Google: Piracy is An Availability and Pricing Problem

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I had to check twice to make sure it was actually Google that said this. This just makes way too much sense to be a Google quote. ;)

In a recommendation to the Australian Government, Google warns that draconian anti-piracy measures could prove counterproductive. Instead, the Government should promote new business models. "There is significant, credible evidence emerging that online piracy is primarily an availability and pricing problem," Google states.
Click to expand...
 
Is this that rare creature that I've read about in stories from the past.
Could it be that common sense does still exist out in the wild?
 
A multi-billion dollar company actually gets it.

I've always believed that is why piracy exists, not because of convenience but because of availability and pricing.

There are too many roadblocks, restrictions, and whatnot trying to get access to movies, music, books, etc. And, let's not forget pricing. Every studio-- movie and television-- and publisher are pricing people out of access to these stuff and having them resort to piracy.

For example, would you rather pay $25 a month on top of your $250 a month U-verse bill just to watch one TV show on HBO? Or, pirate it? Or, wait for the DVD/BD pack at the end of the season?

It just doesn't seem fair to charge so much for access. Let's not forget the fact when differing studios and cable providers get into spats on access fees and retransmission issues, leaving customers without channels they want to watch.

The whole copyright, media accessibility and pricing structures and methods are completely broken.
 
Given that shows like "Game of Thrones" has terrible availability (a full year after broadcast for any Disc or Streaming Availability) outside of active HBO subscriptions, I haven't been surprised that it's the most pirated TV show of all time. When more people pirate a show than watch it on TV, you are clearly limiting availability too much.
 
octoberasian said:
For example, would you rather pay $25 a month on top of your $250 a month U-verse bill just to watch one TV show on HBO? Or, pirate it? Or, wait for the DVD/BD pack at the end of the season?
Click to expand...

No, the problem is those of us NOT paying $250/mo Uverse bill. We'd gladly pay $10/mo for HBO-GO app for Android/Roku/etc and the content. But I'm not paying $60/mo+ for TV (which I swear a large percentage of the cost for is sports which we care very little for) plus paying for HBO.
 
GreenMonkey said:
No, the problem is those of us NOT paying $250/mo Uverse bill. We'd gladly pay $10/mo for HBO-GO app for Android/Roku/etc and the content. But I'm not paying $60/mo+ for TV (which I swear a large percentage of the cost for is sports which we care very little for) plus paying for HBO.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if they offer an HBO-GO app in the Windows Store, etc. and have access to their content for $10/month, I'd go for it.

But, unfortunately, you NEED to have that HBO subscription first on top of your TV subscription as well. It's honestly not right.

I don't even watch or care for sports, but it gets tacked onto the bill anyway.

A la carte pricing would be great, but companies like Verizon, ATT, and Charter-Comcast would rather that never happen at all, plus nearly every TV/movie studio as well.
 
GoT is a golden example of what drives piracy.
It's not about people not being willing to pay for the content, it about WHAT hoops need to be gone through.

I can watch most shows with my internet connection through Netflix, hulu and Prime, more if I want to go to individual sites. But HBO content requires, TV subscription and HBO subscription.
I and MANY others are not willing to pay, it's unreasonable for a single channel to require so much.
ESP when other channels don't have all these hoops. They should just have a Online only option for HBO-GO.
 
They are only saying it because of increasing pressure from various groups requesting that they remove pirated content. We all know removing it from indexing won't make a difference like the mainstream thinks so at least they are doing the right thing by pointing out most people won't pirate if it's easier to pay and it's available in the format they want.
 
Not really. Piracy exists because it's instant and free. In most cases, you can get material before it's even officially released.
 
Megalith said:
Not really. Piracy exists because it's instant and free. In most cases, you can get material before it's even officially released.
Click to expand...

Well ummm, that IS a pricing and availability problem. So I'm not sure what point you are driving at.


But as far as Google's statement? *shrug* Gabe Newell has been saying this for YEARS.
 
I agree that availabiltiy is a major issue.

Hell my wife tried to watch scandle on ABC's ipad app and now they are making you verify that you have a cable subscription in order to even watch it.
 
I'm sure for some things, sure. TV shows, movies, etc., definitely. Cable/Satellite companies and their providers are really pushing some people to piracy. Increasing prices, lower quality shows, the higher quality shows require more channels to be purchased. There is no reason to pay $100+ for Game of Thrones, yet that's what you have to pay. If you ONLY want HBO, you have to get 120+ channels for $60 plus the $10 HBO cost. Add another $10 if you want to stream it. $80, minimum to watch a single show. Plus, it's a 2 year contract, otherwise you're buying more equipment. Not going to happen.

Ala Carte, and I'd be back on satellite.

However, other things aren't due to cost or availability. Well, technically it is. You can get it for free and right now. But, I can say the same for anything - free candy bars, free cars, etc.. Just go take them. It's the availability (it's there and not in my driveway) and cost (I don't want to pay for it). Some things are just taken because they can. Not because they didn't have access (they do), or it was too expensive (it's not). It's because you can't beat free with the click of a button. e-Books, music, movies... Some people would easily pay for them if they had to. They could easily go and buy the product or go to the theater. But, that button is easy to press, quick to download, and sit and enjoy. It's not right to download that stuff, and people know it, but it's EASY and FREE.
 
I have friends in Europe and Australia who resort to pirating PC games because of the silly censorship. They purchase games otherwise.
 
Red Machine D said:
What do you mean, "we"? I for one watch my multitude of sports channels very often, and I'll bet you five internets I'm not the only nerd who does.
Click to expand...

And there are a lot of people who don't watch sports and they are rightfully mad that they have to choose between paying for something they don't want in order to get something they do, or just skipping out because they don't want to feed the media cartel. Sports channels are some of the most expensive channels, and being forced into them in order to have the 'privilege' to subscribe to other channels is disgusting. I gave up on cable when I moved to this apartment two years ago and the number of shows I miss can be counted on one hand. Channels I'm interested in are around half a dozen. Total. And in order to get those half-dozen stations I would have to pay something like $200 a month (after that introductory period is over, before that it would be roughly $150) and end up with some stupidly large number of channels that I would never watch in the first place. The complaint is of choice, something consumers in the US have essentially none of when it comes to cable.
 
blitzkommando said:
And there are a lot of people who don't watch sports and they are rightfully mad that they have to choose between paying for something they don't want in order to get something they do, or just skipping out because they don't want to feed the media cartel. Sports channels are some of the most expensive channels, and being forced into them in order to have the 'privilege' to subscribe to other channels is disgusting. I gave up on cable when I moved to this apartment two years ago and the number of shows I miss can be counted on one hand. Channels I'm interested in are around half a dozen. Total. And in order to get those half-dozen stations I would have to pay something like $200 a month (after that introductory period is over, before that it would be roughly $150) and end up with some stupidly large number of channels that I would never watch in the first place. The complaint is of choice, something consumers in the US have essentially none of when it comes to cable.
Click to expand...

$25+ per channel. Ala carte, there ya go! I cut the cord (well, dish) a while back. I do miss a few things, but losing that $90 a month bill for a few shows was worth it. I was paying $90 for probably the same half a dozen channels. Even at that, it's not worth it. My wife watched TV a lot (still watches Netflix & Hulu daily), but after a show ends (last one was Fringe), I go weeks/months without watching anything on the satellite. I watch a lot of movies, but I either rent or buy them.

I think in the case of TV shows and such that aren't on the broadcast networks - availability feeds the piracy machine. If it's only on a cable/sat channel, it'll be pirated more than likely. People are starting to realize that $90-200 is a huge ripoff when it comes to media. Others (my in-laws) watch TV all day, reality TV, etc.. They gladly pay that extra money. But, they watch a ton of TV...
 
Megalith said:
Not really. Piracy exists because it's instant and free. In most cases, you can get material before it's even officially released.
Click to expand...

Don't know about instant, as it can take a while to download a movie.

However, when a new movie is released to DVD, you can buy it on release day, wait 30-60 days for it to become available to rent, or wait even longer for it to finally hit streaming.

Your other choice is to download it a week to two BEFORE it's available on DVD.

Guess which choice a lot of impatient people make?

The delay for rentals and steaming is just dumb and promotes piracy.
 
If you don't already know, piracy is indeed a business model (more in the legal aspects :D). gl if you get hit with one
 
blitzkommando said:
And there are a lot of people who don't watch sports and they are rightfully mad that they have to choose between paying for something they don't want in order to get something they do, or just skipping out because they don't want to feed the media cartel. Sports channels are some of the most expensive channels, and being forced into them in order to have the 'privilege' to subscribe to other channels is disgusting. I gave up on cable when I moved to this apartment two years ago and the number of shows I miss can be counted on one hand. Channels I'm interested in are around half a dozen. Total. And in order to get those half-dozen stations I would have to pay something like $200 a month (after that introductory period is over, before that it would be roughly $150) and end up with some stupidly large number of channels that I would never watch in the first place. The complaint is of choice, something consumers in the US have essentially none of when it comes to cable.
Click to expand...

I'm also sick of paying for all the sports channels I never watch. I almost dropped my cable (COX) due to another $10 price increase (plus another $6 increase on the internet). When I called in to cancel, they gave me a $20/month discount for then next year since they didn't want to loose a 19 year customer. I'm sure there will be another increase next year, and $20 off will no longer be enough for me.

They do have a new cable plan that is about 1/2 the price. It drops the expensive sports channels, but also drops a couple other channels we watch. If it wasn't for the wife and kids I'd switch to the lower plan. Switching to an antenna is not an options as I'm on the wrong side of a hill from the broadcast towers, and the only other option is satellite .
 
I completely agree that there are serious issues with availability and pricing, but seeing the rate at which people pirate $0.99 Android apps which are 2 clicks away on the Play Store make me think there is a subset of people who truly just do not want to pay.
 
vsboxerboy said:
I completely agree that there are serious issues with availability and pricing, but seeing the rate at which people pirate $0.99 Android apps which are 2 clicks away on the Play Store make me think there is a subset of people who truly just do not want to pay.
Click to expand...

It's too easy to pirate something. Click, drag and drop, install, done. No worries. No crawling FTP sites, etc.., it's search and click.
 
The pricing/availability issue is not limited to cable/satellite TV services. If you want to get all of the content for some games, you have no choice but to pay to buy the game at each of several retailers, or pirate the content that is missing. Music is in a similar boat now. If I want to get all of the songs from an artist's album, I have to either buy it at several retailers or still buy the additional tracks from iTunes/Amazon or whomever. I think they did the same thing with the Star Trek: Into Darkness Blu-ray. If you didn't buy it from a specific place, you didn't get the same commentary or deleted scenes/other bonus materials.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
The pricing/availability issue is not limited to cable/satellite TV services. If you want to get all of the content for some games, you have no choice but to pay to buy the game at each of several retailers, or pirate the content that is missing. Music is in a similar boat now. If I want to get all of the songs from an artist's album, I have to either buy it at several retailers or still buy the additional tracks from iTunes/Amazon or whomever. I think they did the same thing with the Star Trek: Into Darkness Blu-ray. If you didn't buy it from a specific place, you didn't get the same commentary or deleted scenes/other bonus materials.
Click to expand...

I hate that exclusive crap. Target, Walmart are the worst, too. You get two exclusive tracks when you buy at Walmart, but Target has a different track. This makes me want to buy the cheaper of the two and pirate the other songs that I missed. Or not buy at all, and pirate the whole thing...
 
I am confident in the Australian Government's ability to complete ignore this advice and continue to implement draconian anti-piracy measures that won't work.
 
Buying individual media is becoming a thing of the past and is only being held back by available bandwidth controlled by the content providers.

Spotify and Rapsody are the future.

I would pay a nominal price per month to have movies and tv shows at the touch of a button. People DVR things anyway.

The industry is refusing to adapt to a changing market. The only thing going for it is that still have sports fans by the balls.
 
1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg
 
vsboxerboy said:
I completely agree that there are serious issues with availability and pricing, but seeing the rate at which people pirate $0.99 Android apps which are 2 clicks away on the Play Store make me think there is a subset of people who truly just do not want to pay.
Click to expand...

As an argument to that, these days a $0.99 app is likely going to nag you with ads and in app purchases as much as a free one, so why pay $0.99? They aren't making most of their money form the $0.99 and everyone knows it. The whole mobile app market is broken in so many ways, but that is part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top