Slashdot Mirror
Is Piracy In the Consumers' Best Interests?
moviemodel writes "Warner Home Video in China are beginning trials of 'simple pack' DVD releases at $1.50. They state they are doing this as a test to see if they can recover a market lost to pirate DVD's at 75c each. They also sell higher priced and more complete DVD sets as 'silver' and 'gold' packs. Maybe this marks the beginning of movie industry realism and long hoped for shift in business models, forced by piracy. Perhaps they can take it on as a better model for movie downloads worldwide, facing the same problem of competition from pirated movies. Is such a model viable in the long term?"
They have less of my money at $1.50, which is good. When they get what they're currently charging there's a risk they'll make more crap films starring clueless overpaid actors, and that's not a risk I'm prepared to take. I only watch a film once, so why pay more for a DVD than it costs to watch in the theater?
At least they can make some money now selling cheap DVDs instead of nothing selling overpriced ones.
1.50? You don't even have to go that low. Make them 5 bucks and you already have a deal. 5 bucks, no DRM and, hell, why should anyone DL movies anymore? Wait for a day to DL stuff, only to find out that instead of Ice Age 2 you get a cheap copy of Sally does Houston. AND you find out when li'l Jimmy starts the film.
... well, there is DRM, but so far nobody noticed it yet 'cause the IPods didn't break down yet.
Why is the IPod so popular? Affordable tracks and
But for some reason I expect this to be some PR stunt, showing that in China you can't even get the market back when you go down to 1.50 bucks. One reason COULD be that the average Chinese doesn't have those 1.5 bucks to spend on DVDs. Why do you try it in China, why not in the US? Or Europe? Or some other country where people actually (still) have the money to actually buy content?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Geeks installing Windows 3.1 and 3.11 on their work computers on top of DOS, is the flagship operating system/GUI made its initial foothold. Wordperfect was originally the dominant tool for word processing and when people started pirating MS Word in the same offices, it gave MS an addition line into each office. Finally...look at the MP3 device industry. There wouldn't be a demand for Ipods and other MP3 players if it weren't for piracy. Piracy helps more than it hurts. But copyright holders issue these exaggerated claims about how much piracy hurts them and how much money it costs them. The truth is those claims are exaggerated because many of the installations of pirated software or music are things that most would never buy anyway. So piracy does have its plusses. It's just that intellectual property rights holders know that if they do not actively protect their intellectual assets, US law will not be on their side.
Is it 5:30 yet?
Copyright has its right to exist. When someone creates something, he puts time and money behind it, develops it and he should have a chance to earn money that way. If you take this possibility away, the looser would be the artist who is already getting ripped by the studios. Studios wouldn't sign contracts with him anymore. They'd wait for him to perform, tape it and distribute the song that way, without giving him a cent. Or they wait for him to spend his own money to press a few CDs, rip those CDs, hype it, and sell it as their own.
And we all know how much they know about marketing and hyping, and how little about art.
In fact, killing copyrights would even put those artists out of business who still create art. They're few, they're well hidden on the 'net and you have to search them, the studios won't throw them at you.
And as a bottom line, we, the ones who enjoy their art, would be the loosers on this one.
Copyright isn't the problem. The problem is that the balance is off. Copyright came into existance to create a balance between those who produce, those who distribute and those who consume content. The balance is way off. But that doesn't mean we have to throw the right out, we just have to put it back into balance.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If they sell discs where the main feature (i.e. the movie itself) is crippled, for example by lower bitrate than on premium edition, by having no English language track, or by having forced subtitles to go with, this won't beat pirates.
If they sell discs with high-bitrate main feature (DVD-9 filled to the brink please), original-language soundtrack available and no UOP gimmicks, they win. Hell, if they do it consistently, they could sell such discs for a whopping $4.30 in Russia and I would gladly buy them over pirated ones. Besides I throw the box away, anyway, and pack the discs into a wallet to save space right away. Just give me the properly mastered stuff, no frills.
To bad I suspect the cheap licensed edition would be crippled. Then pirates, who care about customers more, get my business.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
when you abuse your monopoly position by price gauging, piracy becomes your competition.
Shame humanity has to enact change through illegal acts. Next up we change the US government via sniper rifle.
/= Immoral.. Yet, if something is illegal long enough, people seem to think it is immoral.
Aren't pretty much all changes enacted through 'illegal' acts? civil disobedience, revolutions, founding of the United States of America..
Illegal
--- We need more Ron Paul!
People who steal are very good at talking people into thinking that what they did is OK
Ya mean like constantly expanding the range of copyright laws so that nothing ever actually goes into the the public domain, so the free money cow never dries up?
KFG
Copyright has its right to exist. When someone creates something, he puts time and money behind it, develops it and he should have a chance to earn money that way.
What? Copyrights don't have rights, individuals have rights. Anyhow, if someone wants to make money from a creation, try giving a concert - not monopolizing the distribution channel and microregulating how every individual on the planet copys information at their disposal. If you want balance, then let content flow freely and charge for content related services. Content doesn't have a natural limit in supply vs demand, content related services do.
I've seen several people refer to pirating as "stealing". Keep in mind, it's only stealing when you would have gone out to purchase it in the first place! At least that's how most justify it.
If I clone something (like a nice stereo, for instance - impossible, but for the sake of our conversation), it's not really stealing it. If I make it available to other people (i.e. like sharing my stuff on P2P), that's almost worse than stealing... but if I clone something that I wouldn't have purchased to begin with, that's incredibly easy to justify, because there's no money lost. Again, I wouldn't have gone out to purchase a $25 DVD, whether it could be had for free or not, just like I wouldn't have gone out and purchased a $1200 stereo when my $150 Aiwa that I already bought works great. There's no physical product missing somewhere... I cloned it. Now if I could only clone a Viper...
The ultimate question in my mind is, what is the actual cost of manufacturing and distributing? It's like a $0.03 piece of plastic, the disc that is. Generic packaging like they talk of here can't cost very much. If it gets 15x the people to start buying movies again IN ADDITION to the people who currently pirate them, well... for $3 or $4 per release like some have suggested, I bet they stand to make their money back.
Certainly the music industry won't be far behind in this little "experiment".
No, he's representing the "standard Slashdotter's" feeling of moral outrage at what has been done to the copyright and patent systems, both of which were designed to encourage creativity and the cross-fertilization of ideas between creators that fosters rapid innovation. Using the law to effectively blackbox anything "new" or that is merely claimed to be "new" is not only immoral but dangerous, and when that same law can be used to bitchslap anyone or anything perceived as a threat to your way of doing business ... well. As an engineer with a few patents behind me, I am outraged by the subversion of national interests to corporate interests. Because that is precisely what has happened.
.44 Magnum, and are standing around watching us bleed. I will shed no tears for the likes of a Disney or a Sony ... they've earned whatever is happening to them.
The big rightsholders (in the case of copyright) made two fundamental errors in their long-range planning. One, they failed to understand that advances in communications and processing technology would render their grip on their distribution channels useless. Utterly useless, and so far as music is concerned that cat will never get put back in the bag. Even if they could, by pressing some magic switch, turn off all peer-to-peer activity right now, there are a lot of people that have already downloaded so many tracks they'll never need to buy another CD. So, if the studios want any sales at all they'd best start learning to play nice. What, they're going to have to behave like any other manufacturer that wants to stay in business by treating its customers with respect because those customers can now go elsewhere? Oh my, the humanity, the humanity!
Two, they are finally starting to realize that what they have to offer are luxuries not necessities, for people with disposable income. Since Americans have traditionally had plenty of disposable income they were able to ride pretty high on the hog. Well, that particularly gravy train is slowing down and will probably come to its last station soon. The media companies (the "big rightsholders") certainly didn't help matters by buying laws like the DMCA, which have had an additional detrimental effect upon the economy. They shot us all in the foot with a
Better to have no copyright at all than the mess we have now. But the grandparent was right: there was a balance that was struck between the perceived needs of the creator of an original work, and everyone else. Given the pace of change in the modern world compared to when those laws were originally written, if anything the balance should have been tilted a little more towards the public domain. Instead, it has been dramatically shifted in favor of the major copyright holders.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
As an example, consider the cost of cigarettes in Canada in the late 1980s. Tax rates were so amazingly high that ordinary people were willing to buy cigarettes smuggled in from the U.S. -- exact duplicates of the "legal" product, sold at a fraction of the price. The black market became ubiquitous and socially accepted. It undercut the legitimate market so badly that the government had to lower taxes so there would be a legal product left to tax.
Now consider a product like a movie, where the cost of reproduction is absurdly low -- zero, in fact, if you just download the movie from the Internet. DVDs in the U.S. are priced to compete with that, and I do in fact buy DVDs of films I could easily download. In China, movies are burned to DVD then sold for $0.5. Studios, trying to compete with that, hope that a price point of three times the black market rate will attract buyers to their legitimate product, thereby making the production of ripoffs unprofitable.
This is not my sandwich.
...gives you a unique perspective and brings home reality over their BS they spew. I'm in a similar half a century + change personally screwed by those bozos. A couple of my pet peeves are them continuuing to muck about with gun rights after they promised the 68 act would be "it", no more after that, and later on with the huge illegals amnesty during the reagan years (I think, don't remember, 84??), then they said they would "crack down" and "enforce the laws on the books".
Oh ya, my all time *favorite* "random courtesy roadblocks". WTF is up with that?? Remember back in school we were taught only supremely evil and totalitarian bad places like east germany and whatnot had those sorts of roadblocks (Your papers please!) and how wrong and illegal it would be here?
Man, there's a bunch. You are right, people of a younger age don't have any frame of reference on some of these subjects outside of an academic one.
Now here's one I keep trying to maintain a frame of reference on, the great depression. It's hard, but I try, I keep it in the back of my mind when I look at economic news andd geopolitical events. I wasn't around then, but my parents and aunts and uncles, etc, were, and I distinctly remember the stories they told me about it and how amazingly fast things can change and how utterly bogus the stock market/government currency manipulators are when it comes to hosing the population with their congames. Keep promising them just this huge something for nothing deal until they are all sucked in, then WHAMO, drop the hammer and walk off with all the REAL wealth leaving the peons holding the bag with worthless paper. Seems they pull this stunt on a big scale every other generation or something, because it takes that long for people to "forget" those "leaders" main skill set is *lying*. They are professional grifters.
The next refinement is to look at the area between those lines. It's lost revenue. If supply and demand converge at 50 quatloos for an isolinear chip, then all the people who would have been willing to pay 100 quatloos get a free ride.
Look around and you'll see zillions of clever ways to charge both 50 quatloos and 100 quatloos for the same isolinear chip. One is the "early adopter tax", in which the 100-quatloo folks get the first samples of the chip. Another example is air fares, where expense-account people get on-demand anytime travel but 50-quatloo people have to stay over Saruday.
Price discrimination feels unfair but economists say it's efficient and beneficial. More planes fly, more isolinear chips get built.
Piracy happens when there's no price discrimination. There are people willing to pay $15 for a CD, or at least there used to be. If you insist on selling all your CDs for $15 you miss out on the $7.50 narket and on the people who'd be happy to pay $3 to avoid the hassles of P2P. If you're not blinded by greed and scrambled by drugs you segment the market and put products at all of those price points.