3 ms·

The truth is many pirates download the work and never actually pay for it, clearly feeling no real appreciation for the author. Maybe I'm a cynic, but the probl

by lubutu 15y ago

The truth is many pirates download the work and never actually pay for it, clearly feeling no real appreciation for the author. Maybe I'm a cynic, but the problem has never been those of us who will, discovering an artist we love, buy all their albums. The problem is with those who download for nothing but selfish consumption. (Which is why DRM is insane: it only affects those of us who actually buy the product, while those who (inevitably) pirate it have far more pleasant an experience.)

bad_user 15y ago
But those that only download for consumption, wouldn't necessarily buy those works. Also when speaking about music, some people will end up going to concerts - and good bands are earning more from concerts than from CD sales.
- lubutu 15y ago
  If the creator wants to distribute it for free that's fine, but one cannot argue that when it comes to something like data it's okay to choose how much you want to pay because "you wouldn't buy it for more than that." You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't think this problem is worth the pain of DRM, but it is a problem nonetheless.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > it is a problem nonetheless. I think the disagreement is over how much of a problem it is. It's not like piracy is a new problem. It's just that: 1. The Internet has made distribution trivial. 2. The price-point is now 'free' instead of 'cheaper than the original, but still costs money.' 3. Storage is now trivial. It's easy to pirate a 1000 PDFs of actual books. It's less trivial to deal with 1000 actual books, even if they are free. In general though, when people are arguing that the pirates wouldn't have paid for the product at any price, they are attempting to dispel the myth that 1 pirate download = 1 lost sale. It's this calculation that is used time and again to 'prove' how much of an issue piracy actually is.
- dorian-graph 15y ago
  Then perhaps they shouldn't have consumed something they won't pay for?
  - bad_user 15y ago
    The problem with this line of thought is that you've got no way of filtering those that never pay for content from those that do pay for content that they like. For this reason, authors that support anti-piracy measures will shoot themselves in the foot, as they'll punish not only legitimate customers (since it is inevitable with DRM) but also those that are semi-legitimate (i.e. those that pay after trying something out), while those that never pay for content will always find ways of being freeloaders. Authors should take a look at what iTunes and Amazon are doing. Amazon provides a great service - you can read their books on your PC, on a Kindle or on your phone. And you can also read several chapters before buying. And buying is such a simple process - you just click a buy link and that's it. Purchasing is so easy on Amazon and iTunes, plus the content is high-quality and exactly the right format, that I've began buying books and music - and this is a former freeloader speaking.
    - dorian-graph 15y ago
      > The problem with this line of thought is that you've got no way of filtering those that never pay for content from those that do pay for content that they like. Exactly. A common theme in the discussions on piracy and the like is that all the load is on the shoulders of the companies/content producers and there's even a late comment by a GiantBomb writer that they have to compete with 'free' which I find ridiculous. I'd prefer if the consumers, or rather, would-be consumers, would filter themselves instead of the selfish consumerism most seem to live by. It's great that there's so many people abandoning their pirating habits (This includes myself). I stopped not when it became easy like with Steam and whatnot but when (I know this will sound trite or whatever to some) I began to value myself and what I consumed more so and began creating more.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
daralthus 15y ago
You didn't count with the viral effect. Pirates download things for free without feeling guilty or paying anywhere in the near future, but also they could become fans, promote the work and effectively grow the number of paying people.

by lubutu 15y ago

bad_user 15y ago

But those that only download for consumption, wouldn't necessarily buy those works. Also when speaking about music, some people will end up going to concerts - and good bands are earning more from concerts than from CD sales.

lubutu 15y ago
If the creator wants to distribute it for free that's fine, but one cannot argue that when it comes to something like data it's okay to choose how much you want to pay because "you wouldn't buy it for more than that." You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't think this problem is worth the pain of DRM, but it is a problem nonetheless.
- pyre 15y ago
  > it is a problem nonetheless. I think the disagreement is over how much of a problem it is. It's not like piracy is a new problem. It's just that: 1. The Internet has made distribution trivial. 2. The price-point is now 'free' instead of 'cheaper than the original, but still costs money.' 3. Storage is now trivial. It's easy to pirate a 1000 PDFs of actual books. It's less trivial to deal with 1000 actual books, even if they are free. In general though, when people are arguing that the pirates wouldn't have paid for the product at any price, they are attempting to dispel the myth that 1 pirate download = 1 lost sale. It's this calculation that is used time and again to 'prove' how much of an issue piracy actually is.
dorian-graph 15y ago
Then perhaps they shouldn't have consumed something they won't pay for?
- bad_user 15y ago
  The problem with this line of thought is that you've got no way of filtering those that never pay for content from those that do pay for content that they like. For this reason, authors that support anti-piracy measures will shoot themselves in the foot, as they'll punish not only legitimate customers (since it is inevitable with DRM) but also those that are semi-legitimate (i.e. those that pay after trying something out), while those that never pay for content will always find ways of being freeloaders. Authors should take a look at what iTunes and Amazon are doing. Amazon provides a great service - you can read their books on your PC, on a Kindle or on your phone. And you can also read several chapters before buying. And buying is such a simple process - you just click a buy link and that's it. Purchasing is so easy on Amazon and iTunes, plus the content is high-quality and exactly the right format, that I've began buying books and music - and this is a former freeloader speaking.
  - dorian-graph 15y ago
    > The problem with this line of thought is that you've got no way of filtering those that never pay for content from those that do pay for content that they like. Exactly. A common theme in the discussions on piracy and the like is that all the load is on the shoulders of the companies/content producers and there's even a late comment by a GiantBomb writer that they have to compete with 'free' which I find ridiculous. I'd prefer if the consumers, or rather, would-be consumers, would filter themselves instead of the selfish consumerism most seem to live by. It's great that there's so many people abandoning their pirating habits (This includes myself). I stopped not when it became easy like with Steam and whatnot but when (I know this will sound trite or whatever to some) I began to value myself and what I consumed more so and began creating more.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

daralthus 15y ago

You didn't count with the viral effect. Pirates download things for free without feeling guilty or paying anywhere in the near future, but also they could become fans, promote the work and effectively grow the number of paying people.