When will Sony learn?

[Skynet]

Sure, people that do the occasional movie don't. But it seems like more and more resources are being put into people that pirate movies in large batches for distribution, whatever. I've noticed that more and more stuff about movie piracy has come up in the papers as of late. OK so it's illegal, but surely the cops and governments should be focusing resources on more important things than people copying movies. But of course they always link movie piracy to gun smugglers, etc. here.

[Lartrak]

I always hated the "you wouldnt steal a car" video. The whole reason people pirate movies is because you dont go to jail. If you could steal a car and have no consiquences for it i'm sure grand theft would double.

I always take those PSAs as insults when they're on something I purchased. I mean, jesus, I just PAID TO SEE THIS. Who are they trying to convince?

[jerico2day]

Heck ya I would steal a tv if I could get away with it:P But seriously, if they would just release for download tv programs without the drm and in the quality that one can find them for backup reasons, and charge a buck or so an episode, without commercials, then I may actually buy tv programs.

Is that asking too much? A season can contain 20-30 episodes, I don't think 20 bucks for a season is too much to ask when you're talking about absolutely no media being produced and a torrent like distribution system.

But these companies are so greedy, I can't even watch regular tv, I can't follow the programs when you're talking about 20 minutes of commercial for 40 minutes of program. And the movies on tv are worse, it's almost at 30 minutes of program for 30 minutes of commercial on some stations.

Seriously, anyone ever use Amazon unbox? That system is crap. Get rid of the drm and up the quality, and it'd totally kick butt.

[mankrip]

I don't like copy protection, because I like to be able to make backups so I don't lose things. Copy protection may be effective against casual piracy, but I am not sure if the difference it makes in the whole scenario is big enough to justify it. Maybe it is justifiable in some cases, but not almost everywhere as it is today.

The best protection is to make your product really worth a purchase. Give me a nice box with some decent box art, give me a booklet with some interesting liner notes or artwork, give me the original soundtrack in case it's a movie and throw in some extra stuff like high quality MP3s for my MP3 player. Now allow me to buy the thing at a fair price and I got no reason to spend hours to download a shitty DivX movie or a badly encoded set of MP3s of some torrent site just to save a few bucks.

The following is partially based on the quote above, but is directed at everyone:

The problem with this proposal is that it consists simply of "give me more". This is problematic because everyone wants different things, and therefore it is impossible to fully please everyone.

For example, I am happy with my original games having just a troubleshooting booklet and an in-game manual instead of a full-blown manual in paper. As long as the disc is durable enough to last 30 years and don't have annoying copy protections I don't care about huge boxes, fancy cover art and other superfluous stuff.

However, this is not the case for everyone. And then we also have tons of people who thinks that their personal opinions reflects exactly what the product should be, without taking in consideration the needs of the product's target audience as a whole. And from these strong opinions comes the disgust when they see that the product doesn't exactly match their visions for it.

So, don't be so self-centered and don't try to force your points of view on everyone. I don't want "high quality" MP3; I want lossless music that I can personally convert to any format in any quality level according to my own standards. I don't want a crappy soundtrack just because its featured in a great movie; save the costs and work hours of including the soundtrack and any other useless extras to reduce the price of the DVD. I don't want a booklet with dozens of pages; economize some paper!

However, I do know that these are just my own opinions, and I won't try to force them on other people, or (even worse) bully the developers/musicians/producers with piracy threats if they don't do exactly what I want. Saying that this is a fair reason for piracy is fucking hypocrisy. If you want to pirate something, then there is at least something in it that you want, and at the same time you're giving nothing in return.

If I don't see anything I want in a product, I simply don't buy it. If it does have something I want, but the price is too high, I just wait for the prices to go down, or buy an used one. Most of my PC games came in cheap magazines. Almost all of my Genesis/SNES/Saturn/N64/DC games I bought used. I also do have some PC games that I bought some time after getting a warez copy; but I never thought in any moment that their developers or any other companies deserves to have their products pirated. At least I am man enough to admit that I did something wrong.

Setting a fair price is one of the harder things in economy (and probably the hardest one). If you want to be a happy customer you must accept that most of the time the things won't be exactly the way you want; you must define how much is enough to you, keeping in mind that most of the time what is enough don't comprise everything you want.

[Ex-Cyber]

The problem with this proposal is that it consists simply of "give me more".

No, it's "give me more than a string of bits". Publishers are in a position to offer tangible things that BitTorrent or even iTunes can't supply.

However, I do know that these are just my own opinions, and I won't try to force them on other people, or (even worse) bully the developers/musicians/producers with piracy threats if they don't do exactly what I want. Saying that this is a fair reason for piracy is fucking hypocrisy.

This isn't bullying, it's just an observation about what motivates people to buy something vs. what motivates them to download it. Neal Stephenson wrote something similar about buying software in "In the Beginning was the Command Line":

A computer at least had some sort of physical reality to it. It came in a box, you could open it up and plug it in and watch lights blink. An operating system had no tangible incarnation at all. It arrived on a disk, of course, but the disk was, in effect, nothing more than the box that the OS came in. The product itself was a very long string of ones and zeroes that, when properly installed and coddled, gave you the ability to manipulate other very long strings of ones and zeroes.

If you want to pirate something, then there is at least something in it that you want, and at the same time you're giving nothing in return.

That's only true from the publisher's perspective. There most certainly is a cost to the downloader for illegal downloading - the time and effort required to learn the ins and outs of the scene(s) that happen to have what you want, installing, configuring, and using the necessary software, contributing your own upstream bandwidth, and so on. What's more, you present "want" as a binary condition, when a key part of the equation is that it's entirely possible to want something enough to download it but not enough to buy it. What the suggestion comes down to is that publishers should spend less effort on discouraging copying (which has only an indirect effect on sales) and more effort on encouraging purchasing (which has a direct effect on sales).

[mankrip]

No, it's "give me more than a string of bits". Publishers are in a position to offer tangible things that BitTorrent or even iTunes can't supply.

The point is that the product is a string of bits. Booklets, cover arts, etc. are just accessories, and there's no end to the list of things like this that you could add. It's impossible to please everyone.

If you want to pirate something, then there is at least something in it that you want, and at the same time you're giving nothing in return.

That's only true from the publisher's perspective.

Wrong. It's a fact, not an opinion.

There most certainly is a cost to the downloader for illegal downloading - the time and effort required to learn the ins and outs of the scene(s) that happen to have what you want, installing, configuring, and using the necessary software, contributing your own upstream bandwidth, and so on.

And nothing from the money and time people spend doing this goes back to the authors of the product.

What's more, you present "want" as a binary condition, when a key part of the equation is that it's entirely possible to want something enough to download it but not enough to buy it.

I already talked about this in my previous post.

What the suggestion comes down to is that publishers should spend less effort on discouraging copying (which has only an indirect effect on sales) and more effort on encouraging purchasing (which has a direct effect on sales).

I agree.

[Ex-Cyber]

No, it's "give me more than a string of bits". Publishers are in a position to offer tangible things that BitTorrent or even iTunes can't supply.

The point is that the product is a string of bits. Booklets, cover arts, etc. are just accessories, and there's no end to the list of things like this that you could add. It's impossible to please everyone.

Pleasing more people is not the same as pleasing everyone. In quite a few cases, the former is very possible.

If you want to pirate something, then there is at least something in it that you want, and at the same time you're giving nothing in return.

That's only true from the publisher's perspective.

Wrong. It's a fact, not an opinion.

It's a fact that the publisher receives no compensation, but that's not really relevant to the argument; the publishers are trying to change the behavior of potential customers who may or may not care about the publisher's benefit but almost certainly do care about the costs to themselves. Copying/downloading is only "free" from a strictly monetary standpoint, and the full range of costs should be considered if the goal is to get people to choose something else.

What the suggestion comes down to is that publishers should spend less effort on discouraging copying (which has only an indirect effect on sales) and more effort on encouraging purchasing (which has a direct effect on sales).

I agree.

Then I don't really see what you were criticizing in the first place.

[Christuserloeser]

The problem with this proposal is that it consists simply of "give me more". This is problematic because everyone wants different things, and therefore it is impossible to fully please everyone.

Actually, I did not mean that they would have to include stickers, posters, cards, t-shirt, etc. to make the regular product something like they do for Limited Special Editions.

What I meant is that instead "fighting" piracy with copy-protections and "You wouldn't steal a car.... (but did you know that you could download this movie from the internet ? No? But it's true! You can!)"-DVD intros, it would be better if they spend that time to improve their products.

If they include the MP3s to the purchased CD, fewer people would need to download them. If they would include the OST to the DVD one just bought, one wouldn't need to search for it on the net. If they would release a game with the original Japanese boxart and manuals instead of something they've put together in less then ten minutes before the actual printing, then I would probably buy it.

The list goes on and on. Many things the publisher could do to reduce piracy. Something doesn't need to "please everyone" like you wrote, but if they actually want to sell their products, they better make them worth purchasing - or stop complaining about piracy.

And nothing from the money and time people spend doing this goes back to the authors of the product.

Which isn't true. You are using their product, even while there might be alternates available. You probably even help to promote this product to other people, either by talking about it or by providing it. Chances grow that you go to concerts of the same artist, buy the next movie of the same director, buy the next update of the program, etc., etc.


Edit: As you've guessed, I am not against piracy per se. It has many advantages such as providing tools, information and art, some people otherwise would not be able to afford, never knew about, or just can't find in stores.

If there are people that can't or don't like to pay for something, you can't force them. If you want them to buy something, you better convince them that it's worth their money. In the end it's their decision what they choose to spend their money on.

[mankrip]

Pleasing more people is not the same as pleasing everyone. In quite a few cases, the former is very possible.

Yes, but how can you say for sure that they aren't trying? Unless they please everyone, it will always be easy to find someone who thinks that they are doing nothing.

What the suggestion comes down to is that publishers should spend less effort on discouraging copying (which has only an indirect effect on sales) and more effort on encouraging purchasing (which has a direct effect on sales).

I agree.

Then I don't really see what you were criticizing in the first place.

Well, I'll have to agree again .

What I meant is that instead "fighting" piracy with copy-protections and "You wouldn't steal a car.... (but did you know that you could download this movie from the internet ? No? But it's true! You can!)"-DVD intros, it would be better if they spend that time to improve their products.

Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Actually, I did not mean that they would have to include stickers, posters, cards, t-shirt, etc. to make the regular product something like they do for Limited Special Editions.

(...)

If they include the MP3s to the purchased CD, fewer people would need to download them. If they would include the OST to the DVD one just bought, one wouldn't need to search for it on the net. If they would release a game with the original Japanese boxart and manuals instead of something they've put together in less then ten minutes before the actual printing, then I would probably buy it.

Despite the ommited paragraph (which I answered above), you're clearly contradicting yourself here. You didn't say anything about the product itself (the movie, in case of DVDs, or the music, in case of CDs). You're talking about a bunch of extra stuff that you consider important.

You're also implying that the product itself has zero value for you.

Something doesn't need to "please everyone" like you wrote, but if they actually want to sell their products, they better make them worth purchasing - or stop complaining about piracy.

Make the product worth purchasing... for who? Do you seriously think they don't try to make their product appeal to someone?

Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean that there's not a market for it. And when a product is aimed at a broad audience, it's quite impossible to fully satisfy more than a tiny fraction of them. You can decide each aspect of the product based on the opinion of the majority, but when you put all the pieces together it's impossible to assure that the majority of the customers will be satisfied with the product as a whole.

You are using their product, even while there might be alternates available. You probably even help to promote this product to other people, either by talking about it or by providing it.

If the success of your product depends on this, you must fire your whole marketing department immediately.

Chances grow that you go to concerts of the same artist, buy the next movie of the same director, buy the next update of the program, etc., etc.

This doesn't happen if you think that the product wasn't worth your money in the first place.

As you've guessed, I am not against piracy per se. It has many advantages such as providing tools, information and art, some people otherwise would not be able to afford, never knew about, or just can't find in stores.

I'm not completely anti-piracy either. There are a very few cases where piracy isn't a problem. For example, to keep you from paying for the same product several times.

I have an original copy of Virtua Cop 2 for Saturn, and warez copies of the PC and DC versions. All versions are essentially the same, and I already paid for the game design, music, art and development when I bought the Saturn version, so when I got the PC and DC versions there was nothing new in them for me. The purpose of a port is to reach new audiences, not to sell the product again for the people who already bought it, so there's not a problem in this case.

Of course, this is not the case when the product is not a simple port, but a remake. Like Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES, which featured high-quality remade content, and other games which offers additional features over their previous versions. In this case you can always sell your old version to help paying for the new version, get an used copy of the new version, or wait for the prices of the new version to go down.

If there are people that can't or don't like to pay for something, you can't force them.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just pointing some errors in some arguments made by several people in this thread.

[jaredfogle]

Why does this argument always go to products, profits, and the economics of plastic discs?

Art is essential to humanity. Do you realize how cathartic a shitty movie about The End of Days is to someone who believes the end is very, very near? I guarantee you that if you removed every apocalyptic fantasy from our society, we'd see a lot more Virginia Techs, Disgruntled Workers, etc.

Left Behind and Apocalypto serve a very important function. They are not just products to be passively consumed. Trying to reduce art and its function into these terms just misses so, so much of what it is and does.

Economic considerations should be a second consideration in these matters. People need to and will experience art (notice how I did not use the word consume there). Let the numbers sort themselves out around this aspect of our species, not the other way around.


The point I'm making (if I must reduce it so to avoid the line-for-line sport-arguing quote-off) is in bold.

[butters]

Why does this argument always go to products, profits, and the economics of plastic discs?

Art is essential to humanity. Do you realize how cathartic a shitty movie about The End of Days is to someone who believes the end is very, very near? I guarantee you that if you removed every apocalyptic fantasy from our society, we'd see a lot more Virginia Techs, Disgruntled Workers, etc.

Left Behind and Apocalypto serve a very important function. They are not just products to be passively consumed. Trying to reduce art and its function into these terms just misses so, so much of what it is and does.

Economic considerations should be a second consideration in these matters. People need to and will experience art (notice how I did not use the word consume there). Let the numbers sort themselves out around this aspect of our species, not the other way around.


The point I'm making (if I must reduce it so to avoid the line-for-line sport-arguing quote-off) is in bold.

So what happens when those who make the art fail to be compensated for their work? The art either starts to get inferior or a compensation system appears. It's always been like that.

[jaredfogle]

Why does this argument always go to products, profits, and the economics of plastic discs?

Art is essential to humanity. Do you realize how cathartic a shitty movie about The End of Days is to someone who believes the end is very, very near? I guarantee you that if you removed every apocalyptic fantasy from our society, we'd see a lot more Virginia Techs, Disgruntled Workers, etc.

Left Behind and Apocalypto serve a very important function. They are not just products to be passively consumed. Trying to reduce art and its function into these terms just misses so, so much of what it is and does.

Economic considerations should be a second consideration in these matters. People need to and will experience art (notice how I did not use the word consume there). Let the numbers sort themselves out around this aspect of our species, not the other way around.


The point I'm making (if I must reduce it so to avoid the line-for-line sport-arguing quote-off) is in bold.

So what happens when those who make the art fail to be compensated for their work? The art either starts to get inferior or a compensation system appears. It's always been like that.

I agree. Just don't go getting the cart before the horse, y'know?

Trust me. I put a lot of energy into these sorts of questions, my ideal does not involve every artist scraping through dumpsters for food. Quite the opposite, actually.

There is so much potential for more direct and efficient compensation these days than bloated record companies. Follow the money, for example:

Audience ---->

Some sort of iTunes-type database of artists where an audience can support more directly ---->

Artist.

We're talking bank-transfer charge chunks being taken out of the money on its way to the artist instead of what big record companies are doing.

That means that with a $5 donation to Modest Mouse (with $4.75 going to the people responsible for the music you dig), you've done more to support that group than you would by purchasing a CD or LP for $15.

[Ex-Cyber]

So what happens when those who make the art fail to be compensated for their work? The art either starts to get inferior or a compensation system appears. It's always been like that.

Part of the problem is that the publishing industry occupies the role of "compensation system". At the same time certain segments of it (I can't speak to the issue of the book publishers) have become massively bloated, self-serving, and self-perpetuating, and their true purpose is to collect money for themselves, not for artists (if you haven't read Courtney Love's lament about the music industry, it's a real eye-opener). A lot of effort has gone into convincing the general public that buying mass-produced copies under an exclusivity scheme is the One True Way to compensate artists. They want us to ignore history, shut down our minds, and just consume.

[Christuserloeser]

You are using their product, even while there might be alternates available. You probably even help to promote this product to other people, either by talking about it or by providing it.

If the success of your product depends on this, you must fire your whole marketing department immediately.

What "marketing department" ?

if you haven't read Courtney Love's lament about the music industry, it's a real eye-opener

Thanks a lot for this link. She's brilliant.