9 ms·

I thought this was true until I visited an old friend in a trailer park, of which their family would borrow DVDs written with pirated movies. There were many re

I thought this was true until I visited an old friend in a trailer park, of which their family would borrow DVDs written with pirated movies. There were many reasons why. No internet, too expensive, no blu-ray player, etc. It was amazing how they could just put in a DVD, and instantly movie for their children. These kids had rarely ever seen an ad on TV in their life. The people who made the disks got paid, too. Market incentives are a universal concept. Digital content by it's nature is infinitely copiable. So who has the better market offer? Guy in trailer park for $1 for a movie or $50/month Hulu live subscription + 70/month internet? This is how it goes in other countries, too, where you cannot even legitimately get disks or downloads, much less be able to afford them. It is true it's simpler to just stream content for those that have the money and tech, but if you've seen how the media giants have split the market it's not affordable to most people to have Hulu live tv, Netflix, Disney+, Spotify, etc - all to watch a few specific movies. Piracy is a natural result. Don't underestimate the amount of tech knowledge people have nowadays, especially if it will save money. They themselves may not know, but they know someone that does. The internet has become a beautiful resource to learn absolutely anything. VPN's are advertised everywhere on YouTube. Necessity is the mother of invention after all.

5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
> This is how it goes in other countries, too, where you cannot even legitimately get disks or downloads, much less be able to afford them. Oh yes, thank you for remembering that. It's truly an exception around here. Pretty much all streaming services refuse to accept my money or provide access to 0.1-1% of their catalog (compared to what is available in the US, literally a few to a few dozen shows/movies) for exactly the same price per month, so who would even bother? Of course, you can always try to find a working VPN, if they weren't getting blocked all the time. I believe Spotify is the only service that gives access to the same selection as in every other country. So everyone "pirates" everything, especially if you want content in its untranslated original form. Edit: except for games. Most games are available from Steam and other major platforms, and those are very popular.
- watermelon0 5y ago
  Spotify has different selection depending on the country. In the past Spotify was not available in my country, so I had to use workarounds, which meant using accounts from different countries, and jumping between them definitely changed what I was able to play from my playlists.
  - skydhash 5y ago
    Spotify added my country this year. Within a few months, a lot of labels removed my country from their authorized list for no obvious reasons. We don't have any sanctions or existing outlets here. Just geo-blocking for the sake of geo-blocking.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Same experience here. Video game consoles used to come with modchips preinstalled. For a long time I was the odd guy who bought original stuff. Streaming services made it much easier to consume but I still see the occasional person relying on ad-filled blogs with download links.
kube-system 5y ago
I’m not claiming that piracy doesn’t exist. I’m claiming that those pushing DRM have mostly achieved their goals. They are making good money from the people who have it to spend. The person in your anecdote likely wasn’t a profitable customer anyway. Their goal is to make money from the masses who have it, not to try to squeeze blood from a stone.
oriolid 5y ago
> The people who made the disks got paid, too. Interesting point. Did the people who made the content get paid too? And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content?
- ui4jd73bdj 5y ago
  > Did the people who made the content get paid too? No, they chose to opt-out of this market.
- indigochill 5y ago
  > Did the people who made the content get paid too? Usually yes, because those would be the actors/cameramen/directors/editors/etc who would be paid for their work before the finished work then would be sold on to consumers. The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. > And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content? If we agree that copies of digital content are zero-cost, then the monetary value of the DVD is in the physical object. Obviously that's only half the argument because nobody's watching blank DVDs. But how do we fairly compensate the group that fronts the money for the content to be created? IMO, this is the genius of crowdfunding and why I'm bullish about it being the economic future of content. If a content creator can convince enough people to give them money to make something, then there is nobody who needs to profit from distribution. The content is fully paid-for up-front. It's also not a new idea. Rich patrons funded works of art in the Renaissance. Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron.
  - oriolid 5y ago
    > The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. I admire your intellectual honesty about admitting that royalties exist. Anyway, the question here is where did the money for up-front salaries come from and does does it keep coming when the if the publisher's profits are reduced? I have participated in a few crowdfunding campaigns and I agree that it could work for a specific niche: where the content creators are already well known enough that they can attract a sufficient audience that trusts them to do something sensible with their money. It's going to be hard for newcomers. Just look at failed kickstarters: there is a lot of trash there but there could be some unpolished gems there. > Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron. This is kind of the point. If I have to choose blindly between a show that's made because Jeff Bezos wants to fund it and meddles with it personally or a show that Jeff's firm funds because some professionals believe it's going to attract paying viewers, my bet is on the latter.
_the_inflator 5y ago
> Don't underestimate the amount of tech knowledge people have nowadays, especially if it will save money. This works also in the opposite direction. I know of some couples, who can easily share even 200USD/month on streaming services, however they consider "the alternatives" to "save money", who are of course illegal here in Europe. Nowadays "saving" let's say 20USD for Netflix per month is - in my opinion - a very bad bargain considering the fact, that you can end up paying a lot of punitive damages. Pirated software/movies always added some sort of value to the product. For example, DVDs forced (and still do) you to watch a couple of minutes of FBI warnings, anti-piracy trailers etc. instead of just letting you instantly watch the movie you paid (!) for. Pirated DVDs just offered the movie, full control to the user - like in streaming nowadays. So if you have the money, I do not get people who want to "save money" on streaming.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > Nowadays "saving" let's say 20USD for Netflix per month is - in my opinion - a very bad bargain considering the fact, that you can end up paying a lot of punitive damages. Funny thing is that pirated content is the only ethical content I know of, that doesn't rely on ads (streaming services have ads too, even if you pay)
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    Pirated content doesn't need ads because they steal the work of people who do.
    - jackthezipper 5y ago
      It's not stealing it's sharing.
      - TchoBeer 5y ago
        Pirates don't pay media companies to produce media
kaetemi 5y ago
The DVD player in our house is a suspiciously branded region-free box. Because that's apparently the only way to watch legitimate DVDs.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
I can relate. In my country this stuff gets sold out in the open like it was nothing. Every once in a while some police operation disrupts their activities but it feels like it's just for show. Maybe I'll read about these operations in the US trade office's annual reports one day.

5e92cb50239222b 5y ago

> This is how it goes in other countries, too, where you cannot even legitimately get disks or downloads, much less be able to afford them. Oh yes, thank you for remembering that. It's truly an exception around here. Pretty much all streaming services refuse to accept my money or provide access to 0.1-1% of their catalog (compared to what is available in the US, literally a few to a few dozen shows/movies) for exactly the same price per month, so who would even bother? Of course, you can always try to find a working VPN, if they weren't getting blocked all the time. I believe Spotify is the only service that gives access to the same selection as in every other country. So everyone "pirates" everything, especially if you want content in its untranslated original form. Edit: except for games. Most games are available from Steam and other major platforms, and those are very popular.

watermelon0 5y ago
Spotify has different selection depending on the country. In the past Spotify was not available in my country, so I had to use workarounds, which meant using accounts from different countries, and jumping between them definitely changed what I was able to play from my playlists.
- skydhash 5y ago
  Spotify added my country this year. Within a few months, a lot of labels removed my country from their authorized list for no obvious reasons. We don't have any sanctions or existing outlets here. Just geo-blocking for the sake of geo-blocking.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Same experience here. Video game consoles used to come with modchips preinstalled. For a long time I was the odd guy who bought original stuff. Streaming services made it much easier to consume but I still see the occasional person relying on ad-filled blogs with download links.

kube-system 5y ago

I’m not claiming that piracy doesn’t exist. I’m claiming that those pushing DRM have mostly achieved their goals. They are making good money from the people who have it to spend. The person in your anecdote likely wasn’t a profitable customer anyway. Their goal is to make money from the masses who have it, not to try to squeeze blood from a stone.

oriolid 5y ago

> The people who made the disks got paid, too. Interesting point. Did the people who made the content get paid too? And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content?

ui4jd73bdj 5y ago
> Did the people who made the content get paid too? No, they chose to opt-out of this market.
indigochill 5y ago
> Did the people who made the content get paid too? Usually yes, because those would be the actors/cameramen/directors/editors/etc who would be paid for their work before the finished work then would be sold on to consumers. The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. > And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content? If we agree that copies of digital content are zero-cost, then the monetary value of the DVD is in the physical object. Obviously that's only half the argument because nobody's watching blank DVDs. But how do we fairly compensate the group that fronts the money for the content to be created? IMO, this is the genius of crowdfunding and why I'm bullish about it being the economic future of content. If a content creator can convince enough people to give them money to make something, then there is nobody who needs to profit from distribution. The content is fully paid-for up-front. It's also not a new idea. Rich patrons funded works of art in the Renaissance. Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron.
- oriolid 5y ago
  > The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. I admire your intellectual honesty about admitting that royalties exist. Anyway, the question here is where did the money for up-front salaries come from and does does it keep coming when the if the publisher's profits are reduced? I have participated in a few crowdfunding campaigns and I agree that it could work for a specific niche: where the content creators are already well known enough that they can attract a sufficient audience that trusts them to do something sensible with their money. It's going to be hard for newcomers. Just look at failed kickstarters: there is a lot of trash there but there could be some unpolished gems there. > Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron. This is kind of the point. If I have to choose blindly between a show that's made because Jeff Bezos wants to fund it and meddles with it personally or a show that Jeff's firm funds because some professionals believe it's going to attract paying viewers, my bet is on the latter.

_the_inflator 5y ago

> Don't underestimate the amount of tech knowledge people have nowadays, especially if it will save money. This works also in the opposite direction. I know of some couples, who can easily share even 200USD/month on streaming services, however they consider "the alternatives" to "save money", who are of course illegal here in Europe. Nowadays "saving" let's say 20USD for Netflix per month is - in my opinion - a very bad bargain considering the fact, that you can end up paying a lot of punitive damages. Pirated software/movies always added some sort of value to the product. For example, DVDs forced (and still do) you to watch a couple of minutes of FBI warnings, anti-piracy trailers etc. instead of just letting you instantly watch the movie you paid (!) for. Pirated DVDs just offered the movie, full control to the user - like in streaming nowadays. So if you have the money, I do not get people who want to "save money" on streaming.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> Nowadays "saving" let's say 20USD for Netflix per month is - in my opinion - a very bad bargain considering the fact, that you can end up paying a lot of punitive damages. Funny thing is that pirated content is the only ethical content I know of, that doesn't rely on ads (streaming services have ads too, even if you pay)
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  Pirated content doesn't need ads because they steal the work of people who do.
  - jackthezipper 5y ago
    It's not stealing it's sharing.
    - TchoBeer 5y ago
      Pirates don't pay media companies to produce media

kaetemi 5y ago

The DVD player in our house is a suspiciously branded region-free box. Because that's apparently the only way to watch legitimate DVDs.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

I can relate. In my country this stuff gets sold out in the open like it was nothing. Every once in a while some police operation disrupts their activities but it feels like it's just for show. Maybe I'll read about these operations in the US trade office's annual reports one day.