These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

In a world where Intellectual Property piracy doesn't exist...

First post
Author
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#1 - 2012-05-06 07:21:26 UTC
I got a question.

Imagine, if you can, that piracy doesn't exist in any shape or form whatsoever. Not even bootleg copies of films and music; and certainly no copied games existed whatsoever, not even 2nd hand.

Would they cost less to buy?

AK

This space for rent.

Mystical Might
Goryn Clade
#2 - 2012-05-06 09:35:55 UTC
No...
It'd cost more, if anything.
ISD Grossvogel
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#3 - 2012-05-06 15:06:09 UTC
Thread moved from My EVE.

ISD Grossvogel (ISD Гроссфогель) Captain, Community Communication Liaisons (CCL) Волонтёр группы по взаимодействию с игроками Interstellar Services Department

Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-05-06 15:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Sidus Isaacs
AlleyKat wrote:
I got a question.

Imagine, if you can, that piracy doesn't exist in any shape or form whatsoever. Not even bootleg copies of films and music; and certainly no copied games existed whatsoever, not even 2nd hand.

Would they cost less to buy?

AK


No, because then anyone could basically charge whatever they wanted for it. And people generally would be "starved" in regards to music and moves etc compared to now.

Maybe :P
Wild Rho
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-05-06 16:21:04 UTC
Or alternately people would go and focus on something else or create their own entertainment, prices would drop to something more reasonable or perish. At the end of the day we're talking about luxuries that no one needs, they're just fun to have.
Whitehound
#6 - 2012-05-06 16:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
No, they will cost more.

The strategy of the industry is always to maximize profit. Fighting piracy is a part of the strategy. Piracy increases with the prices and makes profit maximization ineffective. Once piracy is eliminated will the industry continue to drive the prices up.

To believe elimination of piracy will reduce prices is an illusion. The industry will use all their profit to spend more on the production and to attract more buyers and from other entertainment industries, i.e. the film industry.

Some will simply not be able to buy or to steal a product, while others have to pay more but also get more.

However, there will always be piracy.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Wild Rho
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-05-06 16:56:20 UTC
The music industry is not some all powerful force that is the only source of music and are as subject to market forces as anything else, especially when people are perfectly capable of creating and distributing music on their own now that we have the internet.
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-05-06 18:15:43 UTC
Wild Rho wrote:
The music industry is not some all powerful force that is the only source of music and are as subject to market forces as anything else, especially when people are perfectly capable of creating and distributing music on their own now that we have the internet.

herf derp

There should be a rather awesome pic here

Wild Rho
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-05-06 18:59:42 UTC
touche :3
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2012-05-08 21:59:55 UTC
Piracy has about killed musicians' ability to earn a living. No more record sales. Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine said something like: "We were lucky to come along when we did, when there was such a thing as record sales. These days, bands have to make their living off of just gig ticket sales and selling t-shirts. And without a record company behind us, nobody would have ever heard of us anyway."

Sure, there's nothing nice about record companies. But because of piracy, they are left with zip incentive to promote quality musicians who might be innovative or different. People would just pirate their recordings, so no profit for anybody. So instead, they put all their effort and capital into gimmick acts, like Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber.
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-05-09 00:05:11 UTC
Telegram Sam wrote:
Piracy has about killed musicians' ability to earn a living. No more record sales. Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine said something like: "We were lucky to come along when we did, when there was such a thing as record sales. These days, bands have to make their living off of just gig ticket sales and selling t-shirts. And without a record company behind us, nobody would have ever heard of us anyway."

Sure, there's nothing nice about record companies. But because of piracy, they are left with zip incentive to promote quality musicians who might be innovative or different. People would just pirate their recordings, so no profit for anybody. So instead, they put all their effort and capital into gimmick acts, like Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber.

Confirming that there has been
NO NEW MUSIC SINCE PIRACY CAME ABOUT
There CERTAINLY aren't new and interesting bands coming out on a WEEKLY basis, any rumours to the contrary are clearly stalinist propaganda

There should be a rather awesome pic here

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#12 - 2012-05-09 00:48:36 UTC
Telegram Sam wrote:
Piracy has about killed musicians' ability to earn a living. No more record sales.


Lol. It's killed the ability for RECORD COMPANIES to make a living. Remember, only a small part of the profits from a CD sale goes to the artist, most of it goes to the publisher. It's no surprise that record companies are angry about piracy, since it cuts into their ability to make massive amounts of money with zero effort of their own.

Now, I'm sure there are bands out there who haven't figured out that without record companies the internet would still give publicity if their music is good, but that's hardly a compelling argument that record companies deserve to exist.

Quote:
Sure, there's nothing nice about record companies. But because of piracy, they are left with zip incentive to promote quality musicians who might be innovative or different.


Lol, no. This has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with the fact that the music industry, just like the movie industry, the game industry, etc, cares about maximizing profits. And you know what maximizes profit? Nice, safe, conventional products that will sell predictably and don't take any major risks. You know what doesn't maximize profit? Taking a gamble on something innovative.

PS: if you think that the lack of innovation in music is a modern invention, try learning a bit more about music history, and all the "gimmick acts" that existed long before internet piracy.
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-05-09 00:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Degren
Everyone seems to be forgetting about competition and a little bit about "not paying for **** that isn't worth it"

Overtime, as the bottom line would be lowered by not having to account for piracy and the capacity for competition increases (its hard to have a start up with rampant piracy), prices would lower.

Edit: This applies to video games, music, movies, books, etc. There are currently small startups and such that make it by being more flexible and understanding that piracy *does* exist...currently seeing more things come out as F2P, free to listen, pay what you want, etc...usually these are indie and without publishers. It's more difficult, but it's usually the same amount (sometimes much, much more...sometimes much, much less) of income going to the artist/designer directly instead of through a medium.

Hello, hello again.

SpaceSquirrels
#14 - 2012-05-09 02:44:55 UTC
No, but at some point in time prices would cap as people would stop buying them. This happened in part with CD's. (2006ish) Sales went down, but more people started going to concerts than ever before. Which for most artists is a good thing as most make their money off concerts while the record companies (essentially exploited) made money from CD's.

Artists mostly make 1.00 out of 15 on a single CD/album sale. Which in large part why so many people didnt give a **** over downloading music vs. say movie or game downloading. You really weren't stealing from the "poor" artists rather the douche bag record companies.

Someone would also find a way to sell games etc at a cheaper price and thus make a profit. Sorta like itunes did with .99c sales. Overall the price is the same, but people were/are more apt to buy a single song or a few songs for a buck than an entire ****** CD for 15 when all you wanted was a few songs. You see far fewer albums needing that required 12-15 tracks. Thus better music. Now CD prices (online download) are 9.99 usually.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#15 - 2012-05-09 04:13:05 UTC
Sidus Isaacs wrote:
AlleyKat wrote:
I got a question.

Imagine, if you can, that piracy doesn't exist in any shape or form whatsoever. Not even bootleg copies of films and music; and certainly no copied games existed whatsoever, not even 2nd hand.

Would they cost less to buy?

AK


No, because then anyone could basically charge whatever they wanted for it. And people generally would be "starved" in regards to music and moves etc compared to now.

Maybe :P



I disagree. Piracy of intellectual property drives costs up significantly.

Imagine that I cut a music CD and charge $14 per CD. The sales of those CDs needs to cover studio time (usually by the hour), instrument repair, transportation to and from the studio, plus whatever fees are needed for the pressing and duplicaton of the CDs themselves.

Each pirated CD is one that was not paid for: no money has been returned to me. I have to either cut back on my recording budget, or my studio time, or the number of CDs I have pressed for sale.

I don't want to cut my recording budget -- my new album would just suck. I can't cut back on my studio time, or I might not get it finished properly. Cutting back on the amount of CDs I press is just going to compound the problem.

So, what's the logical choice? Charge more per CD to make up the difference.

It's saddening and ironic that people complain about music CDs and videos retailing for $40 each. when their own piracy is causing the price increase in the first place.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#16 - 2012-05-09 04:33:30 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
I disagree. Piracy of intellectual property drives costs up significantly.


Ah, the good old "one pirated CD = one lost sale" argument. Too bad it's complete nonsense, for two reasons:

1) Most people who pirate music would only buy a small part of it if they had to pay full CD prices. Whether it's because they can't afford it, because they're not willing to commit to paying for it before trying it, because they're tired of abusive DRM, or whatever, they are going to download way more than they would ever buy. Sure, piracy does cost some sales, but I suspect the majority of pirated music/games/etc is in addition to purchases, not instead of them.

2) You're ignoring the fact that, in the context of piracy of music by major record companies, the actual artist only gets a small cut of the CD price. You aren't losing $15, you're losing $1 and your "manager" is losing $14.

3) You're also ignoring how piracy can lead to increases in sales. For example, the person who pirates your CD because they heard their friends talking about it, discovers that they like it, and attends your next concert (which pays more than your cut of a CD sale), and then even buys the special edition of your next CD because of all the extras you can't get with a digital copy.
Reiisha
#17 - 2012-05-09 05:26:09 UTC
Wild Rho wrote:
The music industry is not some all powerful force that is the only source of music and are as subject to market forces as anything else, especially when people are perfectly capable of creating and distributing music on their own now that we have the internet.


Given laws being passed recently, they're trying to curb this development. Independant publishers usually don't have the means to compete when internet freedoms are taken away.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#18 - 2012-05-09 05:33:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Astrid Stjerna
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
I disagree. Piracy of intellectual property drives costs up significantly.


Ah, the good old "one pirated CD = one lost sale" argument. Too bad it's complete nonsense, for two reasons:

1) Most people who pirate music would only buy a small part of it if they had to pay full CD prices. Whether it's because they can't afford it, because they're not willing to commit to paying for it before trying it, because they're tired of abusive DRM, or whatever, they are going to download way more than they would ever buy. Sure, piracy does cost some sales, but I suspect the majority of pirated music/games/etc is in addition to purchases, not instead of them.

2) You're ignoring the fact that, in the context of piracy of music by major record companies, the actual artist only gets a small cut of the CD price. You aren't losing $15, you're losing $1 and your "manager" is losing $14.

3) You're also ignoring how piracy can lead to increases in sales. For example, the person who pirates your CD because they heard their friends talking about it, discovers that they like it, and attends your next concert (which pays more than your cut of a CD sale), and then even buys the special edition of your next CD because of all the extras you can't get with a digital copy.


I'm not ignoring it, I'm calling it flimsy logic. If your CD-buying audience is (for example) 500,000 people, and 250,000 of them pirate a song instead of buying the CD, that's not one dollar, that's $250,000 in royalties that the artist doesn't recieve. Which, by the way, usually goes toward paying promoters and hiring management staff for the concert that you're arguing a pirate will attend (and again -- at $50-$70 a pop for concert tickets, vs. free music online, who's going to win? Not the concert tickets, that's for sure)

Besides, the most common excuse I hear for downloading music online is that 'I can get the whole CD for free online, so why should I pay for it at the store?'

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#19 - 2012-05-09 05:48:27 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
I'm not ignoring it, I'm calling it flimsy logic. If your CD-buying audience is (for example) 500,000 people, and 250,000 of them pirate a song instead of buying the CD, that's not one dollar, that's $250,000 in royalties that the artist doesn't recieve.


Except those numbers are stupid.

It's not 500,000 potential customers, of which 250,000 are pirates, it's more like 300,000 potential customers, 50,000 of which are pirates, and 200,000 people who will never buy your CD but might pirate it. You can't just total up the number of pirated copies and assume that each of them would have been a sale if piracy didn't exist.

Quote:
again -- at $50-$70 a pop for concert tickets, vs. free music online, who's going to win? Not the concert tickets, that's for sure


And that's just stupid. You don't go to a concert to hear the songs on the CD, you go to a concert for the experience of going to a concert. You know, hearing the band you love playing live and improvising new details on your favorite songs, signing along with thousands of your fellow fans, partying in the parking lot before the show, etc. You know, the things you can't download.

Quote:
Besides, the most common excuse I hear for downloading music online is that 'I can get the whole CD for free online, so why should I pay for it at the store?'


And again you ignore the fact that many, if not most, of the people saying that won't buy the CD anyway. They'll either pirate it, or they'll do without it. Removing piracy just removes the chance that they might buy something else in the future, like concert tickets, special edition CDs, etc.
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2012-05-09 07:50:51 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
I disagree. Piracy of intellectual property drives costs up significantly.


Ah, the good old "one pirated CD = one lost sale" argument. Too bad it's complete nonsense, for two reasons:

1) Most people who pirate music would only buy a small part of it if they had to pay full CD prices. Whether it's because they can't afford it, because they're not willing to commit to paying for it before trying it, because they're tired of abusive DRM, or whatever, they are going to download way more than they would ever buy. Sure, piracy does cost some sales, but I suspect the majority of pirated music/games/etc is in addition to purchases, not instead of them.

2) You're ignoring the fact that, in the context of piracy of music by major record companies, the actual artist only gets a small cut of the CD price. You aren't losing $15, you're losing $1 and your "manager" is losing $14.

3) You're also ignoring how piracy can lead to increases in sales. For example, the person who pirates your CD because they heard their friends talking about it, discovers that they like it, and attends your next concert (which pays more than your cut of a CD sale), and then even buys the special edition of your next CD because of all the extras you can't get with a digital copy.


I'm not ignoring it, I'm calling it flimsy logic. If your CD-buying audience is (for example) 500,000 people, and 250,000 of them pirate a song instead of buying the CD, that's not one dollar, that's $250,000 in royalties that the artist doesn't recieve. Which, by the way, usually goes toward paying promoters and hiring management staff for the concert that you're arguing a pirate will attend (and again -- at $50-$70 a pop for concert tickets, vs. free music online, who's going to win? Not the concert tickets, that's for sure)

Besides, the most common excuse I hear for downloading music online is that 'I can get the whole CD for free online, so why should I pay for it at the store?'

Yeh it doesn't really work like that.
What happens is your core fan base continues to buy CD's for superior quality, authentic case, and lyrics book. They'll also buy plenty of merch and tix. Your fringe fan base may pirate a few albums, but they'll also buy merch/titx, and then millions of people who never would've considered buying an album (or even heard of you) will pirate your album. They may hate it, they may love it. If they love it they'll recommend you to their friends, start looking at merch/tix, and hopefully move into your fringe/core fan base.

It's called publicity, maybe you've heard of it?

I just have to quote the next part again for lulz

Astrid Stjerna wrote:
at $50-$70 a pop for concert tickets, vs. free music online, who's going to win? Not the concert tickets, that's for sure)

Really?
I mean REALLY?

Allow me to rephrase that for you: At $50-70 a pop for concert tickets, vs a CD you already own, who's going to win? Not the concert tickets, that's for sure

Yeh, because fans of music would really much prefer to listen to the band they love from a recorded medium than listen to them live on stage.... you fuckin idiot.

For the record, I've spent well over a grand in music merch/tix, close to two, 99 of every 100 albums in my collection is pirated (proudly), and almost every album I've paid cash for has been a disappointment. In fact the only albums I've bought that I'm glad I spent money on, are albums I got to love because I'd downloaded them out of the blue one day. Just had to have that lyrics book P

There should be a rather awesome pic here

123Next page