Illegally Downloading

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, I spent about a half an hour thinking, "how do I refute this" and wishing that I was AltF4.

You have a gross misunderstanding of how revenue works.

When the Humble Bundle sells $1.2 million, that's an impetus for companies to switch to that marketing scheme UNTIL they see that there was still large numbers of pirate out there stealing the game from the company servers and costing bandwidth dollars.

But it still made $1,200,000, which is a solid sum. I don't understand why it should matter if some people would pirate it if:
a) They're already almost giving it away and the profit margin for people who don't pirate it could be close to 0 (if everyone were greedy *******s), but isn't
b) The pirates are literally stealing one cent from them.

It's a matter of people being willing to donate. If everyone bought the bundle at around one cent like you should assume if you're going to assume that with legal piracy, everyone would pirate everything, then it still wouldn't have turned a profit, and that merely off of the bandwidth costs, forget R&D and coding.

In this instance, the negative will be viewed. If Indie companies can't convince pirates to pay EVEN A SINGLE PENNY to get 5 - 6 games, how can a Triple A publisher, who pirates oppose on some misguided principle expect to make a cent... literally?

...but... They still turned a profit! Some people wouldn't pay even a single penny, but others (like you) payed 40 bucks! I payed 20 euros for that package. The moral of this story: even if something is almost free, then there will still be people who will donate to the creators (how does mozilla turn a profit on firefox, regarding server bandwidth and the like?). This point seems to work against you, rather than for you.

When you pirate, you don't hurt the producers as much as you hurt other consumers. Producers, for the most part, will continue to make loads of money, though not as much as they'd like or deserve. However, when things are pirated, it encourages anti-piracy measures that hurt the users who use the product correctly. Take Spore. EA has had issues with piracy, locked down Spore tightly, so people who used it correctly could not get full access to their own product, and being casual users, didn't have the knowledge or interest in pirating the game, so they paid money for it, which showed EA that even with heavy lock down, people would buy their products.

It also made pirates into folk heroes. And made the game worse.

This is the point that all anti-copyright/pro-piracy people miss. The market can support the old ways of commerce BECAUSE people still support it. If no one bought EA's locked down games, they'd change without hesitation. Instead, they are doing that + they are looking at offering microtransactions for items in games like weapons in MMOs. Guess what? People are also buying those enough to make that a feasible move.

People still support it mostly because:
A) there is no other forms widely available
B) piracy is still illegal and hung with draconian punishments
C) People are stupid

If there was a choice between Spore and similar, top-tier games that didn't have this stupid DRM, would people who know about DRM go for spore? I really, really doubt it. Plus, there was quite an outcry about this crap.

You can't copy the plastic on a CD (or whatever CDs are made out of...)! Yeah copying the program is simple. But every CD they have to buy costs money. Although, I'll admit, CD cost is trivial compared to how much is being charged per copy.

That's true, but you can also download it from adobe's website AFAIK.

But how will companies know who can and can't afford their product? I may be wrong in this but from what I think all the company sees is that so many people want this product.

You seem to be missing what I'm trying to say with this. I'm saying that if a business includes people who can't reasonably afford/buy their product in the demand merely because they want that product, then they're making a big mistake, and I'm also trying to show that if a person could not have bought it in the first place, and therefore didn't belong to the "demand" for the product in the first place, then it being pirated via bittorrent is no loss for the company, and merely a gain for the person who torrented. I'm aware that differentiating is not really possible and that this wouldn't hold up in court as an argument, I'm just trying to show you those two points.

Isn't destruction change?
Piracy destroyed vaudeville. and then there was recorded music. Now when did recorded music put a price tag on its stuff?

Piracy did not necessarily kill vaudeville. And if it did, then why are stadium concerts and broadway plays so popular, where vaudeville failed? Bootlegging a concert is nothing like going there and being in the crowd; in the same way, there was a very large visual part to Vaudeville, did the "piracy" via LPs really kill it?

The shift of New York City's Palace Theatre, vaudeville's epicenter, to an exclusively cinema presentation on 16 November 1932 is often considered to have been the death knell of vaudeville.[6] Yet no single event is more than reflective of its gradual withering. The line is blurred further by the number of vaudeville entrepreneurs who made more or less successful forays into the movie business. For example, Alexander Pantages quickly realized the importance of motion pictures as a form of entertainment. He incorporated them in his shows as early as 1902. Later, he entered into partnership with the motion picture distributor Famous Players, a subsidiary of Paramount Pictures. There was no abrupt end to vaudeville, though the form was clearly staggering by the late 1920s.

...probably not. It was something else entirely-specifically the onset of a better technology that effectively replaced it.

If that fee went to pay off stuff that was pirated, then I wouldn't that as too bad.

It's like public education, even parents without children are paying for public education in taxes. Seems like the same concept.

Indeed, the only problem being that it really hurts non-pirates as well... It would be a tricky way to do things, mostly because of these non-pirates. Another option would be to have different internet plans, where one has access to bittorrent-like materials and is more expensive, paying off the recording industry, while the other has the ISP blocking things like TPB, or any other torrent websites, and having a lower bandwidth cap, but being cheaper in return... Not sure. It seems like a subpar solution.

When I got brawl I payed forty smackers for it. So I just stuck with that price.

Of course, you know, rental prices would be far lower.

Okay, so in terms of a computer. What if someone (like big game junkies) downloads all the games they would've bought for their X-box or something for $10 bucks a month for each game they have. You still run into the same problem of consumers getting sapped of every dollar they have eventually. Unlike buying all those games at say GameStop for the one time price of $32.99 and then being done with it. The consumer's money can replenish then.

Unless, you mean that the option to buy a hard copy of the game is available, but those who download it from the internet pay that monthly fee. But in that sense it would become unfair to the internet downloader because now they are paying for the game. Then I guess that can be remedied by having the 10 a month as a sort of payment schedule. You'll pay 10 a month until you cover the cost of the game?

Actually, that would work. That seems like a very good idea, in fact-kind of like paying off a mortgage. Instead of paying the full price of the game, the game requires you to pay X% of the game until you've paid off the full price of the game + a certain extra fee. The trick, of course, is ensuring that these fees actually work. As far as hacking roms for old consoles, or isos in the case of Wii or Xbox games, then it doesn't because you can hardly expect one of those to be internet-usable. But they aren't as widespread (pirate-wise) as computer gaming.

And with computer gaming, you hit the problem real fast that this is once again some kind of DRM system. Although, it's worth mentioning that while you're paying this money monthly to play the game, if you stop playing the game after a little while (if you don't like it, for example), you pay less, and with many games, you're paying this extra bit for extra online content. So this could very well work for computer gaming, although for console gaming it doesn't begin to.

HEY ALTF4! There's your DRM improvement-the people involved trade a little copyright protection for an improved experience and slightly lower overall costs!

Well there are groups that lobby day and night and still don't get what they want.

...like the people who want finance reform to not be some toothless piece of ****! :V

As to studio artists who are to get shafted by the change. I guess that's business. I'll accept that. (I would be sad that a lot of my favorite jazz artists would be going out of business.)

Jazz is not that popular nowadays other than as a recorded medium, and I assume that most jazz artists that are worth supporting will have hardcore fans (such as the people that payed twice what was later a required price for the humble bundle, like CK) who will support them. It's jazz, there are a lot of old people listening to it, and a lot of people who, although they aren't old, would support the musicians rather than get it for free.

 

[blazedaces]

As to taking Economics, I'm on summer vacation, I don't take Eco until the beginning of next year. I still know about supply and demand however, and I don't see how you're telling me to look at something I haven't displayed incorrectly.

It's just a recommendation because a bit more info I think would help you out. Practicing how supply and demand curves result in the overall market price of a product (in an ideal market), how they shift as a result of various factors, etc. Again, it wasn't intended at all as an insult... if anything economics was one of my favorite classes and I think you might enjoy it too...

All points considered I am lacking in knowledge of economics, but I still don't see how with things such as what you listed how you can deny that piracy is hurting a company, I don't see how it's a victimless crime when it's obvious someone is losing money. And for the record Lost Money=/= Lost sale. If you never intended to buy it, it's not a lost sale, that however doesn't mean that it isn't lost money since you end up with something that you SHOULD HAVE paid for.

See, you're kind of doing it again (the black and white statement). You're trying to group "piracy" into one subcategory of horrible, when there are various scenarios to consider. You also continue to to use statements like "SHOULD HAVE paid for"... what in the world does that mean?

If you find a book on the side of the road, does that mean it's a lost sale, that you "SHOULD HAVE paid for" it? Your arguments NEVER HOLD UP when you compare the same logic to physical objects. It just simply doesn't make any sense. Borrowing a book, listening to someone else reading the book, finding the book, or simply walking into a book store and reading it without paying for it are ALL, according to you, methods of piracy AND "lost sales" AND situations where "you SHOULD HAVE paid for" the book...

-blazed

 

[Sieguest]

That's true, but you can also download it from adobe's website AFAIK.

True.

You seem to be missing what I'm trying to say with this. I'm saying that if a business includes people who can't reasonably afford/buy their product in the demand merely because they want that product, then they're making a big mistake, and I'm also trying to show that if a person could not have bought it in the first place, and therefore didn't belong to the "demand" for the product in the first place, then it being pirated via bittorrent is no loss for the company, and merely a gain for the person who torrented. I'm aware that differentiating is not really possible and that this wouldn't hold up in court as an argument, I'm just trying to show you those two points.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. It's just the way I saw looking at it. I was thinking more along the lines that if people didn't have the means to obtain something, they shouldn't be getting it/save up until that can get it.

The last part was what I had a problem with: if they could differentiate then I could definitely see how it works. But if they can't don't they run the hazard of making too many hard copies. And losing some money (not a lot really) for all the extra CDs that never got picked up?

Piracy did not necessarily kill vaudeville. And if it did, then why are stadium concerts and broadway plays so popular, where vaudeville failed? Bootlegging a concert is nothing like going there and being in the crowd; in the same way, there was a very large visual part to Vaudeville, did the "piracy" via LPs really kill it?


...probably not. It was something else entirely-specifically the onset of a better technology that effectively replaced it.

In two ways. By pirating LPs it detracted from those who could pay to see it live, but didn't want to pay.
And recording out popularized it too, which is why the piracy continued to happen.

I guess I can't say that it "killed" vaudeville moreso than severly hampered it in an untimely way.

Indeed, the only problem being that it really hurts non-pirates as well... It would be a tricky way to do things, mostly because of these non-pirates. Another option would be to have different internet plans, where one has access to bittorrent-like materials and is more expensive, paying off the recording industry, while the other has the ISP blocking things like TPB, or any other torrent websites, and having a lower bandwidth cap, but being cheaper in return... Not sure. It seems like a subpar solution.

Just like taxes for childless families hurt them for public education? (though that's only a portion of the taxes) There's some give and take somewhere, but I agree there might be a better solution.
The other one doesn't seem that bad everyone is getting paid off and is staying within their means. But I know what you're driving at, someone of lesser means who would want to partake of bit-torrent like materials, but couldn't handle the uped price would be forced to go with the cheaper option. Is that the problem you see?

Actually, that would work. That seems like a very good idea, in fact-kind of like paying off a mortgage. Instead of paying the full price of the game, the game requires you to pay X% of the game until you've paid off the full price of the game + a certain extra fee. The trick, of course, is ensuring that these fees actually work. As far as hacking roms for old consoles, or isos in the case of Wii or Xbox games, then it doesn't because you can hardly expect one of those to be internet-usable. But they aren't as widespread (pirate-wise) as computer gaming.

And with computer gaming, you hit the problem real fast that this is once again some kind of DRM system. Although, it's worth mentioning that while you're paying this money monthly to play the game, if you stop playing the game after a little while (if you don't like it, for example), you pay less, and with many games, you're paying this extra bit for extra online content. So this could very well work for computer gaming, although for console gaming it doesn't begin to.

Would a per-usage basis be a good determinant of how much is paid a month? That way for times whenever you play the game less you don't pay as much that month? It would be a pretty complicated to follow through on, but if it could work, then I'd go with it. I do see the problem with hacking roms and isos. The only remedy would be on the part of the company to make the game available for taking so that way, they could charge a price. But doesn't things like wii and xbox etc. have some sort of shop channel where you can get those games? (granted not every game in their history is there...)

Jazz is not that popular nowadays other than as a recorded medium, and I assume that most jazz artists that are worth supporting will have hardcore fans (such as the people that payed twice what was later a required price for the humble bundle, like CK) who will support them. It's jazz, there are a lot of old people listening to it, and a lot of people who, although they aren't old, would support the musicians rather than get it for free.

True.

It's just a recommendation because a bit more info I think would help you out. Practicing how supply and demand curves result in the overall market price of a product (in an ideal market), how they shift as a result of various factors, etc. Again, it wasn't intended at all as an insult... if anything economics was one of my favorite classes and I think you might enjoy it too...

Your recommendation is a graduation requirement for me. It's one of the last social sciences I have to take along with government.

See, you're kind of doing it again (the black and white statement). You're trying to group "piracy" into one subcategory of horrible, when there are various scenarios to consider. You also continue to to use statements like "SHOULD HAVE paid for"... what in the world does that mean?

If you find a book on the side of the road, does that mean it's a lost sale, that you "SHOULD HAVE paid for" it? Your arguments NEVER HOLD UP when you compare the same logic to physical objects. It just simply doesn't make any sense. Borrowing a book, listening to someone else reading the book, finding the book, or simply walking into a book store and reading it without paying for it are ALL, according to you, methods of piracy AND "lost sales" AND situations where "you SHOULD HAVE paid for" the book...

-blazed

"SHOULD HAVE paid for" means that someone obtained something without paying anything, that under normal circumstances, provided they have the means to do so, they would have paid for and legally are obligated to do so.

I said earlier that lost money DOESN'T equate to a lost sale, so you're example of the book on the side of the road is inaccurate in that respect. As to the point you're driving at, If the object was paid for by it's previous owner then it's all ready accounted for. If you wanted the book, wouldn't you have gone out and bought it yourself? That encompasses all of your examples, the object is all ready accounted for if it that specific one was bought before you found it. Once more, you're saying that I equate "lost sales" to the piracy issue, when I made it clear that I equated it to "lost money" and that "lost money" couldn't be equated to "lost sales".

I admit that earlier I implied that the methods you mentioned would be piracy, but I was wrong there.

In the case of piracy: No one purchased the specific copy you have prior to you getting it without paying. That object is not accounted for and would be lost money, provided that the person had the means to get it or could have the means if they saved up to acquire the product and have it accounted for.

 

[blazedaces]

I said earlier that lost money DOESN'T equate to a lost sale, so you're example of the book on the side of the road is inaccurate in that respect. As to the point you're driving at, If the object was paid for by it's previous owner then it's all ready accounted for. If you wanted the book, wouldn't you have gone out and bought it yourself? That encompasses all of your examples, the object is all ready accounted for if it that specific one was bought before you found it. Once more, you're saying that I equate "lost sales" to the piracy issue, when I made it clear that I equated it to "lost money" and that "lost money" couldn't be equated to "lost sales".

I admit that earlier I implied that the methods you mentioned would be piracy, but I was wrong there.

In the case of piracy: No one purchased the specific copy you have prior to you getting it without paying. That object is not accounted for and would be lost money, provided that the person had the means to get it or could have the means if they saved up to acquire the product and have it accounted for.

Explain to me the significant difference between finding a CD on the side of the road with music, finding a flash drive on the side of the road with music, finding a paper with 0's and 1's on the side of the road that contains the info for an mp3 with music, finding the music on youtube, or finding the music on a website...

There is absolutely NO significant difference between any of these things and finding a book on the side of the road. Someone obviously paid for both prior to it, and not only that, but unlike the case with the book, the original owner might still have the product.

Honestly man, think about the following scenario: Imagine a machine that could quite literally COPY FOOD... that's right... you could SOLVE WORLD EFFING HUNGER if you could copy food. I'll admit, food would still go bad, so you would still need SOME farmers, but not as many. So on the negative side, some people would lose their jobs who couldn't adjust to the technology at the time. But we would have practically an INFINITE supply of food. Theoretically you could ensure it so that NO ONE would EVER starve again.

I really, really hope you don't try to argue with me that copying food is wrong...

Well you know what, when people tell me copying music is wrong, that's how I feel. I feel like you're telling me copying food would be wrong as well, because some people might lose their jobs. Food is a necessity so it's obvious no one would have a problem quite literally making copies of it, but for some reason when the object is not a necessity the argument flips?

Why?

-blazed

 

[Sieguest]

Explain to me the significant difference between finding a CD on the side of the road with music, finding a flash drive on the side of the road with music, finding a paper with 0's and 1's on the side of the road that contains the info for an mp3 with music, finding the music on youtube, or finding the music on a website...

There is absolutely NO significant difference between any of these things and finding a book on the side of the road. Someone obviously paid for both prior to it, and not only that, but unlike the case with the book, the original owner might still have the product.

Okay, so now ask yourself, are you entitled to have that music? Lets say everyone happened to find that mp3, that piece of paper, or look it up on a website. What just happened to our music industry? It collapsed.

Honestly man, think about the following scenario: Imagine a machine that could quite literally COPY FOOD... that's right... you could SOLVE WORLD EFFING HUNGER if you could copy food. I'll admit, food would still go bad, so you would still need SOME farmers, but not as many. So on the negative side, some people would lose their jobs who couldn't adjust to the technology at the time. But we would have practically an INFINITE supply of food. Theoretically you could ensure it so that NO ONE would EVER starve again.

I really, really hope you don't try to argue with me that copying food is wrong...



Well you know what, when people tell me copying music is wrong, that's how I feel. I feel like you're telling me copying food would be wrong as well, because some people might lose their jobs. Food is a necessity so it's obvious no one would have a problem quite literally making copies of it, but for some reason when the object is not a necessity the argument flips?

Why?

-blazed

Can you survive without music? Yes. Can the music industry survive without money? No.
Can you survive withoug food? No.

So if everyone copied music or got their hands on it some kind of way that you just mentioned, those people gained music. Great. A whole industry of people just lost their livelihood. What do they do? Live off of the food that is now being copied around the world? Great, they're not going hungry. But now what about utilities? The next light bill, the next water bill. They won't go hungry, but they'll be living in a rat hole. Copying food would be a universal good, we just solved world hunger.

Copying music doesn't have that asset, a whole industry was just devastated because everyone somehow found that one song on the side of the road.

 

[Crimson King]

@ Alt:

I have no idea why you are debating me in a room designed for non-debaters to show off their abilities/polish up. If you wish to have access to this room, it's important to know you are here only to serve as a sparring partner, to leave areas for the PGers to build a case/refute, and to assist them.