https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-t....
I prefer the term "sharing".
As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Some people may want backups, may have lost their copy after paying for it, may be frustrated by DRM-laced copies that don't work on their PC/devices, the reasons you mentioned, etc...
Oh man, I used to have to reformat my computer regularly (like 3 times a year). There were several hardware issues, my house was struck by lightning, etc.
I swear every time I'd have to call windows, and be like "hey my key is not working" (I know it's because it was activated previously, but still). They would usually make me call and reset it or what have you.
Eventually, I just got sick of it. I torrented a cracked version and it worked like a charm.
I know people who do the same with video games. They'll get a "shared" copy first, then buy it if they like it.
Honesty, I'd argue most people would pay if they could (at a reasonable price), torrenting just makes all the barriers go away.
Or pay more, even, for a non-DRM-encumbered version; DRM stops people like you, but not crackers or the analog hole.
Thanks for sharing a good example.
punish the paying customer and hope for the best.
Precisely:
>I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
-Jack Valenti (former president of MPAA for 38 years), 1982 congressional hearing
Correct me if I'm wrong---I haven't read it yet, but I'm excited to do so over the weekend.
To me it hasn't been proven yet how the argument for p2p copyright laws is any different than a hypothetical argument for let's say drinking, should we make drinking illegal because some people end up harming others because of it and hence any positive/neutral experience derived from it denied to us and overshadowed in the darkness of legality.
Whether or not copyright systems make sense or not is another discussion entirely. Irrelevant even given it has to be changed via Congress by strong, voter push and/or more bribes than pro-copyright groups. If talking laws and metaphors, I focus on what is rather than should be.
Sharing is the first moral many of us are taught.
Such morals should instead incite those who possess them to act as a democracy to reform the complex and corrupt system. Like we did fighting thjngs like SOPA. So far, almost no action toward elected officials backing up alternatives you suggest people want while they put strong effort onto other issues. I think this means majority of the US just doesnt care that much. And quite a few oppose us hoping to be next to get rich with a monopoly or maintain good portfolios.
As you noted, copyright laws respect many legally protected activities, like sharing media and holding local displays. The law is pretty clear and I think that is why we don't see many cases about the topic.
Oh yeah, I can see that. Might help get the laws changed if more people realize how absurd they are. :)
Under this definition loaning a book or movie to a friend is sketchy.
The sharing model is rampant as individuals, it only became a problem when the internet made it so strangers could share without much of a thought that they were even doing so.
But I seriously have to ask myself how borrowing a DVD from my friend differs from torrenting it instead. Perhaps the only difference is that only 1 copy can be watched at a time? Do we need a file loaning service?
I cant remember the specifics on loaning angle. I'd just not advertise that I did. Your comment reminds me that i need to fo a refresher on this stuff's grey areas in case the wording needs to be modified.
Yeah, not always, but very often. Everyone here is trying to downplay this, but I would say >80% of people (disclamer: pulled from my behind) torrent simply because it's free and if they can easily obtain it free rather than paying, then they will. The argument that people pirate because the paid options are shit, and if they were as convenient as torrents people would just pay for them, is rendered moot with the Steam counterexample. Content distribution is much more well advanced and convenient in games compared to movies, and people still pirate en masse.
Of course, all of us are really just talking out of our collective asses until we can cite figures from a study.
I recently purchased a Google Play Music subscription, despite having 10^6 "pirated" songs on my HDD. Why ? Because they have a reasonable price, cool UI and artwork, convenience of listening anywhere, and the AI bot that helps me find new music I might be interested in. All of those things dont exist in pirate land.
There is also the argument that a large portion of those people would never have paid for your content in the first place even if it wasn't available for free through piracy, that most of them shouldn't even be considered a part of your customer base to begin with because they simply aren't willing or aren't able to pay for it.
So? If you make a product you usually pay a lot of attention to price it in a way that your target market can afford. The people that can't pay for it aren't supposed to get it for "free" (if you everyone accepted this logic capitalism as we know it would crumble). I say this as someone who pirates something every now and then but I don't have to pretend that I'm somehow righteous when I do it. I do it for the same selfish reasons everyone else does even if they like to pretend otherwise.
This is why companies like Valve practically ignore piracy altogether and instead focus on delivering as much value as possible to actual paying customers at prices they're willing to accept (focusing on exactly what you said smart businesses should). Contrast that to those companies that, blinded by the sheer number of people pirating their products, waste money and time in a futile effort to combat piracy by placing draconian DRM schemes on their products, that end up resulting in the pirated versions offering a superior user experience when all is said and done. A sweet irony if I ever saw one.
[1] I used to be a heavy pirate myself when I was in high school, but these days I regularly pay for content that's priced fairly and delivered in a way that's not user-hostile, and simply treat everything else as if it never existed in the first place.
I thought that it has been economically proven that digital goods such as mp3 downloads have zero value, since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0.
I think standard economic thought defines value in terms of preferences.
Such that the value that something has to me is the supremum of how much I value any of the things I would give up in order to have it.
So, if I am willing to purchase an mp3 for $1, then I value it at at least $1. If I would also be willing to purchase it for $2, then I value it at at least $2.
If I value it at $2, and it is for sale at $1, then I would gain $1 of value in that transaction.
If the seller is willing to sell it at any price over $0.50 , then that is how much they value (not) selling it.
So then, in this transaction I would gain $1 in value, and they would gain $0.50 in value.
I think this is the standard way to think about it.
It's just that they're worth a lot more when corporations lobby governments to make copying them illegal.
How about the first copy? That cost "0" too?
If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?
Steam is usually used as the example of how better distribution results in less pirating...but not all games are available through Steam or "as easily" obtained as through Steam.
Netflix is also a good example. Most people I knew who used PTP were:
1) In regions Netflix doesn't support or doesn't "properly" support (see: UK above)
2) Watching movies that weren't even available through Netflix.
With the death of "game demos" I pirate most of my games. I also purchase most of those games. If game demos were such a thing - the games I did not purchase were games I'd never have bought. Which is very consistent with the "typical pirate argument of trying to make themselves feel righteous".
There are (of course) people who will download for free because they can but the pirates who actually talk about pirating seem to always have other, "reasonable" motives. Bypassing DRM limitations, removing ads, to demo something/see if it is worth paying for, or because pirating is the only way to even obtain the material. They don't even have the option of paying for it if they wanted to.
How could pirating hurt sales if the person pirating can't even purchase the damn thing?