Most pirates say they'd pay for legal downloads | Hacker News Reader

Most pirates say they'd pay for legal downloads

news.com.au

12 pointsfroo26 comments

I'm more interested in a study on stated vs observed behaviour re: paying for downloads. It's one thing to say that you'd pay, it's another to actually do so.

Don't forget that people already pay for their internet connection; this is existence proof they are willing to pay for access to this media (not that it goes to the producers).

I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to simply tax internet subscription revenue, and divide up the proceeds according to download statistics.

Sure, paying for an internet connection means that they are willing to pay for access to media, but that could be because there is no alternative. If there was a way to 'pirate' an internet connection then what's to say they wouldn't do that too?

And taxing internet subscription revenue is a terrible idea. Many people who pay for an internet connection do not pirate media, and in fact don't rarely purchase media whether physical or digital. Taxing these people for something that they don't want is unfair.

Piracy is something that will always be around but the way to tackle it, imho, is to make obtaining it legally a more attractive option. Steam is a step in the right direction; if you pay for a game then you get a number of benefits that you otherwise wouldn't have if you pirated it.

I believe taxing subscription revenue would be more economically efficient than almost any micropayments architecture conceivable. I also don't think it's necessarily unfair on the whole; for example, consumer accounts with download caps may be taxed differently depending on the size of the cap. It's hard for most consumers to get near their bandwidth caps without consuming large amounts of media.

And if there are other uses, e.g. remote work over VPNs, specific contracts with remote locations, etc., such traffic could be exempted from the taxable cap.

One thing I'm pretty sure of: trying to sell information (i.e. bits) along the same lines as historical tokens (DVDs, CDs etc.) is doomed to failure. Steam comes with several major drawbacks: you need to be online regularly to log in, you have to put up with a client on every machine, forced advertising, higher prices than the shrinkwrapped box (the case here in the UK), etc. It's also a single point of failure in a business sense - size or past profitability is no guarantee against overreach or future bankruptcy, and the more eggs you have in the Steam basket, the more you have to lose when (and it will eventually) it goes away.

Re pirating internet access: that's inherently different, because (most) information is a non-rivalrous good, while access to a network pipe is rivalrous.

If there was a way to 'pirate' an internet connection then what's to say they wouldn't do that too?

You're right. In the past (and probably ongoing now), there have been plenty of people illegally hooking up cable Internet and satellite connections. It's just not quite as easy compared to the price for most people. Heck, I'm ready to pay a lot more to get a much better service that they won't offer me..

Spotify seem to have problems converting users to premium paying users. The freemium users get breaks for commercials and cant use some spotify agents (mobile ones).

Spotify have change the way I consume music. It's a great example of creating a service that makes it easier then the "free" illegal way. That's why I'm a paying subscriber. Both because I want to support them but also because I don't like to be interrupted by annoying commercials.

As it stands, you can get many games on Steam, Stardock, Direct2Drive and other services, but has that changed piracy much? It's a moot point, because the publishers will keep trying to put DRM in place "just in case". The question today is whether that DRM renders the game unplayable, like Settlers 7.

This doesn't make sense. If there were no piracy, no publisher would put in DRM because it's an extra cost which no rational business owner would make if there weren't a need for it. Fact is that most people need to be kept honest with a way to enforce the license terms. Has been like this since the beginning of the commercial software / media market and I don't see a reason why it would change.

One major thing to note is that this is an Australian study, so the perspective is Australian in nature.

Obtaining content over here, legally, is incredibly difficult - even if you are trying to pay for it.

I've said this for awhile (in fact, I said it on HN about a year ago) that there is something seriously wrong with the system when the path of least resistance to content for many consumers is not legal. We want to give the studios our money (this study while not comprehensive is at least indicative of a general feeling)... we just cant.

I've often tried to obtain the latest content via itunes or wherever, it's simply not available in the vast majority of cases.

"One major thing to note is that this is an Australian study, so the perspective is Australian in nature."

What makes this market special? Is there any reason to believe (e.g. when looking at software piracy numbers, which for the purposes of these discussions are comparable to other forms of copyright infringement) that Australians are more likely to abide by license terms than others, when put in a situation where they do have options that are non-infringing?

The "we don't have access to legal ways of acquiring media" is a straw man argument most of the time that it's made, from my own observations. Introducing legal means does not reduce piracy rates in the cases where it has been tried so far, for example in the US or in Europe (I'm in Europe). Usually, as soon as online stores for music and video are introduced, the complaints shift to 'oh but it's too expensive'. I feel that 200k is too much for that Lamborghine Gallardo that I've go my eye on too, yet I don't hear anyone starting political parties trying to set a price ceiling on Italian sports cars, like in the digital goods world where so many are intent on trying to interrupt free markets and forcing content producers to sell their products under the price they deem optimal for the product they sell.

I'm slipping into rant mode now, but a lot of online video stores have popped up the last year here in the Netherlands. Some shows are offered on one store, some on others, but in general (across all stores) there is quite a large selection available. Not everything you can get on DVD is available online, but that's hardly reasonable to expect. You know what the new complaint from the 'it's digital so it should be free!' freeloaders is? 'Oh those media conglomerates are evil, because we can't get everything from one store!'. That's ridiculous and in my eyes only shows that most of these people will not stop until there are laws in place to, by force of the state, steal the products of the minds of creators right from under them - to take from creators the rights to appropriate the products of their minds as they themselves see fit. 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' - yeah right, and those with the most needs just happen to be those with the least abilities. Screw them.

The special thing is basically not being able to legally view shows when they first air overseas. Services like itunes are forced to put geo restrictions on things because of the local rights holders I'd imagine. Regularly these shows could air months later, if there intermittently within a few weeks the TV networks seem pretty impressed with themselves.

There have been times in the past where I have attempted to pay for shows and this restriction prevented me.

>There have been times in the past where I have attempted to pay for shows and this restriction prevented me.

Exactly, I've got no problems paying for content.

In my case, I pay for music off iTunes, I prefer to watch movies in the cinema when they come out, but I regularly download television episodes off Bitorrent.

It's not that I don't want to pay for TV shows (I have pay tv etc), I simply just cannot get my hands on them in any kind of reasonable time frame... often 6+ months after they air elsewhere, sometimes up to a year.

When we live in a world where I chat to people on the other side of the world as often and easily as I do my next door neighbour and I'm unable to keep up with conversations about shows due to licensing deals, of course I'm going to attempt to download them off p2p networks.

Rights holders can bitch all they want, but in reality, they can't expect people to pay for something they're not offering for sale.

Expense is not necessarily in absolute terms, it's relative in my case. I outright refuse to buy label albums because I won't support the music industry as-is, I'll only buy music if the people who made it get the vast majority of the money. Have you read Steve Albini's take on the music industry? It is entirely accurate, and I will never put my money into keeping that system alive just on principle. Anyone who has ethical problems with piracy but not the music industry either doesn't know the music industry, or doesn't know anything much about anything, IMHO.

PS: Last I heard, when you take a Gallardo that you're not entitled to take, the original one disappears. Piracy is not the same as theft.

PPS: I say all this as a semi-pro musician trying to make it myself, and not quite managing it yet. I don't begrudge people who've downloaded my music without paying for a second.

To counter act some of your points:

1) you don't support big labels, thats fine, I applaud for it, but not supporting it means boycotting, not stealing the stuff and say you don't pay because you don't agree with it.

2) So you are ok with me taking the car and only leaving money for costs, lets say it costs the company 20k to manufacture it, so if I pay for the 20k, I should be ok, as the company didn't lose any money on it. On the same idea, it should be ok for your employer to not pay your wages whenever it feels like it, it didn't take anything from you, your home or your car, just your time, so it should also be ok?

1) I am boycotting first and foremost. If I were unable to listen without paying (as indeed I am for a significant portion of my obscure tastes) I still would not pay. The fact that I still listen to music I like through piracy is a separate issue, IMHO, because of this. Like I say, whenever I find music I like with no industry involvement, I pay for it without giving piracy a second thought.

2) No, I'm OK with you taking the car, as long as the original is left where it is. If you can't think of a way to do that with a physical object such as a car, then your original analogy was flawed.

Again: If my employer didn't pay me, the time that I had worked for that pay would not be left untouched and marketable - it would be gone, ie, stolen rather than illegally copied.

The lack of loss of the original is key in the piracy debate, these analogies are flawed because they don't analogise that key point.

Piracy is a loss of potential market share, not a loss of something tangible like a car, or my time. In my case that market share simply does not exist - I have deprived the labels of nothing that I haven't already deprived them of through my boycotting.

Very yes.

It is one thing to say, hypothetically, "I would pay for X, but it's not available at a reasonable price, therefore I feel justified pirating." That's just plain old rationalization and self-justification at work. You just set some counterfactual terms and declare that since those terms aren't met, you're justified in doing what you're doing. Not a moral judgment, just an interesting observation.

Was wondering should I admit to piracy or not, but in the end, I bet most people here have pirated things at some point or another, so whatever.

I used to pirate a lot of games. Sometimes I did it because the game didn't have a demo, or had a significantly crippled demo. Sometimes I did it because friends were trying to persuade me to get the game and I wanted to check out why. Sometimes I did it because I was pissed off at DRM and didn't want to buy a crippled version (spore, I'm looking at you). Sometimes I did it because I think €50 for a game with ten hours of gameplay is overpriced. Mostly it was a try before you buy thing - I own most of the games now that I pirated at one point or another.

After getting one in a bundle, I will also never ever buy a Windows Live game. I was forced to restart because I couldn't save without logging in. It then wouldn't let me create an account because I didn't update. It then wouldn't update because of some bug. I had to google for twenty minutes to figure out a workaround for updating the game, download and install the updates and finally start the game from the start. Never again.

Now I buy all my games, but I haven't bought a retail version in a long time. Occasionally I buy a boxed version online. Just yesterday I paid an extra ~€8 for a boxed version of Sins of a Solar Empire Trinity on Impulse (which I guess is the shipping cost). I now have 4 games purchased on Impulse, 34 on Steam and 4 I got elsewhere (just counted). Thats counting only digital download versions, I probably own another ~10 boxed games, though the retail ones are pretty old now.

A lot (but not all) of those games I got discounted and some in bundles. Basically, if its easy for me to buy a downloadable game I want, I'll happily pay for it. If I really like the game, I'll even pay extra for a boxed version. I will NOT pay for a DRM crippled game and I refuse to pay €60 for games. In fact, I only pay over €30 for a game if I really really like it. If games are cheap enough (less than €10 for indy-style games; less than €20 for AAA games) then I'll impulse buy if the game looks good, even if I don't know anything about the game (I'll usually google it real quick and unless I find out that its terrible, has show stopper bugs or horrible DRM, I'll buy it). I impulse bought two games off the Direct2Drive spring sale for €4 each, for example.

So: yes, I do pay for downloads.

PS: I stopped watching (and therefore buying) DVD's after I was forced to watch UNSKIPPABLE TRAILERS on a DVD I paid for. I generally listen to non-chart music or listen online. Occasionally I buy mp3's.

I usually bleat on Twitter when I've found something I want and they simply won't let me buy it! Sometimes I go on to look for shady copies, but typically what I want is so niche I can't find any :-)

Today's example: http://the99percent.com/book - a book I believe is popular in these circles. I want to read it on my iPad. I tried all the merchants and none sell a PDF and there's no Kindle edition. I can't use the iBookstore as I'm not in the US. It's not out in print in the UK yet either. It's funny because a great PDF excerpt is available. I just want to hand over money and get the full book as a PDF - it's not hard!

There was also an indie album I was ready to buy. I went to preorder the MP3 edition, typed in my CC number and I could only select "USA" in the billing address! Order lost and a note in my calendar to look for the tracks when the album is released.

So, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm finding stuff every month that I'd pay for in a heartbeat if it were in an open format and, well, if they'll accept payments from overseas.

The company behind the book got in touch with me and suggested that this might let me buy a PDF to use:

http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/eBookDetails.asp?BookID=...

I'm not seeing any obvious sign of that but am currently investigating.

There is some level of Bradley Effect to take in to account here. As http://madepublishing.com/wp/2010/04/psychology_of_free/ pointed out a few days back on HN, it's very unlikely that people will make the effort of thinking about the transaction and pulling out their wallets for a micropayment when a free, and equally good option is available another click away.

I was not familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect so I had to look it up.

when a free, and equally good option is available another click away

Which is why a better looking, faster downloading, reasonably priced option would probably convert a good chunk of the pirates. People are willing to pay if they see value in it.

That's why there should be a subscription option so the barrier of a micropayment disappears. I'd pay a subscription fee for (for example) unlimited TV shows and movies from iTunes, but I don't buy shows on iTunes because they cost $2 a piece (and they're DRMed, but that's a different matter).

While downloading pirated movies is easier and faster than renting a DVD, downloading pirated movies could be easier and faster, too.

It takes a lot of time to find a good torrent and it can take a lot of time to download it, unless it's hot. This means media companies could make the experience much better.

I would gladly pay 2€ per movie if I could legally download it from the legal torrent listings of the movie company's video rental site instead of trying out several Pirate Bay hits in parallel. The resulting video would be a simple .avi file that you can view on any player without any DRM involved. If I can't finish the movie right away, I could do that next week. (I already do the same with rental DVDs.) Thanks to torrents, they wouldn't even have to pay much for the upload bandwidth.

Some people would keep the copies, some people would even distribute the copies. But this is nothing new, it happens already.

However, I wouldn't keep a copy for too long because I don't want to waste time and effort in storing copies of movies that I can redownload for another 2€. It's my guess that most people would fall into this category.

It's all about how easy the access to the movies is. If legal access is easier than illegal access, then there may be a thousand Pirate Bays and people will still use the legal source.

Not to say that I'm a pirate cough, but I do think there's a lot of money to make from the usual media pirate.

For instance, I find myself buying from bandcamp a lot lately and if there were a good platform to watch my favorite series DRM-free I'd gladly pay. I like to think that others would, too. (I don't live in the US).

Personally I think DRM is one of the biggest cause of the "problems" the industry is having.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com