Research Shows Why Many Anti-Piracy Messages Fail (torrentfreak.com) 257
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: You wouldn't steal a car, right? So why are you pirating? With this 2004 message, the movie industry hoped to turn illegal downloaders into paying customers. This campaign eventually turned into a meme and it's not the only anti-piracy advert to miss the mark. A new research paper identifies several behavioral insights that explain common mistakes made in these campaigns. [...] The general assumption of many people is that, by adding more arguments, the message will be more compelling. That's called the 'more-is-better' heuristic but behavioral research has shown that the opposite is often true. When many arguments are presented together, the stronger ones may actually be diluted by weaker ones. So, referencing malware, fines, low quality, Internet disconnections, and losses to the industry, all while associating piracy with organized crime, is not the best idea. The reduced impact of stronger and weaker arguments is also one of the reasons why the "You Wouldn't Steal a Car" campaign didn't work as planned, the researchers suggest.
Anti-piracy campaigns can also focus too much on dry numbers without putting these into context. While these statistics are vital to the industry, the average pirate will simply gloss over them. This 'mistake' can also be explained by behavioral psychology, which has shown that people identify more with a problem or victim if they feel some kind of personal connection. That's often missing from anti-piracy messages. It's worth noting that not all personal messaging is effective either. The paper mentions an Indian anti-piracy campaign where famous Bollywood actors urged people not to download films illegally, equating piracy to theft. However, the Indian public probably has little sympathy for the potential "losses" incurred by these multi-millionaire actors. In fact, the anti-piracy campaign may be seen as an extra motivation to pirate. "All videos starred well-known actors, whose net worth is estimated to be $22-$400 million dollars, in a country where the annual per capita income is a bit less than $2,000." "This can offer to pirates a moral justification: they only steal the rich to 'feed the poor', a form of 'Robin Hood effect' that makes even more sense with some cultural or sport-related goods," the researchers add.
Piracy is a widespread and global phenomenon. This makes it particularly problematic for copyright holders but emphasizing this issue in anti-piracy messages isn't a good idea. This is the third mistake that's highlighted in the article. By pointing out that people are supposed to get content legally while at the same time showing that many people don't, people might actually be encouraged to pirate. Behavioral research has shown that people often prefer to follow the descriptive norm (what people do) rather than the injunctive one (what the law prescribes). "Informing directly or indirectly individuals that many people pirate is counterproductive and encourages piracy by driving the targeted individuals to behave similarly. These messages provide to the would-be pirates the needed rationalization by emphasizing that 'everyone is doing it'," the researchers write.
Anti-piracy campaigns can also focus too much on dry numbers without putting these into context. While these statistics are vital to the industry, the average pirate will simply gloss over them. This 'mistake' can also be explained by behavioral psychology, which has shown that people identify more with a problem or victim if they feel some kind of personal connection. That's often missing from anti-piracy messages. It's worth noting that not all personal messaging is effective either. The paper mentions an Indian anti-piracy campaign where famous Bollywood actors urged people not to download films illegally, equating piracy to theft. However, the Indian public probably has little sympathy for the potential "losses" incurred by these multi-millionaire actors. In fact, the anti-piracy campaign may be seen as an extra motivation to pirate. "All videos starred well-known actors, whose net worth is estimated to be $22-$400 million dollars, in a country where the annual per capita income is a bit less than $2,000." "This can offer to pirates a moral justification: they only steal the rich to 'feed the poor', a form of 'Robin Hood effect' that makes even more sense with some cultural or sport-related goods," the researchers add.
Piracy is a widespread and global phenomenon. This makes it particularly problematic for copyright holders but emphasizing this issue in anti-piracy messages isn't a good idea. This is the third mistake that's highlighted in the article. By pointing out that people are supposed to get content legally while at the same time showing that many people don't, people might actually be encouraged to pirate. Behavioral research has shown that people often prefer to follow the descriptive norm (what people do) rather than the injunctive one (what the law prescribes). "Informing directly or indirectly individuals that many people pirate is counterproductive and encourages piracy by driving the targeted individuals to behave similarly. These messages provide to the would-be pirates the needed rationalization by emphasizing that 'everyone is doing it'," the researchers write.
No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
.. as then the owner could not use it.
As for pirating content: The owners can still use them.
I used to pirate quite a lot when I was a poor student and there as no easy way to get a lot of things.
Then there was a period where there was no need to pirate things as all films and good series were on Netflix.
But it seems like we are again moving towards needing to pirate more again with the splitting on markets. Currently I rotate several different services, one at a time for a few months before canceling and then taking a different one, but it is kind of annoying..
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would download a car if I could.
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:4, Interesting)
People already do download car parts. A broken bit of plastic can be expensive to replace with a genuine part, but a 3D printed one can be as good.
Manufacturers have tried to use copyright to get the shape files taken down.
Re: No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If cars came with such restrictions, you bet your ass people would be copying designs and building their own, or turning to grey markets. When you purchase something, you want to own it and feel like you do. Maybe one day, software and content producers will get that.
Re: No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what you dont need to pirate? Music. Spotify / Apple Music solved that one. You just pay a small subscription and play whatever you want, whenever you want it. The content doesnt vanish, and the libraries are extensive. You can even find obscure world music like Lambada or Cheb Khalid, it has solved music content for me. If video content would do the same, piracy would stop. Why isnt there a $60/mo all-you-can-eat subscription to the iTunes Movie catalog? Almost everything, you can buy on iTunes. Shows, documentaries, movies from long ago, recent moviesâ¦. That would solve piracy, and Iâ(TM)d much rather that than a cable TV bill.
Re: No I would not steal a car.. (Score:4, Informative)
Yup. I don't think I've fired up Limewire since Apple Music came out. And I just barely even remember the other post-Napster file sharing networks. Between that, and iTunes Match legitimizing my old MP3 downloads, I don't think I have any pirated music at all any more. The RIAA/metallica are shortsighted twats who never had to go after Napster and plague us with the DMCA at all. It was just gratuitous assholery on their part.
Netflix could have been the Apple Music/Spotify to The Pirate Bay. Why muck about with a torrent client, dodgy downloads that may not complete, missing alternate audio tracks and subtitles, and no special features; when you could just fire up Netflix and watch what you want when you want it? Well... downloading stuff locally for when you travel and may have dodgy or no internet; but Netflix did finally start allowing downloads. But now, so much content has been removed that I'm teetering on the edge of unsubscribing. Just one or two more shows that I get invested in and are then suddenly dropped...
But no... the MPAA and TV networks couldn't leave well enough alone and let Netflix thrive. So now, there are a dozen Netflix-wannabes with all the content that used to be on Netflix scattered to the four winds. But guess what? If something's not on Netflix, Im not wasting time, money, and effort making the rounds of Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, Peacock, CBS All-Access, Discovery+, and so on, and so on, and so on, ad nauseam. Nope. If it's not on Netflix, it's time to hoist the Jolly Roger and set sail for the bay.
Put all the movies and TV on Netflix and Apple TV+ just like all the music is on Spotify and Apple Music; and The Pirate Bay will dry up.
better internet connection (Score:5, Funny)
Try a better internet connection, you'll be able to download the whole car
Re: (Score:3)
Better question: Would you copy a car? Yes I would if I could, conundrum solved.
Re: (Score:3)
The car advert is even worse in today's climate, since yes, you CAN download (and 3d print) a car nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got all the necessary printing hardware in my basement. It cost me way less than buying a car.
Re: (Score:2)
you CAN download (and 3d print) a car nowadays.
A car, or some car parts?
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of this would matter nearly as much if copyright law wasn't so corrupt in the first place, by extending it for so long, and allowing it to be transferable, society has allowed the public's domain to become privatized in order to serve upper class interests. It's gotten to the point where there is not much public domain left. People will continue to do as they must in spite of classism and economic exploitation, of course. Piracy? That's just a mischaracterization in many cases. If the price is fair, people don't need to share.
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the arguments they give are also fairly obvious lies. That doesn't help their message at all.
eg. Every downloaded copy is a lost sale, therefor they're losing XXX billions/year.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention why anyone would give a fuck that they do.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention why anyone would give a fuck that they do.
This, too. They pissed around for so long trying to stop it that it became socially acceptable.
(Despite everybody with a working brain telling them it was unstoppable).
They also made a lot of enemies along the way and exposed themselves as a bunch of thieves in the process (especially the music industry).
They get zero sympathy from me.
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:4, Insightful)
My counterpoint, I don't bother with piracy anymore. I don't bother with buying it anymore either. If they want to know who to blame for their "lost sales" they should blame whoever sets the price and lards on the DRM. They should blame their script writers, producers and directors that want to turn every plot into an empty CGI extravaganza. They should blame the people who insist on exclusive deals such that all of the streaming services become fragmented but never reduce their price such that it's not worth it even if they do scrape all of the DRM off so I don't have to jump through hoops just to play the thing.
They and their product just aren't worth it anymore.
They want my money but they won't do what it will take to get it, so there's that.
renewual fees fix abandonware & disney vault (Score:2)
renewal fees fix abandonware & disney vault issues.
Well disney can pay to vault some stuff but other smaller guys maybe not.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual question is, would you download a 3d print file and print your own car from it?
The technology isn't quite there yet, it wouldn't be safe to drive, but in a few years time, it will be possible, and I'm sure many people would do it.
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the better argument is: "Don't you want to support the people who create the things that you love?"
The whole "theft" argument should just be dropped entirely because it doesn't make sense. You are never depriving anyone of the use of a digital good by copying it.
You are, however, not supporting the person who made the thing.
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the better argument is: "Don't you want to support the people who create the things that you love?"
I mean, yes, but my money isn't going to those guys anyway, it's going to the CEO and shareholders.
Re:No I would not steal a car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Don't you want to support the people who create the things that you love?"
Sure I do.
If I pirate Dr. Strangelove which people that created that would I be supporting? Stanley Kubrick? He's dead. Peter Sellers? Also dead. George C SCott? Dead. Tracy Reed? Dead. Terry Southern who worked on the screenplay? Dead. Peter George who wrote the book it was based on? Dead.
Some apprentice gaffer deep in the credits?... probably dead. But even if he isn't, he's not collecting any royalties on it.
What if I pirate a copy of Top Gun: Maverick? It grossed 1.3 billion dollars at the box office, and everyone involved made a fortune, Tom Cruise is looking at a 200 million dollar payday for it. What exactly are you trying to make me feel bad about exactly? (Plus my wife and I saw it in theatres too... so I've paid something for it... x2)
Sure there are other titles in the continuum where the argument might try and make some actual sense -- but the argument is fundamentally flawed and corrupt because the connection between piracy and "the actual creators" is so tenuous, and the folks who get the lions share of the cash are often barely involved in any of the actual 'creation'. If I'm going to pay $20 to "support the creators", and between $19.90 and $20.00 doesn't go to anyone who did anything "creative"... the argument is garbage.
Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy is common because the "content owners" want too much money and control of their product. They have made the same mistake for decades, and it is not likely to change. Their message is lost because it is so self-serving.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Sorry, Adobe, but that Photoshop AOL massmail I got in on was not preventing me from buying Photoshop for $500 as a 13 year old, the fact that I was a 13 year old did that.
Realistically, software piracy died from malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, software piracy died from malware.
Not really. Software piracy died from two primary causes. Online activation was a big hit but the major cause was that free and open source software became so good that piracy was unnecessary.
You have to need some very specialized software for piracy to be worth the effort these days and the critical mass of reverse engineers willing to help you crack the software just isn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not from my personal experiences at least, where when I complain on my Discords that I need to pay another $700 for this and that single user "indy" license to be able to do something *properly, there's someone who links me in a private convo where I can get it "for free".
Not an option for me, because I use it commercially where you're under much higher scrutiny that private amateur users, but yeah, it's still a very real thing.
*Open Source is nice and cool.
I try to use it wherev
Re:Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest incentive to pirating is the price tag on the object. It is hard to justify paying high prices for content to feed multi-millionaire and even billionaire wealth. Lowering the price of legal content would do much more to stop piracy. A good example of this was the old $1/track to listen to music making it cost $8,000 to fill a $50 iPod.
Another part of the problem is excessively long copyright terms. These terms should be set back to 20 years freeing up millions of older works for general consumption. But that's not what the copyright industry wants, they want those older works to die so that you will buy new stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
It is increasingly not even that. It's the quality of the product. Or rather, that the copy is more useful to the user than the original.
Buy a game and find out that it doesn't work because the activation server is overburdened, as is the "licensing" server that your game tries to contact every other second to see if you're playing a legit copy, so launching the game takes 5 minutes before you're finally able to get an ok from the activation server, then your game crashes every other minute because it think
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that reasoning argue for infinite copyright terms?
Re: (Score:2)
It's less about listening, it's more about creating something on top of it. Disney has produced a couple of very well received cartoons. Snow White, Robin Hood, The Sword in the Stone... notice something?
Back then the Disney corporation wasn't exactly the megacorp it is today. Actually, Walt Disney was often dancing close to bankruptcy. You think any of these movies had been made if they had to pay royalties to the decendants of their writers?
You probably have the same today, someone having a nice idea for
Re:Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The culture of a country is the effect of the past on today's present. It is bad for society when culture is owned instead of being shared. For example every picture of WWII taken by an individual instead of the government will not go into the public domain until around 2117. Who is going to preserve these photos until then? Libraries can't, it is illegal without securing permission of the photographer. And that photographer is likely dead so you have to track down all of the heirs. And then the heirs get dollar signs in their eyes. This results in no one preserving these historical artifacts. This is known as the orphan works problem with current copyright law. And the copyright industry wants it this way because they want the old stuff to rot away and be replaced with newly produced stuff under their total control.
Re:Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:5, Informative)
I'll give you ten reasons, and follow-up with a question of my own. Each of these ten reasons represents the literal wholesale theft of works from the public domain by private ownership, most of which are not the original author or creator of the affected works.
The original deal was 14 years. 14 years to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The first Act extended the copyright to December 31, 1965
the second Act extended it to December 31, 1967;
the third Act extended it to December 31, 1968;
the fourth Act extended it to December 31, 1969;
the fifth Act extended it to December 31, 1970;
the sixth Act extended it to December 31, 1971;
the seventh Act extended it to December 31, 1972;
the eighth Act extended it to December 31, 1974;
the ninth Act extended it to December 31, 1976,
The Copyright Act of 1976 finally extended the copyright through the end of 1982 (75 years from the end of the year in which the copyright was originally secured).
Now, tell me how any of this can possibly promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
https://www.copyright.gov/circ... [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Why "would [thegamer.com]"?
Re: (Score:3)
If someone creates a product/service/content and you don't agree with the price, then don't consume it. You're just rationalizing theft.
Do I agree with the droning message from fat cats? No. But rationalizing theft because you don't agree with the strategy and/or motivations of the owner is not the answer.
Best,
Re:Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone creates a product/service/content and you don't agree with the price, then don't consume it. You're just rationalizing theft.
Let them start by restoring all those youtube videos they've taken down for no reason and with no appeals process.
After that they can return the "tax" I've paid on every hard disk, SD card and USB stick I've ever bought (In Spain we have a digital "Canon" to cover the losses by piracy)
Then there's all the time wasted uninstalling Sony rootkits, trying to make copies of wedding videos, and all the taxpayer money spent on creating and enforcing copyright laws.
Once that's all done we can talk about the definition of "theft".
.
Re: (Score:2)
Once that's all done we can talk about the definition of "theft"..
And FWIW, most lawyers don't agree that it's "theft". Nobody's being deprived of anything and all losses due to piracy are theoretical.
https://torrentfreak.com/harva... [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And FWIW, most lawyers don't agree that it's "theft".
I would hope that no lawyers agree that copyright infringement is theft. That would just demonstrate that they don't know the difference between entirely different laws, which should be an absolute requirement for being a licensed lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
You see the thing is that if a lawyer were to file for theft in almost any court in any country of this planet there would be no chance of winning that case if the judge in charge is following the law. Soon that would be giving the lawyer the reputation of being incompetent, turning them into an lawyer nobody wants to employ. And if that judge didn't follow the law you could likely easily appeal the verdict.
There is a system that kind of regulates itself.
The en
Re: (Score:2)
If someone creates a product/service/content and you don't agree with the price, then don't consume it. You're just rationalizing theft.
Nope, we've seen that you've been bring congressmen for eternal copyright and undermining public domain for the last 200 years, so you copyright fuckers can fucked in the ass! Copyright is not a property right, it was a government granted monopoly that was meant to be temporary but is ultimately owned by the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:5, Interesting)
You're just rationalizing theft.
No, I'm practicing the ancient tradition of honoring the author by providing them the highest of honors: making a copy of their work.
You know, as was the custom from circa 10,000 BCE until about 1600 CE, when this bizarre novelty of setting limits on the "right to copy" was invented.
As a pre-17th-century IP conservative, I don't accept such novelties. So, honor-by-copy it is.
Re: (Score:2)
As if that worked. I don't go to the movies anymore because what they produce is garbage. At least I would think so.
You think they accept that they produced a hot steaming turd when theater seats are empty. Of course not. It can't be that I just do without their rubbish, it must be that I viewed it illegally because it's unfathomable that you can't exist without the 10th Marvel movie this month.
Re: (Score:3)
It just has to be voter fraud. There's simply no possible other answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tell you what: I'll honor my side of the social contract that is copyright: the artificial temporary monopoly on intellectual works, established to encourage authors to create and publish works (NOT to provide them with an income, that is a means rather than an end). But only if publishers and authors keep their side of the deal. And stick to a reasonable maximum term
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If your anti-piracy message is a lie (equating copyright infringement with theft for example), then it has already failed.
It seems to me that the real failure is the inability to convince people that the concept of intellectual property is real and is valuable to the economy. Intellectual property works differently from a practical standpoint from any other form of property, so any analogy to theft of physical property is going to fall flat. But that concept of using someone's intellectual property without permission or legal right still fits just about anyone's definition of theft as long as they consider intellectual propert
Re: (Score:2)
If you think someone is overcharging for their goods or services, just don't purchase them. It doesn't justify theft.
No problem. What does that have to do with copyright infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Piracy is common because the "content owners" want too much money and control of their product. They have made the same mistake for decades, and it is not likely to change. Their message is lost because it is so self-serving.
Pretty much this.
Anti-piracy message: "well, we're a giant megacorporation with more money than we can spend thanks to overcharging and incredibly dodgy taxation practices that would see you banged up in Federal PMITA prison if you even tried a fraction of them would like you to stop pirating and start spending more money on crap that isn't worth a quarter of what we charge for it. We're still going to cram it full of adverts and if we can get away with it a time limit so you can't posses it in perpetuity. Oh and we're going to complain about piracy even after you shell out good money for the product, that is _IF_ we're even selling it in your country and it'll only be sold though our channel so if it's someone you don't want to do business with, tough".
Stardock's Brad Wardell said it best, "pirates are unserved customers" (lets ignore he forgot his own message in going Epic Store exclusive for a minute). Most people would rather do the honest thing, when they aren't something is stopping them and most of the time it's because they cant, the prices are either too high or the product is unavailable. Add in the fact that most of the time you're dealing with entities you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire and you really don't need to even think about why people pirate.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was just money....I've happily paid $7 or more to rent a movie on Amazon. But that was during the pandemic when fairly new releases were going to streaming. If I remember the movie 4 years later and it's still $7 to rent, I'm not going to do it.
There are plenty of movies where a theater either adds nothing to the experience or actually makes it worse. By the time the movie is available elsewhere, the hype machine is shut down and I'm unaware of the movie anymore.
And for me, it's not because I turn
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's a mistake, it's probably the most profitable option.
I don't think many pirates look at a 30 Euro movie on disc and think "if that was 20 Euro I'd just buy it". Do those pirates even own a Bluray player? Optical drives and standalone players are not very common these days.
It would have to be pocket money prices to tempt most of them, a couple of Euros. And DRM free, because they probably don't have or want your DRM platform.
For every other customer the price will fall after a few months, to
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty hard to find price reductions on much of this content though. A 30-year old song is the same price as a brand new one on iTunes.
Personally I don't pirate anything these days. I did when I was young, dumb, and broke. Actually it might have been iTunes that broke the cycle for music for me with reasonably priced music. Abusive pricing though does prevent sales and alienate potential customers.
Re:Might have missed the biggest issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people who commit media piracy are not directly doing it out of some sense of correcting any sort of injustice in the existing system. I think it actually comes from a place of entitlement, to be honest.... that because they can get something that they want and it appears unlikely that they would ever get caught, they just go ahead and do it. While they may not agree that it should be illegal for them to copy someone else's work, I think most of that perception comes not from any sense of what the content owners are demanding and more from the perception that their activities are harmless to out society as a whole, and that there is no justifiable reason for such actions to be illegal in the first place.
This is why the comparison to crimes that more obviously impact someone negatively do not work - because most people do not understand or else simply disregard how copyright infringement could possibly cause any harm to anyone else, or even if they do understand it, may rationalize their own contribution to any such harm with excuses such as "everybody does it", some form of whataboutism, or even that there are far worse things, among others... all of which implicitly acknowledge the harm they might be causing, and simply rationalizing why they should be entitled to keep doing it.
Which brings us full circle to why people pirate.
Re: (Score:2)
I've completely stopped pirating music now that services are available (Spotify, Apple Music, Etc) where I can get pretty much any album I want at any time. I can download music to listen offline and I never feel the need to buy a CD ever again. For $10 a month ($15 for the whole family) it's just too convenient to bother pirating music.
For movies and TV shows, there still isn't a good one stop solution for having access to everything. Ideally there would be mandatory licensing where any movie streaming ser
They need to find the right audience (Score:2)
Obligatory IT Crowd Reference (Score:4, Informative)
Their anti-piracy ad is still a classic.
https://youtu.be/YYOlNRYikBw [youtu.be]
Strawman / the weakest link (Score:2)
This yet another incarnation of the strawman fallacy where, during an argument, you pick and attack the point which is the easiest to defeat, and hope to score the victory over any other points too.
Global prices vs local economies (Score:2)
They set the prices as if all people lived in Caliifornia and they wonder why a poor sod the Eastern world can't afford it and turns to piracy. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. Actually, they price the product according to the market. And since people noticed that and followed cheaper prices to the relevant countries, Steam tries to keep you from doing just that [pcgamer.com].
You wouldn't steal a car... (Score:3)
There was this great take on it by the IT Crowd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
For every second they spent whining, (Score:5, Informative)
Gabe Newell spent profiting out of markets that were deemed impossible to sell games to.
The only real weapon against piracy is to make your product easier to get than the pirate and if possible somehow better.
Re:For every second they spent whining, (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
PC is not the dominant gaming platform by a long shot. It's about 20% of the gaming market, mobile being 52%, and consoles being 28%.
Source: https://www.kakuchopurei.com/2... [kakuchopurei.com]
Furthermore, if you look at "traditional" PC games- eg, singleplayer only or primarily singleplayer- most are barely profitable compared to live-service multiplayer games. AAA single player games seems to be a dying category.
Re: (Score:2)
PC is not the dominant gaming platform by a long shot. It's about 20% of the gaming market, mobile being 52%, and consoles being 28%.
You will get different results depending on whether you're checking for what people's primary platform is, where they spend the most gaming money, where they spend the most gaming time, which platform they play games on most often, etc.
if you look at "traditional" PC games- eg, singleplayer only or primarily singleplayer- most are barely profitable compared to live-service multiplayer games.
This is pretty much indisputable, because people will spend far more on bullshit when they can show it off to others.
AAA single player games seems to be a dying category.
It's necessarily dwindled, but there's still profit in it. Such games also help sell the gimmicky games that really make the money printer make noises. Some p
Re: (Score:3)
Easy to fix (Score:3)
Have most of the content and an easy way to get to it, and people will pay.
Home Taping is Killing Music (Score:5, Insightful)
.
With this great parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Music industry has been so mind-boggling stupid and out of touch, and now they are giving streaming revenue a bad name when streaming companies pay out 80% of what they get in from users, but labels take 73% of it (!!!!!), performing artists only get 11-12% of what streaming services are paying for the music. It is not streaming companies hurting music, it is the labels (source1 [rollingstone.com], source2 [musicbusin...ldwide.com], source3 [midiaresearch.com].
Blackouts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The NFL is now launching a streaming service. Cable is about to die.
Re: (Score:3)
They might get a few more people this year since it is new, but once everyone finds out it is the same old shit and that pirate streams are about the same quality, they will switch back.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those specific games are available OTA...
Re: (Score:2)
All that only covers NFL. I would miss 99% of the MLB/NHL games here OTA.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the fucking point of a gods damn STREAMING SERVICE if I need a TV ANTENNAE to watch all the games.
Lots of people have cable just to have sports, but getting the sports means paying for stuff they're not watching. If they can bring the cost down substantially, a lot of people will go back to watching broadcast.
All that only covers NFL. I would miss 99% of the MLB/NHL games here OTA.
Not only does MLB have streaming, but they are reportedly considering a service which specifically delivers the local games not broadcast in your area. NHL also has streaming.
Easy solution (Score:4, Insightful)
I always find it funny when film studios claim "piracy cost us 150 million dollars in lost sales." The film industry assumes that if the film wasn't available to pirate people would pay to go see it. Nope. There are plenty of movies I'll watch for free, but wouldn't drop $30 to go see in theatres. If the only choice was to pay to see a mediocre movie, I would rather spend my $30 on something else.
The easiest way to eliminate piracy is to stop gouging customers and producing a better product. I went to movies EVERY Tuesday when they used to do half-price Tuesday's and I could go for $4.25. This was also as a broke ass teenager when I was making $7/hr. Today I have much more money, but I am not paying close to 500% more to go see a movie. The film quality has also taken a hit in recent years. When paying customers are paying for a film and then forced to watch 30 minutes of ad's before a movie, then subject to woke political agenda's during a mediocre movie, many people just say "nah, I'm good..." and go find something else for entertainment.
In short, focus on better stories and sell it at a fair price and people will go see it.
you wouldn't steal an election... (Score:5, Funny)
Stealing a car is quaint nowadays relative to how out politicians are acting.
For emulation the paided ones suck next free ones (Score:2)
For emulation the paided ones suck next free ones if there was an legal way to just buy the rom then it may better.
But some do count useing an free emulation system as piracy even when you own the rom.
Re: (Score:2)
I own physical cartridges. It's all down to plausible deniability whether my bit-for-bit copy is from a ROM dumper that I paid cash for and then sold or whether I downloaded it.
It's not the messages that miss the mark (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the product. You are producing a product that is worth less to your customer than the one he gets pirated for free.
If you pirate a movie, you double click it and watch it.
If you buy the DVD, you slip it into your player... and first you have to sit through a slew of unskipable ads for movies that, at the time of the creation of the DVD, will come out soon but have most likely hit the market when you watch it again, and you will probably already know that 9 out of 10 of the movies advertised there sucked badly. After that, you get told you're a dirty pirate and thief and whatnot, also unskipable. Then you get a selection menu that's slapped without care onto the product as an afterthought which is about as easy to navigate as the average SAP module. By the time you finally get to watch the movie your soda is flat, your popcorn is stale and you are likely out of time.
And that's if it ain't a manga. If it is, it only gets worse with crappy, tone-deaf and outright hilariously wrong translation and dubbing, along with cuts because cartoons are for kids and you can't have THAT kind of violence, nudity or violent nudity in them.
Same experience when pirating a game. You download a game, apply the crack and play it.
You buy a game and install it. If you are lucky and don't infect your machine with all sorts of riskware that provides backdoors for additional malware or don't just hand over control of your machine to the maker of the software altogether, you will eventually have to enter some serial number (good luck still having it next time you plan to install it), then the online activation. There are now two things that might happen. Either the game is new and the activation server overburdened and you can't play, or the game is old and the activation server has been taken offline so you can't play.
It's not your message that drives people to piracy. Your content and the policy around it does that quite fine.
Re: (Score:2)
"Piracy is a service problem" has kept up
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're one of those people who hate Steam because "it's DRM" (if Steam is DRM, then I don't mind DRM)
Steam is frankly shit. The client is fucking garbage. When it works right, it's a miracle. It has always been shit, and it is still shit in all the same ways, implying that Valve never makes architectural improvements. And even worse, Valve's support is shit and they blame the user when their shitty client breaks itself. I switched to Ubuntu so that I could get Steam support (they literally will only "provide" "support" for Steam on Ubuntu, and no other Linux) and they still told me they wouldn't help me no
Re: (Score:3)
Go buy a console game, I dare you. Between mandatory updates before you can play (which may or may not break compatibility with the rest of your library) and media that work when and for as long as they feel like, it's a totally unique can of worms.
Plus the "always online" crap on top of all that, too. But that's a "feature" you get on PC and consoles.
Anti-piracy messages fail because people know (Score:4, Interesting)
People know that it isn't stealing. There are a whole ton of simple folk who got indoctrinated and do think of it as stealing, and can't think of it any other way - but it's never been stealing since there is no deprivation.
We know from research that a) pirates spend the most on content and b) lost sales is a flawed argument as pirates will either by the content later or already did (I often download stuff I own on bluray while away from home for example) or they never would have anyway.
Eventually piracy will become so prevalent and normal that all these laws and bowing down to media empires will seem so backwards and outdated.
Easy, cheap, reliable (Score:3)
Hollywood Accounting (Score:2)
PSA: You wouldn't use shady accounting practices to make ultra blockbuster films appear to consistently lose money to avoid paying taces.
Disney, Universal, et al: Yes. Yes we would.
Actual YouTube DMCA violtions: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/channe... [youtube.com]
Here's another example:
https://www.youtube.com/channe... [youtube.com]
YouTube is a paper tiger.
What else can I say? It's OBVIOUS.
The Best Arguement (Score:4, Insightful)
The best argument was a meme I saw years ago. It showed someone putting in a legally purchased movie...where they were met with forced previews, copyright warnings, more copyright warnings, anti-piracy, and more previews. Then they showed the pirate. The pirate hit play and the movie started.
The problem with the anti-piracy is that it's not missing the mark...but it's basically punishing those who did legally purchase it. The pirated copies don't have those warnings. People obeying the law don't like to be treated like they're the ones doing wrong. Most of those messages went to the wrong people.
The difference is in the business model (Score:2)
A car is a one-time purchase. The manufacturer doesn't get paid royalties every time you use it (for life plus 50 years or more) and doesn't dictate how and where it can be used. Entertainment, however, has managed to finesse a business model where they make money on the product over and over again. What's worse is that they've now managed to prevent you from ever owning the product. What's even worse is that there are legions of entertainers who have deluded themselves into thinking that they are impor
Re: (Score:2)
Cars don't yet, but tractors already do. The royalties come in the form of repairs that nobody else can do.
Here's the message that works: (Score:2)
Flawed premise (Score:2)
Anti-piracy is built upon a flawed premise: Turn non-paying customers into paying ones. This simply is not going to happen.
Most people pirate because 1) they never want to pay for anything 2) they're too poor to afford it or 3) they can't stand the unskippable ads for movies they never want to watch. If stopped from pirating something, none of these are going to ever throw up their hands and say, "Gee, I better start buying the product now." They'll just move on and that's a sale that will never happen.
The
Re: (Score:2)
I've been known to pay for content and then download somewhere else anyway in order to get a superior experience. For instance I downloaded an alternate recut of The Hobbit instead of streaming the movies, even though I had access to stream them at the time. I've downloaded games I've paid for literally so that I wouldn't have to find the install CD, or on occasion because someone is distributing a pre-patched version and it's just less trouble. You don't have to not pay just because you don't have to pay,
And it'll only get worse (Score:2)
As customer, i always saw software piracy as a no-go. But as we see more and more silicon valley millionaires and billionaires, while getting ripped off by `internet` - advertisers, games, social media, it appears everyone is making a coin and becoming rich apart us - the simple user.
And as a result, me myself included, am having less and less problems with piracy happening. I prefer open source for reasons. I don't blink twice for someone 'borrowing' a photoshop, autocad or borland license. And why would i
Copyright is unnatural (Score:2)
Stealing is part of the human condition. (Score:2)
You'd have a hard time getting somebody who spent thousands of hours producing software that isn't generating revenue, but that can be found on torrent sites with hundreds of seeders that they aren't being stolen from.
But at every level of society, fundamentally people in general are not above theft. For some, it's as simple as grabbing cash from a donation tray in a convenience store. Others need to hide the theft in bureaucracy or within the legal margins of agreements. And for most, you only need to abst
No single platform with all content = I download (Score:2)
Greed creates piracy.
There was netflix and nothing else, you could find almost everything there.
Then came amazon and disney who want to split the cake.
But each piece of the cake cost the same as the full cake previously.
So no thanks.
As long as there is no law requiring that any streaming provider MUST provide content form the other providers as well, then there will be piracy.
I am not going to pay a dozen online behemoths to be able to watch the stuff I like.
Torrent it is.
You wouldn't steal from the public domain (Score:3)
Arguably, media companies lobbying to extend copyright to ridiculous term lengths, for content that was originally produced under terms to go into the public domain on a certain date, is a far greater theft (as in, actual deprivation) from the general populous of the country than any pirating.
Piracy is not stealing (Score:3)
Piracy is unauthorized use. The real question is, if you couldn't pirate it, would you buy it? 99% of the time the answer is no. Therefore, the piracy doesn't actually cost the ip "owner" anything. It just pisses them off.
Of course that is unrelated to national piracy, as for example practiced in China.
So why are you pirating? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So people take the more convenient, generally higher-quality experience of piracy.
Let's not forget how many unskippable trailers and FBI warnings we're forced to sit through to actually get to the legal content.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live it's 100% legal to change the format of media you bought. There is a surcharge on writeable media specifically for that case.
Ripping my own DVDs to be able to play them on my computer and get rid of all the stupid unskippable content: Completely legal.
Burning that onto a DVD to watch with my DVD player: Completely legal.
Giving that burned DVD to someone else or trying to sell it: Nope. Not legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, we even teach our kids early on that they should share their stuff with friends because it's nice and it is how you make friends. I don't know about your culture, but where I come from a miserly person is considered a bad and unhappy person.