If Piracy Were an Issue, Media Companies Would Change

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Apple has a working DRM scheme for most media that has never been cracked. Whats interesting about the Schiller quote is that it dates to 2003. At that time , and for six years after, the iTunes store offered DRMed music.
The Schiller quote cannot be used for argument that that law enforcement or DRM schemes have no place in an anti piracy strategy. Apple , of all companies, certainly does not believe that.

Apple certainly believes that DRM systems are ineffective for music. Yes, the iTunes Music Store had DRM, but only because the music publishers insisted. I very much doubt that they would have DRM on ebooks if publishers didn't insist on it.

If the Schiller quote doesn't convince you, how about Steve Jobs here

The music industry is based on selling unprotected CDs that can be read on CD players that are as dumb as a rock [and can't detect pirated music]. The right solution is to compete with the KaZaAs [music sharing services] of the world and to beat them. And that's what we're trying to make happen.

and here:

When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.

[ladyplf]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Apple has a working DRM scheme for most media that has never been cracked. Whats interesting about the Schiller quote is that it dates to 2003. At that time , and for six years after, the iTunes store offered DRMed music.
The Schiller quote cannot be used for argument that that law enforcement or DRM schemes have no place in an anti piracy strategy. Apple , of all companies, certainly does not believe that.

That's interesting about Apple and DRM. I've only ever bought one mp3 from itunes and it was only because I couldn't find that song anywhere else. That was years ago before youtube though. Now I can listen to just about any song I can think of no matter how obscure on youtube and have no need to ever use itunes again. So in my case Apple's DRM discouraged me from ever buying from them.

Apple has crazy customer loyalty which other media producers just don't have and that works in their favor even when they do things that might piss off their fan base people seem to still buy it. There must be some value in buying DRM media that I just don't understand.

[stonetools]

Theargument posted by the OP is the standard piracy argument . It has been rejected by virtually all the major players in the debate and has been debunked elsewhere but tends to be repeated and cheer-leaded here as if it were some how the gospel truth. Lets break the argument down and take a critical look , hat tip to the author of COPYHYPE:

PIRACY CAUSES NO HARM

Refuted thusly:

One notable contribution is economist Stan Liebowitz’s study The Metric is the Message: How Much of the Decline in Sound Recording Sales is Due to File-Sharing? released in November 2011. In it, Liebowitz translates the conclusions of existing studies on the effects of unauthorized downloads on recorded music sales into a common metric to answer the question posed in his title.

His conclusion is stunning: “file-sharing has caused the entire decline in sound recording sales that has occurred since the ascendance of Napster.”

Looking at the available evidence, one thing is clear. It is a fact that there are multiple academic studies that show a significant negative effect on music sales caused by unauthorized downloading, and this conclusion has been reached by a significant majority of researchers. Coulton is not alone in being unaware of these findings — you don’t have to look far to find those who don’t know about the existence of these studies.

But there they are.

Note that the article referenced in the OP cites no study for his contention that piracy causes little or no harm . Such studies exist , perhaps- but the article doesn't cite them.

LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT WORK

Of course, the Megaupload case case is Exhibit A for the proposition that law enforcement DOES work, given the proper tools, resources, and legal framework. Once a law is in place that allows governments and plaintiffs to go after foreign websites, we will see more like that . More from Copyhype:

Other researchers have found evidence that enforcement has led to increases in legal purchases of music.

In a paper released last week, Dr. George Barker of Australian National University analyzed the data from a 2006 Industry Canada survey to conclude that “P2P downloads have strong negative effects on legitimate music purchases” and “stronger copyright laws would substantially increase music purchases and music industry sales revenues.”

These findings are confirmed by another recent study by four economists from Wellesley College and Carnegie Mellon University, which determined that France’s graduated response program (Hadopi) caused “iTunes song and album sales to increase by 22.5% and 25% respectively relative to” countries in a control group that hadn’t enacted graduated response programs.

piracy is only a business model problem, or a marketing problem, and enforcement should play zero role.

Copyhype's response:

This puts copyright at odds with most other issues. Take driving, for example: we prefer to minimize the harm that comes from accidents. To that end, we build safer cars, we have driver education, but we also have traffic laws and cops to enforce those laws.

Amen. Its not one or the other, but a both AND approach to piracy . Its Law Enforcement AND better customer service AND a great business model . Why has iTunes flourished? In part its because it was first launched in the USA, where Napster and other popular US file sharing sites had been closed down or were under legal attack. Where is the Swedish version of iTunes? There is none, and will never be as long as Pirate Bay exists.


So there you have it: a complete and compelling response to the Standard Piracy Argument . Hopefully, this will add to the debate .

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ladyplf

That's interesting about Apple and DRM. I've only ever bought one mp3 from itunes and it was only because I couldn't find that song anywhere else. That was years ago before youtube though. Now I can listen to just about any song I can think of no matter how obscure on youtube and have no need to ever use itunes again. So in my case Apple's DRM discouraged me from ever buying from them.

Apple has crazy customer loyalty which other media producers just don't have and that works in their favor even when they do things that might piss off their fan base people seem to still buy it. There must be some value in buying DRM media that I just don't understand.

Let me draw out the implications of this :

Youtube has a business model that its based on the easy availability for free of an enormous amount of pirated digital content. Thanks to YouTube, I no longer feel the need to buy content from any legit source, even if the content is offered DRM free.


Thank you for illustrating precisely why a no law enforcement approach to piracy will not work. I could not have done better myself.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

His conclusion is stunning: “file-sharing has caused the entire decline in sound recording sales that has occurred since the ascendance of Napster.”

There's a graph here showing US recorded music sales from 1973 to 2009.

http://static6.businessinsider.com/i...c-industry.jpg

Sales tend to go up and down coinciding with economic recession, as you would probably guess, and while there was actually a very small dip in 1997that coincides with Napster, the total for that year still excedes the previous high peak in the mid-70s. There was then quite a sharp spike in sales for the next few years, before the current recession hit and sales slumped again.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Apple certainly believes that DRM systems are ineffective for music. Yes, the iTunes Music Store had DRM, but only because the music publishers insisted. I very much doubt that they would have DRM on ebooks if publishers didn't insist on it.

If the Schiller quote doesn't convince you, how about Steve Jobs here




and here:

I've read the entire Steve Jobs statement as to why Apple abandoned DRM for music. Job's argument was that most music was offered for sale on DRM free CDs, so that it was pointless and counterproductive to put DRM only on music distributed and offered for sale online. He clearly did not intend it to be to be a general argument against the idea of using law enforcement as part of an anti piracy strategy : quite the contrary.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

DRM only really belongs in rentals and library loans. For people who already buy the book, well, bleeping leave them alone.

I don't even think they belong there. I had to reformat my nook this weekend (thank B&N for your ridiculous credit card system that makes me wipe my nook every time my credit card expiration date changes! At least your CS people are nice and polite!) and I'm pretty sure that lost the Adobe authorization for that device. I ran out of those long ago, so that's one more eReader I can't read library books on.

Thank god for the open ePUBs at the library. Go O'Reilly and Carina, I guess.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The Schiller quote cannot be used for argument that that law enforcement or DRM schemes have no place in an anti piracy strategy. Apple , of all companies, certainly does not believe that.

Jobs quote: "we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

Are you willing to concede that Apple does believe that DRM schemes have no place in an anti piracy strategy?

I'll happily admit that Apple does believe that law enforcement has a place in an anti piracy strategy.

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I disagree. I believe that people, in general, choose the fair and legal route because it's the fair and legal route. Often despite the fact that it's harder to set up, and the product is harder to use, because of the DRM attached.

(Consider the number of posts here about people having problems with Adobe DRM - authorising/deauthorising devices, finding out that they've lost access through not setting it up properly to start with, etc.)

Currently ebook publishers have made the fair and legal route harder to use, and the product less useful. And they're now trying to make the fair and legal route comparatively easier by making the illegal route riskier, instead of doing the sensible thing and making the legal route easier and better than the illegal one.

Thank you for putting that better than I probably could have.

[stonetools]

Are you willing to concede that Apple does believe that DRM schemes have no place in an anti piracy strategy?

I will happily concede that Apple believes that DRM schemes have no place in an anti MUSIC piracy scheme.
I think Apple's views on DRM are more nuanced than binary DRM/ no DRM choice.
Apple's business model is all about offering great user experience to the consumer by offering great hardware , then linking the hardware to great content offered through their stores. As a result, they work hard at securing great content through deals with content providers. As far as DRM is concerned, they tell content providers : " Look, if it makes you feel secure to offer content with DRM, we've got the best DRM in the business. If you want to offer content DRM free, we can do that too. Just don't offer DRM free content outside our hardware platform while insisting that content offered through our store have DRM. That's sh*t business strategy, and we won't do it. "

Now you concede that Apple believes law enforcement has a place in anti piracy strategy. Do YOU believe the same, and if so, what would it look like?

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Here's where you should've added the bold. In the end, the only reason people will choose the fair and legal route will be because it's the easy way to go... not because it's fair and legal. (Or, to put another way, when the illegal way to go becomes harder, as in likely to get you in trouble and cost you something.)

Misanthropy is impractical in general, but it's particularly bad marketing. The success of the early, DRM-strewn, somewhat overpriced iTunes market at a time when for-dummies music download services were commonplace is evidence enough to refute your claim. People routinely jump through hoops to get their media through proper channels, and then they dump more money into prestige editions and merchandise related to their favorites. The more people come to feel that they're not being dealt with fairly, however, the less inclined they'll be to deal fairly with companies offering them hobbled goods on the premise that everyone's a criminal.

[spindlegirl]

I agree here. People generally buy stuff, not as a last resort because they couldn't find a good copy on the dark net, but because they just want to buy stuff, no needless drama, no nothing.

I buy a lot of music even though I legally can watch it on youtube. In fact, I buy some because the singer has put his own music on you tube for free viewing whenever we wish, and I want to reward that.

The companies who are so afraid of someone else walking into a room if I am listening to the music are the people I never want to buy from.

[stonetools]

(Consider the number of posts here about people having problems with Adobe DRM - authorising/deauthorising devices, finding out that they've lost access through not setting it up properly to start with, etc.)

I think one of the problems is that this site is kind of a bubble, to which anyone who has ever had a DRM problem flees, in the knowledge that they will find a welcome and understanding ear. In the meantime, the VAST majority of those who buy Adobe DRMed books go through life blissfully ignorant that there is even IS a such thing as Adobe DRM, let alone that it is a flawed scheme ( a fate it shares with every thing made by humans).
Maybe the solution is not no DRM , but BETTER DRM. After all, we don't give up on speeding laws, because there is frequently arbitrary and uneven enforcement of those laws or because it represents a restriction after we have spent our hard earned money to buy cars that can go much faster than the speed limit. Why how dare the government insist that we can only go 55 or 30 or 15 mph in certain areas and that those limits arbitrarily change over time! Why, the nerve....

[spindlegirl]

Having a DRM free book is not the same as having a car with no speeding laws or limits.

I'm more afraid of someone who disregards speeding laws than I am of someone with a huge calibre library of DRM-free books that they bought for themselves.

I bought a few books from smashwords which COME drm free. What are people afraid of?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I will happily concede that Apple believes that DRM schemes have no place in an anti MUSIC piracy scheme.
I think Apple's views on DRM are more nuanced than binary DRM/ no DRM choice.
Apple's business model is all about offering great user experience to the consumer by offering great hardware , then linking the hardware to great content offered through their stores. As a result, they work hard at securing great content through deals with content providers. As far as DRM is concerned, they tell content providers : " Look, if it makes you feel secure to offer content with DRM, we've got the best DRM in the business. If you want to offer content DRM free, we can do that too. Just don't offer DRM free content outside our hardware platform while insisting that content offered through our store have DRM. That's sh*t business strategy, and we won't do it. "

Now you concede that Apple believes law enforcement has a place in anti piracy strategy. Do YOU believe the same, and if so, what would it look like?

I think your summary of Apple's stance of DRM is accurate.

Yes, I do indeed believe law enforcement has a place in anti-piracy strategies. Commercial copyright infringement needs to be prosecuted.

But I also think that the law is currently heavy-handed when it comes to non-commercial small scale copyright infringement, and that statutory damages should not apply to non-commercial infringement.

And the laws on DRM systems need to be scrapped.