I know it's hard to generate any sympathy for billion dollar corporations, especially ones that are as money hungry as Disney, but sharing passwords is like going to an "All you can eat" buffet, paying for one person, and then slipping enough food out the door to feed your entire family.
Stealing is stealing, period.
when it comes to piracy, which this basically is, "Stealing" isnt always stealing.
These estimations are made in bad faith, they assume that all the people who are using another persons account would be paying customers otherwise, which generally speaking isnt true. There is a binary with pirates of a specific digital good, pirates that would purchase the good if they did not have the option to get it for free and pirates that would not purchase the good if they did not have the option to get it for free, studies have been done in the past that show that the vast majority of digital good piracy is the latter variety. Those pirates arent costing a company basically anything, no one is losing money off of them because if they werent getting the product through piracy no one would be making money off them anyways.
The projected loses are estimated assuming those dont exist so they can make the number look good for propoganda like that, its a business move, a marketting move, thats it.
You can type all day long, but at the end of the day, stealing is still stealing. If you password share, you are getting something from someone without paying the expected fee. Just because it is commonly done and people routinely get away with it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Oh I read it, I just don't buy any of it.
While an intelligent case can be made for such things as "piracy is not really a bad thing," you are still stuck with the fact that by sharing passwords you are not only violating the terms of service which you agreed to when you signed up, you are also helping someone steal from the service in question.
In other words, while a solid argument can be made that a company such as Disney or Netflix would benefit from allowing customers to share their passwords with friends, they have chosen not to do so. This is their prerogative.
If you share your password with someone outside your household, you are giving something away without the permission of the owner, which is a kind of theft.
In most of the US it's actually illegal to dumpster dive for food or to give out food publicly without a license. Giving a homeless person on the street a sandwich is technically illegal.
None of what you said actually address anything i said, you started what you said by deflecting the entire thing as "i didnt buy any of it."
-
"If you share your password with someone outside your household, you are giving something away without the permission of the owner, which is a kind of theft. "
\
nothing is being lost, nothing is being "given away." If you had actually read what i said i ALREADY addressed this.
"Those pirates arent costing a company basically anything, no one is losing money off of them because if they werent getting the product through piracy no one would be making money off them anyways. " -me, 8 hours ago
There is nothing being lost here. No one is losing potential profits because there is no potential profit to be made, taking away their access to the pirated version with that kind of pirate will not cause them to purchase the product they are pirating, there is nothing being lost, for something to be theft, something has to be lost.
There is evidence that pirating doesn't hurt the industry, it can actually help boost it. For instance, video game piracy often serves as a sort of "demo" market - since game demos aren't really a thing anymore, a person will pirate a game to try it out, or just to see if their PC can run it well enough, and eventually purchase it. If they didn't have the pirated version, they might not have tried and therefore bought the game at all. So yes while pirating is technically illegal there is data that shows it's actually beneficial for the industry. I'd assume it works in a similar way with shows. Watch an episode or two to see if you like it and then subscribe to the service.
A lot of things are technically illegal, including jaywalking. But imo if it doesn't hurt anyone, we shouldn't condemn it so harshly. And data says piracy doesn't really hurt anyone.
I agree with everything you have written here. However, password sharing is still "theft of services." You are getting something for free when the provider of said services is expecting its customers to actually pay for the service.
Another analogy would be hopping a city bus without paying the fare. Technically, the city is not out any money for having one more person on board, paid or not. Yet you are still utilizing someone else's resources without compensating them. It costs money to maintain a bus system, just like it costs money to maintain a streaming system, and to use either system without supporting it is simply wrong.
That's an interesting analogy, I like it. You're right, it's basically using a service that you're expected to pay for.
That said, coming back to the data @bethorien mentioned, most people who pirate wouldn't pay for the service anyway, if they weren't able to pirate. It's just entertainment, it's not necessary for their life. Meanwhile public transport is needed, so if it's well regulated and checked, people who would think about not paying their fare would just resort to paying it, because they need to use it anyway.
So yes philosophically speaking you're right but when we look at the real data, it shows that piracy isn't this big nasty business that's costing industries billions. As I said, it might even be beneficial.
We are starting to find some common ground here. What I see are two different discussions:
First : Would it be wise for businesses like Netfli and Disney allow password sharing? If they did so, would it be to their financial benefit?
Second: Given that they currently do not allow password sharing, are people justified in doing so anyway?
I would suggest that the answer to the first one could very well be yes, depending on the setup and market conditions.
However, on the second, I would stand by my original assessment: no, they are not justified in doing so. If you are going to derive benefit from a service, you need to support that service. After, as you say, we are talking about "just entertainment," not something that is essential for life, even if, as you are certainly correct in pointing out, it's not costing these businesses huge amounts of money.
Cheers!
What we have here is a debate that has its origin in two different world views. I am reminded of the painting "The School of Athens," by Rapheal. In the center of this painting are Plato and Aristotle, with Plato pointing up and Aristotle with his hand reaching out. Plato held the position that right and wrong was based on some universal code, while Aristotle held that right and wrong were determined by the impact on the world around us.
From our discussion, it appears that I am taking Plato's side, and you and @bethorian are taking Aristotle's side.
Question: I am in the process of making some teaching videos on various subjects, and one of them is going to be on how our decision making is based on our world view. Would you have any objection to me using this discussion as an example?
Those are good points, philosophically speaking I agree. I also like that you mentioned Ancient Greek philosophers. Interestingly enough, I usually tend to lean towards Plato's worldview, and I'm generally not a big fan of Aristotle. In other words, I like to talk about principles and ideas rather than real consequences. But it is hard to disconnect oneself from the real data this way, especially when companies like Disney, or even Netflix, and don't even get me started on Amazon, have so many skeletons in their closets. Amazon doesn't pay their warehouse employees enough and doesn't give them long enough breaks for them to even use the bathroom and they have to pee in bottles. Disney are copyright law abusers and unethical in other ways, like mistreating and underpaying their Disneyland cast members. So I sure as hell don't feel morally obligated to support these businesses, y'know what I mean?
I'm a fan of Kant's philosophy, in some ways similar to Plato's in the question of absolute morality. If the world was fair, I'd be the perfect moral imperative citizen, and I'm not just saying that, I do have a very strong moral core when I feel like I'm dealing with a fair actor. But when someone like Amazon or Disney act the way they do, in a predatory, abusive, even psychopathic way, I just don't feel any moral obligation towards them. The world isn't fair, and if we act with fairness and decorum towards unfair actors, it will only lead to exploitation of our fairness and the continuous perpetuation of bad actions. I remember this quote from my political philosophy class, it went something like "Most people aren't evil but the inaction of the majority allows evil to be perpetuated." It wasn't a quote by a philosopher but just the lecturer summing up a class. If only I could remember which philosopher this quote was connected to... I think Socrates and his conversation with Crito?
PS: Thank you so much for keeping this conversation civil and polite! I've had some unpleasant convos lately on this website with people who immediately resorted to ad hominems and fallacies upon disagreement, so this conversation has been a breath of fresh air.
And yes, you have my permission to use my part of the convo in your video! I'm really curious about the concept too, if you could link it when it's released, that'd be awesome!
Stealing is stealing, period.
These estimations are made in bad faith, they assume that all the people who are using another persons account would be paying customers otherwise, which generally speaking isnt true. There is a binary with pirates of a specific digital good, pirates that would purchase the good if they did not have the option to get it for free and pirates that would not purchase the good if they did not have the option to get it for free, studies have been done in the past that show that the vast majority of digital good piracy is the latter variety. Those pirates arent costing a company basically anything, no one is losing money off of them because if they werent getting the product through piracy no one would be making money off them anyways.
The projected loses are estimated assuming those dont exist so they can make the number look good for propoganda like that, its a business move, a marketting move, thats it.
While an intelligent case can be made for such things as "piracy is not really a bad thing," you are still stuck with the fact that by sharing passwords you are not only violating the terms of service which you agreed to when you signed up, you are also helping someone steal from the service in question.
In other words, while a solid argument can be made that a company such as Disney or Netflix would benefit from allowing customers to share their passwords with friends, they have chosen not to do so. This is their prerogative.
If you share your password with someone outside your household, you are giving something away without the permission of the owner, which is a kind of theft.
-
"If you share your password with someone outside your household, you are giving something away without the permission of the owner, which is a kind of theft. "
\
nothing is being lost, nothing is being "given away." If you had actually read what i said i ALREADY addressed this.
"Those pirates arent costing a company basically anything, no one is losing money off of them because if they werent getting the product through piracy no one would be making money off them anyways. " -me, 8 hours ago
There is nothing being lost here. No one is losing potential profits because there is no potential profit to be made, taking away their access to the pirated version with that kind of pirate will not cause them to purchase the product they are pirating, there is nothing being lost, for something to be theft, something has to be lost.
A lot of things are technically illegal, including jaywalking. But imo if it doesn't hurt anyone, we shouldn't condemn it so harshly. And data says piracy doesn't really hurt anyone.
Another analogy would be hopping a city bus without paying the fare. Technically, the city is not out any money for having one more person on board, paid or not. Yet you are still utilizing someone else's resources without compensating them. It costs money to maintain a bus system, just like it costs money to maintain a streaming system, and to use either system without supporting it is simply wrong.
That said, coming back to the data @bethorien mentioned, most people who pirate wouldn't pay for the service anyway, if they weren't able to pirate. It's just entertainment, it's not necessary for their life. Meanwhile public transport is needed, so if it's well regulated and checked, people who would think about not paying their fare would just resort to paying it, because they need to use it anyway.
So yes philosophically speaking you're right but when we look at the real data, it shows that piracy isn't this big nasty business that's costing industries billions. As I said, it might even be beneficial.
First : Would it be wise for businesses like Netfli and Disney allow password sharing? If they did so, would it be to their financial benefit?
Second: Given that they currently do not allow password sharing, are people justified in doing so anyway?
I would suggest that the answer to the first one could very well be yes, depending on the setup and market conditions.
However, on the second, I would stand by my original assessment: no, they are not justified in doing so. If you are going to derive benefit from a service, you need to support that service. After, as you say, we are talking about "just entertainment," not something that is essential for life, even if, as you are certainly correct in pointing out, it's not costing these businesses huge amounts of money.
Cheers!
From our discussion, it appears that I am taking Plato's side, and you and @bethorian are taking Aristotle's side.
Question: I am in the process of making some teaching videos on various subjects, and one of them is going to be on how our decision making is based on our world view. Would you have any objection to me using this discussion as an example?
And yes, you have my permission to use my part of the convo in your video! I'm really curious about the concept too, if you could link it when it's released, that'd be awesome!