[JoeAltmaier]

I know this: the subject is complex and many varied and valid arguments are made on all sides.

But amazingly, folks accept whatever argument gives them free entertainment. Objections are suddenly 'irrelevant' when watching their favorite TV show is at stake.

Folks who wouldn't go in the back window of a bar to avoid the cover charge, will gladly go in the back way online to hear their favorite band. And they rely on the (pretty indirect) argument about how the source is generated to rationalize it.

Pardon me for my cynicism.

[Fogest]

Well if the front door was inconvenient and hard to find, and then I paid for it and the front door wouldn't work, then yeah maybe I would go in the back window. Your argument is so flawed, and it really seems like with your comment above that you just are looking for a reason to call the younger generation "entitled".

Stop using physical examples, they don't correlate to a digital good that can be duplicated digitally, with no physical presence.

[JoeAltmaier]

They got a refund. Then pirated.

I understand they were frustrated in their efforts to be entertained. Then took what they wanted. Which is pretty much the definition of 'entitled'

Everything is pretty much physical in the real world. Like the physical time and effort folks make to provide services and market them.

[pmoriarty]

"Then took what they wanted."

The word "took" when applied to physical objects implies that only one person (the one who took it) has that object, and the one it was taken from no longer has it.

In the digital world that can only happen if the original is deleted or destroyed, which does not happen in the case of a copy or a "pirating". The original is still in the possession of the "owner", but now also in the possession of the copier. The "owner" does not lose his own copy, so nothing is "taken" from him.

It's analogous, in the physical world, to making a photograph of a photograph. The original photograph still exists, and the "owner" of the original photograph does not have anything "taken" from them by the existence of a copy in the possession of someone else (except perhaps in the legal or potential sense -- depending on the laws, the jurisdiction, and the interpretation of those laws -- but certainly not in any kind of physical sense).

[Fogest]

I like your photocopying example. I have personally used the library on my school campus to sign out some temporary textbooks they have on hold so that I can take a couple pictures of pages I need, and use those for my classes. Is the publisher losing anything? No, because I was never going to go pay $200 so I could read a couple pages from their textbook.

[Fogest]

Yes, they got a refund because they wasted their time to get nothing. Absolutely nothing. They actually were at a loss because they wasted time and got nothing but frustration for it. So yeah, I don't see a reason why they are not entitled to it.

What does the time and effort required matter in anyway in this case? If something is copied, it is copied. They can't lose something they didn't have. If I could clone a car and then I took that cloned car is it still the same as stealing the original car? No, if a friend cloned me their car I don't see how you could even come close to saying it was the same as stealing the car.

Are they entitled to the entertainment? Sure, why not? If they tried to get it already why not. Not to mention in this day in age there is a lot more social pressure to be up to date with current hit tv shows and movies. And sure, you could be "that guy" who doesn't watch these things, but most don't want to be in that group.

So yes, if they tried to get it legally, and the legal system failed and wasted their time, I do see them entitled to try another avenue even if it may not be legal. I would not say the same about a physical item.

[tveita]

Why is the streaming services not the entitled ones in this scenario? According to you they should get payment when their sole contribution was wasting their want-to-be-customers' time.

[emerod]

This is no different from the situation during the US Prohibition era. Pragmatically speaking, the threat of punishment did not cause sufficient change in social behavior or attitudes. The ideal model of using law to manipulate society failed.