Let me explain here, as just one example. There was a tv show that was broadcast in the late 2000’s - early 2010’s. About 5-6 years ago, right when I felt nostalgic and wanted to watch it again, the tv show in question was pulled from all major streaming services, and DVDs of the show were not produced (or if they were, I was never able to get my hands on them). The only way that this cartoonish show was watchable for a time was via second-hand archives on YouTube, dailymotion, etc. However, despite the fact that the show was made inaccessible, the copyright holder’s official website states even to this day that the show is copyright, which means that unofficial uploads on YouTube should be in violation of copyright (the YouTube channels were just amateurish accounts and not credible, official accounts, just to be clear). As such, it was ambiguous as to whether the production company was going to lease the rights to the show. Whilst interest in the show has gone now, it did make me wonder: is it ever justifiable (either legally or ethically, or morally) to pirate media that has been completely pulled from circulation despite the original owner maintaining copyright (and therefore ownership) of? Or, is it (legally, ethically or morally) justifiable to pirate media where the copyright status is ambiguous (i.e. you don’t know if anyone owns it) [classic case study I always hear about: British PSAs, icons of 70’s 80’s and 90’s kids childhoods, yet locked behind copyright doors whose keys may lie in the hand of legal ambiguity]
Justifiable? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not an armchair ethics professor like most of the nerds in this discussion.
I cut out all all the extra dance steps and forgo justification entirely. If I want it, I’ll attempt to take it one way or another.
Piracy is justifiable in a vastly greater number of scenarios than just pulled media.
Are you asking if its ethical, or asking if its moral?
Legal and ethical (you can add moral too, ig). Yeah, why not? Let’s do all 3
I’d say it’s both ethical and moral, but also illegal.
One of my gripes about how goddamn long copyright lasts is that it makes officially sharing a digital copy a crime. Perfectly applied, most music would have disappeared from existence before it can be digitized and disseminated throughout hard drives around the world. The only reason the majority of copyrights are even monitored at this points is to harvest money from YouTube videos; those people have absolutely no interest in preservation.
Makes me think of that old horror movie Nosferatu: Stoker’s wife sued the producers and the court ordered that all copies of the movie be destroyed. It was only that a few prints of the movie were hidden (arguably pirated, certainly meeting the legal definition) that that movie is still watchable today, and critics call it one of the greatest horror movies of history (or at least one of the earliest/most influential)
That’s a cool story.
There’s a lot of cinema that was just thrown into the trash. If you ever see Metropolis, imagine 100 movies like that that we will never see.
Sad
To keep it short: Yes, it is.
Short, sweet and to the point! Thanks for sharing your view (even if it’s not detailed lol)
deleted by creator
My own personal morals are with where are the profits going? To the corporation ceos and stars? Then 100% stealing is justified. The writers, crew editors, session muscisians, programmera, designers etc got paid a salary once and yet others profit off it for decades, nah. I hold off on current shows if I want them to keep making more seasons.
I do try and be more thoughtful with bands and authors. I go to shows and signings and buy merch directly from them. Lord knows they don’t earn anything off Spotify so may as well have my own library. I get most ebooks through Libby and dedrm them or at least borrow for a day before acquiring elsewhere since dedrm seems more difficult these days.
Retro games they already made their money, liberate them or at least make it easy and cheap to own. Steam solved this for modern PC games by having so far a decent service.
So in your case shows over, no one sells it, and if they did only a corporation would profit. Take the show Ed, there was never a DVD release and there’s nowhere to stream it. So what other option is there if you want to rewatch it?
Its most likely illegal, but depends on where you live (some country might have more flexible copyright laws that have that situation as an exception).
But I would consider that ethical and moral. When HBO deleted a bunch of their cartoons for the tax ride off, one of the creators of the cartoons tweeted that they themselves had to pirate their own show just so their kid could still watch it.
It’s probably illegal but it’s completely moral in my opinion. Like, wtf are you supposed to do if not pirate? They pulled the show. You cannot obtain it legally even if you wanted to
To add to this the price should be reasonable. If the price for some old ass shit is crazy expensive it’s essentially NOT available legally and should be pirated.
For example Nintendo charging full price for some nostalgia game.
Nintendo is awful in general, but especially when it comes to their old libraries.
TLDR- In your case, that wouldn’t be called piracy.
If no one can own anything, then piracy doesn’t exist.
Download that show. It’s a form of protest, as far as I’m concerned.
Make sure to bind your torrent client to your vpn. VPNs have a killswitch but the binding offers a bit for insurance.
What makes torrenting justified in my view:
- Enshittification of streaming services with ad breaks.
- Shows typically have a 2 year gap before we can watch the next 8-10 episodes.
- Not all shows are available in all countries.
- The customer has to pay for multiple services to binge an entire show.
- Physical media is not always available.
deleted by creator
The only time I would say it isn’t justifiable, if it’s a book/game/etc. made by an unrecognised creator who needs every purchase they can get. In every other case, go for it!
What was the show?
I would rather not say tbh. The name of the show is not relevant to the question being asked, as the topic in question can apply to any and all shows that are stuck in this state (there are actually more than you might think). However, if you are knowledgeable about that era of shows, I will soon be posting about another forgotten show which you might find more interesting as I cannot for the life of me find this other show.
The main purpose of IP law is to reward creators and pirating old show where you can stimulate the creators revenue or influence stream then it’s perfectly fine. In fact you might be doing good!
If no one loses any income from you pirating something then I’d say it’s impossible to be immoral. I’d imagine that anyone actually involved in original production would just be happy that there’s still someone out there interested in their work.
If the only person who loses income is a corporation then it’s still morally acceptable because corporations themselves are inherently amoral.
Pirate everything but balance the books by directing money to the original creators with things like merch or going to live shows or conventions etc
Interesting. What’s your belief on the subject for media that was crated by someone who no longer makes money off of it (e.g. they’re dead, or they sold the rights or ip) but is owned by someone else who had nothing to Do with the creation?
In my opinion, if they’re not the creator, or critical to the creation, of a work, they have no claim over it.
Even if they paid for the legal rights to?
Legality is not the same thing as morality.
The spirit of patenting an idea is so the creator can retain financial benifits from their ingenuity. If they sell it off and the buyer just sits on it, it is ethical to pirate. The buyer needs to make something new with the idea before they have any real contribution to the original idea.
Did they pay you for anything? Then who cares, you’re not included in the contract and not bound by it.
This reminds of what happened with one of the most infamous sci-fi design controversies: the Daleks:
The concept was conceived by a writer called Terry Nation, but he only created the outline (the story, etc.) but didn’t create the design. Instead, these characters were designed by Raymond Cusiak, and they became immensely popular, drawing in millions of viewers. However, because of some legal loophole, Cusiak did not receive royalties for his design, only Terry Nation received royalties despite the fact that the design of the Daleks (the lure for viewers) was created by someone else entirely. Not necessarily a legal issue, but certainly a moral/ethical one.
Well that has an easy solution.
EXTERMINATE
I think not only is it justifiable, it is a necessity for archival purposes. If you can’t stream the show, they should be forced to release it for free or at the very least, release the copyright so other people can upload their archive.
