8 ms·

"People copy stuff they like. They don’t copy stuff they don’t like. The more a work is copied, the more valuable it becomes. Value isn’t taken away by fans, it

"People copy stuff they like. They don’t copy stuff they don’t like. The more a work is copied, the more valuable it becomes. Value isn’t taken away by fans, it is added by them, every time they copy." Awesome quote from the article which I wholeheartedly agree with.

leephillips 13y ago
Then maybe you can help me understand what it means. Say I write a book but nobody purchases a copy, while thousands of unauthorized copies are downloaded from torrent sites. How does all this "value" put food on my table?
- soneca 13y ago
  It does if you are smart enough to pursue this value. Money from selling books doesn't have to be your goal. If thousands of people are reading your work and getting value from it you may offer more value that they would, this time, exchange for money. Just like music stars earn a lot of money from live shows. You may become a speaker, you may sell additional stuff derived from your book (as a freemium modelo for book market). You may sell this fame of yours to sign profitable contracts to future books with a publisher. You may create online courses to offer to those who read your book (if it is a technical one) or try to sell the rights to TV movies if it is literature. Well, it is hard to create from an hypotetical situation, but I think you got the point.
  - rewind 13y ago
    This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value, the downloaders receive value, but no exchange is made. The idea that the author has to create MORE value to MAYBE be able to participate in an exchange is just a weak argument for people who don't want to admit that an exchange should take place right off that bat, and if not, the downloaders should not receive any value from the author (i.e. don't download and read the book).
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
      This thread started talking about the value that readers provide. People listen to the Beatles partly because people listen to the Beatles. Where's the direct cash payment for that value add? If musicians aren't going to reward the people that advertise their work then they shouldn't release it in the first place.
    - r0s 13y ago
      I think we can all agree the problem with publishing is getting read. There's your value. Force the sale early and you trade that for something else. Mince about ideology all you want, this is the market.
    - chongli 13y ago
      >This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value, the downloaders receive value, but no exchange is made. That's where you're wrong. An audience is value in and of itself. The trouble most authors have is with leveraging that value. Traditionally they'd handed the keys over to a big publisher and hoped for the best -- a sucker bet if I'd ever seen one. Now that the exclusive power of distribution has been stripped away from traditional publishers there's actually more opportunity than ever for an author to find and derive value from an audience; it just takes more savvy (and less luck).
      - cobrausn 13y ago
        > An audience is value in and of itself. An audience that does not pay for things is of limited value to someone who needs money to keep making things.
        marknutter 13y ago
        That's a pretty naive view of the situation. An audience who perhaps doesn't pay for art but does help spread the word about that art is indeed valuable. Perhaps even more valuable than someone who pays for art but tells nobody else about it.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    "You may become a speaker, you may sell additional stuff derived from your book" What if I don't want to do that? What if I just want to write books? I can't make a living from that unless I also become a showman or sell some kind of other crap? "You may sell this fame of yours to sign profitable contracts to future books with a publisher" But if the publishers can't make any profit because everyone is just love-copying books, they won't be able to offer me any money. "online courses" "TV movies" These sound like plausible ideas at first, but the courses and movies could be torrented as easily as the book, so this profit stream dries up as well. "but I think you got the point." I think I did, too.
    - r0s 13y ago
      > What if I don't want to do that? What if I just want to write books? I can't make a living from that unless I also become a showman or sell some kind of other crap? Welcome to the creative industry. The previous copy-protected market guarantees your living in no way. The vast majority of talent is simply fighting obscurity. You're arguing about the results of fame, which is very rare.
    - coldpie 13y ago
      > What if I don't want to do that? What if I just want to write books? I can't make a living from that unless I also become a showman or sell some kind of other crap? If the only alternative is to destroy the free Internet and our computing freedom, then yes. I'm sorry.
      - leephillips 13y ago
        I'm not up for destroying the internet. I don't think that's the only alternative.
- rewind 13y ago
  Wouldn't all the love you'd be feeling more than make up for an empty belly?
- blaze33 13y ago
  I doesn't. But it actually brought a lot of value for thousands of people. It's always the same problem, how do you maximize the value for the society while still allowing the author to get a fair compensation for her work ? Now we can have endless debates over how much we really care adding value to the society and how we actually define "fair"…
  - betterunix 13y ago
    At what point in history has copyright truly been about compensating authors? Copyright began with censorship laws, and eventually came to be nothing more than a government-granted monopoly for printing press operators. Despite the Statute of Anne mentioning authors, it was the lobbying pressure by printers who sought a competitive advantage that led to that law being passed. Authors and other artists are an afterthought.
- polymatter 13y ago
  The same way all that "value" you might get from a loving family, good friends, good weather and high self-esteem. Things have value even if they don't have a $ price attached.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    Those things don't translate into food automatically.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    You're not helping.
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago
  It puts food on your table in the same way it did for PSY (the "Gangnam Style" guy)... People learn about you, and will pay a premium for almost anything you touch. For example, to see you live, or to speak to you about anything, or to buy your old house or car at substantially more than it's worth. In short, you become a celebrity. That is the intangible value created for yourself, as a reward for the intangible value you create for society. It works in areas like math and research too. Publishing research will get you a better job. Similarly, having your song copied will give you more income, even if it's just a tip - like a waitress, or a street mime. It's a spectrum of risk - from donations to Kickstarter - and nowhere in there is copyright - a restriction on other people's creative work (to the detriment of everyone, including yourself) - necessary.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    I've got to agree that if I created the most watched YouTube video of all time that even I would probably be able to turn that into some cash. But I don't think that's a viable solution to the problem of novelists, etc., being able to earn a living in a world of unfettered copying. Copyright is not a restriction on anyone's "creative" work. It restricts the right to copy things. (Not that I'm happy with all the details of current copyright law.)
    - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
      I have to disagree. Copyright prevents re-use and new work. The novelist wishing to earn a living is also taking a risk being a novelist, just as I take a risk in paying for an education that may not land me a job. I still charge for my time. The novelist can still charge for his or hers. We both must do something useful. If his or her novel is useful "enough" to live on alone - wonderful - but we shouldn't take it for granted that that is necessarily going to be the case, or that something like copyright will help it to be, or that that would even be a good thing (that people can make a living doing something that society wouldn't even naturally value enough to remunerate). At the same time as all of that is going on, people are going to continue trying to make the best of what's around - and that includes copying.
    - 13y ago
- Thrall 13y ago
  In addition to the other answers, don't forget that in the situation described, if you remove the 'thousands of unauthorized copies', you still haven't sold any copies. In terms of semantics: "Say I write a book but nobody purchases a copy." In more meaningful terms: If people do not value your book highly enough to pay you for it, then without the thousands of unauthorized copies, you are an unknown writer languishing in obscurity. With the copies, you have at least started to publicise your name and your message.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    "If people do not value your book highly enough to pay you for it" But the crux of the matter is that people will, in overwhelming numbers, choose not to pay if they are not compelled to pay, even if they value the content. If you eliminate the thousands of unauthorized copies, it is not true that I still haven't sold any copies. I would perhaps have several hundred sales. I might prefer the several thousand free downloads, but I should have that choice. Look at the "Pioneer One" example brought up in another comment. Four million downloads and a mere $20,000 raised. People feel entitled to free stuff; no matter how great they think it is, if they can get away with letting others pay, they will. All the "fans", and they refused to kick in one dollar for the content that they value so highly.
    - andrewcooke 13y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_One says they have raised $100,000. the $20,000 number was for a specific target. more generally, your argument seems to hinge on the idea that they would make more money if they could. but it's not clear to me that is the case.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        I think the poster boys for pay what you want, Radiohead and NIN, don't think this model is a good idea anymore because of exactly what is mentioned above: people want too much free stuff if they can get it and that isn't sustainable. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/4/4054634/musics-pay-what-you-want-pioneers-sour-on-giving-away-songs http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/4/4054634/musics-pay-what-you...
- belorn 13y ago
  It create the same value as a kid going to class, sharing a bag of sweet or fruits with the others in the class. Except, the bag is a star trek replicator. The act itself produce community, and community create society, and functioning society is a requirement for a even basic standard of living. Denying people access to knowledge, culture and useful information on the single basis of money is in my view wrong. Why should we let poor farmers die of famine by denying them access to knowledge that cost us nothing to give? Why should only children from rich families be able to access culture and become great artists? To quote professor Eben Moglen: The great moral question of the twenty-first century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?
  - tjr 13y ago
    Except, the bag is a star trek replicator. I think that's totally awesome in theory. In practice, I can give away all of the software, music, and artwork that I create, because we have "replicators" for it, but it seems that Honda can't replicate me a car and the local contracting company can't replicate me a house. Don't misunderstand me. I really want to give away everything I create for free. I think that would be wonderful. But until and unless the parties that create what I want and need are willing and able to do the same, it kind of puts me in an awkward position. I guess one solution is to work for pay only on things that aren't copyable yet, and consider all things that are copyable to be, by default, of zero monetary value, and if made at all, then made as a charitable gift to society. Is that a good path? (Really asking, not a trick question.)
    - coldpie 13y ago
      >I guess one solution is to work for pay only on things that aren't copyable yet, and consider all things that are copyable to be, by default, of zero monetary value, and if made at all, then made as a charitable gift to society. Is that a good path? This is a really good question and it's been in the back of my head for years. I think reality might force it to be the only tenable position, although one important piece you're missing is the willingness for people to pay you even if they don't have to. I think people recognize that there is value in your product, even if they aren't required to pay for your product to receive it. Many won't, but some will voluntarily pay you to compensate you for the value they received. Advertising is another option. The end result I see is we give up the massive budget productions (AAA movies), and instead receive creative works created by passionate individuals who want to spend their free time (youtube). If I had to choose between that result and destroying Internet and computing freedom, I think I would pick giving up massive productions. I don't know. It's an interesting question, thanks for bringing it up.
- marknutter 13y ago
  The more likely scenario is that you will write a book and nobody will purchase a copy nor download one from torrent sites. Until you've become popular, your work is essentially worthless. You are validated by your appreciators.
- lifeformed 13y ago
  I think it's quite uncommon to have a commercial product that is widely pirated but not widely sold. It's always going to be roughly the same proportions of sales-to-pirates for your product. if you had thousands of copies downloaded but only a handful of copies sold, it probably means it wasn't a very popular book, and wouldn't have sold well regardless of piracy or not. If pirating didn't exist, your sales numbers might not change much because the benefits of no piracy (payment being the only option) somewhat cancels out the benefits of piracy (widespread knowledge of your product). I'm not condoning piracy, but the effects of it are complex. I'd rather replace it with a friendlier approach, like Bandcamp's pay-what-you-want options.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    That's an interesting assertion about the economics of piracy. Any research to back it up?
    - lifeformed 13y ago
      I don't have any citations. It's not a hard rule and doesn't apply everywhere, but I feel like it would be somewhat applicable in this situation. It's just a thing that I've concluded as a result of my own experiences with selling digital media (games and music). Piracy did indeed spread awareness of my music and game, although it's hard to say if caused any lost revenue. I supposed some fraction of pirates would have instead paid for the media had they not been able to pirate it, but there would also be a fraction of paying customers who would not have heard about the media had their peers not pirated it. It's hard to tell if these two populations are roughly equal in size, but I have a hunch that the second group is larger. This is based on our sales data following our involvement in the Humble Bundle: http://hitboxteam.com/dustforce-sales-figures http://hitboxteam.com/dustforce-sales-figures If you look at the third chart, you can see that after the Humble Bundle spikes, the blue line starts to have an upward slope, whereas it was almost flat before. This indicates that sales on Steam increased after the Bundle finished, due to the huge influx of new players (many who only paid a penny). It seems that the more people playing the game, the more copies you will sell, because more awareness is raised. There are a lot of factors involved in that that don't let me conclusively say that this effect extends to pirates too, but it seems reasonable. Since I can't do anything about piracy, I don't let it bother me too much and just focus on making things worth buying. It's just a part of the business, so it's factored into it all.
- renanbirck 13y ago
  Quite an uncommon situation as far as I have seen. Can you actually provide an example of a book (or anything else) that nobody bought, but that was heavily pirated?
res0nat0r 13y ago
Doesn't seem very loving to me if I explicitly state I don't want you to copy my work and then you go ahead and do it against my wishes. This appeal to emotion argument is quaint, but nonsense.
- marknutter 13y ago
  And how exactly do you plan to stop people copying your work? Short of locking down the internet this activity is not preventable. If you don't want people copying your work, don't publish your work. Keep it locked up in a safe and never let it see the light of day. You can smile knowing you've created a masterpiece that nobody will tarnish it by consuming it and spreading it throughout the world. Seriously, though, this isn't about an appeal to emotion, it's about facing the realities of today's connected world. Information can now be replicated at zero cost. Therefore, it has zero monetary value. If you want to feed yourself, perhaps you should either come up with clever new ways of monetizing your artistic talents, or make physical widgets that do have scarcity (and hope to God 3D printers don't become more sophisticated).
  - leephillips 13y ago
    "Information can now be replicated at zero cost. Therefore, it has zero monetary value." This is not as obvious to me as it seems to be to you. Some things have monetary value because of convention. For example, money. These days money is just information, although there is still a little cash in circulation. What if I figure out a way, at "zero cost", to move information around such that your bank thinks that the money in your account is now in my account? The only things stopping me are laws, technical barriers involving cryptographic safeguards, and not being a thief. Why can't society decide, in the interests of fostering creativity, to erect these mechanisms for music, novels, and movies?
    - marknutter 13y ago
      Because in order to erect mechanisms for preventing the spread of information, we must be willing to destroy the value that the internet provides in the first place. Protecting money, even if only represented as information, does not require we lock down the internet. Anyways, perhaps you're inadvertently arguing in favor of a gold backed dollar?

leephillips 13y ago

Then maybe you can help me understand what it means. Say I write a book but nobody purchases a copy, while thousands of unauthorized copies are downloaded from torrent sites. How does all this "value" put food on my table?

soneca 13y ago
It does if you are smart enough to pursue this value. Money from selling books doesn't have to be your goal. If thousands of people are reading your work and getting value from it you may offer more value that they would, this time, exchange for money. Just like music stars earn a lot of money from live shows. You may become a speaker, you may sell additional stuff derived from your book (as a freemium modelo for book market). You may sell this fame of yours to sign profitable contracts to future books with a publisher. You may create online courses to offer to those who read your book (if it is a technical one) or try to sell the rights to TV movies if it is literature. Well, it is hard to create from an hypotetical situation, but I think you got the point.
- rewind 13y ago
  This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value, the downloaders receive value, but no exchange is made. The idea that the author has to create MORE value to MAYBE be able to participate in an exchange is just a weak argument for people who don't want to admit that an exchange should take place right off that bat, and if not, the downloaders should not receive any value from the author (i.e. don't download and read the book).
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    This thread started talking about the value that readers provide. People listen to the Beatles partly because people listen to the Beatles. Where's the direct cash payment for that value add? If musicians aren't going to reward the people that advertise their work then they shouldn't release it in the first place.
  - r0s 13y ago
    I think we can all agree the problem with publishing is getting read. There's your value. Force the sale early and you trade that for something else. Mince about ideology all you want, this is the market.
  - chongli 13y ago
    >This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value, the downloaders receive value, but no exchange is made. That's where you're wrong. An audience is value in and of itself. The trouble most authors have is with leveraging that value. Traditionally they'd handed the keys over to a big publisher and hoped for the best -- a sucker bet if I'd ever seen one. Now that the exclusive power of distribution has been stripped away from traditional publishers there's actually more opportunity than ever for an author to find and derive value from an audience; it just takes more savvy (and less luck).
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      > An audience is value in and of itself. An audience that does not pay for things is of limited value to someone who needs money to keep making things.
      - marknutter 13y ago
        That's a pretty naive view of the situation. An audience who perhaps doesn't pay for art but does help spread the word about that art is indeed valuable. Perhaps even more valuable than someone who pays for art but tells nobody else about it.
- leephillips 13y ago
  "You may become a speaker, you may sell additional stuff derived from your book" What if I don't want to do that? What if I just want to write books? I can't make a living from that unless I also become a showman or sell some kind of other crap? "You may sell this fame of yours to sign profitable contracts to future books with a publisher" But if the publishers can't make any profit because everyone is just love-copying books, they won't be able to offer me any money. "online courses" "TV movies" These sound like plausible ideas at first, but the courses and movies could be torrented as easily as the book, so this profit stream dries up as well. "but I think you got the point." I think I did, too.
  - r0s 13y ago
    > What if I don't want to do that? What if I just want to write books? I can't make a living from that unless I also become a showman or sell some kind of other crap? Welcome to the creative industry. The previous copy-protected market guarantees your living in no way. The vast majority of talent is simply fighting obscurity. You're arguing about the results of fame, which is very rare.
  - coldpie 13y ago
    > What if I don't want to do that? What if I just want to write books? I can't make a living from that unless I also become a showman or sell some kind of other crap? If the only alternative is to destroy the free Internet and our computing freedom, then yes. I'm sorry.
    - leephillips 13y ago
      I'm not up for destroying the internet. I don't think that's the only alternative.
rewind 13y ago
Wouldn't all the love you'd be feeling more than make up for an empty belly?
blaze33 13y ago
I doesn't. But it actually brought a lot of value for thousands of people. It's always the same problem, how do you maximize the value for the society while still allowing the author to get a fair compensation for her work ? Now we can have endless debates over how much we really care adding value to the society and how we actually define "fair"…
- betterunix 13y ago
  At what point in history has copyright truly been about compensating authors? Copyright began with censorship laws, and eventually came to be nothing more than a government-granted monopoly for printing press operators. Despite the Statute of Anne mentioning authors, it was the lobbying pressure by printers who sought a competitive advantage that led to that law being passed. Authors and other artists are an afterthought.
polymatter 13y ago
The same way all that "value" you might get from a loving family, good friends, good weather and high self-esteem. Things have value even if they don't have a $ price attached.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  Those things don't translate into food automatically.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  You're not helping.
vy8vWJlco 13y ago
It puts food on your table in the same way it did for PSY (the "Gangnam Style" guy)... People learn about you, and will pay a premium for almost anything you touch. For example, to see you live, or to speak to you about anything, or to buy your old house or car at substantially more than it's worth. In short, you become a celebrity. That is the intangible value created for yourself, as a reward for the intangible value you create for society. It works in areas like math and research too. Publishing research will get you a better job. Similarly, having your song copied will give you more income, even if it's just a tip - like a waitress, or a street mime. It's a spectrum of risk - from donations to Kickstarter - and nowhere in there is copyright - a restriction on other people's creative work (to the detriment of everyone, including yourself) - necessary.
- leephillips 13y ago
  I've got to agree that if I created the most watched YouTube video of all time that even I would probably be able to turn that into some cash. But I don't think that's a viable solution to the problem of novelists, etc., being able to earn a living in a world of unfettered copying. Copyright is not a restriction on anyone's "creative" work. It restricts the right to copy things. (Not that I'm happy with all the details of current copyright law.)
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
    I have to disagree. Copyright prevents re-use and new work. The novelist wishing to earn a living is also taking a risk being a novelist, just as I take a risk in paying for an education that may not land me a job. I still charge for my time. The novelist can still charge for his or hers. We both must do something useful. If his or her novel is useful "enough" to live on alone - wonderful - but we shouldn't take it for granted that that is necessarily going to be the case, or that something like copyright will help it to be, or that that would even be a good thing (that people can make a living doing something that society wouldn't even naturally value enough to remunerate). At the same time as all of that is going on, people are going to continue trying to make the best of what's around - and that includes copying.
  - 13y ago
Thrall 13y ago
In addition to the other answers, don't forget that in the situation described, if you remove the 'thousands of unauthorized copies', you still haven't sold any copies. In terms of semantics: "Say I write a book but nobody purchases a copy." In more meaningful terms: If people do not value your book highly enough to pay you for it, then without the thousands of unauthorized copies, you are an unknown writer languishing in obscurity. With the copies, you have at least started to publicise your name and your message.
- leephillips 13y ago
  "If people do not value your book highly enough to pay you for it" But the crux of the matter is that people will, in overwhelming numbers, choose not to pay if they are not compelled to pay, even if they value the content. If you eliminate the thousands of unauthorized copies, it is not true that I still haven't sold any copies. I would perhaps have several hundred sales. I might prefer the several thousand free downloads, but I should have that choice. Look at the "Pioneer One" example brought up in another comment. Four million downloads and a mere $20,000 raised. People feel entitled to free stuff; no matter how great they think it is, if they can get away with letting others pay, they will. All the "fans", and they refused to kick in one dollar for the content that they value so highly.
  - andrewcooke 13y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_One says they have raised $100,000. the $20,000 number was for a specific target. more generally, your argument seems to hinge on the idea that they would make more money if they could. but it's not clear to me that is the case.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      I think the poster boys for pay what you want, Radiohead and NIN, don't think this model is a good idea anymore because of exactly what is mentioned above: people want too much free stuff if they can get it and that isn't sustainable. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/4/4054634/musics-pay-what-you-want-pioneers-sour-on-giving-away-songs http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/4/4054634/musics-pay-what-you...
belorn 13y ago
It create the same value as a kid going to class, sharing a bag of sweet or fruits with the others in the class. Except, the bag is a star trek replicator. The act itself produce community, and community create society, and functioning society is a requirement for a even basic standard of living. Denying people access to knowledge, culture and useful information on the single basis of money is in my view wrong. Why should we let poor farmers die of famine by denying them access to knowledge that cost us nothing to give? Why should only children from rich families be able to access culture and become great artists? To quote professor Eben Moglen: The great moral question of the twenty-first century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?
- tjr 13y ago
  Except, the bag is a star trek replicator. I think that's totally awesome in theory. In practice, I can give away all of the software, music, and artwork that I create, because we have "replicators" for it, but it seems that Honda can't replicate me a car and the local contracting company can't replicate me a house. Don't misunderstand me. I really want to give away everything I create for free. I think that would be wonderful. But until and unless the parties that create what I want and need are willing and able to do the same, it kind of puts me in an awkward position. I guess one solution is to work for pay only on things that aren't copyable yet, and consider all things that are copyable to be, by default, of zero monetary value, and if made at all, then made as a charitable gift to society. Is that a good path? (Really asking, not a trick question.)
  - coldpie 13y ago
    >I guess one solution is to work for pay only on things that aren't copyable yet, and consider all things that are copyable to be, by default, of zero monetary value, and if made at all, then made as a charitable gift to society. Is that a good path? This is a really good question and it's been in the back of my head for years. I think reality might force it to be the only tenable position, although one important piece you're missing is the willingness for people to pay you even if they don't have to. I think people recognize that there is value in your product, even if they aren't required to pay for your product to receive it. Many won't, but some will voluntarily pay you to compensate you for the value they received. Advertising is another option. The end result I see is we give up the massive budget productions (AAA movies), and instead receive creative works created by passionate individuals who want to spend their free time (youtube). If I had to choose between that result and destroying Internet and computing freedom, I think I would pick giving up massive productions. I don't know. It's an interesting question, thanks for bringing it up.
marknutter 13y ago
The more likely scenario is that you will write a book and nobody will purchase a copy nor download one from torrent sites. Until you've become popular, your work is essentially worthless. You are validated by your appreciators.
lifeformed 13y ago
I think it's quite uncommon to have a commercial product that is widely pirated but not widely sold. It's always going to be roughly the same proportions of sales-to-pirates for your product. if you had thousands of copies downloaded but only a handful of copies sold, it probably means it wasn't a very popular book, and wouldn't have sold well regardless of piracy or not. If pirating didn't exist, your sales numbers might not change much because the benefits of no piracy (payment being the only option) somewhat cancels out the benefits of piracy (widespread knowledge of your product). I'm not condoning piracy, but the effects of it are complex. I'd rather replace it with a friendlier approach, like Bandcamp's pay-what-you-want options.
- leephillips 13y ago
  That's an interesting assertion about the economics of piracy. Any research to back it up?
  - lifeformed 13y ago
    I don't have any citations. It's not a hard rule and doesn't apply everywhere, but I feel like it would be somewhat applicable in this situation. It's just a thing that I've concluded as a result of my own experiences with selling digital media (games and music). Piracy did indeed spread awareness of my music and game, although it's hard to say if caused any lost revenue. I supposed some fraction of pirates would have instead paid for the media had they not been able to pirate it, but there would also be a fraction of paying customers who would not have heard about the media had their peers not pirated it. It's hard to tell if these two populations are roughly equal in size, but I have a hunch that the second group is larger. This is based on our sales data following our involvement in the Humble Bundle: http://hitboxteam.com/dustforce-sales-figures http://hitboxteam.com/dustforce-sales-figures If you look at the third chart, you can see that after the Humble Bundle spikes, the blue line starts to have an upward slope, whereas it was almost flat before. This indicates that sales on Steam increased after the Bundle finished, due to the huge influx of new players (many who only paid a penny). It seems that the more people playing the game, the more copies you will sell, because more awareness is raised. There are a lot of factors involved in that that don't let me conclusively say that this effect extends to pirates too, but it seems reasonable. Since I can't do anything about piracy, I don't let it bother me too much and just focus on making things worth buying. It's just a part of the business, so it's factored into it all.
renanbirck 13y ago
Quite an uncommon situation as far as I have seen. Can you actually provide an example of a book (or anything else) that nobody bought, but that was heavily pirated?

res0nat0r 13y ago

Doesn't seem very loving to me if I explicitly state I don't want you to copy my work and then you go ahead and do it against my wishes. This appeal to emotion argument is quaint, but nonsense.

marknutter 13y ago
And how exactly do you plan to stop people copying your work? Short of locking down the internet this activity is not preventable. If you don't want people copying your work, don't publish your work. Keep it locked up in a safe and never let it see the light of day. You can smile knowing you've created a masterpiece that nobody will tarnish it by consuming it and spreading it throughout the world. Seriously, though, this isn't about an appeal to emotion, it's about facing the realities of today's connected world. Information can now be replicated at zero cost. Therefore, it has zero monetary value. If you want to feed yourself, perhaps you should either come up with clever new ways of monetizing your artistic talents, or make physical widgets that do have scarcity (and hope to God 3D printers don't become more sophisticated).
- leephillips 13y ago
  "Information can now be replicated at zero cost. Therefore, it has zero monetary value." This is not as obvious to me as it seems to be to you. Some things have monetary value because of convention. For example, money. These days money is just information, although there is still a little cash in circulation. What if I figure out a way, at "zero cost", to move information around such that your bank thinks that the money in your account is now in my account? The only things stopping me are laws, technical barriers involving cryptographic safeguards, and not being a thief. Why can't society decide, in the interests of fostering creativity, to erect these mechanisms for music, novels, and movies?
  - marknutter 13y ago
    Because in order to erect mechanisms for preventing the spread of information, we must be willing to destroy the value that the internet provides in the first place. Protecting money, even if only represented as information, does not require we lock down the internet. Anyways, perhaps you're inadvertently arguing in favor of a gold backed dollar?