• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Legal and moral issues over watching a "pirated" video?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ViRGE said:
No and no. Legally it is copyright infringement, and morally it's still copyright infringement.
Click to expand...

you are right

does not mean that morally it is right and wrong necessarily

morally it is only infringing copyright law

and there is a whole shit ton of moral philosophy just for that law
 
I think morality is the wrong word. Laws while maybe viewed as a majority, don't necessarily encompass everyone or relate to someones morals the same way. Also, just because it's a law, doesn't make it morally right. I mean, it used to be illegal for women to vote. Do you still feel that way? Same goes for any number of laws that have changed over time that people were breaking for years. (Prohibition anyone? Smoking weed?)...yea...keep preaching.
 
Dirigible said:
Big content owners have declared war on the public by buying the copyright laws. Copyright that is effectively eternal, DMCA, etc. Continued attempts to pass SOPA-like legislation shows we are still under attack.

It is completely moral to fight back by ignoring those copyright laws.

If you wish to reward a content creator, do so. But unless and until copyright laws regain some sanity, there is nothing immoral in breaking them.
Click to expand...

yes, because you need their content
 
slayer202 said:
yes, because you need their content
Click to expand...

I don't understand how your statement is relevant to mine.

I don't need the content. So what? Please explain how needing content or not is relevant to whether violating copyright law is immoral or not.

If it matters to you, I have never torrented a movie or TV show. I did download four songs from Napster when it first came out, but that was it. I don't think any of that is relevant to the question of morality though.
 
Looking at the popularity of Plex and XBMC and how openly people root for and discuss its "collection of TV shows", I am simply appalled at the discussion going on in this thread...
 
Dirigible said:
I don't understand how your statement is relevant to mine.

I don't need the content. So what? Please explain how needing content or not is relevant to whether violating copyright law is immoral or not.

If it matters to you, I have never torrented a movie or TV show. I did download four songs from Napster when it first came out, but that was it. I don't think any of that is relevant to the question of morality though.
Click to expand...

I may have skimmed your post too quickly and didn't realize you were talking about bigger-picture copyright laws, but then I'm not sure I see the correlation with piracy. Fighting against unfair copyright laws is one thing, but pirating movies ( even more so as "retaliation") which no one is entitled to is another
 
slayer202 said:
I may have skimmed your post too quickly and didn't realize you were talking about bigger-picture copyright laws, but then I'm not sure I see the correlation with piracy. Fighting against unfair copyright laws is one thing, but pirating movies ( even more so as "retaliation") which no one is entitled to is another
Click to expand...

Oh, to be clear: we disagree on whether pirating movies is immoral. I do not think it is. In large, those profiting from movies are those that lobby and pay for our immoral copyright laws. I believe it is not immoral to ignore copyright laws and pirate movies in retaliation, whereby movie studios and distributors will not get paid.

It is based on an idea of fairness. They have overreached and so lost the ability to cry foul or complain when their overbroad laws are violated.

I believe I understand the other side, and there are some good reasons why one would argue it is immoral, despite me not sharing that point of view.
 
ViRGE said:
No and no. Legally it is copyright infringement, and morally it's still copyright infringement.
Click to expand...

What constitutes copyright infringement?

Subject to certain defenses, it is copyright infringement for someone other than the author to do the following without the author's permission:
1. copy or reproduce the work
2. create a new work derived from the original work (for example, by translating the work into a new language, by copying and distorting the image, or by transferring the work into a new medium of expression)
3. sell or give away the work, or a copy of the work, for the first time (but once the author has done so, the right to sell or give away the item is transferred to the new owner. This is known as the "first sale" doctrine: once a copyright owner has sold or given away the work or a copy of it, the recipient or purchaser may do as she pleases with what she posesses.) 17 U.S.C. §109(a).
4. perform or display the work in public (this right does not apply to visual art) without permission from the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §106. It is also copyright infringement to violate the "moral rights" of an author as defined by 17 U.S.C. 106A.

Downloading copyrighted works is not copyright infringement. Selling, distributing, or displaying the work in public is copyright infringement.

If you use bittorrent, you are distributing, thus you are committing copyright infringement. If you are downloading via HTTP/HTTPS, Newsgroups, etc you are well within the law.

That said, I have no problems buying content. I want to support the people who make the content I enjoy. To this end I have bought entire seasons of shows on amazon, I have netflix, hulu, a UFC account for renting PPV, and I've even supported a kickstarter project to produce a TV show I liked (who finally is producing episodes in a 100% DRM free 1080p format!!!). I simply do not want to pay comcast for 150 channels I won't watch, I don't want to use restricted media that forces me to re-buy my content for my computer, phone, tv, or some new media. I want simple un-encumbered video files. We have accomplished this with music. I buy 100% of my music now (in fact, I both buy and use a streaming service so they get it on both ends).

So the question is then, why do I still download tv shows? Am I just feeling entitled?

The answer is no. I do not feel entitled to them. I completely understand their worth and I would be happy to buy them. In many cases, I have bought them after having downloaded them (Game of Thrones anyone?). I download for a few simple reasons.

1) To show that there is demand for these shows in these formats. Piracy of music showed there was a market for unencumbered music. Apple, amazon, and google provided a means and now music piracy is basically non-existent for normal users. With the exception of live bootlegs for a few very special bands, why would you not buy music online today?

2) Format shifting. Many of the movies I download I have already paid for. I bought star wars like twice and paid to see it in the theater, I'm not buying it again so Yoda can have a 1080p face lift. Sorry. This is probably is entitlement, but the fact is they would never get this sale from me. Their loss is zero. I also frequently download content available for free by the providers themselves, simply in a more convenient package with better quality.

I can watch topshot on hulu in 480p and ONLY on my computer. I can download topshot in 720p and watch it anywhere in about 3 minutes. Net loss to topshot? They lost nothing as I already pay for hulu. Sure I miss out on some commercials, but lets face it, no one watches hulu commercials (I'd pay $1-2 to disable ads entirely). Secondly, I can watch a LOT of tv for free OTA. Downloading a copy is akin to format shifting. It's the content they offer for free in a package I'm willing to consume.

3) The content is not for sale!!! I can't recall how many times I can't find content in the retail market. Maybe it's a old blues band, a tv show from the 80's (netflix is doing a great job filling this gap), or simply some kind of strange "You can't watch that on netflix without a physical DVD and the DVD is no longer sold in stores" bullshit. Besides, who the hell still has a DVD player??

Lastly, if the providers were paying attention they would support this business model. Direct streaming or downloading of tv shows improves viewership. TV is almost useless today without a DVR, this is the next step. Entertainment NEEDS to be able to shift around a persons life, a successful person can not shift their life around entertainment.

So to end this long post, I download content because it makes me happy. I give back to content providers as much as they will allow me to. They must be happy with the situation. I'm sure it's only a matter of time until tv and movies become akin to music. You will just give apple/amazon/google $10-15 bucks a month and can watch anything, or you can buy the show unencumbered for $0.99-5.00. I can't wait for that day to come.
 
sourceninja said:
What constitutes copyright infringement?

Downloading copyrighted works is not copyright infringement. Selling, distributing, or displaying the work in public is copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution."
 
How about if you subscribe to Netflix, and there's a movie on Netflix that you want to watch. But, you have a relatively slow ISP, and Netflix doesn't really give you the option to buffer your movies so you can watch them in higher definition. Is it ethically wrong to pay to watch them, but then switch providers to actually view the content - choosing, say, Youtube instead, since Youtube allows you to select your resolution and then allows your video to buffer.
 
DrPizza said:
How about if you subscribe to Netflix, and there's a movie on Netflix that you want to watch. But, you have a relatively slow ISP, and Netflix doesn't really give you the option to buffer your movies so you can watch them in higher definition. Is it ethically wrong to pay to watch them, but then switch providers to actually view the content - choosing, say, Youtube instead, since Youtube allows you to select your resolution and then allows your video to buffer.
Click to expand...

You could argue that you're paying for the content on Netflix so it's moral to watch it on Youtube. However, you're not incrementing a view counter on the Netflix video. If that effects the content owner's payment from Netflix, then it would probably be immoral. If Netflix was unwatchable and you weren't willing to pay money to watch the movie another way, then I'd say its morally ok to illegally watch the movie since you wouldn't have been willing to pay for it anyway.

My general rule is that I don't feel bad illegally watching content that I would not have paid for if I had easy access to it. If I can find an easy way to pay for content, then I do.
 
Last edited:
I don't steal your shit and in return you eventually release it to the public domain. Sounds like a fair deal. Once the forever less one day copyright terms started I consider that deal null and void.
 
I am not sure what "morally ok" is supposed to mean since morale in my opinion is a subjective thing each individual defines for themselves.

(Some people see bikini clad girls as "immoral", some people think that atheists are immoral, or that certain types of sex are "immoral"...sorry for wandering off there 🙂 )

So obviously, morale is subjective.

Since you already brought this issue up you answered your own question...because if you would not have an issue with it being "immoral" you probably would not ask about it here on the forum 🙂 We can therefore conclude that you think it's immoral and you're unsure respective feel guilty about it.

Whether it's technical LEGAL I cannot answer but I am sure this is question not even experts can answer you easily.
Is watching a movie "illegal"...as supposed to distributing or downloading? All I know is that recently a company sent C&D letters to people from a large porn site because they WATCHED a certain movie where a company claimed copyright and was seeking damages from the VIEWERS.
As far as I know, this letter was a scare/scam and the lawyers did not have a base to stand on saying that the viewers of the movie violated copyright.

HOWEVER, this may be different depending where you live etc...and how someone defines "downloading" or "watching"....eg..if you watch a show...are you technically "stealing" since you obtain something you're supposed to pay money for? Etc...
 
Here's a random thought. If someone broke into a movie store and stole a couple movies, they'd probably get a fine or something. Maybe a couple hundred bucks and community service.

But if they downloaded the movies instead, they would get 10 years with no parole "to set an example". It's kinda sad when you think about it.
 
Newell Steamer said:
Nope.

On a similar note; I hate Ultraviolet. Any chances it will die anytime soon??
Click to expand...

I don't love it, but considering that the previous "digital media copy" meant you downloaded it onto one computer once, I'll take the UV code thank you very much. I won't pay extra for it, but it's nice to have some real movies in an online account that you can watch on your devices. It's a gateway to renting or buying movies via the services, but I'm not paying $6 for a 24 hour rental or $20 to "own" a new movie.
 
TridenT said:
Wait, what? He actually steals the physical copies of the DVD?

OP, I don't see copying media online as stealing. I find it morally acceptable. In all the cases that I can recall, I would never buy the music, movies, or games even if piracy wasn't an option. So, there's no loss of sale from my end either. Regardless, loss of potential sale isn't an actual loss. (Where as stealing is)
Click to expand...
No, he happily skirts paying the purchase/rental fees by leeching off someone else to do it and then borrows it for free. Ask any movie studio how they feel about this. This isn't a Rent & Share world.

And he knew he was skirting the system, because he admitted to being happy to not having to pay for it.
 
BarkingGhostar said:
No, he happily skirts paying the purchase/rental fees by leeching off someone else to do it and then borrows it for free. Ask any movie studio how they feel about this. This isn't a Rent & Share world.

And he knew he was skirting the system, because he admitted to being happy to not having to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Hmm I wonder if there are places where someone else pays for a single copies of a copyrighted work then allows people to borrow the copyrighted work free?
 
1.jpg


See the rest of the strip here if you haven't already.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top