3 ms·

I agree that convenience and ease of use are a compelling argument for piracy, but really I think that most piracy occurs because it is free. It just so happens

I agree that convenience and ease of use are a compelling argument for piracy, but really I think that most piracy occurs because it is free. It just so happens that the technology that makes piracy possible also makes it convenient and easy. Really, what we are asking Hollywood to do is compete with free. This post is saying "Tack on all these features to your movies, and I'll pay less than the current price of your movie for those features." I get the feeling that Hollywood hears that as "Your product has no value, so do all these things to add value to it." Hollywood is saying: "We shouldn't have to compete with free. Our product has value (regardless of delivery or portability). Free is illegal." Now, this may or may not be the case technologically, but I find it difficult to fault an industry for failing to come to terms with those realities.

ctdonath 15y ago
To continue the recurring argument... No, it's not just because it's free. There's a cost to the "free" route: technical adeptness & tools, time digging for what you want, dealing with crappy rips, etc. Sure, it may be cheap, but it's not free. Nothing is free. And that's the point of the OP: most customers are willing to pay, so long as the price is lower than the alternatives - and for most customers, that's making selection & delivery drop-dead easy to the tune of pocket change. [poster pauses, noting he hasn't had any change in his pocket for weeks due to ubiquity of plastic]. Apple is doing very well distributing content for a market it had nothing to do with a few years ago - why? because they made distribution easy to the point that those with limited time and a little spare change will pay a few bucks to watch/hear something right now, with less effort & better quality than pirate channels. Oh, sure, a few people will opt for "free" out of more time/resources than money, or out of sheer tenacity, but they're of marginal impact so long as the price & ease balance. Hollywood's problem, like that of Kodak, Smith Corona, and other big-money megacorps of the past, is that technology changes the supply-and-demand curves, reducing the value of their products. It still ain't free, but the value per unit is dropping ... and the middlemen and stakeholders are going to squeeze every penny they can out of their cash cow until the carcass stops producing.
- oflannabhra 15y ago
  Those are great points, and I think your last paragraph is particularly spot on. I think that's the future we're going to have to live with, unfortunately. Sure, the user incurs some 'cost' in piracy. To the producer, however, there's no difference between someone spending 10 hours for access to a product, or free (note: I'm not saying this is lost revenue). I definitely agree that Hollywood should be smart and build something like the OP suggests and monetize it. I disagree with the OP's claim that such a product will eradicate piracy.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  > No, it's not just because it's free. There's a cost to the "free" route: technical adeptness & tools, time digging for what you want, dealing with crappy rips, etc. Sure, it may be cheap, but it's not free. Nothing is free. Difficulty is not an attribute of it being free; it's an attribute of it being illegal. Napster was easy enough that every teen in america was using it; bittorrent is not.
- smoody 15y ago
  "There's a cost to the 'free' route" - your mistake here is thinking that people actually compute those costs. "Free" is a word that lights-up irrational neurons in our brains, like "all you can eat." It almost doesn't matter the cost. That said, I can prove to you right now that this scheme will not work: On the music-side of the media world, I subscribe to Rdio. It's $10 per month for all-I-can-eat music. I listen to it via my computer, via my home stereo using Sonos (I can play up to three different songs simultaneously via Rdio using Sonos -- more than I'll ever need). And, I can download the songs to my iPhone and listen to them offline. Yet, even with Rdio and the many compatible competitors (Rhapsody, Spotify, etc.), people still download music illegally "for free." For $10 per month, I can have millions of songs available on-demand for instant playback or I can spend my time downloading songs, installing them in iTunes, syncing with my mobile device, etc. Why would anyone choose the "free" option? Personally, I don't know, but they do. One difference... In the world of Rdio, songs are not free of DRM, but no one should care -- I certainly don't even though I was one of the people celebrating the move of music from DRMed to non-DRMed -- because six million or more songs are instantly available anywhere I might want to listen to them without any hassles. If I can get at the songs anywhere, at any time, from any device, without hassle, why do I care about DRM?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tomkarlo 15y ago
Just because there's a free option doesn't mean you can't successfully offer a non-free alternative. Books have long been available for free - from libraries - yet the bookstore industry has done well both online and offline, despite the lending library system. Imagine the uproar that would occur in the publishing industry now if the government proposed to create a lending library system where none existed.
sigzero 15y ago
"Free" is not illegal. "Piracy" is.
tomkinstinch 15y ago
A recent personal anecdote: I wanted to watch the first season of The Wire, but didn't want to leave the house. I logged on to Netflix, saw that DVDs were the only available format, and closed the tab. Next I went to Amazon. I searched, and saw that that the complete box set of DVDs was priced at roughly $115. It was also available for streaming, so I was in business. Wait a moment. The price for "buying" access to the digital version was comparable to that of the DVDs (~$96 for all five seasons streamed, vs. ~$115 for the DVDs). That seems expensive for something that may not work in five years, but I decided to be a good citizen and pay to watch the first episode. As a bonus, I wouldn't have to sit through FBI warnings, unskippable previews, or a DVD menu. After paying $2, I looked for a way to download the episode to my (Mac) computer so that I could watch it without intermittent buffering delays. My connection is slow sometimes, and I can delay gratification to wait for a whole episode to download. Small problem. There is no download link. I suspect that this is because the episode could not be properly restricted with DRM. Sigh. Frustrated, I decided to risk buffer issues, and started playing the episode. No problems for five minutes, then wham, the video player crashed the Flash browser plugin. That's ok, I can copy the URI, restart the browser, and get back to watching. After hitting play a second time, wham it crashed again. Oh well, maybe Amazon does not test for Chrome. Let's try from Safari. Same problem. At this point I have paid $2, but cannot watch the episode I "purchased." What option do I have left? A torrent file for the series would be a few clicks away, and almost guaranteed to play on my computer--without buffering, DRM, browser plugins, FBI warnings, DVD menus, or unskippable previews. Why am I paying again? In the end, Amazon apologized for the technical problem and kindly refunded my $2. As a consumer, I am willing to pay for something that works and is as convenient as pirated content. The industry isn't listening. Will consumers really hazard pirate websites, when they can pay a fair price to download a DRM-free file from a fast server? Some may, but many more will pay. The message from studios has to be about trust. "We trust you as consumers. You can download DRM-free content from us at fair prices. You can trust that there won't be porno sidebar ads or phishing links. You can trust that we will have the fastest servers, offer the best quality content, and the most intuitive interface. We won't get in your way." Part of the problem of piracy is due to the release schedules of hollywood content. Perhaps movies should be released concurrently in theaters and online. Why download a recent movie when it is available online, legally? Many people will still visit theaters for the experience, and due to the short-term availability. Those who watch at home will pay if the prices are fair. Edit: I now realize that the particular content I was looking for is available via iTunes, for the same price per episode as Amazon. I don't associate iTunes with video. Not sure why that is, but perhaps it is because of the lesser inventory.

ctdonath 15y ago

To continue the recurring argument... No, it's not just because it's free. There's a cost to the "free" route: technical adeptness & tools, time digging for what you want, dealing with crappy rips, etc. Sure, it may be cheap, but it's not free. Nothing is free. And that's the point of the OP: most customers are willing to pay, so long as the price is lower than the alternatives - and for most customers, that's making selection & delivery drop-dead easy to the tune of pocket change. [poster pauses, noting he hasn't had any change in his pocket for weeks due to ubiquity of plastic]. Apple is doing very well distributing content for a market it had nothing to do with a few years ago - why? because they made distribution easy to the point that those with limited time and a little spare change will pay a few bucks to watch/hear something right now, with less effort & better quality than pirate channels. Oh, sure, a few people will opt for "free" out of more time/resources than money, or out of sheer tenacity, but they're of marginal impact so long as the price & ease balance. Hollywood's problem, like that of Kodak, Smith Corona, and other big-money megacorps of the past, is that technology changes the supply-and-demand curves, reducing the value of their products. It still ain't free, but the value per unit is dropping ... and the middlemen and stakeholders are going to squeeze every penny they can out of their cash cow until the carcass stops producing.

oflannabhra 15y ago
Those are great points, and I think your last paragraph is particularly spot on. I think that's the future we're going to have to live with, unfortunately. Sure, the user incurs some 'cost' in piracy. To the producer, however, there's no difference between someone spending 10 hours for access to a product, or free (note: I'm not saying this is lost revenue). I definitely agree that Hollywood should be smart and build something like the OP suggests and monetize it. I disagree with the OP's claim that such a product will eradicate piracy.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
> No, it's not just because it's free. There's a cost to the "free" route: technical adeptness & tools, time digging for what you want, dealing with crappy rips, etc. Sure, it may be cheap, but it's not free. Nothing is free. Difficulty is not an attribute of it being free; it's an attribute of it being illegal. Napster was easy enough that every teen in america was using it; bittorrent is not.
smoody 15y ago
"There's a cost to the 'free' route" - your mistake here is thinking that people actually compute those costs. "Free" is a word that lights-up irrational neurons in our brains, like "all you can eat." It almost doesn't matter the cost. That said, I can prove to you right now that this scheme will not work: On the music-side of the media world, I subscribe to Rdio. It's $10 per month for all-I-can-eat music. I listen to it via my computer, via my home stereo using Sonos (I can play up to three different songs simultaneously via Rdio using Sonos -- more than I'll ever need). And, I can download the songs to my iPhone and listen to them offline. Yet, even with Rdio and the many compatible competitors (Rhapsody, Spotify, etc.), people still download music illegally "for free." For $10 per month, I can have millions of songs available on-demand for instant playback or I can spend my time downloading songs, installing them in iTunes, syncing with my mobile device, etc. Why would anyone choose the "free" option? Personally, I don't know, but they do. One difference... In the world of Rdio, songs are not free of DRM, but no one should care -- I certainly don't even though I was one of the people celebrating the move of music from DRMed to non-DRMed -- because six million or more songs are instantly available anywhere I might want to listen to them without any hassles. If I can get at the songs anywhere, at any time, from any device, without hassle, why do I care about DRM?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tomkarlo 15y ago

Just because there's a free option doesn't mean you can't successfully offer a non-free alternative. Books have long been available for free - from libraries - yet the bookstore industry has done well both online and offline, despite the lending library system. Imagine the uproar that would occur in the publishing industry now if the government proposed to create a lending library system where none existed.

sigzero 15y ago

"Free" is not illegal. "Piracy" is.

tomkinstinch 15y ago

A recent personal anecdote: I wanted to watch the first season of The Wire, but didn't want to leave the house. I logged on to Netflix, saw that DVDs were the only available format, and closed the tab. Next I went to Amazon. I searched, and saw that that the complete box set of DVDs was priced at roughly $115. It was also available for streaming, so I was in business. Wait a moment. The price for "buying" access to the digital version was comparable to that of the DVDs (~$96 for all five seasons streamed, vs. ~$115 for the DVDs). That seems expensive for something that may not work in five years, but I decided to be a good citizen and pay to watch the first episode. As a bonus, I wouldn't have to sit through FBI warnings, unskippable previews, or a DVD menu. After paying $2, I looked for a way to download the episode to my (Mac) computer so that I could watch it without intermittent buffering delays. My connection is slow sometimes, and I can delay gratification to wait for a whole episode to download. Small problem. There is no download link. I suspect that this is because the episode could not be properly restricted with DRM. Sigh. Frustrated, I decided to risk buffer issues, and started playing the episode. No problems for five minutes, then wham, the video player crashed the Flash browser plugin. That's ok, I can copy the URI, restart the browser, and get back to watching. After hitting play a second time, wham it crashed again. Oh well, maybe Amazon does not test for Chrome. Let's try from Safari. Same problem. At this point I have paid $2, but cannot watch the episode I "purchased." What option do I have left? A torrent file for the series would be a few clicks away, and almost guaranteed to play on my computer--without buffering, DRM, browser plugins, FBI warnings, DVD menus, or unskippable previews. Why am I paying again? In the end, Amazon apologized for the technical problem and kindly refunded my $2. As a consumer, I am willing to pay for something that works and is as convenient as pirated content. The industry isn't listening. Will consumers really hazard pirate websites, when they can pay a fair price to download a DRM-free file from a fast server? Some may, but many more will pay. The message from studios has to be about trust. "We trust you as consumers. You can download DRM-free content from us at fair prices. You can trust that there won't be porno sidebar ads or phishing links. You can trust that we will have the fastest servers, offer the best quality content, and the most intuitive interface. We won't get in your way." Part of the problem of piracy is due to the release schedules of hollywood content. Perhaps movies should be released concurrently in theaters and online. Why download a recent movie when it is available online, legally? Many people will still visit theaters for the experience, and due to the short-term availability. Those who watch at home will pay if the prices are fair. Edit: I now realize that the particular content I was looking for is available via iTunes, for the same price per episode as Amazon. I don't associate iTunes with video. Not sure why that is, but perhaps it is because of the lesser inventory.