Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Stealing Again?

    Posted by Dan from Madison on March 5th, 2008 (All posts by )

    I was very happy with the thoughtful comments (that are still ongoing) to my post of a few days ago called Hypocrite?.  I have another one now for the readers.

     Airing now on a newtork called AXN is a show called Contender Asia.

    Contender Asia is a show like many others, where sixteen men are gathered together to live in a house, and are divided into teams that have challenges and rewards.  This show is based on Muay Thai.  The participants are all experienced Muay Thai fighters and at the end of each show there is a fight.  The loser goes home, and the show does the same thing the following week, until only one man remains.  Some of the men are very famous.  There is a large prize at the end for the last man standing.  Those that know me understand that I am very involved in Muay Thai and have more than a passing interest in the sport – I have also followed some of these fighters for quite a while, so it is just the show for me.

    Anyway, AXN is not shown here in the USA.  There literally is no way for me to get this show.  Well, not exactly.  As I mentioned in the Hypocrite post, I have found a few sites that are showing the entire episodes of Contender Asia for free.  You simply log onto the site and push play.

    The only thing I think I may have stolen here is perhaps a chance later that I may purchase the dvd set of the show that the producers will no doubt offer.  But I don’t buy dvd’s as a rule, so the chance I would buy them is slim to none.  So I ask again – have I stolen anything here?  The producers of the show have gained zero from me watching their broadcasts on a site that they did not license, but the fact remains that there really is no way for me to see the show otherwise.

     

    41 Responses to “Stealing Again?”

    1. Daniel Says:

      Dan,

      There really is no way for me to afford that Porsche I have had my eye on, unless I steal it.

      Regards,
      Daniel

    2. Dan from Madison Says:

      Are you making equivalent the theft of a car and me watching a show for free that I can’t watch over here anyways? I think a car dealership may call the cops on you whereas I am not so sure that the cops would be all that interested in my intellectual property issue.

    3. Shannon Love Says:

      Dan from Madison,

      In my (extended) student days, I used to pirate Microsoft software with a clear conscience based on the honest premise that I would never have the money to buy the software so my use of the software did not actually deprive them of the sale.

      The moral ambiguity of pirating digital property comes from its non-zero sum nature. Material goods, like Porsches, land, food etc are zero sum. If one person uses it then someone else cannot simultaneously make use of it. If the property is stolen that directly deprives its owner of its use. Digital property, however, by the very nature of the technology, is duplicated each time someone uses it. One person using a duplicate does not in anyway interfere with anyone else using another copy.

      We have a hard time restraining ourselves when we see a benefit to ourselves that we can get without doing any perceived harm to anyone else. I think that is why we (definitely including myself) have such a hard time resisting pirating.

      I think the long term harm that will result from pirating will be the normalization of taking information products for free. If everybody pirates, then it will be seen as normal behavior unworthy of sanction. Eventually, people will begin to believe that they have a right to all informational products for free. When that happens, then the free-market for information will come to an end. People won’t be able to make money producing information.

      History suggest that when markets fail, governments step in. Long term, pirating some entertainment today could lead to some kind of informational communism in the future.

    4. Dan from Madison Says:

      In this situation what I am grappling with is the fact that the product is not available anywhere in the USA, so I am just getting it on the internet. There is no license for the show to be seen here, and it isn’t a sure thing that the show will eventually have a dvd release.

      Besides consuming someone elses bandwidth (who is voluntarily putting the show on the ‘net) I don’t see any harm whatsoever.

    5. Shannon Love Says:

      Besides consuming someone elses bandwidth (who is voluntarily putting the show on the ‘net) I don’t see any harm whatsoever.

      I think the only harm would be intangible. Short term, you violate a person’s innate right to control that which they create. Suppose for example that someone created a work of art which they did not think up to their own standards but by some circumstance got put out on the net anyway. They would feel violated to have the control over their own creation taken away. Imagine writing a blog post, then realizing you made a shameful bone head error in it and then having it spread all over the net against your will. It wouldn’t harm you materially but you would feel transgressed against.

      The creators of the video chose, for whatever reason, not to release it in the US. Ideally, you should respect that. Realistically, if your like me, you will treat finding something you can’t get otherwise on the internet like an easter egg. (and a candy one, not a real boiled egg. )

      Long term, who can say. If something becomes popular people have a tendency to rationalize the justice of it. Watching the pirated feed drives hits which will cause more piracy. Who can predict the long term effects? How does that piracy effect the creator’s income in places they do sell in.

    6. Jonathan Says:

      Imagine writing a blog post, then realizing you made a shameful bone head error in it and then having it spread all over the net against your will.

      But that’s like every blog post I’ve written!

      OK, seriously. I once wrote a nontrivial computer program for my own use but let a few colleagues use it too. One of them gave it to a third person who was a distant colleague, so I didn’t really mind, but that person gave it to a fourth person (who may have given it to other people, but by then no one would have told me). I was annoyed and confronted Person 3, who said something like, “Yeah, I gave it to him, so what?” I have found that his attitude is typical of people who haven’t created valuable intellectual property.

      I think that from the content owner’s POV the question isn’t whether unlicensed use is theft, it’s what to do about it. Because people are going to use IP without permission, particularly if there’s no reasonably priced, reasonably easy way for them to do so legitimately. Practically, the content owner can either create barriers to unlicensed use (e.g., you have to buy a license code to activate your copy of the software), or can accept that unlicensed use is occurring and try to make it into a marketing opportunity. You probably wouldn’t want to accept much unlicensed use of your expensive software, but if your product is inexpensive, such as CDs or pay-per-download videos, you might do better to try to develop easier/cheaper ways for customers to buy your product, so that you can reclaim business that pirates have taken. (Another alternative is to try to punish erstwhile customers who steal small amounts of your IP, but this isn’t a winning business strategy, as the RIAA has found.)

    7. Dan from Madison Says:

      But the fact remains that the show is not on in the US nor do there seem to be plans for it to be shown. I don’t predict a dvd release of the show here, but that isn’t for sure. Muay Thai isn’t a popular sport here in the US. So I suppose I have stolen the content, but what is the loss? In other words, have I really stolen anything?

      They producers are using their marketing to show this program in other parts of the world where MT is more popular, and are selling ads on the network in those places – perhaps they are figuring in a certain amount of leakage or loss due to internet pages like the ones I am looking at.

    8. Shad Says:

      Anyway, AXN is not shown here in the USA. There literally is no way for me to get this show. Well, not exactly. As I mentioned in the Hypocrite post, I have found a few sites that are showing the entire episodes of Contender Asia for free. You simply log onto the site and push play.

      But I don’t buy dvd’s as a rule, so the chance I would buy them is slim to none. So I ask again – have I stolen anything here? The producers of the show have gained zero from me watching their broadcasts on a site that they did not license, but the fact remains that there really is no way for me to see the show otherwise.

      Anyway, child prostitution with Thai boys and girls is not widespread here in the USA. There is literally no way for me to easily find children to have sex with here. Well, not exactly. I’ve found these sex tourism sites on the internet, and all I have to do is enter my credit card number and click a button, and I’m all set.
      Here in the U.S., I don’t have sex with children as a rule, so the chance I would do so without these internet services making it so easy for me is slim to none. So I ask again – is it wrong? Sure, it’s still sex with a child, but the fact remains that my society hasn’t been harmed because I went somewhere else to do it, right?

      (note: I’m not equating what you’re doing to child prostitution, but instead using that universally repugnant illegal activity for illustration because it better highlights that these posts are not about the rightness or wrongness of the underlying activity, but about the desperate attempt to rationalize behaviour that you know is wrong in the hopes that someone else in the comments section will agree and absolve you.)

    9. Vince P Says:

      OMG.. Just speechless.

    10. Dan from Madison Says:

      Shad – I don’t see how watching the show is illegal, therefore I don’t know if it is wrong, hence this post. The show is simply not for distribution in the States but I am watching it.

      The other post of mine did feature an illegal activity (albeit minor), I watched a product that was meant to be seen on pay per view and did not pay for it.

    11. Jonathan Says:

      I should have left my last comment in your other discussion thread.

    12. Jonathan Says:

      Shad, you are begging the question.

    13. Mrs. Davis Says:

      A hypocrite, an accessory and now a recidivist.

      Jonathan is right, which ever post he appends his comments to.

      Dan, you’re very clever and finding very clever ways of rationalizing theft of the intellectual property of others. Expect the same behaviour from your children. Hope they don’t get caught when they err in judging the legal owner’s tolerance for theft no longer so petty.

    14. Shannon Love Says:

      Dan from Madison,

      Actually in thinking about it, piracy belongs to that class of problems in which the actual harm is very low or nonexistent if only a few people do it but becomes massive if a lot of people do it.

    15. Dan from Madison Says:

      Mrs. Davis – you give me too much credit. I am not really that clever an individual. I am interested in pursuing this thread of how it is stealing when the item, in this instance the intellectual property of the producers of Contender Asia. The product is not available here, and doesn’t look like it will be so am I just to insulate myself from it? At least they are getting press from me talking about it to blog readers and my friends at the gym.

    16. Vince P Says:

      Shannon: I share this thought of yours:

      “I used to pirate Microsoft software with a clear conscience based on the honest premise that I would never have the money to buy the software so my use of the software did not actually deprive them of the sale. ”

      If I was never going to buy softwaree because it was simply out of my means to do so, I ask myself.. what is the consequence or impact of my use of the software if I was able to get it free… I see none. Plus I am not distributing it on to others.

      I know it’s a rationalization but yet I feel ok with that.

      BTW: My message that started with “OMG” was in response to the absurd comparasion to abusing children.

    17. Jonathan Says:

      If I was never going to buy softwaree because it was simply out of my means to do so, I ask myself.. what is the consequence or impact of my use of the software if I was able to get it free… I see none. Plus I am not distributing it on to others.

      I agree that there isn’t much if any harm in this. From the seller’s POV this is the inverse of price discrimination (where the seller charges different prices to different customers in order to get each customer to pay as much as he is willing to — e.g., Sims’ clothing stores, airline tickets, academic discounts on software). If you weren’t going to buy it anyway, the seller doesn’t lose anything by giving it to you, as long as you don’t resell it.

    18. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Dan – I learned enough on the geothermal thread to know you are clever. And you are employing that skill here to skirt the issue of what your behaviour constitutes. You do that by stating the problem as “The product is not available here,” instead of the more proper “The owner of the intellectual property has chosen not to license its use here”. Then you ask, plaintively, so am I just to insulate myself from it? It sounds to me like you had to go out of your way to find a site that was pirating it, not to insulate yourself as though it was some bot trying to sell you a drug whose name would probably prevent this comment from posting.

      I speed every day going to work. I stay 9 mph over the speed limit because I know the police here don’t ticket if you’re under 10 mph over the limit. But I don’t try to convince myself that I’m not breaking the law. Nor do I try to justify my behaviour by saying that it is a bad law nor by blaming the police because they enforce it selectively. As Martin Luther is reputed to have said, If you’re going to sin, sin boldly.

    19. Dan from Madison Says:

      Mrs. Davis – Again, I think you give me too much credit. I wasn’t being clever in that geothermal thread at all, each word was written as honestly as possible – I guess there is no way to prove this, you will just have to take my word for it, being a veteran of the HVAC industry for some 20 years. I suppose sometimes my words spoken honestly may seem like rhetorical tricks to some.

      “Chosen not to license the show in the States” sounds to me like it is not available in the States. I have a feeling that they didn’t air the show in the states because there would be little to no demand – Muay Thai is not popular here and there would probably be very few advertisers.

      It took me literally three minutes using Google to find a site that was hosting the show so I didn’t exactly “go out of my way”. I ask again, is the producer out anything?

      Lastly, who knows – the site I watched it on may have received a permission from the producers. Frankly I don’t care, I am just happy I can get the show. More than likely if there was a license of some sort I would pay it if the price was reasonable to watch the show – I am that dedicated and interested in Muay Thai. But with my options limited, I don’t see myself committing any sin.

    20. Mrs. Davis Says:

      it isn’t software.

      So what? What’s important is that it isn’t yours. Using it without the owners permission is stealing as much as walking into a theater and watching the movie without paying.

      If there is no loss to the producer, I don’t see where the stealing comes in (in this particular case).

      You’re taking something that doesn’t belong to you. If you steal something physical but the owner never notices is it not a theft?

      This idea that somehow intellectual property has less value or fewer rights than physical property is a major problem with our culture. It is spread, most astoundingly, by the educational institutions which display an amazing disregard for the intellectual property of others but spend immense amounts protecting their own. This chicken is coming home to roost.

    21. Mrs. Davis Says:

      btw, Dan, you are imputing a pejorative connotation to clever that I do not intend. To me clever is like technology, it’s value neutral in and of itself; the way it is used imparts the value. To me clever is interestingly smart as opposed to just plain smart.

    22. Dan from Madison Says:

      Mrs. Davis – Ah, I understand your use of clever now. Thank you.

      As for me saying the producer isn’t out anything, it is true. As Shannon has mentioned, when a physical good is stolen its use is deprived from others. Me watching a TV show that is not available here in the US isn’t depriving anyone from anything, nor is it stealing any royalties or revenue of any kind. But I guess we have beaten this dead horse enough for today, we will just have to agree to disagree.

    23. Shad Says:

      Shad – I don’t see how watching the show is illegal, therefore I don’t know if it is wrong, hence this post. The show is simply not for distribution in the States but I am watching it.

      Unless the show is uncopyrighted, or the copyright owner has given the service you used license to rebroadcast the show, then I’m pretty sure both they and you are violating (international) copyright laws.

      Shad, you are begging the question.

      No, I don’t think so. The behaviour described looks pretty clearly like copyright law violation — the theft of intellectual property from AXN-Sony (via whatever site Dan found to stream the video from). That is, unless AXN-Sony has given up their copyright to the show, or there’s some sort of weird “copyright does not apply to AXN shows if Sony does not release DVDs in the U.S. quickly enough to satisfy Dan from Madison” exception I’m unaware of, this is stealing. I am, however, pointing out that the question this post asks (“have I stolen anything here?”) is not the one it encourages the reader to answer (“Is it okay that I stole something here?”).

      Actually in thinking about it, piracy belongs to that class of problems in which the actual harm is very low or nonexistent if only a few people do it but becomes massive if a lot of people do it.

      Quite. A tragedy of the intellectual commons.

      BTW: My message that started with “OMG” was in response to the absurd comparasion to abusing children.

      I wrote that parallel example because by framing it that way, it is easier to see that the bulk of the original post is irrelevant to answering the question posed about the underlying behaviour (i.e. “have I stolen anything here?”); it is simply a litany of rationalizations for the behaviour.

      “It’s so easy to do”
      “It’s only something from Asia, it’s not like I’d do this sort of thing in America
      “Nothing tangible was lost”
      “I don’t usually do this sort of thing”

      Discussion of the actual behaviour was avoided in favor of reasons why the behaviour should be acceptable.

      To summarize:

      “So I ask again – have I stolen anything here?”

      Yes, you have. You’ve also come up with a very sympathetic set of rationalizations for people to excuse the behaviour with, and the chance that you’ll face any sort of social, moral, ethical, or legal punishment for this behaviour is vanishingly small because this is a trivial infraction in an area of law which many people philosophically disagree with.

    24. Tatyana Says:

      Jon, Sims is charging different customers different price for the same merchandise? Never heard of it – and I’m a regular Sims’ customer.

      Besides, I don’t see how, if I wasn’t going to buy a product and the store gives it to me for free it doesn’t do any harm to the store. It does, because if they would sell it to somebody else even for $.01, they’ll still get one cent more than they would if they’d just gave it to me.

      Vince, that’s some twisty rationalization for pirating.
      So, let’s say, I can’t afford a 2 carat diamond ring, and I’d never buy it – so a 42nd street store is losing a customer. I go out of my way and do the poor sobs a favor – I just their ring off their hands. For free. Is that how that works?

    25. Jonathan Says:

      Sims lowers prices of unsold merchandise over time (at least that is what they used to do when I shopped there). That is a classic instance of price discrimination, because they sell everything at the highest possible price, even if that price is not the initial price at which they offered the merchandise.

    26. Dan from Madison Says:

      Shad – the show is not only shown in Asia, but it is also shown in Europe, Latin America and other places btu not in the US. I guess we will also just have to agree to disagree.

    27. Vince P Says:

      Tatyana says: Vince, that’s some twisty rationalization for pirating.
      So, let’s say, I can’t afford a 2 carat diamond ring, and I’d never buy it – so a 42nd street store is losing a customer. I go out of my way and do the poor sobs a favor – I just their ring off their hands. For free. Is that how that works?

      No

    28. Shad Says:

      Dan – Not that it’s relevant to the point, but according to Wikipedia the show is airing on AXN Asia (which only serves 17 Asian countries), not on every channel in the AXN network which covers Europe, South America, et al.

      And please clarify what we’re agreeing to disagree on. Are you now claiming that what you did was unequivocably not stealing?

    29. Dan from Madison Says:

      Shad – Actually, yes, I have talked myself into the argument that I haven’t stolen anything whereas you are convinced that I have. In fact I am actually now seeing a gain for the producers now.

      I stand by my position that since the product is not available here in the States and I am watching the content from a place where is is not available and the odds are that it never will be, that there is no loss to anyone. In fact the producers of the show see a small gain by me watching it, since they are getting free PR from my blogposts and my discussions with my buddies at the gym.

      The options for the producers are only two: that I do not watch it at all, or watch it and tell friends. If I were the producer I would choose the latter.

    30. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Perhaps you are younger than I had thought, Dan.

    31. Dan from Madison Says:

      Just had my 23rd birthday…for the 16th time.

    32. Shad Says:

      I have talked myself into the argument that I haven’t stolen anything whereas you are convinced that I have.

      I am convinced based on my understanding of existing copyright law (which, whether I believe it’s morally/ethically/philosophicallly right or wrong, remains the law). I have a rational basis for my conclusion, by comparing your actions to the law.

      But you are convinced not because you’ve examined the facts of the matter or applicable law, but because you have a vested interest in excusing your behaviour as not-wrong.

      In fact the producers of the show see a small gain by me watching it, since they are getting free PR from my blogposts and my discussions with my buddies at the gym.

      Behold, the power of rationalization!

      Not only have you now cleared yourself of any theft, but you’re singing your own praises because you’ve actually done the copyright owner a valuable service by stealing his work!

      Perhaps I’m slow, but I don’t see where your actions add any actual value for the producer, unless you think AXN-Sony is following an Underpants-Gnome-style business plan:
      1. Allow consumer to steal product and brag about theft to friends.
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

    33. James R. Rummel Says:

      This whole thing really isn’t that difficult for me. I’ve come across it before, thousands of time.

      Every single thief I’ve helped put in jail said the exact same thing. They all knew that they were breaking the law, sure, but they never thought they did anything wrong.

      To listen to them talking, they deserved their ill gotten gains. The store wouldn’t be hurt because of insurance. And they charged too much, so they deserved to have their stuff stolen.

      Of course, theft drives up prices for those of us who follow the law, through increased insurance premiums if by nothing else. It is a non trivial problem, even if the individual thief takes very little.

      What is fascinating to me is the way that people who steal intellectual property try so very hard to convince themselves and others that they are actually performing a valuable service through their illegal acts! “I’m helping promote the band, raise awareness of this obscure game, striking a blow against big corporations!” Heck, even the most strung out drug addict that I ever fingerprinted never had the balls to say that!

      Dan, I know you read my own blog, so you should have a pretty good sense of what kind of person I am. And I’d have to say that, if this attitude of yours is genuine instead of a ploy to generate debate, then you are proving to be the kind of person I’d never turn my back on. After all, anyone who would steal little will steal big.

      James

    34. Vince P Says:

      James:

      Can you help clear up why it is that you view Dan’s viewing of overseas content as theft while at the same time you are using and republishing copyrighted images on your blog?

    35. Dan from Madison Says:

      James,
      All I can say is wow. I assume you are on the side that says that since the product is not available here, I am not entitled to view it and that it would not benefit the producers for me to view it. Fair enough.

      I do not subscribe to your theory that “anyone who would steal little would steal big” – because I don’t. Because I speed five miles per hour over the limit does not mean that I drive 90 in a 55 – because I don’t.

      You could turn your back on me all day and I still hope you will.

    36. Dan from Madison Says:

      Shad – “I have a rational basis for my conclusion, by comparing your actions to the law.” What law? Laws governing international copywrights? US law? Singapore where the show was filmed? Where is the server located that I saw the show on? Do you mean that law? You haven’t cited anything or any law written by anyone other than your own assertions. It truly is a complex question.

      I don’t really expect you to cite law either, as I find your assertions interesting, and am interested in the fact that you have decided that the producers of the show are 100% committed in me NOT seeing the show and adding zero value to them, just as I think that the producers may…perhaps…see value in me taking a look at it and recommending it to friends who may actually go to the site and purchase one of their t-shirts or whatever. You can call it a rationalization if you want, I just call it common sense.

    37. Tatyana Says:

      Jon, this is what you said seller charges different prices to different customers in order to get each customer to pay as much as he is willing to

      It sounds like seller charges two (or more) customers two (or more) prices at the same time. Hence the confusion.

    38. Dan from Madison Says:

      OK, I just sent an email to the owners of the Contender Asia content to ask them their official take on the issue. I will be big enough to admit my error if they are against it, and will report anything they send back. Hopefully they will reply.

    39. Shad Says:

      I don’t really expect you to cite law either, as I find your assertions interesting, and am interested in the fact that you have decided that the producers of the show are 100% committed in me NOT seeing the show and adding zero value to them, just as I think that the producers may…perhaps…see value in me taking a look at it and recommending it to friends who may actually go to the site and purchase one of their t-shirts or whatever.

      I have made no such decision, and ask that you discontinue attributing to me arguments that I did not make.

      I’ll repeat the argument I did make, from my March 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm comment:

      Unless the show is uncopyrighted, or the copyright owner has given the service you used license to rebroadcast the show, then I’m pretty sure both they and you are violating (international) copyright laws.

      You can check out the U.S. Copyright Office site for the relevant information. Here’s a nice overview from their “Copyright Basics” page:

      Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
      * To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
      * To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
      * To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
      * To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
      * To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
      * In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

      I had assumed you were familiar with these basics before you made your posts on the topic of intellectual property theft/copyright violation, which is why I didn’t “cite[] anything or any law written by anyone other than your own assertions” earlier. I apologize for making that assumption.

      I’ll close with this question and answer from the U.S. Copyright Office’s FAQ:

      Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
      Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney’s fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

      Granted, the site you used doesn’t sound like it’s a P2P network in the usual sense of the term, but you did use it to download[] works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner.

    40. Jonathan Says:

      Tat,

      There are different ways to do it. Seller may lower the price over time as Sims does it, or may charge different prices to different types of customers (as airlines do by raising ticket price as travel date approaches, in order to sell at highest possible price to business travelers). Another example: “rush” pricing in any service business.

    41. Dan from Madison Says:

      A very interesting, on topic article:
      http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9775271-46.html
      I like this part:
      “Warner Brothers’ China division, in a rare act of intelligence on the part of a major media company, demonstrated significant savvy last year when they began selling cheap, legitimate, high quality DVDs of movies within days of the theatrical release. By pricing the discs at around 12 yuan (approximately US$1.50), Warner is hoping to make cost a non-issue, thus allowing them to compete in one area where they hold the upper hand: Quality. Instead of taking a chance with on a low quality, shaky-camcorder copy of a film, Chinese consumers can get a high quality copy of the movie at a reasonable price, all while enjoying the warm fuzzy feeling that you can get knowing that you’ve helped to pay for some small portion of a a Hollywood star’s private jet.”

      I also found it amazing that torrents take up 25% of all internet traffic. FYI I am not watching the show with a torrent or P2P network.