Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable Than Legal Sales

[astra]

the copyright holders get 150 times more from pursuing filesharers than from selling actual music, the company claims

Nice

[poohbear_nc]

Ummm..... where's the link to the article?

[astra]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

Ummm..... where's the link to the article?

Clickable Nice?

[cvkemp]

If the truth was to be let out illegal file sharing would be much less if the books were readily available in the formats that the most people could buy and read. Most illegal sharing is done because there are the ones that can break the DRM for the ones that can not read the books because of the restrictions other wise.
It is a fact the more you restrict something the more you encourage illegal use of it. That has been a fact every since creation.

Just my two cents
Chuck

[Kali Yuga]

Meh, just looks like more FUD. A company that targets file sharing is trying to convince publishers to go after file sharers, using financial incentives. I doubt many publishers regard this as a viable or preferable revenue stream.

Originally Posted by cvkemp

Most illegal sharing is done because there are the ones that can break the DRM for the ones that can not read the books because of the restrictions other wise.

Millions of people infringe copyright on readily available music and movies. Nor is piracy decreasing as more titles go into legit retail channels.

Let's face it, a lot of people just want Free Stuff.

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by astra

Clickable Nice?

Thanks for the hint. I'm having one of THOSE mornings - trying to catch up with you folk on the fly while pretending to work.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Meh, just looks like more FUD. A company that targets file sharing is trying to convince publishers to go after file sharers, using financial incentives. I doubt many publishers regard this as a viable or preferable revenue stream.



Millions of people infringe copyright on readily available music and movies. Nor is piracy decreasing as more titles go into legit retail channels.

Let's face it, a lot of people just want Free Stuff.

Some people will never buy. Those need to be forgotten, since, well, they just won't be a revenue stream. If they couldn't pirate, they still wouldn't be customers. They would just do without.

As far as the others, by making it easier to be legal, you'll stop them from pirating.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Some people will never buy. Those need to be forgotten, since, well, they just won't be a revenue stream. If they couldn't pirate, they still wouldn't be customers. They would just do without.

As far as the others, by making it easier to be legal, you'll stop them from pirating.

Yes some people will never buy, but unless steps are taken to punish those who download without buying, the numbers of people who never buy might well increase.

Ultimately, you can never stop them, but you can work to ensure that the difficulty of downloading for free is such that most people would prefer to simply buy the product than go to the trouble of obtaining the free copy.

--
Bill

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Ultimately, you can never stop them, but you can work to ensure that the difficulty of downloading for free is such that most people would prefer to simply buy the product than go to the trouble of obtaining the free copy.

It'd be nice if they worked harder at sorting out the legal options as that would be the most effective way of reducing the demand for the illegal alternatives.

[Format C:]

In my country illicit download is a minor criminal offence.
To ask money for to not report the criminal act is itself a criminal offence.

So, unless the law is changed, there's no place for such blackmailers. We already have Mafia, Camorra, 'Ndrangheta and the Government, and that's enough, I think.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by astra

Nice

I saw that story, and I'm having trouble figuring out how a pirate caught by that company broke the law. The company in question is hired by copyright holders, and with the permission of the copyright holder it posts a copyrighted work on torrents and such. How is that file not a legal download? The company who owns thew copyright gave permission to upload it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I saw that story, and I'm having trouble figuring out how a pirate caught by that company broke the law. The company in question is hired by copyright holders, and with the permission of the copyright holder it posts a copyrighted work on torrents and such. How is that file not a legal download? The company who owns thew copyright gave permission to upload it.

I didn't see the part in the article where they got into the details, but if that is indeed what they're doing (uploading with permission, and then tracking who downloads), then it doesn't sound like copyright infringement to me either. That's basically the copyright holder authorizing the company to distribute their content for free. The people they "catch" aren't doing anything wrong.

[Shaggy]

the copyright holders get 150 times more from pursuing filesharers than from selling actual music, the company claims

To me, what that article is saying is that the damages awarded by copyright infringement suits are more profitable than the business itself. We have the same problem in the US. The RIAA is trying to claim "statutory damages" instead of "actual damages", and the laws are so outrageous that they award grossly inflated statutory damages in civil copyright cases.

The only thing that tells me is that the damages are way too high and the laws are badly written.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Yes some people will never buy, but unless steps are taken to punish those who download without buying, the numbers of people who never buy might well increase.

Ultimately, you can never stop them, but you can work to ensure that the difficulty of downloading for free is such that most people would prefer to simply buy the product than go to the trouble of obtaining the free copy.

--
Bill

Statistically, the death penalty, timely enforced, is a pretty good deterrent.

Would you be O.K. with that?

Appropriate pricing and sufficient supply (provided there is demand,) are generally effective at capturing the majority of those realistically likely to purchase a product.

[fugazied]

Copyright holders will also use every dirty trick in the book to go after people. In the past they have illegally snooped into peoples computers, used trojans, run denial of service attacks, everything in the book. They don't mind suing grandmas.

But in the long run that is just suicide for their business, if consumers no longer see a brand as trustworthy, then they don't want to buy their products.