• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Downloading - Stealing?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Buzz is correct in asserting that the future of eBussiness is in selling a service, not a product.

The movie industry to starting to understand. The theaters won't lose revenue from online piracy because no matter what, seeing a movie in the theater is a unique experience. The theaters don't sell a product (the movie) they sell the service and the experience.

But movie stores like blockbuster were in a pickle. Piracy WAS seriously cutting into their profits. There were two options:
1) Stop piracy.
2) Change their business model.

Stopping piracy is a losing battle. It is essentially trying to stop hackers, and anyone with some knowledge in the field know that hackers have the advantage. As long as movies are stored in digital format on computers somewhere in the world, they will be stolen.

Instead, they changed the way they do business. Really it's more accurate to say Neflix forced them to do it. But, whatever. They started offering a service. As many movies as you can watch, for a relatively low price. Shipped right to your door. And since the movie quality is better, for most people, it's better than pirating movies.

But even the movie industry isn't the first place for this to happen! The original hackers were around before there were home computers. They were called phreakers. It's a kind of concatenation of phone and freakers. Essentially they hacked phones and telephone systems to get free calls and such.

But obviously, phreaks don't exist today. How did the telephone companies stop the phreakers? They started selling services. When you have a phone contract today, you also get a wide array of services that you can't pirate. Furthermore, phone calls became so cheap to the point where it was pointless to risk jail time to hack them.

The music industry really needs to do some research. Look at the ways that other industries have successfully warded off hackers from taking their revenue. Let me tell you how not to do it: To continue selling CD's as a product.
 

TheBuzzSaw

Young Link Extraordinaire
Moderator
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
10,479
Piracy is a new kind of crime for most people. Of course we had patents/copyright before the Internet became big, but now those things are super-sensitive issues. It is hard to fear piracy because it is something people can commit from the comfort of their own homes. In their minds, enforcing laws about what we download onto our computers is like enforcing laws against eating a pizza slice starting with the crust. The mindset is nowhere near that of outright stealing an item from retail.

Yes, piracy hurts sales for those whose business models depends on selling digital goods directly and should be punished accordingly. However, somehow, these companies were able to inflate the damages to ridiculous amounts. One person pirates one song that goes for about 99 cents, and the RIAA tries to pin the damages at $10,000. WTF? Sick and wrong. The gross part about it is that the RIAA doesn't have to prove that the damage was actually done (i.e. the file was shared with tons of other people). They are allowed to just assume. For a company who so adamantly equates "piracy" to "stealing", it seems odd they can get away with this whereas in a real theft case, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant either has the loot or actually committed the theft (caught on camera or whatever). My point is that $10,000 doesn't just teach them a lesson. It literally takes their entire life away. The fee should be $100 per song at most until the RIAA can provide proof of further damage.

As for the main topic, no, downloading is not stealing. Yes, it is copyright infringement. Once I had that cleared up for me a year or two ago, I started hating the MPAA's commercial where they equate downloading movies to stealing cars, purses, etc. Again, I am not supporting piracy in any way, but I am against this form of propaganda. They blow the situation way out of proporation because they still view files as individual units of property. Files can duplicated with no effort. The RIAA/MPAA (and others like them) need to pull their minds out of the gutter and get with the times. The world views the Internet as the holy grail of information. The RIAA/MPAA view the Internet as the criminal superhighway.
 

Delphiki

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
2,065
Location
Sacramento / Berkeley
What difference does it make if it is technically stealing or not?

I think the bigger question is if it is morally right.


Look at the artist example. If a band makes a CD, when we DL the tracks for free, we obtain the CD, and remove the creator's ability to use the money. When it comes to information the question isn't about whether or not we took it from them, it's what they feel they "deserved" in order for us to possess the information.
 

TheBuzzSaw

Young Link Extraordinaire
Moderator
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
10,479
What difference does it make if it is technically stealing or not?

I think the bigger question is if it is morally right.
The issue is that people blow it out of proportion as if we did outright steal it. Of course it isn't right (and I even mentioned that). The problem here is that consumers do not feel it is right for companies to sit back and profit off a zero-cost distribution model. So, while it is not their right to decide (hence laws protecting it), it is indeed fair argument. Yes, there is a fixed cost for creating the content initially, and companies need to regain those profits. However, numerous people have proven that digital content can be used to promote a scarce good. For instance, several musicians today are delivering their music 100% free and reaping the rewards of selling concerts, paraphernalia, and exclusive content. These musicians' fan base is much larger than if they had attempted to sell their music directly.

How do you think TV shows gain an audience? There is no risk to first-time viewers (aside from wasting time). That's why.
 

Mic_128

Wake up...
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
46,183
Location
Steam
Radiohead is a great example of this, selling there latest CD directly from their website (and letting you pick how much to pay).
That didn't go to well, something like 80% didn't pay anything, and those that did worked out to be an average of $6 for the CD.
 

TheBuzzSaw

Young Link Extraordinaire
Moderator
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
10,479
That didn't go to well, something like 80% didn't pay anything, and those that did worked out to be an average of $6 for the CD.
You have to be careful with percentages. While I don't know the exact numbers for Radiohead, an ideal situation would involve a small percentage of a larger pool. Would you rather make money off 100% of 100 fans or 1% of 100,000 fans? That is the goal here.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
You also have to be careful about that statistic, because from my research, a study performed with 3000 people showed that 1000 out of the 3000 didn't pay, with the average price being 4 pounds, which is almost 8 Canadian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
That didn't go to well, something like 80% didn't pay anything, and those that did worked out to be an average of $6 for the CD.
Considering that all Radiohead payed for was the bandwidth (No cd, shipping, or added store costs), $6 dollars is **** good.
 

The Mad Hatter

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
813
Location
Arkansas (UofA)
I thought the Radiohead idea was genius.
1. People were going to rip/share it anyway so why not?
2. Way more people were able to hear the album (better publicity).
3. Not all money comes from the bands albums. More people heard the album = More people showing up for shows.

South Parks said it best. "Bands should be stoked people even care enough to dl their music. They should be playing for the music not the money" (something like that)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom