HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It

from the at-this-point,-the-content-providers-are-being-deliberately-obtuse dept

Many, many posts and discussions have taken place here at Techdirt about content providers and their love of windowed releases. A point frequently made is that there would likely be a lot less piracy and a lot more purchasing if these 30/60/90 day rental/PPV/premium cable windows were eliminated on new releases. Another frequent target are premium cable providers and their original offerings, which suffer from long delays between original airings and their appearance on retail shelves.

More discussion is on the way! It started with a piece in the Guardian by Frederic Filloux arguing, as many have, that release windows lead to more piracy when it comes to cable TV programs. Megan McArdle responded to that article by arguing that such an argument is totally bogus, and the cable execs are brilliant business folks that many of us only dream of being one day. Then enter Marco Arment, agreeing with McArdle, saying that it's wrong to argue that cable companies are "forcing" people into piracy:

Realistically, nobody’s going to stop you from pirating it, but you can’t argue that you’re justified in pirating it. Admit it: you’re ripping it off, it’s morally questionable at best (and illegal), but you don’t care. You’re pirating a TV show because you don’t want to pay for it or wait for it to become available in the ways you want. You’re not making any kind of statement or participating in a movement — you’re just being cheap and/or impatient. If you don’t have the fortitude to cope with that, then don’t pirate.

If you want to hit cable companies, HBO, etc. where it hurts — if you truly want to send a message that there’s unmet demand they should be addressing — don’t watch their shows. At all. Don’t even pirate them. Don’t blog or tweet or face (?) about how good they are. Just don’t watch them.

That’s a real statement. And if enough people do it, that movement will effect change.

There's a questionable moral argument in there, but the troublesome part is in the second paragraph. Not watching a show doesn't send the message that there's unmet demand. It sends the message there's very little or no demand, which is exactly the wrong message to send if you're trying to motivate HBO, etc. to either speed up its delivery system or offer a la carte service.

Arment expands on this thought process on a followup post, which deals mainly with the "statement" sent by piracy:

Actually, piracy does make a statement — it’s just the wrong statement. If you truly want to pressure content providers to adapt new distribution channels, and you’re not just trying to justify getting everything for free, piracy is hurting your cause.

Most geeks try to justify piracy because the content isn’t available on our terms. We can’t get it in our country, we can’t get it as quickly as we want, it costs more than we want to pay, we can’t get it on the device we want, or we can’t get it in the format we want. Publishers have a distribution problem.

But when publishers see widespread piracy of their content, they don’t see the distribution problem. They think they have a piracy problem.

Ament is right. HBO, et al have a distribution problem. But simply refusing to watch or purchase the content sends two messages, neither of which will result in an overhaul of the distribution system. (The following uses HBO as an example, but it could any major motion picture studio, premium cable service or other distributor. But, HBO is the most pirated.)

1. If viewership falls or purchases drop off, HBO may decide there's no viable market for these programs and simply stop making them. This protects HBO's bottom line, but it does nothing for its future endeavors as it's drawing the wrong conclusions from the data.

2. HBO may simply view the dropoff to be the result of piracy rather than "viewer opt-out" and resort to the actions mentioned by Arment, including pushes for more anti-piracy legislation as well as limiting its exposure through increasingly onerous DRM or windowing.

Because piracy will never be nonexistent, it's impossible to create a control group that includes only potential purchasers of HBO's content. The only course of action left is for HBO is to experiment with faster turnaround and price reductions and see if these "forced pirates" are willing to put their money where their torrent is. To date, HBO has been unwilling to do this, at least in the US. Other premium cable companies have drastically reduced the turnaround of their shows and HBO itself offers a standalone streaming service in northern Europe, both in an effort to combat piracy. As its stands now, HBO's contracts with cable providers are far too lucrative to consider changing up its release strategy by going a la carte or trimming down the wait between debut and retail, at least not on a larger scale.

The problem with price/window experimentation is that altering these two factors in order to convert more pirates into viewers and purchasers will make cable companies extremely unhappy. HBO may find that it does very well with faster/cheaper releases but it won't ease its relationship with its most lucrative customers (at this point): cable companies. They already worry about cord-cutting and it's quite possible that current contracts prohibit HBO from undercutting its core market, which isn't viewers, but cable providers.

What piracy does do, regardless of "morality" or "making a statement" or anything else along those lines, is indicate demand. The content providers know people are watching their offerings, many times without paying. What they have to do is make the determination as to whether that audience is worth pursuing. At this point, many seem to believe it isn't. Very few companies have made any moves to drastically alter the artificial limits of the supply chain in order to capture some of the "un-monetized" market.

As Arment points out, the "half-empty" view of the content glass usually results in legislation and litigation rather than any serious attempts to solve the distribution problem. Pirating because you're "forced" into it simply feeds into these companies' dim view of the online market. But, unless these companies begin experimenting with the distribution process, there's no way to gauge the conversion rate. Doing things the way they've always been done will keep the status quo -- and people will continue to exercise the option to get the content on their own schedule.

So, Arment's right: pirating because of distribution limitations will continue to send the "piracy problem" message to HBO, Showtime, etc. While other companies view pirates as underserved customers, the movie and TV industries seem stuck viewing piracy as only a problem, rather than an opportunity. Trying to hit them in the wallet by refusing to watch or purchase will send the same message (because piracy will continue to be a "thing") -- piracy is hurting sales/viewership -- or worse, that the audience no longer exists.

This screwed up situation can't be solved by asking viewers to sit on their hands and wait patiently for a better distribution system, no more than it can be solved by having every ridiculous delay greeted by visits to The Pirate Bay. But only one of these actions indicates unmet demand. 

Filed Under: cable, hbo, piracy, showtime, windows

UK Recording Industry Doesn't Want Google To Reduce Piracy Until It Reduces Piracy

from the trapped-in-the-past dept

Techdirt has written before about the self-destructive vindictiveness of the copyright industries, which would rather die in a futile attempt to stamp out piracy than embrace new ways of making money that will help to reduce piracy anyway. Here's another example of this blinkered approach from the UK, pointed out to us by Techdirt user Zakida:

The body which represents the UK's biggest record labels says it "doesn't make sense" for Google not to tackle piracy when it's launching a new, legal music service.

Google says it wants its new music service, Google Play Music, to wipe out piracy on Android devices.

But the BPI claims the firm is not keeping its promise to make it harder to find illegal download sites.

We know that when music streaming services became available in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, illegal downloads were halved. The BPI's obsession with punishing illegal download sites blinds it to the fact that Google plans to launch a far better way of dealing with them: not through extrajudicial censorship in the form of doctored search results, but simply by offering something that people are happy to pay for. The UK recording industry should be embracing new ventures like Google Play Music wholeheartedly, not using them as bargaining chips in its pointless fight over search results.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: legal services, piracy, uk
Companies: bpi, google

Kenyan Filmmaker Looking To Cuts Costs By Using 'Pirates' As His Distributors

from the pirates-as-middlemen??? dept

It's not often you'll see a filmmaker turn to pirates for help. Almost every American film takes great pains to inform paying viewers just how awful these people are and how much trouble they'll be in if they're ever caught. That's "our" culture, as delivered by the MPAA: the only good pirate is an arraigned pirate (or one that has a boat, died a couple hundred years ago and resides safely on the MPAA's side of the screen).

But that's the US. Other cultures have their own take. Notable Indian filmmaker Anurag Kashyap views piracy as just another way to get his message to the masses. Incredibly efficient pirates in Nigeria spread purloined films as far as they could reach, creating new markets for Nigerian filmmakers. China's film industry continues to thrive despite being held up constantly as an example of unchecked IP infringement.

Here's another filmmaker who recognizes what pirates can offer a filmmaker on a budget. Patrick Mureithi, a Kenyan filmmaker who currently lives in Springfield, Missouri, is hoping to show his documentary on post-election violence and rebuilding in his home country, and is raising travel funds via Indiegogo. Most of this $5,000 will go directly to travel expenses, as Mureithi is counting on some of his countrymen to handle the rest.

I need to raise at least $5,000 for airfare, meals and transportation. Airfare is $2,000, transportation and meals another $2,000, and $1,000 is for miscellaneous expenses. My hope is to show the film on national television, and also to distribute it at minimum cost via the DVD piracy industry. Anything extra that I raise will go towards venue and equipment rental so that I can host public awareness forums.

When money's tight, no one does better, cheaper distribution than those whose only "business" is cheap distribution. With this "industry" already well established in Kenya, Mureithi simply needs to get his finished film into their hands and let them do what they do best -- get his film into the hands of as many Kenyans as possible.

"Kenya: Until Hope is Found," tells the story of severely traumatized men and women who learn various ways of taking responsibility for their own healing. This is a message that will resonate in the hearts of many, and will help start conversations about the need to heal from trauma, without which there can be no lasting peace. This is a message that is relevant not just in Kenya but to EVERY human being on the planet.

Hopefully, Mureithi will get his film funded and spread throughout Kenya. Roger Ebert has tweeted his support, calling the filmmaker's project an "urgent documentary." With Kenya teetering on the edge of genocide (according to Genocide Watch), the upcoming 2013 election could prove to be the tipping point, one that Mureithi hopes to head off with widespread viewing of his film.

Filed Under: anurag kashyap, distribution, kenya, movies, piracy

App Developer Hijacks Customer Twitter Accounts In An Attempt To Shame Pirates

from the and-here-comes-the-backlash dept

I've always had a bit of a soft spot for DRM in my heart, mostly because it makes me laugh. If you think about it, it's generally rather funny in its uselessness. Pirates don't care about it as they simply route around any DRM. Customers can certainly be annoyed, but they always end up with the same tools the pirates use to break the DRM on their purchased products. There's a question of legality in doing so, obviously, but generally nobody really seems to care all that much and software developers just end up in a DRM arms race against nobody, which is inherently funny. All the while, we get wonderful gems like Ubisoft's vuvuzela DRM, which was hysterical. Now, don't get me wrong, DRM sucks, but upon reading stories about its effects my range of emotions tends to be anywhere between annoyance and raucous laughter.

However, as content producers begin to wake up to the fail that is DRM, we've been discussing how using your fanbase and social constructs to shame pirates and reward customers is a better approach. And it is, but unlike DRM you better get it right, because if you screw it up the results are far beyond mild annoyance. Reader AdamR writes in about one such developer that screwed things up so badly that they ended up hijacking the Twitter accounts of some paying customers to post a "piracy confession" on their behalf.

If you search Twitter for the hashtag #softwarepirateconfession you'll find a stream of tweets stating, "How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession." There are many dozens of these tweets in the past day alone, all identical. So what's happening? It turns out that Enfour, the maker of a variety of dictionary apps, is auto-posting tweets to users' accounts to shame them for being pirates. But the auto-tweeting seems to be affecting a huge portion of its paid user base, not just those who actually stole the apps.

How could this happen, you wonder? Well, funny story. One proposed explanation is that there's a common tool used by people who jailbreak their iPhones and still want apps from Apple's app store, called Installous, that Enfour's apps were detecting and then, upon using the app and gaining permission to access a user's Twitter account it posted the "apology". However, others are saying that it's occurring on phones that are in fact not jailbroken. Either way, these are people that paid for the app, not pirates as their own hijacked Twitter accounts purport them to be. As one customer, Sean O'Brien, noted:

"Apparently, even though I paid nearly $25.00 for it, something in the code of this app identified me a owning a pirated copy. It then asked for access to my Twitter account through my iPhone. I gave it access because, it's the American Heritage Dictionary! If any app can be trusted with my Twitter account, it ought to be my expensive dictionary app. But no, it tweeted the following message:

"How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession"

As you can imagine, the paying customers are pissed. Enfour has since released an apologetic statement, first in Japanese (ostensibly folks trying to use their Enfour dictionaries to translate the apology were called pirates again), and then in English on Twitter. They also have rushed out an updated version of the app they claim fixes the "bug", but the complaints are still coming in.

Here's a piece of advice for all you developers out there. Yes, social shaming can work far better than lawsuits and DRM, but you had damned well better get it right. Hijacking the Twitter feeds of your customers, or anyone actually, is taking things in the wrong direction.

Filed Under: false accusations, hijacking, piracy, social media
Companies: enfour, twitter

Author Explains The Joy Of Helping Russian 'Pirate' Translate His Book

from the want-to-be-read dept

It was about five years ago that we first wrote about best selling author Paulo Coelho revealing that he was eagerly helping create pirate foreign translations of his books, and noting that sales of legitimate copies always seemed to increase whenever he did this -- initially pretending to be someone else, under the username "pirate coelho." The first time this happened was in Russia, where the Russian translation resulted in his books -- which had almost no market previously -- suddenly shot up into huge sales (from less than 1,000 to over 100,000). While he's seen similar success stories elsewhere, it really seems like the Russian ebook market is an interesting one to observe.

A bunch of you sent in a more recent story, written by author Peter Mountford, who published his first novel, A Young Man's Guide to Late Capitalism, in the spring of 2011. Not surprisingly, he had set up a Google alert about the book to see what people were saying about it. Eventually it led him to an online forum where a person in Russia kept asking for help translating key words and phrases -- sometimes with comic attempts to decipher idioms:

At one point, he indicated that he was struggling with “white-liberal guilt.” (Me too!, I wanted to chime in.) He postulated that white liberal guilt meant: “the guilt for consuming white substance (cocaine).”

At at first he assumed that it was a Russian speaker trying to understand the book, but when another forum member suggested the Russian guy (going by the name AlexanderIII) just enjoy the book without trying to understand every last word, AlexanderIII admitted that he was working for a publisher doing a translation. Mountford went through a range of emotions:

Holy crap, I thought, my book is going to be published in Russia! Then I remembered that no Russian publisher had acquired the rights, and realized that AlexanderIII must be translating it for some kind of book-pirating outfit.

In the U.S., book piracy is a growing problem. But Russia, I learned, has a remarkably mature black market for literature—particularly for ebooks, no doubt in part because the overhead is so low. Pirated books reportedly compose up to 90 percent of Russian ebook downloads. According to Rospechat, the state agency that regulates mass media, Russians have access to more than 100,000 pirated titles and just 60,000 legitimate titles, with illegal downloads costing legitimate vendors several billion rubles a year.

Of course, I wish one of Russia’s two major ebook publishers had given me a couple thousand dollars for the rights, but neither did. Like many novelists I know, I’m just happy to have people reading my work, whether they’re paying me for it or not. I’m also heartened that Russians care enough about reading to sustain a robust literary black market. In the U.S., you get the feeling that hardly anyone is creating pirated ebooks because—well, who’d buy such a thing?

He then became a voyeur of the translation attempt, debating whether or not to chime in on particularly bizarre guesses, though he's impressed that the rest of the community seemed to do a pretty good job. He actually expresses disappointment that AlexanderIII -- well before finishing the book -- moved on to another book:

In late March, a couple weeks into his work, AlexanderIII unceremoniously dropped my novel and began translating Dennis Lehane’s Gone, Baby, Gone. (A sample query: “Could you please help me out with a difficulty ... ‘you are on fucking angel dust.’ ”) I was shattered. Even my pirate translator had lost interest in my book. But in early July, Google Alerts informed me that AlexanderIII had dropped Lehane and returned to the good stuff.

Eventually he did reach out to AlexanderIII and offered help wherever needed. At first, as Mountford feared, AlexanderIII disappeared, but he did eventually email. It's unclear if Mountford then did assist AlexanderIII very much, but what's fascinating is that Mountford seems equally interested in understanding AlexanderIII's experience of puzzling his way through the book:

At one point in the novel, I describe my protagonist’s mother as having “a sentiment born of her cloying, overly maternal side.” AlexanderIII hypothesized that I had meant “a sentiment born of her memory about hardships of solitary life.” Though completely off base, he was drilling toward the character’s psychological core. I loved that. He misread the text, but he was wrestling with the sentences, much as I had wrestled with them originally.

The whole story is interesting, and it'll be worth seeing if Mountford follows it up with additional reporting on AlexanderIII or other translations in other countries.

Filed Under: copyright, ebooks, peter mountford, piracy, russia

Harvey Weinstein's 'Hang 'Em First' Approach To Piracy Hits All The Wrong Suspects

from the research-not-his-strong-suit? dept

I've heard enough stories about the legendary film producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein to recognize that they're known as being characters around Hollywood -- and sometimes are known to make some quirky decisions. In a recent edition of Kevin Smith's Smoviemakers podcast, they discuss how the Weinsteins knew they had a terrible movie in Dracula 2000 but released it anyway because "it's called Dracula 2000."

So, somehow it doesn't surprise me that Harvey Weinstein recently complained publicly about piracy -- but seemed confused and ignorant about who to blame. His main target: the tech industry providing him all the tools to get into the 21st century. But, he seems determined to stay in the past -- and live in a world of ignorance. It's as if he's heard a few of the MPAA talking points, as well as some of the more hysterically misguided anti-piracy rants online... and synthesized them into the ultimate in clueless rants:

Hollywood power player Harvey Weinstein has urged Big Content to take a “hang ‘em first and talk about it later” stance when it comes to piracy.

Right, because when you're ignorant and pointing the finger at innocent players, it's always better to kill first and realize you're wrong later.

Keynoting at the BFI London Film Festival, he railed against the online industries' approach to piracy, and slammed Apple and Google for “getting paid, not the actors.”

On what is he basing this? Both Apple and Google offer the ability to pay for movies, via deals negotiated with Hollywood. If the actors aren't getting paid -- then perhaps it's the studios' fault, with their fun tricks and Hollywood accounting, whereby they set up neat shell companies, who the studios charge huge fees to, so that their movies are never technically "profitable" and residuals never have to be paid. It couldn't be that, could it? Perhaps the reason actors aren't getting paid is because the studios are taking the money that Google and Apple are giving them... and playing accounting tricks.

"I think we are being done a massive disservice by these companies," he said.

Let's see, these are two companies who have built the key pieces of the modern distribution system that allows them to better deliver movies to consumers, including with unique and new monetization options? That's a disservice? Well, I'll grant you, perhaps Harvey's right that they've done a disservice to studio bosses in that they've disrupted them. The business of the studio used to be to act as the gatekeeper on promotion, distribution and monetization of movies. But Apple, Google and others are changing things so that the studio heads have less control over the market -- and the filmmakers can actually go direct. No wonder he hates them.

“I think after the [US Presidential] election we need to rally filmmakers, content providers and musicians around the world as long as these companies [continue to make content available] under the guise of free Internet.”

Good luck with that. Besides, he seems very confused in thinking that it's Apple and Google that are somehow broadcasting his content for free. That's not the case, and you'd think someone with more than two seconds of experience with the internet would recognize that.

“I love it when these Internet dudes say to me, hey man; we just want to be 'content neutral.' Next time, I'll say sure, I'll get my tie dye shirt and come and sit in your billion dollar mansion in San Francisco or Silicon Valley for a while, soak it up," he quipped.

Really no need to comment on that one. He then praised France's HADOPI three strikes law and pretended to prove a point.

"If an Internet company steals content, they shut it down. And let me tell you, Apple France, Yahoo France or Google France, none of them have gone out of business."

Of course, that's not true at all. He's displaying his near total ignorance (yet again). All Hadopi does is send individuals (not companies) accused (not convicted) of uploading unauthorized content, letters warning them that their connections could be cut off (and after three of these, they can lose service). So, no, they don't "shut down" an internet company. It has nothing to do with that at all. Also, it's been a colossal failure. Even after Hadopi fudged the numbers to make their results look better there has been no increase in sales and the current government has declared Hadopi to be a failure and wants to cut its funding.

The fact that it has done nothing to increase sales is the key point. Since Harvey was talking about "getting actors paid" (a red herring, of course, but...), you'd think that he'd be a lot more concerned about whether or not the 3 strikes policy actually worked to get more people paid. It hasn't. So, if his concern is getting actors paid, Hadopi hasn't actually helped.

There are plenty of discussions to be had about how to deal with whatever challenges and opportunities the film business currently faces. But this wasn't one of them. Pointing the finger and blaming tech companies, even though they're not doing what he claims they're doing -- and then praising a failed law that hasn't done what he thought it had done -- is not productive at all. It just makes him look out of touch.

Filed Under: attacks, harvey weinstein, piracy
Companies: apple, google, yahoo

Partisan Piracy: Conservative Filmmakers Accuse Obama Supporters Of Uploading Their Film To Youtube

from the believing-in-the-same-fallacy-unites-the-parties dept

Piracy is usually the scapegoat trotted out by various declining industries and pointed at angrily for supposedly single-handedly destroying them. Generally, it's content creators and various gatekeepers (mostly the latter) doing most of the pointing (and lobbying). In the normal scheme of things, the gatekeepers are all on the same side, united against filesharers. That's the status quo.

For the first time in memory, one entity has accused another in the same field (politics) of using piracy as a weapon. In this strange case, conservative filmmakers are accusing Obama supporters of uploading the full version of their documentary, "2016: Obama's America," to YouTube in order to harm box office sales.

The film, the second-highest-grossing political documentary in U.S. box-office history, has made $32 million domestically since opening in mid July but took in only $938,000 during the recent weekend for a per-screen average of $771, down 27 percent from $1,060 per screen in the previous weekend, according to BoxOfficeMojo. Overall, the movie's box-office dropped 53 percent in the most recent weekend compared with the previous one, its largest decline since opening 10 weeks ago.

While such a drop isn't unusual for a movie during the course of a week -- especially when the theater count dropped from 1,876 to 1,216 -- filmmakers nevertheless say box-office results were artificially depressed for two reasons: a disinformation campaign spreading the false rumor that Fox News Channel would be showing the movie in its entirety Sunday and a pirated version of the film showing up on YouTube this weekend.

The filmmakers contacted the FBI about the possible piracy and the user who uploaded the full film has taken it offline. In addition, mass emailings announced the (fake) news that Fox News would be showing the movie for free last Sunday. Many bloggers and websites ran with the story, but most have issued retractions.

The whole situation is a bit odd. Obama's official website issued a post criticizing the film and one of its creators, Dinesh D'Souza, saying he has a “long history of attempting to add a veneer of intellectual respectability to fringe theories, conspiratorial fear-mongering and flat-out falsehoods.” One wouldn't normally expect the President (or at least, a high-ranking spokesperson) to respond to a clearly political documentary. Perhaps the fact that "2016: Obama's America" is now the second-highest grossing political documentary added a bit of pressure.

However, while it's clear that some sort of misinformation campaign took place, it's a stretch to lay the dropoff in ticket sales on the "dirty tricks" of Obama supporters. It's fairly common for movies to experience large dropoffs in ticket sales from week-to-week. It's also fairly common for movies to get pirated. The other argument against a "concerted effort" to tank box office receipts is the timing. "2016:Obama's America" has been in the theaters 10 weeks and is due for a DVD release in October. As Zac Gille at Alt Film Guide asks: "Why now? Why not two months ago?"

“The reports of the movie appearing on Fox before the election are completely untrue," Dinesh D’Souza declared, "and we strongly suspect that they are the result of dirty tricks by our opponents who spread this rumor in order to confuse the general public and keep them from going to their local theaters."

If so, what an idiotic waste of time on the part of D’Souza’s and 2016 Obama’s America‘s "opponents." After all, the 2016 movie is fast on its way out.

So, why on earth would anyone in his/her right (or left, as the case may be) mind want to keep people "from going to their local theaters" to watch a movie that so few moviegoers care about at this stage? If an organized anti-2016 Obama’s America effort truly exists, then those guys have arrived on the scene a little too late. They should have acted five weeks ago, when the 2016 movie began its initially popular expansion.

Even if it turns out that a few Obama supporters did mount an effort to tank ticket sales, it would be tough to separate any possible impact from the misinformation campaign from the normal sales decline of any theatrical release. If anything, the piracy and misinformation plan backfired as the particularly loud response from the filmmakers can't help but draw more attention to the 10 week old film. Not only that, but uploading the movie to YouTube where it could be watched for free drives more viewers (and potential voters) to the film itself, a side effect the film's (alleged) opponents couldn't possibly have intended. However this turns out, we have a new tactic to add to the piracy pantheon -- piracy as political sabotage.

Filed Under: copyright, dinesh d'souza, documentary, obama, piracy, politics

Economist Combats 'Myths Of Piracy' With More Myths

from the i-see-your-osiris-and-raise-you-a-zeus dept

We at Techdirt are among those constantly calling for a factual analysis of intellectual property and the laws that purport to rule it. I won't sit here and claim that disinformation has never come from people on our side of the argument as well, but we've seen time after time after time how the entertainment industry and their maximalist sympathizers tend to live in the kind of make believe world that puts anything this science fiction author has come up with to shame. The mental gymnastics required to follow along industry studies tend give my brain a sprained frontal lobe. That said, it takes a special kind of malfunction to decry supposed myths about piracy and refute them with a couple of made up myths of your own, as economist Michael Smith of Carnegie Mellon does (via Jeff John Roberts at Paid Content).

We actually start off on solid footing debunking myth numero uno, a common one espoused by the content industries: "You can't compete with free"

This myth is often invoked by content owners to justify heavy-handed enforcement measures against piracy sites and individual consumers. After all, why buy a song or movie when you can simply download it for free at a pirate site?

A quick look at the thriving content markets at Amazon, iTunes and elsewhere shows this notion is bunk. All of these sites are competing with free very successfully. As Smith points out, the lowest cost (including free) is not the only determinant of consumer purchases.

Ah, sweet, wonderful logic, with its simple formula of giving people easy access to what they want at a reasonable price as a method for staving off piracy, a symptom of unfulfilled consumer demand. One would hope that the rest of these myths are similar in nature and equally disavowed.

Not so much for myth number two: "Piracy Doesn't Harm Sales"

This myth holds that that people who use content-sharing (“stealing” if you prefer) sites will never pay for the content in the first place so what’s the harm? Meanwhile, “honest” consumers will never turn to piracy.

Smith pointed to evidence that piracy sites are not benign. In one prominent example, he said that when NBC removed shows from on-demand site Hulu, piracy spiked not only for NBC shows but for other networks as well. Meanwhile, no one went out and bought DVD’s as a substitute for the shows that were no longer available on Hulu.

If you're anything like me (and millions of single women hope that you are), reading myth two directly after reading myth one causes you to make this face.
  Translated from puppy to human: "What the &!@# are you talking about?" So, in debunking myth one we found that offering an easy legal alternative to piracy negates the harm caused by piracy. Then, for myth two, we decide that refusing to offer what customers want (streaming/digital content) is not to blame for customers not buying what they don't want (shiny plastic discs of content). A large segment of the population does not want the discs anymore and never will, but they do want disc-less content. When that was taken away, from paying customers mind you, they found it elsewhere. Pirate sites didn't hurt sales in that instance; the removal of ways to watch legitimately did. If that is the example Smith wants to use to "debunk" his second "myth", color me unconvinced.

But it's the example for debunking for the next "myth" that wins today's "I think my brain just pooped itself" award. Myth three is: "Anti-piracy initiatives don't work." And you'll never guess what legislation gets to serve as the chief example for why this supposed myth is false.

Smith points to a recent study of France’s HADOPI (a new enforcement regime) to argue that anti-piracy laws do work. He noted that the advent of HADOPI coincided with a big rise in legal online music purchases, particularly in genres like rap and hip-hop that experience high rates of piracy. At the same time, much of this increases took place before the law even went into effect; it appears that news about the law caused people to seek out legal alternatives.

The point is that laws like HADOPI (and presumably America’s impending “6-strikes” initiatives) can provide a clear deterrent to piracy.

This is a perfectly legitimate point, by which I mean it's complete crap that is itself a myth. The truth is that the French government has been so monumentally unimpressed with the performance of Hadopi, which did not show any increased sales, but cost a ton of taxpayer money, that they were seeking to slash its funding. Not exactly the kind of hallmark success you want to trot out as an example of why legislation can stamp out piracy. Separately, reports have shown that Hadopi may have temporarily decreased one kind of file sharing, but appears to have shifted it elsewhere -- which is what seems to happen every time one of these laws come along.

And so we're once again left unsatisfied by this economist, who notes at first that this is a business model issue before diving right back into the fallacies of the entertainment industry. It's bad enough to fall victim to statistics made up by certain industries, but it's even worse to use them to try to debunk supposed "myths."

Filed Under: competing, free, michael smith, myths, piracy