Future Tense: A Pirate’s Life For Whom?

Posted 05/28/2010 at 2:19pm | by David Gerrold

First disclaimer: Nothing that follows is intended to be read as an endorsement of piracy, only some thoughts about it as a social phenomenon, and what it might tell us about product demand.

Second disclaimer: I have published over fifty books and a few hundred short stories, columns, and articles, most of which I own the copyrights on. I’ve also contributed scripts to a dozen different TV series, and although I do not own any of those copyrights, I am entitled to residual participation on those television copyrights. And I have a financial interest in one movie, Martian Child, which is (loosely) based on the story of my son’s adoption. So I am not unbiased on the issue of copyrights and ownership.

Third disclaimer: I don’t like piracy, I don’t advocate it, I don’t endorse it, I don’t condone it—but despite my disapproval, people still keep downloading illegal copies of music, TV shows, books, comics and graphic novels, magazines, software, keygens, cracks, and hacks.

So, let’s look at all that downloading.

Start with the obvious. People download music and software and movies and TV shows because they want it. They want to listen to the music, watch the movie, play the game, use the software tool, read the book, look at the fanedit, hear or see the mashup, whatever.

The owners of the copyright don’t object to people wanting the product. In fact, they want you to want it. But they also want you pay for it. It’s how they stay in business—but sometimes it leads to shortsighted decisions, especially if you don’t know what business you’re in.

Harvard Business School used to teach a great example of this. After World War II, the government shifted many of its mail contracts from the railroad industry to the burgeoning airline industry. This was millions of dollars of revenue lost to the railroads. Because air travel was faster than trains, more and more people began to travel by air. As more people bought cars, and as the Interstate Highway System expanded, the railroads lost even more customers. The railroads still carry freight, but with the exception of a few high-density corridors, passenger rail travel in this country remains an intolerable mess.

This is because the railroad industry thought it was in the railroad business—they’re not. They’re in the transportation business. But they thought they were in competition and forgot about the possibility of partnership.

If the railroad industry had thought about providing genuine service to the customers, they would have partnered with the airlines. A train station can exist in a city center, an airport can’t. They could have established transportation hubs, with trains delivering passengers from city centers directly to nearby airports. By making it more convenient to use trains to connect to planes, both leaving and arriving, they would have simplified travel. Instead…we have competing facilities, overcrowded freeways, jammed parking lots, and an enormous waste of resources. (Meanwhile, in England, if you land at Heathrow, you can take the tube directly to anywhere in London, convenient walking distance to your hotel.)

Here’s a more contemporary example—what if the oil companies realized that they’re not in the business of selling oil? They’re in the business of providing energy. What if they invested one week’s profits into research and development of solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, and tidal power? When the oil runs out, as it will, they’ll still have ways to sell energy to the consumer. But right now, too many people in the oil industry regard all those other energy-production methods as competition, not partners.

They don’t know what business they’re in.

This is the same mistake that the RIAA and the SMPTP are making today. They think they’re in the business of selling discs. They’re not. They’re in the business of delivering entertainment. And they’ve forgotten that. At least, their lawyers seem to have forgotten it.

This isn’t the first time the entertainment industry has made this mistake. Almost forty years ago, Sony started selling Betamax videotape recorders for home use. Universal and Disney promptly sued, claiming that home video recording would create the opportunity for copyright infringement and they would lose billions of dollars. The Supreme Court ruled against them. Under the fair use provisions of the copyright law, it’s legal to record media at home for personal use. Even if some people might use videotape machines for illegal purposes, that was not sufficient justification for denying fair use to everyone else.

After losing that lawsuit, Disney and Universal (and all the other studios as well) began selling their movies on Betamax and VHS tapes, and later on DVD. Videotape sales became an enormous market for the studios and eventually DVD sales accounted for at least half, often more, of a film’s total gross income. In fact, the DVD became so profitable that many films were made directly for the DVD market. Starship Troopers II and III, for example.

Or if you want to go further back, almost ninety years ago, when broadcast radio began as a commercial enterprise, the record companies were adamantly against the idea of having their music played on the air. They were certain that if people could hear the music for free, they wouldn’t want to buy the records. But what happened instead was that the radio became the primary channel for showing off new music.

Radio play energized record sales into a multi-million dollar industry. By the fifties, record companies were even paying DJ’s to have them play records they wanted to promote into hits. It was called ‘payola’ and when it was revealed, it was a major scandal for the record companies.

Knowing what business you’re in starts with knowing who your customers are and what they want, then finding the best way to serve that desire. Customers want music and movies.

Downloading what you haven’t paid for is electric shoplifting—no question—but the simple fact that downloading continues on such a scale is evidence of just how much the audience wants easy access to the music.
Amazon and Zune and iTunes all demonstrate that the audience is willing to pay for the convenience of downloading—especially if the prices are reasonable and the bit-rate is high enough. (I’ll take lossless, please.)

Disc manufacturing and distribution is cheap per unit, but expensive in volume. Getting the discs to the customers costs more money, the distributor takes a cut, the retailer takes a cut, and the inventory sits in the racks whether it sells or not, adding to the overhead of the retailer. In that model, the profit margin is sliced thin among all the participants, distributors and sales outlets.

But direct-downloading takes at least three steps out of the distribution channel. Record companies can charge less for albums and still show a higher profit per sale—and artists could enjoy a higher royalty rate too.

But a shift to a different business model is only possible if and when the record companies stop thinking that they’re in the business of selling records and remember that they’re in the business of selling music.

Right now, they’re still in the business of suing downloaders. The only people who can benefit from that are the lawyers.

Pfeh.

David Gerrold is a Hugo and Nebula award-winning author. He has written more than 50 books, including "The Man Who Folded Himself" and "When HARLIE Was One," as well as hundreds of short stories and articles. His autobiographical story "The Martian Child" was the basis of the 2007 movie starring John Cusack and Amanda Peet. He has also written for television, including episodes of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone, and Land Of The Lost. He is best known for creating tribbles, sleestaks, and Chtorrans. In his spare time, he redesigns his website, www.gerrold.com

Tags:

Comments

+ Add a Comment

Rage1340

June 11, 2010 at 3:13am

I really enjoyed your main article "a pirates life for whom" and after reading your most current article "piracy revisited" i felt the need to respond.
First i think you have very great points with both articles. but there are a few points i wish to point out.
In Piracy revisited you made a comparison between stealing personal belongings and piracy. I strongly feel that one cannot simply compare the two and here is why.
Lets say I own a car. It is sitting outside in my driveway and i totally love it. I spent good money on it. You come up to me and you ask if you could have my car. I say no but you can have a copy of my car (and this is why you cannot make the comparison that you made) so i whip out my replicator and replicate that car i paid for.. and you drive the replica off.. Little did i know that ford had a little device on my car to tell when i use my third party replicator to make a copy of it. and now they want blood because i "stole" something that belongs to them. when in reality i made something out of nothing using a third party item. (now one could make the argument that if replicators did exist then that would be illegal. However at that point you would simple be making up laws. just like how they are now because i can promise you a while back. if you asked someone if its possible to replicate a movie. they would think you were high.
Your comparison simply cannot work. because you cannot give a physical form to piracy. now the act of putting that certain movie or music onto a dvd can be considered illegal. because you are now giving it a physical form. but who would roam from house to house checking for burned discs.
To make another comparison should churches charge people for faith? if i get faith from someone does that mean i stole it?
or better yet what happens when i buy an apple. I purchased that apple that someone else grew simply to eat it and that is how the growers intended it. but when im done eating it. i plant the seeds in my back yard. i then harvest the apples later and share them with all my neighbors... did i steal the apples? because my single apple was not purchased with that in mind. and the growers of the original apple did not intend me to replant said apple. but here we are. I must be a thief.
In short i simple want to point out that claiming piracy is simply wrong is a matter of personal opinion and not actual fact. and until the day where we can put an actual value on the air we breath. it will remain that way.
thank you for your time and i look forward to more of your articles. Please keep in mind i do not in any way condone or promote piracy. I just have my opinions of these fields of grey that piracy is.

oceaneclipseseafood

June 05, 2010 at 11:21pm

I think the bottom line is people all have their own reasons for pirating. Whether I'm broke, don't want to leave the house to go to some packed strip mall, if the entertainment industry would brainstorm how to solve each issue, they would be much better off. Instead of suing people, the should be asking them why they dl'ed in the first place.

As far as convenience and availability, Gaming companies being at the forefront of consumer technology, it's no surprise that they already have an "online game superstore" by the name of STEAM. Convenient and diverse in selection, both by publisher and genre. The gaming industry have tried all the tricks, harsh DRM, serial numbers, etc. and have learned that if it's created/stored on a computer, it can and will get cracked. I think they've been beginning to learn to the spare the rod, and spoil the consumer. EA for example, supplies extra content in the form of gear like special armor/weapon sets for those who actually pay for the game. Online content is also a great plus that they have come to realize. Something that was once considered extra and on the side is now what keeps interest in their content high. Online content? That in itself is sometimes enough to justify a $50 dollar sticker, but when I get a plot as well? Easy decision.

Houndf

June 02, 2010 at 8:20am

If I have $200.

I could buy either some nice bookshelf speakers, or I could purchase an audio creation program.

OR! I could buy the speakers and download the audio creation program! It's a double win!!

But wait.... There is something WRONG about this? Well I think we should identify why it's wrong because calling it stealing and giving me all kinds of names (pirate sounds pretty cool though) doesn't cut it.

I think its obvious that what is tangible (in a natural thought) goes farther than something we only download to a disk. Sure when people have the money they will likely legalize their software, but for people who can't, they are just trying to get the best the can out of their buck.

Jims45wow

June 01, 2010 at 5:40pm

Mr. Gerrold had probably hoped for a higher level of discussion. Sorry about that, Chief.

Granted to the dissenter/rebel/thief-out-of-need group that: Stealing a snap of the Mona-Lisa is NOT the same as stealing it. However, the Constition of my land DOES provide for protection of intelectual property (no matter how inane), so that it's creator(s) may benefit from it (unwavering judgers, see this:) "...FOR A TIME".

Let the markets and courts figure it out. Leave the judging and excuses for the creator (cap?).

Jim

zblackrider

June 01, 2010 at 2:40pm

"you can't stop the signal" - Mr. Universe.

m31337

June 01, 2010 at 10:02am

Many of the comments below say that it is easier to download it for free than pay for it. When I can get DRM free music from Amazon that is connected to the account I already had and automatically adds the file to my music library in under a minute I can hardly see how convenience as an issue but that is just me.

Errata:

When was the last time you bought a CD and listened to all the tracks on it? I would rather pay $2.97 for the three songs that I want than $10-$15 for the whole CD. I discover this when I imported my CD collection a while back, I have a library of over 4000 songs but only really listen to 5-600.

Paying for the content you yous pays for real jobs: content creators, distribution etc. The problem with piracy is that part of that money goes to lawyers to defend copyright infringment (If you have issue with copyright laws then I doubt you have tried to make a living by selling creative content). If piracy weren't such a prevelat issue, more money could go to creating better content and distribution; more money for real jobs, less money for lawyers.

Business' do things in order to make money (if you think this is wrong, try watching movies produced in the USSR during the cold war). If piracy were not such a major issue, companies would not waste time with it since there are other ways for them to make more money. When piracy becomes such a major issue that the cost of legal action or DRM creation is comparitively profitable vs the amount of money being lost then there is no other logical result then for them to persue that course of action.

In the end the arument is circular.

Person: "The content is already created and companies have lots on money so I will use it for free"

Company: "Person is using it for free so we have less money, we must make it harder for person to use it for free"

Person: "I do not like Company for making it hard so I will find a work around and continue to use for free since they are infringing upon my rights"

Company: "Person continues to use for free and I still have less money so I will try to recover some mony from Person through legal action"

Person: "Company is evil for taking legal action against me"

As a side note, I really want a Corvette but since I can't aford it, and I feel I am entitled to it, I will steal one. In the future, when I have more money, maybe I will buy it if I like it.

tri8gman

June 02, 2010 at 9:59pm

I think you will steal it the day you can copy and paste that Corvette, then use a VIN generator to fool Vehicle Registration.

Although you probably won't have to do it yourself, as you can just download the uCar Client and download a little piece of the car at a time (and it will be automatically be assembled and have the tank full when finished).

Don't forget to run kaRRs0n's VIN generator BEFORE you try registration!

unsocialone

May 31, 2010 at 11:47pm

I wouldn't mind paying for the stuff I download...the problem is twofold for me. I live in Taiwan....all the TV shows that I watch, can't be streamed here from the different websites....two, I don't have a credit card here, therefore, I have no way to pay for the things I want to see.

Until those two things are taken care of...I will continue downloading the TV shows I want to watch

Mark Hanchey

May 31, 2010 at 6:37am

The problems with piracy is not that it cost too much, software is buggy, too much drm or anything else. The root of the problem is the growing lack of morals in society.

If I produce and own a movie then nobody has rights to it but me. It doesn't matter if I want to sell it for $1 million a dvd, nobody has the right to own a copy except under my terms. It is my property not theirs and they have no inherent right to it. When you own something you set the rules for what can be done with it.

File sharers that use excuses like 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway', 'I'm just trying it out', 'it didn't hurt sales because I couldn't afford it anyway' are just trying to make themselves feel better because they know they are doing something wrong. Most kids are taught about stealing.

Is it yours ?

Yes, he gave me a copy of his book .

No , I stole it.

Legally you get into all sorts of 'how much did the publisher lose ?' questions, but morally it is simple , you either have the owners permission to do what you are doing or you do not. It doesn't matter if it is printed on a disc or on a tape. If you are benefiting from someone else work without their permission you are in the wrong.

Movies, music, software are not rights and that is the root of the problem. People are moving towards the mindset that if you do not give me something on the terms I want then I will take it.

The solution isn't changing distribution methods , more drm, or changing prices. You have to start at the problem not the symptom. They can start fining people large amounts but that will not stop it because the problem is a lack of morals not cash.

tri8gman

June 02, 2010 at 10:20pm

If a person can't buy it doesn't "steal" it... then they don't have it anyway. And no sale is made.

The problem with data piracy is you're making a copy of something. It's infinite. What is actually being stolen (indirectly) is money, NOT property.

There is a major problem with intellectual property - it's not a physical item, I can "steal" a movie by watching a legally purchased DVD at a friend's house. What they're actually selling now is the future of their productions. "If you like this, pay us so we can make more." As well as: "Pay us so you can watch our stuff in more places." "Pay us so you can stay relevant in your social circles."

Furthermore, your "rights" are just what we as a society agree upon. We agree in some places that if you broke in my house, I can rightfully and morally shoot you in protecting my family and property. Others disagree. Get off your high horse.

I grabbed the reloaded version of Fallout 3 at a LAN last year. Loved the game, never beat it. Steam has the GOTY Edition for $50. I was interested in the DLCs, I don't have to go to the store, I don't have to worry about a box or a disc, and I don't have to worry about the serial. I had the game in about an hour and a half legally. I don't think you quite grasp the scope of people stricken with "laziness" and "busy lives" (especially those unfortunate souls with both). :-P

Rocketpop

May 31, 2010 at 2:32pm

Morals? It's downloading a song. It feels nothing at all like physically stealing someone's personal property because free downloadable music is an infinite resource. No one feels they're hurting anyone at all significantly by doing it. They figure nothing's going to change if they download a song because everyone else does it besides them, so what are their actions going to do to make a difference? It's not a major moral issue to download music. Few actually care at all. Only the most morally upright people are going to notice, and those people are considered uptight. In the big picture, it's inconsequential; It's not a life-or-death scenario, and it doesn't affect anyone's quality of life at all significantly, so it's not a significant moral issue.

Actually, it has everything to do with money and ease. You can get music for free easier than you could get it by paying for it. That's really the bottom line. As long as that's the case, piracy's going to go crazy.

Muerte

June 01, 2010 at 7:21am

You missed his point. Whether it "feels" like it or not its morally wrong to steal, period. Those might be contributing factors as to why itsw done, but its still worng.

b3ar

May 30, 2010 at 7:39pm

It's really not that complicated an issue, because it isn't really stealing, it's borrowing, or perhaps renting for a very small fee...veeery small.

Muerte

June 01, 2010 at 7:23am

Okay, I'm going to borrow your lawnmower. I'm not going to pay you and your never going to get it back but I'm only borrowing it.

Semantics. Your getting something of someones for nothing and they did not say you could have it for free, that's theft no matter how you say it.

Redtheundead

June 01, 2010 at 8:15am

Except it's not like that digitally.

Okay, I'm going to borrow your lawnmower. I'm not going to pay you and your never going to get it back but I'm
only borrowing it.

However, you have a machine in your back yard that will make an infinite amount of lawnmowers for you for all eternity.

Yes, it's wrong to pirate, but pirating digital software, music, and movies isn't like stealing something in real life.

Muerte

June 01, 2010 at 9:26am

Its called a factory and yes they can make an infinite number of them. Its not like it does not cost anything to reproduce things digitally. If you think that's free stop paying your electric bill and see how many things you can make digitally. That's not to mention the cost of storage and transmission not to mention the software to allow you to do these things.

Wake up.

Redtheundead

June 01, 2010 at 9:57am

Mmm. My point isn't that it costs money to do that (even then it costs less than a cent to store and transfer a few megabytes)-it's that transferring those 1's and 0's is quite different from taking a lawnmower.

Another thing is that no matter what, those 1's and 0's will be the same-there are no personal attachments to a particular file since there is no distinguishing one music file on one computer to another of the same one on another computer; what's being 'stolen' isn't a physical object-those little ones and zeroes are of no particular value by themselves. You can call someone out for stealing your lawnmower's engine, but you can't persecute someone for taking a few hundred binary digits from a music file. It isn't the 'object' that's being stolen when you're talking about digital files-the data is worthless. What is worth money is the idea created by those strings of 1's and 0's, which is why pirating a song and stealing a CD are two very different things.

Muerte

June 01, 2010 at 12:54pm

Okay, if those little ones and zeroes are of no particular value then it does not matter the order in which you recieve them. I mean 101 is the same as 011 then right.

Look your not even being clever anymore your being willfully dense. The production value alone may not be a lot per instance but someone created the music/movie/software that your using. Its their idea, not yours and each time that code is reproduced in that particular way so is the idea. Its not any different than having the patent to that lawnmower coming off the line except that its easier to copy.

I've got a test for you. Not that you'll answer truthfully.

But put yourself in the shoes of the author. Now think if the only money you could make is off the one CD you sold to the distribution company. what would you motivation be for making any new CD's?

Redtheundead

June 02, 2010 at 7:35am

You've pretty much restated what I just said-the ones and zeroes don't matter; it's the order in which they're arranged that matters since that order represents an idea. I'm not saying 101 and 110 are the same, I'm saying that if someone copyrighted 10101010101010101 (just as an example even though a lot of things will have that particular string of binary in it), then they've copyrighted 10101010101010101, but not 1010101, which is part of 10101010101010101 but means nothing because digitally a crapload of stuff will have the sequence 1010101 in it.

In a lawnmower, you can patent the engine, the handle, the blade, and various other designs involved in it, and if someone steals that idea for the engine (which is part of your lawnmower), you can slam the book on him.

However, you cannot claim 1010101 as your own even though it's in the mp3 file of your song. That is the difference.

You are also getting a tad off track here, not to mention putting words in my mouth. Please do not try to lecture me on the harms of piracy; my father is a musician himself and I have felt the burn of the failing
music industry firsthand-I know the music is the author's goddamned idea and that someone created it, but you're not reading what I'm actually saying. I do not condone pirating or copyright infringement-I'm just here to state that stealing and pirating are two very different things, as digital objects and physical objects must be treated differently. In a digital form, the only thing you can copyright are ideas, but in physical form, you can patent components and its physical shape.

binkievanes

May 30, 2010 at 3:40pm

Binkie van Es , netherlands antilles

I live on a Carribean Island with at best difficult acces to content in general, be it movies, pc games , printed books etcetera . I started using only pirated downloaded games until I realized that if i wanted exciting new games these developers need to make money. After that I would download and test and if I like the game I will order and buy.

Ever since steam has a very active online store I have barely dowloaded pirated games, their prices and conditions are good i bought a lot of older games to play once again and I will even preorder new ones I want. Occasionally I will download a game for a test run if the developer does not offer a test version, but I will end up buying if I like it or otherwise I will delete and not share more

For the same reasons e-readers are an ideal solution for me, the worlds biggest bookstores right on my desktop including previews

If movie producers could adopt this kind of commercial thinking I would buy instead of download.What about renting for 2 or 3 dollars?? most movies you only watch once anyway

The point of all of this is that digital content is ideal for offering testdrives and very easy buying ( or renting) fascility's

As one commenter said : not everyone is a milionaire: I say : do not want more than you can afford, but media providers could certaily make it more affordable to own more content .

whyyes123

May 30, 2010 at 6:47am

Now see I understand people when they say 99 cents isn't a lot. However, I have around 350 songs on my iPod. That means I would have had to pay at least $350 to get this many songs on top of the $200 I spent on the ipod. I know people with 5000 songs on their iPods. I can assure you they did not have that kind of money. And people against video game piracy need to think about one thing, try before you buy. If I REALLY like a WHOLE CD i'll buy it, and if I can't find a game online or from a friend, I'll buy it. But honestly not everyone's a millionaire.

Mark Hanchey

May 31, 2010 at 6:41am

So you think because they want 99 cents for something THEY own you have the right to give them whatever you like ? Come work for me. I'lll pay you $25/hour . Don't complain when your paycheck is 1 cent. I felt your work wasn't worth what you wanted so I gave you what I wanted.

tri8gman

June 02, 2010 at 10:28pm

No, seriously, I can't even begin to fix it, that is how broken your analogy is.

David Gerrold

May 29, 2010 at 9:45pm

You're right. Writing is easy. All you have to do is sit down at the keyboard and open a vein.

Writing a good novel, however ... well, let me know when you've done it. Then you can tell me how easy it was.

Rocketpop

May 30, 2010 at 2:25am

I don't think I'm alone when I say I don't know what you're going for in this article, Mr. Gerrold.

bikerbub

May 30, 2010 at 6:11am

you have every ability to back up your music collection. With the exception of Itunes (which will still let you make a hard copy disc backup) all other media downloading sites, ranging from Wal-Mart.com to MP3panda.com, sell you un-encrypted files, allowing you to duplicate the media and do what you want with it. Itunes has gotten better, but a lot of the media is still unuseable to other players and such.

schneider1492

May 29, 2010 at 10:18pm

One word! STEAM! If you havent heard of it look it up. a frend convinced me to buy orange box back in 2008 and i discoverd Steam. i havnt pirated a video game since i discovered steam.

Freemind2pointo

May 29, 2010 at 6:58pm

I would like to comment on the fact that this guy has a very good point, and sadly one of the points brought up on the post just before mine (the comment being that record companies are making tons of money by suing people instead of actually selling music), are also valid points and as such I will stay away from trying to elaborate, I just want to bring up the people who download and use the download as a "loan"

I download many things, and currently the only reason that I download many of them, is simply because I have yet to amass the money needed to purchase them, but in the future I intend to with every ounce of my being. I am sure that there are many of us out there, and to many people would consider this stealing as well, and that is a fair argument.

The point i am trying to make here, is that it sucks knowing that I, a person intending to purchase my goods in the near future, may be charged (had I not lived in Canada), with downloading my music first instead of buying it right away. Why not (in claims of large amounts, where tons of movies, and music have been downloaded), offer an amount of time to purchase all the goods downloaded, as well as a significantly reduced fine?

Mind you, this is of course thinking like a dreamer now isn't it, and yes I do realize that it does say that copyright infringement results in a large owing of a sum of money on the products for purchase, but its not like much of the alternatives out there are any better.

BouJhi

May 29, 2010 at 2:48pm

hes saying its about time record companies stop trying to sue pirates for taking whats not theirs and focus on a different solution. Pirates are not going to stop what they do, they steal and roam and take whats to be taken; by definition. If record companies want to wage a political battle with the pirates, whats the point when there is no law? By finding a way between two means would be a better solution, even if it hurt a little for the "greater good". And F.Y.I. I'm not a pirate.

aviaggio

May 29, 2010 at 3:37pm

The thing is they make more money by suing people. There is an organization called the US Copyright Group. And all they do are file IP lookup requests and send out demands for settlements under threat of lawsuits. In any other situation this would be considered extortion. Why bother trying to get people to buy $1 songs when you can threaten to sue them and get a $5,000 settlement? Much more lucrative in the long run.

If you read up on USCG their own literature repeatedly talks about "recovering losses", "generating a new revenue stream", and my favorite "saving cinema". Please. It's all about the money. If they weren't making money hand over fist they just wouldn't bother.

So why exactly should we be feeding money to an industry that would rather extort people than develop a business model that better sells their product?

shellpc

May 29, 2010 at 6:45pm

Then vote with your wallet; setup boycotts; petition your government representatives for stronger industry regulations. There are legal methods of trying to bring the industry inline other than just taking what you want without paying for it.

aviaggio

May 29, 2010 at 6:58pm

You do understand that by not buying stuff and instead downloading it for free IS "voting with your wallet".

Muerte

June 01, 2010 at 7:29am

But its not really. You still telling the company that you like their stuff and don't mind if they put DRm on it becausee your going to steal it anyway.

There is a difference.

PawBear

May 29, 2010 at 1:49pm

I've never in my life heard such a load of crap coming from some of the commenters on this site. So many of the people here continue to justify their thefts using price, availability, rights, the "American" way, quality, DRM, etc. and insulting those who disagree with them, like me.

You're stealing. It doesn't matter what reason you give for it. MAN UP! Admit it. At least I can respect that.

*** "Either we conform the Truth to our desires or we conform our desires to the Truth." ***

Danthrax66

May 30, 2010 at 9:46pm

No I'm infringing on their copy right and it is fucking great getting stuff for free is by far better than paying for it. And if you think about it though it is the american way we were founded because we were too cheap to pay money to england well I'm too cheap to pay for every piece of music to find what I like. Despite the fact that I have an xm sunscription and hundreds of cds plus 40 or so steam games + 100's of console games, not a big movie guy but I pay for hbo and pay per view but yeah I'm a thief and only torrent things to get it for free.

Mark Hanchey

May 31, 2010 at 6:53am

The fact you are happy about stealing is disturbing. America was not founded because we wanted to do whatever we pleased. It was founded when we were being taxed without having the ability to have any input on how we were taxed. google , no taxation without representation.

Nothing copyrighted and downloaded is a necessity for living. You do not have to download, you could take the high road and not buy it or download it and let the publisher know why. When you download something like a game and the publisher sees thousands of pirated downloads for the title it tells them one thing, people really want this title and we need to make sure it is harder to steal. Instead if people did not buy it or download it then it would send the message of 'People are not interested in our title and are not buying it , why?"

gendoikari1

May 29, 2010 at 9:55pm

Yes, because fair prices, inability to get things legally, fair use, personal freedom, getting what you paid for, actually owning instead of renting the thing you paid for, etc. are totally illegal.

Rocketpop

May 29, 2010 at 3:58am

I read this article twice and still don't understand the big message it's trying to deliver. What argument is being made here? That we should totally move from CDs to digital downloads, and something to do with piracy?

shellpc

May 29, 2010 at 9:05am

If they were to open up more online stores like AmazonMP3 and iTunes with more choices of codecs and quality along with more competitive prices they'd be getting alot more sales.

Rocketpop

May 29, 2010 at 3:30pm

No, that can't be what he's saying, because that's retarded. Piracy happens because it's easier than paying for it. It has nothing to do with how it's marketed.

nesomumi

May 29, 2010 at 3:37am

Will in general very nice article, i all ways have need to express my toughs (feelings about this topic).

Quote "Downloading what you haven’t paid for is electric shoplifting—no question—but the simple fact that downloading continues on such a scale is evidence of just how much the audience wants easy access to the music."

You see i did pay for it, i paid the ticket to see that movie (but i didn't get some code after the show so i can download it for free or for some small fee), i paid the ticket to get in the concert (but i didn't get some code after the show so i can download it for free or for some small fee), i pay tax here where i live (croatia) so my national tv network can buy those movie's so i can watch it, every business model that is using music to entertain there visitors pay a tax so they can play it (dance schools, café bars, you name it, you here music, it is paid. when you bought that audio cd, video dvd you PAID FOR IT.

So will i work every day, and get paid for MY WORK every day, you (people that create entertainment) don't do work every day, and expect (that will successfully are living nice and cosy life), we should feel sorry that we stole something from you. i dont think so, i think i pay more then enough. People that can't make money of music or movies should learn another skill, because probability is we don't even know they exist, let alone download there stuff.

And btw filesharers are not pirates, we do not make a life of it and dont make money of it, we have nothing to gain or lose of it. If we cant share, we will not buy, because we dont have money to buy it in the first place, hence sharing. We all shared cominc books, dvd's, music tapes, etc.

Real pirates SELL DVD's, you can find them at your local newspapers under PC hardwere of the payed ad. They invaste time and money to make and sell those DVD's, they are investing time and money to rip off manufactures. That is called organised crime.

We, the file sharers DO NOT do that.

Games are whole other story, and i do believe that is wrong to download game, but at the same time i understand people that share games, they would not buy the game, as they dont have the money to buy it in the first place. There will all ways be people that are able to pay, but will not.
Business model of game company will not get enormous gain if they find some perfect protection, because people will not buy it if they can't afford it, they will just not play it. Nor will they tell to some of there friends how they played some awesome game (and make market on some of there friends, you did hear about mouth to mouth advertising), do you honestly believe that people would rather stole then buy, do you think that people are not taking whit great pride when they can say i bought it, and it is awesome?!

shellpc

May 29, 2010 at 8:58am

Not being able to afford something isn't an excuse for illegally downloading it. You got other free methods of accessing those goods, such as radio and tv, even libraries.

Buying a movie or concert ticket also is a poor example of so-called rights to illegally download them. Unless it says otherwise, a ticket is usually only good for one viewing of the event. A cd or dvd, on the other hand, you buy it once you can listen or watch it as much as you like.

Lastly, just cause you think they get paid enough already, doesn't excuse you from stealing and not paying for their goods or services(taxes don't count). You don't like what they're selling, then don't buy it and don't steal it either.

nesomumi

May 30, 2010 at 6:17am

you can not like my explanation. but that explanatio is accurate for most of the people that share things. so will you say you are right, i say i am right.

aviaggio

May 29, 2010 at 12:25pm

"Lastly, just cause you think they get paid enough already, doesn't excuse you from stealing and not paying for their goods or services(taxes don't count). You don't like what they're selling, then don't buy it and don't steal it either."

It must be difficult being so high and mighty. If you don't have the money to buy content then downloading it hurts no one. Other than people like you whose panties bunch up at the mere thought of it.

I'm wondering tho... have you ever copied a friend's CD? VHS tape? Taped a show off TV and held onto it for more than a week? Used a tape or DVR to skip commercials? Played music on a boom box in a public place? Copied a DVD, even for your own personal use? Scanned and/or printed a photo you yourself didn't take? Sang "Happy Birthday"? Used a shareware program for more than 30 days? Watched ANY copyrighted video on YouTube? Watched a porn clip you didn't pay for? Photocopied a page from a book or magazine? I'm betting you have.

And this sir, makes you A THIEF. You have blatantly stolen goods and/or services from starving artists who deserve to get paid for their work. Please contact the appropriate governing agency and report yourself for copyright infringement and/or violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It's the right thing to do for someone with such high moral standards as yours.

shellpc

May 29, 2010 at 6:37pm

Actually, most of what you just mentioned is covered by Fair Use. That doesn't mean massive distribution by torrents are.

As for the DMCA - its about circumventing copy protection, not violating copyrights.

aviaggio

May 29, 2010 at 7:14pm

Copying a DVD for your own personal use is a violation of the DMCA. And actually nothing on that list is fair use, at least not by the letter of the law. Well maybe singing "Happy Birthday" (provided it wasn't in a public place, like a park). That you probably won't get sued for. Yet.

And while skipping commercials is neither a fair use issue or an actual copyright infringement, you are technically "stealing" the program, as you have enjoyed said program without submitting to the required advertisial viewing. Which you would never do right, cause you know it's wrong to "steal".

Muerte

June 01, 2010 at 7:40am

Just because the commersial is there does not make you legally bound to watch it in exchange for the program. I signed no contract and read no User Agreement. So your argument here is not valid. Legally speaking.

Copying a CD for my own personal use is not technically illegal either tho people like to use this argument agaiinst DRM its not accurate. When you give it away it becomes a gray area. If you sell it its illegal.

When you down;oad something without paying for it, its illegal.

You can try to be as clever as you wish but in the end you losse this argument.

dbrinto

May 28, 2010 at 8:56pm

That's a great application of "Marketing Myopia" to today's piracy dilemma. I've thought the same thing ever since I first read that article. Someone really needs to educate digital content providers on the principles that Theodore Levitt laid out. Speaking of piracy... shouldn't you reference your source ;) JK

yammerpickle2

May 28, 2010 at 7:33pm

As a reader of Max PC I wonder why you’re not concerned about piracy and the status of PC gaming. There are apps that require Max PC type tech like image /video editing, and folding, but I figure a lot of us are here because we game. Max PC to me is about great gaming eye candy and frame rates. Sadly more and more games are developed for the wimpy consoles and then ported to PC. Those games really do not require a Max PC type rig. I've read many stories on the state of PC gaming and it seems that many of the people who make the games like to be paid for their efforts. Piracy cuts off their motivation to make content for the platform and so less content will be made for PC. In the end there will be nothing more to pirate. Funny people who will spend countless hours searching for just the right components and significant money putting a gaming rig together are too cheap to spend 50 bucks on a well designed game. Next time you pirate some software why don't you also upload a free stunning AAA title you developed by yourself for everyone else to play. That way those of us who are willing to pay can still get some worthwhile content. I'll gladly donate to you if you do.

Future Tense: A Pirate’s Life For Whom?

More like this

Comments

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Connect with MaximumPC

Featured Content

This month's issue

Feature

Feature

How-To

Build It

Buy Subscription

Most Commented Articles

Latest Max PC Tweets

MaximumPC on Facebook