Slashdot Mirror
Australian Court Gives Green Light To Disconnect Pirates
aesoteric writes "The Full Bench of Australia's Federal Court (three judges) has dismissed the film industry's appeal against a February 2010 judgment that found ISP iiNet had not authorised copyright infringement on its network. However, the ruling was a 2-1 majority and the judges have made several concessions to the Hollywood film studios. In particular, they set out a prescriptive path for the film industry to change the way it identifies alleged copyright infringers. The ruling says that if the film industry amends the format of its notices of infringement, pays the ISP to vet the notices and indemnifies the ISP against any fallout from disconnecting a customer, then disconnection is a reasonable step the ISPs should take to combat piracy. Essentially, the ruling gives internet service providers no absolute protection over the actions of their subscribers."
It's scary that one of the three judges was willing to basically let the movie industry control the ISP industry in the movie industry's interests.
But overall it seems like a good decision; even if they did bend over a little for the movie industry, they did set out some expectations about what is and what isn't the right way to go about sending notices of infringement.
as long as they disconnect all without remorse, i do not see the problem.
that includes politicians, people whose children downloaded something, big firms whose connection has been used to download something from.
if that would happen people will care more about their behavior on the internet, ISPs will fight for their clients rights and RIAA and shit like that will be the bad guys they are.
Its not ideal, but better than having the ruling overturned. Although, the prospect of having the studios pay ISP's to process the infringement notices will give them yet another reason to complain about "the cost of piracy".
I lost me sig.
Destroying three perfectly good memes aside, I for one welcome our new Australian overlords.
I say that if an ISP has to lose a customer over copyright infringement, then the organization requesting the disconnect needs to pay at least half of the "lost revenue" (the term so loved by the copyright organizations) for the entire duration of the disconnected customer. That way they can split financial responsibilities between them.
iiNet won - good
But they can send notices now - bad
But they have to pay all the ISPs costs - good (cause it will suppress the volume they send and limit spamming)
But the toppings contain potassium benzoate.
Why don't we cut their electricity cos they used electricity to run the PC to connect to the internet?
I can see the whole pay TV tricks coming out with this. Back in the day when pay TV providers offered x days free and free installation, people would have TV for years by never paying the bill, getting disconnected and signing back up again under a different name.
To use the same term for those people and someone who downloads The.Mechanic.2011.R5.LiNE.AC3-T0XiC-iNK is just fucking ignorant.
Torrentz, please!!!!
The full judgement, including the majority and minority decisions, is available here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/23.html
It's worth a read, or a skim at least. The judges were entirely reasonable in their dismissal and actually do seem to grasp the technical side of the case quite well (no doubt assisted by iiNet having some excellent technical witnesses/advisors during the trial). Overall it's a very good outcome for Australian Internet users, and confirms the very high level of consumer protection in this country compared to many other places.
The concession to the film industry that will now allow them to legitimately send infringement notices with the potential to disconnect users is OK. There is a heavy onus placed on the film industry to come up with all the evidence, show that it's relevant and pay for the ISPs time to investigate. Further, if the disconnection is later found to be unwarranted, it is the film industry that bears all responsibility and liability, not the ISP. So although there is now a prescribed path the film industry can take to disconnect people, the barriers to doing so are high, which sound reduce frivolous claims and make sure they really only go after that large-scale uploaders, not every man and his dog that occasionally downloads a film or two.
Interesting how I've seen this news on so many sites, and they all report it with overwhelmingly positive headlines ... except Slashdot. Slashdot is the only site I've seen that somehow seems to wrangle this into a NEGATIVE sounding headling. Is it just me or is /. turning into the grumpy old man that likes to complain about everything and is constantly trying to push their agenda onto other people...
Nuke the whole goddamn country/continent off the goddamn planet.
In a sense, the actual verdict here was somewhat irrelevant, given that both sides were certain to appeal the outcome if they lost.
It's a little uncertain where things will go from here. The fact that one of the three justices was willing to give AFACT members the power to force ISPs to disconnect their customers based on mere allegations is extremely troubling, but the proposals by the majority justices appear to constitute what would be seen by the High Court as a reasonable compromise, making the rather extreme position held by AFACT less likely to win (particularly having lost twice already).
Could go either way, I guess, given how backwards our country is on digital technology.
people still do that to get deal by moving from one system to a other one and then back after the 1-2 year deal price is over to get the new customers rate.
For an industry built on intellectual property infringement, they are quick to go after others.
Give up this nonsense already. Everybody knows:
1. hackers are the guys that crack someone's computer and not the smart/clever persons that fix something like magic.
2. pirates are the guys that download and share movies and not the Somalian gangsters.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Copyright infringement is not piracy. This woman, known as the Lion of Brittany, was a pirate. I doubt she had many MP3s, although she did have three ships, seven children and a very successful thirteen year career as a pirate where she took great delight in personally executing French noblemen with an axe and tossing their bodies overboard.
Put into perspective, copyright infringement- even deliberate, for-profit, commercial piracy- pales in comparison. Really, now. They might as well call it "rape", from the Latin "raptus", meaning to seize by force and carry away.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
In all the press on this I read yesterday it had only stated that AFACT had lost the case 2-1 and nothing about the concessions mentioned in this article.
From what I understand TPG customers get Infringement notices - I wonder if these come straight from the studios or are forwarded on via the ISP?
Side question anyway.
The above taken from the judge's summary of the findings
The above taken from the full findings available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html
...that's bad
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Words can have many diverse meanings. Take <fuck>, for example..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
It's possible to have a very wide perspective - one that allows for multiple definitions of words and multiple severities attached to those definitions.
It sounds like you're the one lacking perspective - you seem to view the world through a very narrow slit which turns everything black and white.
YOU HANDSOME GENIUS YOU!
Don't you see? Our ISP contracts and service could now be increased to include "piracy insurance" which is a part of your service. This insurance then ensures that any loss resulting from "piracy" will be paid for by the ISP. Therefore, the ISP has the right to demand from the people who are suing the ISP, the amount they would get, if it were successful. Therefore, the film industry can never make any money off of it!
Huzzah for contorted logic!
Though seriously, what's the likelihood of such an agreement? I have a feeling that the insurance would be labelled a second separate contract, and as such the money the film industry is liable for, does not include this amount. Damn you corporate law!
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Especially since piracy was the reason 4 americans (who could easily have been australians) were recently gunned down on their yacht.
The MPAA is sure getting aggressive against torrent users!
Hahaha it will never hap
Seems pretty harsh to cut off an entire family from the 'net just because their teenager downloaded a few favourite tv shows.
Now, just out of educational interests.. what is your IP address?
Not asking for any particular reason, but am wondering how you will live without net access for a while based on an unsupported accusation of guilt without a court overseeing this...
I think it's our imperative to revolt against intrusion into our digital realms by archaic industries. It's a new age, and the relics of the past need to either evolve or pass away into oblivion.
You can't set your valuables on the curb and cry to the police when they are picked up by passers by. The archaic technologies that the movie and music industry use are little more than a modern equivalent of placing their product on the curb for everyone to have at. Then they have the audacity to attempt to hinder the progressive technologies, a move which is the equivalent to complaining about your things being taken when you leave them on the curb, to remove the road, or restrict who travels down it or when.
Sadly, our systems of government haven't evolved either. They are still prone to being manipulated and controlled by these archaic behemoths, which make me pause and wonder if we don't need to replace the governments first with something more fitting to our times.
How shall we fight back? How shall we the little people, the drones, the lemmings fight city hall and the powers that be? I say lets us look to old wisdom, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I think we should all embrace "piracy" as a form of revolt against these industries. Instead of being innovative, they choose to manipulate the courts and the government into intruding into our "digital airspace". Did they all happen to miss the Internet Declaration of Independence? The Internet is the realm of the people of Earth, it belongs to no corporation or government. We are seeing these archaic institutions fight against the Internet even today with so many in the Middle East using it to free their minds and their selves. These evil governments are fighting Internet access, because they fear it. And they should, for freedom of information ultimately will be the undoing of wrong doings. Our founding fathers understood this when the first thing they addressed was freedom of the press.
I advocate that we force change upon them lo as they attempt to force change upon our digital realm. I say it's your moral obligation via civil disobedience to embrace piracy and to boycott the current entertainment industry. Let us take our entertainment underground and leave them without the precious resource they so desire; Money. It is of dire importance that the lesson we teach to the archaic powers of the world is this; "your attempts to control our freedom of information will not only be futile, but costly."
The cost of freedom is vigilance, and there is no exception to this especially here in this delicate environment, our "digital realm". Make no mistake, this is an intrusion, a shot across our bow and if we shrink back from this challenge, then those that are the enemy of this precious freedom for humanity, will smell blood in the water and know that they can gain ground and eventually succeed. It's what we decide to do today that shapes tomorrow; let us not be found by history to be slack or cowards in our moment of time.
So let us heed a call to arms and pass the word, lest we wake up someday soon with our digital world just as in shackles as our real one.
Take the Red Pill.
I think the pirates leave (upload) the valuables on the road for anyone to pick up, not the industry. I'm no apologist for the music and film industry, I just thought the analogy was misplaced.
Right now there are Somalian gangsters taking over peoples' boats and kidnapping and killing people.
To use the same term for those people and someone who downloads The.Mechanic.2011.R5.LiNE.AC3-T0XiC-iNK is just fucking ignorant.
Is it possible to have a little perspective, please?
By the way, several of the board members of the MPAA are child molesters. I don't mean that they molest children, but that's the term I use to refer to the members of the MPAA and RIAA. I would like to see "child molester" become the common term to describe any studio head, member of RIAA or MPAA or any of their lawyers.
Seeing as you appear to care passionately about the use of the term "pirate", here is one that I can think of that can be used as an alternative: "Freeloader". It means one that takes for free what others pay for, getting a free ride off other people. I think you'll find that is in no way incompatible with software piracy and there's nothing inaccurate in using that term.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Are you serious or is that parody? Free Speech was about people being able to safely speak their beliefs, not about distributing Dragon Age II or Iron Man for free. Boycott has historically meant stopping buying something and doing without, not taking something and refusing to pay. I reject entirely that people writing computer games, novels, recording songs, making movies, are "archaic powers". These are people contributing to our culture and they deserve to get paid at whatever price they and their customers can meet and agree on. The Internet offers artists a chance to sell and market directly to the public and the biggest thing in the way of that is piracy.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
If I download copyrighted content but then upload it don't the two cancel out?
hmmm...
berita indonesia hari ini
I would accept that. As long as the same term applies to anyone who owns intellectual property and did not directly create the work got called by the same name.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I am very uncomfortable with movie industry sponsored disconnects. One can suspect several ways this will mutate into public abuses, again.
Requiring rapists to have a bankroll and KY gel, still means there is a psycho that needs lead therapy.
I would accept that. As long as the same term applies to anyone who owns intellectual property and did not directly create the work got called by the same name.
That would be inaccurate. If I start a game design company and employ some programmers and writers and artists to work on a project and create a game and they are paid for their work, then I own an intellectual property, but I am not freeloading. I have invested money in it. Similarly with any artist who created a work but then sold the rights to it to another party. The buying party did not directly create the work, but they are not freeloading because they have given the artists an agreed sum in return for those (or more often some of those) rights.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Are we talking about the legal definition or moral definition?
The term "freeloader" is a moral term, not a descriptive term and certainly not a legal term of art. I believe that anyone owning intellectual "property" besides the innovator himself is immoral. It is not what the copyright or patent systems were designed for. It does not "spur innovation" to have anyone but the people who did the work own the IP. As you know, the secondary market for IP is huge. More people and entities own IP who did NOT do the work than the other way around. And it's actually hurting society for it to work this way, as can be clearly seen in the pharmaceutical industry replacing safe drugs that have lost patent protection with more dangerous new drugs that promise higher profits.
This goes to the point of whether or not you believe labor precedes capital (as historians, economists and ethicists and I believe) or the other way around, as you and the corporatist Right seem to believe. You see, this is a political issue. It's a moral issue. And it's an issue that divides you and me. Putting profit before morality is the number one problem facing human society today. It expresses itself in everything from starvation in sub-Saharan Africa to children with developmental disorders in America. It is finding expression in out-of-work 62 year old in Missouri and someone living in inland China earning 40 cents a day. And it's fullest expression is the fact that world wealth is increasing while being shared by an ever shrinking percentage of the population.
And it finds expression in some 27 year-old in your town choosing to download a movie illegally instead of paying for it because he doesn't feel vested in the system whereby wealth is siphoned from his labor to a very small number of people who have done nothing to earn it. For a social contract to work, everyone has to feel like they are vested in it. That hasn't been the case for at least a couple of decades, and increasingly since 1980.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Invoice to Time Warner for Disconnection of Joe User:
25,000$ Labour and Investigation Charge
10,000$ Lost Revenue Charge
10,000$ Legal Fee Charge
Subtotal, 45,000$
Now, is that worth it for going after someone who downloaded the newest terrible action movie, watched five minutes, and deleted it?
Seeing as you appear to care passionately about the use of the term "pirate", here is one that I can think of that can be used as an alternative: "Freeloader". It means one that takes for free what others pay for, getting a free ride off other people.
You mean, like people who watch FREE over-the-air TV?
Like those who take out books, CDs, and DVDs from the library for FREE?
Those people?
Free Speech was about people being able to safely speak their beliefs, not about distributing Dragon Age II or Iron Man for free.
Free Speech is about speech (i.e. communication) in itself not being a crime, regardless of the content. It is a specific instance of the more general principle that the only actions deserving of punishment are those which cause harm to others. Copyright infringement is nothing but a specific case of communication, and does not harm anyone—a copyright holder is no worse off if people 'pirate' his or her work than he or she would be if they simply did without it, and may even benefit as a side-effect of the public exposure. To punish someone for such an act is a clear case of aggression.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Are we talking about the legal definition or moral definition?
The accurate definition: Freeloader is one that gets their benefit from the work of others without recompensing those others. There is no "legal" or "moral" definition in there, it simply describes behaviour. You agreed that it fitted the behaviour of pirates, but said it also fitted anyone who owned intellectual property that they didn't directly create. I showed with examples that it doesn't as within those examples, there was recompense made to the creator of the works. So yes, "Freeloader" is an accurate term for pirates, but not for those that pay others for intellectual property. That society generally regards freeloading negatively is a separate issue following on from that. Your objection is not based on inaccuracy in the definition, but because the term highlights that pirates are putting the financial burden of producing the media on others, and merely living off those other people. Rightly, that is seen as negative.
The term "freeloader" is a moral term, not a descriptive term and certainly not a legal term of art.
Terms are always descriptive. That is what a term is - a description. I've given you a definition of "freeloader" above which no-one would think inaccurate unless they had a reason not to want the term to be applied. Do you honestly think the definition above is fundamentally wrong?
I believe that anyone owning intellectual "property" besides the innovator himself is immoral.
Thus you regard anyone hired to write a computer game as being a party to immoral behaviour. You regard the idea of any writer hired to produce a piece of fiction as doing something wrong. Etecetera and etcetera. Unsurprisingly, I disagree. If two parties consent to something without coercion or deceit, then I find little basis for an act to be immoral unless they are harming an outside party. And as you said that intellectual property was okay when it was owned by the creator, then I see no difference externally whether how it is used is handled by one person or two in agreement, I also see no reason why that person can't exchange ownership for something else.
It is not what the copyright or patent systems were designed for. It does not "spur innovation" to have anyone but the people who did the work own the IP.
Yes it does. How many big budget movies do you think there would be if the backers couldn't own the rights to the movie in return for the massive amounts of money they give? Do you think a game like Dragon Age would exist if the ultimate product couldn't be owned by the people who paid a lot of money to writers, artists and programmers to create it? What do you think would be the effect on TV shows if every episode were owned not by the studio, but by the people who worked on the script for that particular episode. And don't forget the actors and the lighting people, the make-up people, the catering staff, the owner of the studios and the ones who leased the equipment. At a stroke, you've pulled the rug out from under most collaborative projects. What are people supposed to do, set up some elaborate on-going profit share scheme? But Bob the fourth camera man just wants to be paid a flat sum and go home. Sorry Bob - some guy on Slashdot says it would be immoral for you to cede all future rights to payment (aka sell your rights) in exchange for a fixed fee for your work on the project.
More people and entities own IP who did NOT do the work than the other way around
So? It's you who has an issue with that. I don't so long as the people who did the work were paid what they agreed in return f
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Free Speech was about people being able to safely speak their beliefs, not about distributing Dragon Age II or Iron Man for free.
Free Speech is about speech (i.e. communication) in itself not being a crime, regardless of the content. It is a specific instance of the more general principle that the only actions deserving of punishment are those which cause harm to others. Copyright infringement is nothing but a specific case of communication, and does not harm anyone—a copyright holder is no worse off if people 'pirate' his or her work than he or she would be if they simply did without it, and may even benefit as a side-effect of the public exposure. To punish someone for such an act is a clear case of aggression.
I'm still unconvinced the GP wasn't a parody. But are you telling me that you see no difference between someone's right to state their beliefs and someone downloading Iron Man 2? Seriously?
As regards your argument about copyright infringement doing no harm, I note that you slipped in a caveat about people downloading as compared to not buying. What about where people download something instead of buying? I just spent £25 on a programming book for my Kindle. Most of that money will go straight to the author because it's an ebook without any shipping, printing costs, etc. But because it's an ebook, I'm a lot more likely to be able to get a pirated copy that would be the same. So if I'd pirated the book instead, would the author not be worse off? Of course they would. They have been harmed by piracy.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
You mean, like people who watch FREE over-the-air TV? Like those who take out books, CDs, and DVDs from the library for FREE? Those people?
In all the instances you list, the producers of the media have been recompensed according to what they agreed.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
> being able to safely speak their beliefs
You are not able to "speak" your belief today if somebody has already spoken that belief. Thanks Cpt. Copyright.
> taking something and refusing to pay
Pirates are not actually "taking" or "refusing" anything. They are exchanging information amongst their peers. People have been sharing information for ages, they used to call it "learning from eachother". It was Cpt. Copyright who started with "lets errect toll booths between people" and then started chasing around people who tried to circumwent this kind of for-profit censorship.
> I reject entirely that people writing are "archaic powers".
They are not. Their business model of "selling copies and simultaneously ruin everyone who makes a copy himself" is archaic. It worked when making a copy of something was a valuable service and when nobody but other for-profit-businesses actually could make a copy. Nowadays everybody and their dog can make a copy because of new technology. Legislating that everyone has to pretend that we're still in the 50s while everbody is carrying 100GB size storage devices in their shirt pockets is archaic.
> they deserve to get paid
So they should invent a business model where their customers want to pay them. They are clinging to an old business model (of manufacturing and selling copies) which worked in the 50s but doesnt today, because people dont want to pay for copies. They can do copying themselves today, thanks. Technology eradicated the business model of "selling copies" but people refuse to adapt to reality and instead legislate a permanent "like back in the 50s"-situation.
> at whatever price they and their customers can meet
The arguing point of modern customers is something like: "I dont want to pay for copies. at all. I can make them myself. I dont want to pay for something I can do myself. And by the way, arent you the guy who tirelessly pushes for laws to ban private copying? Well fuck you, go and starve, I certainly wont buy anything you can offer."
> and agree on
Its impossible to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge to himself that today everybody has a PC and refuses to abstain from using the "cp" command for the sole reason to enable somebody else to make a living by cp-ing abnd selling copies.
> the biggest thing in the way of that is piracy
Again, what you call "piracy" are simply people sharing stuff. People sending each other bits they like. People networking. The only reason for you to call this basic human behavior "piracy" is in order to associate it with violent ship capturing, i.e. to somehow couple it with a negative emotion to get an advantage in the discussion. You cant discuss something by beginning with "ok, lets discuss, but let me first stretagically rename a few things."
Instead of inventing 1984esque names for stuff you dont like, acknowledge that the main problem of your business model is that people simply prefer sharing stuff amongst eachother instead of buying it over and over and over again from somebody (in this case: you) who permanently keeps threatening them with life-ruining penalties.
Instead of inventing 1984esque names for stuff you dont like, acknowledge that the main problem of your business model is that people simply prefer sharing stuff amongst eachother instead of buying it over and over and over again from somebody (in this case: you) who permanently keeps threatening them with life-ruining penalties.
Okay, let's start at the end. Nowhere have I threatened or advocated threatening anyone with "life-ruining penalties." So drop that one right off. And as you have a problem with the term pirate (despite it being universally understood what is meant), I'll use the alternate term "freeloader", meaning one who lives for free of what others work / pay for. That's accurate to what a pirate does seeing as they download for free what the rest of us have funded the creation of by paying for it. As to the rest of your post:
You are not able to "speak" your belief today if somebody has already spoken that belief. Thanks Cpt. Copyright.
There's a big difference between someone having the right to speak their beliefs and downloading Iron Man 2. I also don't believe you are unable to see there is a difference between these two things.
Pirates are not actually "taking" or "refusing" anything. They are exchanging information amongst their peers. People have been sharing information for ages, they used to call it "learning from eachother". It was Cpt. Copyright who started with "lets errect toll booths between people" and then started chasing around people who tried to circumwent this kind of for-profit censorship.
Yes, copyright has to do with the abilty to profit from your work. Unlike you however, I don't stop my argument at the point that I have shown their is a profit motive as if a profit motive is intrinsically a bad thing. I continue on to ask whether a profit motive might actually be a good thing. And lo and behold, I think it is indeed good that those that produce a work can profit from it.
So they should invent a business model where their customers want to pay them
A business model where people want to give away their money when they don't have to? So obvious in retrospect - let's go do that now. And of course it will be successful enough to support big budget projects and it will scale down to private individuals who just want to sell their one-man computer game, song or novel.
They are clinging to an old business model (of manufacturing and selling copies) which worked in the 50s but doesnt today, because people dont want to pay for copies.
Actually the "old business model" is still being kept afloat by all of us who pay for our goods. If we didn't, the freeloaders would have a great deal less media to enjoy.
They can do copying themselves today, thanks. Technology eradicated the business model of "selling copies" but people refuse to adapt to reality and instead legislate a permanent "like back in the 50s"-situation.
There seems to be a recurrent strawman through out your post that people are paying for the process of copying and because copying is now cheaper than it was, they should not pay. Were people paying for the process of copying, then it would be equivalent to sell copies of static noise as to sell copies of Iron Man 2. This is not the case. The selling of copies is a means by which both the purchaser can receive the media and the media producer can receive payment in return. Clearly illegal downloading is not functionally equivalent as the media producer is not getting paid. It is not correct to say "people can do the copying themselves, thanks" and imply that an equivalent to the previous process has been found.
Well fuck you, go and starve
I'm certainly growing more and more optimistic about that business model where people want to give away their money. Thanks.
Its impossible to argu
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
But are you telling me that you see no difference between someone's right to state their beliefs and someone downloading Iron Man 2?
Assuming that by "beliefs" you meant "political beliefs", there are all kinds of differences between the two, but none where it counts: neither act harms anyone, and thus neither act should be punished. Of course, Free Speech is not limited to political expression; it need not even be about one's true beliefs, although even that would be enough to cover communication of sufficiently-detailed facts to reconstruct the audiovisual elements of a movie. No act of communication alone, regardless of content, is deserving of punishment.
As regards your argument about copyright infringement doing no harm, I note that you slipped in a caveat about people downloading as compared to not buying. What about where people download something instead of buying?
That wasn't a caveat. If someone chooses to buy a copy of a work, the seller benefits. If someone chooses not to buy a copy the prospective seller is no better or worse off than they were before; they obviously receive no benefit, but neither to they suffer any harm. This is true regardless of whether the potential buyer chose to do without or simply obtained a copy by other means. It is also true regardless of whether the availability copies from other sources influenced the decision not to buy. Harm is measured by comparison to your state before the action, not the result which appears ideal from your point of view; otherwise competition and choosing to do without would have to be considered "harmful" as well.
A good rule-of-thumb for "harm" is this: If you cannot tell that an action has occurred by considering only the state of your own property, the action cannot be considered harmful to you. Harm only occurs when someone affects the state of your property without your permission, interfering with your right to continue to use your property as you have in the past. Copyright infringement clearly fails this test; you cannot even know that it has occurred without examining the property of those accused of infringement.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
And I'm sure the producers, Director, Actors, and even the 'Key Grip' (WhateverTF that is) that worked on even the most 'pirated' movie have gotten paid. So what's your point?
'They' get exactly the same amount of money whether:
A) I 'pirate' the movie.
or
B) I don't buy tickets for the movie because they are too fucking expensive.
Either way, they don't get anything from me. Am I somehow 'stealing' from them by not buying the movie?
You yourself said:
The accurate definition: Freeloader is one that gets their benefit from the work of others without recompensing those others.
When I watch TV, I don't 'recompense' the producers of the shows I watch. Therefore, I must be freeloading.