Piracy or not?

[BruceVC]

 

 

From my personal perspective though, it seems it's more a matter of the right kind of distribution. Steam and Netflix seems to have done a lot about piracy in my circle of friends - before piracy was widespread, but now they simply wait for a game/film to go on sale or become available. It's become a lot more convenient for them to use the service and compensate the author, than not..

Those are good examples of why anti-piracy campaigns works. Some people think its about stopping it, but there is no wining with crime, it is always about marginalizing the undesired activity. In these case it requires to understand that most are selfish pigs, who care mostly about their convenience/cost and if they can break the law and get away with it, they are far more likely to break it.

 

The crime here was keeping an outdated business model alive in spite of the consumers. If you push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands, which is what lead to such widespread piracy.

 

As far as I'm concerned there was no successful anti-piracy campaign but a successful piracy campaign that forced a stale industry to get its act together by hitting it where it hurts: their profits.

 

The results seem a pretty obvious win for the consumer: fairer prices and more convenient access to the product.

 

This is just typical for any industry really, sooner or later they find a business model that works and when they do they'll want to stick with it at all costs because change = risk and risk is the antithesis of big business. So they'll defend their business model tooth and nail until someone else demonstrates a working way to make money with a new business model, which they'll then gleefully copy (the Netflix/Spotify/Steam idea, though I'm unsure if either of them was the first to do what they do). I'm hoping that the Internet will be able to keep forcing businesses to reinvent themselves on a regular basis so we won't end up with some outdated business model hardcoded into the law again (after we finally get rid of this stuff that was added for book publishing before telecommunication was invented).

 

After that I'd just like to point out that I'm a firm believer in providing fair reward for effort done as such I've never been much of a pirate, but being a software developer I am of course interested in the entire software patent debacle, an interest in the copyright system was a natural result (which isn't to say that I'm an expert, far from it, ianal etc).

 

EDIT: typos

 

 

When you say "push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands" what do you mean?

 

Who is pushing people and in what way are people being pushed and how are people taking matters into there own hands?

[Mor]

This is just typical for any industry really, sooner or later they find a business model that works and when they do they'll want to stick with it at all costs because change = risk and risk is the antithesis of big business. So they'll defend their business model tooth and nail until someone else demonstrates a working way to make money with a new business model, which they'll then gleefully copy (the Netflix/Spotify/Steam idea, though I'm unsure if either of them was the first to do what they do).

Indeed, this is not a new thing and typical for most industries, with cycle shaped from supply and demand to various competition laws.

 

The major difference with the internet is the lack of physical product and anonymity which and thus poor enforcement which lends into what I said before "if they can break the law and get away with it, they are far more likely to break it". (ETA: the best "real" world equivalent I can think atm is the looting that happens during blackouts )

 

 

The crime here was keeping an outdated business model alive in spite of the consumers. If you push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands, which is what lead to such widespread piracy.

 

As far as I'm concerned there was no successful anti-piracy campaign but a successful piracy campaign that forced a stale industry to get its act together by hitting it where it hurts: their profits.

The anti piracy campaign was just typicalgood ol' stick and carrot, discouraging illegal use while at the same time making legal alternatives much more attractive.

 

You should make a distinction between understanding why something happening and condoning it. Not every pirate is a potential consumer, many pirates are just kids who can't buy their own lunch, want everything NOW, and or going through the rage against the machine phase; and with your attitude such behavior might persist since "outdated" and "fair" are very subjective terms... So when you would make something and charge for 60$, they might just decide its crap and you are pushing it..

Edited June 2, 2014 by Mor

[Bester]

 (which isn't to say that I'm an expert, far from it, ianal etc).

 

[Rosbjerg]

 

From my personal perspective though, it seems it's more a matter of the right kind of distribution. Steam and Netflix seems to have done a lot about piracy in my circle of friends - before piracy was widespread, but now they simply wait for a game/film to go on sale or become available. It's become a lot more convenient for them to use the service and compensate the author, than not..

Those are good examples of why anti-piracy campaigns works. Some people think its about stopping it, but there is no wining with crime, it is always about marginalizing the undesired activity. In these case it requires to understand that most are selfish pigs, who care mostly about their convenience/cost and if they can break the law and get away with it, they are far more likely to break it.

 

So their campaign was focused on several points: raising awareness e.g. those personal suits did their job well despite or because the outrage; hit the major illegal sites, even though others pop instead, it is really about griefing and lowering quality fracturing their contribute/user base; and last and arguably the most important aspect of it is creating a legal outlet that would cater to the majority needs e.g. steam offers an easy to browse/purchase/update service as well as hose of other social and technical services and are integrate with everything else we do for convenience.

 

 

People are both incredibly selfish and incredibly alturistic at the same time in different context. I can completly understand how very few feel any kind of loyality to faceless companies a world away who impose strict control over what they can and cannot do with a product. Of course that doesn't justify it, I agree with you that it's wrong, but I do get their perspective and I don't see them as selfish because of it.

 

For instance I find geo-restriction for services like Netflix absurdly annoying. It's not illegal (here in Denmark) to use a proxy, but its against the user agreement with netflix. So doing it is basically frowned upon and may cause netflix to cancel my account. But they don't, unless forced to, because who wants to loose customers? But the artist in the US doesn't see money for it then, as far as I can see. So that's a big problem with compensation, because of a problem with distribution.

 

As I see it the problem is that interest groups have kept the region lock in place, with antiquated distribution deals and rights. I'm generally against large publishers taking the share of the load for a minimum of work, as distribution these days is very simple. So for me a lot of the piracy issues are simply death rattles of middle men trying to take a portion of the cake being shared between consumers and producers.

[Amentep]

My wife is a Unity developer and while she sells her stuff on Asset Store, she also uploads all her products (to which she holds all rights) on torrents because it's just how we are. You'd never understand.

 

If the person who owns the copyright publishes an item that they have the right to publish in any format that they wish - including putting their material on torrents for all to download, it is their right as the copyright holder to publish in that fashion (or even in multiple fashions).

 

This is a vast difference from someone who doesn't want their copyrighted material to go on torrents but others put it up there anyway.

[Bester]

Captain, is that you?

[marelooke]

 

...snipped for brevity...

 

When you say "push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands" what do you mean?

 

Who is pushing people and in what way are people being pushed and how are people taking matters into there own hands?

 

Both artists as well as customers were being squeezed for every penny, before the advent of CD writers the channels you could get stuff from were extremely limited so they got away with it. As I see it piracy (or at least, the widespread kind in the early days of this millennium) was a consumer reaction against that abuse.

 

On the other end you had the artists that were often being squeezed just as hard by the record companies as the consumers (I had the chance to talk to some members of a band that quit after a long time because of the abuse they received from their record company and their story wasn't exactly unique). Digital distribution made it possible for artists to keep the rights to their work and self-distribute.

 

 

This is just typical for any industry really, sooner or later they find a business model that works and when they do they'll want to stick with it at all costs because change = risk and risk is the antithesis of big business. So they'll defend their business model tooth and nail until someone else demonstrates a working way to make money with a new business model, which they'll then gleefully copy (the Netflix/Spotify/Steam idea, though I'm unsure if either of them was the first to do what they do).

Indeed, this is not a new thing and typical for most industries, with cycle shaped from supply and demand to various competition laws.

 

The major difference with the internet is the lack of physical product and anonymity which and thus poor enforcement which lends into what I said before "if they can break the law and get away with it, they are far more likely to break it". (ETA: the best "real" world equivalent I can think atm is the looting that happens during blackouts )

 

 

The crime here was keeping an outdated business model alive in spite of the consumers. If you push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands, which is what lead to such widespread piracy.

 

As far as I'm concerned there was no successful anti-piracy campaign but a successful piracy campaign that forced a stale industry to get its act together by hitting it where it hurts: their profits.

The anti piracy campaign was just typicalgood ol' stick and carrot, discouraging illegal use while at the same time making legal alternatives much more attractive.

 

Ah, but the legal alternatives didn't come from the established business, they came from outsiders. As such I still maintain there was no successful anti-piracy campaign. There were various businesses that understood the trend that resulted in the widespread piracy and built a business around it. This then got picked up by the "old farts" because they saw it worked and drove piracy down (due to reasonable prices and more convenient distribution, the stuff that was lacking and drove people to piracy in the first place)

 

You should make a distinction between understanding why something happening and condoning it. Not every pirate is a potential consumer, many pirates are just kids who can't buy their own lunch, want everything NOW, and or going through the rage against the machine phase; and with your attitude such behavior might persist since "outdated" and "fair" are very subjective terms... So when you would make something and charge for 60$, they might just decide its crap and you are pushing it..

I'm not quite sure where I said I condoned piracy.

 

Anyway what was happening in your example though was that my agent got $40, the gallery got $15 and I got $5 (totally made up numbers). Oh, and if you, the customer, wanted a similar product, tough luck because there is nowhere to get one. And if, as artist, I wanted a bigger cut: tough luck, there's no reasonable way to get one (other agents demand the same cuts and they're the only way to get exposure).

 

I would say that if piracy occurs on the scale it occurred at the start of the millennium it's a clear indication that something is broken. If you have very little faith in humanity you could argue that half the population has a totally broken moral compass (and not even *I* have that little faith in humanity). Personally if I see something on such a scale I'd first wonder whether it actually isn't the system that's broken.

 

Now, current day piracy is an entirely different matter, while I won't claim everything is perfect right now (and the powers that be are still actively trying to mess with us, see all the trade agreements the EU has rejected recently, and they keep coming...) the power has clearly shifted back in the direction of the customer (where it belongs) and if you try to sell me something for $60 I have plenty of options to get it somewhere else for less or just buy a similar product at a more reasonable price. And right now, as artist, it is perfectly viable for me to just cut out the middle man and sell you that product for $10 (since I'm no longer forced into a possibly abuse contract giving up all the rights to my product to a 2nd party) which makes both of us happy as I get paid double and you only pay 1/6 of the original price.

 

That said, the type of piracy I was talking about and the kind that's still "rampant" (I really don't think it's all that bad anymore, but it's kinda hard to get numbers on something that's not officially happening ) today are rather different, the first was a result of a bad situation the second is just disrespect for creators or various personal reasons people have, far be it from me to judge people's motivations.

 

I'd also say that the original question is one of the hard nuts to crack in the debate on copyright reform. Sure it might be tempting to keep a copy of the book and it's easy to state that you "copy" it by keeping a copy (and indeed, that's how it's likely currently defined in law), but what are the chances of reading the same book twice? For most books I'd say they are fairly slim. So does this rule still make much sense? For books maybe not, but then where do you draw the line between what is reasonable and what isn't? And for music, games and the like I'd say it is even more complicated.

Edited June 2, 2014 by marelooke

[BruceVC]

 

 

...snipped for brevity...

 

When you say "push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands" what do you mean?

 

Who is pushing people and in what way are people being pushed and how are people taking matters into there own hands?

 

Both artists as well as customers were being squeezed for every penny, before the advent of CD writers the channels you could get stuff from were extremely limited so they got away with it. As I see it piracy (or at least, the widespread kind in the early days of this millennium) was a consumer reaction against that abuse.

 

On the other end you had the artists that were often being squeezed just as hard by the record companies as the consumers (I had the chance to talk to some members of a band that quit after a long time because of the abuse they received from their record company and their story wasn't exactly unique). Digital distribution made it possible for artists to keep the rights to their work and self-distribute.

 

 

 

Okay thanks for clarifying, your post makes sense to me. There was a degree of consumers being overcharged and now big publishers are more price conscious

[Gizmo]

 

My wife is a Unity developer and while she sells her stuff on Asset Store, she also uploads all her products (to which she holds all rights) on torrents because it's just how we are. You'd never understand.

 

It's an author's right; but doesn't that mean that Unity [at least theoretically] will try to defend your work ~wasting their time doing it, because the same assets were made freely available by the author elsewhere?

 

*Somewhat like being in contract with a gallery that displays an artist's work and does their best to sell it for them, only to realize that the artist purposely set the same works on the sidewalk for free. That seems awfully unfair to Unity IMO. They enter the agreement for mutual benefit no?

[Gorth]

When you say "push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands" what do you mean?

Most likely dangling something attractive in front of their noses and having the audacity to charge money for it.

[marelooke]

 

When you say "push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands" what do you mean?

Most likely dangling something attractive in front of their noses and having the audacity to charge money for it.

 

I'm pretty sure that we both know very well how the music industry (as a very obvious example) has been treating both consumers as well as artists, in that light I can't help but feel that your interpretation of my words is rather disingenuous.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

When you say "push people hard enough they'll take matters in their own hands" what do you mean?

Most likely dangling something attractive in front of their noses and having the audacity to charge money for it.

 

I'm pretty sure that we both know very well how the music industry (as a very obvious example) has been treating both consumers as well as artists, in that light I can't help but feel that your interpretation of my words is rather disingenuous.

 

 

We are talking about entertainment products here, right?  Not like food and water?  

 

If I can't feed my children because of greedy corporations, I might take matters into my own hands.  Listening to the latest pop sensation, not so much.

[Humanoid]

I don't know, if you catch your children listening to the latest pop sensation, you might want to take matters into your own hands....

[Malcador]

We are talking about entertainment products here, right?  Not like food and water?  

 

If I can't feed my children because of greedy corporations, I might take matters into my own hands.  Listening to the latest pop sensation, not so much.

Well I guess not everyone in the world is as perfect as you. Seems reasonable enough that people would look more favourably at alternatives if they feel the 'legitimate' retailer is just screwing them. So they'd buy cheaper pirated DVDs, etc.

[Amentep]

 

We are talking about entertainment products here, right?  Not like food and water?  

 

If I can't feed my children because of greedy corporations, I might take matters into my own hands.  Listening to the latest pop sensation, not so much.

Well I guess not everyone in the world is as perfect as you. Seems reasonable enough that people would look more favourably at alternatives if they feel the 'legitimate' retailer is just screwing them. So they'd buy cheaper pirated DVDs, etc.

 

 

My experience with people who buy pirated DVDs* is not that they're thinking "Yes, I am doing this to protest the outrageous prices for these movies before the ridiculous retailer mark-ups; I shall purchase the DVD from illegitimate means thus allowing me to strike a blow against the corporations who extort us all for high quality entertainment" so much as they're thinking "Oh, hey X-Men: Days of Future Past on DVD for $5! Now I don't have to go to the theater!".

 

YMMV, of course.

 

*this is excepting, of course the "collector to collector" market buyer who is typically trying to find movies that aren't available in their country through any legitimate means.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Amentep

[HoonDing]

I don't know, if you catch your children listening to the latest pop sensation, you might want to take matters into your own hands....

[Malcador]

 

 

We are talking about entertainment products here, right?  Not like food and water?  

 

If I can't feed my children because of greedy corporations, I might take matters into my own hands.  Listening to the latest pop sensation, not so much.

Well I guess not everyone in the world is as perfect as you. Seems reasonable enough that people would look more favourably at alternatives if they feel the 'legitimate' retailer is just screwing them. So they'd buy cheaper pirated DVDs, etc.

 

 

My experience with people who buy pirated DVDs* is not that they're thinking "Yes, I am doing this to protest the outrageous prices for these movies before the ridiculous retailer mark-ups; I shall purchase the DVD from illegitimate means thus allowing me to strike a blow against the corporations who extort us all for high quality entertainment" so much as they're thinking "Oh, hey X-Men: Days of Future Past on DVD for $5! Now I don't have to go to the theater!".

 

YMMV, of course.

 

*this is excepting, of course the "collector to collector" market buyer who is typically trying to find movies that aren't available in their country through any legitimate means.

 

 

Also works as well, if the legitimate price is higher than a pirated copy, not surprising people will go for that, is it ?

[Amentep]

Well that's pretty much it; DVD pirates (again excepting the collector-to-collector market) tends to be all about price point.  "I have to see this, but if I go I have to take my wife and kids and it'll cost over $50 then there's all the food...or I can buy a $5 DVD from the back of this van no questions asked.

 

The VOD and MOD markets in the US, though, have been slowly eroding the main DVD pirate market in my experience.  If people can get what they want fast and cheap, the alternatives that are fast, cheap and low quality don't look as good.

 

I think the same is true for video games; even now I think the online services (fast, cheap, safe, sales) have put a dent in "casual piracy" leaving only those who'll pirate anything, those who can't afford anything and those who have no legitimate means to get a game.

[Chilloutman]

I think some people look on it only from POV of amercans - then yes, most prices are bargain, but 60 bucks for game can be half of month income for someone not living in capitalist paradise

[Hurlshort]

 

We are talking about entertainment products here, right?  Not like food and water?  

 

If I can't feed my children because of greedy corporations, I might take matters into my own hands.  Listening to the latest pop sensation, not so much.

Well I guess not everyone in the world is as perfect as you. Seems reasonable enough that people would look more favourably at alternatives if they feel the 'legitimate' retailer is just screwing them. So they'd buy cheaper pirated DVDs, etc.

 

 

You are setting a pretty low bar here for humanity.  Is it really that much to ask people to have some perspective on the value of entertainment?

 

I think your argument would hold more water if there wasn't a huge plethora of entertainment available for free all over the internet.  That should be the alternative, not piracy.

[ShadySands]

I dunno I've been very poor most of my life and we simply went without. Luxury goods were bought on steep discounts and usually bargain bin after months of saving up and waiting so I guess I just find it hard to sympathize 

[Malcador]

You are setting a pretty low bar here for humanity.  Is it really that much to ask people to have some perspective on the value of entertainment?

 

I think your argument would hold more water if there wasn't a huge plethora of entertainment available for free all over the internet.  That should be the alternative, not piracy.

Yeah, a low bar is people buying a pirated game for 30 units of local currency vs a legit version for 200 or whatever. People's aims when buying things is to get the product for a little amount as possible, after all, if zero is a convenient alternative, then people will go for that too. At least I imagine it is a similar situation like that outside of NA/EU.

 

Hardly harsh on humanity to see people just willing to grab a game for free if it's simple enough to do.  Pretty tame compared to other crap people do

Edited June 3, 2014 by Malcador

[Chilloutman]

You are setting a pretty low bar here for humanity.  Is it really that much to ask people to have some perspective on the value of entertainment?

 

I think your argument would hold more water if there wasn't a huge plethora of entertainment available for free all over the internet.  That should be the alternative, not piracy.

If you set your bar on humanity on such things as copyright violation I feel sorry for you, I would be more interested how did you act against mining companies which plunder your country? Maybe I am wrong but i think you did nothing against it - but I know, its easy to talk on forums about morality than actualy do something meaningfull

[Gromnir]

I dunno I've been very poor most of my life and we simply went without. Luxury goods were bought on steep discounts and usually bargain bin after months of saving up and waiting so I guess I just find it hard to sympathize 

shush. don't you realize that it is complete unfair that some folks can afford ferraris and private jets? is nothing we can do about such injustice, but piracy helps level the playing field, if only a smidgen. no longer will expensive day one releases o' software be enjoyed only by the rich. sure, we could says that, particularly for games, all one needs do is wait a year and the title will likely be 50% as expensive, but is that a hurdle the damned bourgeois need consider? no! is manifest inequitable, and folks in eastern europe and southeast asia have no choice but to pirate games and movies in their fight to make the world a better place for puppies, grandmothers and cancer patients.  does shadysands have something against cancer patients, grandmothers and puppies?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chilloutman]

 

I dunno I've been very poor most of my life and we simply went without. Luxury goods were bought on steep discounts and usually bargain bin after months of saving up and waiting so I guess I just find it hard to sympathize

shush. don't you realize that it is complete unfair that some folks can afford ferraris and private jets? is nothing we can do about such injustice, but piracy helps level the playing field, if only a smidgen. no longer will expensive day one releases o' software be enjoyed only by the rich. sure, we could says that, particularly for games, all one needs do is wait a year and the title will likely be 50% as expensive, but is that a hurdle the damned bourgeois need consider? no! is manifest inequitable, and folks in eastern europe and southeast asia have no choice but to pirate games and movies in their fight to make the world a better place for puppies, grandmothers and cancer patients.  does shadysands have something against cancer patients, grandmothers and puppies?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Not sure if that was good topic for irony

 

Ha! Stupid Fun!