Pirate Bay: Now imposible to destroy

[Sriad]

That's a bad thing, and ironically a reason more producers dont engage with digital distribution.

The reason more producers don't engage with digital distribution is that they're fucking morons who don't understand that any content whatsoever that is representable via 1s and 0s can be pirated fairly easily.

There are many examples of artists going over the heads of conventional distribution, greatly to their profit.

Louis CK's DRM free show that made over a million dollars, Radiohead's last several albums, a number of other artists too small to make the news--my last several records have been DRM free direct online purchases-- and more control heavy distribution methods like Steam, which makes buying games easier than pirating them.

What we see most clearly in both the real world and threads like these is that ineffectual enforcement of laws helps lead to contempt of the ideas those laws are supposed to encompass and the law in general. See prohibition/the war on drugs, tax evasion, obscenity, etc.

Obstinant content providers aren't at fault, but if they want to stay above water they need to adapt to the instant gratification environment. Even if I don't pirate their shit that's only available during piracy there's a pretty good chance that, unless it's something I'm already a fan of, I'll do one of the billion other interesting instantly available entertainment options and forget all about them.

[Lagmonster]

You don't have to know what you can and cannot do - you only have to know when you're being a dick.

I would agree it would be somewhat dickish but how bad is it? What magnitude of immorality are we talking here?

You're overcomplicating the issue. Either you respect the wishes of other people, or you don't. In cases where you don't, presumably your rationalization makes sense to you, but if both parties haven't agreed to it, you're being a dick. A few people have already pointed out that they don't mind breaking the Golden Rule in cases where they feel no measurable harm has been done. And that's between them and their conscience. I've ignored the golden rule for self gain before, no shit, we all have. But I try to acknowledge when I'm not showing the other person the respect that I'd want from them.

[Lagmonster]

We know their criteria - "paying customers". And in many cases, the people pirating have no real way of becoming "paying customers", for whatever reason. Despite the fact that it would be mutually beneficial to offer them a way to meet that criteria.

If they have no way of meeting the criteria, what entitles them to set their own?

Like in your previous scenario - the technical right to keep things that way is theirs. Their right to respect for their wishes, however, just plummeted.

Rights? Respecting the wishes of other people is something you choose to do in return for same. Try saying this phrase out loud: "If Timmy doesn't want me to read his diary, he has no right to expect me to respect his wishes". See how it sounds.

[Lagmonster]

But if they do, and you don't meet that criteria, it strikes me that the right thing to do is to voluntarily put your desires aside and opt the fuck out.

Hope you've never imported anything. There's a reason its not available in your country - you don't meet the "criteria".

Don't be an imbecile. I'm talking about the criteria for availability set by the person who created the thing, not of governments who restrict or control trade. If a creator wants you to have something, but can't get it to you due to outside factors (such as government trade restrictions), you're dealing with an entirely different issue.

[Lagmonster]

Do you ever think, "I should respect the wishes of other people if I expect them to respect mine."

Expecting everyone to be moral is kinda childish. The same greed that fuels the company's idiotic policies about selling their stuff is the greed that fuels the people pirating their stuff.

Expecting everyone to be moral is childish? Are you fucking kidding me? The Golden Rule is one of the first damn social lessons they teach kids in kindergarten, for fuck's sake. And no, I'm not ignorant to the fact that a lot of people will dissappoint you by acting like dicks. But that doesn't mean that YOU have to be a dick; you talk about the cycle of greed. It can stop somewhere - might as well be with you.

Look, I'm not arguing that downloading copies of songs or movies monetarily hurts anyone or even that it's that big a fucking transgression; but when you start snickering about how it's childish to expect people to display respectful, moral behaviour, I start to think that you've lost your fucking mind.

[Lagmonster]

So to use the hypothetical with Timmy and his diary, it does not apply to copyright for the following two reasons. First of all that is not the same as publishing. That is more similar to a private communique, and Timmy has a right to privacy. Second of all, Georgie may not make a copy, but he can give you his copy. Indeed, in the not impossible case that Timmy decided not to give you a copy because he was shitting all over your reputation, Georgie would be a dick not to tell you about it for precisely that reason.

You're overextending my analogy; I'm only saying that over matters of copy ownership of media entertainment, that it is morally wrong to decide that you can set the criteria on behalf of the creator of the work. Until you have permission, and especially if they've made it clear that you don't, opting out is - to me - the only morally correct choice.

[Faqa]

If they have no way of meeting the criteria, what entitles them to set their own?

The fact that they are in turn not being treated as though their wishes are of terrible importance?

And the world of difference is that they are potential customers of a product. The restriction is not personal, it's purely a matter of apathy.

Rights? Respecting the wishes of other people is something you choose to do in return for same. Try saying this phrase out loud: "If Timmy doesn't want me to read his diary, he has no right to expect me to respect his wishes". See how it sounds.

If we really want to go in that direction? As a potential customer, my wishes were disrespected first. I cannot expect my wishes to be respected by Timmy in the first place, that much is clear.

You'd be better off making the case that it is counter-productive to the market and indeed unethical to not pay for value received. And you'd be right, perhaps.

But simply taking the material, in and of itself, in the context of a digital file? I don't see an issue here.

That's a bad thing, and ironically a reason more producers dont engage with digital distribution.

Here's the thing - do you really think they'd give the customer what they want otherwise? Do you think we'd be seeing digital music files as such a huge marketplace were it not for Napster? Do you really think they wouldn't just try to lock their content into expensive physical formats for as long as possible?

They were never going to offer the product Bittorrent is providing on their own.

[someone_else]

you talk about the cycle of greed. It can stop somewhere - might as well be with you.

What I do has no effect on childish dicks that download pirated stuff.
I'm not saying that because an idiot does it I do it too, just that if you want to stop the phenomenon, assuming people becomes moral will not get you far.

but when you start snickering about how it's childish to expect people to display respectful, moral behaviour, I start to think that you've lost your fucking mind.

I keep what I said. Expecting everyone to not be a dick is completely unreasonable.
What the hell we have police and law and stuff otherwise huh? Because a significant (albeit not really huge) part of the population is a dick and won't comply to kind words and moral alone.