Piracy Is A Part Of The Market
from the it's-not-the-enemy...-and-it-may-not-be-competition dept
Out-law.com has an interesting discussion with a so-called "anti-piracy expert" where he tries to make the point that pirates are not the "enemy" but are "competition." This is a step in the right direction -- though, one ignored by many industries threatened by unauthorized file sharing. As the MySpace Music offering shows, very little thought is given to actually competing with piracy. Most of these solutions simply try to pretend it doesn't exist -- which is a pretty difficult way to compete.But it's important to recognize that the market shift goes further than just seeing unauthorized file sharing as competition. To succeed in the marketplace, it shouldn't even be viewed as competition, but as a tool that can be used to your advantage. The business models that embrace file sharing and use it to drive business to other parts of a business model are doing great, realizing that file sharing isn't the enemy and isn't competition, but is a great, efficient distribution mechanism that reaches a lot of people very quickly and effectively. Ignoring ways to make use of that seems pretty dangerous.
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
Filed Under: competition, markets, piracy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
long time no see
Piracy is huge in emerging markets like China, India and Southeast Asia simply because the "legal" goods are too damn expensive for the average user. Instead of wailing over piracy, perhaps companies should consider the chief reasons why piracy is successful there: pricing and availability.
For instance, DVDs of the latest Hollywood movies are available for $1-$2 each because
a) the studios release the DVDs months after the screen release, if at all they do.
b) the price point is waaaaay above what the average joe can afford.
My 2 cents....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can you tell? Judging by some of your previous articles, sabotage, bullying and marginally legal dirty tricks are considered the normal way of dealing with competition; they certainly require less mental exertion than improving one's own products and services on the part of the senior management, especially when the government is unable or unwilling to do very much about it unless they do anything definitely criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competing WIth Piracy
Jake wrote:
Those are not competitive tactics—unless you count driving away your own customers, and destroying what’s left of your own business model, as a competitive tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In related news...
In fact, many business owners are encouraging shoplifters and theives to return in the hope that, once in the store, they may eventually buy more than they steal. "We've had thousands of dollars of name brand sneakers 'walk' out the door," said one shopkeeper. "But sales of $1.99 socks and shoestrings are beginning to pick up."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In related news...
When people shoplift, they take something of value from you. They transfer value from you to them. When people pirate, they copy something of value from you. Both you and them now have the same thing, of the same value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In related news...
This has been pointed out to you directly in the past, so I'm not sure why you ignore it. There's a massive difference between *copying* an infinite good and *taking* a scarce good.
You know this, because it has been pointed out to you.
I cannot fathom why you would continue to make this false analogy that you must know is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In related news...
Try to understand that somebody stealing an expensive physical good (which at minimum costs time and money to restock, thus immediately losing the shopkeeper and manufacturer money) has absolutely NO similarity to copying a digital file (which costs nothing to stock and *at most* only loses a *potential* sales).
Then come back when you can type without sounding like a blithering idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In related news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Priacy can be good for business
Trial versions these days just don't offer all the features of a program to be tried, so you don't know whether those extra features may be even worth it, or all the cool action in that certain game will live up to what you seen or heard about it. I hate to gamble my money on something that may look and sound good but may end up just plain sucking monkey butt.
Piracy is a good thing. It gets your product more seen and tried by others around the world. Can't the corporations simply ask people that pirated their product that if they loved it, to support them by buying it? Yo-ho-ho! This product is deemed worthy! $$$$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eventually.
Which is pretty much the core of all of your arguments. Give work away, and hope and pray that under the correct mystical "model" the thieves of the world will somehow repay your efforts and eventually buy more than they steal.
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that encouraging theft in one area is going to do anything else than encourage more of the same elsewhere.
Nor do I believe in ignoring creative rights, nor do I buy into the fallacy of believing it's "okay" to ignore production costs simply because the reproduction model has changed, nor do I find any of the oft-repeated "buy X to get Y" models particularly desirable.
Nor do I find the the unmitigated greed and entitlement of today's "consumer" particularly attractive. (I use the word consumer lightly, as in most cases of this nature they pay and contribute nothing.) Just because technology has made something easy to steal doesn't mean that that it's suddenly their "right" to do so.
And because I believe those things, I feel somewhat obligated to repeat them, much as TechDirt feels obligated to reproduce any and all articles that seem to have even a remote chance of supporting their position.
What the heck? If nothing else it generates comments, controversy, and page views, right? (grin)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eventually.
It is not the same at all. One harms no one, the other deprives a store owner or corporation of assets. I see no reason why downloading files which are freely shared (albeit against copyright law) would lead to physical theft. The psychology is entirely different.
I am a big movie customer. I buy more DVDs than I should. Many of those DVDs are movies I first "pirated" and would never have discovered without the comments and recommendations of fellow "pirates." It's more a matter of convenience than anything. Give me an option to pay a monthly fee for similar convenience, and I would gladly do it. And no, a crappy selection of poor-quality streaming movies does NOT qualify as convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eventually.
Uh, no. Stealing is stealing, but this is infringing. Quite a bit different in law, and ethically completely different. After all, infringers aren't ripping the files out of the copyright owner's hard drive (that would be stealing IP). Someone who actually bought the material is sharing it with others. Dude, you learned about this in kindergarten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eventually.
It's not a justification. As you noted, both infringement and theft are against the law. They're two separate, illegal acts with different penalties attached, and covered by different laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eventually.
We're not missing that phrase. We're challenging its validity directly.
It's built on false analogies. Stealing a sneaker actually results in losses - you put time and money into making that sneaker, and now you don't have it anymore. It's *gone*. Infringing on copyright, on the other hand, doesn't result in losses. You create some content, someone infringes your copyright, and you still have your content. You can still go out and sell it.
In your example, Nike is looking at a balance sheet like this:
-$100 -$100 -$100 ... -$100 +$2 +$2 +$2 ...
And hoping that they get enough +$2 on the right to make up for all the -$100 on the left. This probably isn't going to work (though this general principle is a recognized business tactic, in the form of loss leaders). On the other hand, someone with an infinite good is looking at a balance sheet like this:
-$0 -$0 -$0 ... -$0 +$2 +$2 +$2 ...
Looks quite a bit different to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eventually.
First of all, it's not stealing. It may be infringement, but that's different. But you know that.
Second, the whole point is that you don't "sell the content." You sell something scarce that is made much more valuable by the content being free. Focusing on selling the content is your fallacy.
Something that is free has no value so nobody will pay for it.
Actually, that's false on many levels. First, you confuse value with price. Many things are free that have tremendous value. You value air, for example, but you don't pay for it, because it's abundant.
Plus, there are plenty of examples of goods that are "free" where people pay for other ancillary goods around it. Water is effectively (or at least very close) to free in many situations, but people still buy bottled water for convenience and (perceived) safety. In other words, they're buying the scarcities (convenience and safety) rather than accepting the free good.
This is rather basic economics. I believe you and I have discussed this before. I can only conclude that your repeated ignorance is willful at this point. It does not reflect well of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eventually.
My main point is, people argue the business model is out of date and turn a blind eye to breaking the law. Since when are these idiots entitled to movies and music created by others? If they want them, they can pay for them it is just that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eventually.
If that's the operative phrase, then once again, you have not been paying attention. You really ought to read what we write.
Which is pretty much the core of all of your arguments. Give work away, and hope and pray that under the correct mystical "model" the thieves of the world will somehow repay your efforts and eventually buy more than they steal
Actually, no, that's simply not true. In fact, we've come out AGAINST the "give it away and pray" model:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml
But why let facts stop you?
The point we're making is understanding how infinite goods *always* make some scarce goods more valuable. The trick is figuring out which scarce goods the infinite goods will make more valuable. This isn't some "mythical model," but a rather well proven model with tons of economic research behind it (check out Paul Romer's work in particular).
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that encouraging theft in one area is going to do anything else than encourage more of the same elsewhere.
Well, for the millionth time: no one is saying that you encourage stealing. But, again, you know that, don't you? Or do you really have that much trouble with basic reading comprehension.
Nor do I believe in ignoring creative rights, nor do I buy into the fallacy of believing it's "okay" to ignore production costs simply because the reproduction model has changed, nor do I find any of the oft-repeated "buy X to get Y" models particularly desirable.
What you call a "fallacy" is basic economics that has been proven historically time and time again. It's called marginal costs vs. fixed costs. You might want to try reading up on it so you don't look like a fool.
Nor do I find the the unmitigated greed and entitlement of today's "consumer" particularly attractive. (I use the word consumer lightly, as in most cases of this nature they pay and contribute nothing.) Just because technology has made something easy to steal doesn't mean that that it's suddenly their "right" to do so.
No one has said that it is "right." We have always been talking about things from the perspective of the producer of the content and how they can best benefit.
And, you really ought to learn that this has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with incentives. You might want to start by cracking open an econ textbook. Otherwise, again, you look pretty ignorant on fairly basic stuff.
And because I believe those things, I feel somewhat obligated to repeat them, much as TechDirt feels obligated to reproduce any and all articles that seem to have even a remote chance of supporting their position.
Every time you repeat it you show a near complete ignorance of basic economics, because the only fallacies and myths are the ones you're repeating. I can understand how someone totally uneducated in economics could make these mistakes, but it suggests that you haven't actually been reading anything we write, just pretending that we've said something we have not.
I would suggest that you learn some basic economics. A few key things to focus on: fixed costs vs. marginal costs. Supply vs. demand. Price vs. value. Rivalrous vs. Nonrivalrous. That should give you a good starting point. I would also suggest that if you do NOT learn about these things, you are going to make yourself look particularly bad when you come back and display your ignorance again next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
Personally, however, if my life's work was being stolen I think I might prefer a more direct approach. In fact, I'm reminded of my grandfather who had a sign posted rather prominently near the entrance to his farm...
"Trespassers will be shot."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember prohibition? That's right - they made it illegal to drink alcohol. So people made it in their bathtubs - illegal. But because this "crime" was so widespread, the govt eventually realized that it was only costing them money trying to supress it, so they legalized and taxed it. You can still make alcohol in your bathtub - but why, when you can pay a couple of bucks and get a tall glass of delicious Sam Adams Light?
People are arguing the same thing here. The "crime" is so widespread, it suggests that the current model is lacking. So many people do it, that maybe these businesses that are suffering should figure out a way to make it easier, quicker, and cheaper to obtain this content. Once you put more value on purchasing than on pirating, you will quell the mass freeloaders. I would say that for $12.95 a month, a large searchable database with 200 kb/s speed that guarantees no malware that always has 100% of each file available - instead of 99.9% like on my most recent dirty download, is more valuable than an unstable torrent with 3 seeds and .98 availability. Think Zune or iTunes, which both offer content quickly, safely and cheaply.
The point is, when the majority doesn't find something morally objectionable, maybe the lines in the sand should be redrawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're making too much sense, someone's bound to get angry with you... :)
So, one one hand, they say that lending a book is not like sharing content, because when you lend you do not retain the original. Fair enough.
But on the other hand, they say that sharing content is stealing, notwithsanding the fact that the owner still retains the original.
Double standards much? :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like driving ...
So I think we can say that piracy is a part of the market like death is a part of driving.
Rob:-]
"Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life." Anon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe you can't. That's the nature of information - the only way to control its spread is to control the means of distribution. So unless someone shuts down the intertubes, that's how it is going to work from now on. Legality or morality has nothing to do with it - you can't stop hurricanes any more than you can stop people from sharing information, I'm guessing it's a fundamental law of nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try using a search engine. I've discussed the issue at length.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]