POPCORN TIME > Torrents made simple as Netflix?! (2 Viewers)

[cstu]

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

Terrible analogy...a more accurate one would be if someone took a photo of your newly painted house and then printed it at home and hung it on their wall.

 

[[icon]]

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

Wait...what?

 

[tonydead]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

It's your conscience.

It is different than you were arguing though. I mean you aren't stealing plasma tvs from Walmart, you are using the Walmart logo on your boy band's new t-shirts that you are never going to make any money off of.

Ok, so if you are making the argument then justify it.

Do you think it is morally superior to torrent a movie as opposed to stealing a DVD from a store, solely because the movie physically resides on a tangible item? Of would you torrent rather than steal a DVD because there is less risk of getting caught?

I'm not making the argument, I'm just pointing out the flaw in his argument.

However, to your questions: I think by definition it is morally superior to both your points. People aren't victims of theft and people are rarely prosecuted for torrenting.

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

2) How does failure to prosecute speak to morality?

1) I said victims of theft, theft specifically. Robbery is theft by means of force or fear and I suppose it doesn't matter if the robber can see or not. Torrenting is copyright infringement, not theft. See Supreme Court ruling Dowling v. United States 1985.

2) Morality as defined by our governing laws is directly influenced by punishment and consequences. That's why there are a lot more speeding tickets than there are armed robberies everyday.

 

[drummer]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

Terrible analogy...a more accurate one would be if someone took a photo of your newly painted house and then printed it at home and hung it on their wall.

I was merely responding to Tonydead's assertion that theft does not have a human victim. Technically a person is not injured in the process, but nobody would legitimately argue that a person who has their possessions taken from them without their permission is not a victim, which is what he was asserting.

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

It's your conscience.

It is different than you were arguing though. I mean you aren't stealing plasma tvs from Walmart, you are using the Walmart logo on your boy band's new t-shirts that you are never going to make any money off of.

Ok, so if you are making the argument then justify it.

Do you think it is morally superior to torrent a movie as opposed to stealing a DVD from a store, solely because the movie physically resides on a tangible item? Of would you torrent rather than steal a DVD because there is less risk of getting caught?

I'm not making the argument, I'm just pointing out the flaw in his argument.

However, to your questions: I think by definition it is morally superior to both your points. People aren't victims of theft and people are rarely prosecuted for torrenting.

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

2) How does failure to prosecute speak to morality?

1) I said victims of theft, theft specifically. Robbery is theft by means of force or fear and I suppose it doesn't matter if the robber can see or not. Torrenting is copyright infringement, not theft. See Supreme Court ruling Dowling v. United States 1985.

2) Morality as defined by our governing laws is directly influenced by punishment and consequences. That's why there are a lot more speeding tickets than there are armed robberies everyday.

So you are saying more people speed than rob banks because the punishment for speeding is less than for robbing a bank? I'll buy that, but that wasn't your point.

You said that fewer people are prosecuted for piracy than for theft, which is entirely different because the punishments for the crimes would very possibly be the same. Prosecutorial indifference does not equal moral superiority.

 

[Scoresman]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

Remember that one Oscars where the MPAA guy or whatever went up on stage in his Armani suit and gold plated cuff links and plead to America for 10 minutes to not pirate movies. I wanted to barf right there.

 

[tonydead]

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

Terrible analogy...a more accurate one would be if someone took a photo of your newly painted house and then printed it at home and hung it on their wall.

I was merely responding to Tonydead's assertion that theft does not have a human victim. Technically a person is not injured in the process, but nobody would legitimately argue that a person who has their possessions taken from them without their permission is not a victim, which is what he was asserting.

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

It's your conscience.

It is different than you were arguing though. I mean you aren't stealing plasma tvs from Walmart, you are using the Walmart logo on your boy band's new t-shirts that you are never going to make any money off of.

Ok, so if you are making the argument then justify it.

Do you think it is morally superior to torrent a movie as opposed to stealing a DVD from a store, solely because the movie physically resides on a tangible item? Of would you torrent rather than steal a DVD because there is less risk of getting caught?

I'm not making the argument, I'm just pointing out the flaw in his argument.

However, to your questions: I think by definition it is morally superior to both your points. People aren't victims of theft and people are rarely prosecuted for torrenting.

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

2) How does failure to prosecute speak to morality?

1) I said victims of theft, theft specifically. Robbery is theft by means of force or fear and I suppose it doesn't matter if the robber can see or not. Torrenting is copyright infringement, not theft. See Supreme Court ruling Dowling v. United States 1985.

2) Morality as defined by our governing laws is directly influenced by punishment and consequences. That's why there are a lot more speeding tickets than there are armed robberies everyday.

So you are saying more people speed than rob banks because the punishment for speeding is less than for robbing a bank? I'll buy that, but that wasn't your point.

You said that fewer people are prosecuted for piracy than for theft, which is entirely different because the punishments for the crimes would very possibly be the same.

1) Morality was never my point, you injected that.

2) That's why I said punishment and consequences.

You are only reading or understanding approximately half sentences.

 

[drummer]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

Remember that one Oscars where the MPAA guy or whatever went up on stage in his Armani suit and gold plated cuff links and plead to America for 10 minutes to not pirate movies. I wanted to barf right there.

Pretty sure he wasn't referring to the "straight to DVD" films either.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

What if I purchased a generic pair of shoes and drew Nike logo on them. Would that be stealing? Copy right infringement I guess? Who am I hurting?

Actually I think logos are registered trade marks. Do you plan on opening up a shop online and selling these? If so, Nike might sue if you started cutting into their profits, otherwise neither of you are going to lose much sleep.

I just want to wear the shoes myself. Not going to try and sell them or open a shop.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Sharing? What if I share my DVD with a neighbor that I purchased legally? But, instead of sharing it with just my one neighbor I share it with 100k people?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Ok, if you aren't bringing morality into the picture, what is your point? Why is it relevant that fewer people are arrested for piracy than theft, at least % wise?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

What if I purchased a generic pair of shoes and drew Nike logo on them. Would that be stealing? Copy right infringement I guess? Who am I hurting?

Actually I think logos are registered trade marks. Do you plan on opening up a shop online and selling these? If so, Nike might sue if you started cutting into their profits, otherwise neither of you are going to lose much sleep.

I just want to wear the shoes myself. Not going to try and sell them or open a shop.

What you are suggesting is totally and completely fine. You could walk up to Nike's trademark lawyer, and they would say "good for you"! If you aren't selling or distributing the product, trademark owners could care less.

 

[Scoresman]

I just like being called a pirate. 5 year old me would be proud as hell.

 

[Jobber]

How much is giganews? Also is it difficult to get video like the old days (having to combine files, etc).

 

[tonydead]

Ok, if you aren't bringing morality into the picture, what is your point? Why is it relevant that fewer people are arrested for piracy than theft, at least % wise?

I've only had one point: torrenting is not stealing (theft).

Everything else was the rabbit hole you took us down when you started asking questions about moral superiority.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok, if you aren't bringing morality into the picture, what is your point?

There is nothing immoral about sharing ideas and expressions of ideas. In fact thwarting that free exchange is immoral on my book. It may however be a necessary evil in some circumstances to give a limited monopolies to insure that creative people are capable of being creative.

But is that what we have today? Or, at least only what we have today? I'm not so certain that we are anywhere close to that today.

And while today we are arguing over relatively virtual things like digital books, digital music, and digital video this debate is going to blow up when we are layering real, physical, multiple material things for just a tab bit more than the cost of raw materials.

 

[Otis]

1) If someone robs my house blind, how am I not a victim?

Terrible analogy...a more accurate one would be if someone took a photo of your newly painted house and then printed it at home and hung it on their wall.

Your analogy is sadly somehow way worse.

 

[Otis]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

Ahhh yes. The "it's ok to steal from rich guys" defense. Was waiting all day for this one!

 

[Otis]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

Remember that one Oscars where the MPAA guy or whatever went up on stage in his Armani suit and gold plated cuff links and plead to America for 10 minutes to not pirate movies. I wanted to barf right there.

Yeah stick it to the man!!

 

[Scoresman]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

Ahhh yes. The "it's ok to steal from rich guys" defense. Was waiting all day for this one!

think of it like being robin hood. he was a good guy, right?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Ok, if you aren't bringing morality into the picture, what is your point? Why is it relevant that fewer people are arrested for piracy than theft, at least % wise?

I've only had one point: torrenting is not stealing (theft).

Everything else was the rabbit hole you took us down when you started asking questions about moral superiority.

Legally, Ok, but why is that relevant? Both are punishable under the law.

 

[Otis]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

 

[Otis]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

Ahhh yes. The "it's ok to steal from rich guys" defense. Was waiting all day for this one!

think of it like being robin hood. he was a good guy, right?

I guess. Has the music and movie industry been oppressing you?

 

[gmbacm]

.

 

[cstu]

How much is giganews? Also is it difficult to get video like the old days (having to combine files, etc).

I use SABnzbd+ with my Newsdemon account and there's no unraring of files - this is actually a major bonus over torrents IMO.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Woah there, the Supreme Court said that it isn't theft, so it isn't stealing. Duh...

 

[cstu]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Considering we're all going to be dead in the not too distant future, let's just say I don't trouble myself too much about whether it's 'ok', regardless of the person's wealth.

 

[tonydead]

Ok, if you aren't bringing morality into the picture, what is your point? Why is it relevant that fewer people are arrested for piracy than theft, at least % wise?

I've only had one point: torrenting is not stealing (theft).

Everything else was the rabbit hole you took us down when you started asking questions about moral superiority.

Legally, Ok, but why is that relevant? Both are punishable under the law.

a) That was the argument Otis was making when you jumped in.

b) For one of them the punishment is rarely handed out.

 

[Maelstrom]

Welp, looks like its time to finally give in and purchase a VPN subscription.

Don't bother - it doesn't work. :(

I logged in from five or six different locations around the country, and tried a couple out of the country as well. It never gets past the buffering stage. But when I disconnect the VPN, the movies download instantly for my own IP.

Which one/ones did you try? Free ones generally don't allow torrents and often don't allow streaming video at all.

 

[Wingnut]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

 

[tonydead]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Woah there, the Supreme Court said that it isn't theft, so it isn't stealing. Duh...

This guy learned something today. I didn't just draw that conclusion either, the Supreme court also said "stealing".

 

[Maelstrom]

You can also set your torrent client to it's slowest upload speed. I haven't found one that will upload zero, but, utorrent can be set so slow that it's almost nothing by the time you have your file. They MPAA and RIAA are just doing the same thing you are in order to see your IP address, so, they only see your IP if you upload to them.

Just so people know, they can see your IP when you are just downloading. They generally go after those sharing the content, because that is the copyright infringement that they have been able to make stick in court. They rarely will go after IPs of those just downloading, but it is inaccurate to say they can't see your IP if you are only downloading.

PS. uTorrent has gone to the dark side and installs crap-ware on update. Try qBittorent, seems pretty nice.

 

[drummer]

I love the "James Cameron can't eat today because you downloaded a BDRip of Avatar" schtick.

Ahhh yes. The "it's ok to steal from rich guys" defense. Was waiting all day for this one!

Go back to the diet thread fatty. This thread is for people who know how to use the internet.

 

[Maelstrom]

What if I purchased a generic pair of shoes and drew Nike logo on them. Would that be stealing? Copy right infringement I guess? Who am I hurting?

Actually I think logos are registered trade marks. Do you plan on opening up a shop online and selling these? If so, Nike might sue if you started cutting into their profits, otherwise neither of you are going to lose much sleep.

I just want to wear the shoes myself. Not going to try and sell them or open a shop.

What you are suggesting is totally and completely fine. You could walk up to Nike's trademark lawyer, and they would say "good for you"! If you aren't selling or distributing the product, trademark owners could care less.

The trademark lawyer might not care to go after you for this, but they do have the right to under their trademark. And if enough people were to create their own "Nike" shoes, they could potentially lose their trademark because they aren't defending it, so they do have incentive beyond whether or not you are selling or distributing the product with their trademark on it.

 

[Wingnut]

Movie companies have the money to hire some uber smart geeks that can figure out how to make money with streaming and file sharing technology. If they don't do that, they are basically saying they don't mind it much. So this is on them.

 

[Otis]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

 

[Otis]

Movie companies have the money to hire some uber smart geeks that can figure out how to make money with streaming and file sharing technology. If they don't do that, they are basically saying they don't mind it much. So this is on them.

Phew! We had almost totally missed the "they could stop me from stealing if they wanted to, but they let me get away with it so they obviously don't mind"! That was close.

 

[drummer]

I'm sure Otis used Napster back in the day when he had a MySpace page.

 

[Scoresman]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Amen brutha

 

[tonydead]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

If we don't follow Supreme Court rulings and the definitions they make then why does any of our legal system matter? It is not stealing, fact. Call it what it is.

 

[Maelstrom]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

 

[Wingnut]

Movie companies have the money to hire some uber smart geeks that can figure out how to make money with streaming and file sharing technology. If they don't do that, they are basically saying they don't mind it much. So this is on them.

Phew! We had almost totally missed the "they could stop me from stealing if they wanted to, but they let me get away with it so they obviously don't mind"! That was close.

I'm not hiding, if they want me they can come get me.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Ok, if you aren't bringing morality into the picture, what is your point? Why is it relevant that fewer people are arrested for piracy than theft, at least % wise?

I've only had one point: torrenting is not stealing (theft).

Everything else was the rabbit hole you took us down when you started asking questions about moral superiority.

Legally, Ok, but why is that relevant? Both are punishable under the law.

a) That was the argument Otis was making when you jumped in.

b) For one of them the punishment is rarely handed out.

So what? Why are you drawing a distinction with regard to which one is more commonly punished?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

 

[tonydead]

a) That was the argument Otis was making when you jumped in.

b) For one of them the punishment is rarely handed out.

So what? Why are you drawing a distinction with regard to which one is more commonly punished?

To answer your question to which one is morally superior. Do you want to go down this rabbit hole again?

 

[tonydead]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

Why should the consumer bear any burden?

 

[drummer]

People forget that you don't have to download files in order to watch stuff on the internet. Which I'm sure a crusader in Otis has.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

 

[mquinnjr]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Amen.

And for the notebook, your angle in defending the MPAA and RIAA on this one against (I'll assume) the majority of people posting in this thread is just what exactly? Let's call a 30 second time-out from this Angels vs. Demons matchup you're forcing upon this thread and look at this from a consumer's perspective.

Remember when people used to buy music CD's? In all seriousness, when is the last time the majority of people in this thread have physically bought music? It's easily been 5+ years for me. We have evolved, technologically, past physical media when it comes to music. The accessibility of music via legal and illegal channels is mouse clicks and mere minutes away from digital possession for the consumer. Remember how much money new music album cost? $15-20 for a new music CD, IIRC. Could you imagine paying that now? Heck no. We evolved to iTunes/other services selling individual songs and music a la carte for ~$1 a track. We've even further evolved to streaming music stations that cater to your specific music tastes, and on demand music services where you can listen to anything you want. Both radio and on-demand music services are either free with ad-support or charge a fee for a no advertisement experience. Again, remember when we used to buy music CD's - how ridiculous is that now??

Let's draw the same parallel to video, namely movies and TV shows. We have evolved, from Betamax to VHS, to DVD, and not Blu-Ray. Once the internet became mainstream, the technology has been developed to allow us to consume movies and TV shows when we want, and how we want via services like Amazon on-demand, Netflix, and Hulu, all catering to a specific niche. We're almost at the finish line, like the music industry. But, we're not quite there. A lot more at stake for the DirecTV's and Comcast's and Cox Cable's of the world. Anyone remember Sam Goody, FYE? Gone. Obsolete. Technology outpaced them. The same is coming for those providers of movies and video, and these content providers are squeezing blood from a stone (consumers) until that day comes, when they become Sam Goody or Tower Records. 10 years from now, we're going to look back and think, "$20 for a single blu-ray? Pfff, I can stream that via (name of service that emerges with the technology of Netflix or Hulu with an unlimited collection of movies and TV shows for a monthly fee, a la carte live channels, etc.).

Until then, people using torrents are the ones moving with the technology, not blindly giving in to the TV provider/physical media provider overlords holding on for dear life with obsolete technologies. When providers can figure out how to meet consumers in the middle for movies and TV show delivery, we won't need to use torrents any longer.

 

[mquinnjr]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

I think we're on the same page here.