3 ms·

One thing you might be overlooking is that there are often substitutes for the pirated products. For example back when Photoshop was several hundred dollars a

by tzs 2y ago

One thing you might be overlooking is that there are often substitutes for the pirated products. For example back when Photoshop was several hundred dollars a lot of people who could not afford that pirated it to do home and hobbyist photo editing. If Photoshop had not been able to be pirated those people would not have bought it, so that piracy did indeed not reduce Adobe's income. However there were also programs such as Pixelmator that were more than an order of magnitude cheaper than Photoshop and could do everything those people were using Photoshop for. If Photoshop could not be pirated some of those people would have bought those other programs.

atrus 2y ago
If someone pirates Photoshop, Pixelmator should be suing? Honestly, I'm surprised they don't try and add that into the super believable damages.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  They were simply describing the impact of relative costs on substitute goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good
kiba 2y ago
If people weren't watching movies, they maybe would be watching people in theaters, which is a plus for me though unlikely. I am a performer whose work is done live anyway, but people have to take out time in the day to visit and play.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >If people weren't watching movies, they maybe would be watching people in theaters, which is a plus for me though unlikely. If movies somehow suddenly became magically unavailable in society, I think it's a certainty that people would be watching live theater like 100+ years ago. However, the total amount of viewing would be far, far less. People today spend lots of their free time watching movies and TV shows (many of which, these days, are better thought of as multi-volume movies). Take all that away somehow, and people will go back to the really old days before the invention of cinemas, where they occasionally watched a (live) show/play at a theater, but it was certainly not a frequent activity, maybe (guessing) once a week at the very best if they were middle-class or higher, certainly not every night, and probably more like monthly. So the total amount of economic activity that would be generated by this magical elimination of TV/movies, resulting in better careers for stage actors, musicians (assuming the Great Movie Disappearance also magically eliminated recorded music from plays), and playhouse owners would be dwarfed, I think, by the huge loss of economic activity from all the people in the various businesses of movie/TV entertainment. I could be wrong though, but considering Hollywood entertainment and TV is a huge economic driver in the US today (despite piracy), and playhouses and plays were not a huge economic force in the US in the late 1800s, I think my assumptions are correct.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>One thing you might be overlooking is that there are often substitutes for the pirated products. This works for software tools, but it doesn't work for movies or other artistic works. For example, personally, I'm a firm believer that no one should pirate Windows: if you can't afford it, then you have lots of free options available (namely, countless Linux distros). Same goes for Photoshop: if you can't afford it (or don't want to), there's free alternatives like Krita. These software programs are just tools to accomplish a task; if you can't get access to one, you can likely find something else to do the same thing. You can't make this argument for watching a movie, though. You can't substitute some crap movie like Gigli or The Room for the experience of a cinematic masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Lawrence of Arabia. It's like comparing some 4-year-old's crayon drawing to a painting by one of the masters.
- stavros 2y ago
  I know plenty of people who manage to substitute some random crap for great movies; they just want something that will pass a few hours, they don't care about having their minds blown.
- oarsinsync 2y ago
  There is only one Photoshop, just like there is only one 2001: A Space Odyssey. There are lots of other tools, some of which are free, much like there are lots of other forms of culture and entertainment. Absolute masterpieces come into the public domain every year, and become free for a new generation of people to enjoy. Why are public domain forms of culture and entertainment insufficient? The list of classics in the public domain vastly outnumbers the list of contemporary classics. FWIW, I disagree entirely. Copyright infringement is a natural consequence of free market dynamics and the marginal costs of replication of IP being near zero, just like spillage and theft is a natural consequence of physical stores. It’s part of the cost of doing business.
- Vampiero 2y ago
  > You can't make this argument for watching a movie, though. You can't substitute some crap movie like Gigli or The Room for the experience of a cinematic masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Lawrence of Arabia. It's like comparing some 4-year-old's crayon drawing to a painting by one of the masters. You can't substitute mspaint for photoshop either, what a weird take. And you can substitute any capeshit movie for any other capeshit movie since they're all the same. Your analogy makes no sense.
MisterTea 2y ago
>For example back when Photoshop was several hundred dollars... >However there were also programs such as Pixelmator... Photoshop is way older than Pixelmator. In the 90's I would use Paint Shop Pro also known as PSP. People still pirated that - including me - because we were kids with no income just looking to mess with cool computer stuff. Though honestly, it's in Adobe's best interest to turn a blind eye to individual piracy as it keeps their products the incumbent. Little johnny pirating Photoshop to edit his class photos is of no loss to Adobe. Instead, when johnny is old enough to make a living editing images Johnny will likely reach for Photoshop, this time with an open wallet. So piracy is really the ultimate trial version of software. Of course you have to make a show and lynch a few people in public to keep them fearful just enough to ensure most people pay to play. So you get the stories of some granny or 12yo hung out to dry for piracy.

by tzs 2y ago

atrus 2y ago

If someone pirates Photoshop, Pixelmator should be suing? Honestly, I'm surprised they don't try and add that into the super believable damages.

aspenmayer 2y ago
They were simply describing the impact of relative costs on substitute goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good

kiba 2y ago

If people weren't watching movies, they maybe would be watching people in theaters, which is a plus for me though unlikely. I am a performer whose work is done live anyway, but people have to take out time in the day to visit and play.

shiroiushi 2y ago
>If people weren't watching movies, they maybe would be watching people in theaters, which is a plus for me though unlikely. If movies somehow suddenly became magically unavailable in society, I think it's a certainty that people would be watching live theater like 100+ years ago. However, the total amount of viewing would be far, far less. People today spend lots of their free time watching movies and TV shows (many of which, these days, are better thought of as multi-volume movies). Take all that away somehow, and people will go back to the really old days before the invention of cinemas, where they occasionally watched a (live) show/play at a theater, but it was certainly not a frequent activity, maybe (guessing) once a week at the very best if they were middle-class or higher, certainly not every night, and probably more like monthly. So the total amount of economic activity that would be generated by this magical elimination of TV/movies, resulting in better careers for stage actors, musicians (assuming the Great Movie Disappearance also magically eliminated recorded music from plays), and playhouse owners would be dwarfed, I think, by the huge loss of economic activity from all the people in the various businesses of movie/TV entertainment. I could be wrong though, but considering Hollywood entertainment and TV is a huge economic driver in the US today (despite piracy), and playhouses and plays were not a huge economic force in the US in the late 1800s, I think my assumptions are correct.

shiroiushi 2y ago

>One thing you might be overlooking is that there are often substitutes for the pirated products. This works for software tools, but it doesn't work for movies or other artistic works. For example, personally, I'm a firm believer that no one should pirate Windows: if you can't afford it, then you have lots of free options available (namely, countless Linux distros). Same goes for Photoshop: if you can't afford it (or don't want to), there's free alternatives like Krita. These software programs are just tools to accomplish a task; if you can't get access to one, you can likely find something else to do the same thing. You can't make this argument for watching a movie, though. You can't substitute some crap movie like Gigli or The Room for the experience of a cinematic masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Lawrence of Arabia. It's like comparing some 4-year-old's crayon drawing to a painting by one of the masters.

stavros 2y ago
I know plenty of people who manage to substitute some random crap for great movies; they just want something that will pass a few hours, they don't care about having their minds blown.
oarsinsync 2y ago
There is only one Photoshop, just like there is only one 2001: A Space Odyssey. There are lots of other tools, some of which are free, much like there are lots of other forms of culture and entertainment. Absolute masterpieces come into the public domain every year, and become free for a new generation of people to enjoy. Why are public domain forms of culture and entertainment insufficient? The list of classics in the public domain vastly outnumbers the list of contemporary classics. FWIW, I disagree entirely. Copyright infringement is a natural consequence of free market dynamics and the marginal costs of replication of IP being near zero, just like spillage and theft is a natural consequence of physical stores. It’s part of the cost of doing business.
Vampiero 2y ago
> You can't make this argument for watching a movie, though. You can't substitute some crap movie like Gigli or The Room for the experience of a cinematic masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Lawrence of Arabia. It's like comparing some 4-year-old's crayon drawing to a painting by one of the masters. You can't substitute mspaint for photoshop either, what a weird take. And you can substitute any capeshit movie for any other capeshit movie since they're all the same. Your analogy makes no sense.

MisterTea 2y ago

>For example back when Photoshop was several hundred dollars... >However there were also programs such as Pixelmator... Photoshop is way older than Pixelmator. In the 90's I would use Paint Shop Pro also known as PSP. People still pirated that - including me - because we were kids with no income just looking to mess with cool computer stuff. Though honestly, it's in Adobe's best interest to turn a blind eye to individual piracy as it keeps their products the incumbent. Little johnny pirating Photoshop to edit his class photos is of no loss to Adobe. Instead, when johnny is old enough to make a living editing images Johnny will likely reach for Photoshop, this time with an open wallet. So piracy is really the ultimate trial version of software. Of course you have to make a show and lynch a few people in public to keep them fearful just enough to ensure most people pay to play. So you get the stories of some granny or 12yo hung out to dry for piracy.