to be a hardware crash, even though the person owns a physical version of the software, the software requires access to the software companies servers for the owner to re-register the software so they can be up and running again but the company has stopped the servers thus the software fails to register ergo the software cannot be used. Way to many companies use this approach to force owners of old products and software to purchase the latest versions.

I've seen this principle first hand in manufacturing. Many production machines and other machine types can last for years but what takes them down is when the software running them goes faulty and the company who built the machine say's the software that run's the machine is no longer supported or if the company has the software, they cannot install it because it needs online registration and the registration servers are no longer available, thus a new machine with supported software will have to be purchased. I've seen software controlled conveyor belt systems, automatic pick and placement machines, robotic controlled machines, test equipment (mainly radio comms test equipment), software controlled heating systems with the list going on and on, all having to be ripped out and replaced because the software controlling them went buggy and the software is no longer available or the machine is no longer supported and note, this being that ALL the machines still being fully functional except for the faulty/buggy software.

When people legitimately own the hardware and have purchased the software to go with it, there is a level of expectation that because they own it, they should be able to reinstall the software without any hassle but that has not been the case for many many years and has been slowly getting worse year in year out where now owners of stuff are told they only own a 'license' to the item they have purchased and because they are no longer classed as the 'owner', they no longer have the right to a life time of continued use.

The underhanded business practices of companies/businesses in the way they manage their software products forcing software owners to purchase new is what is causing the piracy that Rossmann is specifically talking about.

I think op really wanted people to bash Rossman but the opposite is happening 😅

 

[icanhazmac]

streaming has offered something and then taken it away

Now that streaming has more-or-less killed cable, surprise surprise, those prices are ramping up (or the old price points now have adverts and ad-free is premium)

I don't see increased prices as something that has been taken away, it is just a progression. All prices have gone up, the streaming providers are not special in this regard. Would you say an auto manufacturer has taken something away because the base model for a 2023 vehicle is higher than the 2015 model?

Yes, the solution is to subscribe-binge-unsubscribe (they make their money from people who can't be bothered) but if enough people start doing that we'll soon start seeing minimum contract terms (or even higher prices for month-to-month) and other tricks (we're already seeing less shows released as whole seasons, and even the re-emergence of the mid-season hiatus to keep you subscribed).

Agreed, if everyone begins "sub, binge, cancel" we will probably see higher per month fees but I still say that if any of the major services charge $50/mo it would still be worth it if your household is binging the content versus watching 2-3 shows a week amongst 10 different services which is the bundled cable model. I also agree that content creators will start to do things that encourage you to stay sub'd, like no longer dropping entire seasons and mid season hiatus, etc. It is a never ending game between consumers and corps.

Copyright violation isn't right (someone has to pay to create the content) but it shouldn't be theft

I disagree, it should be theft. Someone paid to create the content, they deserve to receive compensation. Funny thing is I have caught people that pirate also being in favor of the writers strike, so they want creators paid... they just don't want to be the ones that pay them.

The "losses" that media producers claim to suffer are grossly inflated based on the fantasy that every pirated copy is a lost, full-price sale.

I disagree with this as well, how is it a fantasy?. If someone wants to see a movie the only "legal" way to see it is to purchase the right to view it, at the going rate. When someone pirates that movie the creator is denied the going rate for their content, I do not feel that is grossly inflated.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

A fascinating read, and a most interesting thread, unexpectedly so.

 

[avz]

I don't even pretend to give a crap about the content creator or the process, I just want free ****. I don't believe in ever paying for the value I have received from content creators of any type, and I will use every excuse in the book to justify my freeloading behavior, regardless of what the software, movie, television, gaming, or music landscape looks like with regards to options for online purchasing, DRM, etc.

Ironically the Psych Majors will probably say that this is by far the most healthiest attitude to have and live by.

"...or else you'll go a sorry one while choking on their lies."

 

[theluggage]

I don't see increased prices as something that has been taken away, it is just a progression. All prices have gone up, the streaming providers are not special in this regard.

Except the prices have been above inflation - Netflix "standard" no-adds subscription in the UK, for example, has gone up 83% since 2014. Inflation since then has been 32%. Amazon Prime are talking about ads on their standard service, and adding a premium to retain ad-free. That's just price - as to value, Amazon have already moved a bunch of shows from Prime to their free, ad-supported service, taking value away from Prime. Both Prime and Netflix have lost a lot of shows to Disney+, Paramount+ etc. - which will probably get worse once contracts on back-catalogue stuff run out - again taking away value from the product. So, to take some popular examples, new Star Trek stuff used to turn up either on Netflix or Prime - now new stuff is only on Paramount+ (and the back-catalogue stuff will probably follow it once contracts expire). Netflix produced a bunch of Marvel TV shows - now moved to Disney+. Amazon (roughly) bought MGM, but most of the MGM shows ended up on an optional extra subscription channel... The value of these services is not improving.

I disagree, it should be theft.

Yeah, in the same way that littering should be arson because if enough people dropped litter it could cause a fire... You don't have to think that one of them is acceptable to see that they're not the same thing.

Calling digital copyright infringement "theft" is applying a concept from the physical world to a digital context where it doesn't even make sense. That doesn't mean you have to condone it - just get it in the right perspective and understand what the real damage is. (And, remember, it was the media industry that came up with the "you wouldn't steal a car" slogan).

The problem is that calling it "theft" is a way to over-dramatise the problem and rationalise a disproportionate reaction.

I disagree with this as well, how is it a fantasy?

Because lots of people will happily grab something if they are offered it for free, far fewer will pay money for it (see International Journal of the Blinkin' Obvious)... and then, just because some people have seen it for free, it doesn't mean that they won't pay for it again later if you offer them an attractive product.

Any physical good has a significant "marginal cost" - essentially the cost of making/collecting/mining each additional "thing" after you've paid to design the product, built the factory/mine, plough the field, whatever. From a producer's POV if someone steals a physical good, you've lost at least that amount (without hypothesising what you might have sold it for). Even if you're getting money from legitimate sales, if you find that for every item you sell, 10 are getting stolen then the marginal cost of making those 10 stolen items can still break you.

For a digital artefact that marginal cost is either zero (the original copy was ripped from a disk or subscription that someone had paid for) or pennies in the pound (maybe someone hacked your server & accounted for a smidgin of your infrastructure costs). Now, that doesn't make it ok to violate copyright - but it is not going to wipe out any profit you make from actual sales, even if there are 100 pirated copies for every legitimate copy, most of those 10 pirates only grabbed it because it was free and it didn't lose you a penny. If that wasn't true, todays software industry - which grew from Mon's-basement operations to the biggest corporations in the world at a time when copying was rife and there was little or no DRM - wouldn't exist. What matters with digital media is how many copies/subscriptions you sell, not how many pirates there are. The entire open-source software industry, which actually embraced the post-scarcity economics of digital media, succeeded despite 99.9% users of "free" software just being takers who never contribute to the support and development of the software.

Unfortunately, it is so tempting for producers to believe that those pirate copies represent a fortune in lost sales, which you could take to the bank if you could only invent some sort of infallible DRM that stopped pirates without inconveniencing legitimate users - in reality, that usually works the other way round and degrades the product for legitimate users, is quickly circumvented by the pirates (not that they were going to buy legit copies anyway) and ends up making the pirate version more attractive.

Just to repeat - for the avoidance of doubt - I'm not condoning piracy, people should pay for the content they use (and I've made money selling content in the past) but the problem is the exaggeration of its impact and the collateral damage done by ham-fisted, OTT enforcement. The past has proven that legitimate services - like iTunes, Spotify and the original studio-agnostic streaming services are the best way of keeping piracy at non-problematic levels.

(As for the streaming services - their main problem is that they saw huge growth during the pandemic and their shareholders somehow expect that growth to continue now the cause has been largely removed... especially with the other impact of the pandemic, followed by strikes, making sexy new content a bit thin on the ground... but it is much more shareholder friendly to blame piracy)