“A major new report from a consortium of academic researchers concludes that media piracy can’t be stopped through ‘three strikes’ Internet disconnections, Web censorship, more police powers, higher statutory damages, or tougher criminal penalties. That’s because the piracy of movies, music, video games, and software is ‘better described as a global pricing problem’. And the only way to solve it is by changing the price.”
In Russia, for instance, researchers noted that legal versions of the film The Dark Knight went for $15. That price, akin to what a US buyer would pay, might sound reasonable until you realize that Russians make less money in a year than US workers. As a percentage of their wages, that $15 price is actually equivalent to a US consumer dropping $75 on the film. Pirate versions can be had for one-third the price.
So, how many brain dead Phd´s did it take them to figure out that the lack of an international price policy was the main reason behind piracy ???
I mean … really … was it _that_ hard to figure out that _nobody_ in the third world (or in any place on earth) would spent 20% of his/hers monthly income on a DVD movie/game/software/content when he/she can get the same thing for a mere 1% or less ???
At least they realized it before the media companies who still hasn’t figured it out.
But I think the point the original poster was getting at is the fact that this is hardly shocking news for those living in the real world – when Adobe is charging NZ$1000+ for their software is it any surprise that they’re so wildly pirated? It is interesting though with AppStore it has operated as a downward pressure on software vendors to reduce their prices. People aren’t going to pay a huge amount for something when they can readily compare it to other products in the virtual store – I can only hope that maybe in the future there will be downward pressure on movies and music – and some actors might have to cope with the fact that they aren’t going to be paid $120million to appear in a film.
Yes you’d think so but it would seem that’s not the case.
Imagine Adobe charging NZ$1000 in the philippines where the average monthly salary is less than half of that. It would appear a lot of people are out of touch with reality.
Completely agree with you.
The same problems occur here (in Bolivia) with software, music, movies and books.
A good computer science book can easily cost 70$ in Amazon; but 70$ in my country is the budget you can spend paying your lunches for the whole month. So I do not understand the point: do publisher companies (of software, DVDs, books, etc.) prefer their products to be pirated in the developing world instead of offering them to a price accessible to our income?
I’m ok with paying for all the software I have, but, as software programmer, I can easily find free or very cheap versions of the tools I need; but if I would be a graphical designer, for example, in my country I would not have any option but buying a pirated Photoshop.
Yes.
The sales in developed countries at high prices bring in more income than selling at a low price (even tho the volume would be higher) would.
If they offered a lower price in developing countries, then they would want to spend a lot of time implementing some kind of drm scheme to prevent people in developed countries buying the cheaper version, or alternatively they would have to offer the same price everywhere.
They are perfectly content for you to pirate their software, and they much prefer that to the alternative of you using something else which is cheaper or free…
Proprietary sofware is mostly surviving due to inertia, if huge groups of people started using free software then it breaks the lock-in and inertia, and would eventually cascade over to the developed world too, driving commercial software vendors into small niches or bankruptcy.
Most Adobe software is targeting a relatively small niche market, there are very few people who actually need photoshop (most of whom can afford to pay for it) and a lot more people who’s needs could be served perfectly adequately by one of the many cheap or free programs available.
This is a strange situation, many people think photoshop is the only tool for the job, even when their needs are extremely minimal… However they don’t consider it worth the price tag, and aren’t willing to accept a free or cheaper alternative either, so they end up with pirated photoshop.
In Soviet Russia, legal versions of the film view you.
This may hold true for other countries that don’t make as much money as Americans, but here in the US, people pirate for no other reason than they can. How else do you explain the rampant piracy of $1 Android apps here, even before they went to 15 minute trials? I mean, how much f**king cheaper are you going to get than that?
Probably the only way to get people to stop pirating movies is to sell ’em for like $2 a pop, so that it’s not really worth the effort to scour P2P sites, or whatever. But that’s only until internet speeds get fast enough where you can download one in a few minutes, and storage gets big enough where you can put 1000 movies in your pocket, so that having a case to put them in doesn’t mean anything anymore.
As for music, you’re just shit out of luck. Even at 10 cents a song, people would still pirate it.
Edited 2011-03-15 00:36 UTC
you can sell me the entire album with 10 cents, if you add all that DRM crap and i won’t be able to listen to that music on a device that I’ll buy future i still won’t buy it. But I’ll go and see that band live if the album that i got for free is good.
personally i pay some android apps when they’re useful because they’re cheap. but they’re not all $1. many many many are $10.
$1 usually are ones that should be free (like a wallpaper, seriously who going to pay for that?)
its also less of a hassle to try the pirate game first than the refund btw. the refund being only a 15min window you usually have issues such as “slow network, additional content to get via wifi” etc. 1H would be a more decent policy.. 15mins is just a protection for “i clicked wrong”
I would pay 10 cents a song if i can…
a, get a drm free copy that i can use for any personal use purposes
b, access the service without requiring any particular proprietary software (ie it should work in any modern browser on any device)
c, listen to a (perhaps poor quality or overlaid with ads) copy for free before i purchase, so i don’t waste my money on crap
at that point piracy would offer no benefit…
obviously for poorer countries, the price would have to be roughly the equivalent of 10 cents relative to their average monthly wage…
That’s also because the world is changing (for the better I’d argue) and it takes time for the idea to catch up or be stamped thoroughly into the ground.
The people found another better more convenient and cheaper way of doing things. And other people that don’t like to see this change is trying to keep it from happening.
This has always been the case in history including the fighting of people over change.
Sometimes it turns out to be for the best, sometimes for the worst and sometimes people will just need to adapt… Maybe the ARTS must change into something else to continue and well that’s just too bad for the people now entrusting the current way things are done.
If you look at software, there is a lot of free software out there, it’s totally free, people do not make money out of making it like a programmer does in his day job and still there are many many very good free software products out there. And eventually companies pay people to work on free software. This could just as well apply to many of the ARTS as well.
So yes, I agree, someday (actually today in some countries) you will download HD movies in <15mins including searching for it. This beats any kind of physical store hands down… It’s no contest really… quality, quantity, easy of use and availability all much better and best of all, all clutter free… no DRM, no targeted advertising, no irritating sales person trying to sell me 10 other movies I do not want to watch.
It’s not called progress anymore because we made it illegal to create progress.
If AV (movie/audio) companies broke down because it wouldn’t be profitable to make then that would be just too bad… and if people would then really wanted to see that stuff again… the market will find a way to reinvent the market to fit that need. It’s because we don’t let old companies and markets die that we don’t get progress.
Ugh… the reasoning of generation ‘entitlement’ again.
From the article:
When legitimate CDs, DVDs, and computer software are five to ten times higher (relative to local incomes) than they are in the US and Europe, simply ratcheting up copyright enforcement won’t do enough to fix the problem.
So what… a ferrari sports car is ten times more expensive in poor countries relative to income. Does that mean that the ferrari is incorrectly priced?
Screw this line of reasoning that you should be entitled to buy stuff at the price point you can afford. If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it. End of story.
Why does OSnews keep putting the problem with the producers, and portray the consumers (pirates included) as the victims here?
No, you’re not entitled to watch any blockbuster movie you fancy at a price point of your liking. You’re not entitled anything at all other than your basic human rights, which does not include affordable consumption of hollywood produce.
Bram
In poorer countries there is a far greater disparity between the rich and the poor. The rich in such countries are just as rich as any person that can afford a Ferrari.
But these are practical solutions. In poorer countries land/house etc prices are lower otherwise everybody would be homeless, why not consumer media?
Basically you’re saying “F**k you, you don’t earn enough so piss off”…and so they do…straight to piracy. The article points out due to unfair pricing no amount of beating with the stick is going to reduce piracy; they need to start using carrots too.
You’re saying because they are poorer then they shouldn’t enjoy the some of the life that you have?
Edited 2011-03-15 02:02 UTC
That logic doesn´t apply to “luxury” items, wich by the way, are even taxed differently …
… and just in case you want to know, make Ferraris ten times more expensive in the states and all you´ll get will be: a huge drop in Ferrari´s selling numbers.
… apparently it is not the end … it seems like ppl doesn´t end it in there, they just buy pirated copies, or get them via p2p …
Technological improvemens changing ppl life, changing markets, businnes models, businnes strategies … ?
idk .. maybe when the light bulb got invented, candle makers went down in flames …
It appears to be that we are past the times of “entitlements” …
Seems it doesn´t work like that anymore …
The difference between Ferrari and IP is that in the former case marginal costs (the cost to build the car) is high. Selling it cheaply means making a loss. In the case of IP, marginal costs are low, fixed costs are high. Selling it cheaply means revenue for the creators – revenue that would not otherwise exist. This argument isn’t saying people should get whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever they want – it’s saying that producers are leaving money on the table by not selling products in a significant fraction of the world.
Yes, a ferrari sports car is very expensive. Which is why you never see Ferraris on the road here in India. Also the same reason that the Nano ($2000 car) was invented. So that there would be a car that people can afford.
No one is saying that piracy is right. The researcher is saying that if the movie studios want to make money, they are going to have to adjust price as per the income. If they don’t, no one will buy their product, because they just can’t afford it.
You mean the car industry knows you can’t set global prices and global vehicles, and that you need to make products tailored towards local circumstances?
Perish the thought.
Yes, a ferrari sports car is very expensive. Which is why you never see Ferraris on the road here in India.
This is simply because Indian roads are totally unsuitable for Ferrari’s. Rich Indians simply spend their money on other luxuries.
I kinda agree with your thinking although we must not forget that people do not think as you do. In a perfect world it would be as you say and the world would respect your pricing and don’t buy the product if they can afford it. Wanna know what? that’s not *reality*.
However, you must agree that they would sell much more copies if they priced things differently. 30€ for a dvd won’t get you any sales at all in India. 1-2€ will. Don’t you agree?
Anyway, piracy is not only about pricing. I’ll explain my case:
I live in Barcelona which is among the richest cities in Europe (and in Spain) and my friends and I, although not rich, are far from “poor” people (I’m probably the one that earns the lowest) and we could easily pay for a movie, software or whatever. The thing is that I’m the only one that does so. And it’s not only my friends: it’s *everybody*.
There is an expression in spanish that explains this thinking: “tonto el último” which is “silly the last one”. It’s normal here to get things for free as long as authorities/whoever don’t catch you and,in fact, most people laugh at me when they realize I *want* to pay for the things I consume. You know, I believe it the right thing to do: you get something in exchange for money. People think “if I can get it for free… why would I pay?” and the ridiculous thing is that their excuse is: they are big companies, they won’t die because of me not paying for the product. “What if everybody things as you do” I always ask: “luckily for me, not everybody does” is the usual answer…
This makes me sad as I live in a society that actually do not believe in itself
And the older I get the worse the situation becomes.
So, in my humble opinion, piracy is *NOT* about pricing rather than people’s respect for the work of others.
Ferrari’s (and all other supercars) are sold at far less than the real cost of development and manufacture. Supercars are really just technology testbeds for far more humble FIATs and Volkswagens.
Edited 2011-03-15 12:04 UTC
No-one is trying to excuse piracy. The fact of the matter is, if a DVD cost 20-25% of your monthly salary you’re not going to buy it. Either you avoid the product or you’re going to pirate it. If you want to sell to these people you need to lower your price. End of story.
Technically, making a profit isn’t a human right either.
No one is stating that the ends (getting something cheaper) justify the means (piracy) but to simply put your head in the sand and ignoring the reasons behind decisions people make – you’re simply not living in reality.
You have such line of thinking because, ok, you live in a first world country where you can afford anything you need.
Ok, I cannot afford a Ferrari, but I can afford a brazilian Volkswagen (that is what I actually have); but as I said in other comment thread, if I would be a graphical designer, I would have to buy Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, etc. etc. and I simply could not afford it and I would have to buy pirated copies.
You could argue that I could buy Pixelmator, or use Paint.NET or the Gimp, but though I am a fan of such products, I do not know if a “pro” would be happy with them.
I’m strongly opposed to so-called “intellectual property” by principle, because I think it amounts to a legal monopoly and, as such, a violation of physical property of monopoly breakers. Make no mistake, some of the most radical defenders of private property, the market and the right of rich people to keep every cent they have earned are also against at least some forms of “IP”. Speaking of entitlements, who said an artist or engineer is entitled to tell others (who didn’t sign a contract with him) how to use their property just because they are using it in a way he thought of first? For instance, you overheard a tune, or you were told a story, and you write your own variant. Same thing for an invention. I know, most actual piracy involves something like a contract violation by one customer (the ripper), but of course contracts are not binding for third parties, and IP is not based on contract law.
Also, not all IP is the same; for instance, copyright only restricts the right to copy, not independent invention, like patents do. This sure makes copyright less vicious, but since it also covers modified copies, once you have heard of a tune or a movie, you can be accused of copying it just for writing something vaguely similar.
Nonetheless, I agree with much of your post. No one is entitled to getting something from others just because they want it badly (they “need” it), and the money you earned in honest trade is yours, no matter how rich you already are. I’m all for changing the law and letting everyone play by the new rules, not for looking the other side when the victim is rich.
How much does it cost you to build a functional copy of a Ferrari sports car? Considering the complexity of a modern car, especially a high performance or luxury car, it would probably cost you considerably more to build your own.
And even if you did build a clone ferrari, you would still need to fuel it… Performance cars are generally not very cheap to fuel.
Piracy and counterfeiting is only a problem for goods which are ridiculously priced relative to their production cost, why do designer clothes cost so much more than generic mass produced clothes for instance? They’re made with the same materials, in the same chinese sweat shops…
I agree with the poster above that it’s not pricing in countries like the U.S. but that’s as far as I can agree. The two main reasons that I know of, from knowing people who do pirate, are regional lockout and DRM. Region lockout is the primary factor. How, exactly, is a person supposed to buy an item you won’t sell them and, even if they do import it, what good is that if they can’t legally play it? This mostly applies to movies, but it can apply to other media such as audio books as well (there are many audio books that you can’t purchase here that are only available in the UK). For music it takes a slightly different approach, in that many record labels release bonus tracks only on certain regional versions of albums. What would they expect, for everyone to purchase and import every edition of an album just to get one different track?
DRM is the second factor, though not relevant to music anymore in the states at least. Movies and other video content, however, are ridiculously locked out. Why buy a movie from iTunes (at the exact same cost of a DVD) when you’re only going to be able to play it on a limited selection of devices? At the same time, most average users don’t know how to rip a DVD, so what ends up happening is that they buy the DVD and then pirate a digital copy.
They won’t stop this by tightening down nor by going after p2p networks. If they want to stop it, there are several simple things they can do:
1. Get rid of the region lockout problem. Don’t lock a movie to a specific region and, for crying out loud, release all regions at the same time. In our rapidly globalizing world, this really should be a no brainer.
2. Either stop loading things down with DRM or else come up with a form of DRM that is both non-invasive and damn near universal. None of this iTunes-specific stuff here, Zune-specific thing there, and a whole bunch of other crap in the middle. I’d prefer no DRM myself but, if they really want to keep it, they need to streamline it considerably.
3. Price digital media lower than its physical counterpart, since the digital versions are almost always lossy. Why pay $10 for a lossy album on iTunes when you could pay $10 for a CD? At the same time, a CD is less convenient and lossy rips can be easily pirated.
Big content need to really look at what’s happening and come up with a business model that will fit the age in which we live. If they continue the way they’re going now, there will never be any progress made in stopping piracy or even slowing it down. You change with the times or you get left behind in the end. Evolve or die out.
I don’t think this goes so much for the video games, but, who said actors and musicians NEED to be rich? Or that production companies NEED so much money? Why should I pay $15 to see dumbass Tom Cruise in a crap movie at the theatre, or pay $30 to buy the same crappy movie that he was paid $100 million for? The studios are trying to make their money back. The actor’s salary goes into budget. A budget usually used to make a movie with lots of explosions and blinking lights. It’s not entertainment! How many times do I need to see a tiny Japanese car drift? Or boats exploding? Let’s forget about the poor remakes! And the remakes of remakes! As for music, the “artist” gets a VERY small amount of each unit sold. If you want the artist to be compensated for their CDs or albums sold, you ought to just send them a check or money order directly.
So vote with your wallet; don’t watch or pirate those movies.
I kind of like this one because it just never works. It’s some common fallacy. There are various static revenues that you can’t even get by (many countries have actual taxes that gives enough money to the media corporations to survive even if they did not sell anything), and because there’s just no way out.
That’s why it doesn’t work. the only thing that happens, is that the less you pay, the more they complain about piracy (even if you don’t pirate, and don’t pay, since they still get less revenue)
The less they get, the more stupid laws are made (since they still hold some money & power), the more money they keep getting, and that goes on and on.
I wasn’t suggesting piracy as a solution. I was trying to point out that consumers worldwide are being over charged. I don’t pay or pirate.
Pricing is definitely one of the biggest factors…
Two posts.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/03/09/0618234/Crime-Writer-Makes-…
But pricing is not the only problem..
ttp://getsatisfaction.com/oreilly/topics/can_i_pay_using_paypal
Ironic that the banner ad chose to display an ad for the BSA asking to report piracy on the top of the page…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60643613@N03/5529575748/
People who get worked up over piracy should really be ashamed of themselves.
Who care who gets or doesn’t get millions for making a song if there are still people in the world starving to death.
Yes, it’s funny how copyright enforcement seems to be much more important than solving the worlds poverty crisis and other actually important problems.
Copyrights can benefit a poor artist. It’s a fallacy to think that all owners of IP are millionaires. For every superstar there are 100s struggling to make a living of art.
business has every right to package and deliver the product. they can encrypt it and do whatever else, even if I dont agree.
but I say their right to electron policy enforcement ends before government does it for them.
the costless distribution of digital information is a miracle of modern civilization. as far as our government is concerned, that power should be used to benefit citizens, not constrain them to certain business models.
businesses can constrain all they want as long as we can switch to alternatives (care of a free market). we (the government) shouldnt help them constrain us.