Thread: When Will It End?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Piracy does allow you to obtain stuff you wouldn't have paid for.

Perhaps sometimes, but more importantly, it also allows you to obtain stuff you would have paid for, which I would argue is the rule rather than the exception. That means financial loss.

Originally Posted by DuB

How do you figure that? I can grant you the semantic point that piracy is not synonymous with theft, but it all looks like same when you get to the bottom line. One of the most basic principles of normative (as opposed to descriptive) economics is that a foregone gain is the same as a loss. As a potential consumer, you either (a) buy a product, and the company makes a profit, (b) steal a product, and the company doesn't make a profit, or (c) "pirate" a product, and the company doesn't make a profit. So from the company's perspective, what's the difference?

Option (d), where I don't buy the product at all, and the company doesn't make a profit. I may show interest in something at some level, but not enough to justify a loss of my money. In one situation, you have a lose-lose, with neither party benefiting.

I agree piracy is not overall a good thing, but at the same time, trying to stop it entirely will get you nowhere, especially in the way people are going about it now. Xaq has a good point...the entire method of distribution needs to be reformed if any progress is to be made (though I'd like to point out that in the case of netflix, a one-month subscription allows for copying of DVD's and streaming media of untold proportions). Piracy isn't something people go "zomg, this is illegal!! I should stop now." It's an act carried out for multiple reasons, and the price tag being just one. Xei, if your study is accurate in saying that people wouldn't pay a cent for a game simply to spite gaming companies, that isn't the fault of piracy...that is an issue on a different level. No rational person would rather use electricity, burn a double-layer DVD, and go through the risks of pirating (which add up to far more than a penny) without another motive...or unless they're incredibly dense. If piracy is at least partially attributable to rebellion against the company, companies have to change their public images. They have to stop shackling legal consumers.

Originally Posted by Xei

That old 'it's not like stealing you made your own copy lol' argument really is very silly, because the value of media is not in its physical worth anyway. The value is in all the money it took to create the media.

Derrrr

Your assertion that you were never a potential customer is patently not true. Saying 'now I've taken their product for free and discovered I liked it I might buy another from some vague other person in future' is just like saying 'now I've taken your apple for free I discovered I like it etc.'.

Who are you to tell me what games I will and will not buy? I can tell you with 100% honesty that if I passed Prototype on the shelves, I would not have bought it. The company is not profiting off of me, no matter how you slice it. They may not like me pirating their game, but at the end of the day, it is fantastic advertising that didn't cost them a nickel. The apple argument is still flawed. The apple vendor has still lost the opportunity to sell that apple to another person. The gaming company has lost no such opportunity. They haven't even lost a customer.

You're basing your arguments on the axiom that you have the right to experience an entire product before you buy it; you don't.

I'm basing my arguments on the fact that I won't buy certain games in the stores no matter what, and that piracy in my case hasn't hurt the developers one cent. I liked pirated Halo, I bought Halo 2. Without the former, I wouldn't have purchased the latter.

Originally Posted by DuB

Perhaps sometimes, but more importantly, it also allows you to obtain stuff you would have paid for, which I would argue is the rule rather than the exception. That means financial loss.

The bit with the would have is the problem, but I'm not among that problem. But, in the case of the music industry, it isn't a problem at all. It's a benefit. Studies show that pirates buy more albums than non-pirates. There may be some loss, but in the end, it's net gain. I don't see why something like this can't be taken advantage of. I'm not sure quite how one would go about turning piracy to an advantage, but if the music industry has managed to without even trying, why can't other industries with similar media?

Originally Posted by Mario92

The bit with the would have is the problem, but I'm not among that problem.

Indeed it is the problem, and as I mentioned above, my informal observation leads me to believe that it is the rule rather than the exception--your own testimony notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Mario92

But, in the case of the music industry, it isn't a problem at all. It's a benefit. Studies show that pirates buy more albums than non-pirates. There may be some loss, but in the end, it's net gain. I don't see why something like this can't be taken advantage of.

Here's why: you're assuming that the link between buying and pirating is a direct causal one. It seems entirely plausible to me that the people who illegally download more also buy more, as you suggested, but this is easily explained by the fact that these are the people who really love music--there is no evidence that increased pirating causes increased buying or vice versa. Let's say Joe Music-Lover consumes X volume of music in some fashion or other. He's going to consume X regardless, but with the option of pirating, he can now do so at a reduced cost. That's a net loss for the would-be seller.

In other words, there is no evidence of a "net gain" for the recording industry unless we assume that the primary causal driver of buying music is having previously pirated music (i.e., if Joe Music-Lover pirates half of his music and buys the other half, the bought half is because of the pirated half), which I think is an untenable assumption.

Originally Posted by DuB

Here's why: you're assuming that the link between buying and pirating is a direct causal one. It seems entirely plausible to me that the people who illegally download more also buy more, as you suggested, but this is easily explained by the fact that these are the people who really love music--there is no evidence that increased pirating causes increased buying or vice versa. Let's say Joe Music-Lover consumes X volume of music in some fashion or other. He's going to consume X regardless, but with the option of pirating, he can now do so at a reduced cost. That's a net loss for the would-be seller.

In other words, there is no evidence of a "net gain" for the recording industry unless we assume that the primary causal driver of buying music is having previously pirated music (i.e., if Joe Music-Lover pirates half of his music and buys the other half, the bought half is because of the pirated half), which I think is an untenable assumption.

If all music lovers, or indeed, if only some were to engage in piracy, then the music industry should have witnessed a significant fall in sales. The only explanation other than piracy increases sales is that the music industry has gotten very efficient at spawning many new hardcore music lovers in recent years. And if Joe the Music Lover spends so much on music but already practices piracy, unless he is like me, (the exception to the rule), why is he not simply pirating all his music?

btw, why do you need to download an entire game to decide if it's good enough to buy? Surely using metacritic and possibly a demo is enough to make a sound judgement?

Not so. I have played games I have enjoyed that got poor reviews, and games I have disliked greatly with positive reviews. Maybe my tastes are a bit odd, but I find critics to be a somewhat helpful aid, not the defining word on whether or not I'll like a game. This was a game I greatly enjoyed. 5.5 is hardly what I would call a "buy this now" score. I did buy it, btw. The critics are not god...they are seasoned gamers. I am a casual gamer, and my tastes and skill level reflect that. When a critic says "this game is quite challenging," I've learned to take that with mountainous piles of salt, as for me it means "damn near impossible." It can be very difficult to find quality reviews from casual gamers. Demos are something I'm mostly unfamiliar with, but I recall reading that you have to pay for them, which I find ridiculous. You're basically paying for advertising. If they were free and openly available, that would be a perfectly viable option.

Piracy is not perfect. It's not good. It is what it is. I want to see it die as much as the next person. I use it, but I don't like it. I can safely say that recent tactics and legislation is the wrong way to go about ending it. Layering DRM and making products even more hostile to legal consumers will only increase piracy. Prosecuting individuals is hardly realistic...you can't get them all, and that will only piss off the general public. So, DV, I present a challenge: come up with a solution. Something that is fair to consumers and companies alike.

Originally Posted by Mario92

If all music lovers, or indeed, if only some were to engage in piracy, then the music industry should have witnessed a significant fall in sales.

Uh... correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but are you now arguing that nobody illegally downloads music?

Originally Posted by Mario92

The only explanation other than piracy increases sales is that the music industry has gotten very efficient at spawning many new hardcore music lovers in recent years.

I've seen lots of conflicting data on record industry sales figures, so by this point I've just accepted that the issue has become too politicized to put too much stock in any one source. The music industry insists that sales are tanking while blogging music pirates insist that the industry is doing better than ever. So I'm skeptical to the data presented by either side. But I'll point out that even if sales figures really are higher than ever, there would be many other potential reasons for this than "piracy increases sales" (which, again, assumes an implausible causal link that I'll discuss below). As a couple quick examples, the world population (i.e., music consumer base) does continue to grow and grow, and the Internet has brought one-click music purchasing capabilities to nearly everyone's cell phones, which are themselves becoming increasingly ubiquitous across the globe.

Originally Posted by Mario92

And if Joe the Music Lover spends so much on music but already practices piracy, unless he is like me, (the exception to the rule), why is he not simply pirating all his music?

The reasons are irrelevant. People like Joe Music-Lover exist for whatever reasons (my Dad's spending patterns are more or less like Joe Music-Lover), and they contribute to a net financial loss. More importantly, if the direct causal link between piracy and buying is negligible (which I have suggested is the case and you have implied is not), then even someone who buys 99% of their music and downloads 1% represents a net financial loss.

As I said earlier, it is completely implausible that piracy "causes" buying, in the manner you've suggested, to any financially appreciable agree. In order for this situation to result in a net gain for the industry, it would require that for the average music consumer*, every single album that they download would have to directly cause them to run out to the music store and spend an amount of money that exceeded the cost of the album they just downloaded. Anything other than this ridiculously idealistic scenario would end in net financial loss for the industry. Now, just to be clear, are you suggesting that this scenario is in fact what happens?

*Assuming any symmetrical distribution of music consumption patterns.