28 replies to this topic

[H.O.D]

we know how much loss piracy is causing to the entertainment/software industry these days. in the days before the internet, there was hardly any piracy, and even the little that was there didn't cause much damage. that was why the prices went up rapidly and that hasn't changed much even today.

today the most damaging form of piracy may be the sale of dvds, but the work that goes into the creation of these dvds is still done through the internet. if im not wrong, the "scene" doesn't sell dvds but just circulates them online, right? but the other "scene" which prepares and sells the dvds still uses the internet for getting everything ready. so the main culprit is the internet, without which piracy couldn't have gotten stronger.

but on the other hand, thanks to piracy, at least a few people are now having the sense to reduce the prices and make the products more closer to the general law-abiding public. had it not been for piracy, the high prices would have continued and people would have probably found some other form of entertainment (and in case of software - open source). of course there is still scope of much change and much reduction of prices, but atleast its a start.

my theory is that piracy should die out soon, but before dying it should give such a shock to everyone that the reduction of prices should become much more speedier. im not sure how this shock should be, but it'll be good if there was a nice shock to remind the industry giants that unless they price the products sensibly, they'll continue to face the wrath of piracy always and it'll just keep on getting worse unless they act soon.

so does anyone have an idea of such a shock? don't you think it would be sort of good if such a thing happened? after all, piracy has started the reduction of prices so maybe it can do that a bit more faster with this shock, in whatever form it comes

[H.O.D]

Quote

Why do you think downloading an album costs more than buying a physical CD in a shop, despite the fact their distribution costs have dropped to practically zero? They can't bear to see their profits drop, however illogical it gets.

You make a good (although old) point that greed is the factor which drives up the prices all along. And I've never actually downloaded any albums off the internet (because the regional music hasn't become that advanced over here!) but I can see how you're right. No matter how a consumer wants to purchase something legally, he/she ends up paying too much for too little.This happens in the case of buying it in shops or off the internet That's the reason I suggested we need a shock to change things soon.

[rvalkass]

H.O.D, on Apr 26 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

we know how much loss piracy is causing to the entertainment/software industry these days.

That depends. Take Adobe's Photoshop as an example. Many people use pirated copies of it, but would they have actually paid for a copy of the full software? Have Adobe lost customers in these pirates? No. If anything it gave them their position at the top of the market, and has encouraged further sales. So they haven't necessarily lost anything through piracy - it may have drastically increased their revenue in fact.

H.O.D, on Apr 26 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

in the days before the internet, there was hardly any piracy, and even the little that was there didn't cause much damage. that was why the prices went up rapidly and that hasn't changed much even today.

Remember the days of cassette tapes? People used to record songs off the radio onto their own tapes to listen to when they wanted, rather than buying a commercial tape or CD. That's piracy, and probably caused prices to increase. Fewer people bought cassettes and CDs than the record companies wanted, so they put prices up. Unfortunately this extraordinary reach of the record companies still goes on, with a levy on every sale of a blank CD in Canada going to the record labels to cover 'potential piracy', even though people could just be using those CDs for their holiday photos or work.

H.O.D, on Apr 26 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

today the most damaging form of piracy may be the sale of dvds, but the work that goes into the creation of these dvds is still done through the internet. if im not wrong, the "scene" doesn't sell dvds but just circulates them online, right? but the other "scene" which prepares and sells the dvds still uses the internet for getting everything ready. so the main culprit is the internet, without which piracy couldn't have gotten stronger.

Piracy probably does slightly more to damage music and DVD sales than it does to software, but the same effect is there. Would the people pirating that DVD or CD actually have bought the original? Or are they pirating simply because the cost is so low that it becomes worth it? I buy very few DVDs - only ones for shows that I really like. The cost is too high to buy a DVD on the off chance that it's any good. The same occurs with piracy - a lot of people would never actually buy the DVD, so no sale has been lost.

H.O.D, on Apr 26 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

but on the other hand, thanks to piracy, at least a few people are now having the sense to reduce the prices and make the products more closer to the general law-abiding public. had it not been for piracy, the high prices would have continued and people would have probably found some other form of entertainment (and in case of software - open source). of course there is still scope of much change and much reduction of prices, but atleast its a start.

As prices reduce, more people buy DVDs and CDs as they see it as a reduced risk if the DVD or CD is no good. Hence why I end up buying a lot of movies second hand for a pound or two in CeX The problem is that the record companies are far too greedy. Why do you think downloading an album costs more than buying a physical CD in a shop, despite the fact their distribution costs have dropped to practically zero? They can't bear to see their profits drop, however illogical it gets.

[Бојан]

I agree with the whole thread and post! The piracy (warez) is the best way to reduce prices of the expensive products.

[mandla]

I think the biggest problem is not piracy as piracy had it pros and cons. People think that piracy make prices rise as in the case with canda but aat the same time you have the issue where in order to entice you to buy the legit product than download companies should lower their prices eg I will not go and buy PictureShop CS III for 350 dollars if i can download it for free. But if the program were to be made 50 dollars I would buy it. basically I'm sayingh companys who budget for 100 sales and assume that they will make a million are setting themselves for disaster why dont they make a product worth 100 but sell it for 10 dollars and they will easily find a million people buying it hence getting them 10 times more revenue.

Cause they should research the market well not based on optimisim. To many company's price things on a price they feel in reasonable yet they should rice things at a price that they not think but know is affordable to the demograph that will buy. Everyone knows teens and young adults are more on the computer than a proffessional web designer so theres a higher chance that 1000 17 year old Rodney's will wanna use WEBSHOP CX than 1 Company that will want a multiuser license so if they made WEBSHOP CX affordable for Rodney with his pocket maney then 20 dollars x 1000 is 20 000 at less than a dollar a CD to produce that 19 000 gross profit but it they sell it fo 500 dollars company A will by it on multiuser for 600 dollars and the 1000 rodneys will hack or pirate it from the copy Rodney's dad has at the office and all the software company will make is 600 dollars period. Give it a few weeks and the 1000 rodneys will have the software anyway from the illegal torrent downloads sites.

Then again the industry needs to diversify and stop crying foul. They should no hold on to the old technology but move on witht the times and go into partnership deals with companies like apple so they can sell apps and *BLEEP* not just rely on the same selling points from 1950's

[anwiii]

piracy is illegal PERIOD. to justify committing a crime by talking about the good points is like talking about robbing a bank because you like money. piracy is illegal and shouldn't be condoned. the only reason people like talking about it is that it's so easily accomplished without much risk. like stealing a piece of candy at a grocery store.

if prices have dropped, it's not because of piracy, it's because of the internet. the same vehicle that drives piracy is cutting down on advertising costs. there isn't a demand to drop prices because of piracy because most people will still buy the original. the only big exception is music but music was being pirated long before the internet by anyone with a record button...except now it's frostwire or any other file sharing program.

also, most people have computers now so those who were tempted to buy pirated anything off the streets will turn to the internet now to get it free so the way piracy is being conducted now has slowly been changing. i do agree that the software companies are benefiting only because if they weren't, they wouldn't be providing download links for trial version

personally, i think teenagers are the biggest problem in regards to piracy and poor parental supervision and if their parents were enforcing them to get jobs instead of being on the comptuer all day, they wouldn't have the time to be downloading as much and have enough money to pay for what they were already getting illegally. most of the people that condone piracy are either too poor or cheap to purchase anything, or they feel they have a right to try before they buy. in both cases, those people don't hurt companies because they wouldn't have bought anyway. but that should be no excuse to steal and anyone who tries to make a thread like this or promote something that is illegal by stating the pros to piracy are just immature in my book and it's those people that don't really make the world a better place with an outlook that committing crimes is a good thing.

[rvalkass]

anwiii, on Apr 26 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

piracy is illegal PERIOD. to justify committing a crime by talking about the good points is like talking about robbing a bank because you like money. piracy is illegal and shouldn't be condoned. the only reason people like talking about it is that it's so easily accomplished without much risk. like stealing a piece of candy at a grocery store.

There was actually a vicar (I believe, I can't find a source on the BBC website) who went on BBC Breakfast and announced, in the middle of an interview, that he considered it morally correct for people to steal food from the supermarkets while they're making such obscene profits. While music and software aren't vital to life in the way food is, this demonstrates the same point: laws never get changed unless they are challenged. Piracy is illegal, and shouldn't be condoned, but the fact we're having this discussion shows that the music, software and entertainment industries have got it very wrong with their relationship with the public. The same goes for the supermarkets - while people are starving because they can't afford food, yet the supermarkets make such huge profits, something is very wrong.

anwiii, on Apr 26 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

if prices have dropped, it's not because of piracy, it's because of the internet. the same vehicle that drives piracy is cutting down on advertising costs. there isn't a demand to drop prices because of piracy because most people will still buy the original. the only big exception is music but music was being pirated long before the internet by anyone with a record button...except now it's frostwire or any other file sharing program.

Companies like Microsoft and Symantec (to name just two) seem to be slightly reducing their prices. I think this is partly due to piracy - so many people pirated their products due to the very high cost. If the cost drops far enough, people consider it reasonable and actually buy the products. Microsoft are still running their ridiculous series of Windows 7 ads here in the UK, so it seems cutting down on advertising isn't a reason to be reducing costs.

anwiii, on Apr 26 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

but that should be no excuse to steal

A definition:

"Oxford English Dictionary" said:

steal v. To take away dishonestly (portable property, cattle, etc., belonging to another); esp. to do this secretly or unobserved by the owner or the person in charge.

If someone commits piracy, they don't deprive the original owner of property - they take a copy of the property. That is something that would never get tested in law unless cloning is invented and people start cloning sports cars and the like. The original owner loses nothing, so it can't really be theft. But someone has got something expensive for nothing, which can't be right...

[truefusion]

rvalkass, on Apr 26 2010, 09:50 AM, said:

There was actually a vicar (I believe, I can't find a source on the BBC website) who went on BBC Breakfast and announced, in the middle of an interview, that he considered it morally correct for people to steal food from the supermarkets while they're making such obscene profits. While music and software aren't vital to life in the way food is, this demonstrates the same point: laws never get changed unless they are challenged. Piracy is illegal, and shouldn't be condoned, but the fact we're having this discussion shows that the music, software and entertainment industries have got it very wrong with their relationship with the public. The same goes for the supermarkets - while people are starving because they can't afford food, yet the supermarkets make such huge profits, something is very wrong.

As the proverb goes, Proverbs 6:30-31. It is still illegal to do so. If people are willing to turn a blind eye to a hungry person stealing to satisfy their hunger, shouldn't it be ever more the case that the very same people turning a blind eye would be more than willing to purchase food for this person if this person asked them? Yet, you would have to have an objective way to figuring out whether or not the person who is hungry is pretending to be poor or if they really are poor. While the business world and the economy may not make much sense to me in many areas, i believe it would be unjust for anyone to place blame on a supermarket for hunger in the world. In fact, if it weren't for the price tag placed upon resources, we, being mostly selfish creatures, would have depleted our resources a long time ago, since many of us have trouble knowing when enough is enough.

rvalkass, on Apr 26 2010, 09:50 AM, said:

If someone commits piracy, they don't deprive the original owner of property - they take a copy of the property. That is something that would never get tested in law unless cloning is invented and people start cloning sports cars and the like. The original owner loses nothing, so it can't really be theft. But someone has got something expensive for nothing, which can't be right...

The definition provided very much applies to acts of piracy. You are left to wonder "what are they taking away?" You, by implication, assume that the thing in question deals with money, a.k.a. "profits." However, there are also licenses applied to all forms of media that come into play, which may or may not allow for third-party distribution. In other words, what are acts of piracy taking away? The right of the author to have his or her work treated in the way they so desire. Granted, these things may not always be explicitly published, but if companies like record companies are trying to stop these things from occurring, it follows that the way they want their work treated is against the acts of piracy.

[anwiii]

Quote

Companies like Microsoft and Symantec (to name just two) seem to be slightly reducing their prices. I think this is partly due to piracy - so many people pirated their products due to the very high cost. If the cost drops far enough, people consider it reasonable and actually buy the products. Microsoft are still running their ridiculous series of Windows 7 ads here in the UK, so it seems cutting down on advertising isn't a reason to be reducing costs.

like i said before, i don't think prices are dropping because of piracy. i think it has to do with low cost advertising on the internet specifically. i also think it has to do with competition as more and more people come online to purchase things. lowering prices due to piracy wouldn't accomplish anything if those who steal wouldn't have bought the product anyway and lowering prices would just be a way to lose money. sure, they can lower prices and see if there is more of a demand to purchase at a lower cost but will there be? i would still bet that even a $400 software package being sold for $100 wouldn't deter piracy all that much. there is a certain group of people out there that just wont pay for whatever reason. and it's that specific group that isn't driving down prices in my opinion. the fact is, there is still a huge demand to purchase products from honest people in the world

Quote

A definition:

If someone commits piracy, they don't deprive the original owner of property - they take a copy of the property. That is something that would never get tested in law unless cloning is invented and people start cloning sports cars and the like. The original owner loses nothing, so it can't really be theft. But someone has got something expensive for nothing, which can't be right...

sure it's stealing. if someone makes a copy of something that is protected under copyright laws, the original owner owns that copy. not the person who copied it unless they had an agreement(usually a purchase agreement). when someone pirates something, two laws are being broken the one who distributes it and the one who accepts it because usually when a hacker cracks a piece of software or someone takes a cam shot of the newest release or someone goes to the trouble of purchasing an album and copying it, they are most likely going to distribute it. and instead of quoting from a dictionary about legal definitions, you should quote from a legal dictionary like blacks law. it would be more appropriate when discussing legal issues.

[rvalkass]

anwiii, on Apr 27 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

lowering prices due to piracy wouldn't accomplish anything if those who steal wouldn't have bought the product anyway and lowering prices would just be a way to lose money.

Let's take the Photoshop example again. At the moment, it costs thousands of pounds to buy the full suite. This has led to it becoming one of the most pirated software products out there. But would that have happened if the cost had been more reasonable? Say Photoshop cost £60 - I think people would have bought it initially rather than pirating it. The problem is that the mentality among consumers is already that Photoshop gets pirated, and nothing is likely to change that. It was a mistake from the very beginning on Adobe's part.

anwiii, on Apr 27 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

and instead of quoting from a dictionary about legal definitions, you should quote from a legal dictionary like blacks law. it would be more appropriate when discussing legal issues.

OK. From UK Statute Law, The Theft Act 1968 (Amended 2010), Paragraph 1, Section 1:

Quote

Definition of “theft”
1. Basic definition of theft. — (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

The key is permanently depriving the other of [the property]. Hence why piracy is defined as a separate crime.