4 ms·

Cost is not value. The pirate's service will be more valuable to me when he offers more that I value than the legal provider does. How much either charges for

Cost is not value. The pirate's service will be more valuable to me when he offers more that I value than the legal provider does. How much either charges for the service has no bearing on that. Now, the legal provider may actually offer something more valuable, but some people will still choose to pirate because the cost is free. But that is clearly not always the case, since people still often pay for content. Otherwise, Steam wouldn't be a business. That's what Gabe is getting at. I could pirate games for free, but it's a pain compared to Steam, and I value my time. Since the service provided by Steam is superior to pirating the software, and because paying on Steam is less hassle than attempting to pirate a thing, I use Steam. (There are other reasons, but from pure rational self-interest or whatever, that's how it works for me.) So legal providers that offer more than pirates do will still face issues of piracy, however legal providers that offer an inferior service to even pirates might expect that their product will have near-100% piracy rates, and they will be forced out of business.

nlawalker 13y ago
> How much either charges for the service has no bearing on that. This is just dodging the subject; I'm talking about net value. How valuable would Steam be to you if it cost $100 a month to be a member? Anyways, my point was meant to be in the context of movies, which is what's offered by the linked service. Steam works because they sell games, not movies. Games aren't hard to pirate (a game's bits aren't any harder to get than a movie's), but pirated copies are hard to use compared to legal copies because it's easy to build games that require Internet connectivity to verify authenticity. No one minds this because they probably need the Internet to play the game in the first place (Google "World of Goo piracy" for an example of what can happen when just this one point doesn't hold true, and tell me again that piracy is just a service problem). People like to say Steam is "DRM done right" but it's not, it's just that it happens to be the case that the DRM doesn't require anything you don't already need to enjoy the content. Movies are obviously different. How would one offer a service that can beat piracy on convenience, when piracy offers un-DRMed files that you can use anywhere? It's conceivable, but how much would they be willing to charge for this service? Therein lies the rub. The root of the problem is that the movie industry does not agree with people's valuation of their content. They don't want to sell you a just-released movie, unDRMed, for a buck, or anything approaching the $0 that piracy charges. They'd rather keep their existing business model and try to raise the perceived risk of piracy. It's disingenuous to say that it's a service problem and not a pricing problem merely because the service doesn't exist, when the primary reason that the service doesn't exist is pricing. The movie industry isn't going to invest in building a service if they can't sell their content at the price point they want. The most important thing to note about Steam isn't the DRM, it's the prices. The content producers have conceded to the fact that they have to adjust their prices to match the public's perception of the value of their content. The movie industry hasn't made that concession. Yet.
- fournm 13y ago
  Piracy offers DRM free movies that you can use anywhere, sure. But very rarely does it have properly synced well-written subtitles, multiple audio tracks, and a quality encoding. Find a combination of those that works together without 30 minutes of fiddling with the subtitles and you've probably just wasted your weekend even if you frequent high quality private trackers. It's also generally harder (not impossible, mind--same as the above) to find extras like cast/crew commentary, blooper reels, etc. These wouldn't be hard for studios to provide in some theoretical Movie-Steam. Even in the case of games that don't use an internet connection to verify themselves, though, Steam is still more convenient--automatic patching without needing to try and find a new crack every time, no need to hunt down files or patches every time you want to reinstall, less concerns about malware, etc. If Steam had a monthly fee, I'd probably still see it as worth it up to a certain point--definitely not the 100$ you mention, but considering how much use I get out of it it isn't completely off the table.
  - watwut 13y ago
    Legal DVDs have limited selection of subtitles and you can not rewind them 10 seconds back to review scene if I misunderstood. I downloaded even movies I own for that reason (downloading is legal here, uploading is not). I like to watch movies with english subtitles an dvd rarely have those. I do not care about extras. I do care about ability to jump where I want in the movie and about seeing movie I brought without warnings and ads.
    - endemic 13y ago
      +1 "seeing movie I brought without warnings and ads"
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    This program's site claims that it offers subtitles. I don't know about the quality though. I do know that subtitles haven't been an issue for me when downloading from private trackers. 30 minutes is a gross exaggeration.
  - 13y ago
gdy 13y ago
"I value my time" - and yet you waste it on games and hn
- deciplex 13y ago
  It's mine to waste. When other people waste my time, that irritates me a great deal. When I 'waste' my own - not so much.

nlawalker 13y ago

> How much either charges for the service has no bearing on that. This is just dodging the subject; I'm talking about net value. How valuable would Steam be to you if it cost $100 a month to be a member? Anyways, my point was meant to be in the context of movies, which is what's offered by the linked service. Steam works because they sell games, not movies. Games aren't hard to pirate (a game's bits aren't any harder to get than a movie's), but pirated copies are hard to use compared to legal copies because it's easy to build games that require Internet connectivity to verify authenticity. No one minds this because they probably need the Internet to play the game in the first place (Google "World of Goo piracy" for an example of what can happen when just this one point doesn't hold true, and tell me again that piracy is just a service problem). People like to say Steam is "DRM done right" but it's not, it's just that it happens to be the case that the DRM doesn't require anything you don't already need to enjoy the content. Movies are obviously different. How would one offer a service that can beat piracy on convenience, when piracy offers un-DRMed files that you can use anywhere? It's conceivable, but how much would they be willing to charge for this service? Therein lies the rub. The root of the problem is that the movie industry does not agree with people's valuation of their content. They don't want to sell you a just-released movie, unDRMed, for a buck, or anything approaching the $0 that piracy charges. They'd rather keep their existing business model and try to raise the perceived risk of piracy. It's disingenuous to say that it's a service problem and not a pricing problem merely because the service doesn't exist, when the primary reason that the service doesn't exist is pricing. The movie industry isn't going to invest in building a service if they can't sell their content at the price point they want. The most important thing to note about Steam isn't the DRM, it's the prices. The content producers have conceded to the fact that they have to adjust their prices to match the public's perception of the value of their content. The movie industry hasn't made that concession. Yet.

fournm 13y ago
Piracy offers DRM free movies that you can use anywhere, sure. But very rarely does it have properly synced well-written subtitles, multiple audio tracks, and a quality encoding. Find a combination of those that works together without 30 minutes of fiddling with the subtitles and you've probably just wasted your weekend even if you frequent high quality private trackers. It's also generally harder (not impossible, mind--same as the above) to find extras like cast/crew commentary, blooper reels, etc. These wouldn't be hard for studios to provide in some theoretical Movie-Steam. Even in the case of games that don't use an internet connection to verify themselves, though, Steam is still more convenient--automatic patching without needing to try and find a new crack every time, no need to hunt down files or patches every time you want to reinstall, less concerns about malware, etc. If Steam had a monthly fee, I'd probably still see it as worth it up to a certain point--definitely not the 100$ you mention, but considering how much use I get out of it it isn't completely off the table.
- watwut 13y ago
  Legal DVDs have limited selection of subtitles and you can not rewind them 10 seconds back to review scene if I misunderstood. I downloaded even movies I own for that reason (downloading is legal here, uploading is not). I like to watch movies with english subtitles an dvd rarely have those. I do not care about extras. I do care about ability to jump where I want in the movie and about seeing movie I brought without warnings and ads.
  - endemic 13y ago
    +1 "seeing movie I brought without warnings and ads"
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  This program's site claims that it offers subtitles. I don't know about the quality though. I do know that subtitles haven't been an issue for me when downloading from private trackers. 30 minutes is a gross exaggeration.
- 13y ago

gdy 13y ago

"I value my time" - and yet you waste it on games and hn

deciplex 13y ago
It's mine to waste. When other people waste my time, that irritates me a great deal. When I 'waste' my own - not so much.