Tools Don't Make Pirates. Unreasonable Barriers Make Pirates
from the misplaced-blame dept
Last month's launch of Amazon's e-book reader, Kindle, has people talking about ebooks again, with some questioning whether or not the potential popularity of the reader combined with the ease of viewing unauthorized ebooks on it would lead to an increase in e-book "piracy." Reader Carolyn writes in to point to a terrific rant about how this assertion is misplaced. The writer, Kassia Krozser, notes that it's not the Kindle's fault that people will use unauthorized content -- it's the fault of publishers for making it inconvenient for people to do what they want with content. It's the same thing that we said when JK Rowling refused to offer the Harry Potter books as ebooks out a fear of unauthorized copies getting out. That's ridiculous of course. In doing so, you guarantee that the only digital copies are unauthorized, even if someone wanted to pay for them. It's this thinking that helped screw up the recording industry as well. If the industry had recognized early on how Napster showed how people wanted to consume music, they could have offered a compelling solution that people would have paid for. Instead, they resisted and fought it, and now the problem is much worse. The problem isn't with the device, but with publishers not giving people the content in a format they want. As Krozser says (and we used for the headline of this post): "Devices don't make pirates. Unreasonable barriers make pirates."
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
"if you make it a crime to own a gun, then only criminals will have guns...."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
People who do not respect the law make pirates. When you purchase copyrighted material, you are agreeing by your purchase to abide by the sellers terms.
It is that simple.
If you do not agree, do not purchase it. It never ceases to amaze me that such a simple concept is so difficult to fathom. Enough blame to the producers for placing barriers or making decisions for the material they own, blame the people who are too lazy or cheap to simply abide by the sellers terms and BUY IT THEMSELVES.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"it's the fault of publishers for making it inconvenient for people to do what they want with content"
But what a lot of people want to do is use the content without paying for it, that doesn't seem to be the fault of the publishers to me. Making it significantly easier for people to illegally obtain the book doesn't seem that smart, especially, as you've noted on here several times, there doesn't seem to be that much of a market for ebooks anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"But what a lot of people want to do is use the content without paying for it, that doesn't seem to be the fault of the publishers to me."
Care to prove that statement? Many people do not want to use THE LIMITED AND RESTRICTED CONTENT that the publishers offer. They do want UNLIMITED/UNRESTRICTED content, however. You are comparing apples and oranges here, which makes for rather unconvincing argument in defense of publishers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Putting a price on content and actually expecting people to pay for things make pirates.
Hell, I wish everyone had this attitude about everything. Think about it, then everything would be free. Free land, free products, the only thing that would have real value would be guns, because that is where all this would lead. You can only "own" what you can keep others from taking from you. I think I would do well in that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I am perplexed by these arguments - especially as pertains to books. Have none of you ever borrowed a book from a friend, or loaned a book to a friend after you have read it? Have any of you ever visited a library?
The reason .mp3 sharing became wildly popular was not the public's desire for free music - it was a combination of reasons including:
1. Reluctance to purchase cds when there are only 1 or 2 good songs on them.
2. The desire to have music in a much more portable format.
The success of iTunes and others who sell individual songs should certainly show that people are willing to pay for what they want - just that they are unwilling to pay for what they don't!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
When you purchase copyrighted material, you are agreeing by your purchase to abide by the sellers terms.
True, just because you CAN get the content for free doesn't mean you should. It is a matter of right or wrong and since it is easy to download content you do not pay for, most people do the wrong thing.
If there was a store on the honor system, no employees or security cameras around, just self-checkout machines I bet more people would be inclined to "forget" to scan items and just take them.
And I know there is the argument that some MP3's and movie files out there are legit, but come on. We all know that most of the content being traded on P2P websites is copyrighted.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Smart Will Always Prevail
Call them pirates or whatever, they are always a few steps ahead of whatever barriers put in place. The DRM concept will NEVER work. Copyright infringement is about as enforceable as jaywalking, probably less. It's going on all throughout the world every minute of every day. It's just another useless attempt at control. It's about as effective as trying to control the weather.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re
BTW - All of the Harry Potter books are available on audio cds - which can easily be converted to .mp3 files - so why is an eBook evil?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pirates are not respecting a given law
But what makes them decide to break that particular one? That's the actual question, RRTT, not the circular and useless nonsense you regurgitated.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
I want to listen to a cd. But I do not own a cd player. My only options are to buy something I can't use, to get a restricted, lower quality version for the same price on some music site, or to pirate it.
I don't blame the producer, I just think they're stupid for denying themselves sales in the name of ineffective protection.
Also, the sellers terms, and the true legal terms regarding the use of material are often very different.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
I want to listen to a cd. But I do not own a cd player. My only options are to buy something I can't use, to get a restricted, lower quality version for the same price on some music site, or to pirate it.
Last option, don't buy or pirate the content period.
So what if it is restricted? To be legal about it, by a CD player or go to iTunes. You seem to be saying because you don't like the other options presented to you, you will pirate. You have other LEGAL options, but choose to do it illegally for "unrestricted" files, which is a new concept created by the digital age.
If the publisher doesn't want to make the files unrestricted, that is their right. It is their content. It is not your right to say you want it unrestricted and therefore must pirate. It is not your content. If you really don't want restrictions, then don't own the content at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I just wonder how much RRTT and Davkaus are paid to make their statements. How much do you make working good PR for the **aa?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
It may be copyrighted, but that doesn't mean that the artist who made it doesn't want it there. It's perfectly within their rights to ask sites to take things down, but that doesn't mean they all want that to happen.
I contacted a band in England about buying their first cd, since I couldn't find it anywhere, and they sent me a link with the album in it and said give it to whoever you want. My favorite band, Bomb the Music Industry!, gives away all of their music for, free and the guy's label, "Quote Unquote Records," has a half dozen bands that do the same.
Most musicians see the link between freely distributed music and increased merch sales and increased attendance. It's becoming a popular way for unknown authors and Film makers to get known too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
say 50 people will buy the book in any form
say 50 people will get the book in electronic form, but are willing to pay for it (if it is available as e-format, or pirate if not)
and say 100 people want the book for free.
so that's 200 people who want the book. as it stands they will only get profits from 50 of those people, but 200 copies would be out. so the publisher makes 1/4 of the profit they should have.
now, they offer the e-version
they have 100 people who bought it legally, they'd increase profits by 100%.
but the kicker is now, how many more people will grab it because it's available for free? how much does the 100 freebie group grow?
now, i believe the point is moot because either way, they wouldn't have purchased it in the first place. so is it worth it to alienate your consumer base for the priceline? or suck it up and deal with illegal activities in order to increease sales?
but then again, i don't have a business degree and thus have no clue what i'm talking about
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Pirates are not respecting a given law
"But what makes them decide to break that particular one?"
What makes them decide to break that law is the same thing that makes someone decide to steal a TV. They have no respect for what does not belong to them.
Simple.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
This isn't just about copyright. It's also about quality of product
Look at where we are with HD Material, first the consumer must figure out which player to buy because only one is likely to survive, then the consumer must spend $500 or more for a player to play 1080p.
But buyer beware, it's quite possible the HD ready TV you bought is not HD compatible because it doesn't support HDCP, don't worry you can watch a downgraded version.
And please do not try to circumvent the copy protection even if you legally purchased the Media that is against copyright and the DMCA.
Now please run out to the store and purchase/rent an HD movie because it's impossible to get a legal copy on line.
Or we can do it the pirate way
Download and watch
You know at one time we had prohibition which made criminals out of a lot of people, I don't see this as much different
Pirating the better choice!© The Inquirer
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
In that situation, I would buy the cd. Though, I don't listen to, or buy cds bands on labels represented by the RIAA. Thankfully, that's not very hard. My favorite genre of music is ska.
My point was that while it's within their rights to force those three options on me, it's also really stupid. They should take advantage of the absurdly low cost of bandwidth to make lossless tracks available for twice what the bandwidth costs, and use their advertising departments to design better shirts, use the money they spend on DRM to design an open tour listing website that doesn't suck and create an alternative to Ticketmaster that doesn't put a $7 dollar surcharge on a 10 dollar ticket.
If you treat your customers like thieves, why should they behave any different?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re
Because they're not read by Stephen Fry.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How much am I paid?
I am an author, I have a vested interest in the argument. The content is mine and will always be mine. The way I license it is up to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
Instead of replying to TheDock's nonsense separately, I will just do it in one post. He exemplifies music/movie/publishing industries, where businesses cling to their business model even though there is an obvious need for new approaches. Of course, it stems from the fact that they are unwilling to admit that they will have to live with lower profits. Boohoo, cry me a river. Many other industries survived lower profit margins just fine by adapting, not saying "do it our way or don't do it at all!" But hey, it's easier to whine than actually do something. Whine on, Dock.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How much am I paid?
Thats true. But if you want other people to read your book then you should probably do so in a sane method.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
Well said -- but it's even further than just not respecting the law -- it's a sense of entitlement that we ought to be able to have anything we want regardless of who we steal it from based on justification x. Thieves don't care from whom they steal. It's a fundamental case of right vs. wrong and apparently if some were raised correctly they've allowed their pseudo-logical arguments for why they should have stuff to rot their brain.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
e-book readers and piracy
The advantage of books and libraries is that you can read material that was written many years, indeed even centuries ago. If I buy something, I want it acessible now and decades from now, either by myself or my children and grandchildren, not encumbered by some DRM scheme for which support dissapeared years ago. I have books I got from my grandfather and uncle and I expect my children and grandchildren to take some of them in the future.
My kids still like some of the shareware DOS games I got ~ 15 years ago - we play them using DosBox.
I buy books frequently (my wife is not happy about this), but I typically buy them used at a fraction of the list price. The publishers are clearly trying to abolish the resale market. BAD IDEA, they will also reduce their customer base on the longer run.
I am interested in a e-book reader, but only in one that can handle standard open formats, as I like to read material from Project Guttenberg, the open library projects, and scientific papers from open sources.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How much am I paid?
This is true but if you package it in such a way that makes it difficult for your average consumer to purchase/use it you are part of the problem.
Pirating will always exist but whats happening here is thats its growing out of control because what I am willing to pay for doesn't exist.
I know it doesn't make it right but your are part of the cause and effect
For instance I have cable TV with an On Demand feature that I pay for (love Dexter) so I can actually go in and watch a show anytime I want and pay no extra and yet I will download the show and watch it from my PC because it's more convenient.
Technically what I've done is Illegal, but if I go buy a book copy it and read the copy who's been harmed?
I may have broken a law but to me it's not even close to being immoral.
Gruesome
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
When you purchase copyrighted material, you are agreeing by your purchase to abide by the sellers terms.
And when do I get to tell the seller my terms? Like how I want every track of the CD to be great. Like how I can rip tracks to my home network for personal use. Or that if I damage my disc I can get it replaced for the cost of the CD (appx a nickel). When do they have to abide by MY terms, hmm?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
Instead of replying to TheDock's nonsense separately, I will just do it in one post. He exemplifies music/movie/publishing industries, where businesses cling to their business model even though there is an obvious need for new approaches.
And when they decide to change their business model I will be very very happy with their decision, but until then you are trying to justify breaking the law.
Of course, it stems from the fact that they are unwilling to admit that they will have to live with lower profits. Boohoo, cry me a river. Many other industries survived lower profit margins just fine by adapting, not saying "do it our way or don't do it at all!"
I agree with that. They could capitalize on other aspects of the business to make up the lost profits, but in the end nobody wants to take a pay cut when they are used to the money. What if your boss came up to you and said you would be getting a $5000 decrease in pay because of their new business model.
And you also got the wrong gender, just so you know.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Someone already does it right.
Baen publishing has been selling their entire catalog of books in electronic form for years. No DRM, no hassles, and a darned good price. You even get your choice of formats ranging from plain-text to mobipocket.
They understand the market and they understand that the easier you make it for people to purchase your product (I flat refuse to use the work 'consume' for anything not edible), the more people will purchase your product.
Eric Flint, one of the minds behind their e-book venture, has a great editorial on the topic and why it works. He has also published numbers proving that the more relaxed they are about fair use and distribution of their e-book versions the more sales of the paper versions goes up.
Here's a link to his editorial: http://baens-universe.com/articles/The_Pig-in-a-Poke_Factor
Read it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How much am I paid?
Dear author,
If I want to read your work, I will. I will borrow from the library or buy paper book from amazon or pirate a portable ebook, as I require it. I would love to pay you for your work via legit channels, but if there is no way to do that, then I won't. But at least give me a paypal link on your homepage so I can send you some compensation directly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RTT
ok, let me ask you this. whould you rather have the profits from 100 books sold legally, and have 200 illegal copies
or have the profits from 200 books sold legally and 500 illegal copies?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
it's a sense of entitlement that we ought to be able to have anything we want regardless of who we steal it from based on justification x.
That is exactly what is going on here. In the end, people want music for free. They can argue all they want about not getting it in the format that they want or whatever, but in the end if they TRULY wanted the content AND wanted to pay for it, they would. I have never pirated a song, I still buy all my favorite songs and cds. And I still get to enjoy my music while being a contributing citizen to society.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RTT
ok, let me ask you this. whould you rather have the profits from 100 books sold legally, and have 200 illegal copies
or have the profits from 200 books sold legally and 500 illegal copies?
That is a silly argument. It is HIS content. He should be entitled to the profits from every copy there is out there with 0 illegal copies. That is the thing with digital content, you can too easily copy something which should be bought. You can't photocopy full books, why should you be able to make a digital copy?
If you want your friend to read the book, then give up your copy of the file until they are done with it. It is the act of copying so that both people can read the book that is illegal. That is why giving a physical book to your friend to enjoy is not illegal. The industry is complaining over the amount of copies out there that aren't paid for, not the number of people who have read the book without paying for it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
making something law doesn't make something right. also, the only thing copyright laws are suppose to do is encourage creativity by giving a monetary return so they they may continue to create. outside of that, all works are suppose to be public domain because EVERYTHING created is done so for the people. if you don't way people reading your stuff, don't release it or don't create it. that simple.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Pirates are not respecting a given law
If people who pirate content went about stealing physical goods as well, a lot more things would go missing than they already do. As has been stated countless times "stealing" music is in a whole different category stealing a hi-fi player. It's quite simple to understand, really.
The digital age has set content free from physical media. It's a double-edged sword for content creators, but it's here to stay. It's up for them to decide if they'll bleed themselves to death trying to blunt the inconvenient edge or if they'll just learn to use the whole thing to their advantage.
Maybe it's not fair for them to have to adapt to the new circumstances, but neither is it that a lot of people can't afford stuff while others swim in it. Live with it or perish.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No e-book for me
No thanks. I like books.
When I pay for a book, I know that I can scribble in it, sell it, give it away and even loan it. There is no EULA with a book because it is not a license that you are paying for, not yet anyway.
Why would a publisher allow content to be distributed via ebook? I see that as a potential liability. The consumer will not be happy when (not if) the ebook is no longer supported. If the consumer really wants that content, they will have to buy it again. I believe similar occurrances have already happened, more than once.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"If you don't way people reading your stuff, don't release it or don't create it. that simple."
What about the converse? Is that ok too? If you don't want to pay what the content creater charges, don't pirate the content?
You are breaking the law, you are doing something that is just plain wrong. You can justify it all you want, but you are wrong. All this other bullshit of "free brings in more revenue" or "I can't use my purchase the way I want to" are all just justifications. Do your ends justify the means? I guess so. You must all be republicans.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
TheDock22
but RTT didn't answer the question.
the questions isn't about right or wrong. and it's a valid point.
remember, content works both ways. content is created, but then content is viewed/used.
RTT can make all the content he wants, but if no one wants it, he's still at a loss.
In an ideal world, both content makers and content users would be satisfied. the maker will have the profits from 100% of the collection, and the content users will have said content delivered to them in a legal way.
unfortunately this is not the case. the content creators want to restrict what the consumers can have. but in the end, the content users will win. why? there are more users than there are creators.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I agree with that. They could capitalize on other aspects of the business to make up the lost profits, but in the end nobody wants to take a pay cut when they are used to the money. What if your boss came up to you and said you would be getting a $5000 decrease in pay because of their new business model.
No one would like it; however...
Let's say - a new guy was brought in where you work. He can do the job that you did for $5000.00 less. But not only that he can also:
*Give customers a choice in what products they want - no longer do the customers get stuck with the 'package deals' that contain a bunch of useless junk they don't really want.
*Reduce production costs while at the same time, offering the customer your product in a variety of formats. This allows customers with various restrictions to still use the product, or simply caters to their desire.
*Allows the customer to utilize their new devices with your product. No longer would the customer's have to use the old, worn out methods of using your product.
I'm SURE if the publisher for the book, music, movie - Whatever, found a vendor who did a job BETTER and CHEAPER, they would hop on it right away.
Now why isn't the customer given that choice?
Simple: Because they don't CARE about the customer, only about squeezing every dime from them.
But you know what?
That's ok, soon - a company will come along that DOES give the customer a choice. Once they take off, the others better watch out. (other companies have done just that - Microsoft, Google, Toyota... etc)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TheDock22
the questions isn't about right or wrong. and it's a valid point.
Ah but it is about right or wrong. The content creator has the right to distribute their content anyway they want and the content user has the right to user that content in the scope of the agreement they make with the content creator when they purchase the content. No more, no less. If the content user is unhappy, then they shouldn't have access to the content. Pirating should not be an alternative.
RTT can make all the content he wants, but if no one wants it, he's still at a loss.
But in your example, people DO want it. 500 more people WANT the content, but since they are "unhappy" with the terms they decide to pirate it illegal and still have the content. If they want it, they should buy it.
In an ideal world, both content makers and content users would be satisfied. the maker will have the profits from 100% of the collection, and the content users will have said content delivered to them in a legal way.
That would be nice. I would like to be able to do what I want with the digital content I buy. It is still not an excuse for pirating.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Care to prove that statement? Many people do not want to use THE LIMITED AND RESTRICTED CONTENT that the publishers offer. They do want UNLIMITED/UNRESTRICTED content, however. You are comparing apples and oranges here, which makes for rather unconvincing argument in defense of publishers."
If the reason people illegally download copyrighted software is simply the purchased content is restricted, why is illegally downloading games so popular?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
let's take a book like the last harry potter, how many people couldn't wait to read it? now if the ebook has an added value(say get it a day early?) all the fans that want it will buy the ebook, for that advantage, the people who will pirate will pirate. Then the die hard potter fans(we all saw them camping out for like a week) will definitely buy the ebook, and the majority will still probably buy the hard copy, so you hit your paying fans twice and don't cause more pirating than what would have gone on anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
why would any one respect the law in this country when our leaders don't feel the need to play by the rules?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Another take on the piracy issue
Something that I have not seen discussed here, and often isn't discussed anywhere electronic piracy is mentioned is the 'loss' part of the 'theft'.
When you boost a car, lift a cd, steal a book, you have deprived someone of a physical item that has costs of manufacture and attainment associated with it. That value of that item has been removed from that person.
In the electronic world, the cost to 'manufacture' a single e-book, mp3 or even a pdf is as close to zero as you can get.
What I mean is that the cost to produce, including advances to the authors, marketing, etc, one single pdf of a book is not substantially or even measurably lower than productin one million copies of that pdf.
What that does is create an entirely new economic model. If I publish a book online that sells 1,000 copies. I then find that it's floating through all the irc channels, news groups, p2p networks and websites for free, I have still lost nothing material.
Losing potential sales is a marketing issue, not a legal one. A potential sale does not exist. It is an idea a concept a, dare I say it, potentiality. I can not deposit potential sales dollars, only actual ones.
Nor has piracy of my pdf cost me a single actual dollar of material costs. It has deprived me of nothing.
Seeing my pdf on the nets gives me something I can't purchase for any reasonable price, wide spread attention among a fairly intelligent and nearly impossible demographic to advertise to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Dear Anonymous Coward
The only REAL laws are that of physics and even those bend to slight degrees(yay quantum world). The rest of your "laws" and "morals" are ideal fluff fabricated by someone at some point in time.
If you want to benefit yourself, you make your customers happy. Some where along the line business models went from "the customer is right" and "treat the customer with respect" to "the customer is a thief and doesn't deserver what we created yet we(the creators) deserver their money". Now, there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of people who will take but MOST will give back. The real people they need to crack down on aren't college students who make somewhere between $0-$8k per year, but people who mass produce copies of stuff or businesses too cheap to purchase their own stuff.
A true law/idea is one that is reflected in the real world. If you create a law that people don't abide by then that law is wrong. If you develop a business model that people don't like, then YOU are the one who is wrong, not the people. Remember, a business needs people to live, not the other way around.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
If you do not agree, do not purchase it.
uhh, they don't purchase it, that the crux of the issue.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
Leadership by example is the only effective way to lead.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Baen publishing is capitalizing on this already. They publish e-ARCs a few months before the paper copy hits. Yeah, they have typos, unedited sections, and even in one case a "insert techno babble here later" in them. That's why they're Advance Reader edtions. It's also why they sell like crazy.
Get the book months early, get to see it in close to a raw form. Then buy the finished copy when it's released.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
""People who do not respect the law make pirates. When you purchase copyrighted material, you are agreeing by your purchase to abide by the sellers terms.
It is that simple."
Except for all the other points your ignoring and bypassing in order to make a statement that is designed solely to make people who are against the DRM scheme look like 'the bad guys.'
Stop defending people who want it so that if you buy a CD you, the OWNER, can NOT rip it to a digital format and play it on your iPod. They wan't you to buy the SAME THING so that they make more money. They did it before with CDs and tapes, they wan't to do it again. It's just greed, nothing more.
The reason the CD worked well was because it played on ANY CD-Player. The only real problem (hence the phrase "unreasonable barriers") is that the recording industry doesn't like that. DRM is designed specifically so that your CD WONT WORK on any CD-Player. It will only work on ones THEY approve of (usually overpriced, and of sub-par quality with only the fact it plays CD X on it as a redemption point).
You add those greed induced thoughts to the others, such as not being able to lend a friend a CD or make "mix tapes" (you've been able to do that for years and no one complained until recently, in some states they CAN'T try to force that due to some 'revoke' clauses that prevent it) or just the bull-headedness in not providing something in a format "because it will get stolen" (wrong term to use on their part) when some one else will just convert it and give it away for free.
They want to reduce the quality of their own goods, and charge you the same price, because there isn't really anywhere else to go for the same kind of good. This is more true in regards to books/movies than music. With music you can usually get a good alternative locally if you live near a metropolis.
There are several industries that are having problems adjusting to the digital world. This is unfortunate as they are actually causing a lot of problems, some with long reaching consequences, that will take a long while to clean up. It is getting to the point that even mainstream financial papers are realizing it as well.
I just wish idiots like poster #1 would stop spewing that crap. Its obvious to the people he's attacking that he hasn't done enough research into it, and all it does is keep an outdated business model (which means 'a method of doing business' since I swear some people must not know) afloat a little longer, giving it time to cause yet more problems.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So what are you really paying for?
What are you really dealing with when you buy/sell a book/CD/movie then? Is it the content or the pages and the printed letters? Most would say the content, but when you lend a CD or a book for a friend to read, you are effectively giving her the content for free. Does it really make a difference if it's on the same or a different copy? Moreover, if you have legally purchased the Bluray of a given movie, you are still not entitled to rip it to your hard drive or download a pre-encoded copy from the internet, even if they are of inferior quality than the stuff you legally obtained. All this would suggest that the real deal there is the physical medium, but then the virtually medium-less digital content floating on the internet sure poses a problem.
The truth is that the industry wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want you to pay for whatever is the most convenient for them in any given situation, even multiple times if they can manage. I'm sure they would make people pay for reading/listening to stuff borrowed from friends if they could get away with it. And it's not fair, especially if you consider the inflated, greedy prices they tag on the stuff. Of course, it's probably not fair either if I download it without paying either, but when it comes to being on the giving or receiving end of an unfair deal, guess which one people will choose.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
Quit justifying doing something illegal and turn it into a righteous battle of not being brought down by the man. Admit what you are doing is ILLEGAL.
They wan't you to buy the SAME THING so that they make more money. They did it before with CDs and tapes, they wan't to do it again. It's just greed, nothing more.
Exactly, if you want the new format, you have to pay for it. It has been that way UNTIL digital came along, and now it's okay? No, it is illegal.
It is unfortunate instead of embracing digital content, they are fighting it, but in a few years they will have to accept it. Until the meantime, follow the laws and quit justifying to the world that you are in the right. Your a criminal if you download pirated content plain and simple.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
"You have other LEGAL options, but choose to do it illegally for "unrestricted" files, which is a new concept created by the digital age."
Right there. That's the main problem to this whole 'pirate' thing. Before Napster went down, you were allowed to rip music from your CDs onto your computer. You were allowed to make mix CDs. These CDs, and the tracks on your computer, worked anywhere your CD player could and in the same quality.
Good luck getting anything legally that does the same. The RIAA doesn't want you to make mix tapes anymore, something that's been done since tapes were AROUND. Hell I've made them since I was 6, they aren't hard to make. And that was with actual TAPES, which was more annoying to make the mixes on.
Also, 98% or so of all the music you CAN download legally (mind you, some music isn't available online as scary a thought as that is at this point in time, but its still 'illegal' to get them from online despite that) will only play on a limited basis with usually sub-par quality.
This is what the term "unreasonable barriers" means. If they wanted to sell their stuff in digital format, make it the best way I can get it. Oh, they're trying alright. They're trying to make it illegal to change the format of the music even, so you can't make your CD into pure digital. That way they can sell the same goods for more, and charge what they are now for yet crappier goods.
It's costing them a whole lot of money and effort to do it that way rather than just sell the goods at the BEST quality I can get them 'illegally'. The majority of people WILL pay for it if the price is fair for the goods. Charging as much or more than a CD (which is already possibly overpriced, though I doubt by much) for material that is less functional is stupid. Your consumers will revolt. And they are. They're choosing to 'steal' it rather than just go without it though. It's not costing them as much as they think it is, but there are SOME lost profits there. A fraction of what they claim, but it IS there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Uhh... The same reason?? *confused*
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: RTT
"You can't photocopy full books, why should you be able to make a digital copy?"
People can and do. Just google there is even guides to do it. I know myself have made digital copies of several books I own, put the original book in safe storage, and read the digital version as to not damage the book itself (broken binding ect). It takes time and if you're not willing to read through the copied version there will be a few mistakes if you choose to put it in a text editable format, but you can rip strait to PDF as a picture with perfection. Stop kidding yourself saying these things don't happen.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lets take the profit out of it.
Ban all DRM, put jail time in for people who steal content. Forget fines, jail time.
All of those that steal for convenience or better usage would be fine with that, right?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: TheDock22 is dorpus' little brother.
And when they decide to change their business model I will be very very happy with their decision, until then you are trying to justify breaking the law.
shaw's law: “The reasonable man conforms himself to his society. The unreasonable man seeks to make his society conform to his needs. Therefore, all social change and all betterment trace to the unreasonable man.”
if we kowtow to the industry, the industry won't change. better the old media falls hard and fast so this mess gets fixed sooner rather than later.
What if your boss came up to you and said you would be getting a $5000 decrease in pay because of their new business model.
do what any red blooded american would do: find another job. this isn't soviet russia, you can change jobs when you get a better deal, or when your current deal goes bad.
it's called competition, the entrepreneurial spirit, it's innovation. it's what america is all about.
the world changed. it does that from time to time. you can change with it, or you can go broke trying to fight it. either way, content is free now, regardless of what the law and your bottom line say.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
Well put on both counts, this is about entitlement and getting something for nothing.
If I made chairs, the demand for and quality of my chairs would determine my profits. And if someone wsa caught stealing them, they would be prosecuted. Simple.
Should be the same story with IP.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
IIRC copywrite infringement is a civil matter not a criminal matter. It is not theft by the definition of theft. Theft requires that the person you "stole" it from no longer has that item. In this case Sony/Warner Bros/Whoever else is hiding behind the RIAA/MPAA mask still has their original.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Another take on the piracy issue
That about sums it up. Even the bandwidth (with it's next to nothing costs) wouldn't even be taken from the seller's site since it would all be handled by the various other networks.
And "potential sales" really do mean nothing. Even if the content weren't available to pirate, that doesn't mean the so called "pirates" in question would have gone out of their way to purchase it in the first place.
Sometimes people aren't willing to pay for something since they feel they don't really want it or need it, but if it's freely available, they'll download it on a whim.
At present, I don't have either the funds to purchase or even access all the material I want, but the day I do I'm pretty sure I'll want to have a nice collection or games and DVDs all with their boxes and booklets and all that good stuff that online 'copying' can't provide.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Theft requires that the person you "stole" it from no longer has that item."
So with identity theft, do they actually steal your body?
If copyright violation isn't criminal, how can you go to jail for it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
You can spout all you want about business models but an agreemen is an agreement. If you do not like it, do not pay for it. Look for someone who is delivering a model you appreciate.
However inconvenient, or unreasonable my business model and content delivery methods are, they are mine.
Breaking the agreement is not right because you do not agree with it. It's theft, pure and simple, and if that makes me an idiot, so be it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Another take on the piracy issue
At present, I don't have either the funds to purchase or even access all the material I want, but the day I do I'm pretty sure I'll want to have a nice collection or games and DVDs all with their boxes and booklets and all that good stuff that online 'copying' can't provide.
So since you don't have money, you will pirate it. Nice alternative. I'm glad to see morals go out the window when money is scarce, but maybe that is the way it always is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The biggest problem here lies in the fact that we differentiate between physical and intellectual property. There should be no distinction as far as the law is concerened. This can be seen when you compare the process of creation between physical and intellectual works.
It all starts with an idea, for both. This idea is then written down and examined. If it is decided that the idea is marketable it is then re-examined for flaws and improvements. This idea is then made physical in the form of a test model. For a car this means a few prototypes for safety, performance, and aesthetic testing. For a book it means that hardcopies are produced for proof reading, editing, and revision. The results of the tests are then examined and the idea is once again tested for marketability. If all tests are succesful then the idea is made physical in large amounts and shipped out.
There is no difference in what is actually created and marketed, an idea. The ideas have to be made physical to be sold, but it's still the idea that is marketed.
A customer is then enticed to go to the market and purchase the car and book. Money is exchanged and the customer is then encourage to take his/her new aquisitions home and enjoy them. Here is where the real divergences come into play. A car cannot be "copied" easily, books and electronic media can. That is not the only problem though. It is perfectley legal for the customer to build an exact replica of the car, as long as the customer does not claim that it is his/her design. In fact, it is perfectly legal to build an exact replica of a car and sell it. The same cannot be said about a book. Some would claim that it's because of the economics of the situation, that meaning it is very expensive, both monetarily and labor, to replicate a car while it is relatively easy to replicate a book and so the books market get's saturated, stealing money from the original creator. I disagree. Lets look at another physical item for a minute. Flashlights. Flashlights are very handy and inexpensive items. They are also very easy to replicate. All you need is a length of pipe, a reflective piece of metal, a couple of springs, a lightbulb, and some batteries. Sounds like a lot of material, but it is actually far less expensive than is needed to replicate a book. To replicate the book, as done in this day, you need a copy machine, ink, paper, and a binder. Either way, you will end up spending as much, or more, to obtain the materials. The money is not lost or stolen, it is simply channeled into another market.
So why do people buy flashlights rather than just make copies? One of the reasons is the packaging. When you buy a flashlight you don't have to buy batteries, lightbulbs, replacement parts or any number of the myriad goods and services you have to purchase with most types of intellectual properties. You can if you want, but you don't HAVE to. That is a big issue. People don't want to be forced to buy something they don't want, and they shouldn't have to. Another reason is supply and demand. Often enough the companies producing the intellectual properties do not keep up with demand. It is not uncommon to see hordes of people waiting in lines for the newest programs, games, movies, and books. The companies need to quit forcing scarcity on the market. Yes, they can get more from some, but in the end they will get less from most. After all, why wait in line two days for something when you can have your buddy make a copy in ten minutes.
Now let's look at the nature of intellectual property. Nothing can be used interactively without a physical element, nothing. Therefore creating a subset for intellectual property is a fallacy in of it's self. I cannot read a story without printed copies, nor can I hear or see it without auditory or visual components. The same can be said of the flashlight. I cannot use the idea of lighting up a darkened area without a physical light.
Another arguement is that a flashlight is a flashlight no matter who sells it, where as every piece of intellectual property is unique unto itself. This, too, is a fallacy. Flashlights differ just as much as any piece of intellectual property. There are red ones and blue ones, big ones and little ones, battery powered and muscle powered. It's the idea that is the same, to light a darkened area. This is true of intellectual property as well. Let's go back to the book. The idea is one of two things, to read for knowledge or to read for entertainment. Everything else is secondary, just as with our flashlights. You have fiction and non-fiction, fantasy and western, big ones and little one, hard-backed and soft-backed.
In the end, there is no difference in physical and intellectual property, and therefore should be no differences in how ownership and marketing of it is seen under the law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
There certainly is truth in what you say concerning having the choice to buy or not if you want the content... and I fully agree that downloading to avoid paying is flat out wrong!
What bothers me is that, as far as much music is concerned, there is no way to preview the content before you decide. THAT is my issue... I download music to determine whether or not it is worth my money and if it is I buy the CD... if it isn't I get rid of the files I downloaded.
I'm not out to avoid paying - I just want to make informed purchases. My budget can't support me buying something because it "looked cool" or "everyone else likes it"...
I just want a fair chance to hear the music before I buy...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If I Paid For It ... It's Mine to Do Whatever I Wa
Lot of bullshit going on here.
If I buy a book/CD/movie/ or whatever, once I read/view it, I can give it to somebody else ... for FREE. It's mine I paid for that copy, and the person I gave it to can in turn can pass it on, make copy, do what ever.
If a library buys a book and 100 people lend it and read it, would that be a form of piracy??? Only one licensed copy paid for yet a lot read it. Same for CDs, DVDs, and so on.
What do these writers and the industry expect ... sorry, but this will always go on.
One other item, regarding the bullshit "license agreement" on soft items ... notice that you are to agree only AFTER you buy the item. Will they give you your money back if you don't agree after you have bought the item ... hardly. If one had to sign the agreement BEFORE money changed hands, there would be far fewer sales, so the producers won't do it. As far as I am concerned, those after-sale agreements don't mean crap to me. If producers want us to respect that make us sign BEFORE we buy or just shut up about people pirating their items. Once I buy it, it's mine and I'll do what I want with my copy ... if you don't like it, don't sell it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make
Your wasted, redundant, self-congratulatory post just cost me bandwidth i didn't want to spend. GIVE ME MONEY YOU THIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I Agree with Bragg
You hear it all the time in the financial reports. Company X only made a profit (pay attention) of, say a million dollars.
Company X WANTED to make 2 million. Company X totals that as a LOSS of a million! I don't get it. How is not making as much profit as you wanted considered a loss?!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
under your logic if I owned Yellow Submarine on Vinyl I should be able to download the digital copy because I've bought all the Intellectual property previously. Or I should be able to copy it and play it on or how I want.
But under US law neither of these is allowed
Gruesome
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I Agree with Bragg
You hear it all the time in the financial reports. Company X only made a profit (pay attention) of, say a million dollars.
Company X WANTED to make 2 million. Company X totals that as a LOSS of a million! I don't get it. How is not making as much profit as you wanted considered a loss?!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pirates
Yeah, that digital thing just turned so many things on its head, didn't it? Well, the world changes, why shouldn't laws? In any case, being on the right side of law doesn't necessarily give you the moral high ground, I'm afraid.
The paying for new formats used to work kind of okay before, because content was pretty much tied to physical media, which is limited and costs significant money to produce, transport and store. Content is basically free now (in the not attached sense) and forces people to reconsider what exactly is it that content dealers sell; content or physical media? Not surprisingly, they've decided they sell whatever is most convenient for them in a given situation, but it is now evident to people that this is not a fair approach for the consumer. Thing is, the consumer can now also strike back and play dirty too. Play fair, and most people will play fair too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: RTT
He should be entitled to the profits from every copy there is out there with 0 illegal copies.
he should also get access to good health care, a good education, 8 hours of sleep every night, a vacation to tahiti, free popcorn at the movies, and a pony.
what he's going to get is what everyone else gets: practically nothing. you know what, he'll be lucky to get even that. welcome to real life, the bathroom's down the hall and on the left.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira
The files on a cd are the exact same files sold online. They are not a new format.
If you bought a potato peeler that said on the package, "Use of this potato peeler to peel apples is prohibited" would you go out and buy the exact same peeler labeled as an apple peeler?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable Barriers DO NOT Make Pira