[chrischen]

This is particularly stupid because apparently the site only had links to copyright infringement.

This is just hollywood abusing their position to fight the advancement of tech and society simply because it disagrees with their business.

I do not believe there is anything inherently unethical about copyright infringement in pirating movies or tv shows. It's only technically illegal (and unethical in the sense that it's against the law) because copyright protections were put in artificially as a regulation to control for a certain outcome, like tariffs, taxes, or a dam. Hollywood simply won't admit the dam isn't working and trying to antagonize and criminalize those who go against the flow directed by regulation.

Calling pirating movies or tv shows unethical is only justifiable if pirating is akin to stealing in the physical sense, but it's not, and so it's not unethical. If someone were to project a copyrighted movie on to a giant wall, it's like saying all unauthorized onlookers are doing something unethical, when really it doesn't matter how many illegal onlookers there are as it won't affect the creator. If the content creator can't feed himself because everyone is "stealing" his work then he should a) find a new line of work or b) find a way to properly monetize it. Anything of value can be converted to money.

That being said I do think the content creators provide something valuable, and this should be protected. The issue here is that it's only going to get more expensive to enforce the current business models of content creators. The expense not only comes in the form of cost to gov't and the businesses themselves, but also in the form of DRM and other side effects of enforcement that really degrades the whole product chain. In the worst case scenario we never find a way to adequately support a film and tv industry. It's cultural benefits will be missed but we'll just shift our attention to something else. Life goes on. It's existence was probably arbitrary in the first place. Copyright laws didn't enable the TV & film industry. Enforceability of those laws did that, and the enforceability is eroding way whether they like it or not.

Summary: It's unethical to break the law (assuming the law was instated ethically), which, in theory, is a set of rules everyone agrees to play by. However pirating movies and tv shows is not inherently unethical as it is just an arbitrary law we put in place to control for an outcome. Linking to copyright infringement should be neither of these.

[henrikeh]

> It's unethical to break the law (assuming the law was instated ethically), which, in theory, is a set of rules everyone agrees to play by. However pirating movies and tv shows is not inherently unethical as it is just an arbitrary law we put in place to control for an outcome.

I can't following your reasoning on this. Is your point that copyright laws have been instated unethically?

Why does it matter that they are arbitrary if people generally agree that copyright is good?

> If the content creator can't feed himself because everyone is "stealing" his work then he should a) find a new line of work or b) find a way to properly monetize it

Seriously? So, if people choose to consume someone's work, yet avoid paying for it, then it's the content creators fault?

[chrischen]

> I can't following your reasoning on this. Is your point that copyright laws have been instated unethically?

No. My point is that copyright infringement is only wrong in the eyes of the law, and not wrong inherently. Since copyright infringement isn't inherently wrong, the law can be redefined to adjust to changing realities.

> Seriously? So, if people choose to consume someone's work, yet avoid paying for it, then it's the content creators fault?

It's no one's "fault" as there's nothing wrong with not having a movie/tv industry. Human attention and efforts would simply shift and focus on something else that may or may not be better than movies/tv. I could be on the other side of the universe, and having received a stray signal of copyrighted work and consumed it, it would not affect the original content creator one bit.

Again, the content creator simply shouldn't do it if it doesn't pay. Who told them to do whatever it was that they were doing in the first place? If there is no consumer compensation then why do it? Either find a way to get people to compensate you, or do something else.

Movies and tv, while a critical part of current American culture, isn't a necessity of life and is actually a relatively recent development. People who make movies/tv shows aren't entitled to their jobs and their way of making money just like how I'm not entitled to be able to make money by leaving freshly squeezed lemonade outside with a sign that says "pay for it pleeze" while I sit on my lazy ass in the living room watching tv. It's my fault for not figuring out a better way of monetizing my lemonade (if people steal it) even if it is technically illegal to steal that lemonade. Who says creative content has to be protected. The industry only came to being because it was technologically easy to protect copyright but that's clearly not the case anymore. The sad state of affairs now is for the industry to find a cheap way to protect their revenues, or abandon it. It's reality and there's nothing inherently wrong with not being able to monetize content by selling licenses to view it. There are many ways to monetize these things and copyright just happened to be the most convenient way for decades.

It would be illogical, perhaps unethical even, for me to want more of that content while not supporting it in any way. However there's a difference between paying simply because I consumed something and paying because I want more of something. If I consume something and do not wish any more content to be produced of that nature, then I should have the right to not support the content creator, as whether or not I pay for the content will have no repercussions on the content creator except as to enable him to continue producing. They are not entitled to take my money automatically just because of "consumption" unless it is defined by law (which I have explained can and should be changed). Not paying for content is the public's way of saying that they do not support content creators. Therefore content creators should just stop and do something else.

[henrikeh]

I think I see your point better now.

> It would be illogical, perhaps unethical even, for me to want more of that content while not supporting it in any way.

So what do you suggest instead? Instead of paying upfront, should the content production instead by shifted towards pay-as-you-like services? Micro-donations?

How would you make sure people paid for the content? A lot of people don't have the moral standard today to pay for music or movies they like and want more of - they copy because they can and it's cheaper.

(Your lemonade analogy is ridiculous though. stealing=/=copying, artist distributing music on iTunes=/=leaving lemonade in the open)

[chrischen]

> (Your lemonade analogy is ridiculous though. stealing=/=copying, artist distributing music on iTunes=/=leaving lemonade in the open)

I think you misunderstood that example. I wasn't comparing stealing lemonade to stealing music/movies/tv shows. I was trying to give an example of how you're not entitled to make money any way you want. Legally you have to pay for the lemonade, but that doesn't mean everyone will pay for it if I leave it out unattended. The only reason selling lemonade is viable is because it's easy to enforce payment by having someone at the lemonade stand.

[davidw]

I think he's suggesting simply foregoing anything that relies on "intellectual property", like movies, TV, books, studio music, software not as a service, and so on.

[rwallace]

Copyright laws, at least in their current form, most certainly have been instated unethically, specifically by the process of "lobbying," which nowadays is a euphemism for technically-legal bribery and corruption, a subversion of the democratic process.

[planetguy]

>This is particularly stupid because apparently the site only had links to copyright infringement

I'm not convinced that there's a difference, legally or ethically, though it would be interesting to see it play out in a court of law.

>I do not believe there is anything inherently unethical about copyright infringement in pirating movies or tv shows

Y'see, the problem is that following up a defence of "this isn't quite illegal" with a defence of "this shouldn't be illegal" tends to weaken both cases.

I'd listen to the opinions of internet-people on the subject of copyright a lot more often if they didn't always seem to boil down to "Anything that I personally think I should be allowed to get away with ought to be legal"

[chrischen]

I'm not providing advice on how that case should be argued. My rant on copyright is separate.

Also, I don't understand, what is it that you are accusing me of trying to get away with?

If you think it's unethical to pirate movies please tell me why.