This LDO

Phildo is such a sucker for not stealing things because it's more convenient.

Yep. Digital media like TV shows/Movies are going to have to do something if they want to remain a viable medium.

I've always assumed shows would just start a heavy program of in-show product placement since that would be impossible to remove/edit out on rebroadcast (unlike commercials).

For a show like Archer, I'm willing to watch on FX.com and sit through ~3 commercials in exchange for high quality and security, but any more than that and the risk of pirating is worth it. Companies are going to have to accept that their product isn't as scarce as it used to be.

dvrs are not some magical technology solely owned by cable companies. they are just a convenient way of recording television in a digital format. should it be illegal for me to hook my tv up to my computer and use a capture card instead of renting a dvr (probably if you ask the cable companies)? there's obv nothing morally objectionable to it.

what if i stick to torrenting network television? can you come up with a moral objection for that?

so you feel that using a computer with a capture card to record television is morally objectionable

It's really easy to shoplift from my local corner store. I am going to be upset when the invisible hand forces them to get better security and I need to start buying cigarettes.

I'm confused. Once you've paid for the service, you have the right to record and watch the shows later, with or without commercials. You're watching (or not watching) the commercials doesn't matter. Networks are paid by advertisers according to how many people watch their show. I'm sure that formula includes an adjustment for the expect percentage of DVRs.

That argument is obviously stupid since it's a service and not content problem, as Gabe clearly pointed out. But if you're not going to acknowledge that, then what's the point in arguing with you?

No. I think the difference between the options you laid out in your first post is trivial, I was just being a nit.

It's not their lack of security that makes you go and steal from the corner store. But I can see how adjusting to pay for things might seem unappealing going forward.

yes pudge, stealing something that costs money instead of paying for it is the exact same thing as deciding to download something that is freely broadcast over the airways

excellent analogy

I think it is a service problem, though saying it is only a service problem is a false dilemma. I think hulu/netflix et. al have gotten much better at reducing the service problem. I think justifying piracy because there is no for pay service that perfectly customizes your viewing experience requires a lot of mental gymnastics.

I am sure no one itt pirates from a cable network.

if i am not neilsen family the network cannot tell the difference between me downloading it and watching it over the air.

the only possible moral objection is "you are stealing by not watching the commercials" but again no one thinks that hooking your tv up to a capture card and using that to skip commercials is morally objectionable.

I'm pretty sure it's legal to record and archive as many TV shows as want.

rentable dvrs are just cable companies stealing money from advertisers. make renting dvrs illegal imo

Huh? Nielsen ratings have been measuring TiVo usage for a while now. The times they are a-chagin'

richard tanner,

if i watch a broadcast television show over the air and do not have a subscription dvr service and am not a neilsen family, i am the only person who knows i am watching that show.
but it shouldn't be! think of all the money these lowlifes are stealing from the networks in the form of future dvd sales

Didn't we just have this AIDS discussion a month ago?

there was the big thead in oot about sopa.

fwiw i find the "is it morally objectionable to d/l tv shows" argument a lot more interesting than the broader "is d/l stuff in general morally objectionable" argument because of television's financial model. i understand that most people probably don't tho

edit: through some weird oversight i have been getting hbo without paying for it for at least the last 3 years. does watching it make me better than a person who illegally downloads hbo shows? no different?

I would generally agree with this. I think arguing that copyright infringement is morally right/neutral is a stupid position.

For some reason people are very averse to just admitting they are a scumbag for doing X and instead want to justify it with a bunch of weak arguments. If you participate in copyright infringement, you are a jerk. You may be a jerk with a laundry list of supporting reasons, but that does not ameliorate your actions.

I don't understand why people just can't accept that. I guess everyone wants to be "right" always.

EDIT:

Personally, I have a subscription to Netflix. It's well worth it; outstanding service that streams to my PC, Xbox, and Android tablet. Piracy-based solutions pale in comparison. That said, I still pirate anything that Netflix does not support.

Games-wise, I pirated Mass Effect 3. Not because the endings were **** or because Bioware's DLC policy is repugnant (though these don't hurt my case, I'll say that much), but because I don't believe PC games should cost $50. I would gladly pay $20 for ME3. Game designers bitch that $20 isn't enough to make that kind of game and make profit. Well, how does $0 sound to you? Because that's how much I paid for it. But that doesn't mean I'm not an ******* for pirating his game.

Bank error in your favor imo

you guys are your fancy torrent/streams amuse me. i'm still using beta tapes to watch movies.

and boom, there's your next draft. products from 1970 on that are now obsolete/superseded.

damn pudge u uptight bro

#1 pick, ainec!: