Need to Register?

Currently you can register through a Gmail, Facebook, or OpenID account. This helps us avoid spam. Click an icon below! :)

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID
«13

Comments

  • wow, i completely agree with this as well
  • edited March 2012
    tldr: I am a selfish man with a sense of entitlement. "I will still give you my money if you make me happy." Yes, give me that porsche and if I really like it I might consider paying you.
  • fuck you i would!
  • Most people pirate because they can and they are too cheap to buy stuff or have a sense of entitlement of 'I want it so I deserve it'. You can throw all the ifs and buts and whatever you want at it but that's usually the real cut out the bullshit reason. I would put large sums of money up in a bet that if someone released a really good title with no DRM, a money back guarantee that people would still pirate the shit out of it and come up with a reason on why they felt justified in doing so.
  • edited March 2012
    Astanyx said: I would put large sums of money up in a bet that if someone released a really good title with no DRM, a money back guarantee that people would still pirate the shit out of it ...
    People will pirate everything, it doesn't need to be good or DRM free. Of course it if is good and DRM free people will also pay for it.

  • Sure, no argument that some people will pay for it, theres a certain % of people who really mean what they say about DRM, etc but I don't believe for a second that they are in the majority or anywhere close for that matter.

    I also think examples like Louis CK or Radiohead or whomever put their album up online really cheap are not great because they are already popular and have tons of people who were going to buy their stuff anyways. For relative unknowns or average companies I am not sure such an approach would work at all, its not for everyone.
  • I'm in the minority then since I am to noob to even know how to pirate lol nor do I care to look it up.
  • Astanyx said: theres a certain % of people who really mean what they say about DRM,
    Sorry, I'm only on my first coffee and not quite sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate?

    As for the popularity thing, I completely agree, but the popular vs small time artists are facing two different problems. The popular ones want to be compensated for their work without fuckery from labels and pirates, so in their case "pulling a radiohead" is a good option. The unknowns, while still trying to make a living, are also trying to make a name for themselves, so giving their stuff away free (or pay-what-you-want) benefits their second agenda as well. If you had $12 to spend and you're in the store and you see a new Radiohead album right next to a new Radiohand debut album why risk your money on something you may not like? Hell if Radiohand was standing on the street passing out free CD's most people would probably not even stop.
  • I'm not a radiohead fan so I'd back walking by as well, just saying. The little guys benefit from the industries clout in advertising/connections etc. Radiohead and Louis CK have already made it and don't need the industries help anymore per-se and want to cut them out to make more money themselves, I don't really believe they are doing it to make a point about DRM etc honestly. Works for them, not for people who haven't 'made it yet'. I think the industry as a whole is greedy, I'm not really defending them but at the same time I see their role in the whole thing and I think its a necessary evil.

    As for the statement you wanted clarifying on. I think people who say 'I didn't buy game X because of DRM' are in 1 of 2 categories, #1 being just full of shit and had no intention of buying anyways but want an excuse to justify the piracy, #2 people who really mean it and if said DRM was removed would probably buy it.
  • Well for the necessary evil thing I would disagree slightly. I think labels and "getting signed" were a necessary evil for a long time but not really any more. Unlike the movie industry (for the time being), which for all but the simplest films tends to require considerable capital up front to churn out even a bad film, these days anyone with garageband, a snowball mic, and some music chops can produce a decent track. As for making a name for themselves again you used to need connections to get known, now you just need a youtube account. Hell lady gaga's manager couldn't get a single pop station to push her single before she got big. So they shopped her to perez hilton and popjustice instead. Justin Bieber didn't need to get signed to get known, somebody signed him because he was already known.

    Bottom line, if you're good and have a modest budget the barriers to entry to becoming a popular musician are basically nil today.

    To your other point, personally I agree that *most* people who actually know what DRM is and pirate DRM'd content are probably doing it for reasons other than the fact that it has DRM. Although Ubisoft seems bent on increasing that percentage.
  • I don't really buy or download music not really a music person in general so its probably the industry I know about the least. I was mostly referring to the video game and movie industry of which I buy a lot of both.

    Its my opinion that movies, games and music are not essential services and you aren't obligated to buy them. If you don't feel it is worth X Y or Z then I don't feel that you deserve to get it for free just because you want it.

    It could also be that I think most of todays society has a retarded sense of entitlement in many ways that spans much further than the entertainment industry, living in Canada and having so many social programs only makes me feel more strongly about that :P
  • Now we're into interesting territory. Since games and movies (and TV show's while we're at it) are big budget upfront endeavors conventional economics suggest these products need to be paid for by consumers. The problem with this is that before the internet what people were paying for when they bought a game or a movie, what they were really buying was *access to a copy* of the thing. A flashed rom in a cartridge or some waves on a magnetic tape or whatever. While the budget to produce the original product might have been huge, it was the money spent producing conumable copies which made the business model work and paid back the initial investment.

    When the cost to create or obtain a copy of a thing is essentially zero, standard free market economics which describe the trade of scarce items completely fall apart. This is where a new system is needed.

    As for the bit about social programs and entitlement, it sounds like you have some negative personal experience there so I'll just say that as someone who's personally benefited a great deal from social programs in this country it's not all deadbeat stoners on wellfare and teen moms getting knocked up to get out from under daddy's thumb.
  • New model most likely but that still doesn't justify piracy IMO, I am not saying you are suggesting it is but I know others who use that as an excuse to pirate what they want. The industry has a right to sell something at a set price, you either pay it or you don't, if this was any other market that is how it would work but because someone can rip it and re-produce it for others at no cost doesn't mean they should be able to. I think as a whole the movie industry isn't hurting from piracy as bad as the game industry. Game industry gets the double whammy, if its not from piracy its from places trying to exploit used game sales for their own profit to the detriment of the producers. I think a solid argument can be made of used game sales being even more harmful than piracy as it really is a lost sale, if someones willing to pay $54.99 instead of $59.99 for a new game that the industry would get a piece of then that hurts :P

    For the social stuff I have benefited in my life from some things and not from others. I don't believe that all social programs are bad or anything extreme like they shouldn't exist but I do believe that in a lot of cases they aren't managed properly and far more people who don't need help get it. I am A-OK with helping people who can't help themselves or may be temporarily down on their luck but I know far too many people who use the welfare system like a 'cash for life' lottery among other things. This discussion of course could lead to a railroad of the whole thread :P
  • edited March 2012
    Astanyx said: The industry has a right to sell something at a set price ...
    They key word here is thing. For a physical thing (for now) there is an associated nonzero cost of production which gives it value. For instance, if you bought a GOTYE edition of some title then you got some of the finite number of physical items associated with it which make it more valuable to you. But the intangible items which are not finite meet all the requirements of a public good but are shoehorned by IP law into artificially scarce private goods to satisfy the existing business model. There are other models however that have worked well for years for public goods. Netflix is a good start although I don't know how their payment model to content providers works. Spotify seems closer to the mark. Given the cost of lawyers and the pretty much complete failure to generate revenue by suing downloaders it's not unrealistic that North American content producers will eventually begin to migrate to this or a similar model.
  • edited March 2012
    image
  • edited March 2012
    Also, Kernon if you're lurking I'd be interested to hear your opinions. Historically you and I have tended to disagree on this sort of thing but I'm always looking for alternate opinions and lines of reasoning.
  • I download stuff because i am too cheap to buy it.
  • leave it to Aslan to say it like it is.

    btw distribution and physical media costs have always been essentially zero, digital distribution doesn't change that enough to make it a talking point
  • DrAwkward said: btw distribution and physical media costs have always been essentially zero,
    digital distribution doesn't change that enough to make it a talking point
    Condeced, but what physical distribution does do is make a product scarce.

  • true, it at least creates an artificial scarcity (perceived scarcity) that digital availability has destroyed
  • Exactly, but that's what makes it so insidious. Before the net all media was scarce. We got a hint of things to come with VCR's and double cassette decks but those copies weren't really abundant, just less scarce. So now we find ourselves taking classic free market economics for granted in a situation where they completely fail to serve both consumers and producers and it's nearly impossible to realize it's broken because well ... we take it for granted. It's easier for producers and consumers to draw a line in the sand, point at each other and go "you fucked it all up" than it is to build a whole new way of doing business.
  • Ill pay full price for games / media when I am not paying $60+ a month for a cell phone and $60 again for internet a month when it should be a third of that.
  • Some people are just cheap and will never pay not matter what, they'll just make a new reason up on why to download. For gamest lately the only time I pirate are for games that i'm not sure I'll like. I'll pirate it to test it out and if it sucks i'll delete and never play again and if its good I'll go and buy it.

    I think one thing that has to change ( and it won't ) is shit like Netflix USA verse Netflix Canada where the selection south of the boarder is much improved over our selection here.
  • "I think one thing that has to change ( and it won't ) is shit like Netflix USA verse Netflix Canada where the selection south of the boarder is much improved over our selection here."

    I'll just toss this in in case. www.unblock-us.com I use it, its great, works really well.
  • I know that service Astanyx, i guess the point i am trying to make is that i shouldn't have to use it.
  • I will pay for content when it's easily available without hassle. See: steam, netflix. I will pirate when the first option is not available, because pirating is easily available without hassle. See: Game of Thrones Season 1

    This was posted here a few weeks ago. It summarizes things nicely: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
  • rationalization crits for 622 damage!
  • DrAwkward said: btw distribution and physical media costs have always been essentially zero
    I used to work for a large international trucking company. Shipping/distribution costs are actually fairly large, and have increased significantly in the last 10 years. Yes, shipping product was not brutally expensive 15-20 years ago when gas was $0.35 a litre and you needed 10+ years of experience to get a good job within the industry. Now, gas is $1.30 a litre and its a huge struggle to find people willing to do long haul shipping.

    As far as this article, I actually agree with many of the things that he said. There are certain artists/authors/games that I will instantly purchase without a second thought, but others that I don't want to shell out lots of money to try out.

    Is me downloading a book of a new author different from borrowing it from a friend? Or getting it from the library?

    Many of the points that were made were also around trying to have the industry change. Change the pricing and distribution model, and more sales will come as a part of that.
  • edited March 2012
    So far it appears Wade and Phro are the only two who read the entire article before posting.
  • I read the whole article...

    i honestly found the guy a simpering idiot.

    The basic flaw in his logic is that he seems to think the record companies and film companies care what anyone thinks.


    They have a commodity - one that is more addictive than heroin. People will steal to get it. (And let's face facts, justify it any way you want, it is theft.)

    People will ALWAYS want entertainment. They will always pay for it. And people that steal it will continue to be persecuted.
  • edited March 2012
    Aslan said: justify it any way you want, it is theft
    And this is how they've hung on to the broken business model for so long. By convincing people that what is clearly not theft in fact IS and by bolting new laws that point to the economic models of the past and demand that they apply to things they were never designed to apply to. *sigh*
  • Aslan said: The basic flaw in his logic is that he seems to think the record companies and film companies care what anyone thinks.
    Which is exactly the point. You are losing consumers by not listening to what consumers WANT. A car company can make as many car's as they want, but if no one wants to buy them, you are in big FUCKING trouble. Music industry has spent to much time as a monopoly of sorts, and forgotten about competing.

    Right now piracy, theft or not, is a more convenient way of acquiring media. If I could goto X record company site or X band site, pay a few dollars for DRM free flac, I would before having to pirate it.

    "the cliche finish" ... The customer is ALWAYS right
  • edited March 2012
    As I was typing up that last post I was being rounded up at work for a toast after a massive 2 day implementation. Home now and I want to elaborate on what I was saying.

    Setting aside what's often said in press releases, downloading copyrighted works is simply not theft. By definition theft is taking property without permission with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The phrase "IP theft" is often used as it puts certain connotations in the listeners mind but to put a point on it downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owners consent is copyright infringement not theft. That is; the violation of a creators right to withhold others ability to copy their work. This distinction was actually confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The use of the term theft in this situation is just rhetoric designed to colour the issue and confuse the facts.
  • One thing I've actually wondered recently is if people's perception on piracy/theft vs. borrowing has changed. I highly doubt it has, but its an interesting question to pose.

    Lets say I have a friend that goes out and buys a book. He thinks its a great read and that I would enjoy it, so he lends it to me and I read it and thoroughly enjoy it. Now lets throw a little twist in there. I have a friend that goes out and buys a book. He thinks its a great read and that I would enjoy it, so I go out and download it, I read it and thoroughly enjoy it.

    What is the difference between those two scenarios? One I can get charged for, the other seems like a perfectly innocent and legal act. What defines the line between what is and isn't illegal?
  • The answer to your question Wade probably lies in the details of copyright law. The answer may be less obvious if the question is what is the moral difference?

    Re. The original article: Most of the article detailed how much the author is willing to pay for types of media and preferred distribution methods. So, it did have a feeling of slef entitlement to it I guess.

    However, I think the most important point the author made is that the control is now consumers have the control and it has been taken away from distributors. Right or wrong almost doesn't matter here. It can't be undone. Media producers need to evolve to reality.
  • Mr.Clark said: The answer to your question Wade probably lies in the details of copyright law.
    That seems fair to me. The law may see them as two different acts with the same outcome. I guess a better question would be is there a difference to the copyright holders at all? The end result is, essentially, the same.
  • a book has the limitation of basically 1 user at-a-time license. if he lends it to you, he isn't concurrently reading it, nor are any of his other friends. if you download it, he can lend it to someone else and that is 2 concurrent readers. by copying it you decrease demand for the work
  • DrAwkward said: by copying it you decrease demand for the work
    He's not decreasing demand, he's increasing supply.
  • Wader said: Lets say I have a friend that goes out and buys a book. He thinks its a great read and that I would enjoy it, so he lends it to me and I read it and thoroughly enjoy it. Now lets throw a little twist in there. I have a friend that goes out and buys a book. He thinks its a great read and that I would enjoy it, so I go out and download it, I read it and thoroughly enjoy it.
    DrAwkward said: a book has the limitation of basically 1 user at-a-time license. if he lends it to you, he isn't concurrently reading it, nor are any of his other friends. if you download it, he can lend it to someone else and that is 2 concurrent readers.
    That's a good point. I don't own an ebook reader, anybody know if it's possible to loan a friend a legally purchased ebook without increasing the number of concurrent readers? I know libraries are being limited to the number of times they can loan out an ebook before it "wears out" (self destructs) and they have to buy it again. I wonder if personal ebooks have the same "feature".


Sign In or Register to comment.

USDN.CA does not support IE8 or less. Things may not look good or work at all. Why aren't you using a modern browser? :)