AP Looks At Piracy Around The World... Misses The Real Story
from the if-it-sounds-good,-run-it dept
It seems that someone at the Associated Press must have bought the Big Content industry's storyline about the "threat of piracy" hook, line and sinker. The folks there have come out with a series of stories talking up what a huge threat piracy is in places like Mexico, Russia and (of course) China. Throughout all three stories, the industry line is portrayed without any question, including the BSA's typically bogus stats on how piracy "hurts" local industry -- ignoring how it can help local industry as well. It's not surprising that the AP doesn't bother to mention how all that piracy helped created new and different business models for musicians in China that let them thrive despite the piracy (actually, in some cases, because of it). Nor does the AP bother to mention how software piracy helped boost certain aspects of the industry in China by decreasing the cost of inputs. This isn't to defend piracy -- but to note that there's a lot more to this story than what the various industry associations would have you believe. Would it be so hard for someone like the Associated Press not to take the corporate PR line, and maybe present a slightly more thoughtful set of articles? Apparently, that's too much work.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not take that stand then?
I believe they've realized that there is decreasing real demand for their products and they are making up alternative methods to get money. They're a ravenous monster because of their past success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AP is just another IP company
People license their "wire services" for a fee, just like any other 'wire service" I.E. Reuters, AFP, API (just more alphabet soup.)
It's no surprise that they published the article, they are in the IP business after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything the AP publishes needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and with the understanding that they (AP) are pushing their own agenda, what ever that may be. Luckily you can fact check them through the Internet, but the question is how many people take the time do do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
piracy losses
a copy of the real item at $300 to 400 ? or even a hundred dollars, or in the case of certain designer items at $1,000 u.s?
when the average wage of these persons are on average less than $200 u.s. per year. i contend that they would not have that market so to say that they lost billions from this is a joke, however, the ones that should be penalized should be the copiers who sell outside of their country to people who can afford the real thing and wont pay for the real items, not the poor people in the undeveloped countries who couldn't afford the real thing ,probably in their lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They also miss another thing...
It's a "free" way of gaining market share and locking in customers for the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Canada?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmmm....What?
Are you crazy? Don't you think it is a given that pirating the software/music bennifits the people that do it? Do they need to mention the obvious?
BREAKING NEWS!!!!! If Mike steals his next computer he can save THOUSAND$$$$$$$$$ in operating expense!!!!! Get out there and steal a PC Mike!
I do agre witht he other reply that software companies keep the price so high so they can force companies in America and a few other markets to fund the pirated copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmmm....What?
Funny how so many of these companies bitch about their IP rights while they trample the rights of others without a care. Just know that your a puppet for big industry hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha
What if someone thought you'd be better off with a bat upside your head, because it might clear your way of thinking? You disagree? Oh too bad! *whack*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha ha
It works like this: in microecnomics, any economist will tell you that competition for a good depends on price, all other things being equal. Some goods are substitute goods, while others are perceived as inferior goods.
And that's how we buy our pasta sauces, frozen pizza, TVs, dishwashers and video cards. It depends on features and performance vs. price.
But when it comes to the piracy of an OS and application software (but not games), piracy changes all the rules. Because piracy, you see, removes the ability of any competitor to actually compete in the market place based on price.
You don't have a case of Word vs. Wordperfect, you have Word and that's pretty much it. The fact that Wordperfect is cheaper will not avail them in the marketplace. They can even GIVE IT AWAY - it won't matter. People will either buy Word, or they will pirate Word. In no event do they buy Wordperfect, as it is percevied as an inferior good.
We have seen this time and time again. Where there is a consumer software application that fills a need and is perceived as the "leader", it takes over the market - it dominates it completely and crushes all competition until there really is only one real application choice.
Pirating Word caused Microsoft a loss yes - but not *nearly* as much as it caused Wordperfect/ Novell/ Corel etc to incur a loss.
At a certain point, when your competition has been destroyed, the greatest opportunity costs of piracy is cannabalism of your own lost sales. At that point, your biggest untapped potential customer is the one who is already using your products - they just have not paid for them.
Bringing them into the fold without alienating them is a difficult dance, but one which Microsoft is playing fairly well.
Bill Gates may hate piracy and always has since the days of his first BASIC program for the Sinclair being pirated. But it also made him the richest man on earth because as long as you have the perceived "best" good in the marketplace, piracy detroys your competition with utter ruthlessness.
Moral of the story: When it comes to application software (as distinct from games) piracy inevitably leads to monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sometimes...
My grandmother always said, "Two wrongs don't make a right.."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Porn Industry made 4 billion dollars *more* than hollywood last year, yet it's far easier to find free porn on the web than free movies..
Odd, I thought free downloads were killing the 'entertainment' industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying "but this is really a complex argument and I'm actually helping the environment with what I'm doing" is just a weak rationalization for your unethical, scumbag behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, but that's a case where something is stolen. Something is missing.
With content or software, nothing is actually missing. The original owner still owns everything.
That's what makes this issue more complex. Even the Supreme Court has weighed in that copyright infringement is not stealing. So, sorry, it's not theft. It may not be legal, but that's a different issue than what we're discussing. What we're saying is that there may actually be business benefits to it as well (which again, is QUITE different than your car example).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if you copy and use someone's IP for your own (not commercial) purposes, exactly how have they been harmed? They aren't missing anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that's the issue - our ideas on property ownership don't work with copyrighted works. They also don't work with fire, disease, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
>Piracy *is* bad. If you decide to go steal someone's electric car, end up driving the neighboorhood kids to school with it, therefore eliminating a trip into your subdivision by a behemoth polluting bus, guess what? You're still a thief.
Yes, comparing the theft of a tangible object like a car, with the 'theft' of "copyrighted" objects like software, is a very valid argument. Its the same thing, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YUP
What's more important is that the readers understand that all writing, regardless of claims, has to be scrutinized not only for the facts but the truth as well.
Nowadays people don't question...it's too much effort so we just eat what's fed us. We read it to at least feel informed even though we may really be less informed as a result of having read it.
True information, if new, by it's nature, causes us to at least assess what we know. It provides a means of knowing where we've been, where we are, and where we need to be in response to that information.
To accept things as fact on the face of it merely enables us to dismiss our faculties of intelligence and weakens us further into believing even more lies until we're just lost in lies and cannot identify the truth if it hit us on the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRAP
Once you start thinking you're better than another person for having stolen an article, perhaps have never been in a position of sheer survival.
Ethics go right out the window when we are talking life and death (survival).
If someone steals a loaf of bread to aid a sick loved one, which is worse the stealing of the bread or the death of the loved one?
This is certainly an oversimplified example but if a person is suppressed by his own national economics and must acquire an article to further advance his goal or dream, do you really think he cares if he affects a huge mutinational Corporation which by it's very nature is inhuman and far removed from the feelings of a real flesh-and-blood human being?
I buy a music CD for a one-time-cost of$18.00 I listen to occasionally.
I buy a software CD for a cost of $50.00 plus an additional $20.00 each year for it's use.
Do the math. I don't care how much I use the software it's still just software...it's a tool...the world doesn't depend on it (unless we let it). The software is a tool just like an electric drill. Where is the ethics in charging for the use of the drill on a yearly basis?
Yes, it is ludicrous. Companies want us to believe that we cannot live without their prducts so they charge what they charge.
So, too, the thieves justify their dealings and so must steal what they steal.
Which is right? Maybe the ethical people can sort this out.
Just because a company has a set of accounting books, pays taxes, has attorneys, money, etc...does nothing for ethics or morality. Remember Enron? How about Southern Edison? Perhaps Exxon or Union Carbide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slashdotted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hungry artists are motivated artists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ethics Shmethics
Frankly, I want to pay the creators, not the extortionists. Until I can do that, then shut up about the ethics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Business Models Abound!
For example, McDonalds could just rustle cattle (sorry...engage in alternative cattle aquisition methods) to avoid having to pay for beef! Pure profit!
The costly rental of office space could be avoided by simply moving into a random stranger's home and setting up shop there. If they object, they clearly are TOOLS OF THE CORPORATE PIGS, and can be shot out of hand like the fascist scumwads they are.
Fuel for vehicles, such as FedEx delivery trucks, can be siphoned from other vehicles. This should be referred to as an "unscheduled fuel transfer".
Of course, the real savings come when you simply stop paying your employees, except for the few burly ones with whips and guns you use to keep the rest in lne. Should anyone complain, you simply say something logical like "Didn't you ever copy a cassette tape from a friend?" or "Don't you sometimes go past the speed limit?" Confronted with this proof that all laws are basically just FASCIST OPPRESSION which EVERYONE IGNORES, they will continue to work for you for free. You might also tell them that the old model of "do work, get paid" simply isn't viable in the Internet age and that, if they're starving, it's their fault for not being creative enough and finding new paradigms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Business Models Abound!
In every one someone is deprived of something. Time, cattle (my fav), gas whatever. Someone has lost something in the person taking this action.
I have seen NO proof, and in fact seen much proof to the opposite, that copying media in any way takes ANYTHING, a sale included, from the creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandatory Bill Gates quote
Bill Gates - 1998
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html?legacy=cnet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next?
Just imagine architects claming money from people entering the buildings they've designed.
Once you're inside each step you make on the carpet you have to pay the carpenter.
Every lamp illuminating the steps for you, the electrician get paid.
...
Not entering the building? You better keep your eyes shut, since every "human" made object will bill you for looking at it. It's "art", so you have to pay for experiencing the look of an overfilled dumpster your eyes acidentaly swept past.
Gosh, darn, how exiting this copyright stuff is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying "but this is really a complex argument and I'm actually helping the environment with what I'm doing" is just a weak rationalization for your unethical, scumbag behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying "but this is really a complex argument and I'm actually helping the environment with what I'm doing" is just a weak rationalization for your unethical, scumbag behavior."
This is a stupid analogy, and a stupid understanding of the issues. For better understanding of the differences between "real property" and "IP", (which isn't property all, except by very recent definition), Google some of the terms, and then read more than just the industry hacks point of view. It also wouldn't hurt to learn a little about copyright, especially it's history and purpose. Copyright, when passed into law, gave original authors limited and specific rights to profit from their works, but by no stretch of the imagination could such works be legally regarded as property. In fact, it was the intent of the law that such works would pass into the public domain when copyright expired. Copyright ended much sooner than it does now, and certainly could not be extended in perpetuity. There are sound reasons for different standards for physical property and intellectual "non-property" (Ideas and creative works). Confusing the two is exactly what the industry moguls are trying to accomplish, and it looks like you fell for it.
Ignore my previous attempt to post. It came through severely cropped, possibly because I don't know much about html.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Piracy is Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Piracy is Theft
wrong. you did not have $10 in your wallet that went missing, thus there was no "theft"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Piracy is Theft
Not so. "Potential income" cannot be stolen, because there's no evidence that it ever would have become income. If you start calling "potential income" theft, then you have to eliminate all economic choices, since they all involve taking potential income away from many parties and giving it to a different one. Potential income cannot be lost. If you're worried about a "loss" of potential income, it just means you're not doing a very good job marketing your product or coming up with a business model people want to buy into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Piracy is Theft
Not exactly. You have everything you had before I "stole" your music. On the other hand, if I share that music with a few friends, and they in turn share it with a few more, many more people have heard your music than would have otherwise. If your music is any good, some of those people will want to buy their own copy. This is exactly how our music industry got huge in the first place. If as an independent artist, you want your audience to grow, (You do, don't you?), you won't find cheaper exposure. On the other hand, maybe you expect people who have never heard of you, or your music, to fork over $10 for a CD. THAT is the music industry business plan in a nutshell. Go for the contract, because you won't get anywhere any other way. Good luck if no one knows who you are. Oh, even if you get a recording contract, don't count on getting rich. You won't, until AFTER the publisher does, if then. Oops, he's already rich. Plus, he'll own your music, even if he never releases it to market. Now that is what I call theft.
Today, because demand for the music companies massed-produced, un-inspired and un-inspiring product is down, like a previous poster pointed out, they want a new way to extract profit. They don't care if it comes from people who would not willingly pay their price. That's NOT a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Piracy is Theft
Perhaps I don't even know who you are? I happen to grab a copy of your song from a friend and say "hey, this guy is pretty good", you suddenly have a potential customer.
Of course, if I then goto the store, but wait, the **AA isn't jacking you yet, so your not in the store. So I'll goto your website, but wait, your treating me as a criminal by default, so why the hell should I bother buying your crap when you insult me at the start.
So I'm stealing money from you? Prove that I had every intention and ability to pay for it from the start. I didn't reach into your pockets and yank $10 from them, you did it yourself with your attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Piracy is Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Piracy is Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Piracy is Theft
>me, "pirate") my music instead of paying me for it, >you are taking my income. If I set a price of $10 on >my CD and you pirate the whole thing off the >internet, then you have just stolen $10 of potential >income from me. You are using/enjoying the music >without paying for it. That is theft.
Of course, even if you think that is theft (which it isn't), you'll be happy for it when the I show up to one of your concerts or performances and pay a $10 fee to get in because I like your music. And bring my 4 friends with me. Thus making you more money than you would have if I bought your CD.
Or, 6 months from now, when I decide to go on a road trip and realize I can't play MP3s in my car and decide to buy a copy of the CD anyways.
Or when one of my friends asks me who made the song I'm listening to and then buys your CD because he likes it.
Or when you release your next album and it sell way more due to the popularity of your first album.
Plus, just the good will and popularity you get when there are a lot of people who might have had a barrier (i.e. money) to listening to your music get to hear it anyways.
Those are all the ways that piracy is MAKING you money. Versus the 10 dollars you might be losing due to a sale of your CD.
I don't have hard figures, but it is my belief that for every $10 dollars someone loses due to piracy, they gain $15 in other sales, and free advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Piracy is Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Physical vs intellectual property
One has had a lot of expenses making that particular copy, the other does not actually lose the money they spent on making it.
If you could "clone cars" somehow, and "copy" it without hurting the original in any way, damn right I'd be having a Porsche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/piracy.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Physically, video is nothing more then a very specific arrangement of pixelized or phosphorescent light. Songs are merely a complex arrangement of distinct and common audio sounds reproduced from electrical 1's and 0s. Its still basically information.
Theft of information is a stupid concept because more then one person can "think" of the information. If I were to recite the star spangled banner, word for word, then I have STOLEN the information according to common concepts of intellectual property. People who have memories and voices can be just as much physically a recording device as any tape player.
Really the only ones who make money off of these intellectual laws are lawyers? Why? Because they are the masters of re-arranging information to suit their needs.
In a world of purist IP law, you would not be able to say a word because every single word would have been patented, copyrighted, and trademarked. This may be an exaggeration, but how close does a society have to move towards this before the exaggeration becomes the reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Physically, video is nothing more then a very specific arrangement of pixelized or phosphorescent light. Songs are merely a complex arrangement of distinct and common audio sounds reproduced from electrical 1's and 0s. Its still basically information.
Theft of information is a stupid concept because more then one person can "think" of the information. If I were to recite the star spangled banner, word for word, then I have STOLEN the information according to common concepts of intellectual property. People who have memories and voices can be just as much physically a recording device as any tape player.
Really the only ones who make money off of these intellectual laws are lawyers? Why? Because they are the masters of re-arranging information to suit their needs.
In a world of purist IP law, you would not be able to say a word because every single word would have been patented, copyrighted, and trademarked. This may be an exaggeration, but how close does a society have to move towards this before the exaggeration becomes the reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the human body is nothing more than carbon and water with a few other elements mixed in. Thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses. There is no such thing as original thought, creativity or beauty.
Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Concepts such as originality, creativity, and beauty are abstract in nature. Yet we constantly tie them to physical mediums such as a sunset or a particular hue of color or a uncommon way of arranging flowers.
Even my "electrical impulses" which may be contrary to yours are still unique and original from what your thoughts are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rational discussion
Microsoft could just as well sue, say, Apple for competing with them, cause every sold copy of MacOS for intel means one sale less for them. Ergo, they LOST the money for sure, right? It would have been a guaranteed sale if Apple hadn't gained a customer.
For long I havent been able to afford the programs I wanted to use the most. So what do you do? By pitating I am not makign anyone lose any money, or support time. But now, when fiannces are on the up, guess what? I am buying the apps I use, and am putting aside money for Vista for when it comes out.
The assumption that every prate copy out there equals a lost sale is not logically valid, as many of thos epeople might be pirating cause they can't afford otherwise. It doesn't make it right according to capitalist law, but to me it's morally defendable, as the copyright holder has nothing physical stolen, nothing they have spent tiem and effort of producing..its a digital carbon copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ZOMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's about control, not about greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still not getting it...
ok.... now how about i take months of work to create something, toiling away on my little project, and then decide to give you an exact copy that in no way detracts from my own version, so you can enjoy it as much as i do...? Would i have a problem with that? no...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]