Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

from the fun-with-numbers dept

There are plenty of instances of misleading and otherwise bad stats being used by anti-piracy groups, like the recent BSA numbers from Canada that were basically made up. Now, a group from the UK is saying that piracy costs that country's economy tens of billions of pounds. It makes the same mistake as plenty of other studies before it: counting every instance of piracy, or perhaps even just the availability of copyrighted material on file-sharing networks, as a lost sale. It's fallacious to assume that every single person that downloads a piece of content, or simply has access to it for free, would pay for it if the free version wasn't available. Furthermore, any study like this that says an entire economy is being harmed by X amount of money because of piracy is pretty much bogus. This money that's supposedly being lost because of piracy isn't being lost by the economy, as undoubtedly it's being spent elsewhere. It's not being flushed down the toilet or turned into ether, it's just not ending up in content companies' bank accounts.

Filed Under: piracy, stats, uk

U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models

from the morality-has-nothing-to-do-with-it dept

While Radiohead's manager has noted that file sharing is great for music and should be legal, it appears that his counterpart, Paul McGuinness, is sticking to his guns that it's evil, evil, evil... and it's all those darn ISPs' fault. He kicked this off over a year ago when he gave a speech blaming everyone but the recording industry for the industry's problems. You see, the problem was that ISPs, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook weren't coming up with ways of just giving the record labels money. Apparently McGuinness has such a sense of entitlement that he thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to fix his broken business model. Since that time, he's continued to stand by this position even claiming that no other business models were possible other than having ISPs hand over money to any content creator.

In a new interview with News.com's Greg Sandoval, he stands by this position, even when Sandoval asks him about the examples of Radiohead and Trent Reznor. McGuinness totally ignores Trent Reznor -- which is too bad, since his business model experiments are a lot more complete and well thought out than Radiohead's little experiment -- and simply says:

I admire what Radiohead have done tremendously in seeking a new model. They would take the view, and I would share it, that perhaps price has been a big problem for the music business. The music business has tried to hold onto a price that was unrealistic for a long time now. I think wider distribution of lower priced things is probably the future.

But that didn't answer the question. He says Radiohead is "seeking" a new model... ignoring that they found one and that it worked amazingly well, without requiring an ISP tax. I'm wondering if he's simply ignorant of Trent Reznor's wide-ranging experiments.

But from there, he starts saying a bunch of questionable things, including the claim that we somehow need big record labels:

It's important to remember that the traditional worldwide star-making functions of the big record companies. There's nothing on the horizon to replace that.

Oh really? Has he not been on the internet? It's true that so far nothing has been able to totally replace big record labels' marketing clout, but there are plenty of interesting new services and tools out there that are quickly improving and quickly changing the marketing equation. To claim that there's "nothing on the horizon" simply suggests he hasn't been looking at the horizon very closely. If he wants a pair of binoculars, he should call us and we'll ship him a pair and even point him in the right direction of where to look.

Amusingly, when asked about the role of new technologies, McGuiness again displays his ignorance of technology. He doesn't discuss how it's made it much cheaper to perform, record, promote, distribute and share music. Instead, he only focuses on one thing: how can tech companies give bands money:

I would really like them to willingly go to the movie studios and the music companies and say this is how we can collect money from the people who are listening to your stuff and watching your movies. We acknowledge that it's the fair thing to do and we have some responsibility for doing it. Let's do it together and let's make some money.

How about he goes to those companies and explains why he isn't paying them for decreasing the costs of recording, promoting and distributing U2's music... all of which has helped to keep the band in the headlines, selling out concerts allowing them to bring in hundreds of millions. Earlier this year, we noted that Bono had said he was upset about piracy but didn't want to complain because he was too rich. Apparently McGuinness refuses to recognize that part of what helped make them all so rich were these tools that help promote and distribute U2's music for free.

And then, of course, he pulls out the old myth: that this somehow removes money from the hands of artists:

Artists are entitled to get paid, whatever kind of art they do, the same way technologists are entitled to get paid.

You know how technologists get paid? It's not because of any entitlement... but because they build a product with a business model that makes sense. There's no entitlement. There's simply setting up a business model that makes sense. And it works for musicians too -- big, medium and small.

And then he turns it into a "moral" issue:

I'd like to get a moral tone into the discussion. I think there is a big moral question for civilization.

To which there's an obvious response: where is the moral question when embracing these trends is making artists better off? All if the artists we've seen who have embraced these trends and smart business models finds themselves better off than they were before.

And then, amazingly, he tries to claim that the copyright lobbyists are simply outnumbered and out-gunned.

One official in Brussels, a senior Brussels civil servant, came up to me after I made the speech. I was there with a small group of lobbyists and he said to me 'In Brussels there are probably five or six lobbyists representing the content worldwide. There are thousands representing the ISPs, telcos and the technology industries.' He said it's really overwhelming the forces you have against you.

Basically, that civil servant lied. The entertainment industry has more lobbyists on this issue than anyone on the "other" side. And he makes it out as if all the ISPs are against him -- but some of the biggest, including AT&T are in agreement with the entertainment industry lobbyists. There are very few lobbyists (and they have much smaller budgets) fighting for the rights of consumers.

And then there's one final attack on "free" spoken from a position of supreme ignorance of how "free" works:

I started to glimpse the politics of it at that stage. I hope that our politicians, our journalists our media gain a sense of how much we stand to lose if free prevails. Ultimately free is the enemy of good.

What do we stand to lose? Restriction on how we can use products we legally purchased? Artificial restrictions on the enjoyment of content? New and wonderful business models that allow actual content creators to benefit, rather than siphoning money off to middlemen? Free is not the enemy of good. Free is a tool that, when used properly, has tremendous advantages. Many have already figured this out. The fact that McGuinness seems unable to do so isn't everyone else's problem. It's his problem.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, economics, free, music, paul mcguinness, piracy, u2

BSA's Canadian Piracy Numbers Based On Hunches, Not Actual Surveys

from the bogus-stats-as-always dept

For years, we've been raising questions about the incredibly bogus stats the BSA puts out every year. There are so many problems with them it's incredible that the group continues to release them each year... and much worse that the press and politicians quote them as if they're factual. However, Michael Geist has discovered that they're even worse than originally thought. In digging deeper into the questionable claims of the report by The Conference Board of Canada that was basically a cut and paste from various industry groups, Geist noticed that the report relied on some BSA data. So he asked for more info on how the BSA determined the "piracy" rate of software in Canada. How many people were surveyed? What was the methodology?

In response, Geist found out that no one in Canada was surveyed, and BSA (and IDC who created the report) simply made an educated guess, assuming the piracy rates weren't all that different than they were in past years. Yet this hunch, based on no actual data, is being used as a definitive source of piracy numbers in Canada? Even more noteworthy, both the BSA and The Conference Board report use these numbers to support the silly claim that Canada is somehow one of the worst offenders when it comes to supporting "piracy." But what was the reason for not surveying companies in Canada?

"Countries that are included in the survey portion are chosen to represent the more volatile economies. IDC has found from past research that low piracy countries, generally mature markets, have stable software loads by segment, with yearly variations driven more by segment dynamics (e.g. consumer shipment versus business shipments of PCs) than by load-by-load segment."

So... just to get this straight. IDC doesn't bother to survey Canadians about software piracy, because it considers Canada to be a "low piracy" country. So it just makes up the number... and then the BSA, other lobbyists, research groups, the press and politicians (including the US Trade Representative) use these made up numbers to support the claims that Canada is a high piracy country. Doesn't that seem like fraud?

Filed Under: canada, copyright, piracy, plagiarism, stats
Companies: bsa, idc, the conference board

Sony Pictures CEO: The Internet Is Still Bad

from the digging-a-deeper-hole dept

A week and a half ago, Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton made some news for saying that nothing good had come from the internet, period. Plenty of online sites (including ours) took him to task for that, wondering how one gets to be the CEO of a major content company without understanding the internet. Today, Lynton hit back at critics -- not by saying he was quoted out of context or misunderstood, but by standing behind the statement and adding some gems to it as well. Let's take a look...

In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox's film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.

And, as was widely noted, the movie still opened to a massive box office take, despite pretty dreadful reviews all over. In fact, the movie had a lot more buzz leading up to it because of all the talk about the leak. Funny that Lynton seems to ignore that part. Could it really be that the CEO of a major motion picture studio doesn't understand that people go to the movies for the experience, and not just the content?

I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I've stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content -- music, newspapers, movies and books -- have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

This is like saying "the major transportation companies and the most talented creators of transportation devices -- horse carriages, buggy whips, blacksmiths -- have all been seriously harmed by the automobile." Markets change. They may cause trouble for dinosaurs unable or unwilling to adapt, but they have not harmed content creation or the content business. And it's not "the internet" that has harmed the "most talented creators of that content." It's folks like Michael Lynton who seem to be funnelling them towards bad business models.

Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.

Wow! At least he's able to admit that business models play a role, but he's flat out wrong about blaming piracy. He claims that it's "people with no regard for the intellectual property of others," which is hilarious coming from Hollywood -- a town built on showing no regard for the intellectual property of Thomas Edison. You know what comes out of showing no regard for artificial scarcity? Amazing new industries. Lynton is a product of piracy... and yet now that he's in charge, it's evil? Funny stuff...

To be clear, my concern about piracy does not obscure my understanding that the Internet has had a transformative impact on our culture and holds enormous potential to improve the prospects of humanity, and in many instances already has. I am no Luddite. I am not an analogue guy living in a digital world. I ran an Internet company and my studio actively uses the web to market and sell our movies and television shows. We create original content for new media.

If you think that "using the web to sell and market our movies and television" or "creating original content for new media" represents what the internet has to offer, you really need to educate yourself on the internet. It's not about selling and marketing. It's about interactivity. Hire someone who doesn't hate the internet, please.

And yes, new talents have emerged thanks to the democratic and viral impact of the web. Yes, the rise of new distribution platforms for existing content is exciting and rich with promise.

But at the same time, I cannot subscribe to the views of those online critics who insist that I "just don't get it," and claim the world has so fundamentally changed because of the web that conventional practices concerning property rights no longer apply; that the Internet should be left to develop entirely unfettered and unregulated.

It's not that "conventional practices concerning property rights no longer apply," it's that content isn't property. You've been blinded by the phrase "intellectual property" into believing it's something that it is not. The internet is neither unfettered nor unregulated. What you're really complaining about is that technology has put a crimp on your old business model, and rather than adjust, you want new laws to force things back to the way they were before -- back before we had the rise of new distribution platforms and the ability to share content that we like with one another.

Back when automobiles were first introduced, laws were passed requiring people to walk in front of every automobile waving red flags. Officially this was for safety, but it was really an attempt to limit the automobile and keep things the way they used to be for carriage makers. You're not asking for reasonable rules and regulations. You're asking for red flags and a speed limit of 5 mph when cars can easily go 120mph.

In no other realm of our society have we encountered so widespread and consequential a failure to put in place guidelines over the use and growth of such a major industry.

There are guidelines. You don't like the ones that are there, and the market has decided that many of them don't make sense. Let history be a lesson to you: when the majority of people think that "guidelines" don't make sense, making them even more stringent isn't going to fix things. Instead, it's time to look for opportunities within what people are doing.

I'm not talking here about censorship, taxation or burdensome government restrictions.

Yes, you are. You'll just call them something different.

I'm talking about reasonable boundaries, "rules of the road," that can help promote the many positive attributes of Internet technology while curtailing its hugely damaging effects.

Right, just as reasonable as the guys waving flags in front of cars. Those were designed to promote the many positive attributes of the automobile while curtailing its hugely damaging effects. The problem then, as now, is that people looked at the automobile through the prism of the horse carriage (that's why they were originally called horseless carriages). So the idea that they could travel much faster was seen as a bad thing (ooh, dangerous!) rather than a good thing. The same thing is true today. The fact that people can share content and help promote and distribute it for you is seen by you as a bad thing (oooh, dangerous!), but once things shake out, those who don't hate the internet will realize it's actually a huge opportunity for new businesses to grow and thrive. It's 1904. Do you want to be the CEO of the Durant-Dort Carriage Company or do you want to run Buick? William Durant made the right choice. You're making the wrong one.

And this becomes even more critical as governments around the world are subsidizing and promoting the ubiquity of high speed broadband to make their economies more efficient and competitive. With this increase in speed, content will travel that much more easily on the Internet. But without restraints, much of that content will be contraband.

Yes, as nations around the world are subsidizing national highways, this becomes ever more important. With this increase in speed, automobiles will be able to travel that much more easily. Without restraints, much of that travel will break the speed limit.

I've already seen it happen in South Korea, which has one of the most highly developed broadband networks in the world. But piracy has also become so highly developed there that we and virtually every other studio has recently had to curtail or close down our home entertainment businesses. It's hard to sell a legal DVD when it can be stolen without any repercussions.

And yet, there are new businesses springing up every day to take advantage of this wonderful abundance. JY Park is building a massive entertainment empire in South Korea by embracing the fact that everything he does will be "pirated" in some manner. But he's still bringing in a ton of money. That's because he's not focused on how to sell horse drawn carriages any more, but how to make automobiles go faster and faster.

Contrast the expansion of the Internet with what happened a half century ago. In the 1950's, the Eisenhower Administration undertook one of the most massive infrastructure projects in our nation's history -- the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It completely transformed how we did business, traveled, and conducted our daily lives. But unlike the Internet, the highways were built and operated with a set of rational guidelines. Guard rails went along dangerous sections of the road. Speed and weight limits saved lives and maintenance costs. And officers of the law made sure that these rules were obeyed. As a result, as interstates flourished, so did the economy. According to one study, over the course of its first four decades of existence, the Interstate Highway System was responsible for fully one-quarter of America's productivity growth.

But that highway is already built. You're not asking for reasonable guidelines. You're asking people to walk in front of automobiles waving red flags, while everyone else is already zipping around in their automobiles.

We can replicate that kind of success with the Internet more easily if we do more to encourage the productivity of the creative engines of our society -- the artists, actors, writers, directors, singers and other holders of intellectual property rights -- yes, including the movie studios, which help produce and distribute entertainment to billions of people worldwide.

We're already replicating that kind of success. Your problem is that it's happening without you.

But, without standards of commerce and more action against piracy, the intellectual property of humankind will be subject to infinite exploitation on the Internet.

Imagine a resource that is infinitely exploitable? Imagine that wonderful abundance? Who could possibly complain about that? Oh right, those who benefited from the previous scarcity. Still, it's quite amazing to see someone actually complain about abundance.

How many people will be as motivated to write a book or a song, or make a movie if they know it is going to be immediately stolen from them and offered to the world with no compensation whatsoever?

Well, considering how many people create content today already, I'd say plenty. And, of course, this statement has an implicit fallacy embedded in it: that because content can be shared (not "stolen") that it means there's "no compensation whatsoever." Need we remind you that despite Wolverine being "stolen," compensation came in at about $90 million in its first weekend? If that's the kind of "no compensation whatsoever" we can expect when content gets "stolen," sign me up.

And how many people whose work is connected with those creative industries -- the carpenters, drivers, food service workers, and thousands of others -- will lose their jobs as piracy robs their business of resources?

Oh, right. The poor carpenters, drivers and food service workers. Well, since we've already pointed out that there's still plenty of compensation, they'll continue to be just fine. They don't get paid based on some obsolete business model. They get paid by the hour. That continues.

Internet users have become used to getting things when they want it and how they want it, and those of us in the entertainment business want to meet that kind of demand as efficiently and effectively as possible.

You say that as if you mean it, while the entire rest of your article is about how you don't want to meet that demand, and how you want that efficiency walled off and blocked via gov't fiat.

But what has happened online is that if it is 'beyond store hours' and the shop is closed, a lot of people just smash the window and steal what they want.

No one is "stealing" anything. What are you missing? No windows are broken. And, part of your problem is the fact that you think the shop "closes." If you can't recognize that the shop doesn't close anymore, you shouldn't be running a major content company.

Freedom without restraint is chaos, and if we don't figure out some way to prevent online chaos, the quantity, quality and availability of the kinds of entertainment, literature, art and scholarship we need to have a healthy, vibrant culture will suffer.

I don't know which culture you're looking at, but it seems to be me that entertainment, literature, art and scholarship are all thriving like they never have before. Where's the problem, other than your own inability to adapt?

In my own household I know it is my responsibility, along with my wife, to monitor how my family uses the Internet for school work and enjoyment. And I know the web can play a big role in our daughters' future. But I also want their future to be filled with the kind of music and books and films and other creative sparks that have enlivened my life and our culture through the years.

And, thankfully, she'll be able to experience a lot more of such culture thanks to the internet and the efficiency it allows. Many authors, musicians and filmmakers today are purposely putting their works of art online for free. Would you like some pointers to help with your daughters' cultural education? We're more than willing to help.

Because actually I'm a guy who wants to see lots of good things come from the Internet. But it's not going to happen the way it should if we do not act now to safeguard the fruit of our world's most imaginative and talented minds. Period.

The only "safeguarding" you've suggested is your own obsolete business model. It's got nothing to do with culture and content creation. It has nothing to do with the internet. It has everything to do with the fact that you're viewing all content creation through the distorted prism of the movie making industry, where content creation comes from a big corporation and is then mass marketed and sold to the people. You need to step out from behind that prism, put down the red flags you're waving in front of automobiles, jump onto a passing car, and look at all the wonderful things the internet allows in terms of creativity and new business models. Don't let Sony Pictures be the Durant-Dort Carriage Company, clinging to the past.

Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, internet, michael lynton, movies, piracy
Companies: sony

BSA Releases BS Numbers Yet Again, Then Says Don't Pay Attention To The Numbers

from the funny-stuff dept

Well, it's the middle of May, and that means (like clockwork) the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and IDC have come out with their annual bogus numbers about software "piracy." They do this every year, despite the fact that their numbers have been totally and completely debunked for years. Last year, they were kind enough to call to discuss my concerns, but stood by the idea that every unauthorized copy can be reasonably counted as a lost sale.

This year, they didn't bother to call.

Instead, it looks like they sought out other publications to pre-publish an attack on anyone who would criticize the numbers. This is pretty funny stuff, actually. They release the totally bogus numbers year after year (even though even the mainstream press has started questioning the ridiculousness of it), and then rather than actually responding to the criticism and perhaps trying to come up with more reasonable numbers, they slam those of us who point out that the BSA is flat out trying to mislead people into believing the "problem" of unauthorized copies is a much bigger issue than it really is.

Meanwhile, Michael Geist digs into the numbers that the BSA has provided, and notes that even if you believe the numbers, they don't seem to support the BSA's own position that countries need to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty to decrease the unauthorized use of software. So, we've got bogus data that doesn't even support the BSA's own position.

Why does anyone actually take anything the BSA says seriously?

Filed Under: piracy, software, stats
Companies: bsa

One iPhone App Developers' Experience With iPhone App Pirates: Not Worth Worrying About

from the focus-on-providing-value dept

Tom was the first of a few to send in this account from the developer of the iPhone game iCombat on his experience with "pirated" versions of the app. Basically, he didn't try to block them, but put in a way to track authorized vs. unauthorized uses, and at a certain level pushed the unauthorized users to a splash page, asking them to purchase the game. His conclusion? Piracy really isn't a huge deal, and probably not worth wasting too much time trying to stop:

• The goal behind launching an app isn't thwarting pirates, it is getting users and generating sales so leave the "making a point" anti-piracy measures to the big guys. The competition is so fierce to get noticed in the App store that any attention is good attention....
• In most cases there is not a direct cannibalization of your sales by people using cracked copies - unless you have a high priced niche app the cost is negligible and the market is not zero sum....
• There is a ton of anger and energy spent thinking about pirates.... this energy should be put into creating better apps and focusing on the top line potential. In my case there are design issues that I should have focused on rather than trying to spoil the pirate's experience.

This is certainly the same general conclusion we've seen in other areas as well. Focusing on "piracy" rather than providing more value for your real customers almost always backfires.

Filed Under: apps, iphone, piracy

Have At You, Clip Art Pirates!

from the avast! dept

The Software & Information Industry Association is a great organization -- at least from a comedy standpoint. They got themselves some press a couple of years ago by offering a "bounty" for people who turned in vendors that sold them counterfeit software, but the offer was so full of fine print that it was completely pointless. They then showed a complete ignorance of the law by threatening to sue eBay because counterfeiters peddle their wares there, despite the safe-harbor provisions that protect platform providers. But perhaps the most entertaining story about the SIIA was the one about how their propaganda campaigns were driving people to turn away from proprietary software (you know, the kind produced by SIIA's members) and go with open-source software instead. Now, the group's adding to its comic legacy by unleashing a tidal wave of lawsuits against pirated clip art. The group's lawyer says the suits are "going to be big," while another SIIA exec says it is "making every effort in this challenging economic climate to protect the interests of both the software and graphics industries," adding that when stuff like clip art gets pirated, "everyone loses -- from individual consumers, to the economy as a whole." Since they're protecting the American economy and all, maybe they're just angling for some government bailout money?

Filed Under: clipart, piracy
Companies: siia

Wolverine, Box Office Results... And Piracy

from the what-do-you-do... dept

A few folks have sent in Matthew Belloni's attempt to quantify how much the leak of Wolverine "cost" at the box office. On one point we agree: the number is basically impossible to calculate in any reasonable way. Yet, that doesn't stop Belloni, whose estimates seem to be based on some odd assertions. His first number ($7.18 million) is based on the obviously untrue idea that everyone who downloaded the movie didn't buy a ticket. That makes no sense, and it's odd that it's even included. The second and third numbers ($15.75 million and $14 million) are based on comparisons to other "similar" movies which grossed a bit more in their opening weekends. But, in both cases, those movies actually got really good reviews. That's not the case with Wolverine, which has received pretty damn bad reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has it at only 37% positive reviews. That's really bad. And it's somewhat ridiculous to then compare it's opening weekend to Iron Man last year. Iron Man came in at 93%. Belloni claims these movies are "review proof" but offers no evidence of that whatsoever. I know I only saw Iron Man because of the awesome reviews, and since many people have associated the failure of the Hulk movie to bad early reviews, this is actually the first I've heard that these movies are somehow "review proof."

Belloni does include a somewhat snarky "$0" possibility if "the copyleft" was correct that the impact of the downloading didn't hurt the movie at all. But he doesn't do much to investigate that claim at all. He certainly doesn't explore that perhaps the real issue may not have been with the fact that the movie was leaked, but with the way 20th Century Fox responded to the leak. In acting like jerks, threatening everyone, and even firing a reviewer, it also seems likely that some people purposely boycotted the opening weekend. Instead, if the studio had been smart and actually responded in a smart way, it could have increased interest in the actual movie. So, I'd argue that if there was any "loss" in opening weekend revenue, the fault would have to lie with the studio for its reaction, rather than the leak.

Either way, the movie still brought in $87 million and destroyed the competition in the theaters this past weekend. It's difficult to see how anyone in Hollywood could claim with a straight face that the leak did much harm to the movie. The movie brought in a ton of money, and even if we grant the implausible theory that the leak "harmed" the theater revenue, once again it seems like if the studio and the theaters just focused on giving people a reason to see the film in the theaters, the leak would be totally meaningless.

Filed Under: box office, copyright, leaks, piracy, wolverine

Stardock CEO: Focus On Your Customers; Don't Worry About Pirates

from the exactly dept

Given our earlier posts about Stardock's new game, Demigod, and how the company was dealing with the fact that there were plenty of unauthorized copies, this shouldn't be a surprise at all: The company's CEO has taken to his forums to make it clear that, while no one likes unauthorized copies, his job is not to worry about "pirates," but to focus on pleasing his customers. And on that front, the game has been a huge success. In his post, he points out that even if the game had been a failure, he wouldn't be blaming it on pirates, but on the company's own mistakes -- but, of course, the game hasn't been a failure. It's been selling like crazy.

This isn't new or surprising. It's what Stardock has always said. And it's the same sort of attitude that others who have found success with content these days have had, as well. It's never pleasant to find someone is copying content/software/whatever you've made, but you can't worry about them. It's a waste of time and effort. People will always make unauthorized copies, and any effort to stop them will only hurt those who actually want to give you money. So focus on providing real value for those who want to buy, and stop worrying so much about everyone else.

The reality that most PC game publishers ignore is that there are people who buy games and people who don't buy games. The focus of a business is to increase its sales. My job, as CEO of Stardock, is not to fight worldwide piracy no matter how much it aggravates me personally. My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary -- our customers.

You can waste an awful lot of energy and resources "fighting pirates" and losing, or you can focus on actually serving your customers and making money. Which seems more intelligent?

Filed Under: business models, customers, demigod, piracy, software
Companies: stardock

Despite Piracy Worries, Stardock's Demigod Did Quite Well On The Sales Front

from the not-so-bad... dept

While many people falsely claimed that the server troubles Stardock dealt with recently, due to unauthorized copies of its new game Demigod effectively pinging its servers, showed how Stardock's trusting (no DRM) model doesn't work, that was clearly incorrect. Even throughout the stories last week, the execs at Stardock didn't seem particularly upset or worried about the fact that so many unauthorized copies were out there -- but about getting the servers set up properly to handle the load. And, now, as reader Christopher Chapman points out, Demigod has debuted as the number 3 best selling PC game, suggesting (yet again) that you can get plenty of sales even when you don't treat your customers like criminals.

Filed Under: demigod, piracy, sales, video games
Companies: stardock