Does Piracy Actually Hurt Companies?

[northy124]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Does Piracy Actually Hurt Companies?

No as those that are downloading the films, tv and music most likely were not going to purchase the media in the first place or are doing a try and buy which actually benefits the companies in the long run.

Those that say it harms the industries have too much faith in the fact that people would actually pay for most of the stuff out there which to be frank is not as good as what it could be... the reason Hollywood is suffering is because it is coming out with crap (has been coming out with crap for a long time), not because everyone is pirating.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

I doubt photoshop piracy has much of any negative effect on Adobe, I'd actually guess it helps them. People pirate Photoshop and most of them don't have the money to actually buy it anyway, but if they decide to do something professionally that requires it the people who pirated it in college or high school will buy the legal version since they already know how to use it so Adobe gets a sale that might have gone to someone else.

IMO you think a little too highly of humanity if you think that the only reason people pirate is because they can't afford the software. I know a lot of people, even entire companies, that make a pretty penny and they are using pirated software (or buying a single-user license and installing it on multiple machines or buying severely discounted EDU licenses ). I don't know how many times people have looked at me like I'm a moron for paying for software.

Sure there are people that will pirate because they can't afford it then buy it when they can but I think those numbers are lower than you do.

Originally Posted by northy124

No as those that are downloading the films, tv and music most likely were not going to purchase the media in the first place or are doing a try and buy which actually benefits the companies in the long run.

I think people put too much stake into this opinion. The content is obviously desired otherwise people wouldn't even bother pirating it so if the only options were to buy the CD to get the music you want or not by the CD and not get the music you want most people would buy the CD, IMO. People might grumble about buying the CD but they'd buy it. I don't believe that almost everyone that pirates content today never owned an album, never bought a movie, never went to a movie theater, etc., and it wasn't until Napters and bit torrent that they started consuming media.

Are there people that have pirated a Katy Perry CD but would never actually buy a Katy Perry CD? Of course. But, if piracy was totally removed from the equation, I think most people would buy the CD as opposed to resorting to being glued to the radio in hopes of catching the single. I mean, isn't one of the standard excuses for pirating is that pirates got sick and tired of buying the whole album for only one good song? Doesn't that just prove the point that if piracy wasn't an option they'd almost certainly buy the album? Sure, they might be pissed but they be pissed and have the album in hand.

Originally Posted by RHatton

Record companies need to be ripped off. They are a business model of the past that supplied musicians with recording studios, marketing and tours. These are no longer necessary with the digital age where individuals with a Macbook, Keyboard, Microphone, Mixer, Instruments and half a brain can create music without the help of others in the location of their choice and share it themselves via youtube etc.

I agree that the major labels have done more than enough to earn their bad reputations but if record labels didn't fill a void they'd be gone by now. The tech to 'go it alone' has been around and affordable for over a decade yet it's still common for bands to sign with labels. It's certainly easier now than ever for someone to do it all by themselves (from writing to recording to mixing to being their own PR/marketing person and as well as managing their merchandising orders and website), but not everyone wants to do that. Some of these musicians just want to make music for a living.


Lethal

[Sedulous]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

IMO you think a little too highly of humanity if you think that the only reason people pirate is because they can't afford the software. I know a lot of people, even entire companies, that make a pretty penny and they are using pirated software (or buying a single-user license and installing it on multiple machines or buying severely discounted EDU licenses ). I don't know how many times people have looked at me like I'm a moron for paying for software.

Sure there are people that will pirate because they can't afford it then buy it when they can but I think those numbers are lower than you do.


I think people put too much stake into this opinion. The content is obviously desired otherwise people wouldn't even bother pirating it so if the only options were to buy the CD to get the music you want or not by the CD and not get the music you want most people would buy the CD, IMO. People might grumble about buying the CD but they'd buy it. I don't believe that almost everyone that pirates content today never owned an album, never bought a movie, never went to a movie theater, etc., and it wasn't until Napters and bit torrent that they started consuming media.

Are there people that have pirated a Katy Perry CD but would never actually buy a Katy Perry CD? Of course. But, if piracy was totally removed from the equation, I think most people would buy the CD as opposed to resorting to being glued to the radio in hopes of catching the single. I mean, isn't one of the standard excuses for pirating is that pirates got sick and tired of buying the whole album for only one good song? Doesn't that just prove the point that if piracy wasn't an option they'd almost certainly buy the album? Sure, they might be pissed but they be pissed and have the album in hand.



I agree that the major labels have done more than enough to earn their bad reputations but if record labels didn't fill a void they'd be gone by now. The tech to 'go it alone' has been around and affordable for over a decade yet it's still common for bands to sign with labels. It's certainly easier now than ever for someone to do it all by themselves (from writing to recording to mixing to being their own PR/marketing person and as well as managing their merchandising orders and website), but not everyone wants to do that. Some of these musicians just want to make music for a living.


Lethal

Not saying you are wrong, but there are instances where I "acquired" media that I would have otherwise never purchased only to become a fan and later purchase said "acquired" media along with subsequent artist releases. This is not to suggest it is always the case but certainly it does happen.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by Sedulous

Not saying you are wrong, but there are instances where I "acquired" media that I would have otherwise never purchased only to become a fan and later purchase said "acquired" media along with subsequent artist releases. This is not to suggest it is always the case but certainly it does happen.

I didn't mean to imply that it never happens, I just think many people oversell the "It wouldn't have been purchased it anyway" line. If that was true then the entertainment industry never would have gotten to be the size that it is.

Maybe one would have borrowed it from a friend. Maybe one would have stolen a copy. Maybe one would have gone without. But odds are one would have purchased the album, gone to the movie theater, tuned in Thursday night at 8pm, bought the DVD, etc.,.. Again, I hear so often that pirating is a retaliation of sorts for buying "an album with only one good song" and if that's the case than these people obviously did buy the album when the only options were buy it, steal it from a store or wait for it on the radio.


Lethal

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

I didn't mean to imply that it never happens, I just think many people oversell the "It wouldn't have been purchased it anyway" line. If that was true then the entertainment industry never would have gotten to be the size that it is.

You're forgetting one thing. Most media companies developed and expanded during a time where the internet didn't exist as a mass medium. There was also less media to consume.

Media Companies have to compete with Youtube/Beatport etc. They don't know how so they complain to papa government.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

You're forgetting one thing. Most media companies developed and expanded during a time where the internet didn't exist as a mass medium. There was also less media to consume.

That's exactly my point. When piracy wasn't nearly as easy as it is today people bought things, they didn't abstain. So the ubiquitous 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' line just rings hollow to me. If as many people would've actually abstained as claimed they would abstain then the media companies never would have gotten so big.

Media Companies have to compete with Youtube/Beatport etc. They don't know how so they complain to papa government.

YouTube is a giant money-sucking black hole for Google. Always has been. YouTube's rise to stardom was largely done by streaming content that they didn't pay to create and they didn't pay to get the distribution rights to so I think it's understandable that the companies that did pay to create the content and did pay to get the distribution rights sued YouTube six ways from Sunday.

YouTube is now starting to pay to create it's own original content and pay to acquire distribution rights to 'premium content' (movies and TV shows) because Google knows that's the only way YouTube will stop being a money-sucking black hole. Premium content is profitable content. The average YouTube viewer only spends 15 minutes a day on YouTube and typically watches a handful of 2-3 min videos that are incredibly hard to monetize. The average TV viewer spends 5hrs a day watching TV programs which are much easier to monetize. Hulu, while only doing a fraction of the video traffic that YouTube does, is profitable because they show premium content (and viewers are willing to pay, or sit through ads, for premium content).

I'll wait with baited breath to see if YouTube goes after people that pirate their original content.


Lethal

[takao]

the problem is quite similar to the problem with nuclear weapons: once invented there is no way to reverse it or put it back in pandoras box...

not that pirating music/movies is a new thing it just has became so much easier with technology


a big strategic mistake was calling them "pirates"... over decades hollywood movies painted a romanticized & sympathetic picture of the pirate age in the caribbean and then they try to use it negativly ? now the name has stuck, the damage is done and no royal navy or spanish armada in sight to blow them in pieces

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by Sedulous

Not saying you are wrong, but there are instances where I "acquired" media that I would have otherwise never purchased only to become a fan and later purchase said "acquired" media along with subsequent artist releases. This is not to suggest it is always the case but certainly it does happen.

So you would extend that to shoplifting right? I want to try out a bunch of different clothing designers to see if any of them really fit my lifestyle, so it's ok for me to steal one article of clothing a week just to see of I like it, before I buy from that designer... After all it's really expensive and I wouldn't want to waste my money on something I might not like and never wear...

The whole "advertising" argument is specious at best, and clearly intellectually dishonest.

Stealing music or software or ebooks is still stealing, no matter how you justify it.

[malman89]

Originally Posted by thewitt

So you would extend that to shoplifting right

No, that's comparing apples to... watermelons.

"Pirating" music as a 20-something is something that pretty much anyone does, whether it be from blatant torrenting, dumping a friend's iTunes content into your iPod, or using one of the many wonderful YouTube to MP3 website converters for that one song you want. As a recent college grad, half the music I acquired in one of those ways as of late was just for party mixes or friends. I never would've needed a Katy Perry or Chris Brown single otherwise.

Movies are another thing, though. There's so many horrendous movies released these days, pirating or watching streaming sites. Honestly, there's a lot of movies I never would've watched if I couldn't do it for free. Only rarely has a movie lost out on a sale because I decided to pirate/stream instead of pay to see an appealing movie (Battle: Los Angeles is one I can think of). If I feel like it's going to be good - like District 9 or Sherlock Holmes - I'll pay to see it.

I do admit there is an appeal to pirating simply due to the ease of it. I downloaded the entire CS 5.5 suite (and can update regularly without worry) solely for the hell of it. Same with Rosetta Stone German 1-5 and Italian 1-3 (though I actually wanted to brush up on those languages which I know). I would never, ever buy a single insanely priced Adobe product (plus I don't regularly use them) and I would rather review my old college notes or use some crappy free online aid than ever drop $300-500 on a Rosetta stone language.

[WordMasterRice]

Originally Posted by thewitt

So you would extend that to shoplifting right? I want to try out a bunch of different clothing designers to see if any of them really fit my lifestyle, so it's ok for me to steal one article of clothing a week just to see of I like it, before I buy from that designer... After all it's really expensive and I wouldn't want to waste my money on something I might not like and never wear...

The whole "advertising" argument is specious at best, and clearly intellectually dishonest.

Stealing music or software or ebooks is still stealing, no matter how you justify it.

You would do a lot more to further your cause if you didn't hold the view point in your last sentence. Piracy is not stealing so what you are saying is 100% false and now how do I take anything you say seriously.

You can not extend trying out media to shoplifting. There is no depriving of property. In your example, piracy would be like going to the store, seeing a designer shirt, liking it, buying some cheap fabric, going home and sewing a copy yourself.

And with that being said, there are many instances where the media isn't even available. For example one time I acquired a cd, I spent the next 6 months looking for a place to buy it in every corner of the Internet and most stores within 200 miles. I ended up buying the cd for $60 at the only place I could find it.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by WordMasterRice

You would do a lot more to further your cause if you didn't hold the view point in your last sentence. Piracy is not stealing so what you are saying is 100% false and now how do I take anything you say seriously.

You can not extend trying out media to shoplifting. There is no depriving of property. In your example, piracy would be like going to the store, seeing a designer shirt, liking it, buying some cheap fabric, going home and sewing a copy yourself.

And with that being said, there are many instances where the media isn't even available. For example one time I acquired a cd, I spent the next 6 months looking for a place to buy it in every corner of the Internet and most stores within 200 miles. I ended up buying the cd for $60 at the only place I could find it.

A lot of music in my collection I can't buy in NZ. I refuse to have 256KB/S files.

[vrDrew]

There is no doubt in my mind that piracy hurts companies to a certain extent. Obviously if you can get, with very little effort, a song or movie from a hosting site for free, then why would you pay $1.29 or $5.99 to get it from Amazon or iTunes?

On the other hand, media companies aren't doing themselves any favors by counting each instance of an illegally downloaded song at the full retail price. Somebody who downloads a bootleg copy of some 60s novelty song for a laugh probably would never have bought the Rhino CD that was the only legal way of obtaining it.

The media companies have also not done themselves any favors by making it very difficult to legally obtain much of their material. I know I struggled, for years, with the unavailability of any Bob Seger material in digital format. Did I really have to go to the hassle of seeking out an out-of-print CD of Nine Tonight, and buy it (along with all those other songs I didn't really want) just to get the version of Feel Like a Number I wanted? (No cracks about my musical tastes, please...)

There is also little doubt that piracy actually helps some artists achieve wider success. Nothing like a YouTube video going "viral" (even if it technically contains copyrighted material) to plant an ear worm in hundreds of millions of heads.

On balance, I think there is little doubt that piracy hurts artists and media companies. But its up to them to come up with ways of combatting that trend in a way that makes their material available to the widest number of people, at a price that makes sense. They are still behind the curve on that score.

[thewitt]

Piracy is stealing. Period. It's not debatable.

Does the creator sell the item? Yes.

Did you Pay for the item? No.

Then how did you get it? You stole it.

It's really that simple.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

IMO you think a little too highly of humanity if you think that the only reason people pirate is because they can't afford the software. I know a lot of people, even entire companies, that make a pretty penny and they are using pirated software (or buying a single-user license and installing it on multiple machines or buying severely discounted EDU licenses ). I don't know how many times people have looked at me like I'm a moron for paying for software.Lethal

Well I can't speak from any experience but my own, but I may have acquired for free a copy of adobe premiere years ago. I spent hundreds of hours becoming skilled with the software and recently I purchased it because I felt I could make money as a free lance video editor.

I would have personally felt very un-comfortable selling a product without a legitimately licensed piece of software (but that's me). So adobe made a cool 500 bucks from me (student discount and yes I am a student). That I guarantee they would not have otherwise made, because I would have been unwilling to buy this product without a-lot of experience using it (I'm not an arts major).

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

I think people put too much stake into this opinion. The content is obviously desired otherwise people wouldn't even bother pirating it so if the only options were to buy the CD to get the music you want or not by the CD and not get the music you want most people would buy the CD, IMO. People might grumble about buying the CD but they'd buy it. I don't believe that almost everyone that pirates content today never owned an album, never bought a movie, never went to a movie theater, etc., and it wasn't until Napters and bit torrent that they started consuming media.

Are there people that have pirated a Katy Perry CD but would never actually buy a Katy Perry CD? Of course. But, if piracy was totally removed from the equation, I think most people would buy the CD as opposed to resorting to being glued to the radio in hopes of catching the single. I mean, isn't one of the standard excuses for pirating is that pirates got sick and tired of buying the whole album for only one good song? Doesn't that just prove the point that if piracy wasn't an option they'd almost certainly buy the album? Sure, they might be pissed but they be pissed and have the album in hand.

Again only speaking from personal experience I didn't listen to music as a kid or even into my early teens. It wasn't that I didn't like music but it was in-accessible and to expensive (i felt) for me to get into it.

Then napster/limewire happened and I got into music in a big way. Since then I've purchased some music, listened to ALOT in legitimate avenues (ie* pandora, spotify etc.) and gone to probably 50 or so concerts.

Maybe I would have gotten into music by other means, but the music industry has definitely made money off me and I sort of doubt they would have minus the file sharing world.

----------

Originally Posted by thewitt

Piracy is stealing. Period. It's not debatable.

Does the creator sell the item? Yes.

Did you Pay for the item? No.

Then how did you get it? You stole it.

It's really that simple.

If you steal a banana, that banana cannot be sold because it is gone, it is theft.

If you share a file nothing has disappeared the ability to sell product remains intact.

These two situations lack equivalency.

[eric/]

The answer is a resounding no:

Link

One reason is that they already are recapturing much of that revenue through “complementary” purchases. As Oberholzer-Gee observes, recording industry numbers show large increases in concert revenues corresponding to the drop in recorded music sales. That suggests that, as people discover new artists by sampling downloaded albums online, they’re shifting consumption within the sector to live performances. In other words, people have a roughly constant “music budget,” and what they don’t spend on the albums they’ve downloaded gets spent on seeing that new band they discovered. For the firms that specifically make their money from the sale of recordings, that may seem like cold comfort, but if we’re concerned with the music industry as a whole, it’s a wash. Something similar might occur with respect to purchases of merchandise based on licensed film properties.

[WordMasterRice]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Piracy is stealing. Period. It's not debatable.

Does the creator sell the item? Yes.

Did you Pay for the item? No.

Then how did you get it? You stole it.

It's really that simple.

And that is exactly why you hurt the effort to end piracy, because you refuse to deal in facts. If I said that speed was murder, and said you were a murder when you went 56 I would be just as wrong as you are now. Just because you call it something doesn't make it true.

I saw a table, it was for sale. I liked the table so I went into my wood shop and made the exact same table. Did I steal the table?

[ea9]

Originally Posted by RHatton

Record companies need to be ripped off.

Do you have a job ?
If yes - What if I robbed you because you made too much money in my opinion ?

I am so tired of people justifying stealing. Either admit it or don't talk about it.

----------

Originally Posted by WordMasterRice

And that is exactly why you hurt the effort to end piracy, because you refuse to deal in facts. If I said that speed was murder, and said you were a murder when you went 56 I would be just as wrong as you are now. Just because you call it something doesn't make it true.

I saw a table, it was for sale. I liked the table so I went into my wood shop and made the exact same table. Did I steal the table?

Hopefully you paid for the material to make the table.

[WordMasterRice]

Originally Posted by ea9

Hopefully you paid for the material to make the table.

I did, but that is beside the point. People in this thread that argue that piracy is theft are saying that I stole the table because I made it vs buying it.

[Firestar]

Originally Posted by WordMasterRice

I did, but that is beside the point. People in this thread that argue that piracy is theft are saying that I stole the table because I made it vs buying it.

You stole the idea of the table. You didn't steal the table. You're not stealing the idea of the music/show/movie, you stealing the music/show/movie.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by WordMasterRice

I saw a table, it was for sale. I liked the table so I went into my wood shop and made the exact same table. Did I steal the table?

Are you paying royalties to the designer?

[roadbloc]

The question is nuts. Of course piracy hurts companies. Even if they have more than enough to get by, it hurts. The extra money could have provided for a better future product off them.

If you can't warrant spending money on a digital product, or don't like the idea of a certain company having more money, don't have the product.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by roadbloc

The question is nuts. Of course piracy hurts companies. Even if they have more than enough to get by, it hurts. The extra money could have provided for a better future product off them.

If you can't warrant spending money on a digital product, or don't like the idea of a certain company having more money, don't have the product.

I already disproved the notion that piracy hurts companies on this page. Scroll up.

As for the second part of your post. If you were never going to buy the product the company did not lose money. How can you legislate guaranteed profits? If you can't prove that somebody would have bought something, than you can't prove that you've lost money from them not purchasing it and pirating it.

[ComputersaysNo]

Let's see what the artists themself say about it:





...oh and thank you MTV Cribs for showing me how many cars they own.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by eric/

I already disproved the notion that piracy hurts companies on this page. Scroll up....

actually your post shops that companies ARE being hurt;

For the firms that specifically make their money from the sale of recordings, that may seem like cold comfort

are other companies offering different products (live concerts in your example) benefitting from what's hurting the music distribution companies? as your post shows, the answer is yes......but that doesn't mean companies aren't being hurt, it just means means that some other people have found a way to make money off of the damage

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by roadbloc

The question is nuts. Of course piracy hurts companies. Even if they have more than enough to get by, it hurts. The extra money could have provided for a better future product off them.

If you can't warrant spending money on a digital product, or don't like the idea of a certain company having more money, don't have the product.

I provided a personal example that shows how my access to an adobe product later resulted in a sale by adobe.

Further my access to that product also resulted in the purchase of camera(s) and camera accessories which I probably never would have bought if I hadn't been able to access certain products BEFORE I could ever afford them.

I entertain the possibility that piracy is "bad for industry" but I also see a very real possibility that piracy has the exact opposite effect.

Offering opportunities to people who for monetary reasons aren't able to obtain the necessary skills/tools etc.

I think there is a real possibility that piracy is and will continue to help more than hurt the economy.

As a weird side note, in some ways the fact that piracy IS illegal is an important element towards encouraging this idea. Because the fact that it's illegal encourages some effort and learning (you have to care enough to steal).