fox broadcasting hates you

[TPRJones]

But how does that give DISH the right to market a technology that allows customers of someone else's product to not pay for said product?

Clearly under our current laws they don't. There's no debate about that.

You are talking about what the law is. What the law is is completely outdated and irrelevant to our modern world and there's no point in discussing it. I'm talking about what should be.

The bottom line is thanks to modern technology I now have the freedom to enjoy my entertainment when and where and how I see fit. Whenever those preferences match up to what the content corporations are offering then I will happily watch it legally. When they do not I shamelessly pirate. I would be happy to pay to watch all of it legally in my preferred manner, but if they will not offer that option then I will steal it. They've made their choice, and I've made mine, and if they don't want my money then so be it.

[Leisher]

As i said earlier in this thread:

Please don't come back arguing how the networks need to hire Spielberg to direct commercials and make them interesting because that's not the issue, let alone reality.

And don't come back arguing about how networks need to change their business model. That's also not the issue at hand, despite the truth in it.

So you're way off topic, but I'll respond anyway. Just understand that I don't disagree with you that commercials are out of date, and nobody watches them. However, you need to understand that until the whole business embraces change, they're necessary to pay for the creation of the shows you watch.

Now onto the post...

I'll give a definition specific to TV here. What pays for a show is stupid suits thinking that renting time in a staggered fashion on other people's eyeballs is viable economics. When a commercial comes on, the response is:

1) flip to another channel (if live)
2) fast forward (if recorded)
3) refill the chips, take a piss, grab another round of drinks, etc.

Not to bust the secret out, but shit no one watches is not a viable economic model.

Actually, it seems to be working pretty well for them.

Is it stupid? Yes.
Do people watch commercials? More than you think, less than they claim. (You even watch them more than you think...)
Is this model out dated? Yes.
Are there better ways of doing this? Yes.

Again, none of which relate to the topic at hand. You should start a new thread called, "Why TV commercials are stupid, and how they should be done." (We could do a separate one on ads in magazines.)

Does any MMO piss you off every 10 minutes with by jacking your screen with a car insurance commercial? No.

You are actually incorrect here. Several MMO and F2P games have advertising. Not only is in game advertising a thing, but entire games have been created around marketing icons.

Does the latest album you bought contain random audio ads for Coke in between tracks? No.

Really? Trying to reference another out dated business model to support your argument?

Well, for the record you're comparing apples to oranges here because one is free, while the other is a product you purchase. However, aren't advertising inserts pretty much standard for albums these days? So you're paying AND getting advertising.

When I'm reading a website, does my screen occasionally get popups that suck up the entirety of my view? Sure, but in a few seconds, they're gone. Not minutes.

Pop ups and ads all over the place. This is probably your worst example because you're essentially saying you're ok with advertising perpetually in your face as long as it doesn't last minutes.

Hell, even movie theatres, who are becoming increasingly large bastards, even block all the commercial bullshit at the beginning.

What are you talking about? Those commercials at the beginning of movies are there because of the theater, not the movie makers. That's been the number one new source of revenue for theaters over the past few years.

Why can't TV even fucking do that?

I honestly don't know how else to explain it.

If advertisers didn't think people were watching their commercials, they wouldn't give money to the networks and TV stations to air them. Thus, the networks and stations wouldn't have money to spend on programming. If they don't have money to spend on programming, then fewer shows are made, and they'll lean heavily on the really cheap ones. So in your world, it's all Honey Boo Boo and Housewives of [insert city name here] all the time.

Networks have toyed with commercials since forever. They're thought about moving them all to the bottom and top of the hour, but they know people would tune out. More importantly, advertisers know that, and thus, wouldn't pay for those slots.

And let's talk about entertainment. It's easier to be entertained if you're more immersed in something. Know what's anti-immersing? Fucking ads every 15 minutes. There isn't even a Broadway play that's had the balls to call intermission four times an hour in the hopes of boosting concession stand sales.

And yet millions tune into the Super Bowl excited more about the ads than the game.

Millions tuned in last night to watch the Oscars and The Walking Dead.

You know I can do this all day.

The point is that this is how it currently works. Is it dumb and out dated? Yes. However, you can scream until your blue in the face, but it's not going to change anytime soon, and it CAN'T until new revenue models are in place.

You are talking about what the law is. What the law is is completely outdated and irrelevant to our modern world and there's no point in discussing it. I'm talking about what should be.

Well, first please revisit where I said don't come at me with how things should be because that's not the issue at hand...

It's not fair to talk about a topic that exists in the now, and apply the future to it as if that's a fair comparison. It's also not fair to say that just because something that is still in use is outdated, we shouldn't even be discussing it. Such an attitude is ridiculous, and isn't going to help change things.

It'd be like my arm getting cut off, and then me bitching to my doctor that he isn't using nanobots to recreate my arm, instead of discussing my actual alternatives.

The bottom line is thanks to modern technology I now have the freedom to enjoy my entertainment when and where and how I see fit. Whenever those preferences match up to what the content corporations are offering then I will happily watch it legally. When they do not I shamelessly pirate. I would be happy to pay to watch all of it legally in my preferred manner, but if they will not offer that option then I will steal it. They've made their choice, and I've made mine, and if they don't want my money then so be it.

As an individual user, I do not begrudge you the right to get your content through whatever means you wish.

Although, I liken your choice to able bodied adults sitting home collecting welfare while others work and have their pay taxed to pay for it.

A bit harsh, yes, but honestly, you pirate the content to skip all the ads, and if everyone did it, piracy wouldn't be an issue anymore because there wouldn't be anything to steal. That makes the folks who do watch the commercials, the workers who pay taxes.

So please don't attempt to pretend that your piracy is on some higher ground morally.

Also, nothing you said addresses what you find acceptable in terms of advertising (the current revenue stream) or what you'd change it to...

Personally, I prefer commercials to product placement. Using Chuck and Psych as my examples, their product placement moments are not only jarring, but they make the show seem cheap.

I think shows should all have a major sponsor like the old days. "Chuck is brought to you by Microsoft. Check out the new Surface Pro." Then during the show, the characters can use the Surface and Windows, but not go over the top talking about them. Once a show has a major sponsor, allow the sponsor a one minute commercial break at 15 and 45 minutes (or 4 30 seconds ads at 10,20,40, and 50 past the hour), and a 3 minutes break at the top and bottom of each hour for other advertisers.

Until NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, and all the cable networks that are currently "free" (technically, they aren't) start charging for their shows, we're going to have to deal with some advertising.

And AGAIN, I'm on your side. I think the way advertising works right now is stupid. The advertisers have a hunch that it's not as effective as it's sold, while the TV people don't want to admit that. It's a big lie that everyone smiles and pretends isn't an issue because that's what they have right now. Does it need to change? Yes. Is technology forcing the issue? Yes.

However, as it stands right now, my position is the reality. It's inarguable. We're not going to change it by pirating or bitching.

You want to change it? Write advertisers. Either tell them their commercials stop you from buying a product, or if they discover a subtle way to advertise (like the Microsoft one I proposed), tell them you really appreciate it, and you'll strongly consider buying their products now.

NBC kept Chuck on the air because Chuck's fans went to Subway and bought subs and said they were there for Chuck. Subway responded by putting money into Chuck to keep it on air.

Your wallet talks a lot louder than your mouth (or fingers).

[Malcolm]

Do people watch commercials? More than you think, less than they claim. (You even watch them more than you think...)

I doubt it. Back in the day, I somehow got on the list of "survey folk for pilot TV shows." Every now and again, some potential pilot for some god-awful sitcom would get shipped out to me. The questions post-viewing were always related to the ads. Describe the ad to me in terms of persons, places, things, etc., I'll recall it. Start mentioning brand names, logos, etc.? Blank.

Several MMO and F2P games have advertising. Not only is in game advertising a thing, but entire games have been created around marketing icons.

Yes, but fucking WoW, in game, doesn't have a 30-second cutscene in which Blizzard tries to sell me their other games. I didn't say "no adverts" I said, they aren't taking away the primary reason I'm interacting with the media being advertised on. To use an analogy, the flick Mac and Me was clearly created to cash in on the E.T. craze and sell certain product. The entire movie is an advertisement; however, they aren't actually inserting McDonald's commercials straight into it, so you can theoretically watch it as a (shitty) film.

I think shows should all have a major sponsor like the old days. "Chuck is brought to you by Microsoft. Check out the new Surface Pro." Then during the show, the characters can use the Surface and Windows, but not go over the top talking about them.

If this gets overall commercial time and frequency down, I'd be for it. It's far less invasive than the status quo.

And yet millions tune into the Super Bowl excited more about the ads than the game.

Obscene amounts of cash and planning go into those ads, certainly more than the budgets for single 30-minute episodes of a show, and it all gets blown in 30 seconds.

However, aren't advertising inserts pretty much standard for albums these days? So you're paying AND getting advertising.

What album insert gets into my mp3 downloads?

This is probably your worst example because you're essentially saying you're ok with advertising perpetually in your face as long as it doesn't last minutes.

Perpetually? Not even close. My browser, my connectivity rules. In addition, people develop plug-ins for the browsers to block/skip annoying popup ads. It takes me two seconds to close a popup ad if it does get through.

So please don't attempt to pretend that your piracy is on some higher ground morally.

Fuck morality, this is pragmatism. It means the veto power is on my side. I will find the content, someway, somehow. If all of TV shuts down due to lack of advertising revenue and innovation, fuck them, it's their fault for sticking to a philosophy that's been outdated. I have other media I can turn to for amusement.

[TPRJones]

A bit harsh, yes, but honestly, you pirate the content to skip all the ads...

Not really. I watch a lot of YouTube shows, and I don't begrudge them the ads. I don't pay attention, but that's no different from with regular TV.

I pirate because I don't want to watch these shows at a particular time or in a particular place or on a particular piece of equipment that they insist I use. I watch it at my times in my place how I wish. This usually means no ads, but I don't do it because there are no ads. There are plenty of other reasons.

Also, whenever possible I still often find a way to pay the content creators, especially in the case of independent artists. Sometimes I buy DVDs that I immediately throw away. Sometimes I buy t-shirts that I don't give a shipping address for because I don't want it. I just want to give them money.

Sometimes that can be harder than you'd imagine it would be.

So please don't attempt to pretend that your piracy is on some higher ground morally.

Never even hinted that it was.

It isn't about right and wrong. It's about what technology does and does not allow. And they can't stuff everything back into Pandora's iPod.



Edited By TPRJones on 1361818108

[TPRJones]

It's not fair to talk about a topic that exists in the now, and apply the future to it as if that's a fair comparison. ... It'd be like my arm getting cut off, and then me bitching to my doctor that he isn't using nanobots to recreate my arm, instead of discussing my actual alternatives.

Hardly. It's more like bitching because your doctor isn't helping you get a modern prosthetic but instead insisting that you need to have one of those old Victorian style sculpture prosthetics because he knows a guy that makes them and selling them to you is how he makes his money.

It's also not fair to say that just because something that is still in use is outdated, we shouldn't even be discussing it.

Of course we can discuss this if you want to. It's pointless, though, the way you've outlined it. What is the case here is clearly that Dish can only show programs to their customers in the way that the content providers approve of, because the providers can cut them off at any time for any reason they desire because they own the rights to the content. What's to discuss about that? That just leaves discussing how things should be, but that's not allowed in this thread. So, nothing left to discuss.



Edited By TPRJones on 1361818752

[Leisher]

Seriously Malcolm, you're so far off topic we might as well be talking about League of Legends.

I doubt it. Back in the day, I somehow got on the list of "survey folk for pilot TV shows." Every now and again, some potential pilot for some god-awful sitcom would get shipped out to me. The questions post-viewing were always related to the ads. Describe the ad to me in terms of persons, places, things, etc., I'll recall it. Start mentioning brand names, logos, etc.? Blank.

So your experience = the experience of all human life.

Ok.

Let's just completely ignore the fact that advertisements are still water cooler topics.

Yes, but fucking WoW, in game, doesn't have a 30-second cutscene in which Blizzard tries to sell me their other games. I didn't say "no adverts" I said, they aren't taking away the primary reason I'm interacting with the media being advertised on. To use an analogy, the flick Mac and Me was clearly created to cash in on the E.T. craze and sell certain product. The entire movie is an advertisement; however, they aren't actually inserting McDonald's commercials straight into it, so you can theoretically watch it as a (shitty) film.

Remember loading screens? Remember how companies would put ads in them? Now it's all product placement (racing games are the best at this), and ads on their sites, and ads in their launchers, etc. Don't forget commercials prior to their videos, ala YouTube.

They don't currently have traditional commercial breaks, but don't think they can't implement them.

Also, why do you insist upon comparing apples to oranges? Maybe I should write my car's manufacturer and ask why the top speed isn't equal to an F-16's?

Obscene amounts of cash and planning go into those ads, certainly more than the budgets for single 30-minute episodes of a show, and it all gets blown in 30 seconds.

Depends on the year, commercial, and show. (Don't forget about salaries...)

But again, wtf does that have to do with the issue at hand? Or anything for that matter? I've seen fucking brilliant commercials made for peanuts during the summer, and terrible commercials that cost millions during the Super Bowl.

What album insert gets into my mp3 downloads?

And of course your album just turned into a download...

Fine, there's no insert in your album, but you know all those ads on the website or app you purchased from? That's advertising. Oh, and again, apples to oranges. Paid versus free.

Perpetually? Not even close. My browser, my connectivity rules. In addition, people develop plug-ins for the browsers to block/skip annoying popup ads. It takes me two seconds to close a popup ad if it does get through.

*sigh* Yes, perpetually. If it wasn't perpetually, you wouldn't need the plug in now would you? And since you haven't put 2 and 2 together yet, what happens if courts rule DISH can't block ads? Aren't pop up blockers doing the same thing? Haven't you noticed how advertisers are hiding the "X" these days? And did you know they consider it a win if you find the "X"? It means you're looking at their ad.

Fuck morality, this is pragmatism. It means the veto power is on my side. I will find the content, someway, somehow. If all of TV shuts down due to lack of advertising revenue and innovation, fuck them, it's their fault for sticking to a philosophy that's been outdated. I have other media I can turn to for amusement.

Reality
Malcolm's head

Great, you're willing to let all TV shows cease to exist because you can't be bothered to PRETEND to watch 3 minutes of ads. Good for you. You're like Ghandi!

Thank goodness everyone sees things exactly like you do, and those other forms of media/entertainment don't have any similar issues in their future...

Not really. I watch a lot of YouTube shows, and I don't begrudge them the ads. I don't pay attention, but that's no different from with regular TV.

I pirate because I don't want to watch these shows at a particular time or in a particular place or on a particular piece of equipment that they insist I use. I watch it at my times in my place how I wish. This usually means no ads, but I don't do it because there are no ads. There are plenty of other reasons.

So when FOX releases their mobile app that allows you to watch their shows, with commercials, but you have to pay some additional fee, you're going to sign right up?

Again, there's a bullshit justification going on here. I understand what you're saying, and I don't completely disagree, but there's a lot of horseshit too. Because Hulu, Netflix, DVRs, etc... The technology is there to fit within their model while viewing what you want, when you want, but you choose not to do so.

Again, I don't give a fuck. Just pointing shit out.

Also, whenever possible I still often find a way to pay the content creators, especially in the case of independent artists. Sometimes I buy DVDs that I immediately throw away. Sometimes I buy t-shirts that I don't give a shipping address for because I don't want it. I just want to give them money.

Sometimes that can be harder than you'd imagine it would be.

No, I know EXACTLY how hard that can be...

You do nothing most of us haven't done...except the t-shirt thing. That's a bit odd.

Again, I don't disagree with much of what you and Malcolm are saying, I'm simply pointing out the reality of the business.

However, as it stands right now, my position is the reality. It's inarguable. We're not going to change it by pirating or bitching.

You want to change it? Write advertisers. Either tell them their commercials stop you from buying a product, or if they discover a subtle way to advertise (like the Microsoft one I proposed), tell them you really appreciate it, and you'll strongly consider buying their products now.

NBC kept Chuck on the air because Chuck's fans went to Subway and bought subs and said they were there for Chuck. Subway responded by putting money into Chuck to keep it on air.

Your wallet talks a lot louder than your mouth (or fingers).

[Leisher]

Dammit. I hate it when you work on a post and then someone else posts while you're writing.

Hardly. It's more like bitching because your doctor isn't helping you get a modern prosthetic but instead insisting that you need to have one of those old Victorian style sculpture prosthetics because he knows a guy that makes them and selling them to you is how he makes his money.

I straight up disagree with you there. Your example is completely incorrect. In your example, the technology exists, is proven, and properly used.

That simply isn't true. Yes, the technology exists...maybe?...however nothing is in place, it isn't tested, etc.

Maybe if you had said, experimental prosthetic...

Of course we can discuss this if you want to. It's pointless, though, the way you've outlined it. What is the case here is clearly that Dish can only show programs to their customers in the way that the content providers approve of, because the providers can cut them off at any time for any reason they desire because they own the rights to the content. What's to discuss about that? That just leaves discussing how things should be, but that's not allowed in this thread. So, nothing left to discuss.

Actually, I didn't start the thread, nor was I responsible for taking it off point...

And yes, the way "I've outlined it". Because simply not examining the current system, ignoring that there are no proven systems in place to replace the revenue, providing no realistic solutions, and just saying "fuck them, I'm stealing everything" is a "discussion".

My bad.

[TPRJones]

I understand what you're saying, and I don't completely disagree, but there's a lot of horseshit too. Because Hulu, Netflix, DVRs, etc... The technology is there to fit within their model while viewing what you want, when you want, but you choose not to do so.

Not really. I'm not willing to spend money on specific hardware just to make them happy. If I can watch it on my Raspberry Pi (running RaspBMC) then that's what matters to me. Hulu? Fuck no. Netflix? Already got it. Fox's theoretical ap? Not a chance in hell they'll release it to XBMC.

There are no justifications here. No excuses, no bullshit. I watch it when I want and how I want. I pay for it where I can pay for it to get it how I want when I want, but sometimes I can't and when I can't I don't let that stop me. I'm not willing to play their bullshit games with platforms and DMCA protections and whatnot. And certainly I don't lose any sleep over it. If they aren't willing to join the modern world, that's their choice.

If in your eyes that makes me a bad person, then I still don't give a shit. *shrug*

But I thought we weren't supposed to discuss things like that in this thread...

EDIT:

I hate it when you work on a post and then someone else posts while you're writing.

Heh, same to you. :p



Edited By TPRJones on 1361821492

[TPRJones]

Yes, the technology exists...maybe?

Of course it does. It's on office desktops across America. It's called a computer. Technology is not a road-block here in the slightest, it's business practices that are the problem.

I'm not saying there are industry accepted tried-and-true alternate models of revenue generation in place that they should use but aren't. Of course not. But there are literally dozens of different models that other people besides the giant corporations have been using quite successfully. Perhaps they should look into those and find what might work for them.

But until they give up on trying to sue everyone on the planet into submission they won't ever start to consider alternate models.

EDIT:

You do nothing most of us haven't done...except the t-shirt thing. That's a bit odd.

Comes from those independent artists, mostly. More than once the only way I could find to give someone money is they were selling t-shirts. T-shirts I didn't like or want. But that I ordered and paid for and then gave them their own address as the shipping address or no address at all.

Oh, and in one case it was shot glasses. I don't really drink.



Edited By TPRJones on 1361822198

[Leisher]

Not really. I'm not willing to spend money on specific hardware just to make them happy. If I can watch it on my Raspberry Pi (running RaspBMC) then that's what matters to me. Hulu? Fuck no. Netflix? Already got it. Fox's theoretical ap? Not a chance in hell they'll release it to XBMC.

There are no justifications here. No excuses, no bullshit. I watch it when I want and how I want. I pay for it where I can pay for it to get it how I want when I want, but sometimes I can't and when I can't I don't let that stop me. I'm not willing to play their bullshit games with platforms and DMCA protections and whatnot. And certainly I don't lose any sleep over it. If they aren't willing to join the modern world, that's their choice.

There are justifications, you're just trying to convince yourself that there aren't. No matter what, you're justifying your actions to yourself or you wouldn't do them. That's human nature.

"I'm not willing to play their bullshit games with platforms and DMCA protections and whatnot."

Justification.

However, that's beside the point.

What I'm saying is that the current system needs to have its flaws exposed, new solutions proposed and put in place, and then we can move forward and get away from this false system of Nielsen ratings and intrusive commercials. That's where discussions need to occur. That's where consumers, who want to see change, need to be vocal, and that involves discussing the situation as it stands and realistic possibilities to replace it. So far in this thread, I'm the only one doing either.

Malcolm is just ranting at "the man", and you're just talking about how you don't need to care about any of this because you'll just pirate what you want. So forgive me, but I don't really consider that a good discussion of the topic at hand.

But I thought we weren't supposed to discuss things like that in this thread...

It's funny that you typed that. I deleted it, but at the end of my last post I had quoted your previous statement along that line of thought and wrote the following:
"Ever notice how people lose debates on forums, and then drag it out, try to confuse the issue, and then "win" on a technicality that doesn't even relate to the original debate?"

Of course it does. It's on office desktops across America. It's called a computer. Technology is not a road-block here in the slightest, it's business practices that are the problem.

I'm not saying there are industry accepted tried-and-true alternate models of revenue generation in place that they should use but aren't. Of course not. But there are literally dozens of different models that other people besides the giant corporations have been using quite successfully. Perhaps they should look into those and find what might work for them.

But until they give up on trying to sue everyone on the planet into submission they won't ever start to consider alternate models.

That's fair, but not...

We don't know what the networks are doing. I mean realistically, we have no fucking idea. FOX might be suing because they have a huge new technology driven initiative coming out later this year. So it's unfair to judge their lawsuit with anything but speculation.

I will say that more than you can believe, these networks are driven by viewers. They're not on Myspace creating pages for their anchors because the public isn't on Myspace. They're huge corporations, and you might think one email doesn't mean shit, but it can mean everything. Try writing FOX and telling them how you'd like to see their content delivered. Malcolm, you write whomever, and tell them you would like to see less commercials, and more product placement or up front show sponsors.

And no, I don't think the technology currently exists for every solution. The means might exist, but not the actual hardware or application.

I wonder if a major network would be willing to try my idea of having a major sponsor get behind a show, and then have very limited commercial interruptions?

By the way, I realize DVR exists, but did you know most households still don't have it? Thus, commercial breaks still exist for those folks.

That's a BIG factor we forget on these forums. We are far more technologically advanced than your average person. Thus, we see things in a different light. This thread is a great example because we're talking about stuff the networks can literally just be developing because the vast majority of their audience isn't anywhere near ready for it yet. Meanwhile, for us, the networks are behind the times.

Comes from those independent artists, mostly. More than once the only way I could find to give someone money is they were selling t-shirts. T-shirts I didn't like or want. But that I ordered and paid for and then gave them their own address as the shipping address or no address at all.

Oh, and in one case it was shot glasses. I don't really drink.

If you honestly do that, I respect it.

I hear a lot of folks talk about piracy and how they get the game later, and yada yada. I don't buy it for a second.

It's exactly why I'll typically wait until I can get something I KNOW I'll love. I don't want to pirate it, love it, and then lose my luster for supporting the devs. By making that purchase up front, it's out of the way, and I know I'm supporting good folks/ideas.

If in your eyes that makes me a bad person, then I still don't give a shit. *shrug*

Never said you were a bad person. I don't assume that at all.

Although, I think you should take a portion of the effort you used to try and debate me, and send a mass email to every network you can get an email address for and let them know to pull their heads out of their asses. I think your efforts would do more good there, then here arguing with me.

[TPRJones]

Hmmm, do you have a difference between the meaning of the words "justification" and "reason"?

We are far more technologically advanced than your average person.

I disagree. I think for our general age group we're a pretty typical spectrum, technologically. Younger folks trend slightly more tech savvy, and older folks trend a lot more "why's the screen gone all fuzzy?!"

...send a mass email to every network you can get an email address for and let them know to pull their heads out of their asses...

Here's somewhere we certainly disagree. I'm pretty sure I would have an exceptionally hard time finding one entertainment exec that gave a damn about what I think.

I hear a lot of folks talk about piracy and how they get the game later, and yada yada. I don't buy it for a second.

I don't know if it applies to games, but it certainly does to music. There've been a few studies along these lines, and in many cases (not all, but a large enough amount to be very statistically significant) when people stumble across an artist they like through their illegal mp3 downloads, they have a stronger tendency to purchase more music from that artist in the future instead of stealing it. There really are a lot of people treating torrents as a free sample before purchase sort of thing. Not as many as just steal it, but way more than the content corporations would ever be willing to admit to.

I don't really torrent music or games, myself. Just video.



Edited By TPRJones on 1361825403

[TPRJones]

Oh, and books. I also torrent some e-books because my preferred e-reader doesn't play nice with most DRM. There I'm most diligent of all about making sure to pay for it somehow, but that's probably because it's easier to identify the single individual most responsible (the author).

Anyway, it occurred to me on the drive home that the difference we may be having about the word "justification" may be related to morality. I don't consider what I'm doing to be immoral, or at worst about as immoral is driving five miles per hour over the speed limit. It's certainly illegal, but illegality and immorality are two different things. These days they're barely related at all.

Despite what the software companies tried to teach you in the 80's, copying is not theft. The key part of theft is not that you now have something you shouldn't, it's that whoever had it before you no longer does. That denial of ownership to the rightful owner is the most egregious part of theft. When something is copied, it is not taken away from the originator. They still have it.

If it were something you would have paid for - all other circumstances being equal - then it is indeed slightly immoral because the content creator is not getting paid. Not as immoral as theft, but a lesser immorality. About on par with speeding and not turning yourself in to pay the fine, which takes away potential ticket revenue from the local constabulary. Or about as bad as someone in a high-rise apartment building sitting on the balcony and watching the baseball game going on in the stadium below them, because they aren't paying the ticket price. In none of these cases is the crime as egregious as breaking into someone's house and taking away their stuff. It barely registers as wrong at all, and certainly not enough to require someone to "justify" why they did it.

Now distributing copyrighted material to others is indeed a bit more immoral. The people seeding the files for anyone to take are doing a bigger wrong to the content creators. Still not as big as theft, though. Those who make copies and turn around and sell them for monetary gain, those are very much in the wrong and up there with theft in terms of immorality. That's digital piracy in it's original definition before the corporations started smearing everyone with the word, and it's actually causing damage to the industry. Individuals copying for their own use is not piracy, it's not theft, it's something else we don't really have a word for yet as far as I know. And it's not particularly immoral.

Of course you are going to say this is all more justification, but I will disagree with that. I don't spend any more time "justifying" to myself why I am content to copy stuff when other means are too inconvenient than I do justifying why I didn't slow down for the yellow light and ended up running the red this morning. I hadn't really considered it in detail at all until trying to explain it here.



Edited By TPRJones on 1361838991

[Malcolm]

The Man? Whatever. TV isn't the only video entertainment media/interface around anymore. I look forward to the demise of its advertising as more and more people fast forward or are automatically skipped past the audiovisual hostage takers, fifteen to thirty seconds at a time. Entertainment, with fewer commercial interruptions and shorter fucking durations. I can see the ad campaign now...

"The difference between us and our competitors? Our commercials only waste five seconds of your time."

[Malcolm]

PA's post.

So, imagine that advertising and those who are made to look at advertising are locked in a constant struggle not unlike that between infectious organisms and organisms that don’t want to get infected. They co-evolve in various ways; they circle each other in a tense orbit, until a development on either side alters the board. Susceptibility to traditional commercial messages has been almost completely bred out of the stock. You have to hide it now, like when you secret a massive pill in a glistening heap of Fancy Feast.

[TheCatt]

I don't think the struggle is that bad. I think a TON of people watch ads. I know I do when watching live sports, for example. I don't like it, but I watch them.

[GORDON]

And since I don't watch live sports, and 99% of everything else I watch is DVR'd and streamed over the internet, then I get to watch TV for free.... after I pay the $150/month for cable modem and satellite TV w/DVR, that is.

And that is why I am personally offended by commercials when I already pay a shitload of money to watch TV.