Slashdot Mirror
Stop Piracy? Legal Alternatives Beat Legal Threats, Research Shows (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Threatening file-sharers with high fines or even prison sentences is not the best way to stop piracy. New research published by UK researchers shows that perceived risk has no effect on people's file-sharing habits. Instead, the entertainment industries should focus on improving the legal options, so these can compete with file-sharing. Unauthorized file-sharing (UFS) is best predicted by the supposed benefits of piracy. As such, the researchers note that better legal alternatives are the best way to stop piracy. The results are based on a psychological study among hundreds of music and ebook consumers. They were subjected to a set of questions regarding their file-sharing habits, perceived risk, industry trust, and online anonymity. By analyzing the data the researchers found that the perceived benefit of piracy, such as quality, flexibility of use and cost are the real driver of piracy. An increase in legal risk was not directly associated with any statistically significant decrease in self-reported file-sharing.
In general, threatening people will not produce better results than encouraging people over the long term.
Look at Steam and how much it gets from making so many titles available...
I think this is a very good example. I have bought several older titles from Steam because it's easy and priced correctly ($3 for an old game is fine by me). Steam also makes it easier than pirating.
If you're a music executive who made it to where you are by cheating musicians and paying them as little as possible, and by overcharging customers at every opportunity, you will tend to assume other people will behave the same way you yourself do. It will literally be inconceivable to you that a lot of people, even given the opportunity to get something for free by piracy, would rather pay you what they consider to be a fair amount for your work.
I have yet to meet a file "sharer" who thought there was *any* perceived risk. Not audio, not video, not programs...
Seriously. Not one. Since the first digital days. That's anecdotal, but it's a whole lot of anecdotes, as in every adult and teen I've met in the last 40 years.
And speaking as a software developer that decided not to copy protect, threaten or prosecute, but did implement anonymous active copy / IP reporting over the net so I knew what was going on in terms of interest and activity, there have been hundreds of times the number of non-purchased copies of my various software products in use as compared to the number that were purchased during the sales lifetimes of those products.
There's no fear out there. I'm not sure there should be, either. Because the threat level is basically zero. And perhaps it should be, ethically speaking. Legally... well, the law is often wrong.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The industry is very aware that if they provided better alternatives that piracy would be drastically less. However, their interest is not in stopping people from pirating, it's to maximize the amount of money they can make. They know that keeping prices inflated will ultimately earn them more money from the people that do by it than if the lowered the price and almost everyone obtained music legally. Complaining about pirates also gives them a specious reason to lobby for all sorts of bullshit laws they don't need and people don't want, all in the pursuit of higher profits.
They know the evil they do and they do it gladly because the only thing they love is money.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's an interesting situation, because "intellectual property" and the fact that people actually pay for it, is at complete odds with modern economic theory.
The general understanding of market economics is based on fundamentals like, "Supply and Demand" - and these are easily described using mathematical models: The greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price will be, and vice versa.
If we look at intellectual property and software in particular, we find the following characteristics to be true:
1. It is difficult to create
2. Can be easily copied
2a. For little cost or effort
2b. An infinite number of times
So in a free market you end up with a product that is expensive and time consuming to create, but which once created, can be reproduced as much as anyone happens to care for. If someone wants 5,000 copies of your IP, they CAN and it wouldn't cost them a dime. This means the supply is infinite; in which case the demand doesn't matter and the going price for your product is: Zero! Zero dollars!
The rational economist / businessman see this and knows per their rational / purely selfish point of view, that they can never make money in a market where rational actors will simply "steal" their product by copying, sharing, and distributing it with each other. If you walked into a business class in the 1950's with videogames that can be freely copied past the first sale as your business model, you'd have been flunked out and laughed at.
Their solution? Artificial scarcity! Using the threat of violence against their own customers, these economists and businessmen impose DRM, fines, lawsuits, jail, and even death (should you actually defend yourself from police enacting these legalized threats) in order to limit the supply and force customers to pay for the product.
YET
We see today that games with limited or no DRM restrictions - in fact even games that are literally and intentionally given away for free - still attract profits, and not just small profits, but enough profits to continue running a business. Because the public irrationally supports people creating intellectual property in spite of the fact they can or have, obtained that intellectual property for free.
Ironically I often see in arguments about this (particularly at the hands of business-owned "news"), that it's the pirates, gamers, consumers who are being entitled and demanding. In spite of the fact these are the very people who pay money for things they can have for free to begin with. Meanwhile the publishers go out of their way to actively attack their own customers and spend millions on thwarting the copying and sharing of information. It's like living in a world where the buggy-whip makers have won and outlawed all automobiles. Actually - it's worse than that. It's a case of having automobiles already, and then monied interests outlawed them in order to sell their buggy-whips. It's so farcical I almost can't believe it's the way our modern economies function.
Just as it is probably inconceivable to you that a lot of people, when given the opportunity to pay more for something than they consider it to be worth, just walk away and do without. No twisted justifications for stealing. They simply do without. Weird, eh?
Oh. I've heard this idea before. It's the "boycott X store by not shopping there" method of protest.
That's fine, but I have two responses (not arguments, just responses):
First, boycotting doesn't deliver any message to a place or business. If you just "do without", then there's no way for the business to be aware that the product they're selling is desired but that the packaging is offensive. Piracy is a long-standing issue that's been discussed and increasingly made known to be a symptom of a distribution and pricing model that is incompatible with obtaining maximized profits. Business will eventually learn, which wouldn't happen if people just "did without". Understand, I want to pay for digital stuff. Problem is the distribution model makes it artificially impractical to do so.
Second, just because a law is on the books doesn't make it moral, or even right to defend. There is a long history of lawmaking that is eventually viewed as silly or morally wrong. Being lawful isn't necessarily a good thing. In the case of digital piracy, depending on the individual involved and the product involved, it is in many, many cases a victim-less crime. Indeed, I'll admit to having pirated a few e-books which have then inspired me to spend ridiculous amounts of money tracking down physical copies of all of the author's works. Same for music. I "stole" a costless copy of a product I was never going to independently purchase, only to discover I liked it, and then spent lots of money doing so. So yeah, while it's an anecdote, keep in mind that digital piracy isn't theft because the copy we "steal" doesn't have a cost associated.
"Oh no... he found the
I "know someone who" wanted to rent a 5 year old movie on iTunes not long ago. He was ready to pay for it. The rights holders, however, had decided that this particular movie was only to be made available for purchase, not rental. More than twice the price of a rental. So guess what he did...
Other example, same guy, rented a movie on iTunes then decided he liked it so much he wanted to purchase it. Do you think they would let him convert the rental into a purchase? Nope, full price on top of rental. So guess what he did...
Bad service turns potential customers into pirates. In both examples above the rights holders missed out on the money someone was willing to spend because they were simply too greedy. It's easy to blame the pirates, though.
You don't even have to go that far. If I go into a shop, steal a DVD, and give it to you, the penalty is lower than if I buy the DVD, make a copy, and give that to you. I suspect that part of the reason that people don't take the risk seriously is that it's hard for a moderately sane person to imagine that a court would uphold a penalty for copying an object that's greater than the cost of stealing it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Not necessarily. As the grandparent posted, and I've said many times before, creating is hard, copying is easy. You need a business model where people pay for the creation, not the copying. For example, you release a beta version of the game with most of the game world missing for free, then you ask for funding to finish it. Once you've received enough to cover your development and distribution costs and make a decent profit, you release the game for free. Then you start asking people to contribute to developing the next one.
This sounds weird, but it's actually exactly the business model that many TV shows use. They produce a pilot and send it to the networks for free. The networks watch it and if they like it then they fund the development of the first season. If the first season does well, they start asking the network for money for the second, and so on. The only difference is that you'd ask the customers directly, rather than having a middleman who wants to sell adverts.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News