Is piracy dying?

[Tephnos]

You're honestly saying that 100% of people who pirate, would just not consume the content if they couldn't pirate.

That is astounding.

What about people who wouldn't purchase immediately, but would buy later on in a sale? Piracy means they can play immediately, but never buy...

I don't think you can honestly believe what you just typed.

You need to realise the reasons why people pirate.

Those include, but are not limited to: Trying before buying (much less common, imo), refusal to support x company (say, Ubisoft), lack of money (If you think they'll suddenly go out and buy legit content of everything they've pirated after building a backlog, you have another thing coming), problems with distribution methods, and so on.

Of course, the figure is not 100%, but I vastly think you're underestimating the mindset of a pirate. It's a minority of things that can't be pirated these days either. When was the last time you couldn't find some pirated version of something?

 

[SixTwoSix]

You need to realise the reasons why people pirate.

Just wish some people would be honest and say it's simply because they can get it for free. I suspect for the majority it really is that simple.

 

[Tephnos]

Just wish some people would be honest and say it's simply because they can get it for free. I suspect for the majority it really is that simple.

 

[FoxEye]

You need to realise the reasons why people pirate.

Those include, but are not limited to: Trying before buying (much less common, imo), refusal to support x company (say, Ubisoft), lack of money (If you think they'll suddenly go out and buy legit content of everything they've pirated after building a backlog, you have another thing coming), problems with distribution methods, and so on.

Of course, the figure is not 100%, but I vastly think you're underestimating the mindset of a pirate. It's a minority of things that can't be pirated these days either. When was the last time you couldn't find some pirated version of something?

But if you take away the option to pirate? What then?

Surely some of these people will consume some content, some of the time. They won't entirely stop listening to music or playing games.

The point is, the effort to destroy piracy is not a wasted effort. /Without/ piracy, these people will have no choice to get something for nothing. So they either consume nothing (unlikely), or they pay whatever they can afford.

They may (will) consume less, but legally.

 

[spoffle]

Just wish some people would be honest and say it's simply because they can get it for free. I suspect for the majority it really is that simple.

Maybe so. Some things I definitely have done it for that reason, TV shows being the main thing. However when it comes to games, I've used the try before I buy method a few times on games that I wasn't sure about, then I bought them once I realised they were for me.

The amusing thing is that nowadays it's actually more convenient to buy a game from Steam, Origin or wherever else than it is to crack it.

The last game I downloaded was GTAV as I've never really been a big GTA fan, but I've had friends rave about it since it came out on the consoles. So I downloaded it, realised I really enjoyed it and then went and bought it.

 

[spoffle]

But if you take away the option to pirate? What then?

Some games I wouldn't have bought.

Surely some of these people will consume some content, some of the time. They won't entirely stop listening to music or playing games.

The point is, the effort to destroy piracy is not a wasted effort. /Without/ piracy, these people will have no choice to get something for nothing. So they either consume nothing (unlikely), or they pay whatever they can afford.

The reality is that any studies done by rights holders are always weighted against piracy from the outset. They are effectively paying for the conclusion they want.

Any external third party studies have shown that piracy doesn't harm revenue, it does the opposite because it allows people to be exposed to more content which leads them to buy more.

The effort to destroy piracy IS a wasted effort. Anti piracy measures do nothing. If they saved their money instead of spending out on these elaborate DRM and copy protection measures, their revenue would be higher.

 

[FoxEye]

snip

You do, intentionally or not, paint a picture that people should create things and not expect to set the price for their sale. Intentionally or not.

With views that you hold, such as "the content creator should not be able to stop people accessing his content for free", you seem to be some kind of ... anarchist?

Why should digital goods be open to such a proposal, and not physical goods? Do you value the digital content less? Is the work to create digital content less valid than the work to create physical goods?

The "creator" of a physical product can, and does, have control over its first sale. He can ensure he is compensated for his labour.

You're saying that the creator of a digital good, such as music or a game, should just accept what he gets; there is no right for him to prevent his creation being accessed for free, or to set the price.

Its very unhappy reading if you work, for example, in the games industry. That so many people don't believe you should set the price for the work you've done.

 

[spoffle]

You do, intentionally or not, paint a picture that people should create things and not expect to set the price for their sale. Intentionally or not.

No I don't.

With views that you hold, such as "the content creator should not be able to stop people accessing his content for free", you seem to be some kind of ... anarchist?

Can you show me where I actually said this?

Why should digital goods be open to such a proposal, and not physical goods? Do you value the digital content less? Is the work to create digital content less valid than the work to create physical goods?

It's irrelevant whether it's physical or not, plus I never said anything of the sort anyway.

The "creator" of a physical product can, and does, have control over its first sale. He can ensure he is compensated for his labour.

I never said anything contrary to that.

You're saying that the creator of a digital good, such as music or a game, should just accept what he gets; there is no right for him to prevent his creation being accessed for free, or to set the price.

Where did I say this?

Its very unhappy reading if you work, for example, in the games industry. That so many people don't believe you should set the price for the work you've done.

Where did I say this?

 

[spoffle]

And if an artist believes that and wants to take advantage of it, they're more than welcome to make their music freely available, or 'do a Radiohead' and let people pay what they want, etc... but I think it's a weak justification for someone to do what the artist doesn't want, and then to offer a justification they've constructed on their own as though that makes it morally okay.

It seems that most people in this thread don't understand what justification means.

 

[Tephnos]

But if you take away the option to pirate? What then?

And you know that will never happen, so the rest is irrelevant.

 

[FoxEye]

But the fact remains that it's not morally justifiable to procure something you haven't paid for, against the wishes of the owner. Whether theft is involved or not.

That's not a fact, there isn't really a case of morality when it comes to products and capitalism. I also never said that is a justification.

As for the wishes of the owner. Ownership of rights is a concept rather than actual "ownership" with regards to a physical item. It's not really the same thing, which is why there are different laws that govern such situations.

So, what's it to be? Let's be frank, and drop the dancing around the issue.

1. A content creator/distributor should have the right to determine the asking price for the content. Yes. No?

2. A consumer doesn't have a principled right to consume without paying, using any mechanism for obtaining the content he sees fit.

3. There are legally/socially acceptable ways to share content, and piracy is not one of them. Piracy is not morally defensible.

Which of those will you care to disagree with?

 

[FoxEye]

And you know that will never happen, so the rest is irrelevant.

I would never say that it will never happen. The probability of it happening is >0, so it could.

And it doesn't have to be impossible for 100% of people to be effectively stopped. When the majority can't do it easily/reliably, and can't get their friends to do it, it's game over.

 

[Shocky-FM]

You're honestly saying that 100% of people who pirate, would just not consume the content if they couldn't pirate.

That is astounding.

What about people who wouldn't purchase immediately, but would buy later on in a sale? Piracy means they can play immediately, but never buy...

I don't think you can honestly believe what you just typed.

That is a bit daft, if somebody pirates something clearly they had an interest to start with so they would have been a potential customer. Perhaps as the price dropped they would have bought it!

 

[Tephnos]

I would never say that it will never happen. The probability of it happening is >0, so it could.

And it doesn't have to be impossible for 100% of people to be effectively stopped. When the majority can't do it easily/reliably, and can't get their friends to do it, it's game over.

Game over?

Hardly. You know private groups exist right? That's where the best content is to be found, anyway.

 

[Shocky-FM]

I've used the try before I buy method a few times on games that I wasn't sure about, then I bought them once I realised they were for me.

The amusing thing is that nowadays it's actually more convenient to buy a game from Steam, Origin or wherever else than it is to crack it.

The last game I downloaded was GTAV as I've never really been a big GTA fan, but I've had friends rave about it since it came out on the consoles. So I downloaded it, realised I really enjoyed it and then went and bought it.

It's all well and good but some people will abuse it to play a game early and then buy it at a lower price months later, or worse never buy it.

There are some honest users out there that may do this to test a game, but the majority have no interest in ever paying for the product.

 

[spoffle]

So, what's it to be? Let's be frank, and drop the dancing around the issue.

I'm not dancing around anything. You keep making things up or putting words in my mouth.

1. A content creator/distributor should have the right to determine the asking price for the content. Yes. No?

I never said they shouldn't. They have the right to set their product at whatever price they want.

2. A consumer doesn't have a principled right to consume without paying, using any mechanism for obtaining the content he sees fit.

Yes they do, any mechanism could be borrowing from a friend. All consumption doesn't need to be preceded by payment. Except, this is exactly what the rightsholders want.

You're dodging questions now, as I have already asked if you would acknowledge a rightsholders' wish not to lend your media and games to your friends.

3. There are legally/socially acceptable ways to share content, and piracy is not one of them. Piracy is not morally defensible.

For the most part, piracy or more accurately copyright infringement is a socially acceptable means to share or consume content in many forms. Most people often and actively engage in some form of copyright infringement.

Why are you talking about things being morally defensible again?

 

[spoffle]

It's all well and good but some people will abuse it to play a game early and then buy it at a lower price months later, or worse never buy it.

There are some honest users out there that may do this to test a game, but the majority have no interest in ever paying for the product.

Okay, and they wouldn't have done so ever at all, so they should be written off as potential customers.

They are no different to people who don't buy the game due to a lack of interest, or people who just borrow games from their friends, never buying any themselves.

The consumption without payment aspect really is irrelevant.

 

[FoxEye]

Except the thread is about piracy, so talking about watching a film at your mates house, or borrowing a DVD, is in itself "dodging the question".

I said that consumers have no right to avoid payment, using /any/ mechanism they see fit.

You then disagreed, and pointed to borrowing from a friend. However, this is just /one/ mechanism, and the point I made clearly said /any/ mechanism. A torrent is a different model entirely.

Piracy is a mechanism that rights holders are perfectly entitled to oppose, and seek to eradicate. I would too if I were them. Ask your average joe what "piracy" means, and they will tell you "downloading".

Piracy is so far removed from watching a film at a friend's house, or lending him a DVD, that it is you who are muddying the waters by bringing it up.

 

[DampCat]

I bought a cineworld card for 16 quid a month, which equates to just less than 2 films. I go to the cinema probably 4 or 5 times a month. Essentially, i get all those extra films for free - denying the cinema of the money i would have otherwise paid for the tickets.

If i did not have a cineworld card, would i go to see all those films?

No. Because they dont interest me that much. im just going cause its free. I'll go see the big releases maybe once or twice but never 5 times.

If i didnt download an album, i wouldnt go and buy it instead. If i didnt watch an episode of Walking Dead a day early, I wouldnt sign up for Sky Atlantic. I'm not denying anyone any money because they wouldnt be getting it in the first place.

(Inceidentally, to clear up any thoughts you may be building of me - i'm anti-piracy, but I think the problem is in the hands of the labels, not the people. I also have a very, very large DVD/BluRay collection and have never pirated a game in my life. I do watch a lot of US TV series though, iykwim.)

 

[spoffle]

Except the thread is about piracy, so talking about watching a film at your mates house, or borrowing a DVD, is in itself "dodging the question".

You keep talking about the wishes of rights holders. Some of them don't want you to let your friends watch or play the game you've bough and consider it to be the same as piracy. So no.

I said that consumers have no right to avoid payment, using /any/ mechanism they see fit.

I know what you said, but avoiding payment by borrowing is an option. Using any mechanism they see fit IS an option that people have if they wish as well.

You then disagreed, and pointed to borrowing from a friend. However, this is just /one/ mechanism, and the point I made clearly said /any/ mechanism. A torrent is a different model entirely.

It doesn't matter. You're talking about the wishes of rights holders. You are avoiding answering the question as to whether you would acknowledge their wishes with regards to no lending. Would you refuse to lend content to your friends if the rights holder explicitly forbade that?

Piracy is a mechanism that rights holders are perfectly entitled to oppose, and seek to eradicate. I would too if I were them. Ask your average joe what "piracy" means, and they will tell you "downloading".

I didn't say they shouldn't oppose it in their stance. It is however a waste of money trying to fight it.

Piracy is so far removed from watching a film at a friend's house, or lending him a DVD, that it is you who are muddying the waters by bringing it up.

Not according to the rights holders that you keep bringing up, because the net result to them is the same, someone is consuming their content when they didn't pay for it.

It's the same with second hand media. Some rights holders are against that, claim it's wrong and that they should receive a cut, else it's akin to piracy.