If Piracy Were an Issue, Media Companies Would Change

[anamardoll]

From the article:

Mr. Roland, like so many before him, has pretty much one thing to say: “People want their free music and, by Jingo, they will get it!” Fair enough, I’m waiting for my free beer. The economic reality, though, is that you cannot have free music any more than free beer. Someone is paying for every track you download illegaly and it’s probably your favourite artist (unless that’s Kurt Cobain – he’s dead). Eventually, their money will run out. Do not get used to piracy: like every parasite, the better it gets, the closer it gets to killing its host.

I always find it frustrating when people conflate finite resources with infinite ones. Apparently if someone sets up an automated loop to download-delete-download-delete that guy's song a bazillion times, the mere act of the download will run him into bankruptcy! I mean, someone is paying each time a download occurs, right?

[Belfaborac]

The more frustrating part, I think, is that so many people unthinkingly accept this kind of absurd reasoning. After all it is so obviously a fallacy and utterly bogus.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

The more frustrating part, I think, is that so many people unthinkingly accept this kind of absurd reasoning. After all it is so obviously a fallacy and utterly bogus.

Well, I mean, I get what he's saying, I think. He's saying that someone is "paying" in the sense that "their profit margins aren't as much as they maybe possibly could have been". (But even that isn't self-evident because there's good anecdotal evidence that piracy can bring in MORE money as a form of advertising.)

But! Even if that is his point, he expresses himself so wrongly that I'm not really inclined to fix it for him. Say what you mean, mean what you say. Or at least try.

[HansTWN]

Why do so many approach the issue from the angle "was the copyright holder really hurt?" Even if he or she was not, the really important angle should be "what on earth has the downloader done to deserve taking something he or she has no right to?" Since when did freeloading become such a noble act? Why not just read or watch something else, that is legally free? In the end I do blame the Google culture of ad supported "anything is free". Unfortunately the copyright owners do not get anything from the ad revenue on Pirate Bay. So this model does not apply here.

And all this talk about the salaries of the executive at the publishing houses. Not totally unjustified in some cases, I give you that. Though there are plenty of lower level employees working at those company working hard for their salaries. But why then are those same people supporting the millions the people that run the piracy websites (as the recent MegaUpload case clearly demonstrated) and not ranting against them? Double standards, I would say.

[sabredog]

My daughter is a typical 18 year old teenager. She loves her music but has only purchased 3 CD's in the last 3 or so years.

Why? Because it is VERY rare she likes more than one of two tracks on the album. She does not want to waste money on a overpriced CD if she likes less than 20% of the music on it. She is definitely not alone in that regard either.

Yesterday, whilst we were in Big W's music and entertainment section, she said to me;

"I want this CD, but I am not sure..." I asked her straight out how many of the songs she liked on the CD. She said to me that she liked most. I then suggested she buy the album, which she then did. It was a discount CD, only $10, so it was even more attractive to buy that CD than the $32 it originally cost.

When she likes a song, she signs in to iTunes and buys it. Simple, easy and fast.

This is the primary reason why CD sales are declining, the market has changed. Teenagers buy PER SONG, not buy an album like we used to do. Remember single records were not released for all the songs on a LP, so we were stuck having to buy the whole album.

Digital delivery means a mix and match approach that is totally independent from CD's. So declining CD sales are the result.

I certainly believe the music industry truly do not understand this and assign the big bad bogey of piracy to cover their inability to deal with it. Evolution failure.

The entertainment and publishing industries seem to have the same shortcomings as well.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by sabredog

It was a discount CD, only $10, so it was even more attractive to buy that CD than the $32 it originally cost.

For me one of the biggest impacts of the Internet is how much it has changed my expectations on what music should cost. I listen to album oriented music for the most part and still buy CDs for the sound quality but I expect to pay around $10 either used or new. Couple that with the fact that I just don't buy nearly as much music as I've gotten older means the music industry isn't making anywhere near as much on me as they did in the '80s and '90s.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Why do so many approach the issue from the angle "was the copyright holder really hurt?"

I'm mystified by it. Consider that with the most common everyday offences committed by average people in Western countries -- parking and moving violations -- it's so rare that anyone is hurt, and yet there seem to be widespread acceptance of those laws.

Another mystery to me is the argument that the pirates also buy more books than the average person. What about subway turnstile jumpers in the New York subway system? Isn't it probably that they use the subway system legally more than most people? What kind of defense is it to say that there were other times you paid?

A third defense is that you wouldn't have paid for the book anyway, but rather gone without. This is like the turnstile jumper saying he would have otherwise walked to where he was going. Quite possible, even probable. So what?

And what if the NYPD gives a news conference and says that they are losing X dollars a year on turnstile jumping based on the assumption that all jumpers would otherwise have paid the fare. Of course it is putting an exaggerated spin on the offence. But that's normal victim behavior, nothing anyone people remark about in a non-piracy context.

I don't want to see long prison sentences for victimless crimes like these. You shouldn't give any prison sentences for them, just fines or maybe, for repeat offences, probation. But you shouldn't defend the behavior.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Another mystery to me is the argument that the pirates also buy more books than the average person.

That's not a pro piracy argument - it was a statement against the "all pirates never pay for anything".

No one said that buying lots of stuff gives you a right to get everything else for free.

A third defense is that you wouldn't have paid for the book anyway, but rather gone without. This is like the turnstile jumper saying he would have otherwise walked to where he was going. Quite possible, even probable. So what?

That was not "pro piracy, either" but "contra billions of cash are lost and if piracy was stopped for good, the cash will 'magically' appear in the pockets of the industry even though people will not have more money to spend than they now have".

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Jaden

That's not a pro piracy argument - it was a statement against the "all pirates never pay for anything".

Do you have a link for the phase in quotation marks? I hope you aren't inventing a quotation to make people you disagree with look worse than they are.

Even if you do come back with a citation for your quote, I don't see the big issue. If someone appropriated my property without payment or permission, I might well imply I had lost the retail value of my property, which was not strictly true. The fact that victims exaggerate their losses, while generally true, is normal and (assuming no insurance fraud) unremarkable with the one strange (to me) exception of piracy.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Jaden

That's not a pro piracy argument - it was a statement against the "all pirates never pay for anything".

No one said that buying lots of stuff gives you a right to get everything else for free.



That was not "pro piracy, either" but "contra billions of cash are lost and if piracy was stopped for good, the cash will 'magically' appear in the pockets of the industry even though people will not have more money to spend than they now have".

exactly. i pirate books sometimes. i also buy a sh*tload of books legally. my piracy exposes me to authors for whom i don't have the $10+ to risk willy nilly. i am more than happy to buy those authors legally. more often than not they are indie authors whose pockets my money is going directly into. does it excuse piracy? no. but its surely leading me to authors i never would have heard of otherwise. i'm not sitting here with a want-list of upcoming releases, rubbing my greedy hands together as i steal and contribute nothing. i sample the book because frankly far too often the sample given on amazon or elsewhere is bloody useless. i've read plenty of books that started awesome but fell to shambles shortly thereafter.

i make no apologies for who i am and what i do. i know i contribute plenty to authors and entertainment and thats good enough for me.

its not a pro-piracy or anti-piracy argument. its just a fact for me personally as well as many others. however i have no defense for those who sit there filling hard drive after hard drive of pirated xbox games, movies and everything that comes out. i think thats inexcusable and true abuse.


and no, cash wouldn't necessarily appear in pockets. people would simply go without. of course there are those who could easily afford the cd or whatever but don't buy it because they're cheap. but if someone truly doesn't have $10 for the new megadeth cd, they're not going to magically have that $10 if piracy doesn't exist.


i think i've just loosened up as i've gotten older. i used to be truly hardcore anti-piracy. but until i see some concrete, not pulled out of their butt numbers that piracy is killing entertainment ( which would require ignoring EVERY single report of ever increasing profits) i really don't care if someone helps themselves to a cd or book. life is too short and the entertainment media isn't going anywhere.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Do you have a link for the phase in quotation marks? I hope you aren't inventing a quotation to make people you disagree with look worse than they are.

but thats the de facto way its treated. people don't care that i've spent several hundred dollars legally buying books so far this year, all they see is that i pirated a couple therefore i am a filthy pirate who contributes nothing to the industry.

or its treated like "what do you want, a medal?"

they can't see the forest for the trees. the fact that a pirate actually does buy things will never register in their minds, all they can focus on is one 'stolen' book.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Why do so many approach the issue from the angle "was the copyright holder really hurt?" Even if he or she was not, the really important angle should be "what on earth has the downloader done to deserve taking something he or she has no right to?" Since when did freeloading become such a noble act?

The thing is: just because I, for instance, argue against what I consider the blatant lies of the entertainment industry and all the stuff they'd like to subjects us to, does not mean I'm arguing for piracy. Most people on the anti-piracy side appear either unwilling or unable to grasp this.

If piracy is eradicated tomorrow it won't bother me for a moment, but I'm convinced that both piracy and all other forms of downloading and sharing will only increase and that there is nothing whatsoever anyone can do about it. Especially not media moguls and politicians, who have never presented any evidence at all that they even understand either the technologies or the changes in mindset and the society which underlie what is happening. All they want is to preserve the status quo, while not giving a damn how it is achieved and what it might mean for customers and non-customers alike.

So the choice is between spending years and wasting billions on doing stuff which will have no effect whatsoever in the end, which will massively inconvenience only non-pirates, and sitting down to try to figure out how businesses can best adapt to the current reality and offer something which will keep them relevant and viable for years to come.

Piracy is not noble and freeloading is wrong, but whether or not to do it is a personal choice and nothing I or anyone else write on an internet forum will change a single mind in regards to it. People have always liked to get free stuff and when those who are in the business of legitimately supplying what you want give no indication of giving a toss about you and your wishes, then the choice to pirate is simple.

When they also go out of their way to make life as a law-abiding consumer as hard as possible and pour billions into having laws changed and the internet regulated, you get the current situation where downloading, sharing and piracy is becoming increasingly politicised (ten pirate parties in existence at last count). That, and their propaganda, is what I find interesting, so that's what I'm discussing. Debating whether something ought to be done about piracy is like debating whether something ought to be done about winter, seeing as its so cold and keeps returning year after year.

If anything, the media industry remind me of King Lear, ranting and raving against the storm, bemoaning his fate and his daughters who have turned against him. Very likely they'll end up in the same way as the king too.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Do you have a link for the phase in quotation marks? I hope you aren't inventing a quotation to make people you disagree with look worse than they are.

That was not a quote. It was a kind of summary. I don't know if you don't use quotation marks the same way where you live like we do over here. We don't only use them for quotes - so that might be why there was a misunderstanding. We would use them if we wanted to say that the "car" was not actually what we'd call a car... or like I did, to show that someone didn't actually say it exactly like that (a bit confusing, maybe... I'm just so used to it, I didn't think someone could misread it for a "real" quotation).

If it's really a quote (and not a quote obviously from the thread/already menationed by whom it was but from somewhere else), we would add who said it. Like "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein or (Albert Einstein)

What I meant to say was: It's not true that "all pirates never pay for anything". And people who said "lots of pirates are known for buying more of the same kind of media as people not pirating the media in question" doesn't mean they approve of piracy. Just that it's not true that "all pirates never pay for anything".

And it has nothing to do with:

Even if you do come back with a citation for your quote, I don't see the big issue. If someone appropriated my property without payment or permission, I might well imply I had lost the retail value of my property, which was not strictly true. The fact that victims exaggerate their losses, while generally true, is normal and (assuming no insurance fraud) unremarkable with the one strange (to me) exception of piracy.

I do actually think that exaggerating is an issue. If, for example, someone stole your watch and you would whine how they ruined your life by stealing all you ever had, your car, your house, your wife, you ereader, the food out of you childrens mouths... that will sound really ridiculous and will not help your case.

So if one industry blames all their sales declines on piracy and will not take other facts or possibilities into account, that will sound equally ridiculous.

Again, this is not "pro piracy". And I am sure piracy does harm certain people and/or companies/publishers, but not to the extend they make us want to believe and certainly not the whole industry or even economy...

[JD Gumby]

Just thought of one case where piracy of books would definitely help people: Until I got my e-reader and started slurping the Gutenberg archive, I did the majority of my reading via the local library system (though I still bought several books a year, which hasn't changed since I got my e-reader, BTW). If I moved my library reading to piracy, I'd be saving the library wear and tear on the books, not to mention labor (retrieval and transport of holds, having to reshelf when the book's returned, etc.).

A case MIGHT be made that the slightly less wear and tear** on the books I stopped taking out lengthened their lifespan and thus ever so slightly delays the day when the library will need to buy a replacement, I suppose, but anyone going to such lengths to make their anti-piracy points really needs to find another hobby to obsess over.

** (and I mean *slightly* - I'm very careful with paper books, hence why I've been able to read my copy of the movie tie-in edition of ''Dune'' once or twice a year since I bought it coming out of the theatre back in '84, and why it'll probably last me another dozen reads)

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Just thought of one case where piracy of books would definitely help people: [snip]
A case MIGHT be made that the slightly less wear and tear** on the books I stopped taking out lengthened their lifespan and thus ever so slightly delays the day when the library will need to buy a replacement, I suppose, but anyone going to such lengths to make their anti-piracy points really needs to find another hobby to obsess over.

Oh, no! How could no one think of that? That hurts the publishers even more. Pirates don't buy the book and libraries have to buy new copies later, which means less copies are sold to the library in a given time. Bad pirates, they go to such lengths to hurt publishers.

No, to help the publishers to exist and make your favorite author write more books, buy the book and then borrow it from the library and break the spine or something. Be creative. The less people get to read one copy, the more benefit for the publisher. Oh, and keep the book as long as possible. People might buy the book because they will not want to wait for you to return it.