Canadian Study: Piracy Created by Greedy Capitalists

[Chibz]

... Please explain. That's not making any sense in real world context.

Greedy consumers: Wanting the product without actually putting money into it. Do note, that a consumer differs greatly from a customer.

 

[Gindil]

... Please explain. That's not making any sense in real world context.

Greedy consumers: Wanting the product without actually putting money into it. Do note, that a consumer differs greatly from a customer.

...

That's going against the report something fierce...

A consumer wanting something for free happens in a lot of real world contexts. What I'm looking at is that you're taking one variable and oversimplifying it, to the point that it's become very difficult to take it seriously.

Take for example This case study [http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110403/21272213750/more-data-thoughts-pay-what-you-want-stylus-experiment.shtml]. Yes, some people paid only $1 for for a stylus that would have retailed for $25. But note what happened as bidding came to a close.

I'm just failing to see exactly your meaning by your sentence.

 

[Chibz]

That's going against the report something fierce...

A consumer wanting something for free happens in a lot of real world contexts. What I'm looking at is that you're taking one variable and oversimplifying it, to the point that it's become very difficult to take it seriously.

Take for example This case study [http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110403/21272213750/more-data-thoughts-pay-what-you-want-stylus-experiment.shtml]. Yes, some people paid only $1 for for a stylus that would have retailed for $25. But note what happened as bidding came to a close.

I'm just failing to see exactly your meaning by your sentence.

It goes against the report, because the report has little to no factual basis.

What I'm saying is actually so obvious that it shouldn't ever need to be said in modern society.

Crime X is caused by those who commit crime X.

Also, did you actually read the report? The gist of it is that most people paid substantially LESS than the product is actually worth. Despite the fact that the author clearly tried to rationalize an alternative opinion that isn't backed by actual numbers.

(The mean paid price was $10 on a $25 .. Wow, stylus? Really?!)

 

[Tipsy Giant]

In any case, I'm glad that Media Piracy in Emerging Economies is attempting to discuss these issues so that there is an independent source of facts other than the information released by media companies. 'Cause, you know, they kind of want to think about this stuff the way that they do.

Too bad when I try to discuss these issues on The Escapist, I get suspended or put on probation.

EDIT: Sorry if I come off as bitter; I AM! >:/

Ditto

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs. Rather they should look towards these things as something to aspire to, as opposed to an entitlement "because people in other countries can have these things".

Enforcement of things like intellectual properties, and patents is a touchy subject, and honestly when a people are benefitting from theft in a way that doesn't hurt their own goverment and infrastructure, there is no real reason for these countries to pass and enforce laws. I mean in arresting someone for piracy in some of these countries, the goverment absorbs a cost, but really isn't receiving anything in return to it's benefit or that of the society, the only ones benefitting are the IP/Patent holders and when they aren't even based in that country, why should anyone care?

This goes back to the old maxim about "Free Trade means he with the biggest guns trades freely". Simply put military force has been how trade rights have been defended, and without any real fear of armed retaliation due to the morality of most of the big nations, there isn't even the interest of self preservation. The US isn't going to napalm a hundred thousand civilians in a densely packed city in retaliation for patent violations or IP theft, or send in a bunch of commandos to gun down goverment leaders or whatever. We could do both of these things and nobody could stop us (indeed most of the nations people think would want to stop us would join right in, indeed it's largely because of the US that things like this generally don't happen, since we wind up opposing people who do them or seem like they are planning on it), but we won't because it's wrong. We weigh the thefts on one hand against the cost in human lives on the other, and pretty much let people in these countries steal whatever they want because we have no viable method of stopping them.

The specific example I'm giving is pretty "crazy" but understand the point I'm making here. There is no vested interest in enforcing these laws in most countries, and no benefits to be gained, what's more nobody is going to step in to force them, so nothing gets done.


I could go back and forth on the morality of pracy, and rant about patents (which are a bit differant) but the bottom line is that the situation is messed up all around. The pirates are wrong, the media industries are wrong (being not just greedy, but corrupt about it), and really there is no moral way of sorting the situation out.

Canada has some interesting laws on piracy, which I tend to disagree with (but it's another entire discussion) where as I understand things they have pretty much legalized it and the goverment pays the industries what it thinks is a "fair price" for all of the piracy going on. I'm no expert, but I've read a few things about it here and there. Agree or disagree with them, I think Canada's own attitudes have a lot to do with the way their research is slanted.

I'll also say there is a gray area in this whole thing, with people making copies or fan translations of things not released to their coutry. I haven't followed this too much recently, but things like fansubbed anime have fallen under this catagory, with the basic defense being that if nobody is selling it, then you can't fairly say it's stealing.

In the case of developing nations though, I don't think that gray area really applies because the extent of piracy makes establishing any kind of market where anything is seriously sold legitimatly is difficult. What's more a big part of the issue is that when products are brought to these nations legitimatly, they wind up just stealing them anyway because only the very rich could afford $60 for a video game.... I think people in the US greatly underestimate how good we have it here, and how high our standard of living actually is. The problem of course being that in the case of a lot of these nations the thefts are pretty much justified by saying "well, It's not fair that I drive a used Econocar when other people can afford to drive a Bently. Thus I'm entitled to steal a Bently". Movies, music, and games produced in the US and UK are lightyears ahead of what most nations produce (Hollywood is a big deal globally for a reason), it's not that the people in these countries don't have entertainment, they just want the best, but without that strong an economy behind them, they feel they shouldn't have to pay for it.

In an information age the access to content has to be easier and faster than any other option, otherwise the consumer will pick the alternative option.

 

[Therumancer]

[
In an information age the access to content has to be easier and faster than any other option, otherwise the consumer will pick the alternative option.

Well yes and no. What your talking about is a basic part of human nature and can be applied to anything. This is of course why rules exist to curb those tendencies, especially when it involves someone like a creator losing out. Rules are of course enforced by the threat of force, whether it's a more powerful group extracting money from someone who did wrong (a fine) forcing someone into imprisonment, or various levels of pain and/or the death penelty. Simply put, people are kept in line with the threat of force from other people. It's a cynical way of looking at it, but when you examine society that's what it comes down to.

In a case with multiple goverments and standards of living that come into conflict with each other over issues like "ownership" of either land, physical property, or increasingly ideas, that's where war comes into play. Wars rarely being about "good and evil" but a matter of "us or them" with one side ultimatly wanting something another side has, or to get access to and control of something for themselves that other groups of people want.

This current issue exists because of modern morality where we are viewing violence and warfare as wrong, or rather the most powerful countries like the US does. Enforcing our own interests when it involves hurting or killing people is considered the be the lesser evil to taking the losses. Of course this is based largely on the false perception of our own invincibility and the naive idea that there is enough in the way of resources for everyone.

In the case of IP and patent laws, the bottom line is (as I pointed out), is that none of the major societies who produce this stuff are willing to actually defend their rights. Stealing this stuff is not only quick and easy, but most importantly it's safe because there is absolutly no fear of any repercussions which is what comes before anything else. A person is not going to do something that's quick and easy, if every time they do it there is a 1% chance that they will die a horrible, screaming death.

In the end it comes down to the simple question "will we make them stop". Generally speaking the answer is "no" because doing so would involve warfare of the most horrifying sort, and at least for the moment nobody is willing to massacre millions of people to protect the property rights of billionaires producing things like video games. Heck, even with the combined influance of MUCH bigger products like clothing, medicine, and varous forms of technology, the first world is generally not willing to pull that trigger.

They get away with it due to perception. For example, if on the news you were to see cameras panning accross the scortched and wasted Brazilian (for example) countryside, with piles of corpses and charred skeletons all over the place, making the scenes of the future in "The Terminator" seem utopian. A survivor crawls out of the wreckage, and a US soldier just walks up and shoots them in the head to make a point.... would you consider that worth preventing the losses to American business? The surity of our retaliation would doubtlessly actually help our economy (accross all industries, not just the media) and end the problems, as all we'd have to do is point to Brazil and whatever other countries we made an example out of, to show what we will do to them (shooting the survivor in the head on camera being part of driving a point home, rather than general sadism). The old Maxim "Free Trade means he with the biggest guns trades freely" again being enforced.... the point is would you consider it worth it? Most people at least right now would say "no"... hence the current state of affairs.


Also remember that once a nation like the US started doing this kind of thing, all of the nations that don't defend their business interests this way right now because of us playing "world police" and threatening to stop anyone who did would get involved. Every country with a decent military and a vested interest in patents would find the nearest group of third world thieves violating their trade rights, and go to down. The end result would probably be a massacre of the second and third world at the hands of the first world. The US being the big force that prevents this right now, would also have it on our conscience that we're ultimatly responsible for all that other violence as well.

 

[DonTsetsi]

This is hilarious. These "studies" are absolutely useless and pointless. The real reason are that people are just too dam stupid and cheap. Games do not cost too much and regardless of the so called excuses that they claim are "reasons" the facts still remain. That fact is that Pirates are still stealing the software and need to be dealt with.

What's the difference between not buying and pirating? Because in poor countries few people can afford to buy media. Why would pirates need to be dealt with if they aren't making a difference? (talking about the people who can't afford the product, not the ones who are too cheap)
P.S. I pirate software that costs thousands of dollars every year (more than my income).
P.P.S. Autodesk has free educational versions of its programs, Adobe does not.

Mod Edit: Piracy is illegal

If they can afford the hardware to run it then they can afford the software as well. Pure and simple.

Actually no - because a low-end PC costs around $300, which translated into videogames is between 3 and 6 (WOW:Cataclysm costs +$110, while others/budgets go lower here, like around $50, rarely $40). And one buys a PC every 2-3 years or something (speaking for myself, while other people are less fortunate), while a game can be bought/acquired, played and finished in like, 2 days. How many people then have the money to buy $50 to $100 games if buying a PC is already a luxury, what do you think? Not many. Almost no one. Maybe if they cost between $10 and $20... All above is luxury ($20's getting ridiculous too, because it approaches 20% of some people's monthly income). Hell, you could feed yourself here for 2 weeks with those money... Let alone $50-$100 per game, ugh. >_<

I wasn't talking about games, to be honest. I was talking about downloading professional software that usually costs much more than an expensive prebuilt (read overpriced) PC and is paid for every year. (which is legal in most countries if used for educational purposes)
But games and movies are also a good example, just because someone can buy a 500$ PC once doesn't mean he can spend over 100$ each week or every few weeks for entertainment.

 

[DonTsetsi]

[
In an information age the access to content has to be easier and faster than any other option, otherwise the consumer will pick the alternative option.

Well yes and no. What your talking about is a basic part of human nature and can be applied to anything. This is of course why rules exist to curb those tendencies, especially when it involves someone like a creator losing out. Rules are of course enforced by the threat of force, whether it's a more powerful group extracting money from someone who did wrong (a fine) forcing someone into imprisonment, or various levels of pain and/or the death penelty. Simply put, people are kept in line with the threat of force from other people. It's a cynical way of looking at it, but when you examine society that's what it comes down to.

In a case with multiple goverments and standards of living that come into conflict with each other over issues like "ownership" of either land, physical property, or increasingly ideas, that's where war comes into play. Wars rarely being about "good and evil" but a matter of "us or them" with one side ultimatly wanting something another side has, or to get access to and control of something for themselves that other groups of people want.

This current issue exists because of modern morality where we are viewing violence and warfare as wrong, or rather the most powerful countries like the US does. Enforcing our own interests when it involves hurting or killing people is considered the be the lesser evil to taking the losses. Of course this is based largely on the false perception of our own invincibility and the naive idea that there is enough in the way of resources for everyone.

In the case of IP and patent laws, the bottom line is (as I pointed out), is that none of the major societies who produce this stuff are willing to actually defend their rights. Stealing this stuff is not only quick and easy, but most importantly it's safe because there is absolutly no fear of any repercussions which is what comes before anything else. A person is not going to do something that's quick and easy, if every time they do it there is a 1% chance that they will die a horrible, screaming death.

In the end it comes down to the simple question "will we make them stop". Generally speaking the answer is "no" because doing so would involve warfare of the most horrifying sort, and at least for the moment nobody is willing to massacre millions of people to protect the property rights of billionaires producing things like video games. Heck, even with the combined influance of MUCH bigger products like clothing, medicine, and varous forms of technology, the first world is generally not willing to pull that trigger.

They get away with it due to perception. For example, if on the news you were to see cameras panning accross the scortched and wasted Brazilian (for example) countryside, with piles of corpses and charred skeletons all over the place, making the scenes of the future in "The Terminator" seem utopian. A survivor crawls out of the wreckage, and a US soldier just walks up and shoots them in the head to make a point.... would you consider that worth preventing the losses to American business? The surity of our retaliation would doubtlessly actually help our economy (accross all industries, not just the media) and end the problems, as all we'd have to do is point to Brazil and whatever other countries we made an example out of, to show what we will do to them (shooting the survivor in the head on camera being part of driving a point home, rather than general sadism). The old Maxim "Free Trade means he with the biggest guns trades freely" again being enforced.... the point is would you consider it worth it? Most people at least right now would say "no"... hence the current state of affairs.


Also remember that once a nation like the US started doing this kind of thing, all of the nations that don't defend their business interests this way right now because of us playing "world police" and threatening to stop anyone who did would get involved. Every country with a decent military and a vested interest in patents would find the nearest group of third world thieves violating their trade rights, and go to down. The end result would probably be a massacre of the second and third world at the hands of the first world. The US being the big force that prevents this right now, would also have it on our conscience that we're ultimatly responsible for all that other violence as well.

I don't think a war would help any industry other than weapon manufacture. People who can't afford a product will not buy it if they can't get it for free. Enforcing anti- piracy laws would only lose the next election for the ruling party.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

[
In an information age the access to content has to be easier and faster than any other option, otherwise the consumer will pick the alternative option.

SNIP
Also remember that once a nation like the US started doing this kind of thing, all of the nations that don't defend their business interests this way right now because of us playing "world police" and threatening to stop anyone who did would get involved. Every country with a decent military and a vested interest in patents would find the nearest group of third world thieves violating their trade rights, and go to down. The end result would probably be a massacre of the second and third world at the hands of the first world. The US being the big force that prevents this right now, would also have it on our conscience that we're ultimatly responsible for all that other violence as well.

Of course the real point is that most creative industries have alternative business models which would be unaffected by piracy, but the current paradigm looks like it has no chance of changing.

People want evolution rather than a revolution, but the problem is that current technology is revolutionary compared to 20th century business practices and only a revolution in distribution, advertising and the very way we create will change matters.

 

[Gindil]

It goes against the report, because the report has little to no factual basis.

What I'm saying is actually so obvious that it shouldn't ever need to be said in modern society.

Crime X is caused by those who commit crime X.

Also, did you actually read the report? The gist of it is that most people paid substantially LESS than the product is actually worth. Despite the fact that the author clearly tried to rationalize an alternative opinion that isn't backed by actual numbers.

(The mean paid price was $10 on a $25 .. Wow, stylus? Really?!)

Seems that he gave his own opinion based on what is occurring. I was hoping you would notice what the people that paid some of the cheaper prices were saying. They aren't necessarily "greedy consumers" just people that have other alternatives to consider.

In regards to piracy, all of the discussion on price points says a lot for finding the right one for consumers and customers alike. What isn't quite clear is how supposedly a consumer is greedy and how supposedly that greed leads to no sales opportunities. It's almost as if that were far too simplistic of a view, not taking other variables into consideration that may alter one into the other.

 

[Chibz]

In regards to piracy, all of the discussion on price points says a lot for finding the right one for consumers and customers alike. What isn't quite clear is how supposedly a consumer is greedy and how supposedly that greed leads to no sales opportunities. It's almost as if that were far too simplistic of a view, not taking other variables into consideration that may alter one into the other.

The problem is that pirates will almost never willingly become legitimate customers. Piracy has an unbeatable price tag of $0. "Why buy," they'd figure, "If we already get the product for free?"

It's not only greed, it's actually a rather (long term) self harming flavour of greed. And yes, I've seen damage done by piracy first hand.

 

[Gindil]

In regards to piracy, all of the discussion on price points says a lot for finding the right one for consumers and customers alike. What isn't quite clear is how supposedly a consumer is greedy and how supposedly that greed leads to no sales opportunities. It's almost as if that were far too simplistic of a view, not taking other variables into consideration that may alter one into the other.

The problem is that pirates will almost never willingly become legitimate customers. Piracy has an unbeatable price tag of $0. "Why buy," they'd figure, "If we already get the product for free?"

It's not only greed, it's actually a rather (long term) self harming flavour of greed. And yes, I've seen damage done by piracy first hand.

Cave Story, Minecraft [http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-theft-ridiculous-lost-sales-they-dont-exist-says-minecraft-creator-110303/], Microsoft Windows [http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198000211], were all proliferated through piracy.

I believe you're discounting other factors such as a "buy in" effect. Adobe does make money on licensing to businesses, but they were pirated [http://www.devlounge.net/column/piracy-adobe%E2%80%99s-best-friend] as well. The added benefit is that these examples confirm a lock in and a dominance of that particular software. Cave Story is a free game on the internet, but it's also available for the Wii long after it's been shared by most PC gamers. IIRC, Pixel is making money for his 5-year endeavor. Notch's opinions for Minecraft shouldn't be discounted because he does make a good chunk of money per day. Microsoft is still the dominant platform, even though there are now other alternatives that force them to compete.

I have to question how piracy supposedly caused damage... That's more along the lines of a business model gone bad than consumer behavior.

 

[Chibz]

Cave Story is a free game on the internet, but it's also available for the Wii long after it's been shared by most PC gamers. IIRC, Pixel is making money for his 5-year endeavor. Notch's opinions for Minecraft shouldn't be discounted because he does make a good chunk of money per day. Microsoft is still the dominant platform, even though there are now other alternatives that force them to compete.

I have to question how piracy supposedly caused damage... That's more along the lines of a business model gone bad than consumer behavior.

1. Cave Story on PC was FREEware. Downloaded & distributed for free with a fan translation.
2. Legitimate competition against an alternative "product" (that happens to be free) is also vastly different than competing against YOUR product for free.
3. Notch's opinion regarding piracy isn't really that credible. He just happened to stumble on a pile of money by finishing someone else's idea.

 

[Olrod]

Piracy is a tricky issue for me, as I'm not sure just exactly how I feel about it.

I can, however, imagine a situation where I would pirate software: When the game I want to purchase hasn't been (and will never be) released in my country/region.

If you're not going to give me the option of buying a game legitimately with my own money, that I'm willing to pay - then stuff you. Don't whine, moan and cry about how piracy is bad when YOU leave me with only ONE option because you yourselves have decided to never release the game in a country/region that I'm able to purchase it.

 

[NickCooley]

Games are a luxury item not a right, not affording it doesn't justify breaking the law. Ever.

 

[JonnWood]

. But there is a persuasive argument made by some that piracy is sometimes the only way to play games, whether because there is no legal avenues to purchase them or because the legal marketplaces that do exist are too highly priced to be feasible.

That's an argument in the same way "I had to shoot him, or no one would respect me" is an argument. It's technically true, but it doesn't actually justify said actions.

"Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs"

This this this this this.

People do NOT deserve entertainment they cannot afford.

Yes, corporations are always right. Bow down to our corporate overlords. Do not question them. Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!

I like how you strawmanned "piracy is never justifiable" into "corporations are always right".

 

[Chewster]

Agree or disagree with them, I think Canada's own attitudes have a lot to do with the way their research is slanted.

Yeah. Here is the thing though, unless you're going to pick out something specific within the research to criticize, comments like this don't mean a hellova lot. The link you've created is tenuous, at the very best. EDIT again (I need to stop doing this, apologies): This research isn't even Canadian, it is just backed by Canadian academics. The research was actually done by the Social Science Research Council, a New York, non-profit research organization. So yeah, your comment really doesn't mean much, but the title of the story is off so that isn't really your fault.

EDIT (got a bit overzealous with the "post" button...): My opinion is that this is not really surprising in many ways. People without the means to purchase things have always searched for workarounds and I'd imagine that those in other countries have even less desire to see Western companies flourish than we do. Though the title of this thread is a bit off. It ought to read "Piracy Perpetuated by Unreasonable Game Prices".

And if they didn't have the means to buy it in the first place, how can companies cry "lost profit"? All of this piracy discussion still operates on the flawed assumption that one illegally downloaded unit = one lost physical unit in sales, when that may not be the case, especially when it comes to people who are poor to begin with.

Oddly, it would seem that the software and game companies have yet to be introduced to the concept of "economies of scale", which the film and television industries exploit all the time. I don't see why it is impossible for other media industries to do the same. This is the nature of media people. High original production costs, almost zero reproduction costs.

One thing is for sure: I loathe the absolutist nature that these discussions take. With all the defense of corporate entities, you'd think people on here owned stock or something. The issues are not of a "all piracy is OK/all pirates are thieves" type dichotomy and shades of gray can creep in, you know. The issues are complex and ought to be treated as such. Anyone who doesn't bother to do that is not worth much of anyone's time, if you ask me.

Additionally, I find it to be hilarious that people this thread are sweeping away the entire report with absolutely no focus on the content or methodology of the research itself. But no, your opinion that piracy is bad and your personal anecdotes mean that this research is all nonsense. Congratulations, you're somehow brighter than the social Science Research Council.

I just keep thinking of things to add...

 

[Therumancer]

Agree or disagree with them, I think Canada's own attitudes have a lot to do with the way their research is slanted.

Yeah. Here is the thing though, unless you're going to pick out something specific within the research to criticize, comments like this don't mean a hellova lot. The link you've created is tenuous, at the very best.

EDIT (got a bit overzealous with the "post" button...): My opinion is that this is not really surprising in many ways. People without the means to purchase things have always searched for workarounds and I'd imagine that those in other countries have even less desire to see Western companies flourish than we do. Though the title of this thread is a bit off. It ought to read "Piracy Perpetuated by Unreasonable Game Prices".

And if they didn't have the means to buy it in the first place, how can companies cry "lost profit"? All of this piracy discussion still operates on the flawed assumption that one illegally downloaded unit = one lost physical unit in sales, when that may not be the case, especially when it comes to people who are poor to begin with.

Oddly, it would seem that the software and game companies have yet to be introduced to the concept of "economies of scale", which the film and television industries exploit all the time. I don't see why it is impossible for other media industries to do the same.

One thing is for sure: I loathe the absolutist nature that these discussions take. With all the defense of corporate entities, you'd think people on here owned stock or something. The issues are not of a "all piracy is OK/all pirates are thieves" type dichotomy and shades of gray can creep in, you know. The issues are complex and ought to be treated as such. Anyone who doesn't bother to do that is not worth much of anyone's time, if you ask me.

My point on Canada is that Canada has a lot of very socialist and anti-capitalist leanings, and is in conflict with the US over copyright laws all the time because it has passed laws where the goverment pays a straight fee that it feels is fair in exchange for the people of canada to pretty much pirate and copy anything that they want. Or at least that's how it's been explained to me. Given Canada's general disrespect for the whole idea of IP rights and copyrights, it's not surprising what attitude Canada takes when having "dialogue" on the issue internationally.

As far as the rest goes, it's important to understand that Television is something entirely differant from the sale of media like computer games, and other home entertainment products. Television programs generally exist to promote products, rather than stand as a product themselves, althought hat is changing to some exten which is going to probably change the way the business works internationally as well. The basic "point" of a TV show is for the sponsors to advertise themselves and/or to sell advertising space or "commercials". From a business perspective it's those ads that you see that justify the creation and broadcast of the show. The whole point is to rope people in to see the ads. Of course things have gotten a little less direct as well, because in addition to the commercials, product placement within the shows themselves has been a big deal. One of the reasons why "sitcoms" are more prolific than science fiction is not just because of the viewer base that they can attract, but because product placements are substantially easier. Every time you see a readable label on a bottole of soda, a pack of cigarettes, or a bag of chips, no matter how it might appear, someone PAID to have their product displayed in the show, or used by one of the characters. Generally speaking when bringing television shows to other countries, they work the same way, where they are used as a promotional vehicle for products, though product placement isn't nessicarly viable for the companies in those markets it's still powerful when dealing with brands that have an international perscence to begin with. What's changing with TV shows though is that they are gaining more intristic value due to the owning networks fairly recently learning how much money can be made by selling seasonal boxed sets of shows. Previous efforts to sell TV shows on VHS tapes and such, a few episodes at a time, generally failed, but nowadays with the abillity to put a whole season on 4-5 cheaply produced discs, the sale of the shows themselves has become a big business. Once upon a time TV studios didn't much care about the shows themselves as much as the air time they could sell with them, today the shows themselves are an increasingly valuable commodity. As a result there is more effort to crack down on the "piracy" of TV shows, even old ones that had been in circulation for a while.


The point here being that while I think things will change due to the increased value of the shows themselves on the marketplace, TV has been an entirely differant kind of business. Simply put, all they were doing is was lowering the cost of the air space for the local advertisers to what the market could bear. Given that old TV shows had increasingly less value as they aged and were longer in syndication, this was actually extending the life of what was seem as an increasingly valueless product.

When it comes to the arguement about lowering the prices of things like games to the markets, the problem is that if you start selling games in poor countries for like 10% of what they cost in the US where people can afford to pay more, someone is just going to take those games, transport them back to a richer market,and then sell them for half what the company retails them for there and make a huge profit by doing so. If you can't prevent piracy to begin with, your sure as heck not going to keep the markets segregated especially with that much money to be made.

Then again there is also the issue of entitlement, the central point of this arguement is the idea that the people in these poor countries have some kind of right to this media. That's not really the case, we are talking about the very definition of a luxury item. What's more I'd argue that an economy that is so poor that they can't afford the games to begin with should have other priorities. Indeed I'd argue that introducing too many luxury items into such societies is probably a bad thing overall, as it sucks up money that should be being invested in the infrastructure of the country itself. I mean I can't take an arguement that "We're poor, wrectched, and starving, but must play Call Of Duty" all that seriously.

Now, if you want to make a valid arguement against my position, I *DO* hold a dual standard here. See, I've been a big defender of things like fansubbing, and the attitude that if someone isn't selling something to a market, then by rights it can't be stolen.

However I maintain that dual standard for a number of reasons. Among them that in developing nations the pirates are not providing this material for free (which fansubbers are), they are directly profiting from someone else's work. If you read articles here on The Escapist about China and Brazil for example they are quite frank on that point, as is piracy being tied to organized crime in some of these nations like Brazil.

Then there is also the issue of viable market penetration. See, nothing really prevents something from coming into the US market and being sold at the intended price. That makes not providing wanted media more of a touchy subject than in cases where introducing a product to a nation involves having to substantially lower the price, which of course opens the door for cross trading which is going to screw up your other markets when people buy the goods at a cheaper price and sell them for more in richer markets, forcing your products there to compete with themselves. You bring something to the US there isn't a real risk of that happening, on the other hand if you lower the price to 10% of what it is now and send it to say South Africa then it becomes viable to buy it up for that price and then sell it for 50% of the normal American retail price in America.

It might not be fair, but not all societies and markets are equal, and that's something that has to be understood. Not to mention that as messed up as it might sound, I actually think keeping a lot of things out of the hands of developing nations is for their own good (which I mentioned before). If say a company lowers the price of video games and hardware to 10% of the cost or less and sells them in some third world nation, and somehow avoids the cross trade, those millions of dollars leaving the country to the business, which are a comparitively bigger deal in their economy than they are elsewhere, is money that isn't
going to be used for things they need like food, schools, and medicine. On some levels video games going to these nations could be seen as similar to selling alcohol to Native Americans in that it weakens them and halts, or seriously slows their progress. There is a lot to be said for turning opposing cultures into a bunch of "Lotus Eaters" (if you get the mythological referance) in certain cases, but only for specific reasons, and this isn't for any greater purpose, it's all about business, and the demand.

I know many will disagree with me, but these aremy thoughts on the subject. Thanks to all those who read this far, irregardless of whether you agree with me or not.

 

[Low Key]

Escapists mods, how are we supposed to have a decent "point-counterpoint" discussion if people are getting reprimanded for echoing the exact contents of the news post? I think it would make more sense not to report on piracy at all if you don't want people to talk about it. Giving people the boot if they start piracy threads of their own makes sense, but you guys started it this time.

I don't live in a poor, developing nation, so I have no reason nor need to pirate. This is just merely my opinion.

Spoiler: tl;dr soapbox

I think it's sad that I have to add these last few lines on a neutral post about this topic in an attempt to avoid a possible ban/suspension/mod edit. I own a computer that can't run games made in the past 15 years and an unmodded console, so there is no need to worry about me condoning or supporting piracy anywhere on these forums (or anywhere else on the net for that matter). I just find the hypocrisy so laughable to the point where I barely come here anymore.

 

[Painmaker]

Im from Uruguay. A small country located between Argentina and Brazil.
I don't really know... but we should have one of the highest piracy rates in the continent... why?
1 People are dicks
2 Go to your regular gamestop... "I want killzone 2"(yes, killzone 2)
Ok: that would be 170 dollars...
...
...
What? I havebeen saving money for almost 5 months to buy a console (yeah the ps3 here may cost 800 dollars... If you go to your regular gamestop)now you tell me a game costs 1/3 or 1/2 my salary... no way... im gonna download it if I get the chance.

So... we have way too high prices...
3rd... NO PUBLISHING COMPANY is coming here and saying... wait I want my money for games... no backup, no warranty for those who do buy games and stuff legally (What would you think if you buy a 360 and you get the 3 lights... In my country... if that happens, you depend on the good will of the person who sold it)

So yeah... pirates may be dicks... I agree with that... till some point... but when you have absolutely no support from companies... I'll just say fuck you, I'm buying the console... that should be enough... if you want to come here and whine about it... give me proper support
Ok I want to buy sc2 legally... but guess what... the only version you can get here is the one with six months of free b.net.
Yeah you could donwload it from blizz using credit cards... quick question, do you know how many people have a Visa they can actually use for international transactions?
also... why the fuck should I download it If I want a full physichal copy of the game. and I'm willing to pay for it?

So... It may seem a rant... and it is... I'm pissed... because... there are people here who are willing to pay 60 bucks for a game... and also with this internet and global shit village going on

I had the ps ps2 and gamecube... the only console I did buy all games legally... was gamecube. Why? cause the guy who was selling them was a friend of mine and he gave me HUUUGE discounts... Oh want a gamcube game, go to your regular gamestop... 90 to 140 dollars

And this is a rant for people of my coutry... look, they have fucking mana bar... i would pay the shit for that kind of place... but you kniow why it wouldn't work... becasue... some you are assholes and will try to steal controllers so you can get some crack... fuck you and i hope they kill you to death