The Futility of the Ongoing Piracy War 232
In Nick Bilton's article, he compares the battle of content owners versus pirates to a game of Whac-A-Mole, and concludes that "Sooner or later, the people who still believe they can hit the moles with their slow mallets might realize that their time would be better spent playing an entirely different game." Whether it's Apple's iTunes Music Store, or Valve's Steam gaming service, both retail services and the content providers that publish via those services, have been able to make some tidy profits off their content, even despite the presence of Megaupload, The Pirate Bay, Archie, Usenet, local dial-up BBSes, and any countless other number of ways that people have been pirating for years. Right now, the powers that be, the MPAA and the RIAA, are fighting the same losing war that has been fought for decades already. Indulge me for a moment, as I engage in CowboyNeal story time, and tell a nostalgic tale of a bygone era.
As a kid, I was lucky enough to have my own computer. While the idea of the Internet was long way off yet, those of us in the neighborhood did know everyone else in the neighborhood that owned a computer, because that was how we got software. It wasn't uncommon for any of us kids to throw a box of floppy disks into our backpacks and bike over to someone else's house to share software, so that we could get new games and other software. We didn't set out to do this to rob anyone, it was just how we got by. Growing up in the 1980s, my allowance was $1/week, which was low even by 1980s standards. The average price for a computer game was around $25 to $35 for a new release. Even while supplanting my allowance with whatever I earned from doing work around the neighborhood or picking up pop cans, it took a long time to save up for a game. So, I and most other kids did the only logical alternative: we pirated software. None of us even owned a modem yet in those days, but we all knew someone who knew someone who did, and eventually cracked games would make their way from the BBS scene into our hands, and give us new games without having to pay for them. What I should note here, before all of us kids look like greedy little thieves, is that when I did eventually save up my money, I would still inevitably spend it on the software that I wasn't able to get via pirating. I still remember saving up the money to purchase the original John Madden Football. It cost $32, and came with printed playbooks to help players choose their plays, and most relevant to this article, a decoder wheel which contained a plethora of codes, that needed to be entered before a game could start. It was essentially an early version of DRM, because while the decoder wheel wasn't immune to piracy, without either a photocopy of the innards of the wheel or the wheel itself, there would be no kickoff. While the rudimentary decoder-wheel-based DRM had been defeated, that cracked copy hadn't found its way to any of us in the neighborhood yet. This scenario could be repeated for any number of 8-bit computer games. So while still a pirate, I was still giving the computer software industry all of my money — what little there was of it.
Now, let's go back to the present, and address Nick Bilton's "different game." What the industry still hasn't realized after all these years is that there's not just pirates and legal purchasers. Even people who pirate the same piece of software may do so for vastly different reasons. A good share of them are like me as a kid, pirating because they simply cant afford to buy it legitimately. Then there's the anti-DRM crowd, who refuse to pay for anything that has any sort of DRM involved with it. There's also the "try-before-I-buy" folks who are willing to pay, but they're frugal with their money and don't want to buy something they'll regret later. Some people who pirate content do so simply because it's easier than paying for it. Last are the people who pirate just for the sake of pirating. This last group is the one that no law, no PR junket, and no DRM will ever stop. They will always "win," if winning means pirating. It's also key to understand that a single person can belong to one or more of these demographics, or invent their own reasons for whether they will pirate or not. Maybe someone pirates a game, then later decides he want to play it online or that he likes it and want to support it. Suddenly a pirate is now a paying customer.
Lode Runner came with 150 levels, but my pirated copy crashed after level 33. Eventually I bought my own copy so that I could see the rest of the game. Okay, honestly, I never saw all of Lode Runner, but I still got to play level 34 and onward. After a year of owning John Madden Football, Electronic Arts mailed me a disk with the next year's teams on it. They didn't continue that practice very long, and started releasing a new game ever year instead.
The industry can't ever truly win this war. The best they can hope for is to curb as much of it as they can. Services like iTMS and Steam are able to corral the people who just want easy access. Humble Indie Bundles and GOG.com work for people who want DRM-free games. But even these only address small pieces of the larger pie. As referenced in the NYT article, what about people who want to watch "Game of Thrones" without buying cable or some kind of DRM-laden copy of it? Piracy is their quickest, easiest path to watching it. While we've concluded that the industry won't ever win, until the industry overlords address their methods of content delivery and take into account why people pirate, they cant even hope to make a lasting impact against piracy.
Re:Content owners love piracy (Score:3, Informative)
Your post is a good summary, but there are a few things I'd like to clarify.
The bittorrent infringers have not been sued for $150k each. In fact, some of the copyright trolls have NOT SERVED A SINGLE John Doe despite filing 50+ lawsuits. These suits are filed against tens or hundeds - sometimes more than a thousand - Doe defendants. Once the DOE identify is known, settlement demands are made for $2k to $5k depending on the specific circumstances; $3400 is an oft-cited number because Prenda Law, one of the WORST copyright trolls, typically offers settlements for that amount. The settlement demands are RARELY followed with litigation, and when they litigate, they often fail miserably. In fact, many defendants file counter-claims and some have won settlements against the trolls. They have weak evidence, if any, and don't want their evidence gathering methods subject to discovery.
They have thousands of names to chose from and have served a tiny, tiny percentage of the named defendants. Your chances of being served are a tiny fraction of a percent, even if you're named. If you receive a letter regarding Bittorrent infringement, DO NOT SETTLE. This nothing but an EXTORTION scheme and fortunately judges are catching on to it quickly. One of the worst trolls was just sanctioned by a judge in Florida and the bar is giving him a good dressing down as we speak.
Re:The harder they try, the more they fail (Score:5, Informative)
Uh... no.
Bittorrent was invented because its inventor correctly noted that given the essentially almost entirely serial nature of existing data communications, coupled with the fact that many upstream network paths are often saturated with other data that they are simply relaying, which limits serial throughput, simultaneously downloading different parts of the same content in parallel from different locations, and thereby using multiple network paths instead of only one, would complete faster than downloading it all from a single location.
Pirates quickly glommed onto this concept, and applied the protocol to distributing unauthorized copies of works because it was, in fact, so much faster than simply downloading it from a single source via ftp or conventional http.
Bittorrent was not invented for the purpose of piracy. Not remotely.
It's NOT "Piracy"!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Downloading (and in most cases uploading) is NOT piracy! It is merely civil copyright infringement!
Copyright piracy is a VERY old legal term, and it means to make and distribute multiple copies for profit. Pirates don't share via P2P. It would defeat their whole purpose. Calling downloading "piracy" is not an example of "modern usage", it is just plain incorrect.
Piracy is a crime, sometimes even a felony. Downloading is not a crime at all.
"Big Content" wants you to think they are the same things, but they are not. Whenever you call downloading "piracy", you help them toward their evil ends.
Stop.