> But it still remains that piracy is absolutely rampant on the internet.
I don't understand why that is inherently a bad thing. It seems to me that it just indicates the current business model is not working.
I pirate a fair amount of content, and to be honest I think I'm justified in doing so. There is currently no legal way to watch television shows in high quality without commercials on the night they come out. If everything was on Netflix or Amazon Instant Video, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat, and I do pay for a lot of shows.
But as it stands the studios want to cling on to their antiquated broadcast model, and I don't think it is the government's job to protect that.
Suppose (for hypothetical example) that Warner contracts with its distributors not to stream a "Batman" movie until it's been in theaters for a month.
That contract is not unlawful, nor is it immoral. It is not the government's job to block such contracts by declaring it lawful for you to pirate new stuff just because otherwise you would have to pay the theater or wait to see it.
Warner has rights to call the shots on how the "Batman" movie is distributed - in that limited sense they "own" it.
This is the polar opposite of ridiculous "download a car" arguments. I certainly think that public domain should kick in far earlier, that the media industry isn't in real trouble, that RIAA's tactics have made it a sort of copyright secret police against downloaders, etc. but you do not have a special right to pirate the latest thing just because it isn't going to be released fast enough for you unless you pay a premium.
> you do not have a special right to pirate the latest thing just because it isn't going to be released fast enough for you unless you pay a premium.
I am completely willing to pay a premium. There is currently no amount of money I can pay to watch (for example) the new Mission Impossible at home legally.
They do not have full rights to dictate how that film is distributed. This was Sussex out in the early 20th century, when Hollywood studios dictated which theaters could purchase rights to show their films.
Studios have to, by law, distribute their films to any theater willing to purchase the right to display their films. And they can't price it differently depending on which theater chain is purchasing the right to display.
For more on the fight between Hollywood and theaters, read 'The Master Switch.' I'm mobile or I'd link.
Why the same provision isn't extended to digital streaming yet........
I don't think it is a stretch to imagine a perfectly reasonable system of morals where "denying segments of the population access to modern culture" could be considered an immoral act.
This is such a distorted viewpoint. You're complaining that you can't watch a high quality stream of a television show, without ads no less, on the day it comes out. I think there are worst things in life.
Just as much as it's not the government's job to protect an antiquated model, it's also not your job to take the model into your own hands as you see fit. You didn't create that content and have no right to deem how it is distributed.
If studios want to cling to an antiquated model and lose, that's their choice to make. Hopefully other content providers will wake up and continue delivering content in the way consumers want it, where we all win. But people who pirate are making that decision for them, which is total crap.
So, if someone sells some item, but not in the format you desire, their rights (of intellectual property or physical property) should be abrogated?
Suppose you go to a store wanting a six-pack of beer, but they only have 24-count cases. Should you have the legal right to open a case, grab six bottles and walk out of the store without paying? Or should the store be required to sell six bottles, or one bottle, at a time? What price should they be required to charge you?
I don't understand why that is inherently a bad thing. It seems to me that it just indicates the current business model is not working.
I pirate a fair amount of content, and to be honest I think I'm justified in doing so. There is currently no legal way to watch television shows in high quality without commercials on the night they come out. If everything was on Netflix or Amazon Instant Video, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat, and I do pay for a lot of shows.
But as it stands the studios want to cling on to their antiquated broadcast model, and I don't think it is the government's job to protect that.