61 ms·

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 wh

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?
- kstenerud 15y ago
  The mere existence of piracy does not invalidate the convenience and ease-of-use arguments. For example, Valve seems to have found compelling evidence supporting the "service" side of the argument: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-steams-success-in-russia/ http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-... They haven't stopped piracy (which can't be stopped completely), but they have carved out a huge, lucrative market where others with the "free will always trump non-free" mindset were too fearful to tread.
  - teamonkey 15y ago
    I'm always wary of what Valve have to say on the subject of piracy. They are a gatekeeper, not a content creator[1], and everything that they say on the subject suits them in that position. Saying that they oppose DRM is beneficial for Steam as a marketing move. In addition, being privately owned they are under no shareholder obligation to maximise profit by conventional means. I.e. their position is not typical of anyone else in the industry. It's like when Netflix talks about Hollywood and the TV industry: sure, they bring up some good points, but always something that would benefit the gatekeeper first. [1] My argument is that the games they create sell the Steam platform, not the other way around.

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?

kstenerud 15y ago
The mere existence of piracy does not invalidate the convenience and ease-of-use arguments. For example, Valve seems to have found compelling evidence supporting the "service" side of the argument: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-steams-success-in-russia/ http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-... They haven't stopped piracy (which can't be stopped completely), but they have carved out a huge, lucrative market where others with the "free will always trump non-free" mindset were too fearful to tread.
- teamonkey 15y ago
  I'm always wary of what Valve have to say on the subject of piracy. They are a gatekeeper, not a content creator[1], and everything that they say on the subject suits them in that position. Saying that they oppose DRM is beneficial for Steam as a marketing move. In addition, being privately owned they are under no shareholder obligation to maximise profit by conventional means. I.e. their position is not typical of anyone else in the industry. It's like when Netflix talks about Hollywood and the TV industry: sure, they bring up some good points, but always something that would benefit the gatekeeper first. [1] My argument is that the games they create sell the Steam platform, not the other way around.