Don't Make Me Steal

I really don't like the "don't make me steal" attitude. It undermines a good society.<p>The creators of this campaign decided that "Purchase should not exceed the cinema price." Really? What if we did that for, say, organic bread. "I won't buy organic bread unless it's x3 or less than the cost of the generic white bread. If it is more expensive, I'm entitled to steal it."<p>Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not to steal it.

I don't think running a protection racket is the best way to get your point across. "I promise never to watch a movie until my demands are met" might actually carry some moral weight.

I have some quibbles with the listed criteria, but I like the basic idea. When I was a pirate, I was a pirate of convenience. I barely pirate anything now that I have access to Amazon MP3, iTunes, and Netflix instant. The piracy I do partake in is mostly focused on ebooks since the Kindle store is so limited. But I also buy a lot of Kindle books when they are available.<p>I wonder if most pirates are pirates of convenience who will convert into paying customers if there is a convenient way to do so. I do get a little angry at content companies who are a decade behind the times in technology.

The whole "languages" section sounds like it was written by somebody with no understanding of how dubbing is produced, who pays for it, and the issues that arise with the rights to these different versions of a film. Often it gets even more complicated with TV Shows.<p>Convenience? Now you're getting completely unreasonable. If you can't filter by all metadata you're going to "steal"? Come on...

I'll better sign a petition that is like: letmebuy.com, and the only clause will be<p><pre><code> "Outside US we are people too. Here, take our hard-earned money"</code></pre>

My partner Dave asks when we can expect the MPAA/RIAA to put up "DON'T MAKE US SUE".

This name is awful.<p>1)It implies that copyright infringement is stealing. 2)It implies lack of responsibility, as in someone is making you do a certain action. You have a choice.

This can start a copyright flame, but in order to be fair, "steal" should be replaced with "copy".

The implication is that by signing the petition, my intent is to "steal" a movie unless certain terms are met. No, thanks.

Cool project but I'd rather not have to sign with Facebook/Twitter. Can you implement an alternative please?

Don't agree with 'Purchase should not exceed the cinema price.' since that stuff comes with extra content and 20 years from now I'm sure whatever the cinema costs were will have become untenable due to inflation...

I agree with the general idea but the specific criteria sounds very good from a consumer POV and not very realistic for a company to offer.<p>"Rent should not exceed 1/3 of the cinema price. Purchase should not exceed the cinema price."<p>Rent/purchase and cinema are completely different businesses, with different expenses. Going to the cinema doesn't give you a permanent copy. I'm pretty sure movie ticket prices are subsidized by sales of overpriced popcorn, drinks, and snacks. Online sales/rentals might be better compared to brick-and-mortar sales/rentals rather than cinema. Either that or offer a breakdown of how it might be viable for a company to charge those prices.<p>"I have access to pretty much every movie ever made."<p>This isn't possible using any other legitimate method that I know of; the only reason pirates can do it is because they don't have to worry about the legal issues, pay for licensing, etc. They just need access to a physical or digital copy which is far easier to do. This will probably be even harder when combined with the pricing demands since it limits how much companies can pay for licensing. If you mean major films/TV shows only, "most" might be a better word, otherwise it sounds like you want them to chase down every indie filmmaker who's put out a movie that a dozen people might be interested in watching.<p>"Pricing of TV shows is about 1/3 of movies. I pay for the content, not for bandwidth."<p>These seem almost contradictory to me. I'm guessing the pricing of TV shows should be 1/3 that of movies because they're 1/3 as long, but if "content" means "length" then the second point doesn't mean very much in most cases. If content is some measure of quality/popularity then there's no reason why TV shows would cost less than movies. (Especially since, from my POV, there are far more good TV shows right now than good movies.)<p>(edited for formatting and grammar.)

"Hey RIAA lawyers, here's a list of people who download movies!"

Here's what I really don't understand. What exactly do they believe gives them the "right" to watch a given movie / tv show?

All the arguments below aside, are there any cases where an online petition has had its desired effect on an any large business, let alone an entire industry?<p>I do ask this both as a jab and as a legitimate curiosity.

I love iPads, but Apple charges more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal one until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then.<p>I love Photoshop, but Adobe charges more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then.<p>I love Wolfram-Alpha's database, but Mathematica costs way more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then.<p>Does this not seam like a ludicrous attitude to you?

I don't think these are really fair to include in the criteria:<p>"I have access to the audio in every language that has been produced." and "Once I bought a movie, I can watch it in every available language."

I also want my TV to be ad-free if I'm paying for it. I prefer to pay for it than to watch the ads, because my time has value, but I don't demand that this alternative be offered. Yet.<p>This being said, I already follow this. I also don't illegally download media. I just don't watch stuff that's not available in a reasonable way. It seems silly, given that paying $10/month for Netflix gets me access to more content than I could ever possibly watch.<p>If only it worked on Linux. My Win PC is basically a "Netflix box" these days.

Typo:<p>Movies are delivered <i>adds</i> free.

The music industry in particular is infamous for making it's fortunes via the deliberate exploitation of artist and musicians over the decades. So when those same industries turn around and try and take the moral high ground regarding piracy, for better or worse, consumers mostly laugh at the hypocrisy and continue pirating.<p>I agree pirating is morally indefensible. But the reality is consumers will never be swayed by those arguments. Give consumers the product they want, at the price point they would like to pay. That is the only practical solution to this issue, regardless of how loudly the content industries screams about "stealing."<p>Failure to accept this reality will only lead to piracy continuing if not increasing.

This seems like 'I want a store like the iTunes Music Store for videos' that doesn't have the movie-company BS that the actual iTunes movie store does. (i.e. DRM free, has absolutely everything, doesn't cost a ridiculous amount for TV shows, etc) They'd need to add on 'simultaneous worldwide availability' and Linux compatibility, maybe subscriptions, and the subtitles stuff, but it'd get close to satisfying this manifesto.<p>I hope that a store like this exists soon. But given the track record of the studios, it's not likely that they'll become sane anytime soon.

Fortunately it is impossible to steal non-rivalrous goods.

All I want is for any TV or movie on iTunes that is purchasable to also be rentable. I don't have any desire to buy, say, The Social Network for $20, but I'll rent it for $5. This goes double for TV shows. I love Fringe, but if I miss an episode I don't want to spend $3 to buy it, watch it once and never see it again. Let me rent it for $1 and I'll be happy.

I agree with everything except yes to pay and no to ads. There really should be a way to provide free, ad-supported video, and premium, ad-free video. Once you purchase a movie it is free for all time, but every time you watch it for free it's ad-supported.

If you don't like the law, make your own 'content' then you can set prices, etc.<p>No one cares what you think is the 'right price'. If you don't want to pay, don't buy it.<p>No amount of whining is an excuse for stealing. Grow up!

<i>This</i> should compel you not to steal: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative</a>

As a former classifieds phone operator, please note:<p>"ad free", not "adds free".<p>Please. I beg you.

&#62; I have access to pretty much every movie ever made.<p>Oh <i>c'mon</i>.

<p><pre><code> Digital Media Consumption Manifesto</code></pre> Clearly should have been "agreement" instead of a "manifesto". Then they would have made a new DMCA.

"Movies are delivered adds free"<p>I closed the page at this point.

Why is the most important point made last?

Too bad I haven't a facebook nor a (personal) twitter account :)

Francis Ford Coppola:<p>Q: How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?<p>A: We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it's only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.<p>This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?<p>In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it.<p><a href="http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-On-Risk-Money-Craft-Collaboration" rel="nofollow">http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O...</a>

If I could watch content on Hulu, Netflix or other in Linux and I didn't want to throw myself in front of the lunatic-driven University bus, I'd be happy.<p>TPB -&#62; "The Italian Job" + 3 hours = me happy. There is NO legal alternative for me. No, I'm not walking 30 miles to Best Buy to waste $30 on a DVD that won't play in my computer that doesn't have a DVD drive. And I don't consider running Win7 in a VM to be reasonable at all.

I sympathise a great deal with the spirit of that manifesto. However, I don't full agree with it.<p>Mainly because it's basis comes down to, "I want a pony, Daddy. And I want it now! And it must pink! And made out of licorice!" And I don't agree with arguments like that because unless you yourself (the person desiring the pony) are the one who's making/building/providing the pony, then you're in the weakest possible position to be making such specific demands. "I'd like a pony too, little Virginia, but I have to figure out how much it costs, I have to go find one, figure out where to keep it, feed it, make sure it stays healthy, etc. And if it's not pink how the fuck do I make it pink? Don't even talk to me about licorice."<p>Note that I'm not saying that all consumers should conform their desires to whatever the producers feel like producing and providing it under. But I do think it requires give and take on both sides, and the folks on the producer side are much more likely to be constrained by Physical Reality, whereas the consumer role can prance around in Fantasy Land. Wanting convenience is fine. Wanting "fairness" is more problematic, because it's not always clear what is fair when you have to consider things from the provider's position, not just the consumer. And some consumer demands are arbitrary or undefensible. For example, what reasonable basis would one have for demanding that you should not have to pay more money to own a product (a DVD/video) than you would to rent it (watch movie in theatre)? There are arguments for why each should be more expensive than the other, and the "cost plus" model is only part of the consideration. Value-based pricing is also fundamental to economics and market-making. Yes, artificial scarcity can make prices for a thing higher than what it would be otherwise. However, if you're not the one producing the thing in question, you're not in the position to decide whether or how much to turn that dial. As a consumer you can choose not to buy a thing under terms you don't like, but you're not in a position to demand or force a provider to match your ideal terms. You are always free to get off your ass and go make the very thing you want. But if you lack the creativity, energy, intelligence, skills, willpower, etc. to make that thing, then you will absolutely be (at least somewhat) at the mercy of those that do overcome and perform those things in order to provide it. Thus the give and take, and thus a market where price and terms must be reached by compromise on both sides.<p>Don't make me steal? Don't make me laugh.