You've obviously misunderstood the point of my first sentence so I'll try again. I'm not 'taking' from someone else simply because I can get away with it, I'm 'giving' to myself (via preserving my cash where I can), simply because I can get away with it. The outcome is the same of course and thats the bottom line, but I guess I'm seeing that I'm looking out for myself and you're choosing to see me shiting on other peoples heads. 90% of my post is the same because I only have one belief on the matter and that belief is consistent.
Well, obviously both can be (and are) true. You're giving to yourself, which happens to come at the expense of others. Sounds like we're on the same page here.
Acknowledging that stealing is stealing doesn't attach a particular ethical or moral value to the term at all and it is therefore not clear. My principles come from my beliefs that involve looking out for myself as best I can, this of course includes not breaking a law that involves punishment. Your implying that the law is rite and breaking the law is wrong, if you believe this then the morality is indeed crystal clear. I don't.
The only thing I'm implying is that theft is wrong, and that people are entitled to do what they want with the art they create. If your personal code of conduct is only concerned with what's good for you, personally, without regard for how it affects others, then there's not much else to say here. We can certainly establish that what you're doing is stealing, but I certainly can't prove to you that stealing is wrong. I can only point out that you would be upset if it happened to you, but if your own interest is your primary concern, that might not mean much.
No, you've misunderstood again. Saying "via the goodness of my heart" had nothing to do with 'charity' towards film makers, I was referring to the fact that I'm not going to pay because I'm supposed to believe thats the 'rite' thing to do. The recurring theme is that I'm a selfish git who looks out for himself and your choosing to believe I'm doing so to **** on others. I know you'll argue the outcome is the same and it is, but the one principle I've claimed is that I look out for my best interests and in this case that involves not paying for **** I can get free of charge online.
Of course I'm not suggesting you do it because you like taking from others. Almost nobody who does something wrong does it for the sheer perverse pleasure in harming someone else -- it's always just an example of putting their own desires ahead of other people's. All badness is like that.
By logistical nightmare you mean there choosing the lesser of two evils (least expensive). With data signature mapping is actually very easy for ISPs to determine what your downloading without invading your privacy until its clear your breaking the law. Youtube uses similar technology to block content that is protected, usually music on Ytube without anyone having to even look at the content. There aren't 310,000 John Smiths blocking every numpty that uploads a version of airplanes - b.o.b feat Hayley Williams. The production companies just refuse to pay ISPs to do this. I should mention what they're doing now is pointing out (quit rightly) that the ISPs service is being used to break the law and it should be said company that pays to have the service policed not the victims of the crime. This is completely logical and when it happens you'll see a big clamp down on illegal downloading, it's just funny how long the most logical principle in the world can take to go through a court of law.
I'm still confused by this "paying ISPs" thing. I'm not aware of any ISPs being paid for this. YouTube monitors itself, I believe, to fend off potential lawsuits. Nobody has to pay websites or ISPs to uphold the law, they just have to (sometimes) threaten legal action when they don't.
Anyway, it's probably true that increased file-sharing will lead to increased pressure on ISPs, but there are legal hurdles, too. But the logistical problems with stopping file-sharing don't really have any bearing on whether or not it's right or wrong, and the fact that Hollywood might be reluctantly putting up with some of it for the moment isn't terribly relevant.
Of course, but I don't care about big shots making money. The box office takings take care of the artists and unless your name is James cameron or you wear a suit while your 'making' movies, you shouldn't worry about DVD sales.
But, again, if the film industry makes less money because of file sharing, less movies get made, and certain ordinary people (grips, technicians, etc.) will have less work available to them.
File-sharing doesn't have to have a HUGE effect for this to be true. This happens even if file sharing has even a modest effect on the industry. At any given moment there are tons of films vying to be put into production. There will always be films that are just shy of getting made, and or just barely getting made. Anything which moves that line at all will inevitably change the fate of those potential films that lie right on the margin. As long as there are films teetering on the edge of getting made, this will be true.
It's not as if a film's box office is isolated from its DVD sales; it's all factored into the initial deal. The
potential for DVD sales helps determine the budget and salaries for all involved from the beginning. It's not some kind of after-thought that's treated separately, it's a factor in the initial negotiations and determinations about what does and doesn't get made, and by whom, and for how much. If DVD sales go down because of file-sharing, that will be reflected in negotiations going forward, because there will be less potential for new films, and thus studios will be willing to risk less because the potential payout is less. Movies are money-making bets. If there is less upside to success, less money will be risked initially.
"Convoluted quasi-rationalizations". I'm probably just rambling because I only really have one point and you know what that is. As long as I can get this **** online for free, I will.
That's what it comes down to: it's not that nobody loses when you do it. It's not that it isn't theft. It's not that it doesn't harm others. It's just that you can get away with it, and it benefits you, so do you do it. That's been just about my only point here.