This is true - it doesn't make it right (necessarily) but it is true.
The other thing I'd say though is that most people will still operate within their own moral code. In the UK technically platform shifting (transferring music from CD to MP3 for instance) is illegal but that doesn't stop anyone as people see it as a historic oddity and not something which is even remotely morally wrong.
It's not uncommon that the same people who will pirate movies from multi-billion pound businesses will also voluntarily pay when for donationware (or when Radiohead release an album) they could get for nothing.
There are two things we need to look at:
* Availability / technology and restrictions on the ability to obtain media - for instance I torrent because I can't get it legally.
* Why people's moral code does or doesn't allow them to take certain actions?
We're moving increasingly into a trust economy where from a technical point of view people can have what they want and it's almost impossible to stop them.
In that situation your ability to extract payment from them depends on your making a case for why it's reasonable (and indeed beneficial) for them to stump up in a world where the link between what something costs to produce and what it's reasonable to charge for it is a little less obvious than in the days of purely physical product.
I suspect the argument might run that by not doing something about it you encourage others who might have paid to pirate your product ("if he's not paying why should I?").
But this (if it happens at all) will frequently be offset by those who pirate now but might become legitimate clients in the future. People in this category might be students (no cash at the moment but will have in the future) or those pirating just to see if they like something (one of the reasons home taping never killed music - because through compilation tapes you had people doing your marketing for you and finding you new fans). In this instance you not only lose nothing now but you're actually building product and brand awareness.
Certainly I'd say that effort put into stamping down on this might be better spent trying to convert people to real clients in the future.
The only other thing I can think of is whether there's any legal aspect whereby if you fail to defend your IP you lose rights. I believe that this is the case for trademarks but don't know if it extends. If it did it might mean that you had to put up at least a token fight.
Broadly it seems that the best strategy is just that - some relatively low barriers more as a reminder than anything else and then leave it at that.
Clearly. Fortunately, nobody's arguing that it does give you such a right. The question at hand is "what harm does it do?", however, and the GP posits that the answer is "none, so why care?".
Since you are consuming the content, then it must have some value to you, otherwise you wouldn't be consuming it. So you should be paying something for that value.
I fail to see your point, at least in response to me. It would be a perfectly valid point to make to somebody claiming otherwise, but I am not. Is this comment misplaced, or am I just not following properly?
"Honestly if there is no chance that I ever buy something (say because it is not available for sale) what does it matter if I download it?"
Devil's advocate: You spend time consuming the thing you torrented instead of buying something that was legally available to you and consuming that instead. But yes, this is getting to "penumbric emanation"-level of arguing, though I think that the limited nature of your time is something that should be pointed out.
Likewise: If the thing that isn't legally available to you is "the best use of your limited time," then you should accept no substitute and acquire it anyway, as otherwise your limited time is being wasted. No?
If there exists a sensical answer (i.e. not a variation on "because that's the way it is"), it's related to not receiving the advertising with the torrent. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the show is the product. Unfortunately, just like in any other advertising-driven area, you are the product, and the show is a means to get your eyeballs on the advertising.
(Just to be clear and attempt to curb as many silly replies as possible: Just because it's true doesn't mean that I think it should be. Furthermore, your contrived circumstances wherein you turn the TV on and off at just the right moment to avoid seeing the ads is of no interest to me; besides being basically impossible to do properly, even most people doing other things during the commercials will be exposed to the advertising in some fashion.)
The other thing I'd say though is that most people will still operate within their own moral code. In the UK technically platform shifting (transferring music from CD to MP3 for instance) is illegal but that doesn't stop anyone as people see it as a historic oddity and not something which is even remotely morally wrong.
It's not uncommon that the same people who will pirate movies from multi-billion pound businesses will also voluntarily pay when for donationware (or when Radiohead release an album) they could get for nothing.
There are two things we need to look at:
* Availability / technology and restrictions on the ability to obtain media - for instance I torrent because I can't get it legally.
* Why people's moral code does or doesn't allow them to take certain actions?
We're moving increasingly into a trust economy where from a technical point of view people can have what they want and it's almost impossible to stop them.
In that situation your ability to extract payment from them depends on your making a case for why it's reasonable (and indeed beneficial) for them to stump up in a world where the link between what something costs to produce and what it's reasonable to charge for it is a little less obvious than in the days of purely physical product.