Slashdot Mirror


Online Piracy Can Be Good For Business, Researchers Find (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Piracy isn't always the vile market bogeyman it's portrayed to be by the entertainment industry, a new joint study by Indiana University has found. Indiana University Researchers like Antino Kim say that online piracy can sometimes have a positive impact on markets, and being overly-aggressive in the policing and punishing of pirates may sometimes be counterproductive. As an example, Kim's study ("The 'Invisible Hand' of Piracy: An Economic Analysis of the Information-Goods Supply Chain") points to the hit HBO show Game Of Thrones, which routinely breaks piracy records thanks to heavy file sharing on BitTorrent. The researchers found that piracy often acts as a form of invisible competition, keeping both the manufacturer (HBO) and the cable operator (say, Comcast) from raising prices quite as high as they might otherwise. Raise prices too high, for example, and users will just flee to piracy, creating even higher losses. The researchers are clear to note their findings have their limits, and that they're not openly advocating for companies to fully embrace piracy. They do, however, argue that if you understand the benefits of piracy as a form of invisible competition, you'll find that overly-aggressive anti-piracy efforts can actually harm the market. "Our results do not imply that the legal channel should, all of a sudden, start actively encouraging piracy," researchers said. "The implication is simply that, situated in a real-world context, our manufacturer and retailer should recognize that a certain level of piracy or its threat might actually be beneficial and should, therefore, exercise some moderation in their anti-piracy efforts."

3 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. New? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this the oldest argument? The less appealing it is to purchase something, the more likely pirating becomes. Steam made it easy to buy games, and so games sales increased while piracy decreased. Before Steam, it was actually *easier* to pirate a game than it was to purchase it.
    Then came Origin, the Ubisoft thingy, and now the Epic thingy, and as a result buying games became more difficult again in a fractured market, which resulted in games pirating once again increasing. no one wants to have 59 different launchers and storefronts.

    Seeing a movie at home used to require a damn PhD. There were 50000 channels to choose from, and they all came in completely illogical bundles that made no sense. Online options were for some reason even more complicated. And it was bloody expensive too. Tadaa, pirating movies became a big thing.
    Then came Netflix, it was cheap and easy. And suddenly pirating decreased.
    But oh no, everyone wanted in on that sweet sweet deal, and now we have a fractured market which is bloody expensive if you want to cover even half of the good stuff. And guess what? Pirating has once more increased.

    In short, the study is saying that if you offer a solid deal that covers the consumers needs, they will buy it. If you make it more appealing to pirate it (expensive and/or difficult to use), people will do that. I don't consider this rocket surgery.

    1. Re:New? by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.
      Against walled gardens.
      Which the movie and TV industries almost are, and video games right behind it.

      EA putting everything in Origin is not going to get me to use it. Same with UbiSoft. Same with Unreal.

      Unreal just got Metro Exodus as an exclusive. I had that in my wishlist since I liked the first two. Now they are removing it from Steam and I am going to get the TPB edition. If it was on Steam and the Unreal store, maybe I would've bought the cheaper of the two options.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    2. Re:New? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buying games was not harder than pirating them.

      With piracy you go to a single place to download as many games as you want. Often you can download whole archives with tons of games. Then people started trying to monetize the downloads with "free" downloads being ridiculously rate limited. And of course the law/companies stepped to shut down these sites.

      When buying games? You could go on Amazon or ebay and try to buy a physical copy and if you were lucky someone was selling one. Then you got to wait half a week at best for a game to arrive.

      Steam didn't make buying much easier. In the first several years, Steam was known as a Steaming PoS. It was awful (and still is today, but for different reasons).

      I won't disagree that at first Steam sucked, but after a few years it had tons of games which could be mass downloaded. Best of all, they offered frequent sales and had a massive back catalog of older titles.

      Having more digital stores doesn't make things harder, either.

      It does just because suddenly you have to look through multiple digital stores to find a game, each have different times when they have sales or give aways, and of course each one of them wants to be regularly updated which means if you have them set to auto start you're inviting a couple hundred megabytes a month just to update the clients themselves. That and each store front seems to suck in different ways--rate limiting downloads or pausing seems a foreign concept for most.

      Digital stores make it easy to install/update/uninstall games.

      Compared to piracy or even retail packages, yes. Yet once you have a few, it becomes a tedious exercise in trying to balance where all the games go--god forbid you want to move something after the installation.

      Piracy goes up and down based on how willing people are to pay for shit.

      Both true and false. Personally I tend to wait for bundles that are decently cheap rather than pirate because there is actually a satisfaction about buying and "owning" a game.

      A lot of piracy is for older titles that people can't buy, can't find their copy of, can't find updates for, can't get working on a modern system without a crack, etc.

      For older copies, when you can find them it's a toss up if you can find them for $1 at a thrift store or online for $100. It's pretty rare you can't find any copies. I haven't lost my copy of most things, but I have lost the original disks for some when I made digital copies. I rarely care about updates for games unless certain versions are very broken. As for working on modern systems, that's a toss up if Steam includes a patch to fix that or not. You're probably better off with a crack.

      Digital stores can remove a chunk of that as they maintain people's libraries for them, generally sell titles forever, and do in fact reduce prices for older titles. Otherwise, people pirate shit because they don't want to pay for it.

      I'd include people pirate shit because they think the asking price is too high. If the digital copy of most older games (circa 2000) are around $10 but most thrift stores sell such games for $1-$5, it's really hard to understand buying some of those games for $20-$100 regardless of if it's digital or physical. Yes, there's plenty of people who will and do pirate anyways, but they also spend money on things they think are "worth it". That's the general paradox that pirates are sometimes the best customer just because even if they don't tend to buy new, they buy a lot digital at reduced prices that still means more total revenue.