This argument is bad. First of all, piracy is not morally wrong, the morals of it are ambiguous, just like everything else. Second of all, it's not JUST ONE EXACT MOVIE. It's a plethora of films and shows and most people enjoy watching them once in a while... Nowadays, we have this thing called the internet where people can send information to others with minimal cost and effort. If a content provider does not wish to make money by conveniently providing me with entertainment I will oblige them by not giving them my money. I will still watch the movies I want to see though. Some of us are pathetic and don't like to wait when there is no reason to.
I think piracy is morally wrong. It's quite simple. Take your argument for pro-piracy to the logical conclusion. Everyone consumes all media through piracy. Does that world look as entertaining as the logical conclusion of people pay money into the system that creates the entertainment?
I think it'd be hard to argue that a system where people have to give up time and resources to produce something consumed by those who put nothing back into the system is sustainable.
Pirates benefit from the system without contributing to the system. That's morally wrong.
I find it hypocritical that the very software systems that enable people to pirate have built in algorithms to limit the activities of those who take more than they share. Those who take but don't give back are called leeches and even the leeches don't like leeches.
Personally, I think both sides in this debate are somewhat pathetic.
Content providers are pathetic because they have had all this time to grok that their business model is outdated, and yet they still haven't. What is so freaking hard about distributing movies and TV shows over the Internet?
But people who pirate, and then argue that it's OK because they have a "right" to watch what they want, when they want, are just as pathetic. Lots of people put in lots of work to make that TV show or that movie. If you watch what they make, you have, IMO, a moral obligation to compensate them. The fact that the content providers have a braindead business model does not relieve you of that obligation.
(Btw, I'm well aware that the "content providers" aren't the ones who actually put in all the work to make that movie or that TV show. I think the people who actually do do that--actors, directors, writers, and everyone else who actually does the hard work--are making a huge mistake by hitching their fates to the fates of the media companies. But that still doesn't give me the right to get the product of their hard work for free.)
> First of all, piracy is not morally wrong, the morals of it are ambiguous, just like everything else.
Not really. The content owners stated that there are certain legal restrictions on their content. If you violate it, then you are expressly violating the owner's will and the law. I have yet to find a moral system that's OK with this outside of "the ends justify the means".
It depends on where you think ownership comes from.
If you use the Lockean concept where use is applied to create ownership, piracy is fine. Put into an analogy, it's like this: you plant an apple tree. You do not eat the apples from this tree, and they fall to the ground in a public space. Walking over, I pick up and eat one of the apples. I have not diminished your utility from the tree as the apple would have spoiled.
Did I steal from you? It was originally your use that planted the tree, but you don't currently use all of the apples. You are deprived of nothing, and I am momentarily enriched by the consumption. How is that wrong?
It's not at all morally ambiguous. It's morally wrong.
You might choose to benefit from the work of others without compensating them as they've asked to be compensated, that's your choice. But don't pretend it's not wrong.
