When I started making enough money to buy everything I was consuming, I put an end to my piracy habit for some time. I had Netflix, used Rhapsody (then Spotify), bought season passes on iTunes (I used iPlayer a couple times but being in the US I had to use Tor to get around the region filter to watch a Louis Theroux documentaries, I guess that's "piracy").
I stopped when I realized that while I could afford it, all of these services were inferior to the ones I was used to. I will gladly pay for a product that is better than its free counterpart. I will even pay for a product that I could pirate, but I will not pay more to watch ads and listen to music on only a limited number of DRM-supported devices.
I was in the movie theatre three weeks ago and paid almost 10€ for the ticket only to be forced to watch - I kid you not - 30 minutes of commercials + another 20 minutes of movie trailers before the movie even started. And when you reserve a ticket, you are forced to be there 30 minutes before the movie begins, otherwise they released the seats.
That was a waste of 50+30 minutes of my time, which was more than half of the entire movie. And I even paid 10 freaking bucks for it.
This was the moment when I realized that I probably won't go to a movie theater more than once a year from now on.
This doesn't mean that I now will go on and pirate the movie. There's still iTunes and I don't need to see a movie on release day, but it was a great example for how companies mess up the user experience.
The irony is that some theaters show something like a self-commercial with the saying "Cinema - that's what movies are made for".
Disclaimer: This happened in Germany. The movie-watching experience in the US was way better to me. No commercials, only a few trailers.
You should find a smaller cinema then. In my experience only huge ventures like Cinestar can afford to behave so badly to their customers, whereas independent cinemas have excellent service (and sometimes are even cheaper!).
Same thing here in Austria. They cancelled most of the 2D features, leaving only ~10€ 3D movies - which I don't like, because the screen seems to be too dark as to compensate for the polarization filter of the glasses. Also, a small bottle of soda costs 3,40€ at the vending machine.
Yup! And that's why comparing digital piracy with car theft is also equally silly.
Note, I don't have a hard stance on this. Counterfeiting drugs, etc. is wrong for obvious reasons. Coming up with a similar argument for entertainment media is a bit less tenable.
When the MPAA and RIAA cede the moral high ground by acting like idiots (suing 12-year olds, pushing for high criminal charges, SOPA/PIPA, etc.), it makes it more difficult to make a moral argument for the industry.
The everything free argument is crap. But given that I pay for songs on iTunes but pirate TV shows because Derp Studios refuses to put it anywhere online, the user case is valid.
The article talks about generic drugs, which are off-patent drugs, and completely okay.
Problem with counter-feit drugs is the usual quality checks aren't present. This can lead to ineffective or even harmful drugs that patients take while thinking they are getting the real thing.
I was comparing the laws of theft. It's just the law that a copyright owner can ask whatever for it. When you obtain a copy without flowing this rule it is called theft.
So I think the discussion should be about the copyright law. Not about "I think this service sucks so I will get an illegal copy".
Don't get me wrong. I think it's absurd that you can get a penalty of $10.000 for downloading a MP3. I think the copyright rules should change.
But I think it's silly to fight a law by disobeying it. It will give the MPAA good ground to say "see they are pirates".
Laws aren't absolute; they are, when properly written, the codification of social mores. Presently, copyright law conflates copying with theft, you are correct in this. But I think the meta-debate surrounding the issue is whether this assumption is correct; it is thus circular to cite the law as one's defence.
"I think it's silly to fight a law by disobeying it"
I agree with the sentiment that this should not be a first response. But if the intent is to deprive the studios of revenue while sticking a finger to them with the intention of encouraging them to back down, then it is a valid strategy (with precedence). Given the radicalisation of the MPAA, however, I don't see that as being likely.
So I agree with you in practice, but diverge in principle.
Not yet, but the technology is rapidly improving. With the right equipment (3d scanner, 3d printer), you can copy basic items at home today. It is only a matter of time.
With the right technology, why wouldn't you copy a car? A car only has value because of its inherit scarcity. If you could copy a car, it wouldn't be worth anything (aside from the cost of materials required to perform the copy).
I stopped when I realized that while I could afford it, all of these services were inferior to the ones I was used to. I will gladly pay for a product that is better than its free counterpart. I will even pay for a product that I could pirate, but I will not pay more to watch ads and listen to music on only a limited number of DRM-supported devices.