When Will It End?

**Maria92** · 07-04-2010 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by DuB

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

I'm arguing that profits lost to piracy are recouped in increased sales, or at the very least, that piracy doesn't cause such a massive negative impact on the music industry as you paint.

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.

I consent that the issue is too politicized to trust any one source, but a point I think should be make clear: the increase in internet sales, as in a per-track basis, has hurt the music industry far more than piracy ever has. Albums are the most profitable by far.

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.

Assuming the link is a correlation and not a causation, then yes, piracy is purely detrimental. The question is: to what extent is it detrimental? If the losses are marginal, then is it really worth pursuing the matter? If the sources are as uncertain and controversial as they are, that indicates that the matter is not cut and dry, and it remains undetermined exactly how much the RIAA is losing as a direct result of piracy. The main headquarters could be losing a hundred bucks due to an inefficient cooling system every year, but that's hardly a good reason to installl a brand new 100,000 dollar system.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is like saying, its okay to steal two apples, if you buy two later. If a company sells an apple for two dollars and makes a dollar profit. Then buying two apples makes them a two dollar profit. You stole two apples but it only cost a dollar to produce each one. So in actuality the two dollars they made from you buying the apples, evens out with the cost of the two stolen apples.

In other words, its okay to steal two apples, since their not actually losing money in the long run. In fact you are now an apple lover, and you will buy apples all the time, increasing their profit. So if everyone stole a few apples, apples companies would make more money in the long run. I think most people can see the flaw in this argument. Most would probably object and say it is wrong to steal, even if the math did say the company actually benefits from it.

Still wrong. Stealing two apples removes the vendor’s opportunity to sell those two apples. Piracy does not. To make the example work, every pirate would have to walk into a store and physically remove the item in question, which obviously doesn’t happen. The attitude of the vendor also comes into play. If the vendor were smart, he’d see that if he gave a person an apple now, they may become hooked on apples and come back for much more. For the relatively tiny cost in the present, that is a good business strategy, and one that has been employed in other industries. If I ran a company, I wouldn’t be miffed over a few pirates, and certainly not to the extent that I would invest large quantities of money and resources to developing new DRM technologies that do effectively nothing at all but piss off valid customers. Now you can say that stealing is always wrong, no matter what, but if both parties ultimately benefit, is it still purely wrong? Maybe. But morality isn’t the question…the question is whether or not it is worth going after the thief. In this situation, the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs, and it certainly beats drilling a hole through each apple so I can secure them to the stand to prevent thieves from snatching them once in a while.

Any way I think its kind of silly. If a person who pirates musics or games, didn't pirate music or games they would buy them. You really expect me to believe that a person who downloads 100 songs a year, wouldn't buy even a single CD, if he couldn't download them? A person who downloads 30 games a year, wouldn't buy even a single game if he couldn't download them? Bullshit, of course they would buy cds and games.

Who the hell said that? I said I would not buy certain kinds of games or music, and that is true. A year ago I did not like techno. Guess what changed that? Youtube. Grooveshark. Playlist.com. A handy thing called a download manager. I didn’t buy techno until my tastes changed and I realized I actually liked it. Now I do buy techno. Without those tools, I wouldn’t have realized my love for the genre until later, possibly much later, in life. Same for video games. I had no idea a year ago that I actually enjoyed FPS games. I got Halo and found out they’re awesome. Now I buy them. Again, if I had to pay for every single game, I would have been much more likely to stick to what I know I like, and I buy those games anyway.

If piracy were eliminated entirely, of course people would buy things. Piracy can help open doors, though. It can help people find out what they’re interested in without them spending fifty bucks on a new game it turns out they don’t like after all, leaving them jaded on some level and more hesitant to buy unfamiliar games. It is not a thing of pure, absolute evil.

Also if you upload a game, then its a moot point. If you upload it, you have no control over who downloads it, which means very well the person who downloads it, would have bought it but instead stole it because it was cheaper.

Funny you should bring this up…the first lawsuit against a pirate was against a person for uploading three movies for download. Lawsuits, though sometimes filed against downloaders, are usually more focused on seeders, or those who make the file continually available for download.

**DuB** · 07-04-2010 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Mario92

...piracy doesn't cause such a massive negative impact on the music industry as you paint.
[...]
Assuming the link is a correlation and not a causation, then yes, piracy is purely detrimental. The question is: to what extent is it detrimental? If the losses are marginal, then is it really worth pursuing the matter?

To clarify, I'm not arguing that piracy will be the downfall of the modern entertainment industry. I'm simply arguing that it has a net negative rather than net positive effect on the industry. I don't have any clear idea of how substantial that negative effect may be. If you're conceding that the net financial effect of piracy is a negative one, then we are in agreement.

**Maria92** · 07-04-2010 01:01 AM

In that case, I'm conceding that the net financial effect of piracy is a negative one.

My main gripe remains with poorly conceived laws that hack at the branches of piracy rather than striking at the root, and at consumer expense.

**ArcanumNoctis** · 07-04-2010 01:15 AM

Piratebay is awesome....lol.

**Alric** · 07-04-2010 02:14 AM

Actually that is part of reason I brought up the subject of people uploading stuff. The vast majority of people who get caught, and sued are people who upload. Its true that it is really not worth the effort to sue someone who downloaded a game. However it is worth it to sue someone who uploaded a game that a 1000 people then downloaded. Since you can sue them for 1000 times the price of what you sell.

As for it being practical to put things like codes on the back of CDs and stuff, I am sure it is very practical. Even if there are ways around it, it probably stops a bunch of people. Not every one is that motivated, or capable of finding code breaking software that actually works.

**ArcanumNoctis** · 07-04-2010 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

Actually that is part of reason I brought up the subject of people uploading stuff. The vast majority of people who get caught, and sued are people who upload. Its true that it is really not worth the effort to sue someone who downloaded a game. However it is worth it to sue someone who uploaded a game that a 1000 people then downloaded. Since you can sue them for 1000 times the price of what you sell.

As for it being practical to put things like codes on the back of CDs and stuff, I am sure it is very practical. Even if there are ways around it, it probably stops a bunch of people. Not every one is that motivated, or capable of finding code breaking software that actually works.

It isn't about breaking software to gather the code. It is a code in the Manuel provided with the specified CD that essentially gives access to the software. Isn't preventive unless someone is retarded. Anyhow, I agree with you on how suing is handled.

**Alric** · 07-04-2010 02:29 AM

Sure it is, since most people still are not motivated or capable of finding a way around it. If you do something like buy a game then take it back to the store to try to get the code for free, well that destroys the argument that it doesn't hurt any one. Since it costs money to restock things returned, and because you are harming the person who buys the game next time.

**ArcanumNoctis** · 07-04-2010 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

Sure it is, since most people still are not motivated or capable of finding a way around it. If you do something like buy a game then take it back to the store to try to get the code for free, well that destroys the argument that it doesn't hurt any one. Since it costs money to restock things returned, and because you are harming the person who buys the game next time.

Actually, that depends or how corporations like Wal-Mart handle their merchandise. Restocking costs pennies. Alternatively, it is most likely labeled as defective and written off. Wal-Mart receives no lose, neither does the next customer because the CD is replaced. Now the company that sells the CD may hurt, but then again, they are most likely already ripping customers off due to charging $50.00+ a game. There is a certain degree of morality at play, but the question is who is ripping off who.

This could branch out to a completely different argument as in work ethics and how people don't do their job, yet still get paid the same.

Piracy is symptom.

**Maria92** · 07-04-2010 02:43 AM

DRM's are often built into the game's coding itself, which can be edited with a hex editor. For a lot of hackers, cracking games, software, and even music and video protection is just a measure of how great their hacking skills are. CD keys are virtually universal at this point, but don't do a damn thing anymore except make consumers put in a long code. Each DRM is a bit different...Halo used a patch, I think. Adobe was cracked by disabling phone home by editing a system file, then using any number of product keys. Brute force keygens, though virtually obsolete and extremely rare, make good last resort tools. DVD DRM's have been broken by commercial software. Patches are the most common I've seen, and usually entail overwriting one set of files for another set of modified files. The ACII patch was effective at disabling the online play requirement...you know, the DRM thought to be the end of all DRM's. The one that basically ensured nobody got a full copy of the game at any one time. What every DRM to date has done is slow down pirates, but has not stopped them. That is because there are a good number of bored kids skilled at programming with nothing better to do than to embarrass big corporations. Given this fact, why are there still CD keys?

And Alric, I actually agree with you on how suing ought to be handled. Of course...an unintended consequence of that may be that more people take up coding and programming and learn how to break the games themselves, virtually free of risk. Practical applications would be software trials, or burning modified game disks for your friends.

**Alric** · 07-04-2010 03:49 AM

Just because something doesn't stop all people, doesn't mean its not worth using. Even a poor measure could make the company thousands of dollars. So obviously their going to use it, because it stops a lot of people. The average person isn't going to take the time to hack the code of a game to play it.

**Maria92** · 07-04-2010 05:57 AM

It takes about 5 minutes to down a keygen or google a serial number. In all honesty, who is going to have a physical copy of the disk and not the key that goes with it? Your friend who you loaned the disk to? Even then there are perfectly legal ways to dupe customer service and get a second key. If a person is bent on playing a game without paying for it, they're going to do it, by god.

I've heard of far more problems with people losing the key or being unable to use the same key twice. This is especially problematic after having to format the hard drive or upgrade the OS. And what happens when the company drops support for the game after so many years? Are people supposed to just accept that they paid good, hard-earned money for something they can never use again? This system punishes far more paying consumers than it stops pirates.

And yeah, the average person won't take the time, but if you have more people learning how to code and program, you have more people that can attack any new DRM at any given time. Nothing is going to be 100% pirate proof.

**Alric** · 07-04-2010 06:28 AM

Well if people weren't stealing it, they wouldn't have to take such measures. You can blame them for pirating it.

Though i suspect the real reason people hate the codes and stuff, is because its makes them feel more guilty. People can make all sort of excuses of how downloading a game isn't morally wrong. Though hacking the game or looking for a code to play it, just makes it feel so much more like stealing.

**Maria92** · 07-04-2010 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

Well if people weren't stealing it, they wouldn't have to take such measures. You can blame them for pirating it.

Though i suspect the real reason people hate the codes and stuff, is because its makes them feel more guilty. People can make all sort of excuses of how downloading a game isn't morally wrong. Though hacking the game or looking for a code to play it, just makes it feel so much more like stealing.

I find the hacking experience to be the best part of all. It makes me want to get a hex editor and take up programming. I want that kind of power. It's all a game to me. Morally, I know it's wrong, but I really don't care. Guilt is wasted on me.

Piracy isn't going away any time soon. It is simple enough for me to get past the weak protection. But for people who absolutely insist on playing by the rules, or who don't know what a keygen is, or don't want to take the risks, these failed DRM's are nothing but a hassle and a nuisance. They basically criminalize innocent gamers, which isn't right.

Thread: When Will It End?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions