Pirate Bay Owners = Guilty

[Kupek]

I don't think there are tons and tons of people who download AND buy;

Nice timing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/ap ... more-music

[Don]

I don't think there are tons and tons of people who download AND buy;

Nice timing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/ap ... more-music

I question that study's validity consider they obviously must be comparing some sample against people who allgedly did not pirate music. Given how easy it is to pirate music these days, I'd say if you have never pirated music it's probably because you're not interested in music to begin with. So obviously someone who is not very interested in buying music isn't likely to spend money to buy stuff.

As for Tess's argument about money loss to piracy, do you actually think people who downloaded something is for no loss? It might not be 1 to 1 but it's not 0 to 1 either. And once again even if there is no loss there's no particular justification for getting something for free just because you weren't going to pay for it. Coke costs like 5 cents if you just want the liquid part (no packaging). So does that mean I can buy it for 5 cents at a fast food if I tell them I have no intention of buying coke? A book causes virtually nothing to duplicate electronically. So does that mean as long as you've no intention to buy a book you should be able to get it for free?

[Kupek]

That's possible, but it's not necessarily true. If that's true, it doesn't invalidate the study, since it still shows that people who pirate music also buy it.

But if what you said is true, then it would follow that everyone who is interested in music pirates music. I used to pirate music in the days of Napster, but I no longer do.

[SineSwiper]

Sine - Making products cheaper is not the way. First of all it destroys the profit margins. Second of all, what study shows that cheaper movies/songs are pirated less?

Point #1 - They are already destroying their profit margins by not adapting.

Point #2 - Me. I buy most of my music, but only at the right price. If you are going to charge me $12-18 a CD, then fuck that. So, unless that price starts coming down, I'm either going to buy from cheaper venues, or pirate. There are millions of other people like me out there.

[Zeus]

I don't think there are tons and tons of people who download AND buy;

Nice timing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/ap ... more-music

To me, this study is an little more evidence of what I keep saying. People will buy if the price is right. At 99 cents a pop, music is actually priced "properly" IMO. So for the "good" songs, people have no issues paying. If they're not certain and want to get a bit more of a taste or the song ain't good enough to pay for, torrents are another option. But they can take or leave those songs. Since they're available for free they'll take them but if they're not, they sure as hell ain't gonna pay for them. They just won't have them and it won't be any loss to them. These songs ain't gonna hit the top 1000 on their iPod list.

It's not limited to music either. I have actually downloaded movies I wasn't too sure about and went out and bought the DVD later and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Sure I may wait until a used copy a couple of months later, but that's the business model issue that I talked about before.

Don - sure it ain't 0:1 ratio, but it ain't nearly the "loss" the RIAA and MPAA keep wanting you to think it is. You take piracy away completely and I can guarantee you they won't see a significant increase in their business for the very reason i explained above. People will just not consume and spend their time on something else. Does that mean that it should be available for free? No, not really. But that sure as hell don't mean they should be wasting as much money as they do trying to fight it the way they do. Pouring money into legal action and changing laws is only one option to combat this change in the market. They just don't want to accept the other options because they think they can force the market back to where they want it.

Seek - take a business and/or economics course. What the MPAA and RIAA are doing is fighting tooth and nail to maintain and antiquated business model made obsolete by the changing consumer market by creating a monopoly across the world. Making it cheaper is the only real option the market is giving them. They just think they can use money to buy themselves a business environment which affords them a monopoly on the supply of these products (with piracy they don't have a monopoly in distribution) in order to increase the equilibrium price (look that one up :-). So making things cheaper is the option they're been given by the marketplace, they just don't want to accept it.

[kali o.]

What the MPAA and RIAA are doing is fighting tooth and nail to maintain and antiquated business model made obsolete by the changing consumer market by creating a monopoly across the world. Making it cheaper is the only real option the market is giving them. They just think they can use money to buy themselves a business environment which affords them a monopoly on the supply of these products (with piracy they don't have a monopoly in distribution) in order to increase the equilibrium price (look that one up :-). So making things cheaper is the option they're been given by the marketplace, they just don't want to accept it.

Pretty much eh? The internet has increased distribution potential (global) and reduced material costs to near zero, while the need for middlemen/suppliers (as they exist currently) are decreasing yearly as consumer trends adapt to new technology.

Why haven't prices decreased? Because corporate retards see all the consumers online in the same light they view them at the retail level -- with the same dollar sign above their heads. But consumers aren't idiots, if costs are reduced or the value is less, prices needs to be reduced.

But they'll continue to grasp...meanwhile, baby steps from companies adapting (ie: iTunes, Steam) show success is possible and change is inevitable.

[Don]

What the MPAA and RIAA are doing is fighting tooth and nail to maintain and antiquated business model made obsolete by the changing consumer market by creating a monopoly across the world. Making it cheaper is the only real option the market is giving them. They just think they can use money to buy themselves a business environment which affords them a monopoly on the supply of these products (with piracy they don't have a monopoly in distribution) in order to increase the equilibrium price (look that one up :-). So making things cheaper is the option they're been given by the marketplace, they just don't want to accept it.

Pretty much eh? The internet has increased distribution potential (global) and reduced material costs to near zero, while the need for middlemen/suppliers (as they exist currently) are decreasing yearly as consumer trends adapt to new technology.

Why haven't prices decreased? Because corporate retards see all the consumers online in the same light they view them at the retail level -- with the same dollar sign above their heads. But consumers aren't idiots, if costs are reduced or the value is less, prices needs to be reduced.

But they'll continue to grasp...meanwhile, baby steps from companies adapting (ie: iTunes, Steam) show success is possible and change is inevitable.

At least so far as games go, the development cost for games has gone way up which is why they need to sell so many real copies to make up for it.

Obviously I do not believe game development costs should be this high, but just because somebody is spending way too much money to make a game on a possibly flawed model, doesn't mean you're supposed to pirate it to let them know the error of their ways. I think if you look at games on Steam and the cheap stuff that goes for $10-20, that's closer to the truth-telling price, i.e. a price cheap enough where people who didn't buy it are probably really not interested in your game whatsoever. It remains to be seen if such a price can lead to a viable model. It certainly doesn't work for most games right now.

[SineSwiper]

I generally only buy used games, and I've taken advantage of the $10-20 games on both Steam and XBL.

[Mental]

Just for what it's worth, I'd snap up $5 CDs like candy. $12 is too much.

[kali o.]

At least so far as games go, the development cost for games has gone way up which is why they need to sell so many real copies to make up for it.

Obviously I do not believe game development costs should be this high, but just because somebody is spending way too much money to make a game on a possibly flawed model, doesn't mean you're supposed to pirate it to let them know the error of their ways. I think if you look at games on Steam and the cheap stuff that goes for $10-20, that's closer to the truth-telling price, i.e. a price cheap enough where people who didn't buy it are probably really not interested in your game whatsoever. It remains to be seen if such a price can lead to a viable model. It certainly doesn't work for most games right now.

Bloated costs and mismanagement is no excuse. MMO's are proving successful, and that's just a single adaptation of new technology (that I personally think developers are being lazy about and relying on, which is why we are seeing a lull in PC games).

[Don]

Bloated costs and mismanagement is no excuse. MMO's are proving successful, and that's just a single adaptation of new technology (that I personally think developers are being lazy about and relying on, which is why we are seeing a lull in PC games).

MMORPG also cost a boatload of money. Supposedly you need like $1 billion to make a game the calibur of WoW and even if that's total exaggeration, just 1/10 of that is still $100 million. But at least it has a model that's resilent to piracy. I don't know how profitable MMORPGs are overall, but quite a few have been shut down over the years so it's no slam dunk.

I agree that there must be something wrong with the spiraling cost to develop games, but again it shouldn't be up to us to rely on piracy to correct it.

[Mental]

Just as an aside, kali, you ought to know well than the materials costs for most intellectual property have never been a big part of the cost of development.

[Zeus]

At least so far as games go, the development cost for games has gone way up which is why they need to sell so many real copies to make up for it.

Obviously I do not believe game development costs should be this high, but just because somebody is spending way too much money to make a game on a possibly flawed model, doesn't mean you're supposed to pirate it to let them know the error of their ways. I think if you look at games on Steam and the cheap stuff that goes for $10-20, that's closer to the truth-telling price, i.e. a price cheap enough where people who didn't buy it are probably really not interested in your game whatsoever. It remains to be seen if such a price can lead to a viable model. It certainly doesn't work for most games right now.

Bloated costs and mismanagement is no excuse. MMO's are proving successful, and that's just a single adaptation of new technology (that I personally think developers are being lazy about and relying on, which is why we are seeing a lull in PC games).

Games are now where movies were in the early 90s after Terminator 2 showed what can be done with CGI and the blockbuster came back in full force. It will take probably until next generation but the games equivalent of the "indie" movie will start taking over just like what happened in Hollywood. They just haven't had that need yet on an overall industry basis as the entire industry is still very much in the growth phase.

[Eric]

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-lawy ... al-090423/

One of the biggest cases in file-sharing history ended last week with The Pirate Bay Four sentenced to huge fines and jail time. Today it is revealed that far from being impartial, the judge in the case is a member of pro-copyright groups - along with Henrik Pontén, Monique Wadsted and Peter Danowsky. There are loud calls for a retrial.

[SineSwiper]

Whoops!