Is it less ethical than corporations lead by "the man" that refuses to use new technology for fear of not being able to wring every drop of profit out of people?
Look at staggered releases of Movie/DVD/rentals/redbox and the fake scarcity to protect profits.
I know companies need profit... but on the same time, if it really is THAT easy to get movies to people - then it's time for a shakeup that moves the industry forward.
MP3s and napster led to iTunes and other avenues to get music easily AND "Support the Artist".
Maybe we'll get better options out this - other than Netflix (Which I love, but damn it doesn't have a lot of titles) or pick-your-flavor digital locker that may or may not exist next year?
Movies and music are a luxury item, not an essential. So it is very difficult to construct an ethical argument that supports piracy of newly released works, as there is basically negligible harm to the consumer in not receiving such items for free.
(Compare this to, for example, patents on medical products being used to induce scarcity. The stakes here are life and death - so there is a strong ethical case in favour of ignoring the patents to produce cheaper generic products so they can be supplied to those who would otherwise be unable to pay. As has been done with certain drugs in the developing world.)
I never said that we should receive them for free. Re-read my post. Slowly.
Look at MP3s, Napster and iTunes. The Music industry refused to offer digital alternatives leading to Napster. It was(/is) easier to get music for free. Why would I buy a CD with a rootkit on it (look up Sony Fiasco #87), or pay $15 for a CD when I only want one song? Why go to the store when I can get it sitting at home?
It was easier to get for free, and the industry suffered for not giving customers what they wanted.
Now we have iTunes/Amazon/etc and I can buy a CD OR just a single song! Or I can subscribe to Pandora/LastFM/etc to get music other ways.
I get to support the artists I like with ease! EVEN THOUGH I can get it "for free". It's not a BURDER to support my music entertainment "needs" and I have multiple options.
Now... compare that to Movies where they make fake scarcity by forcing a release cycle that basically forces people to pay multiple times. Movie. Followed by DVD. Followed by DVD Ultimate Edition. Followed by Red Box. etc... (not to mention DRM and other restrictions). Followed by broken availability (This only available on Netflix... that only on Amazon... Hulu... Disney... blah blah bleh)
There is no reason they can't do Movie followed by general release. Rentals on the same day as DVD release. Available in multiple places easily.
Or do you honestly believe there is a good reason for a months long delay forced on Red Box (or similar) before they can start renting a DVD? AFTER Months long delays to get to DVD?
> I never said that we should receive them for free. Re-read my post. Slowly.
There is no need for such a condescending tone.
Anyway, I don't see how a staggered movie release cycle can be considered unethical. It's not causing you any real harm by having to wait until the film is released on your preferred medium. This is a very poor justification for software such as Popcorn Time.
> There is no reason they can't do Movie followed by general release. Rentals on the same day as DVD release. Available in multiple places easily.
Sure there is, and the reason is that the various streaming and rental services throw lots of money at them (and the physical rental services were doing this before streaming was even an issue) to get exclusivity, and the movie producers are profit-maximizing industries.
And the same thing happens: It's more difficult to get "legally" (DRM, channels, "months" until available in my area/format, etc)? Easier options will keep popping up.
I'm sure plenty of money got thrown around then, as well as now... but if the CUSTOMERS aren't given good options? Then they'll go for 'other' options...
Same thing happened with Music until reasonable options appeared.
Same situation for intrusive DRM on Games like always-on-connections (Hello Sims), CD/DVD checks, nanny software, etc...
When it's easier for pirates - AND they have a better customer experience? Something is wrong and the market will fight back.
History ignored is a history doomed to repeat itself.
It depends what they are sharing. Sharing copyrighted works without the authorization of the copyright holder is the common definition of piracy. In which case, how is it unethical (as you say) to equate the two?
Because "piracy" is a slur that equates sharing to attacking ships and stealing cargo and threatening or even killing people.
The implication in copyright-infringement = piracy is that when you share something, you are an aggressor actively attacking the copyright holder. It's complete garbage and shouldn't be tolerated. Sharing is the complete opposite motivation from stealing. We want to encourage sharing and oppose stealing. Trying to equate them is ludicrous.
Of all the things to be incensed by on this topic, the fact that words have more than one definition (with the copyright infringement meaning going back to at least the 18th century[1] - it's not a recent derivation) has got to be the most bizarre. I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not.
