7 ms·

It's difficult to say regarding the lost sales. In relation with every pirated book, there are several groups of people: A) Got the pirated version, but wouldn

by greyman 16y ago

It's difficult to say regarding the lost sales. In relation with every pirated book, there are several groups of people: A) Got the pirated version, but wouldn't buy it if they couldn't get it free B) Got the pirated version, and therefore didn't pay for it C) Learned about the book because it was pirated, and then bought it. I don't have the statistics, but my guess is that most of the people are in the group A). Now the question is, which group is bigger, B or C. I don't know myself, and it probably depends on the book itself. But as I have seen, most anti-piracy proponents include the group A) into the lost sales category, while it clearly doesn't belong there.

jokermatt999 16y ago
It's not just that some people include A into lost sales though, although that is the major problem. Some people are strongly against group A because they feel that they should not get whatever they pirated for free. You'll see this a lot in conjunction with the word "entitled". I can understand their point, too. Personally, I think the world is a better and richer place for more shared culture (see also group C, who likely exists largely because of A), and if that means people who weren't going to pay anyway freeload through piracy, so be it. If the would not convert to a sale, then they should essentially be ignored. The piracy that should be focused on is B, because that's the only one that actually has a real monetary effect.
cemerick 16y ago
Just about the only lick of sense in this discussion. I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. I suspect you would have a better sense of perspective if people could create and use "paid" accounts on your shiny web services without paying. Anecdotes of (c) described in the parent are few and far between, and don't justify the instances of (b) or the unintended consequences / moral hazard of (a). (Disclosure: I sell software for a living, and have discovered [and reconciled] piracy of my products by very large organizations in the past. I imagine there are many other instances I'm not aware of.) [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2282875 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2282875
- petercooper 16y ago
  I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. Did anyone here really say that copyright infringement was good? Saying that it's not "theft" doesn't automatically throw one into the pro-piracy camp. Copyright infringement can certainly be wrong and extremely detrimental to our culture - that's why we have copyright laws in the first place.
  - jellicle 16y ago
    Well, no. There's no morality to copyright infringement laws, and if we were to apply a moral component, it would clearly come down on the side of freedom of information. Copyright laws are at best amoral, and at worst immoral. "Why we have copyright laws in the first place" is because corporations lobbied for them - self-interest. There's no moral component.
    - cemerick 16y ago
      That view would seem to have some pretty far-reaching consequences, insofar as many of us produce information of one sort or another and nothing else. Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is through generous benefactors and donations.
      - muuh-gnu 16y ago
        > many of us produce information of one sort or another > Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is > through generous benefactors and donations. Or stop producing information and start producing something which people voluntarily pay for. What youre doing now is basically legislating prohibition of copying so you can make a living by selling copies. Trying to make a living by producing and selling copies in an age where everybody and their dog can produce copies themselves effortlessly is a ridiculously bad business decision. It is so outworldlishly ridiculous that it is no suprise, that most of those who for some reason chose that path can not come up with a solution to their little problem than crying for protectionism to ban DIY. It is no different than the story of the french button wars: * http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml * http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616
nettdata 16y ago
You might be surprised, actually. Not necessarily the same as books, but may be somewhat relevant. There was a Japanese think tank that recently released a report that found the online piracy actually boosted the sale of anime DVDs. http://torrentfreak.com/internet-piracy-boosts-anime-sales-study-concludes-110203/ http://torrentfreak.com/internet-piracy-boosts-anime-sales-s... Personally, I used to work in the music business for Nettwerk Records (hence the Nettdata username), Sarah McLachlan's label. We were one of the few labels that believed that the freely available online versions of songs actually stimulated sales, especially for back catalogues. When Sarah's Surfacing album released, we actually ripped high quality MP3 versions of the songs and hosted them for free download. We also created a streaming "radio" site that allowed you to make and play your own playlists from any and all of the songs Nettwerk had the rights to. We had real live numbers that showed sales were up a LOT after we made things available online. I think more than anything the content producers are being forced to rethink their models, especially when it comes to the record industry. If they made their back catalogues available in an individual song format for a reasonable price (whatever that would be), I think they'd do well. And for what it's worth, I actually bought a non-DRM'd eBook this morning, one that I can read on my laptop in PDF, or on my iPhone and iPad in eBook format. I'm sure it was available in some pirated format, but I'm one of those guys that would rather support the things I want to see more of.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  Funny thing about anime: fan subs/dubs are why most anime publishers line up a translation during production now. They realized they were missing a big market. It's why the original Fullmetal Alchemist ('03-'04) was a fansub for a long time before an official NA release, while the recent remake came out in English[1] on Hulu days after airing in Japan. A whole new import market sprung up because of what was technically piracy. [1]With subtitles, but dubbed episodes started popping up on the Hulu page near the end of the show's run.
  - desigooner 16y ago
    FWIW, I saw both the original fan sub and the newer official release (japanese with subs) and I definitely preferred the fan subs. They explain some nitty gritties and colloquialisms rather nicely, things that are certainly ignored by official releases.
jellicle 16y ago
From the evidence we have, group C is much larger than B for most media. Superstars might lose out somewhat; their group B might be larger than group C. But for almost all creators of media, group C is larger, often extremely much larger, than group B, and therefore copyright infringement is a net benefit to them. Even for superstars, it's not clear that B is larger than C. You want the latest hit song from Lady Gaga? Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw Free to air for the world to see and download, no payment required, put up there by the creator. Clearly Gaga believes that the benefits of publicity outweigh any "losses" from people who decided not to buy the album. I'm sure she is correct.
- teamonkey 16y ago
  > From the evidence we have Link?
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Believe what you like, but at some point the product becomes a "commodity" - its well-known and further piracy doesn't contribute to publicity. Then it'd be nice to switch models (which is of course impossible).
  - ecounysis 16y ago
    You can't switch models so you choose the model with the largest lifetime net benefit.
  - jellicle 16y ago
    Sure. That happens when all 7 billion people on Earth know about your product. For which products do you think all 7 billion people know about it?
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      You think most products appeal to all 7 billion? Or do they have a subset market that can get saturated.
chollida1 16y ago
Great break down! I think it's important to remember that groups B and C aren't static. In my, completely unsubstantiated, opinion group B would be much larger for blockbuster media. Think a new video game from Valve or Id Software or movies like Avatar or Titanic. These types of media don't really need piracy to market due to the fact that many/most people already know they exist. I would also guess that they gain much less from word of mouth, but I'll fully grant that's just an opinion:) On the other hand you'd have "indy" games and movies, and other niches like anime, where piracy may actually help spread the word about this media and help it gain sales through increasing the size of group C.
kenjackson 16y ago
In some sense the difference between A & B don't matter. Probably the real question is if the consumer is using the product. Lets imagine I'm Garmin and someone comes and copies my GPS code, puts it on a device and then copies all of my map data. And then goes on to use that for their fleet car service. Now its possible that the consumer never would have bought the actual Garmin product, but there's really no good way of knowing. But if they're using it regularly I almost feel like it doesn't matter. It seems like (IANAL) that quasi-contracts should come into play here. The fundamental problem I have with (C) being larger than (B) is that if it were true why don't more major companies know about? For example, if (C) were true, wouldn't MS remove all forms of copy protection from its product? No license keys period. You just pay money and get a link, but a link that anyone can use. And they would, accordingly make more money than what they're doing now. I think what it probably looks like is (A) >> (B) >> (C)
- Travis 16y ago
  I suspect there's a difference when the end user is not the entity doing the piracy (Mike copies Garmin's code and puts it in many cars for his customers to use). Involving a 3rd party, and probably involving commerce, feels different to me than personal use.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I was thinking since its Mike's company it would be similar in effect, just amplified (and somewhat like torrents). But to make it simpler, what if it's just Mike's personal car? It just seems like if you're getting "reasonable" use from a commercial product, you probably should pay. I get that you may want to evaluate it or maybe used it once or twice, but when you use it regularly as the product intended, that starts to be a little shady.
    - Travis 16y ago
      Yep, I'm in agreement with you there. Personal use like that seems to be right in the middle when I query my ethics. For me, personally, it almost feels like the effort required factors into whether piracy is OK. That isn't really rational, but when you casually download a torrent, that doesn't seem as bad as building your own hardware to pirate a signal. Maybe it speaks to intent? (NB: this paragraph isn't intended as anything other than me exploring my own rationalizations for piracy. Do not use except as instructed by a physician, and all that).
allwein 16y ago
People also ignore a subset of A. Got the pirated version, but never consumed or used it. I can't tell you how many versions of AutoCAD I downloaded as a teenager, either because I thought I might learn how to use it or just because I could. I don't think I ever installed a single copy. Likewise, I once had several hard drives filled with pirated TV Shows of things I will never watch, just because it was available.
crystalis 16y ago
Video games all seem to tell the same story: 8 or 9 pirates to 1 legitimate user (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350 http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350 http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/04/stardock-88-per/ http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/04/stardock-88-per/) Pirates converted to legitimate customers (in the face of DRM or other obstruction of the pirated form) at a rough rate of 1 customer per 1000 defrayed pirates. This seems to indicate a rough ratio of 1000 As to 1 B. Are a thousand sales worth a million users?

by greyman 16y ago

jokermatt999 16y ago

It's not just that some people include A into lost sales though, although that is the major problem. Some people are strongly against group A because they feel that they should not get whatever they pirated for free. You'll see this a lot in conjunction with the word "entitled". I can understand their point, too. Personally, I think the world is a better and richer place for more shared culture (see also group C, who likely exists largely because of A), and if that means people who weren't going to pay anyway freeload through piracy, so be it. If the would not convert to a sale, then they should essentially be ignored. The piracy that should be focused on is B, because that's the only one that actually has a real monetary effect.

cemerick 16y ago

Just about the only lick of sense in this discussion. I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. I suspect you would have a better sense of perspective if people could create and use "paid" accounts on your shiny web services without paying. Anecdotes of (c) described in the parent are few and far between, and don't justify the instances of (b) or the unintended consequences / moral hazard of (a). (Disclosure: I sell software for a living, and have discovered [and reconciled] piracy of my products by very large organizations in the past. I imagine there are many other instances I'm not aware of.) [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2282875 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2282875

petercooper 16y ago
I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. Did anyone here really say that copyright infringement was good? Saying that it's not "theft" doesn't automatically throw one into the pro-piracy camp. Copyright infringement can certainly be wrong and extremely detrimental to our culture - that's why we have copyright laws in the first place.
- jellicle 16y ago
  Well, no. There's no morality to copyright infringement laws, and if we were to apply a moral component, it would clearly come down on the side of freedom of information. Copyright laws are at best amoral, and at worst immoral. "Why we have copyright laws in the first place" is because corporations lobbied for them - self-interest. There's no moral component.
  - cemerick 16y ago
    That view would seem to have some pretty far-reaching consequences, insofar as many of us produce information of one sort or another and nothing else. Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is through generous benefactors and donations.
    - muuh-gnu 16y ago
      > many of us produce information of one sort or another > Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is > through generous benefactors and donations. Or stop producing information and start producing something which people voluntarily pay for. What youre doing now is basically legislating prohibition of copying so you can make a living by selling copies. Trying to make a living by producing and selling copies in an age where everybody and their dog can produce copies themselves effortlessly is a ridiculously bad business decision. It is so outworldlishly ridiculous that it is no suprise, that most of those who for some reason chose that path can not come up with a solution to their little problem than crying for protectionism to ban DIY. It is no different than the story of the french button wars: * http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml * http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616

nettdata 16y ago

You might be surprised, actually. Not necessarily the same as books, but may be somewhat relevant. There was a Japanese think tank that recently released a report that found the online piracy actually boosted the sale of anime DVDs. http://torrentfreak.com/internet-piracy-boosts-anime-sales-study-concludes-110203/ http://torrentfreak.com/internet-piracy-boosts-anime-sales-s... Personally, I used to work in the music business for Nettwerk Records (hence the Nettdata username), Sarah McLachlan's label. We were one of the few labels that believed that the freely available online versions of songs actually stimulated sales, especially for back catalogues. When Sarah's Surfacing album released, we actually ripped high quality MP3 versions of the songs and hosted them for free download. We also created a streaming "radio" site that allowed you to make and play your own playlists from any and all of the songs Nettwerk had the rights to. We had real live numbers that showed sales were up a LOT after we made things available online. I think more than anything the content producers are being forced to rethink their models, especially when it comes to the record industry. If they made their back catalogues available in an individual song format for a reasonable price (whatever that would be), I think they'd do well. And for what it's worth, I actually bought a non-DRM'd eBook this morning, one that I can read on my laptop in PDF, or on my iPhone and iPad in eBook format. I'm sure it was available in some pirated format, but I'm one of those guys that would rather support the things I want to see more of.

mkr-hn 16y ago
Funny thing about anime: fan subs/dubs are why most anime publishers line up a translation during production now. They realized they were missing a big market. It's why the original Fullmetal Alchemist ('03-'04) was a fansub for a long time before an official NA release, while the recent remake came out in English[1] on Hulu days after airing in Japan. A whole new import market sprung up because of what was technically piracy. [1]With subtitles, but dubbed episodes started popping up on the Hulu page near the end of the show's run.
- desigooner 16y ago
  FWIW, I saw both the original fan sub and the newer official release (japanese with subs) and I definitely preferred the fan subs. They explain some nitty gritties and colloquialisms rather nicely, things that are certainly ignored by official releases.

jellicle 16y ago

From the evidence we have, group C is much larger than B for most media. Superstars might lose out somewhat; their group B might be larger than group C. But for almost all creators of media, group C is larger, often extremely much larger, than group B, and therefore copyright infringement is a net benefit to them. Even for superstars, it's not clear that B is larger than C. You want the latest hit song from Lady Gaga? Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw Free to air for the world to see and download, no payment required, put up there by the creator. Clearly Gaga believes that the benefits of publicity outweigh any "losses" from people who decided not to buy the album. I'm sure she is correct.

teamonkey 16y ago
> From the evidence we have Link?
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Believe what you like, but at some point the product becomes a "commodity" - its well-known and further piracy doesn't contribute to publicity. Then it'd be nice to switch models (which is of course impossible).
- ecounysis 16y ago
  You can't switch models so you choose the model with the largest lifetime net benefit.
- jellicle 16y ago
  Sure. That happens when all 7 billion people on Earth know about your product. For which products do you think all 7 billion people know about it?
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    You think most products appeal to all 7 billion? Or do they have a subset market that can get saturated.

chollida1 16y ago

Great break down! I think it's important to remember that groups B and C aren't static. In my, completely unsubstantiated, opinion group B would be much larger for blockbuster media. Think a new video game from Valve or Id Software or movies like Avatar or Titanic. These types of media don't really need piracy to market due to the fact that many/most people already know they exist. I would also guess that they gain much less from word of mouth, but I'll fully grant that's just an opinion:) On the other hand you'd have "indy" games and movies, and other niches like anime, where piracy may actually help spread the word about this media and help it gain sales through increasing the size of group C.

kenjackson 16y ago

In some sense the difference between A & B don't matter. Probably the real question is if the consumer is using the product. Lets imagine I'm Garmin and someone comes and copies my GPS code, puts it on a device and then copies all of my map data. And then goes on to use that for their fleet car service. Now its possible that the consumer never would have bought the actual Garmin product, but there's really no good way of knowing. But if they're using it regularly I almost feel like it doesn't matter. It seems like (IANAL) that quasi-contracts should come into play here. The fundamental problem I have with (C) being larger than (B) is that if it were true why don't more major companies know about? For example, if (C) were true, wouldn't MS remove all forms of copy protection from its product? No license keys period. You just pay money and get a link, but a link that anyone can use. And they would, accordingly make more money than what they're doing now. I think what it probably looks like is (A) >> (B) >> (C)

Travis 16y ago
I suspect there's a difference when the end user is not the entity doing the piracy (Mike copies Garmin's code and puts it in many cars for his customers to use). Involving a 3rd party, and probably involving commerce, feels different to me than personal use.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I was thinking since its Mike's company it would be similar in effect, just amplified (and somewhat like torrents). But to make it simpler, what if it's just Mike's personal car? It just seems like if you're getting "reasonable" use from a commercial product, you probably should pay. I get that you may want to evaluate it or maybe used it once or twice, but when you use it regularly as the product intended, that starts to be a little shady.
  - Travis 16y ago
    Yep, I'm in agreement with you there. Personal use like that seems to be right in the middle when I query my ethics. For me, personally, it almost feels like the effort required factors into whether piracy is OK. That isn't really rational, but when you casually download a torrent, that doesn't seem as bad as building your own hardware to pirate a signal. Maybe it speaks to intent? (NB: this paragraph isn't intended as anything other than me exploring my own rationalizations for piracy. Do not use except as instructed by a physician, and all that).

allwein 16y ago

People also ignore a subset of A. Got the pirated version, but never consumed or used it. I can't tell you how many versions of AutoCAD I downloaded as a teenager, either because I thought I might learn how to use it or just because I could. I don't think I ever installed a single copy. Likewise, I once had several hard drives filled with pirated TV Shows of things I will never watch, just because it was available.

crystalis 16y ago

Video games all seem to tell the same story: 8 or 9 pirates to 1 legitimate user (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350 http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350 http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/04/stardock-88-per/ http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/04/stardock-88-per/) Pirates converted to legitimate customers (in the face of DRM or other obstruction of the pirated form) at a rough rate of 1 customer per 1000 defrayed pirates. This seems to indicate a rough ratio of 1000 As to 1 B. Are a thousand sales worth a million users?