Piracy Is a Market Failure — Not a Legal One 591
Mr.Fork writes "Michael Geist, Canada's copyright law guru and law prof at the University of Ottawa, posted an interesting observation about the copyright issue of piracy. Canada's International Development Research Centre came to a conclusion that 'piracy is chiefly a product of a market failure, not a legal one' after a multi-year study of six relevant economies. 'Even in those jurisdictions where there are legal distribution channels, pricing renders many products unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Foreign rights holders are often more concerned with preserving high prices in developed countries, rather than actively trying to engage the local population with reasonably-priced access. These strategies may maximize profits globally, but they also serve to facilitate pirate markets in many developed countries.'"
Amen to that (Score:3, Informative)
Let's hope that somebody who can actually achieve something in the marketplace actually listens to what Michael Geist has got to say.
Re:Amen to that (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't bet on it. All the science we have has told us that Cannabis is at least as safe as any drug in our medicine cabinets. Yet we have been fighting a war against it for decades.
You can't use facts to win a debate the government isn't even willing to have.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Amen to that (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm somewhat skeptical. I sell an iOS app at the usual App Store rock bottom prices. 90+% of my downloads are still attributed to pirates. I can't really drop the price any lower without giving it away for free. Pirates are going to pirate no matter what the cost is.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on the feedback I have received, some users think it is the greatest app in the world, and others absolutely hate it. It is opinionated software, so the wide range of emotions is to be expected. App Store reviews pretty much mirror the feedback. A fairly even mix of 5 stars and 1 star reviews, without much in between.
Maybe I could build a "better" app in the sense that it would appeal to a wider audience, but that was never my goal. My sales have recouped my in
Re: (Score:2)
A fictional character from Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take "Other stuff that isn't related to Canada" for $500 Alex.
Mmmm... (Score:2)
Blah blah. (Score:3)
If demand is below the price set by the seller, the buyer will acquire the item through alternate channels where available.
Piracy dropped like a stone when cheap downloads became available. If you want to kill it off entirely, stop charging the same price for media that are new and media that are 20 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But in this case, it's quite easy to get them unofficially, so the price burden needs to be pretty low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I personally think $0.99 is a lot of money for a single song, and $20 for a whole album is way too much. Also note that only $0.03 of that $0.99 goes to the artist, the rest goes to the record company and Apple.
I think $0.25 is a reasonable price for a song.
Re: (Score:3)
When did cheap downloads become available?
$0.99/song is the same as buying a CD, actually worse. The CD at least came with some stuff to put on the shelf.
What about... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that the payment mechanism can also form a significant barrier. Having to create a paypal or other account or enter a credit card number is a barrier. The entering of the information is a barrier, trust of the system accepting the information is also a barrier.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of online game servers and download sites (like Rapidshare or Megaupload) also accept payments through local resellers. Credit cards are not that common outside US so a lot of people can't pay with them. It's not about security or privacy, it's about accessibility.
nailed that one. (Score:3)
Long lineups at the checkout are a barrier; so I just stuff the things in my pockets and head for the door.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue that the payment mechanism can also form a significant barrier. Having to create a paypal or other account or enter a credit card number is a barrier. The entering of the information is a barrier, trust of the system accepting the information is also a barrier.
My B.S. detector just exploded.
If your justification for stealing is, too much work to reach for my wallet, you may just be a thief.
Yes, putting a credit card number in to a form is a (very low) barrier. But downloading and installing LimeWire or a Bit Torrent client is also a barrier. Searching warez sites is a barrier. Running something from an unknown source is a barrier. Plenty of folks make it over those barriers. But PayPal is a "significant barrier"? I doubt it.
Speaking for myself, it is just a
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are always going to be a lot of people that steal because they can.
Winnona Rider? Lindsay Lohan? Did either one HAVE to steal anything?
The problem is that RIAA logic counts these people as "lost revenue" when they were never going to get their money to begin with. Where they are ACTUALLY losing money is with the people that are willing to pay but where it out prices what they are willing to pay. That is supply/demand economics.
There are people that will NEVER pay and there are people wil
Re:What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
So they're not worth worrying about, because they're not and never will be your customers. Look at how much money the indie devs made as compared to what they were on track for without that promotion. Look at all the charity that was helped because of it.
Yes, there are douchebags out there. But the majority of people are decent folk that understand value exchanges. Give them value for their money, and they'll gladly part with it at appropriate price points. Especially if you make it easy like Steam does.
Yet another repost (Score:4, Informative)
The said report has already been extensively debated on Slashdot here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org].
Re:Yet another repost (Score:4, Funny)
Meanwhile, reality disproves the study... (Score:2, Interesting)
'Even in those jurisdictions where there are legal distribution channels, pricing renders many products unaffordable for the vast majority of the population.
Most, if not all, Western nations completely invalidate such studies given that music is extremely affordable and reasonably priced - and much cheaper than capitalistic pricing would otherwise allow.
Its a societal failure, not an economic failure. Period.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most, if not all, Western nations completely invalidate such studies given that music is extremely affordable and reasonably priced - and much cheaper than capitalistic pricing would otherwise allow.
Its a societal failure, not an economic failure. Period.
So you have also done a multi-year study to back up your claim. I'd love to see your data, and compare it to Geist's study.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, studies like this contradict multitudes of studies which completely contradict this study. Not to mention, basic economics even contradict this study. So the onus of proof is most definitely not on me. They have an extremely higher burden from proof to overcome the overwhelming evidence they are full of shit.
Re:Meanwhile, reality disproves the study... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that "extremely affordable and reasonably priced" is very subjective. When I was in college with basically no income a $10 cd was not affordable at all. Now that I have a job it is. Reasonably priced is also subjective. To some people $0.99 for one song is not reasonable at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but what!? Music in western society is priced way outside its actual value. Even more so now that the Label are trying to sell you a limited use license instead of a personal copy. Remember, a music CD at retail is roughly the equivalent of a weeks worth of food.
What the hell are you talking about? Reality completely contradicts everything you said. Ultimately that's the problem with these exchanges. Pirates live in delusion and you are can't argue with stupid. For all western countries I can think of, certainly the majority of population, a CD costs nowhere near a weeks worth of food and completely ignores singles are the majority of purchases; which can frequently be had for less than a dollar.
Gaming Piracy (Score:3)
They can afford to charge lower prices because they have a great content delivery method, which cuts out the whole packing/shipping process. There is virtually no extra cost for delivering one or one thousand extra copies, and therefore overhead is minimized = profits maximized.
I have to agree, at least in part, with TFA. Proliferate your business in a method economical and accessible to the consumer, and you're far more likely to cut down on piracy. After all, if everybody has your product at a price they're willing to afford, there is no reason for piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is virtually no extra cost for delivering one or one thousand extra copies, and therefore overhead is minimized = profits maximized.
While I agree that it's logistically much easier, bandwidth is not free and using 1000 times more bandwidth does cost more.
Here's an example of market failure (Score:5, Informative)
1. Checked to see if it was available digitally on standard channels like Netflix and Hulu (it wasn't).
2. Checked Amazon, where it was available digitally, but only per-episode, at a ridiculous price like $3/ep (making it over $100 for the season, more expensive than on DVD).
3. Downloaded torrent.
She was more than willing to buy it, but it has to be easy and reasonable or "other" methods of distribution win.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only was it cheaper on the DVD, as far as I know Amazon won't go and revoke your license to the DVD while they might to the digital copy.
Re:Here's an example of market failure (Score:4, Insightful)
That anecdote presumes that she has a right to obtain the content on her terms or prices.
If we're going to assume that her (thrifty) needs trump the plans (or lack thereof) of the copyright holders, then perhaps the law of the land should reflect that.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
why not buy the DVDs?
More likely she wanted it *now* and decided that piracy was a permanent solution rather than the temporary 3-5 day solution while her shiny DVDs shipped from Amazon.
Piracy is just the new socially acceptable temper tantrum. Individual consumers (as opposed to collective market forces) have decided *they* get to decide the price and medium and if they don't get their way, they'll just take it for free.
Fine, pirate it, right after you process your order with Amazon. That way you don't have wait to enjoy what you now legally own. Or, why don't you write a check for a price you're willing to pay per episode and send it to the company as a donation?
I'm guessing you and your girlfriend are perfectly content not paying anything ever because the company dared to not have it your way right now.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:3)
One, we don't need to discuss the legality, that part is clear.
Two, "legality" is a social concept. Society defines what is legal and what isn't. Slavery is illegal today in (I think) every country on earth, but that wasn't always the case. Copyright was invented fairly recently, before that making a copy of a book was perfectly legal.
Three, as a society, we do not function according to legality - that is just the framework of rules we write down so we can resolved disputes. Ethics is not subject to legalit
This is unlikely to be true/correct (Score:4, Insightful)
What TV show has 30+ episodes in a season ($100/$3)? TV seasons are usually fewer than 25 episodes.
Why not order the DVD? Because she wanted to watch it now? Why not order 1 episode for $3 to watch now and order the DVDs to arrive in a day or two?
Why not go to the store and buy the DVDs now?
This is always the smoke screen that pirates use. I would have bought it. You want $x ? I would have bought it for $x/2 or $x/3. That goes for all reasonable values of x.
Now that she downloaded it, what's keeping her from buying the DVDs right now? She's "more than willing to buy it", right?
Re:This is unlikely to be true/correct (Score:5, Interesting)
I pirate my TV content. Here's why:
- many shows are not available in my country (Canada)...
- When the shows do appear in canada, they are 1 or more seasons after originally aired.
- I enjoy discussing certain shows online with my friends in other countries
additionally:
- broadcast schedules are sporadic. ie: this season of BigBangTheory has not been regularly broadcast week after week after week. So I prefer to wait until the entire season has been broadcast and then watch the season as a whole.
- the broadcaster or local distributor often puts animated ads on the bottom of content, occasionally covering up subtitles or other text that is part of the content.
- my local cableco compresses the crap out of HD content so pirated content is of higher quality, less blotchy.
- pirated content has had the commercials removed.
- my cableco messes with the encoding so frequently that my capture methods aren't reliable. (firewire on DCT6200)
- a PVR from my cableco has limited disk space, can not accomodate additional disks added, and can not be backed up.
- I also don't have the flexibility to transfer recorded content from my cableco's PVR to my laptop so I can watch it on the plane.
HOWEVER, I pay my cableco monthly anyway. Most of the content I do pirate, is content that would have eventually recorded or at least have come into my home via coax on the cableco's network.. The rest of the content, (foreign content) is I guess truly being pirated but I probably can't buy the DVD's due to region code issues anyway so I'm not a lost sale there anyway.
Sure, it's a fairly weak justification but I feel morally 'ok' with my decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I'm also more than willing to buy that low-mileage BMW M3 I saw in the dealership parking lot. Problem is they wanted around 70K for it! Ridiculous! Who has that kind of money?
So the logical flow is leading me to getting some 15 year old street punk to steal the car for me.
That's not only cheaper, but more convenient too, compared to spending, what, like half a day signing some papers and making trips to the bank and stuff.
Re:Here's an example of market failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm also more than willing to buy that low-mileage BMW M3 I saw in the dealership parking lot. Problem is they wanted around 70K for it! Ridiculous! Who has that kind of money?
So the logical flow is leading me to use my matter replicator to duplicate my friends one.
That's not only cheaper, but more convenient too, compared to spending, what, like half a day signing some papers and making trips to the bank and stuff.
FTCAFY.
Re: (Score:2)
One person's legit is another person's extortion.
If entertainment item x costs:
1,000,000 dollars: 0 people purchase, 1,000,000 pirate
100 dollars: 1000 people purchase, 999,000 pirate
10 dollars: 500,000 people purchase, 500,000 pirate
1 dollar: 950,000 people purchase, 50,000 pirate
1 cent: 999,950 people purchase, 50 people pirate
What's the right scheme? Who is "at fault" for the pirating? One could argue that if you price it too high, it's your own fault. Make it more reasonable (read: cheaper), to
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that she might be wanting to watch some seasons which haven't been released on DVD yet, and is basing that judgement on full retail price for previous seasons. Which still equates to a marketing failure.
Case in point: me (Score:5, Informative)
That is exactly my case. Let me use ebooks as an example. I always payed for my ebooks. From Amazon, Fictionwise and Ebooks.com. Then, one not-so-beautiful day, "export" restrictions started applying to ebooks. Most publishers would simply not allow those shops to sell me ebooks, because I was on a different country. I even talked to 2 of the authors, and both were aware of this, not happy, and trying to fight these measures, to no avail. As a corroborating note, these specific books were not available in my country, through any channels. Be it physical books, translated or not, or ebooks. Harper Collins is the leader of this "geographic restrictions", as far as I can tell. Well Mr. Publisher, I went out of my way to try getting these books legally. I contacted the shops, contact you and contacted the authors. For reference, everyone but YOU responded. Everyone pointed fingers at you.
Eastern Europe (Score:4, Interesting)
In Eastern-European countries average salaries are around $600, but there's a highly educated youth, with cheap internet access (around $30 a month), and a lot of free time, and relaxed copyright laws (suing warez downloaders is not legally possible; you can only sue those who make a profit while pirating ).
At the university where I studied, teachers expected students to use pirated Matlab, as they didn't had an academic license program, so they provided intranet warez copies.
At the same time there's strong opensource culture as well.
Firefox usage:
Poland: 42%
Slovakia: 41.2%
Hungary: 40.3%
Estonia:37.3%
(And my guess is that in China hacker groups are government supported.)
engaging the local population (Score:3)
"rather than actively trying to engage the local population with reasonably-priced access. "
You mean like high-school and college students without any income?
More quantity, cheaper, faster (Score:2)
The people (Score:2)
Piracy evidences the unstoppable propagation of art and ideas within and across cultures. To characterize it as a "market failure" only acknowledges the failure of the economically powerful to co-opt and monetize this particular mode of circulation. Even if media prices plummeted to lows that media companies would consider unthinkable, piracy would continue because the impetus to subvert would remain, and the demand for alternative distribution methods, file formats, and content would survive.
not a market failure (Score:3)
The good professor's got a peculiar view of things.
The intellectual property owners have a legal monopoly and the market is inherently averse to monopolies rewarding everyone who figures out a way to undercut the monopolists. Far from being a market failure it illustrates the proper functioning of the market and the role of government in interfering with the proper functioning of the market.
The purpose of copyright, like the purpose of the patent, is to confer a temporary monopoly to encourage the development of worthwhile ideas. That purpose is undercut by endlessly extending copyright into the indeterminable future. It's hard to even guess what that sort of appropriation of the patent system would've resulted in but it would hardly have been to serve the end of encouraging new developments.
High prices are not a market failure (Score:2)
Because in the market, sellers can choose the price they wish to charge, even if most other people think it is too high. After all, many more people want Ferraris than can afford them. That doesn't mean auto theft is a "market failure."
Piracy provides copies of content for free; there is no way the content creator can compete with that and make money. So it is necessary to create legal remedies, which create a "price" for pirated content against which the content creators can legitimately compete.
I'm not buying this (haha). (Score:2)
You don't simply have a right to help yourself to something just because it is priced out of your range. Doing is is a legal problem, and not a marketing problem. Furthermore, pirates are accustomed to paying nothing at all, which is demonstrably less than what many of them can actually afford.
It goes both ways (Score:3)
The driving force behind piracy has always been, and will always be, "because we can". People have made unlicensed copies of things since the technology existed not because the original was too expensive, but because piracy was cheaper. Too many middle-class Americans do it for me to believe it has that much to do with cost.
Even if a factor behind piracy is the high price of content, it's self-defeating. Companies have lost the incentive to lower the price of content when sales slow down. People not willing to pay $20 for a DVD can wait for it to come down to $5. But they don't, they pirate, and now the company doesn't stand to sell as many units at $5 than they might have, so they're less likely to reduce the price. One might argue that piracy hurts the tendency to lower prices by removing demand for low-priced content.
A short story... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Mr. Copyright Holder: "How's the fight against piracy going Mr. Laywer?"
- Mr. Laywer: "Not good. People are committing more piracy than ever..."
- Mr. Copyright Holder: "Well you see, I've been doing some thinking about this; if we reduce our prices significantly and focus on the quality of our products and remind consumers that when they legally buy our product they also get legal warranty, we should be able in the long run to change the general culture of consumers towards a situation where piracy is met by the general population with disgust rather than with ambivalence. Also, that way we would not have to fork out so much money on litigation."
- Mr. Laywer: "That'll never work. Oh, and by the way; we need more money for litigation."
- roll credits -
Better knee jerk anyway. (Score:3)
Better pass a bunch of poorly written laws with over-reaching and unforeseen ramifications and egregious penalties anyway. You know, just to be safe.
I so agree (Score:3)
I got to say, I agree 1000% with this...if the industry stopped making a big deal about it, and invested in making a better version to avoid piracy, that would solve the problem there.
If a door maker, makes cheap doors that people can just punch and break, does that mean that the problem is people punching and breaking doors down, and robbing you of your house and possessions....or really is it the door manufacturer's fault for making flimsy doors....i never once heard a door maker say...
>"god dang, that's another one this week, ...if only people would not punch doors and break them, we would have a more stable product securing people's houses."
So why is it ok for all these other companies to always blame others....I am not saying it is right for someone to steal....but the definition of stealing is bound to physical objects...when everything we talk about is virtual it becomes a big grey area.....
so fix the problem by coming out with a steel door, instead of balsa wood....add deadbolts to your door, instead of just changing the small door lock....why cant they come up with a better system for music, movies, software, instead of blaming the people that are doing what comes naturally, finding a way to save money.....if they can, they will.....
Re:Maximize profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they sure the current strategy actually maximises profit?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree slightly, people will be willing to pay for legitimacy, but they are far less likely to suffer inconvenience for legitimacy. If pirating something is easier than buying it people are much more likely to pirate it than they would be otherwise. This is one of the biggest problems with most DRM schemes and a big part of why Steam is so successful.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel like DRM is a special-case inconvenience which is worse than others because the buyer understands that it has no purpose. They know that they are not a pirate because there is a hole in their wallet where the money they paid used to be, but then they get treated like a criminal and are prevented from doing things they have every right to do. Whereas with ads, people understand that there is a reason for it -- it's how they got to watch legitimately without paying.
Of course, what smart people do is fi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are claiming that a strategy which maximizes profit globally creates underserved markets which turn to illegal channels to recieve content they cannot purchase legally. In short - either sell it to people at a reasonable price or they'll pirate it from someone who can.
Re: (Score:2)
They are claiming that a strategy which maximizes profit globally creates underserved markets which turn to illegal channels to recieve content they cannot purchase legally. In short - either sell it to people at a reasonable price or they'll pirate it from someone who can.
In which case piracy is a bed the rights holders made, and now they should just sleep in it and stop using governments as their attack dogs.
Look, It might be reasonable for a Music CD to cost $12 to $17 bucks in the US, but even in developed countries like Argentina or Brazil that is a lot of money. It would seem to me that no real studies have been done to prove that profitability requires high prices. The people who set the prices on music and video do not live in Chile or Uganda, and worry only that lo
Re:Maximize profit (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there's a theory in economics that, while it mostly talks about tax rate vs. revenue, can be applied to price versus profit. The short version is that Price v. Profit follows an inverted parabolic line. There's a sweet spot where revenues are maximized, and it most emphatically is not at the highest possible rate in the graph. The same applies to sales (and in fact, it was in that context that my HS Economics teacher presented it): as you raise the price beyond a butter zone, your profits actually drop because fewer people can afford to buy your product, and either buy the products from the competition or steal it.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Laffer_curve [wikimedia.org] is a good starting point, though that's the theory as it applies specifically to taxation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has nothing to do with taxation.
This is simply a supply/demand curve where one side has managed to control the price point via monopolistic means enforced by government. (If they had to pay for their own enforcement apparatus they would quickly lower prices).
As it stands, there is no reason to believe they are selling anywhere near the "butter zone" (what ever the hell that is). There is no evidence they have ever tested lowering prices in selective markets, or lowering price even in developed marke
Re:Maximize profit (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope! They are saying that they're trying to maximize profit globally, but are instead leaving money on the table in markets which differ too much from the main ones in which they make most of their money today.
Re: (Score:2)
But, when those markets are close, then they may not be able to segregate them, and the profit maximization come with losing one market.
ex.
Two markets are in effectively the same geographical location (i.e. same city). One group will pay a max of $20 for a DVD, and the other a max of $5, and lets say that the media co's profit scales exactly with the price (so 4x profit on the $20 DVD). Now, lets say that the reduction to $5 will only double the number of consumers. The company will have a lower profit marg
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeup. The argument may or may not be correct. Also, maybe nobody knows how to solve this market issue without introducing other problems. That doesn't mean it's not the argument being presented.
Re:Maximize profit (Score:4, Insightful)
they're trying to maximize profit globally, but are instead leaving money on the table
You phrase that as if it leaving money on the table were an accidental consequence. Its not. It is a deliberate choice.
Because media giants can not effectively control traffic of LEGALLY purchased media, they choose not to sell it at all in poor countries, or sell media at ridiculously high prices, in order not to fuel international markets, undercutting US/EU prices. If you could safely order LEGAL CDs from third world countries for pennies on the dollar, why would you buy at Downtown USA prices?
Re: (Score:2)
*I know there are a lot of people who do not like this term, but I am not c
Re: (Score:2)
"copyright or patent infringement", or since we're talking about "content" here, copyright infringement is all you need.
Re:Maximize profit (Score:5, Informative)
*I know there are a lot of people who do not like this term, but I am not currently aware of any other term which brings together all of the various products that can be lumped together under "intellectual property".
That's because they're disparate constructs with completely different purposes that should not be lumped together.
Trademarks exist to protect the public so they know what they're buying.
Copyrights exist to provide incentive for creators to share their works through a guarantee of a monopoly on copies.
Patents exist to convince businesses to share valuable processes from which everyone can benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
Patents exist to encourage publication... otherwise, the oft-overlooked 4th branch of intellectual property - trade secrets - can come into play. Non-transferable, there are mechanisms in the law for their preservation. However, there are no protections from independent discovery. Of course, some trade secrets can retain their value long after a patent has expired.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're overly optimistic. Most politicians haven't even considered the matter of balance, since the lobbyists they talk to haven't brought it up. All they know is that the lobbyists' industries are being ripped off, and we'll lose tons of jobs if this goes on. What possible balance is involved? This is private property we're talking about!
Most politicians are completely unaware of the purpose of copyright and patents. They believe that it's to "protect" the "property" of the recording and movie
Re: (Score:2)
It's a failure if you consider the goal to have the media available to everyone who wants it.
ex:
(A) A DVD at $20 will be purchased by 1 million users, with the publisher taking $10 in profit per sale ($10 million profit), with 4 million pirates.
(B) Now, lets say at $5 it would be purchased by 4 million users, with the publisher taking $1 in profit per sale ($4 million profit), with 1 million pirates.
Each case is a success and a failure. From a pure capitalistic perspective, (A) is a success, maximizing the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with your over all point in generic economics but it also glosses over some very serious issues. Larger sales can also mean higher overhead in support and distribution as well as liability. So while the raw numbers may make sense, once the final numbers are tabulated, lower market penetration at high market price can frequently yield best profit potential (more profit for less work; thusly allow for more expansion and growth and higher paid jobs). Furthermore, this in turn typically has the effect o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A market optimal model collects exactly as much from each person as he is willing to pay. So if there's an American willing to pay 10$, a Greek willing to pay 5$ and a Chinese willing to pay 1$, you find a way to collect all 16$. Obviously a single global price is a restriction on that, either you lose some customers or you lose some profit. What this study shows that not only do you lose customers, you turn them into pirates. No real surprise there.
What I don't like is the idea where it's going, this is wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. He's saying that it's probably reasonable to expect people to copy a Ferrari, if they have the means to easily do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's right to steal a Ferrari?
It's wrong to make an identical copy of a Ferrari?
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point. A ferrari is a luxury item. A movie, or a video game, is not. There is no point in charging people more than they can afford for something that's not a luxury. In my country, videogames are twice as expensive as in the US. Very few people buy originals. But movie tickets are 1/3 to 1/4th the US price. Cinemas are always full.
Bottom line: price your stuff according to what people can afford.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious point: I've always wondered why more people simply don't walk right out of restaurants without paying. Food at a lot of big chain restaurants and trendy, expensive spots are way overpriced -- so why do people pay? It's not like there are doormen or video cameras. Why not just walk out the front the front door?
Almost all the money comes from someone trying to impress someone else with how much they spent... Not being seen paying the bill would kind of defeat that purpose. Much like "why tip if you'll never see that waiter again?" So you can be seen tipping by your date, of course.
Places that actually focus on food filling a stomach, poor quality though it might be, know this, so McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc, require you to pay at the counter.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all the money comes from someone trying to impress someone else with how much they spent... Not being seen paying the bill would kind of defeat that purpose. Much like "why tip if you'll never see that waiter again?" So you can be seen tipping by your date, of course.
Places that actually focus on food filling a stomach, poor quality though it might be, know this, so McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc, require you to pay at the counter
Or....it could be that people interested in spending the time to go and sit down at a nice restaurant with excellent food are willing to pay for said excellent food because they respect the time and effort put into it by the chefs, restaurant owner, and wait staff. Plus you have to interact with your waiter who you would essentially be stealing from which makes it even more psychologically difficult then shoplifting.
On the other hand fast food restaurants aren't respected, their workers aren't respected,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you could take a copy of the Ferrari without degrading the original copy I would say that is *not* stealing. It might be something else illegal, but its not stealing. That's why it is such an unfair word for the *AAs to use.
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively, they could buy the content and not afford the system to run it on?
Certainly people do pirate things they could actually afford, but those college kids also frequently pirate more than they could afford. I've known people that pirated movies, games, and music that would have exceeded their annual income if they actually bought them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well consider this:
If a person spends $2,000 on a computer and a large TV hooked up to the TV and this person then goes on to pirate a large number of movies and TV shows (let's say 80 movies and 30 full seasons of TV shows), with an estimated retail value of $25 per movie and say $20 per season of a TV show that comes to $2,600 worth of movies and TV shows. Horrible horrible piracy, right? Except of course that it's highly likely that this person would not have spent the money on movies and TV shows anyway
Re:Steal it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Piracy is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
That is deeply profound...and funny...and true!
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! Piracy is a victimless crime, like trying to punch someone in the dark only to find there's nobody there.
FTFY. If you punch someone in the dark, the punchee is certainly a victim. If you copy something which you never had the intention to buy, no one is the worse for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Theft is depriving someone of something they would otherwise have had. So piracy can be a form of contingent theft, when you would otherwise have bought the pirated item. Warez I try and like, I buy. Ther
Re: (Score:3)
Theft is depriving someone of the use of property they already have.
That definition seems incorrect too, ie I could deprive you of the use of your car by refusing to sell you fuel.
Theft is the possession of someone else's property without consent.
Re: (Score:2)
No price beats free
Wrong. See iTunes.
Re: (Score:2)
"...what sort of Liberal entitlement BS is this"
You missed the point. The study revealed that pricing above an affordable level for something that is easily and inexpensively copied results in piracy. It does not say piracy is right or wrong. It does not contain any sort of "liberal entitlement BS".
Re: (Score:2)
Digital distribution makes it impossible for you to realize the kind of price control you are talking about. That's really the beginning and the end of it. Be outraged if you want, but it's about as helpful as getting mad at the door you just slammed your little toe into. The door just sits there...
Re: (Score:2)
THANK YOU :) MOD UP! Because something is expensive doesn't give you the right to steal it, people try to validate their actions with whatever lame excuse is relevant, I'm poor, I wouldn't buy it anyways, I'm not going to support fat cats selling it, its costs zero to anyone to steal it, blah blah blah, you're excuses are bullshit, you are a thief plain and simple if you pirate anything. Furthermore and worse, you are marginally destroying the art/market/artist of the thing you are pirating, the problem
Re: (Score:2)
And if someone realised that it would cost a lot less than $20K to simply duplicate your design for their own back yard? Particularly if everyone and their dog walked around all day with automatic birdhouse design duplicators?
Of course, if you charged $99 for that same birdhouse, people might be more inclined to buy them off you so they didn't have to physically build their own copy.
But when everyone have automatic birdhouse _physical_ duplicators, requiring next to no effort on their part, you might no