4 ms·

You can make a business out of this, and there are plenty of examples of it. Just because some people would buy HL3 from your store, some other people would not

by nawitus 14y ago

You can make a business out of this, and there are plenty of examples of it. Just because some people would buy HL3 from your store, some other people would not. Just because people can already pirate games, doesn't mean everyone will. Just because someone downloads a game from a torrent site doesn't mean they won't buy the full copy. Why would people pay for content that is freely available? Pretty much all content nowadays can be downloaded freely, that doesn't mean there's no business around the production of such content. People still pay money to consume media. It doesn't matter why people do it, if one can show empirically that people pay for content. For example, I can download Cory Doctorow's books freely, but I choose to pay for the books. It doesn't matter why I do it, it just matters that I do. Just like thousands of other readers. There used to be a website where you could buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (without the trademarks) for a lot of smaller price than the official version. That business didn't lasted long. A lot of people like to pay for a service. They want to pay for Spotify, for example. It's a good service and it's priced correctly. Significant portion of Spotify users could download the music using P2P networks, but they kinda like the service that they're provided. The same applies to Steam, and Amazon's ebook store and so on. Is it more difficult to create a business without copyright protection? Probably yes. Is it impossible? Certainly not. Copyright is a monopoly which grants exclusive right to make copies. Monopolies should always be balanced to benefit the public, not corporations who are trying to make a profit. It's pretty clear that current copyright law is too strict. The duration should be reduced to 5-10 years (which according to studies is the timeframe to bring in 90% of the profit for the work of art). I personally don't see a case for copyright laws at all, but we should start with 5-10 years.

teraflop 14y ago
The resounding success of Steam sales, the Humble Indie Bundle, etc. shows pretty convincingly that most gamers are quite price-sensitive. In general, the people who choose to pay for content out of the goodness of their heart, rather than because it's required or because it's less convenient to get it for free, are decidedly in the minority.
- spacelizard 14y ago
  I don't think that's quite correct. I see "gamers" being more marketing-sensitive than they are price-sensitive. There are sales in many other places but for whatever reason they don't get as much public exposure as the Steam sales. Even though almost all of it can be acquired for free, people tend to contribute financially to what they think is the least fraudulent option because they certainly do see the service value in purchasing any kind of content. Unfortunately, when it comes to this content, most people also seem have no idea how the publishing business behind it works. Of course all the publishing companies want to keep it this way.
damoncali 14y ago
Back in the day, you could buy netscape for about $30. Or you could get it for free- legitimately. The paid offering did not last long. When you legitimise "piracy" (not a good word, but you know what I mean), you can bet the price will approach zero.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zokier 14y ago
> There used to be a website where you could buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (without the trademarks) for a lot of smaller price than the official version. That business doesn't lasted long. I'm not sure what you mean? CentOS and Scientific Linux, the two main RHEL clones, are doing fine, as is RHEL itself.
- nawitus 14y ago
  That anecdote was from the Against Intellectual Monopoly book: >For example, Red Hat is a company that sold a modified and customized Linux system with easy installation and many other useful features. Although the underlying Linux system is obtained by Red Hat for free, the customization and testing conducted by Red Hat is costly. Using prices quoted on the Internet on July 10, 2002, Red Hat charged $59.95 for a package containing its system. Because it is based on the underlying Linux system, Red Hat must also make available its code to competitors. >As a result, anyone who wishes to can sell their own “Red Hat” system. And, in fact, there were at least two companies, Hcidesign and Linuxemporium, that did exactly this. For example, on July 10, 2002, Hcidesign offered for sale Red Hat Linux 7.2 for a price of $16.00, about 1/3rd of the price charged by Red Hat. Linuxemporium.co.uk offered a similar deal. >So how does Red Hat stay in business? For starters, it turns out that Red Hat sold many more $59.95 packages than Hcidesign and Linuxemporium sold $16.00 packages. Moreover Red Hat is a large well known company, while no one has ever heard of the other two, nor does it appear that they ever represented a dangerous market threat to Red Hat. >How could this be? Or more accurately, how could this not be? Have you ever used software that worked properly? If you had a problem with software you bought, and had to call the seller for advice – who would you prefer to call – the people who wrote the program, or the people who copied it? >The story is not over yet, please bear with us. Taking years in writing a book chapter is not a proof of high productivity, but there is a silver lining. On December 24, 2006, we went back to the Internet to see what happened to these three companies. All three of them still exist, and many other have joined the game. >After years of having all its innovations mercilessly “pirated” Red Hat is still the market leader, has a world wide web of offices, sells lots of Linux-based software products while also giving away lots of others for free and its revenues are soaring. Hcidesign, in spite the advantage of being a legal pirate does not seem to have done very well; it is still there, but it is selling very few products and all Linux-based products are now off its shelves. >Linuxemporium had a more interesting life. After either changing its name to or been acquired by ChyGwyn, it is back in business under the original name and it is thriving. Indeed, it has pioneered an entire new line of business: it sells at positive prices software that is downloadable for free from the original companies, by claiming it sells “high class software for the cognoscenti”. The power and creativity of competitive markets sometimes surprise even us!
zokier 14y ago
Most of the stuff you mention are successful only because the massive scale they are operating on. Without copyrights I'm afraid that smaller entities would have even harder time succeeding when they can not use exclusivity as a leverage against the larger corporations.

by nawitus 14y ago

teraflop 14y ago

The resounding success of Steam sales, the Humble Indie Bundle, etc. shows pretty convincingly that most gamers are quite price-sensitive. In general, the people who choose to pay for content out of the goodness of their heart, rather than because it's required or because it's less convenient to get it for free, are decidedly in the minority.

spacelizard 14y ago
I don't think that's quite correct. I see "gamers" being more marketing-sensitive than they are price-sensitive. There are sales in many other places but for whatever reason they don't get as much public exposure as the Steam sales. Even though almost all of it can be acquired for free, people tend to contribute financially to what they think is the least fraudulent option because they certainly do see the service value in purchasing any kind of content. Unfortunately, when it comes to this content, most people also seem have no idea how the publishing business behind it works. Of course all the publishing companies want to keep it this way.

damoncali 14y ago

Back in the day, you could buy netscape for about $30. Or you could get it for free- legitimately. The paid offering did not last long. When you legitimise "piracy" (not a good word, but you know what I mean), you can bet the price will approach zero.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

zokier 14y ago

> There used to be a website where you could buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (without the trademarks) for a lot of smaller price than the official version. That business doesn't lasted long. I'm not sure what you mean? CentOS and Scientific Linux, the two main RHEL clones, are doing fine, as is RHEL itself.

nawitus 14y ago
That anecdote was from the Against Intellectual Monopoly book: >For example, Red Hat is a company that sold a modified and customized Linux system with easy installation and many other useful features. Although the underlying Linux system is obtained by Red Hat for free, the customization and testing conducted by Red Hat is costly. Using prices quoted on the Internet on July 10, 2002, Red Hat charged $59.95 for a package containing its system. Because it is based on the underlying Linux system, Red Hat must also make available its code to competitors. >As a result, anyone who wishes to can sell their own “Red Hat” system. And, in fact, there were at least two companies, Hcidesign and Linuxemporium, that did exactly this. For example, on July 10, 2002, Hcidesign offered for sale Red Hat Linux 7.2 for a price of $16.00, about 1/3rd of the price charged by Red Hat. Linuxemporium.co.uk offered a similar deal. >So how does Red Hat stay in business? For starters, it turns out that Red Hat sold many more $59.95 packages than Hcidesign and Linuxemporium sold $16.00 packages. Moreover Red Hat is a large well known company, while no one has ever heard of the other two, nor does it appear that they ever represented a dangerous market threat to Red Hat. >How could this be? Or more accurately, how could this not be? Have you ever used software that worked properly? If you had a problem with software you bought, and had to call the seller for advice – who would you prefer to call – the people who wrote the program, or the people who copied it? >The story is not over yet, please bear with us. Taking years in writing a book chapter is not a proof of high productivity, but there is a silver lining. On December 24, 2006, we went back to the Internet to see what happened to these three companies. All three of them still exist, and many other have joined the game. >After years of having all its innovations mercilessly “pirated” Red Hat is still the market leader, has a world wide web of offices, sells lots of Linux-based software products while also giving away lots of others for free and its revenues are soaring. Hcidesign, in spite the advantage of being a legal pirate does not seem to have done very well; it is still there, but it is selling very few products and all Linux-based products are now off its shelves. >Linuxemporium had a more interesting life. After either changing its name to or been acquired by ChyGwyn, it is back in business under the original name and it is thriving. Indeed, it has pioneered an entire new line of business: it sells at positive prices software that is downloadable for free from the original companies, by claiming it sells “high class software for the cognoscenti”. The power and creativity of competitive markets sometimes surprise even us!

zokier 14y ago

Most of the stuff you mention are successful only because the massive scale they are operating on. Without copyrights I'm afraid that smaller entities would have even harder time succeeding when they can not use exclusivity as a leverage against the larger corporations.