5 ms·

"44,845 transfers" were 'successfully stopped', according to this article, at a cost of anywhere between $12-50k. Assuming $50k, that would put it at a cost of

"44,845 transfers" were 'successfully stopped', according to this article, at a cost of anywhere between $12-50k. Assuming $50k, that would put it at a cost of approx $1.10 per 'stopped' transfer. With the caveat that they've no idea if the 'stopped' transfers just resumed later on. That seems like wasted money. Now, it'd be interesting to see what they could do to get nearly fifty thousand extra sales at a similar or proportionate expense.

dbcoops 14y ago
This is what I don't understand about the anti-piracy interest group. Piracy is simply competition. These prevention tactics tell me, the consumer, that this company believes it cannot compete on any level with the ease and availability of pirating content. If they stop all pirating everywhere, will it force me to buy content through their (less than amazing services)? Maybe a little. Is it possible to stop all pirating everywhere? I doubt it. In other words, where is the "piracy killer" service that is so awesome, I give someone my money and stop pirating? Hulu? Load of crap. Netflix? It's okay, I guess. Steam? Ok, so there's one.
- fromhet 14y ago
  Well, noone who wants to be paid for their work can compete against piracy.
  - ewillbefull 14y ago
    That's just not true. People who want to be paid for their work need to let go of the idea of selling copies and embrace the idea of servicing their media to the public. Every amount of friction between the consumer and the content is at play -- quality, morality, reliability, legality, and so on. Region locking your content, pumping it with unskippable ads and legal threats, releasing it arbitrarily in certain countries... are all practices which serve to alienate the consumer. These are pervasive in the content industry, and you couldn't honestly say they're even trying to compete with piracy with such stubbornness.
    - soup10 14y ago
      The idea that you should "compete" with pirates is absurd logic that is a product cognitive dissonance. I'm all for improving the quality of service that companies provide, but at the end of the day content is content, and must be paid for by consumers or advertisers or you would see a _drastic_ drop in the quantity and quality of content produced. If you defend a site like the pirate bay's right to enable the distribution of pirate content, then you are also defending their right to upgrade their service and make it just as good as Steam or Netflix or whatever... all things being equal, you can't compete with free.(the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".).
      - guard-of-terra 14y ago
        What if we acknowledge this point but aren't afraid of consequences? Music quality fell sharp before the internet piracy; TV series quality stand high; movies are mixed bag but you have more luck with non-mainstream. I don't see how it would all suddently collapse and I'm willing to risk.
      - ewillbefull 14y ago
        Competing with piracy is not exclusively about providing a cheaper service, but about providing a more valuable service. I don't understand why you think competing with piracy would be some tacit approval of commercial exploitation of piracy -- which is where the law should draw the line (for as long as practical). This hole in your logic underlies your entire retort. For instance: > but at the end of the day content is content, and must be paid for by consumers or advertisers or you would see a _drastic_ drop in the quantity and quality of content produced. Why do you assume providing a better service to your customers means handing out content for free? If pirates can provide a better service for free, why are you providing a worse service at all? If anything, you should be giving people their money's worth or better. This is my point: they are doing _nothing_ to drive customers away from piracy. I'm not even talking about lowering costs. In light of this, I found it hilarious for you to say: > (the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".). It is interesting that in your list of content industry "responses" you forgot to mention the things they do to make legitimately purchasing/enjoying their content less convenient. On the contrary, they have done little to make piracy less convenient. We're talking about stuff that has no effect on their profit margins or business model, that they do anyway. In that sense and context is where we state "compete", so no, it is not born out of cognitive dissonance. Replace that with desperation and you might be closer. In the end, competing with piracy as a service is only part of the battle. Alternative models for subsidizing content production will have to be embraced eventually, but I'll leave those discussions for a rainy day.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  > These prevention tactics tell me, the consumer, that this company believes it cannot compete on any level with the ease and availability of pirating content of course they can't! Piracy has one major value to people that engage in piracy: it allows people to acquire content without abiding by the acquisition policy set out by the content distributors. It's "competition" in the same way that it's "competition" when 1 athlete in an Olympic running event is taking steroids and has jet boots on. You can't treat piracy as fair competition. Most people don't pirate out of a "It's too difficult for me to buy this song via itunes", they pirate because they don't want to spend money. Content distributors can't compete with that, even with services like Netflix and Hulu people still pirate because they don't like adverts. If they are unwilling to pay and unwilling to view adverts what other options are there besides just giving away content for free? People that pirate (in general) want content without compromising on the way they want it, while piracy exists these people will continue to pirate.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    "Most people don't pirate out of a "It's too difficult for me to buy this song via itunes", they pirate because they don't want to spend money" Therefore, ad-supported streaming services exist. The only reason why ad-supported streaming services aren't the king is because they can't stream every content. That lands us back on availability problem. Copyright holders can not figure it out.
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      That's a nice cutesy view, but it's wrong. Lots of people refuse to use advert supported streaming services because they don't want to stream and they hate adverts. Content owners can't win. Just check reddit sometime, it's depressing how demanding people are.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        Nobody is saying that there is one true model and all the others are wrong. That's kind of the point actually -- people turn to piracy for all different reasons. Some because they don't want to pay (so offer ad supported streaming), some because they don't like unskippable ads (so offer pay-to-download services with no ads), some because of availability (so make sure everything is available on both the ad supported streaming and pay-to-download services), etc. Complaining that customers are demanding is just sour grapes. Customers are always demanding; welcome to capitalism. You either provide what the market wants, or somebody else does.

dbcoops 14y ago

This is what I don't understand about the anti-piracy interest group. Piracy is simply competition. These prevention tactics tell me, the consumer, that this company believes it cannot compete on any level with the ease and availability of pirating content. If they stop all pirating everywhere, will it force me to buy content through their (less than amazing services)? Maybe a little. Is it possible to stop all pirating everywhere? I doubt it. In other words, where is the "piracy killer" service that is so awesome, I give someone my money and stop pirating? Hulu? Load of crap. Netflix? It's okay, I guess. Steam? Ok, so there's one.

fromhet 14y ago
Well, noone who wants to be paid for their work can compete against piracy.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  That's just not true. People who want to be paid for their work need to let go of the idea of selling copies and embrace the idea of servicing their media to the public. Every amount of friction between the consumer and the content is at play -- quality, morality, reliability, legality, and so on. Region locking your content, pumping it with unskippable ads and legal threats, releasing it arbitrarily in certain countries... are all practices which serve to alienate the consumer. These are pervasive in the content industry, and you couldn't honestly say they're even trying to compete with piracy with such stubbornness.
  - soup10 14y ago
    The idea that you should "compete" with pirates is absurd logic that is a product cognitive dissonance. I'm all for improving the quality of service that companies provide, but at the end of the day content is content, and must be paid for by consumers or advertisers or you would see a _drastic_ drop in the quantity and quality of content produced. If you defend a site like the pirate bay's right to enable the distribution of pirate content, then you are also defending their right to upgrade their service and make it just as good as Steam or Netflix or whatever... all things being equal, you can't compete with free.(the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".).
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      What if we acknowledge this point but aren't afraid of consequences? Music quality fell sharp before the internet piracy; TV series quality stand high; movies are mixed bag but you have more luck with non-mainstream. I don't see how it would all suddently collapse and I'm willing to risk.
    - ewillbefull 14y ago
      Competing with piracy is not exclusively about providing a cheaper service, but about providing a more valuable service. I don't understand why you think competing with piracy would be some tacit approval of commercial exploitation of piracy -- which is where the law should draw the line (for as long as practical). This hole in your logic underlies your entire retort. For instance: > but at the end of the day content is content, and must be paid for by consumers or advertisers or you would see a _drastic_ drop in the quantity and quality of content produced. Why do you assume providing a better service to your customers means handing out content for free? If pirates can provide a better service for free, why are you providing a worse service at all? If anything, you should be giving people their money's worth or better. This is my point: they are doing _nothing_ to drive customers away from piracy. I'm not even talking about lowering costs. In light of this, I found it hilarious for you to say: > (the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".). It is interesting that in your list of content industry "responses" you forgot to mention the things they do to make legitimately purchasing/enjoying their content less convenient. On the contrary, they have done little to make piracy less convenient. We're talking about stuff that has no effect on their profit margins or business model, that they do anyway. In that sense and context is where we state "compete", so no, it is not born out of cognitive dissonance. Replace that with desperation and you might be closer. In the end, competing with piracy as a service is only part of the battle. Alternative models for subsidizing content production will have to be embraced eventually, but I'll leave those discussions for a rainy day.
citricsquid 14y ago
> These prevention tactics tell me, the consumer, that this company believes it cannot compete on any level with the ease and availability of pirating content of course they can't! Piracy has one major value to people that engage in piracy: it allows people to acquire content without abiding by the acquisition policy set out by the content distributors. It's "competition" in the same way that it's "competition" when 1 athlete in an Olympic running event is taking steroids and has jet boots on. You can't treat piracy as fair competition. Most people don't pirate out of a "It's too difficult for me to buy this song via itunes", they pirate because they don't want to spend money. Content distributors can't compete with that, even with services like Netflix and Hulu people still pirate because they don't like adverts. If they are unwilling to pay and unwilling to view adverts what other options are there besides just giving away content for free? People that pirate (in general) want content without compromising on the way they want it, while piracy exists these people will continue to pirate.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  "Most people don't pirate out of a "It's too difficult for me to buy this song via itunes", they pirate because they don't want to spend money" Therefore, ad-supported streaming services exist. The only reason why ad-supported streaming services aren't the king is because they can't stream every content. That lands us back on availability problem. Copyright holders can not figure it out.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    That's a nice cutesy view, but it's wrong. Lots of people refuse to use advert supported streaming services because they don't want to stream and they hate adverts. Content owners can't win. Just check reddit sometime, it's depressing how demanding people are.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      Nobody is saying that there is one true model and all the others are wrong. That's kind of the point actually -- people turn to piracy for all different reasons. Some because they don't want to pay (so offer ad supported streaming), some because they don't like unskippable ads (so offer pay-to-download services with no ads), some because of availability (so make sure everything is available on both the ad supported streaming and pay-to-download services), etc. Complaining that customers are demanding is just sour grapes. Customers are always demanding; welcome to capitalism. You either provide what the market wants, or somebody else does.