This Is Why I Pirate

[Chimel]

Yes, and one whole in your argument here is that wanting /= entitled. Simply because you want something before you die does not mean it should be given or even made accessible to you. I doubt that is really what you are trying to say, but it comes off a little bit that way. A seller should have the right to attempt to sell their product at whatever price they feel they can sell it for. A buyer has the right to either accept or refuse that price. A buyer does not have the right to try and circumvent the seller.to obtain those goods, whether they are physical or digital. If the seller can continue selling said product at the price they have dictated, then obviously enough people can afford it for that price. Trying to say these prices is too high is complete and utter fallacy. Obviously it is not too high because more than enough people are buying it for that price and will continue to buy it for that price. The price only becomes too high when no one is willing to purchase it for that amount.

I would say that the buyer has also the right to expect a decent price from the seller. Stretching the price as much as you possibly can before buyers stop buying is indecent and by far, not a measure of what the fair price should be. But even a low price vs. a high one is not germane to my point: Most important than the price to me is the change of marketing model, i.e. one where the labels are just remunerated for the services they provide, not living off cash cow artists for life and more, and where artists are remunerated for the pleasure they provide. Low prices will be an end result, not the main objective.

 

[wonderfield]

You can get close enough. Use Creative Commons' "No Copyright" as your legal template:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

It legally waives your copyright. In the event that this is declared invalid by a particular government, it opens the work under an all-permissive license. In the event that this too is considered invalid it contains a promise from the copyright holder never to exercise any part of their copyright for any reason.

It's not "public domain" since that's not a legally-defined entity in the US, but it is copyright-free.

Yeah, I'm using CC0 for a current project. The issue of public domain dedication in the U.S. is just something I'd like to see addressed at some point so there are no ambiguities to users.

 

[wtburnette]

That is the meat of the matter in regards to how "piracy" could be seen as not theft since it is not a physical item, and really how wrong pirates are in their point of view. It's too convienant of a view that since it is a near infinite resource that it wouldn't matter if 1 or 100 or 100,000 pirated the song because it's still there and available. The quanity of the pirating shouldn't matter, and there is nothing fuzzy about this. The thing is that if someone pirating had no interest whatsoever, they would not be pirating the product in the first place, period; e.g., if said pirate had no interest in Katy Perry, why would you bother pirating her songs? The truth of the matter is that people have some interest, enough to require them to spend a few minutes to go online and find pirated works, but they just don't want (or want enough) to pay to play or find the free demo.

One of the biggest problems I have with pirating is that pirates these days are not teenage kids or poor college students who have a shitty excuse of having no money, but adults that make money but still choose to pirate because they want something for free which is worse than a shitty excuse. If you can genuinely afford to purchase a song for $0.99, you like the song, but still choose to pirate the song, the problem is not the system, the problem is YOU.

Lastly, to a certain extent some developers have seen the price problem. Microsoft gives discounts to students, and some markets get a price discount due to their overall money constraints. Ignoring the problems that creates in itself (non-students using the .edu for discounts, gray market, etc...), some developers see the problem and want to help fix it. Many people have said that digital distribution greatly reduces the overhead to carry costs, but they still charge a hefty amount for their goods. Well, good job pirates, you are one (albiet a small one) of the reasons why they have to charge the rest of us paying "saps" extra is because some people choose not to buy the game, and while I'm sure the overall figure provided to the public is probably inflated, it is a vaild point. Whether or not these companies are "greedy" is not a valid reason for pirates to get free stuff.

I didn't say piracy wasn't theft. I said that theft of a physical item and theft of a digital item have different economies. When a physical item is stolen, it's gone and no longer is available to be sold. The producer of the item had so much money invested in creating it, transporting it and all that, that it will never be compensated for. Someone downloading a digital good, no matter if they can afford it or not, is not impacting the producer of that item in the same way. No matter how you pontificate on this subject, that fact remains. They are both theft, but the physical theft can easily be quantified whereas the digital theft can not. The digital good is still there, can still be sold. The pirate has only made a copy. Whether or not that is legal, illegal, moral or immoral has no impact on the equation from that perspective. Look at how high the incomes are of the pukes at the MPAA and RIAA have. Look at how much money those industries are raking in and then tell me that they need to inflate prices to offset piracy that possibly isn't even harming them. Not only that, but many studies have shown, over and over, that people who pirate music and movies spend more on media then non-pirates. So in effect, the piracy (for individual use and not resale) is actually benefiting those industries that cry about it the most. What you have is a ton of FUD and bullshit being spewed by the content industries. So no, I don't feel sorry for those industries AT ALL. I waited forever for them to bring prices to a reasonable level, I waited forever for songs to be free from DRM and I'm still waiting on the same for games and movies. F the industries, until they pull their heads out of their asses. I don't pirate, but I certainly understand why so many people do.

 

[CEpeep]

Stretching the price as much as you possibly can before buyers stop buying is indecent and by far, not a measure of what the fair price should be.

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
~Publilius Syrus

I think products should be priced differently depending on who the buyer is, though. Some media is priced lower in "developing countries." I would like to see similar schemes applied much more directly, ideally to individual customers. At least "Pay What You Want" models are approaching something like this. Radiohead's In Rainbows and the Humble Indie Bundle are good examples of how this could be more broadly applied.

 

[FrostBite]

I didn't say piracy wasn't theft. I said that theft of a physical item and theft of a digital item have different economies. When a physical item is stolen, it's gone and no longer is available to be sold. The producer of the item had so much money invested in creating it, transporting it and all that, that it will never be compensated for. Someone downloading a digital good, no matter if they can afford it or not, is not impacting the producer of that item in the same way. No matter how you pontificate on this subject, that fact remains. They are both theft, but the physical theft can easily be quantified whereas the digital theft can not. The digital good is still there, can still be sold. The pirate has only made a copy. Whether or not that is legal, illegal, moral or immoral has no impact on the equation from that perspective.

That's absolutely correct, digitical piracy has a different economic effect than physical theft, but that wasn't the point I was getting at. The point I was making is, which you pointed out as "they are both theft," is NOT the distincting between physical vs. digital or the economic impact, but the simple fact that it IS theft. A pirates perspective that says it simply isn't theft is a bit dillusional.

And I completely disagree with the postings regarding the price of products. Is $60 for MW3 really that expensive? Is $150 for Windows 7 really that expensive? Is $0.99 a song really that expensive? Is a good BluRay movie not worth $15? If you can't afford it, could you just not wait until it goes on sale a year later, or for video games/movies buy it used a few months later than resell it when you are done? Could you not just listen to free radio with advertisements? Besides very specific products that are designed for niche industries (Photoshop, CAD design), is software really that expensive? Do you honestly believe that you are being absolutely ripped off, and the above products should only costs $20, $50, $0.33, and $5 respectively?

The price of movie tickets - they used to be $3 when I was a kid (a lot less if you are in your 30's), but now costs $12. Am I personally willing to pay $12 to see a movie? No, so I don't go. If they were $3 again, would I see more movies? Absolutely.

 

[NoOther]

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
~Publilius Syrus

Exactly my point. There is no such thing as something selling for more than its worth. Someone dictated they felt the product was worth that money, so they bought it. If you do not think it is worth it, you do not buy it. If enough people don't buy it, they have then proven the item is not worth what the seller is selling it for.

I think products should be priced differently depending on who the buyer is, though. Some media is priced lower in "developing countries." I would like to see similar schemes applied much more directly, ideally to individual customers. At least "Pay What You Want" models are approaching something like this. Radiohead's In Rainbows and the Humble Indie Bundle are good examples of how this could be more broadly applied.

In theory that is great, but in practice it doesn't turn out that well. Even with Humble Bundle, I am appalled at how little people pay for many of those bundles, and that is just a small microcosm of what it may look like when spread to a larger distribution base. One would think people are generally good and will do the right thing, but how often we forget that people become jaded and many will just end up paying the least amount possible.

What real incentive does the purchaser have to spend more? Perhaps to see more products from that developer? I wish people thought about that more often, but it seems they do not. How many great games come out that end up making very little money despite what they offer? How many more even fail to come out because of costs, pressure from bigger companies, or being bought and shelved? Most of the time they get pushed out by bigger publishing companies and their big advertising campaigns. But with newer digital distribution systems making it easier for Indie developers to get their games out, we are finally starting to see that trend shift a little.

 

[wtiger]

Partially to play Devil's advocate here, but also to put a little more perspective on the entire issue with relation to other forces:

I am interested to hear your theory how competition and innovation are being stifled for 50-100 years....? Considering copyrights and patents are based on singular ideas and items, not on creating wholly new ideas and items.

Also, note that some of the reason for extending the laws has to do with allowing companies to be competitive as well. Imagine if you had no copyright laws at all, then China decided to take all the innovations and manufacture them and sell them right back to us (yes some of this goes on now, but there are many more that can't be imported because of violations to these laws)? How many more US companies would go bankrupt because of that? And then think those companies are not making any money, so there is no money for R&D, so what new technologies would they be able to create?

A simple example is in complex systems that require a specific patented part to function optimally, but has no way to get it; because the inventor company won't license it's use for a reasonable amount of money and fully intends to sit on it to stifle competition for as long as they possibly can. The company trying to build the machine can't get around the patent; because there are a limited number of ways to accomplish what's needed so they have to use an inferior method to accomplish the same thing.

Or Disney is a great example. They've made the majority of their money recyceling and copyrighting stories and characters that were based largely on things in the public domain and lobbying to get copyright laws changed and extended and extended so noone else could use those ideas.

The problems with competing with China and other 2nd and 3rd world nations has everything to do with our defunct free trade laws. You can't have unregulated trade with a country that has few if any workers rights, environmental laws, etc. It just doesn't work; because no matter what you do they can undercut you; because they don't have the same limitations put on them. You either have to do like they do. Pay your workers little, have no safety net, dump toxic waste into the nearest river, observe few if any building codes, etc. Or you have to have some sort of fair trade system that accounts for these differences.

They say our current economic troubles are because of the banks and they're partly right, but the real culprit is free trade. They just propped the economy up with a housing bubble, easy credit, etc; which inevitable failed and made some risky decisions by the big banks, allowed and even encouraged by the government, catastrophic failures.

 

[Modred189]

The GPL is a license which grants others certain rights to use the content, with certain restrictions, but it has no impact on ownership of that content or its automatic copyright. GPL-licensed content still belongs to the original creator. It says, basically, "I have rights to this work and grant others limited rights to it".

What I want is a way to say "I have no rights to this work", which isn't currently possible under U.S. law.

Absolutely you can. You register the copyright ($35) and then send a notice to the library of congress that states that you expressly abandon the copyright.

 

[CEpeep]

One would think people are generally good and will do the right thing, but how often we forget that people become jaded and many will just end up paying the least amount possible.

I don't see paying a particular amount as being a "good" or "right" thing to do. You pay what it is worth to you. However, a lot of the potential dishonesty (people paying $0.01 for the humble bundle despite having no economic reason to pay only $0.01) can be removed from the system by just telling people what to pay, but presenting a different price depending on the buyer. Like I said earlier, we already do this in developing countries. People there pay a lower price for media because the average income is lower. With smart metrics, there's not really any reason that Steam (for example) couldn't offer different prices to different customers. It would be even easier on platforms like Netflix, Xbox Live or App stores, where the seller is a single entity and collects a wealth of information on each customer. Xbox Live already does targeted sales and launches of particular products to specific members (ie: free UFC matches), this is just the logical progression.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

You have the right to debate. Have at it. You do not, however, have any right to partake of whatever you wish due to a philosophical position on copyright law. Similarly, you have the right to protest U.S. policy, but not the right to desecrate the American flag while doing so.

The right to disagree with a thing and the right to violate a thing are not the same.

Actually, if you own that flag you have the right to do whatever you want with it so long as you don't violate the rights of others. No, someone's feelings being hurt over desecrating the flag DOES NOT MEAN the person's rights have been violated; there's no such thing as the right to not have one's feelings hurt.

Similarly, you have the right to copy whatever you want with your own materials; it is only legal positivism which says you can't.

 

[MavericK]

That's absolutely correct, digitical piracy has a different economic effect than physical theft, but that wasn't the point I was getting at. The point I was making is, which you pointed out as "they are both theft," is NOT the distincting between physical vs. digital or the economic impact, but the simple fact that it IS theft. A pirates perspective that says it simply isn't theft is a bit dillusional.

And I completely disagree with the postings regarding the price of products. Is $60 for MW3 really that expensive? Is $150 for Windows 7 really that expensive? Is $0.99 a song really that expensive? Is a good BluRay movie not worth $15? If you can't afford it, could you just not wait until it goes on sale a year later, or for video games/movies buy it used a few months later than resell it when you are done? Could you not just listen to free radio with advertisements? Besides very specific products that are designed for niche industries (Photoshop, CAD design), is software really that expensive? Do you honestly believe that you are being absolutely ripped off, and the above products should only costs $20, $50, $0.33, and $5 respectively?

Could not disagree more. Copyright infringment is NOT theft. I'm not sure why this is still being debated. There's a reason it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft".

And yes, $60 for something like MW3 and $150 for Windows (not even the full version, just an upgrade) is too expensive. Of course, that is just my opinion, but I do feel like some things are overpriced. DVDs and Blu-Rays on Amazon I generally feel are fine (somewhere between $5-15), but if you go to a store they're more like $20-30. $0.99 per song is not ridiculous, but considering CDs should be more like $10 or less I would say $0.50 would be more reasonable.

 

[MavericK]

Exactly my point. There is no such thing as something selling for more than its worth. Someone dictated they felt the product was worth that money, so they bought it. If you do not think it is worth it, you do not buy it. If enough people don't buy it, they have then proven the item is not worth what the seller is selling it for.

The problem with this is how the situation should play out versus how it does play out in reality.

In theory:

1) Company releases product for too much money.
2) Consumers do not buy product because they feel it is overpriced.
3) Sales are low, so company lowers price on item to appeal to consumers.

How it actually goes:

1) Company releases product for too much money.
2) Consumers do not buy product because they feel it is overpriced.
3) Sales are low, so companies keep prices the same and blame piracy.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Software is also a mythological concept conjured out of thin air through the creativity of people.

That doesn't mean they have the right to prevent me from using my property to copy it.

The idea of a social contract is not garbage

Yes, it actually is.

and you don't need weapons to make societies.

Many people believe no government = no society. And government is all about initiating force.

 

[Patman]

A rapist uses the same logic as that pirate concerning sex.

And if it was impossible for the pirate to engage in legitimate transaction then I would say the pirate is also in the right.

Pornography is legal, prostitution isn't?

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Yes, and one whole in your argument here is that wanting /= entitled. Simply because you want something before you die does not mean it should be given or even made accessible to you. I doubt that is really what you are trying to say, but it comes off a little bit that way. A seller should have the right to attempt to sell their product at whatever price they feel they can sell it for. A buyer has the right to either accept or refuse that price. A buyer does not have the right to try and circumvent the seller.to obtain those goods, whether they are physical or digital.

A seller does not have the right to prevent the buyer from duplicating the item with the buyer's own property.

 

[MavericK]

A rapist uses the same logic as that pirate concerning sex.

LOL, what??

Yeah, because raping someone doesn't affect anyone negatively...

 

[rflcptr]

You are correct sir. And you have made my blood boil.

They've killed the reason for copyright, so I guess we don't have to respect it anymore. It's a law without a reason. Unmitigated theft from the public is what this is. Stealing from the public, when the public is the one protecting their monopoly of an idea. They want to steal from us? Fine, we'll reciprocate.

Copyright is not a one-way street.

Who stole from you? What was stolen?

 

[wonderfield]

Absolutely you can. You register the copyright ($35) and then send a notice to the library of congress that states that you expressly abandon the copyright.

I haven't heard about this method. Do you have more details?

 

[Deleted member 82943]

Some dude wrote an editorial on why he pirates things. Honestly, I'm not sure if this is meant to be serious, tongue-in-cheek or if he is making fun of people that justify piracy. I'll let you guys decide.

Judging from the quote alone his logic doesn't even flow properly...it's like he took a bunch of pro-piracy buzzwords and strung them together

 

[Manaknight]

Could not disagree more. Copyright infringment is NOT theft. I'm not sure why this is still being debated. There's a reason it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft".

And yes, $60 for something like MW3 and $150 for Windows (not even the full version, just an upgrade) is too expensive. Of course, that is just my opinion, but I do feel like some things are overpriced. DVDs and Blu-Rays on Amazon I generally feel are fine (somewhere between $5-15), but if you go to a store they're more like $20-30. $0.99 per song is not ridiculous, but considering CDs should be more like $10 or less I would say $0.50 would be more reasonable.

agreed, 60 dollars for almost any game is too much money...i remember when i used to balk at collectors editions with actual cool stuff in them being 60 dollars...now they want that for a regular game that is a rehash of another regular game.... OS's i'm a little more lenient on considering what they have to do and how stable they have to be... though still you are somewhat correct, if they can give me a license as a student for ~ 30 bucks...they can bring the prices down for the single license users a bit in general...and make the money back on business end users that have to use the software to turn their own profits.

mw3 was probably the best example that could have been used, 60 bucks for a game that reused half the graphics from the prior game....

and it's copyright infringement... which while also retarded..is not theft...though that said, people have been trying to get shit for free since the dawn of civilization...and its not going away any time soon..and nothing they can really say or do is going to change that.

 

[NoOther]

A simple example is in complex systems that require a specific patented part to function optimally, but has no way to get it; because the inventor company won't license it's use for a reasonable amount of money and fully intends to sit on it to stifle competition for as long as they possibly can. The company trying to build the machine can't get around the patent; because there are a limited number of ways to accomplish what's needed so they have to use an inferior method to accomplish the same thing.

Or Disney is a great example. They've made the majority of their money recyceling and copyrighting stories and characters that were based largely on things in the public domain and lobbying to get copyright laws changed and extended and extended so noone else could use those ideas.

The problems with competing with China and other 2nd and 3rd world nations has everything to do with our defunct free trade laws. You can't have unregulated trade with a country that has few if any workers rights, environmental laws, etc. It just doesn't work; because no matter what you do they can undercut you; because they don't have the same limitations put on them. You either have to do like they do. Pay your workers little, have no safety net, dump toxic waste into the nearest river, observe few if any building codes, etc. Or you have to have some sort of fair trade system that accounts for these differences.

They say our current economic troubles are because of the banks and they're partly right, but the real culprit is free trade. They just propped the economy up with a housing bubble, easy credit, etc; which inevitable failed and made some risky decisions by the big banks, allowed and even encouraged by the government, catastrophic failures.

First I will comment on the second half here. The US does not actually have free trade, nor have we had free trade for a long time. Trying to say free trade is the cause of our problems is just ridiculous and out of the realm of this particular topic of copyright.

Now as for your Disney example, since when have other companies, authors, producers, artists, etc. not been able to use Grimm fairy tales? I see tons of other works based off of the old fairy tales.

Your very first comment about the complex systems is a little bit ridiculous as in practice I have rarely seen that to be the case. In a number of companies that I have worked with which produce complex systems, there has rarely ever been an issue that derailed the development of a system based off of the licensing of patents. And most of these projects started with very low budgets and couldn't afford to license patents evevn if they had wanted to. Even with Apple's crazy patent suing policy, they seem to lose more often than they end up winning.

All that being said, I certainly think there is vast room for improvement. But it is not an easy thing to accomplish when the system has been around for so long.

I don't see paying a particular amount as being a "good" or "right" thing to do. You pay what it is worth to you. However, a lot of the potential dishonesty (people paying $0.01 for the humble bundle despite having no economic reason to pay only $0.01) can be removed from the system by just telling people what to pay, but presenting a different price depending on the buyer.

I think I understand your motivation here, but I think this is an absolutely horrible idea. Basing the cost of a product upon someone's wealth is a terrible concept. Why not just start adjusting everyone's wealth instead and leave the cost of products the same, it would be much easier. And obviously that system has worked so well in the countries that implemented it and made it so fair to everyone.... See what I did there with the sarcasm? Yes that is a bit overboard, but it is a similar principle and I think it has vast fallacies to it. People today can actually afford a much superior quality of life than years ago, and it hasn't necessarily made our lives any better. There is no reason to actually start adjusting prices to products. The fact that people can't afford the things they want should be more drive for them to succeed. And I don't mean just greed. I mean wanting more, to do better, to be able to live better is a motivation to learn more, try harder, perform better. You start taking away those motivations and people will stop trying as hard. That has been proven over and over again since the dawn of time.

How it actually goes:

1) Company releases product for too much money.
2) Consumers do not buy product because they feel it is overpriced.
3) Sales are low, so companies keep prices the same and blame piracy.

Excepting where people DO buy it, thus allowing those same companies to continue to operate and sell at the same price. Yet with smaller dips in sales they complain about piracy. The problem is still the fact that people keep buying the products no matter how poor they are.

A seller does not have the right to prevent the buyer from duplicating the item with the buyer's own property.

But the seller does have the right to prevent said buyer from distributing that duplicate item.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

But the seller does have the right to prevent said buyer from distributing that duplicate item.

No, the seller does not. Should you believe the seller does, please show it. And "because that's the law" will not be accepted, as it confuses legal privilege with rights.

 

[Staples]

I blame the trophy generation. Everyone thinks they are entitled to everything.

 

[Modred189]

I blame the trophy generation. Everyone thinks they are entitled to everything.

THIS is the real problem. It's a bunch of snot nosed kids whose parents never told them 'no' that think that just because they cannot afford something they want, they should be allowed to take it for free. And when it comes time to EARN a job, and they don't get it what do they do?
They occupy a street corner, either a part of a nonsensical organization, or as just another homeless person.

 

[MavericK]

Excepting where people DO buy it, thus allowing those same companies to continue to operate and sell at the same price. Yet with smaller dips in sales they complain about piracy. The problem is still the fact that people keep buying the products no matter how poor they are.

Yeah, but that was kind of my point...even if the reason sales are lost is due to a shitty product and so people aren't buying it, companies blame piracy anyway, whether or not piracy is actually to blame.

 

[CEpeep]

I think I understand your motivation here, but I think this is an absolutely horrible idea. Basing the cost of a product upon someone's wealth is a terrible concept. Why not just start adjusting everyone's wealth instead and leave the cost of products the same, it would be much easier. And obviously that system has worked so well in the countries that implemented it and made it so fair to everyone.... See what I did there with the sarcasm? Yes that is a bit overboard, but it is a similar principle and I think it has vast fallacies to it. People today can actually afford a much superior quality of life than years ago, and it hasn't necessarily made our lives any better. There is no reason to actually start adjusting prices to products. The fact that people can't afford the things they want should be more drive for them to succeed. And I don't mean just greed. I mean wanting more, to do better, to be able to live better is a motivation to learn more, try harder, perform better. You start taking away those motivations and people will stop trying as hard. That has been proven over and over again since the dawn of time.

Just to clarify: I'm talking solely about digital media here. As others have said in this thread a bunch, sales of physical items are much different, and (I believe) necessitate a different business model.

I think it definitely depends on your overall strategy for the digital media you sell. If your strategy is to get your product and name into the hands of as many people as possible and also finance the development of your next big idea, a pay-what-you-can model is superior. It places an inherent value on word-of-mouth advertising (maybe we are ok that you only paid $1 for our game if you told a bunch of people to get it who all paid more for it), provides opportunities for people to directly pay you more money to help subsidize your next creation (more similar to a patronage model than a sale in this instance) and vastly reduces incentives to pirate the media.

The strategy you outline seems to be more interested in convincing people that media consumption is a fancy kind of luxury they should have to deserve. Most people don't see it that way. They will pay for media when it is priced where they can afford it and delivered via the method they want, but if those conditions aren't met, they don't feel they should be cut off from access to the media. They will obtain it in ways that give nothing back to the creator or publisher (rental, used sale, theft, piracy, etc.) because those are the only methods that meet their needs. The ideal systems recognizes that people are absolutely going to get the media they want, no matter what, and does everything it can to provide every single one of those people with the product they want, while generating all the money necessary to continue making products people want.

 

[Monkey34]

The problem with this is how the situation should play out versus how it does play out in reality.

In theory:

1) Company releases product for too much money.
2) Consumers do not buy product because they feel it is overpriced.
3) Sales are low, so company lowers price on item to appeal to consumers.

How it actually goes:

1) Company releases product for too much money.
2) Consumers do not buy product because they feel it is overpriced.
3) Sales are low, so companies keep prices the same and blame piracy.

How true. Too bad it's a catch22. If more people refused to buy overpriced crap, you probable COULD get the prices down, except for what you mentioned.........it would be blamed on increased piracy.

Guess I'm a pirate. I don't pay overinflated prices. I wait for sales. Years if I have to. I've also switched to more casual playing, and play some free-to-plays without buying much in extras.

 

[NoOther]

Just to clarify: I'm talking solely about digital media here. As others have said in this thread a bunch, sales of physical items are much different, and (I believe) necessitate a different business model.

I think it definitely depends on your overall strategy for the digital media you sell. If your strategy is to get your product and name into the hands of as many people as possible and also finance the development of your next big idea, a pay-what-you-can model is superior. It places an inherent value on word-of-mouth advertising (maybe we are ok that you only paid $1 for our game if you told a bunch of people to get it who all paid more for it), provides opportunities for people to directly pay you more money to help subsidize your next creation (more similar to a patronage model than a sale in this instance) and vastly reduces incentives to pirate the media.

I am all for other business models and have supported development of some newer ones. But my issue with what you were suggesting is that the original suggestion wasn't a very viable option and have seen too many of those types of systems fail, and more importantly fail the people who were trying to sell their services. There are still many costs associated with providing digital content. It isn't just air and vapor people are selling, they have to produce the content, pay or create a system to deliver the content, which includes the cost of bandwidth and hosting.

The most interesting pay scale I saw was a system that allowed any artist to sell their music on a social media type site which set a low initial pricing (this could be modified some by the artist and their popularity). The more people that liked the music and purchased it, the higher the price went. This helped drive early adopters and the goal was to reward the better artists. This system also included many ways to preview the artists works. However, once the artist becomes popular enough, their songs are still going to be more expensive, so some may not be able to afford it. But that is just the thing, we shouldn't be able to afford whatever we want whenever we want it, nor should we support a system where people can just pay anything to get what they want. People should have to earn their rewards in life, that is the point and what drives people to work harder.

 

[NoOther]

No, the seller does not. Should you believe the seller does, please show it. And "because that's the law" will not be accepted, as it confuses legal privilege with rights.

Easy, copyright and patent laws. Exactly what is being discussed. You absolutely do not have the right to reproduce someone's work and then distribute it without permission. Under the current laws that is seen as stealing from the content owner.

 

[MavericK]

How true. Too bad it's a catch22. If more people refused to buy overpriced crap, you probable COULD get the prices down, except for what you mentioned.........it would be blamed on increased piracy.

Guess I'm a pirate. I don't pay overinflated prices. I wait for sales. Years if I have to. I've also switched to more casual playing, and play some free-to-plays without buying much in extras.

Indeed. What's funny is, people keep talking about how pirates feel "entitled" to free stuff...

The reason big corporations continue to raise prices and blame piracy is that they feel "entitled" to record profits every quarter. They also feel "entitled" to sue people for extravagant amounts of money for downloading an MP3 or some stupid shit like that.

If you really want to talk about "entitled", take a look at the other side of the fence.

 

[wabbitseason]

Any game requiring a third-party program to run. Any game requiring internet connection to play single player. Any game with minor or greater DRM.

These are the games I pirate the shit out of. I buy a game it should be mine, end of story.

 

[Modred189]

Any game requiring a third-party program to run. Any game requiring internet connection to play single player. Any game with minor or greater DRM.

These are the games I pirate the shit out of. I buy a game it should be mine, end of story.

By that logic you should stop gaming, since you don't own any of the games you purchase.

 

[wabbitseason]

By that logic you should stop gaming, since you don't own any of the games you purchase.

I don't know what the fuck that pompous bullshit is supposed to mean.

I used to own all my games after I bought them. Now, I only buy the ones that let me own them fully after purchase (fewer and fewer).

 

[Modred189]

I don't know what the fuck that pompous bullshit is supposed to mean.

I used to own all my games after I bought them. Now, I only buy the ones that let me own them fully after purchase (fewer and fewer).

Every game you have ever purchased has actually been a license to use it, not actual property. PERIOD.

 

[wonderfield]

Indeed. What's funny is, people keep talking about how pirates feel "entitled" to free stuff...

The article's author's sense of entitlement is not explicitly expressed but still clearly implied.

 

[wizdum]

The article's author's sense of entitlement is not explicitly expressed but still clearly implied.

Nothing on the internet is clearly implied.

 

[MavericK]

The article's author's sense of entitlement is not explicitly expressed but still clearly implied.

I wasn't referring specifically to the article, more to peoples' comments on here than anything.

 

[wabbitseason]

Every game you have ever purchased has actually been a license to use it, not actual property. PERIOD.

That's completely obvious. My point was that the extent of that license is continually being diminished because people like you are in love with steam and friends.

 

[Modred189]

That's completely obvious. My point was that the extent of that license is continually being diminished because people like you are in love with steam and friends.

Not really. The license has not changed in years. Steam actually enables capabilities the standard license model did not like unlimited installs on unlimited machines. But you said OWN, and you don't OWN any of your games.

 

[Jaerb4]

I blame the trophy generation. Everyone thinks they are entitled to everything.

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I agree. I'm 25 and I used to pirate everything, but I've since matured a bit and gotten a job, and rarely do I use these services anymore unless it's for a sports stream or something. I DO still use them, however. That said, I don't feel entitled to them at all. When MU was shut down, my reaction was "oh well, it was good while it lasted." I'll just sit through commercials now or not watch at all or wait and buy the DVD, rather than complain as if I deserve immediate access to everything.