4 ms·

How we know piracy isn't an issue: media companies have yet to change

35 points by llambda 15y ago

wbobeirne 15y ago
I don't understand how you could say the industry hasn't changed. Services like Netflix and Hulu have sprung up from people wanting internet based video services that they were otherwise getting from pirating. Spotify came about from people wanting instant access to a music library without dropping a dime. Companies like Amazon offering free online storage that will also play your music (With content you purchase from them not adding to your limit) is only offered because it makes buying your music more convenient than pirating it.
- batista 15y ago
  Not to mention iTunes, the move to DRM-free, Spotify, etc, etc.
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    As I recall, Steve Jobs basically rammed DRM-free down the studios' throats, after he / iTunes had developed the clout to do so, and also somewhat in the face of mounting pressure from iTunes customers -- including needing to compete with DRM-free P2P downloads.
    - rmc 15y ago
      More music is DRM free because the iPod did so well, and would play iTunes DRM or non-DRMed MP3. If you don't want to sell on iTunes, then you either give up iPod support or you give up DRM. Since the iPod is so popular and is almost synonymous with "portable digital music player", a "digital music" store that sold song that didn't work on an iPod is a bad commercial move, so people sold non-DRMed MP3s
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  Netflix: Most mainstream Hollywood content is still only available on disk. As I understand it (perhaps incorrectly), Hulu is busy trying to sell itself before the studios / content owners cut its legs out from under it.
- stinky613 15y ago
  I think what the article is getting at is: if the highway you take to work is ruining your life you don't take another lane, you take another road altogether. It's a crude metaphor, but it's the best I have at the moment.
  - mistercow 15y ago
    It can be improved by replacing "ruining your life" with something more concrete: If you're driving to work and you see a crowd of velociraptors just past the next exit, you don't change lanes to avoid them – you get off the damned highway.
- talmand 15y ago
  I guess one way to look at it is that the services you mentioned are part of the new idea of what a media company is. The traditional media companies are the ones resisting to change.
paulhauggis 15y ago
"Treat your customers with respect, and they’ll do the same to you. And that is how you fight piracy." Louis CK released his $5 show with no DRM or protection. He treated his customers with respect, but if you look at the torrent networks, it was immediately shared and now is all over the place. How is this respectful? The other point in the article is that the industry seems to be doing great, so piracy doesn't effect them. This is fine, if you are a huge company with deep pockets. But, if it continues unchecked, all of the smaller companies will slowly go out of business because they won't be able to make a profit. It will create an industry with very little independent houses because they won't be able to stay in business. The same principal can be applied to the app store. Everyone just expects apps to be $1-$5. If you charged $50, you probably won't make many sales.
- asb 15y ago
  He made a lot of money out of that, that's how his customers (en masse) showed respect. The people who pirated it aren't his customers.
- AgentConundrum 15y ago
  > Louis CK released his $5 show with no DRM or protection. He treated his customers with respect, but if you look at the torrent networks, it was immediately shared and now is all over the place. > How is this respectful? It's not, but you're using the same flawed argument that the RIAA, MPAA, etc.'s use, that a pirated file automatically equals a lost sale. This very simply isn't true. You have to account for the people who wouldn't have purchased the product at any price, either because they're incredibly cheap (or just poor, I suppose), or because they've never heard of Louis CK, don't much care about him either way, and just want to grab the file to check it out. The latter case seems like just a special case of the first, but it's more of a special case, namely that it's not that they wouldn't buy it at any price, but that they wouldn't buy it sight unseen at any price. It's possible that there are people out there who pirated the special and then decided that it was worth it to buy the thing. My point is that it's an incredible challenge, probably an impossible challenge, to quantify the effects of piracy. Some pirates would have never paid regardless, and some pirates will pay only because they've pirated. I think the rest of your comment makes a valid point regarding smaller vendors and the anchoring of prices. My response is simply that it hasn't played out enough yet that I'm willing to outright agree right now. The era of having a few large companies with massive budgets bringing in massive revenues could be ending, but that doesn't mean that independent studios will die. It could be quite the opposite, with many smaller niche studios rising up. For app store revenues, I can't disagree with you. My only response is that if you're not making money at a $50 price point, then you probably need to try a smaller one. $50 seems like a high price to me for many consumer apps anyway, even on a PC, and especially for a mobile app (n.b. I have a dumb phone, I don't have an iPad, etc. I'm not the target market for these apps, so I'm not speaking from experience). Basically, if you're failing at $50, try dropping your price. I'd bet a lot of people who would pirate at $50 would buy at $5. If you can gain 10 buyers at $5 for every pirate at $50, you break even. It's all about finding the right price point for your product. If you can't find one, then you can make a "lite" version with reduced functionality and try segmenting the market.

35 points by llambda 15y ago

I don't understand how you could say the industry hasn't changed. Services like Netflix and Hulu have sprung up from people wanting internet based video services that they were otherwise getting from pirating. Spotify came about from people wanting instant access to a music library without dropping a dime. Companies like Amazon offering free online storage that will also play your music (With content you purchase from them not adding to your limit) is only offered because it makes buying your music more convenient than pirating it.

batista 15y ago
Not to mention iTunes, the move to DRM-free, Spotify, etc, etc.
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  As I recall, Steve Jobs basically rammed DRM-free down the studios' throats, after he / iTunes had developed the clout to do so, and also somewhat in the face of mounting pressure from iTunes customers -- including needing to compete with DRM-free P2P downloads.
  - rmc 15y ago
    More music is DRM free because the iPod did so well, and would play iTunes DRM or non-DRMed MP3. If you don't want to sell on iTunes, then you either give up iPod support or you give up DRM. Since the iPod is so popular and is almost synonymous with "portable digital music player", a "digital music" store that sold song that didn't work on an iPod is a bad commercial move, so people sold non-DRMed MP3s
pasbesoin 15y ago
Netflix: Most mainstream Hollywood content is still only available on disk. As I understand it (perhaps incorrectly), Hulu is busy trying to sell itself before the studios / content owners cut its legs out from under it.
stinky613 15y ago
I think what the article is getting at is: if the highway you take to work is ruining your life you don't take another lane, you take another road altogether. It's a crude metaphor, but it's the best I have at the moment.
- mistercow 15y ago
  It can be improved by replacing "ruining your life" with something more concrete: If you're driving to work and you see a crowd of velociraptors just past the next exit, you don't change lanes to avoid them – you get off the damned highway.
talmand 15y ago
I guess one way to look at it is that the services you mentioned are part of the new idea of what a media company is. The traditional media companies are the ones resisting to change.

paulhauggis 15y ago

"Treat your customers with respect, and they’ll do the same to you. And that is how you fight piracy." Louis CK released his $5 show with no DRM or protection. He treated his customers with respect, but if you look at the torrent networks, it was immediately shared and now is all over the place. How is this respectful? The other point in the article is that the industry seems to be doing great, so piracy doesn't effect them. This is fine, if you are a huge company with deep pockets. But, if it continues unchecked, all of the smaller companies will slowly go out of business because they won't be able to make a profit. It will create an industry with very little independent houses because they won't be able to stay in business. The same principal can be applied to the app store. Everyone just expects apps to be $1-$5. If you charged $50, you probably won't make many sales.

asb 15y ago
He made a lot of money out of that, that's how his customers (en masse) showed respect. The people who pirated it aren't his customers.
AgentConundrum 15y ago
> Louis CK released his $5 show with no DRM or protection. He treated his customers with respect, but if you look at the torrent networks, it was immediately shared and now is all over the place. > How is this respectful? It's not, but you're using the same flawed argument that the RIAA, MPAA, etc.'s use, that a pirated file automatically equals a lost sale. This very simply isn't true. You have to account for the people who wouldn't have purchased the product at any price, either because they're incredibly cheap (or just poor, I suppose), or because they've never heard of Louis CK, don't much care about him either way, and just want to grab the file to check it out. The latter case seems like just a special case of the first, but it's more of a special case, namely that it's not that they wouldn't buy it at any price, but that they wouldn't buy it sight unseen at any price. It's possible that there are people out there who pirated the special and then decided that it was worth it to buy the thing. My point is that it's an incredible challenge, probably an impossible challenge, to quantify the effects of piracy. Some pirates would have never paid regardless, and some pirates will pay only because they've pirated. I think the rest of your comment makes a valid point regarding smaller vendors and the anchoring of prices. My response is simply that it hasn't played out enough yet that I'm willing to outright agree right now. The era of having a few large companies with massive budgets bringing in massive revenues could be ending, but that doesn't mean that independent studios will die. It could be quite the opposite, with many smaller niche studios rising up. For app store revenues, I can't disagree with you. My only response is that if you're not making money at a $50 price point, then you probably need to try a smaller one. $50 seems like a high price to me for many consumer apps anyway, even on a PC, and especially for a mobile app (n.b. I have a dumb phone, I don't have an iPad, etc. I'm not the target market for these apps, so I'm not speaking from experience). Basically, if you're failing at $50, try dropping your price. I'd bet a lot of people who would pirate at $50 would buy at $5. If you can gain 10 buyers at $5 for every pirate at $50, you break even. It's all about finding the right price point for your product. If you can't find one, then you can make a "lite" version with reduced functionality and try segmenting the market.