The thread in question

The general reasoning in this thread as to why the piracy occurred is given by the following comment

If they are going to region lock their releases, yes.

and

That's the natural issue with releasing the movie only in the US.

For God's sake, it's no longer 1990. This should be global now.

__
Another user compares a comedian's low budget production and release to Sony's $40 million endeavour

And yet Louis C.K. releases DRM free standup show online for $5 a pop and made over $1,000,000 in sales. Louis C.K. decided to do this without DRM and to trust people and didn't treat us like criminals. Sony on the other hand tries to fuck us every chance they get and after almost not releasing the movie in general can go fuck themselves.

__
Region restrictions on Youtube seemed to be a primary reasoning for piracy. However, a week later, the film has had most region locks lifted. Despite this early pirates refuse to pay now. A particularly confusing example of which is below,

Me too. Canada here. I'd have paid the $5,now I already watched it. U snooze u lose Sony

__
Another similar line of reasoning for pirating. "I have pirated the film on release. It is available in the form I demand. But oh well, I guess I've already watched it"

People will pirate when it isn't available to them in an easy form no matter what. Hell I pirated it because iTunes turned it down initially. Had I known it would come out on Sunday I'd have waited until then and rented it on AppleTV. As it is, I pirated it on Friday. Piracy really is a service issue.

__
This user cites a lack of true HD for their piracy.

I think the only complaint I have towards actually renting it (I did it on YouTube) is that it wasn't in HD. I imagine the pirated version was. I was happy to contribute to the medium but it's the little thing that bums me out

__
This comment screams entitlement. The sheer mental gymnastics the user has undergone to justify piracy; makes this comment my favourite in the thread.

7 bucks is equivalent to working for a full hour for some people.

If someone came up to me in the street and said "work some shitty job for me for an hour now, and if you do that I'll show you this risky movie that might be a waste of your time", do you think I would say "sure let's do this, I can't wait to work for an hour !" ?

And the top response of to this comment

Then don't watch the movie?

__
A relatively new form of reasoning for piracy; Sony avoids taxes.

And even for those who download for free "because they can", well, I wonder if Sony can really complain as they probably avoid billions in taxes "because they can". They probably consider it their duty and to their shareholders. So lets be our own shareholders and do what's best for each one of us.

This user states a preference for film rental as opposed purchase in order to save money. However rental doesn't let him 'watch on [his] schedule' so somehow piracy is then justified. The user therefore desires long-term ownership of the film. So his real reason for piracy has nothing to do with rentals; it is essentially a red herring. Rather it is that the $0 cost of pirating is more appealing than paying $7 for the film

That's another benefit of pirating now that you mention it... I could have rented it for $7 or bought it for $17. The rental gets me 48 hours to view it.... if I pirate it can watch it on my schedule.

__
An Australian user claims the film is not available. Odd. I live in Australia and it is offered via itunes.

What do you mean I live in Aus and I still can't get this legally. Sony executives can go and fuck themselves if I pirate it; over all this was an amazing movie that I would've gladly plaid for if given the option.

Overall an entertaining read. I highly recommend