this is all g.r.r.m.'s fault, anyway

[rone]

Let's be clear: i don't like The Oatmeal.  I found Matthew Inman's humor juvenile but inoffensive at first; even in the cartoons that had material that i liked, his delivery seemed off in the way that the dorkiest of nerds have when they overtell or overexplain a joke.  He finally lost me with his issues-revealing Utilikilts cartoon, and that's colored everything else that i've had the misfortune to witness (and you'd call me an idiot for continuing to follow links there, and you'd be right).  His approach to things in his life is relentlessly adolescent, and his current comic about how HBO has forced him to torrent the "Game of Thrones" series, which has been pounded across my social network with much delight by my so-called friends, is a prime example of this: entitlement and rationalization in the face of unenlightened self-harm (and, yes, the fact that it's about the much overrated "Game of Thrones", which book many of my friends inexplicably love and consequently turned them into morbidly obsessed fans of the HBO series, doesn't help).

Here's the thing: HBO doesn't owe anyone the "Game of Thrones" series outside of the terms in which they make it available (i.e., pay a shitload of money a month to the local cable monopoly and be glad that they deign to convey their munificence to your hovel).  Is Inman truly advocating that we should we bend or break the rules every time an incompetent business doesn't offer us their product in a timely fashion after we've declined to adhere to their idiotic terms and conditions, simply because we really, really want it?

If you're going to torrent it, torrent it, but don't waste time rationalizing it.  Just because the MPAA is acting like Javert doesn't mean that you're Valjean, and "Game of Thrones" isn't a piece of bread.

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Once again, their inability to making their work of art more easily available to you is no justification for obtaining it in an unapproved manner. If you wish to do so, then do so, but don't try to paint it as a logical conclusion of some sort.

This isn't a discussion about copyright. It's about the foolishness of whitewashing bad behavior in the face of stupidity.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

Oh, but this is a discussion about copyright, because copyright exists for a reason. My behavior is consistent with the stated aims of copyright. Your proposed behavior of "nobody listens to the album and it sits unheard in a vault somewhere" is not. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with copyright law.

Here's a real example: New Musik's album "Warp". I bought the cassette, because it was all I could find. Then I bought a vinyl LP when I managed to find that, because the cassette was going to wear out and I figured I could tape the LP and listen to the copy. What I really wanted was a CD, but Sony wasn't selling any. So I bought a pirate CD bootleg. I shamelessly indulged in copyright violation. Later, when Sony came out with an official CD, I purchased that. I emphatically deny that my behavior in engaging in copyright violation was bad or immoral.

Here's another real example: Laurie Anderson's "Home of the Brave". Warner own the rights. They do not sell it on DVD, on iTunes, on anything. So I downloaded a pirate copy, as have many other people. If nobody had done so, Laurie Anderson would not have made a penny more in royalties. Nor would Warner have made any more profit. All that would have happened would be that a lot fewer people would have seen the movie. And that's not the purpose of copyright. (Alright, you say, but I could have purchased a VCR and a used copy of the old VHS release and watched that--but that wouldn't have put money in Laurie Anderson's pocket either, and there we're definitely starting to get into the gray area of what constitutes "reasonable".) So again, I reject the characterization of my actions as immoral, and in fact I would defend them to the artist herself. It's not that I'm rationalizing because I don't want to pay; I've got a big stack of (I think) every Laurie Anderson album ever released on CD, all purchased legitimately, that says otherwise.

I get the sense that you are viewing intellectual property as an end in itself, or as an essential good which exists without rationale and should confer right to control, like physical property. If that's the case, then why not eternal copyright? Surely the idea that someone's property eventually becomes owned by the public to do what they like with, is the public having a horrible sense of entitlement?

(I also get the sense that your apparently intense dislike for The Oatmeal may be warping your opinions somewhat.)

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

You are, indeed, rationalizing that, because you obtained some items legally, it absolves you from obtaining others in a less than legal fashion. That is bollocks, and as near as i can tell, so is your claim that this is consistent with the aim of copyright. You can try to reframe it however you want to make yourself feel better. It's certainly not comparable to depriving someone of their actual property. But it's not on the up-and-up in any way.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

No, you aren't following my argument. Having obtained something else legally has nothing to do with the argument; I just mentioned it as counter evidence to the suggestion that my motivation is cheapness. I could give you an example where I've bought nothing by the artist, because none of it is for sale at any price.

The argument is that copyright is intended to encourage the creation and distribution of artistic works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause). Locking works away not to be experienced does not encourage their creation or distribution. Copying them when they are not otherwise available does, however, and does not financially harm the creator of the work (since they wouldn't have received money for something you can't pay for anyway).

Clearly paying to experience works is better still, as far as the aims of copyright, but I'm talking about cases where that option is not open. In those cases, I don't see any moral wrongness in copying.

In the case of The Oatmeal, he fell into a gray area where the work was kinda sorta available, but at very high price and a huge amount of inconvenience. But I was more interested in the general case, since you seemed to be making a general statement that it was unacceptable.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I did not suggest that your motivation was cheapness. Your motivation is pure desire: "I want this, and the only way i can obtain it is not kosher, and i don't care."

In the general case, it is unacceptable. But as you say, it's a grey area, and downloading a torrent of a movie that was released yesterdy is not in the vicinity of downloading a torrent of an out-of-print Laurie Anderson album. Nearly everyone break laws, regulations, and conventions every day. The matter here is whether we're lying to ourselves or to others about our motivation. I try not to.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

Right, but why should I care, other than the possible risk of getting caught and sued? Following laws isn't an end in and of itself, as far as I'm concerned. Are you really saying it's morally wrong to desire to see a movie? If so, you are a much better Buddhist than I am.

Or is it about breaking the law? Pot smokers are motivated by pure desire too, when they break the law. Should they be ashamed?

It's quite possible that The Oatmeal is lying about his motivations, but I don't have any actual evidence that that's the case, which is why I'm a bit reluctant to grab the pitchfork and light the torch.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

It's morally wrong to give in to the desire to see a movie if that incurs breaking a law. Sure, pot smokers should feel some sort of spiritual discomfort for breaking the law (not unlike, say, underage drinkers). And, no, there is no actual evidence that he's lying; it is my conclusion based on the things he's saying, and how he's saying them. I could be utterly wrong.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

OK, well, I disagree that breaking laws is necessarily morally wrong, whether out of selfish desire or for any other reason.

Maybe I could be convinced otherwise, but I'm not optimistic about your chances.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

It's not important that i do so. It might be better in person, over a good amount of liquor.