Don't Make Me Steal

by caillou • 15 years ago

79 130 15 years ago

jefe782• 15 years ago

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

caillou2• 15 years ago

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?

jefe782• 15 years ago

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

aphyr• 15 years ago

Email address + gravatar.

marshray2• 15 years ago

How about just asking for a name and email like everything else?

meatsock• 15 years ago

fingerd

zaidf• 15 years ago

Typo:

Movies are delivered adds free.

caillou2• 15 years ago

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

kissickas• 15 years ago

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

defen2• 15 years ago

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.

krainboltgreene4• 15 years ago

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.

defen2• 15 years ago

Sorry, but it just sounds like entitled whining. No one has an inherent right to watch any movie, no matter how much they love them, and it's not a necessity.

markstansbury2• 15 years ago

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?

Goronmon• 15 years ago

This wouldn't matter as the companies in question will just count that as a "sale lost to piracy" regardless. They already assume that their profits should be going up every year. Do you really think they care that you are taking a moral stand when it benefits them to label you as a "pirate" as opposed to just a lost sale?

jacoblyles3• 15 years ago

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.

mike_esspe• 15 years ago

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

mattgreenrocks3• 15 years ago

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.

randallsquared2• 15 years ago

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

nlogn2• 15 years ago

Very true. Hacker News is not a community where second-rate grammar and spelling is the norm, however.

Also, I'm sure you can see how those who are copying/stealing/whatever you want to call it might wish to call it copying instead of stealing, as that implies a lesser moral judgment (deservedly imo).

Silhouette5• 15 years ago

Technically yes, but it is and always has been a shallow argument to claim that copyright infringement is not theft.

Of course it's not the same to duplicate information as it is to remove a physical item, but both are based on an artificial legal concept of property.

The natural state of things is indeed that I can copy any information coming my way, and copyright artificially restricts my right to do so in the eyes of the law.

Then again, the natural state of things is also that if you have a physical item and I want it, then if I am bigger than you/have a bigger gun than you/have more friends than you, then that item is now my possession and not yours, and theft-related statutes artificially restrict my right to take it in the eyes of the law.

In the end, copyright, like physical property, is an economic tool. Society gives it the force of law to make sure that people don't game the system unfairly. It makes no sense to debate that law, in either letter or spirit, without considering the economic implications of breaking it. Those implications are not zero just because information that already exists can be reproduced with near zero marginal cost and time overhead using modern technology.

jessriedel• 15 years ago

I don't want to get into a detailed argument here, but there are popular, consistent moral philosophies which hold that (1) physical property rights exist a priori to the state (Locke-style) and so are immoral to violate at all times, and (2) intellectual property rights are a social construction which only have moral import when defined by a legal framework and enforced by a reasonably just government.

In other words, many philosophers do draw a morally relevant distinction between these categories of rights.

kemiller2• 15 years ago

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

cgs1019• 15 years ago

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

kemiller2• 15 years ago

Ooops. Well, point remains. :)

rubidium• 15 years ago

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.

krainboltgreene4• 15 years ago

In the context of downloading movies not buying is the same as "stealing".

StavrosK• 15 years ago

Replace "stealing" with "watch it without paying".

markstansbury2• 15 years ago

In the context of going out to dinner not buying is the same as "stealing".

I think we can do this all day.

eli3• 15 years ago

We agree that authors of digital content deserve to get paid, right? Then it doesn't really matter what you call people who manage to avoid paying. This debate over semantics does not help advance the discussion.

citricsquid4• 15 years ago

"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.

kijinbear3• 15 years ago

> People aren't judged for stealing because it costs the store owner money, they're judged because it's immoral!

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. One could always ask: "Why is it immoral to steal?" and the answer usually revolves around how stealing deprives the owner of something he had a legitimate claim to, etc. etc. That's how our moral intuitions have evolved over thousands of years.

The fact that this age-old intuition no longer seems to apply online is exactly why piracy creates a moral conundrum. You can't resolve the conundrum by fiat. Copyright infringement is a different crime from stealing, and rightly so, because piracy has different moral and economic implications than stealing has.

jamesbritt2• 15 years ago

"but it's still taking something "

taking ? Or copying?

Something? 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.

pmiller2• 15 years ago

Re: immorality of theft.

I would counter that it isn't necessarily always morally wrong to steal. Suppose I need some medicine to survive and I have neither the money for it nor the ability to get the money legally. I would argue that since I will die if I don't get the medicine, it's then morally acceptable to either steal the money necessary to purchase it or to outright steal the medicine itself, provided doing so doesn't have the foreseeable consequence of putting the victim of my theft into a similar life-or-death situation.

Would you agree that in this one situation, theft can be morally justified? If not, then say there were 10, 100, or 1000 people in need of the medicine; is it OK to steal to get it then? If not, is there a particular N such that it's OK to steal to save N people? It's just not that simple, and saying "stealing is immoral" doesn't cut it (IMO) as an argument against piracy, even if you buy the argument that piracy == stealing.

cmars232• 15 years ago

Yeah, but I would download a loaf of organic bread if I could. And I'd copy that loaf whenever I needed more for a sandwich, and I'd upload that bread pattern to all my friends, and give away free slices to any hungry people I came across.

Post-scarcity is funny that way.

gaius3• 15 years ago

Because we're post-wheat-scarcity?

No seriously - we are not post-movie-scarcity because making a blockbuster costs a vast amount of money - and much of that is people's salaries, people not unlike you - and it's a risky business (e.g. Kevin Costner might be involved) and if that cost is not recouped... Well the industry is going to go only for safe bets (sequels/remakes).

It's like another thread on here at the moment, about it taking 5 minutes to upload a favicon. Sure, but that's not how much time it takes to get from scratch to actual deliverable.

eli3• 15 years ago

Sure, and if you ever create a film, feel free to release it under Creative Commons so that people can treat it that way. But not every content creator feels that way and you don't have the right to overrule them just because you can.

samstokes3• 15 years ago

The way the "manifesto" is worded does unfortunately reek of entitlement, but they do make a valid point. If you see their bullet points as rows in a product comparison table between legal movie distribution channels, most of them score badly on most of those points, whereas piracy ticks nearly all of them. (It would of course be a fairer comparison if there was a row for "is legal".)

They're making the point that legal movie distribution channels are worse products - by those criteria - than piracy. Put another way, there are other reasons for choosing to pirate a movie besides not wanting to pay for it. It's unrealistic to demand all of the things this manifesto does, but actually the sum of their demands doesn't seem like a bad ideal to aim for.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

Yes! Copying things without paying for them is in fact more consumer-friendly than any conceivable paid option.

bena7• 15 years ago

They've unfairly tipped the scales in favor of piracy though. That's why the entire thing reeks of entitlement and why no legal service satisfies their demands.

It's deliberate.

That and they provide no reasoning as to their points. They want the purchase price to not exceed the cinema price. But cinema price is dependent upon the area and theater, so it's not so easy to peg purchase to cinema.

That and why should the purchase price be pegged to the cinema price? A visit to the cinema is a one time event. A purchase entitles you to unlimited viewing. That's worth more to me.

Why should TV shows be 1/3 the price of movies? Most TV shows exceed the length of a film many times over. Yet we're supposed to pay less for more content?

They also want to dictate how movies are distributed. They want access to every movie ever made. Nothing gives you that except piracy. The cost for Netflix to do such a thing would be astronomical. And for that, these benevolent individuals are willing to bestow upon the providers of these services 3 movie tickets, or (by their other claims) the price of 3 films. Why? You have instant access to every movie ever made. Watching over 3 movies in a month using this service diminishes the price you are paying per movie. Watching a movie a day makes your movie watching habits cost 1/10 of a film using the service.

That and their filtering suggestions are stupid. Why should a third party service let you sort by IMDb ID? Why should they care what a movie's IMDb ID is?

This isn't a plea to studios to get them to change their "evil ways", it's a way for over-entitled douches to feel good about ripping people off.

If any of these were real concerns of pirates, movies out in theaters wouldn't be pirated.

rickmb• 15 years ago

A "good society" is a society where corporations can run a legal extortion racket by creating artificial scarcity of the cultural products of said society and take draconian measures to protect said racket based on outdated legislation that was originally intended to achieve exactly the opposite?

No, that's not a "good society". That is a sick and corrupt society.

jacoblyles3• 15 years ago

What if the owner offers you the bread? Isn't that what happens when someone offers to let me copy a file from their harddrive over the internet?

If you look back over my comment history, you will see that I have argued the other side of this issue too. That is because it is a hard problem that doesn't fit well with the moral intuitions that we developed for other kinds of property.

To make matters worse, US copyright laws are way more strict than most people's moral intuitions of what intellectual property should be like. Even if you think the author should have some right to the content they produced, few people think creative works should be locked up until 75 years after the author's death. I have downloaded books illegally from authors that died in the 70s and I feel no moral qualms about it.

buffalo476• 15 years ago

I agree, most people feel entitled to pirate, whatever the reason. But many times I have bought media, and it has been significantly more restrictive than a pirated copy.

To illustrate, I bought a bluray movie a few years ago, and put the digital copy on my computer. And since I had just purchased a new video mp3 player, I thought it would be cool to play the movie on there. It even worked great, that is until I accidentally deleted the movie from that device. Too bad the DRM on the digital copy would not let me make another. This was a legally purchased copy that was more restrictive than any pirated version.

Content creators are treating their customers like criminals first, sources of money second, and customers third. So yes, "don't make me steal" does have some arbitrary demands, but a lot of what they say just makes good business sense.

pavel_lishin• 15 years ago

Why is the most important point made last?

Seldaek3• 15 years ago

Because importance is subjective :)

drivebyacct24• 15 years ago

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.

Silhouette5• 15 years ago

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.

drivebyacct24• 15 years ago

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.

itg• 15 years ago

"There is NO legal alternative for me."

Yes there is. You choose not to use them because they are inconvenient. You are not entitled to dl a copy of the movie instead.

drivebyacct24• 15 years ago

Sigh, I am not interested in an argument.

I did NOT come here to justify my actions, piracy or to complain and nothing in my post can be construed as an attempt to do so. I came to point out that watching a movie, legally, in Linux is a complete disaster, to the point that it's not worth the hassle for me. I understand it's breaking the law. I'd rather break the law than go through the nightmare of obtaining the movie legally.

How am I supposed to watch "The Italian Job" legally in Linux? I'm listening, because I would happily pay for it rather than torrent it.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

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

philfreo• 15 years ago

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."

armandososa• 15 years ago

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"

flatline• 15 years ago

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

anatoli2• 15 years ago

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...

Seldaek3• 15 years ago

We did have people in the workshop that were quite knowledgeable in those areas, but we had to keep the text short to avoid most people just skipping over everything. This is bound to create inaccuracies. As for this point in particular, of course it is unreasonable as it is, legal issues would prevent most of this, but the point is to start a discussion. We also had folks from the European Union there that were really enthusiastic about hopefully getting a case to present to (or rather against) detractors.

The filter thing was because yes, some services do not presently allow you to search for all movies that are dubbed in language X. If you are trying to watch something with your kids, it is pretty annoying to have to look for a movie, then go in the language selection, then choose the language of your liking, and then at the end be told it's not available. It's basic UX imo, but if people don't do it right now, it's worth static.

eli3• 15 years ago

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.

anatoli2• 15 years ago

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.

protomyth• 15 years ago

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

nooneelse2• 15 years ago

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

btipling• 15 years ago

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...

theDoug• 15 years ago

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.

kmfrk• 15 years ago

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

Oh c'mon.

wazoox• 15 years ago

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

jonpaul• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

jacoblyles3• 15 years ago

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

or a bunch of redditors/chaners.

siglesias• 15 years ago

This should compel you not to steal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

dotBen• 15 years ago

"Movies are delivered adds free"

I closed the page at this point.

amalcon• 15 years ago

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.

bena7• 15 years ago

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.

mitcheme• 15 years ago

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.)

SoftwareMaven2• 15 years ago

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?

lotusleaf1987• 15 years ago

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...

bena7• 15 years ago

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.

rdouble• 15 years ago

Coppola bought his winery with the proceeds from The Godfather.

anonymoushn• 15 years ago

Fortunately it is impossible to steal non-rivalrous goods.

pyrmont2• 15 years ago

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

daniel02216• 15 years ago

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.

jacques_chester• 15 years ago

As a former classifieds phone operator, please note:

"ad free", not "adds free".

Please. I beg you.

mkramlich• 15 years ago

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.

ivankirigin• 15 years ago

  Digital Media Consumption Manifesto

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

Skroob• 15 years ago

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.

AppDev054• 15 years ago

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!

redthrowaway• 15 years ago

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.

Cadsby2• 15 years ago

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.

Don't Make Me Steal

Related Stories