Beware illegal downloaders: Data is being collected on you to crack down on piracy in

[VladtheImpaler]

I hope Max Hardcore isn't coming for his licensing fee...

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

Size

Spoiler!

Are those 18 unique cars, or 17 duplicates of the first?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yet you are still forced to pay for basic cable if you want TV. Unless you are a really big fan of HGTV, I do not see how you are letting this comtinue.

One thing I have noticed, is that the vast majority of people that argue piracy is perfectly OK, are people that have never owned a business, or been in a position where they rely on on revenue from an exclusive niche product to earn a living. I can guarantee you, if you were the inventor of splinkets and had invested half your life and your life savings in creating them, and a guy down the street had snuck into your shop overnight, stolen the mold, and was recreating 'splinkets' as 'splonkets' and giving them away for free, you would certainly take issue.

Again because he is giving them away to take he has not only stolen from you, he has irreparably driven the market value of splinkets down, and damaged your products value.

People that say "OMG a movie is 12 bucks that's sooooooooo expensive." fail to realize that 20 years ago, it was 9 dollars to see a movie. And we didn't have the same piracy issues then. WHen I go and see a movie, my thinking is "Holy crap, this thing cost 130 mil to produce, and I only have to pay 12 bucks to see it and watch it on a billionty inch TV with googolphonic sound? Sweet."

Back in the 80's the major chains had cheap nights on Tuesdays where one could see a movie for $2.50. If the movie turned out to be garbage you didn't complain. Now, when I pay over $12 plus the inflated popcorn and soda prices, I feel ripped off if the movie is crap. The cost of producing a movie may have risen but the quality of most movies hasn't.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Are those 18 unique cars, or 17 duplicates of the first?

I like pink beetles.

Spoiler!

[RougeUnderoos]

I admit that I haven't gone through the entire thread, but damn, I am impressed with the flexibility demonstrated in some of the arguments here. People really can bend over backwards to justify (on an apparently sliding scale) ripping people off.

"They charge too much, so I can take it!"

"I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I can take it!"

"It might suck, so I can take it!" (often coupled with "if I like it, I'll buy it", and I'd love to see the conversion rates on that promise).

"I don't like their business model, so I can take it!"

"I have to buy something else I don't want, so I can take it!"

As someone who has dabbled in the business of "taking it", I never was under the illusion that what I was doing was justified. I did it because it was free. That's the reason. You take because it's free.

The only thing I ever saw regarding any sort of moral obligation was if I "shared" or not. It's apparently something you should do when you take. I never did that, because I never felt any compunction to help the other takers take. The "honour among thieves" garbage just made me roll my eyes. Why waste my bandwidth so someone else can get in on the fun? I'm ripping someone off here -- why would I share? I don't like the price of gas either, but if I siphon a tankful from some a$$hole's Rolls Royce, I'm not going to help the next clown steal the hood ornament from the neighbour's Bentley.

People make movies and music in the hopes of getting paid. They spend money to make those things. Just like the people who make wallets, widgets, or cases of beer (and you can't just take two beers out of the box and put them in your pocket if you didn't want the other ten).

If you don't want to pay for it, don't. It's no sugar off my balls. They aren't ever going to stop you from taking it, but let's give up the charade that taking it is acceptable because you wouldn't have bought it, might not like it, or didn't want what else was packaged with it.

[Itse]

I would btw also argue that piracy is to some extent a result of a radical change in the dynamics between supply and demand that new technology has brought.

There are many reasons for this.

Back when music and films were still mainly distributed in either broadcast (TV and radio) or physical form (VHS, DVD, LP, CD), the amount of products currently available was very limited. Even the largest music stores had something like a hundred thousand records available (and that was rare). Compared to what digital platforms offer today, those were laughable numbers. I had a pretty varying taste, and yet I could basicly buy all my CD's from one store that was about the size of a kiosk. A shop that size could have a competitive catalog in comparison to other stores, as long as they were carefully selective. Now they couldn't compete with a well-stocked iPod.

Basicly what you used to have was a few evergreens (Doors, Beatlets, Zappa etc) and what ever else the record companies were kind enough to put out. Basicly contempary stuff. Music that was just a few years old was often simply not available, and the amount of music offered to you was expanding slowly.

There was also a lot less music and films made. I've read that these days there's more music coming out every year than it did in the all of eighties. I'm not sure if this is true, but in any case the numbers of new artists are staggering. There is something like 8 million artists on MySpace now. Even if they all had just one song there, that alone is huge pool of music to choose from. (But who uses MySpace anymore?)

So previously new music had to compete with only a few other artists, essentially maybe about a hundred albums that were even remotely comparable, more propably something like a dozen that the customer wouldn't have. Now they essentially have to face a market that is saturated with more music than anyone could possibly consume, and more piling in every year with nothing ever leaving the marketplace. And all that is available without leaving home.

Plus, physical recordings didn't last. People bought their favourite LP:s several times due to them being worn out, bought the same thing on a cassette possibly and then again on CD. Now when you have it, you can make as many backups as you feel like. (Not that you would need them due to the internet, but...)

In addition, video games have come in and taken a much bigger portion of our time and teenagers now have their own TV's and their own computers. Thus the active audience is actually propably smaller than before.

I would guess that the number of somewhat interesting products easily available for most customers (those not living next to some megasized record store) is up something like a factor of 100 from what it was twenty years ago.

A radical change in the ratio of supply and demand inevitably means that the perceived value of a product plummets. Essentially we are in a situation were most music has no monetary value to most customers, even if they like it. And If something has no monetary value in your eyes, you will not see copying it as stealing.

(Note that I'm not saying it's okay. I'm just saying what I think is a notable factor in the question of perceived morality of piracy.)

And of course, since piracy also affects the world around it by making even more music even more easily and cheaply available, it lowers the perceived value of music even more.

Thus we are now in a situation where artists pretty much need to be thankful that anyone is listening, and they are increasingly ready to spread their music around for free. Which again lowers the perceived monetary value of music. It's pretty common these days that having a quality band that puts out pretty good records every now and then is a hobby for all involved. Basicly, artists are paying for their music to be out there. This stops the marketplace from "correcting" itself.

[Itse]

I'd like to add that this situation where music is increasingly being made by amateurs, is in my opinion healthy for the art of music, and also propably closer to how art has been made for the most of human existence.

Amateurs are less inclined to make choices for commercial reasons, which leads to them doing much more interesting things. (Sometimes slightly paradoxically finding commercial success due to being truly original.)

For example, I'm pretty sure that Diablo Swing Orchestra or Hellsongs would not exist if the people in them had considered the possibility of making money to begin with

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Dion

Back in the 80's the major chains had cheap nights on Tuesdays where one could see a movie for $2.50. If the movie turned out to be garbage you didn't complain. Now, when I pay over $12 plus the inflated popcorn and soda prices, I feel ripped off if the movie is crap. The cost of producing a movie may have risen but the quality of most movies hasn't.

For disclosure, I, as I stated in my first post in this topic, am pretty much on the fence on this. Here goes though:

Would you have felt ripped off had you payed ~$6.75 for watching a movie today without concessions? The CPI in 1980 was around 45 and today is about 122 if you use the Bank of Canada's definition of CPI at 100 to be in 2002. Fair enough that the price has doubled in that sense still, but I honestly wonder if it's that or if you're just getting older and have shifted priority.

No malice intended - Honest question. When we look at price, we have to look at comparable numbers. 1980's value of money is very different than today's.

[cDnStealth]

The real issue that many anti-piracy advocates, including the film/music industry, fail to grasp is that piracy cannot be stopped. You can keep erecting tissue paper barricades to try and stop that train from barrelling along or you can accept the fact that no legislation or punishment is going to end piracy and try and find an alternative solution (a few of which already exist). Even if they magically managed to put a stop to digital piracy you'd still have people running down to their local China towns to grab illegal copies of movies. It doesn't matter if it's wrong, people are always going to try and obtain something for free and doesn't matter how many Pirate Bays they shut down.

The best thing they could do is, as I've already said, develop something like Steam. Create a simple, fast and affordable way for people to obtain digital copies of movies so they won't want to go to the trouble of looking for a pirated copy.

Hell, they already have the framework in place through companies like Netflix but Hollywood is trying to drive them out of business. Why? Netflix provides people a legal way of watching a huge catalogue of films and TV shows. Who is going to go searching for a torrent and wondering if it's loaded with spyware or viruses when they can just fire up Netflix and instantly watch a movie?

I leave you with this:

Spoiler!

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

[psyang]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

I leave you with this:
[Oatmeal's attempt to purchase Game of Thrones snipped]

I like the comic, but there are two things that come to mind when I read it. First, why does anyone feel they have the right to watch whatever show they want whenever they want just because it has been aired somewhere? That sense of entitlement is the source of a lot of the piracy justifications.

Moral argument aside, the second point is that he didn't want to buy HBO to watch a show which is understandable. But this is actually why HBO can afford to make quality shows in the first place. They get cable providers to pay HBO a lot of money for the right of offering HBO to their customers. There is reduced risk to HBO wehther a show succeeds or fails - they have their money, they can use it as they wish. As a result, they are willing to take more risks when producing content, like Oz, The Sopranos, The Wire like The Wire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boardwalk Empire etc. etc. There's a reason why many quality/groundbreaking shows are coming from HBO.

Piracy, then, can reduce HBO's value, which can put more pressure on HBO to produce more mass-appeal content.

[polak]

As I stated before, I'm far from anti-file sharing but he could have waited a bit and bought the seasons on Blu Ray.

This was the same problem I had with Entourage, but on top of it not being on any streaming services that are available here, the torrents for the show are apparently sketchy and Itunes was ridiculously overpriced ($40 a season!) so I just went and bought the complete series on Blu Ray for $130. Honestly, it was sooooo much easier then trying to find reliable torrents or streams for every season/episode and now I have it in far better quality and I have a physical copy.

Next on the list is Community.

(It helps that these are shows I geniunely love)

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by psyang

I like the comic, but there are two things that come to mind when I read it. First, why does anyone feel they have the right to watch whatever show they want whenever they want just because it has been aired somewhere? That sense of entitlement is the source of a lot of the piracy justifications.

Moral argument aside, the second point is that he didn't want to buy HBO to watch a show which is understandable. But this is actually why HBO can afford to make quality shows in the first place. They get cable providers to pay HBO a lot of money for the right of offering HBO to their customers. There is reduced risk to HBO wehther a show succeeds or fails - they have their money, they can use it as they wish. As a result, they are willing to take more risks when producing content, like Oz, The Sopranos, The Wire like The Wire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boardwalk Empire etc. etc. There's a reason why many quality/groundbreaking shows are coming from HBO.

Piracy, then, can reduce HBO's value, which can put more pressure on HBO to produce more mass-appeal content.

Who cares about the morality of piracy? The guy wants to watch the show. He's willing to PAY and even goes to great lengths to obtain the show in a legitimate way. And he isn't saying he doesn't want to buy HBO. He even goes directly to their site. He doesn't want to sign up for antiquated cable, paying for a bunch of bundles he doesn't want or need just so he can watch one show. From a business standpoint, why wouldn't you want to provide an option for people like this to obtain your media in a legitimate way?

Do you honestly think that HBO is going to lose out by offering a digital online subscription to their channel? This isn't entitlement. It's an untapped and ignored market. Provide alternatives not roadblocks.

[polak]

http://www.amazon.ca/Game-Thrones-Co...p_ob_title_dvd



If he really wanted to do it legally.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by psyang

I like the comic, but there are two things that come to mind when I read it. First, why does anyone feel they have the right to watch whatever show they want whenever they want just because it has been aired somewhere? That sense of entitlement is the source of a lot of the piracy justifications.

Moral argument aside, the second point is that he didn't want to buy HBO to watch a show which is understandable. But this is actually why HBO can afford to make quality shows in the first place. They get cable providers to pay HBO a lot of money for the right of offering HBO to their customers. There is reduced risk to HBO wehther a show succeeds or fails - they have their money, they can use it as they wish. As a result, they are willing to take more risks when producing content, like Oz, The Sopranos, The Wire like The Wire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boardwalk Empire etc. etc. There's a reason why many quality/groundbreaking shows are coming from HBO.

Piracy, then, can reduce HBO's value, which can put more pressure on HBO to produce more mass-appeal content.

If you could just buy HBO, that'd be fine. But you can't - some a-holes somewhere have decided you need to bulk up on $120 worth of cable channels before you're even allowed to buy the one channel you want.

I think people would love to be able to buy shows like GOT directly from HBO versus pirating. The comic nails it perfectly.

People feel they have the right to watch whatever show they want whenever they want because that's how 90% of television is watched now. I don't even have cable - all I have is US Netflix, Canadian Netflix, iTunes and my PS3. We primarily watch Netflix, but I buy season passes to the shows I like on iTunes - watching The Walking Dead that way right now. I don't think consumers understand or haven't heard a fair and compelling argument (myself included) why GOT and some others aren't offered in the same way.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I admit that I haven't gone through the entire thread, but damn, I am impressed with the flexibility demonstrated in some of the arguments here. People really can bend over backwards to justify (on an apparently sliding scale) ripping people off.

"My overly simplistic perspective, which I have adopted in lieu of engaging in any thought on this issue, is clearly correct! As a consequence of this obvious truism, anyone discussing this in greater depth than I am willing to is simply bending over backwards to justify behaviour contrary to my concluded and as established clearly correct view of things!"

[cDnStealth]

Double post

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by polak

http://www.amazon.ca/Game-Thrones-Co...p_ob_title_dvd



If he really wanted to do it legally.

Having to wait almost a year to buy a show on Bluray isn't a great alternative and who is to say he didn't buy the Bluray once it came out? It's exactly this kind of antiquated thinking that has completely missed the potential of digital sales/streaming.

[Tinordi]

There is very high market demand for a product that is not legally available. Except, in this case, government isn't prohibiting it. Instead a monopolistic market is failing to deliver that product. The market demand isn't going away, the genie is out of the bottle, so that product will continue to be consumed.

You can't complain about this new market, it is here, and if I was a shareholder of a content creator I would be livid that they were not monetizing it.

Fault is entirely with industry.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

From a business standpoint, why wouldn't you want to provide an option for people like this to obtain your media in a legitimate way?

From a business standpoint, the intent of any company is to make as big a profit as possible, plain and simple. If it means bundling packages together, so be it. If it means selling products individually, so be it. The fact that they are bundled means that, like every other cable package, they're trying to sell some garbage along with what most people actually want.

The question then lies in what provides a bigger profit: These bundles, which scare some people off, or single series subscriptions. And I think they see Game of Thrones as a major cash cow, so they can stuff a lot of crap with it.

At least, that's the thinking behind it. It's certainly somewhat antiquated as people really do want only what they want. The consumer has a stronger hold these days.

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

Do you honestly think that HBO is going to lose out by offering a digital online subscription to their channel? This isn't entitlement. It's an untapped and ignored market. Provide alternatives not roadblocks.

The problem I have with piracy is that, as a protest form, it creates a feeling of artificial supply. Companies see a large number of people pirating and think "Wow. Look at these people getting away with free! Let's crack down on pirates and force them to pay with OUR methods, which still look profitable". I've always proposed if people are looking to seek a change in industry, to not purchase inhibition tech that they dislike (in this case, antiquated cable), and to purchase products with the style that they like. Companies aren't in the industry of pissing people off...again, they're in the industry of making money. If there's a constant pattern that the companies using [streaming/selling individual shows/etc] are constantly pumping money out and they're constantly losing money, then they'll adapt to the more profitable system. In the simple economic sense, decrease supply of an old good, and increase supply of the good you want to exist.

Of course, this is all theoretical. I don't run, nor do I know anyone high up in, these companies. As per why companies aren't actively scouting out these opportunities, I suspect a sense of satisfaction and laziness with their current results.

The concern is that it requires great discipline and requires sacrifice of shows from companies. In this case, it may mean killing off Game of Thrones (and in the field I generally discuss this in, I bring up the thought of it being the end of Blizzard). This sort of shift has helped out the gaming industry a lot. If you compare the style of sales between now and a few years ago, there's been major shift because of the existence of Steam, a shift much stronger than the piracy beforehand made (though you could argue at the time, that the piracy was for different reasons)

I struggle with people who have no intent to purchase, so pirate instead. Yes, this select group isn't costing people, but I wonder how many people stay honest with themselves when they make such statements. How many people jump from "Hm...I'm right on the fence...I know I'm getting ripped off, but here's my money" to "Screw that. I'm pirating it"? Consumers aren't exactly the best when it comes to dealing with 0 cost (well, minimal money cost) goods.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I hope Max Hardcore isn't coming for his licensing fee...

Oh, he's coming. Somewhere.