New copyright enforcement bill on its way

[Calax]

I say it's because of the RIAA

[Hurlshort]

Corporations are going to try and protect themselves from theft, no matter how small (sorry definition nazis, copyright infringement doesn't have the same ring to it.)

 

I would say there is a good deal of over-reaction though, but I see it on both sides.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Hurlshot

[Orogun01]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

[Hurlshort]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

 

Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it.

[Oblarg]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

 

Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it.

 

No, it's not. Not at all. The assumption that everyone who pirates a game is a lost sale is completely ****ing moronic.

[Slowtrain]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

 

Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it.

 

 

Yeah, but is it a lost sale?

[Nepenthe]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

 

Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it.

 

 

Yeah, but is it a lost sale?

 

It's a lost sale at some price point.

[Irrelevant]

Unless that pricepoint is free, I disagree. people that are so young that they cannot legally get jobs and have access to a home computer will probably pirate, that is because it is something that is convenient, and free. I'm sure that there are also either poor people, people that spend their money on something else, or people that buy only games they know they want and either pirate the rest or buy used(return within seven days get money back)/rent games.

 

I also think most pricepoints are silly, specially those that are very hard to make a profit on.

It also encourages some people/media to think/say: "well this isn't worth 60, I'll buy it at 40/20/10/used/on a Steam sale(5 old/indie games for 10 dollars? How does the developer profit? How can a start-up possibly compete with a dirt cheap, old AAA title? Or a new PSN/Steam/XBLA game funded by a large publisher)"

 

As a side note it pisses me off when the order of platforms is Xbox/PS3/PC oh man, that is so Irritating!

Edited October 4, 2010 by Irrelevant

[Hurlshort]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

 

Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it.

 

 

Yeah, but is it a lost sale?

 

It is more of a lost potential buyer, but from a business standpoint, that is the way they see it. When you have a product that is being used, but it hasn't been paid for, then of course it is considered a lost revenue source.

[Gorgon]

Doesn't follow on a 1 to 1 basis. Most people will take any old garbage if it's for free.

[Orogun01]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

 

Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it.

 

 

Yeah, but is it a lost sale?

 

It is more of a lost potential buyer, but from a business standpoint, that is the way they see it. When you have a product that is being used, but it hasn't been paid for, then of course it is considered a lost revenue source.

Just like watching a movie on regular TV is lost revenue? It's a product being used by company that's freely giving it to other people, just how different is this from piracy? The pirate must had bought the product in order to distribute it. But you don't see the movie industry shutting down the TV industry because of lost revenue; are movies already out of the theaters by the point the hit TV.

So this is a slightly more complicated issue, because it changes on a product by product basis. Is it fair to accuse someone of causing loss of revenue on a product that it's out of circulation. IMO there is a biggest drain of revenue by distributors than from piracy.

But there is no formal case against them, no attempt to circumvent or modify the arrangement.

[Slowtrain]

It is more of a lost potential buyer, but from a business standpoint, that is the way they see it. When you have a product that is being used, but it hasn't been paid for, then of course it is considered a lost revenue source.

 

 

Is it a potential buyer though? It's definitely a potential player, but would this person buy the game if they had no other way to get it? If some kid is pirating 20 games a month, it's very unlikely the kid would be buying all 20 games if he couldn't pirate. In other worlds not 20 lost sales, maybe not even 1 lost sale, if the kid has no money to begin with.

 

To me, the concept of the lost sale is the crux of the pirating issue, since no property is being physically taken from someone else.

[Calax]

If a significant majority of customers do not have the incentive(either by being inconvienced by something they bought, or because it allows them to run and play the games they own with more ease,or because its free) to pirate software how can it be such a big issue? Are these multi-billion/million corporations overeacting?

Are they simply not able to adjust to how there are so many other ways for people to find entertainment?

There is an incentive on the companies behalf to look at their losses as due to piracy rather than because their product is of low quality. The just see the peer numbers in some torrent sharing site and they automatically assume that they are all lost buyers.

 

Which is completely reasonable, as those are people using their product, despite not paying for it.

 

 

Yeah, but is it a lost sale?

 

It is more of a lost potential buyer, but from a business standpoint, that is the way they see it. When you have a product that is being used, but it hasn't been paid for, then of course it is considered a lost revenue source.

Just like watching a movie on regular TV is lost revenue? It's a product being used by company that's freely giving it to other people, just how different is this from piracy? The pirate must had bought the product in order to distribute it. But you don't see the movie industry shutting down the TV industry because of lost revenue; are movies already out of the theaters by the point the hit TV.

So this is a slightly more complicated issue, because it changes on a product by product basis. Is it fair to accuse someone of causing loss of revenue on a product that it's out of circulation. IMO there is a biggest drain of revenue by distributors than from piracy.

But there is no formal case against them, no attempt to circumvent or modify the arrangement.

When you see a movie on TV it's usually a cut version and has had the network pay to be able to use the movie. I mean ever watch the NFL where they talk about "express written concent by the NFL, ABC, and the players league or something for reproductions reuse or re-transmissions?

Edited October 5, 2010 by Calax

[Oblarg]

It is more of a lost potential buyer, but from a business standpoint, that is the way they see it. When you have a product that is being used, but it hasn't been paid for, then of course it is considered a lost revenue source.

 

A large chunk of those who pirate are not potential buyers. It's a smaller amount in video game piracy than in music piracy, sure, but considering every pirated copy a loss of revenue is, simply put, fallacious.

[Orogun01]

When you see a movie on TV it's usually a cut version and has had the network pay to be able to use the movie. I mean ever watch the NFL where they talk about "express written concent by the NFL, ABC, and the players league or something for reproductions reuse or re-transmissions?

They do get revenue but is at a loss for them since most of it goes to the network, same case with distributors. GameStop sells used games without paying to the publisher and most albums are broken down into songs and sold separately by sites like Itunes. But a kid in some basement who uploads a game that gets an average of 100 peers is the biggest loss because 100 people getting it for free is worse than a company skimming your money.

I can admit that it's immoral or that it's stealing, but it really isn't the biggest loss of an industry.

[Calax]

Ok A) the itunes stuff still delivers royalties to the record companies B) Used games still had that first sale made, and even now companies are trying to build around gamestop's used program (see EA's project 10 dollar) and C) The thing about p2p for lost sales is that the company gets 0 for the 100-600-however many peers that that one copy brings. In theory, Rockstar could get a total of 28 bucks for 1 copy of GTA that is pirated so much that 18 million people have it.

[Hurlshort]

It is more of a lost potential buyer, but from a business standpoint, that is the way they see it. When you have a product that is being used, but it hasn't been paid for, then of course it is considered a lost revenue source.

 

 

Is it a potential buyer though? It's definitely a potential player, but would this person buy the game if they had no other way to get it? If some kid is pirating 20 games a month, it's very unlikely the kid would be buying all 20 games if he couldn't pirate. In other worlds not 20 lost sales, maybe not even 1 lost sale, if the kid has no money to begin with.

 

To me, the concept of the lost sale is the crux of the pirating issue, since no property is being physically taken from someone else.

 

I've been arguing strictly from a business perspective here. Logically there are a ton of variables when it comes to piracy, of course, but you can't really plug in all those variables in a business model. You can't account for Jimmy's allowance. All you can really look at is the fact that Jimmy is playing the game without paying, and so he is negatively affecting the business model. It doesn't have anything to do with physical copies either. The company is trying to make money off the product. When the product is used without making money, it is a negative.

[Oblarg]

It is more of a lost potential buyer, but from a business standpoint, that is the way they see it. When you have a product that is being used, but it hasn't been paid for, then of course it is considered a lost revenue source.

 

 

Is it a potential buyer though? It's definitely a potential player, but would this person buy the game if they had no other way to get it? If some kid is pirating 20 games a month, it's very unlikely the kid would be buying all 20 games if he couldn't pirate. In other worlds not 20 lost sales, maybe not even 1 lost sale, if the kid has no money to begin with.

 

To me, the concept of the lost sale is the crux of the pirating issue, since no property is being physically taken from someone else.

 

I've been arguing strictly from a business perspective here. Logically there are a ton of variables when it comes to piracy, of course, but you can't really plug in all those variables in a business model. You can't account for Jimmy's allowance. All you can really look at is the fact that Jimmy is playing the game without paying, and so he is negatively affecting the business model. It doesn't have anything to do with physical copies either. The company is trying to make money off the product. When the product is used without making money, it is a negative.

 

On the whole, yes, piracy is a negative. On a case-by-case basis, it varies. Because doing a case-by-case analysis is completely impractical for a business model, the best solution would be to estimate what percentage of pirates actually constitute lost sales. The problem is, when generating figures, most industries completely ignore this and jump to the conclusion that "every pirated copy is a lost sale." This is nonsensical.

 

Have you seen the amount the RIAA sues for damages for piracy? It's absurd, especially when you consider that on average each pirated song is a much smaller loss to the industry than the retail value of that song.

[Orogun01]

Ok A) the itunes stuff still delivers royalties to the record companies B) Used games still had that first sale made, and even now companies are trying to build around gamestop's used program (see EA's project 10 dollar) and C) The thing about p2p for lost sales is that the company gets 0 for the 100-600-however many peers that that one copy brings. In theory, Rockstar could get a total of 28 bucks for 1 copy of GTA that is pirated so much that 18 million people have it.

A) Before the Internet you had to get the whole album if you just liked a song, now you can get it cheaper without buying the album. That's loss of revenue right there.

 

B)So did pirated games, except that there is no profit to be made by the uploader. Plus piracy only gravely affects small companies without many AAA games who rely on the few good pieces of IP that they have. A thousand lost sales for MW2 means nothing compared to all the profit it made. The 10 dollar project is another dead end just like buying DLC, they aren't usually very good.

 

C)I'm not sure about those numbers, we already talked about how every p2p isn't necessarily a sale.

[Calax]

Ok A) the itunes stuff still delivers royalties to the record companies B) Used games still had that first sale made, and even now companies are trying to build around gamestop's used program (see EA's project 10 dollar) and C) The thing about p2p for lost sales is that the company gets 0 for the 100-600-however many peers that that one copy brings. In theory, Rockstar could get a total of 28 bucks for 1 copy of GTA that is pirated so much that 18 million people have it.

A) Before the Internet you had to get the whole album if you just liked a song, now you can get it cheaper without buying the album. That's loss of revenue right there.

 

B)So did pirated games, except that there is no profit to be made by the uploader. Plus piracy only gravely affects small companies without many AAA games who rely on the few good pieces of IP that they have. A thousand lost sales for MW2 means nothing compared to all the profit it made. The 10 dollar project is another dead end just like buying DLC, they aren't usually very good.

 

C)I'm not sure about those numbers, we already talked about how every p2p isn't necessarily a sale.

A is debatable. itunes is a compromise basically formed out of what happened with napster. People didn't want to have to spend 20 bucks for 12 songs of garbage so they instead go for the 2 dollar single songs. Which in general nets more money for the producers.

 

B) the big difference between used and pirated is that used there has to be versions circulating. That was my point with C as well, in order for gamestop to make that used sale, they have to also make a new sale in the first place for each version. Before gamestop can make 60 used sales they have to have sold at minimum 50 new versions. A pirate can buy one copy and have that sucker spread like wild fire over the 'net.

[Nepenthe]

Unless that pricepoint is free, I disagree. people that are so young that they cannot legally get jobs and have access to a home computer will probably pirate, that is because it is something that is convenient, and free. I'm sure that there are also either poor people, people that spend their money on something else, or people that buy only games they know they want and either pirate the rest or buy used(return within seven days get money back)/rent games.

 

That assumes that there is a 'free' alternative. If there were no free alternative, I'd say the vast majority of pirates would buy it at SOME price point, whether that would be 2c, $1 etc. is beside the point.

[Humodour]

Bah I loathe the RIAA.

[Slowtrain]

I've been arguing strictly from a business perspective here. Logically there are a ton of variables when it comes to piracy, of course, but you can't really plug in all those variables in a business model. You can't account for Jimmy's allowance. All you can really look at is the fact that Jimmy is playing the game without paying, and so he is negatively affecting the business model. It doesn't have anything to do with physical copies either. The company is trying to make money off the product. When the product is used without making money, it is a negative.

 

 

No question it is a negative. ANd for me personally, it is wrong to do simply out of respect for the time and effort put into making the product.

 

But is the response appropiate to the level of the problem? Which to me is a completely valid question for me to ask, since corporate responses to piracy have generallya greater negative effect on me that they do on the pirates.

[Hurlshort]

I've been arguing strictly from a business perspective here. Logically there are a ton of variables when it comes to piracy, of course, but you can't really plug in all those variables in a business model. You can't account for Jimmy's allowance. All you can really look at is the fact that Jimmy is playing the game without paying, and so he is negatively affecting the business model. It doesn't have anything to do with physical copies either. The company is trying to make money off the product. When the product is used without making money, it is a negative.

 

 

No question it is a negative. ANd for me personally, it is wrong to do simply out of respect for the time and effort put into making the product.

 

But is the response appropiate to the level of the problem? Which to me is a completely valid question for me to ask, since corporate responses to piracy have generally a greater negative effect on me that they do on the pirates.

 

I'd say the responses are all over the map. Some are terrible, like Ubisoft's solution. But I think they have an ulterior motive that isn't just about piracy. Some are meh, like Steamworks. I like Steam, I think it is a great service, but there are some kinks to work out there, mostly with the fact offline mode isn't perfect. Some I don't even notice.

 

I just don't think they are ever going to go away though, at least not unless the world changes and everyone stops trying to infringe on other people's copyright. I also think Steamworks is the future, being that it is offered for free to publishers and is a solid DRM solution.

[Slowtrain]

I've been arguing strictly from a business perspective here. Logically there are a ton of variables when it comes to piracy, of course, but you can't really plug in all those variables in a business model. You can't account for Jimmy's allowance. All you can really look at is the fact that Jimmy is playing the game without paying, and so he is negatively affecting the business model. It doesn't have anything to do with physical copies either. The company is trying to make money off the product. When the product is used without making money, it is a negative.

 

 

No question it is a negative. ANd for me personally, it is wrong to do simply out of respect for the time and effort put into making the product.

 

But is the response appropiate to the level of the problem? Which to me is a completely valid question for me to ask, since corporate responses to piracy have generally a greater negative effect on me that they do on the pirates.

 

I'd say the responses are all over the map. Some are terrible, like Ubisoft's solution. But I think they have an ulterior motive that isn't just about piracy. Some are meh, like Steamworks. I like Steam, I think it is a great service, but there are some kinks to work out there, mostly with the fact offline mode isn't perfect. Some I don't even notice.

 

I just don't think they are ever going to go away though, at least not unless the world changes and everyone stops trying to infringe on other people's copyright. I also think Steamworks is the future, being that it is offered for free to publishers and is a solid DRM solution.

 

 

Yep, I hear you. For me though, the entire issue is based on the comparative cost and consequence of the problem and the response to the problem.

 

Every response to a problem has a cost and consequences of its own and thus needs to be considered in a measured manner whenever possible. When does the response become more untenable than the problem itself?

 

If an industry is losing 99% of its total sales to piracy then a more severe response can be tolerated than if an industry is losing 1% of its total sales to piracy.

 

Which is why I think that the "lost sale" is the crux of the whole response issue for me.