I think Andy is missing the point of the Oatmeal comic. It's not that people want the content right then and there. That's a minor part in the larger picture: acquiring content illegally is a better experience than acquiring it legally.
Let's say I purchased season one on bluray, and just as I was coming home from the store my friend gave me a thumb drive with the torrented files on it. I wouldn't even open the shrink wrap. If the bluray disc gets scratched, I no longer have access to my content; I can back up the files on the thumb drive though. If I want to watch an episode, I have to sit through commercials on the bluray that I purchased; I can watch them immediately off the thumb drive though. If I want to project using a vga cable, I may run into content protection issues; the files on the thumb drive will work just fine though.
It's not a matter of cost or wait time. It's that torrent networks provide a better, faster, easier, more portable, and simpler experience than the legal way.
People get too hung up on small points in this discussion -- "it'll be out in 3 weeks, that's not very long" or whatever -- and miss the larger picture. The larger picture is that there are a lot of unnecessary barriers between consumers and content they're willing to pay for.
Torrents are straightforward, they work right the first time, and they continue to work. Whereas some providers/distributors seem intent on processes that are slow, convoluted, annoying, frustrating, and that might eventually not even deliver the desired content (say, in the language of choice.)
Which is a typical way of reversing the argument. The whole point of copyright and the free market is to do exactly that: to have as the end result consumers that can get what they want at an affordable price whilst allowing the original creators to make a living.
Copyright violation is not "sin" like theft, respecting it depends entirely on actually making it work. If copyright is the only thing that actually stands in the way of that, it is being abused.
To paraphrase the author: The world doesn't OWE the copyright owners enforcement at any cost. If you can't distribute it under your 100% terms, you have the free-and-clear option of not publishing it at all.
Basically that just comes back to not wanting to face reality. One can go complain about lame people are that can't wait 3 weeks for the official release on iTunes, complain how lame it is that someone demands the content on their terms, etc.
Reality is still that HBO is simply taking away the incentive to purchase the product. Right or wrong, that's the end result. So do they want to continue complaining, or actually try to make more sales? (And I'm sure HBO is aware of the tradeoffs, and feels like protecting their current model is more important than a few more digital sales. That might be a correct assessment, for now.)
The parent is right that pirating content and not paying for it is not morally defensible if you believe that intellectual property has value.
You are correct that people often do immoral things. A refusal to believe that people often do things which violate their own moral code is a denial of fundamental human nature.
A smart distributor will say, "if we make barriers too high to easily own this content piracy rates will rise" while a smart pirate would say, "my actions are morally wrong but I don't care because it benefits me."
HN comments are IP. If everyone you upvoted asked you to pay $20 for the value they provided, would you?
We all get value for free; life would be impossible if we didn't. So either you're like Andrew Joseph Galambos, who changed his name to not infringe on his father's, and who put a coin in a box every time he used the word "liberty" (to pay its supposed inventor, Thomas Paine), or your position is inconsistent and ad-hoc.
A pirate is no worse for a creator than someone who simply abstains from the content. So in my opinion, either the two are wrong or none of them is.
(Note to everyone else: ad-hominem trolls will be ignored)
The point he's missing is that we're in a global village. If your friends watch it, you'll know what happens because they will talk about it. Maybe you won't care, maybe you will enjoy it a little bit less with no suspense - depends on how social if your typical series watching.
I don't see anything wrong with the approach though. Noone's saying that people won't buy the series on netflix once it's finally available. Although we know how likely that is...
And how terrible a world it was when people mingled and watched TV at their friends houses -- reducing, NO STEALING, profits from the HBO...
I am a giant theif, I take so much revenue from companies all the time, I need someone to sue the shit out of me for the following (to teach me a lesson and put me in my place):
* I loan out my $1000 worth of rototillers to friends all the time, the manufacturers and rental agencies are losing piles of revenue from me.
* I let people use my truck, and/or help them move things regularly. That is dozens of car purchases or rentals
* I help my family and friends with computer issues and build them free websites occasionally -- dirty dirty hippy crap, poor companies are losing service calls all the time.
* I cook meals from my garden, and invite people over to eat with me, grocers and restauranteurs probably should lynch me for denying their revenue.
Stupid sharing and human kindness. Obviously we are just a bad, evil species.
It's not a matter of cost or wait time. It's that torrent networks provide a better, faster, easier, more portable, and simpler experience than the legal way.