Shutting Down Pirate Sites Is Ineffective, European Commission Finds - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Worldwaker;47730380]Throwing moralistic views into the discussion of Piracy is never a good idea, ever. Especially not when the companies are suing people for $70,000,000,000,000. One "lost" sale apparently equals the GDP of a small country anymore. Ignoring that, you're still not even remotely close to touching upon what in some countries is the standard and entirely legal. Your views and morals are not an argumentative position in a capitalism based society.[/QUOTE] What pretentious scare quotes around "lost sale". It's a real thing. If piracy absolutely did not exist, sales would go up. It sucks if RIAA sues people for a lot but it [I]doesn't actually justify not paying for shit[/I], furthermore the case you cite was fucking LimeWire, not whatever grandma uploaded a song. [editline]15th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=DevShinx;47730602]The thing is pirating it is easier for me because I'm young. I don't have cash magically flowing out of my wallet. Besides, There are things we much rather spend on than movies, I could spend my $40 actually feeding someone in need than giving it to a multimillion dollar company.[/QUOTE] when was the last time you gave $40 to feed someone, just wondering

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;47729724]Didn't the internet figure this out ages ago? The only way you effectively combat piracy is you give people a product (or service) they are willing to pay for. If its more convenient to pirate the product/service, then you've more or less failed.[/QUOTE] For some reason, the word of the EU is held a bit higher than the internet.

[QUOTE=Tone Float;47730612]What pretentious scare quotes around "lost sale". It's a real thing. If piracy absolutely did not exist, sales would go up.[/QUOTE] That's a rather simplistic view of the problem. One pirated product isn't strictly equal to a lost sale. That's a fallacy used by companies to trick their shareholders into believing their profits would be much more massive if it weren't for pirates, ie that they are more competent than they actually are. There are many pirates who wouldn't spend any money on them if piracy wasn't an option. There are also people who want to know if what they're buying is worth their money first, like gamers who want to see for themselves whether a game is a buggy piece of trash but have no other option because developers can't be arsed to make demos anymore. Those people wouldn't even risk themselves into buying it if they had no idea whether it's worth paying. Then there's the fact piracy means more people end up accessing the content, which if good can be given free publicity through word of mouth. This is especially significant for small artists or devs who don't have an army of marketing peons at their disposal and would be unnoticed otherwise. I'm not saying that piracy necessarily increases sales, but it's not obvious that they decrease them either.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;47730553]One system that is actually faster and more convenient than a torrent is Neon Stingray apps for Smart TVs, specifically SF anytime (if you're in scandinavia you might be familiar with this). Select movie, enter phone number, enter the 4-digit code that that the app texts you, and bam, you're now streaming in HD. No registration, no faffing about with billing. All details are automatically fetched from your phone/internet service provider and the cost appears on your next bill.[/QUOTE] The problem is that no company wants to cooperate to make a system like that. Everyone wants their own system to in order maximize profits, which makes sense from a business's point of view. It's why companies fight Netflix so hard.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47730791]That's a rather simplistic view of the problem. One pirated product isn't strictly equal to a lost sale. That's a fallacy used by companies to trick their shareholders into believing their profits would be much more massive if it weren't for pirates, is that they are more competent than they actually are. There are many pirates who wouldn't spend any money on them if piracy wasn't an option. There are also people who want to know if what they're buying is worth their money first, like gamers who want to see for themselves whether a game is a buggy piece of trash but have no other option because developers can't be arsed to make demos anymore. Those people wouldn't even risk themselves into buying it if they had no idea whether it's worth paying. Then there's the fact piracy means more people end up accessing the content, which if good can be given free publicity through word of mouth. This is especially significant for small artists or devs who don't have an army of marketing peons at their disposal and would be unnoticed otherwise. I'm not saying that piracy necessarily increases sales, but it's not obvious that they decrease them either.[/QUOTE] It's more or less a Schrödinger's cat paradox. [editline]15th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47730811]The problem is that no company wants to cooperate to make a system like that. Everyone wants their own system to in order maximize profits, which makes sense from a business's point of view. It's why companies fight Netflix so hard.[/QUOTE] And ironically that's why piracy is thriving. One place to get it all? then visit your trusty movie tracker site.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47730791]That's a rather simplistic view of the problem. One pirated product isn't strictly equal to a lost sale. That's a fallacy used by companies to trick their shareholders into believing their profits would be much more massive if it weren't for pirates, is that they are more competent than they actually are. There are many pirates who wouldn't spend any money on them if piracy wasn't an option. There are also people who want to know if what they're buying is worth their money first, like gamers who want to see for themselves whether a game is a buggy piece of trash but have no other option because developers can't be arsed to make demos anymore. Those people wouldn't even risk themselves into buying it if they had no idea whether it's worth paying. Then there's the fact piracy means more people end up accessing the content, which if good can be given free publicity through word of mouth. This is especially significant for small artists or devs who don't have an army of marketing peons at their disposal and would be unnoticed otherwise. I'm not saying that piracy necessarily increases sales, but it's not obvious that they decrease them either.[/QUOTE] Obviously when something is pirated there is no guarantee that it would have been purchased. But it might have been. And when you consider how many millions (I guess) of things are pirated each day, you can only conclude [I]some of those would have been purchases.[/I] I carefully worded my statement. Sales would go up by a nonzero amount - but they would NOT go up [I]exactly[/I] proportional to piracy, because not every pirated item is a sale. But some proportion of them would be. And when it's small artists and devs, it becomes really blurry and I don't know any more.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47730816]And ironically that's why piracy is thriving. One place to get it all? then visit your trusty movie tracker site.[/QUOTE] But companies hate that because they get 70% of revenue as opposed to 100%. And they're under Steam's complete control.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47729776]That's kind of a problem when even just entering your credit card info is less convenient than pulling up a torrent, as the number of people torrenting Netflix shows attests. With games you can offer easy installation and updates, plus multiplayer, as incentives for people to buy your game, and then use DRM platforms like Steam to make the piracy alternative inconvenient. What can the film/TV industry offer that beats a completely free version of the same exact product?[/QUOTE] I don't think it's a "catch all" method though, or is even meant to be. People will always steal and that's wrong. But punishing paying customers to catch those thieves is also wrong. The DRM heavy solutions failed because they alienated customers

[QUOTE=Tone Float;47730836]Obviously when something is pirated there is no guarantee that it would have been purchased. But it might have been. And when you consider how many millions (I guess) of things are pirated each day, you can only conclude [I]some of those would have been purchases.[/I] I carefully worded my statement. Sales would go up by a nonzero amount - but they would NOT go up [I]exactly[/I] proportional to piracy, because not every pirated item is a sale. But some proportion of them would be. And when it's small artists and devs, it becomes really blurry and I don't know any more.[/QUOTE] I wonder how many people pirated games when they were kids, became fans(because they had the chance to play it) and later when they got jobs started buying the sequels, or maybe even backed a related kickstarter or two ?

[QUOTE=TheHydra;47729810]torrents still aren't perfect. if you're looking for something obscure and can only find torrents with one seeder in malaysia you're basically fucked[/QUOTE] chances are its going to be rare anywhere you look, except maybe buying second hand from ebay

[QUOTE=Tone Float;47730612]What pretentious scare quotes around "lost sale". It's a real thing. If piracy absolutely did not exist, sales would go up. It sucks if RIAA sues people for a lot but it [I]doesn't actually justify not paying for shit[/I], furthermore the case you cite was fucking LimeWire, not whatever grandma uploaded a song. [/QUOTE] Okay. Right. I'm going to respond to what you've said on a sentence by sentence basis. Firstly, I was using quotation marks to signify that I was referencing the buzzword, rather than an actual lost sale of a product. Which is a completely different subject. I'm still not entirely sure why it requires calling a use of grammar pretentious, or otherwise. Moving on. You're singling out a single organization whilst I was speaking towards the sum. As for paying for content, yes, it doesn't justify not paying for it. But you've lost me there, what point are you trying to make? My entire premise was that a moralistic argument isn't a wise thing to bring into a discussion on the subject. Now, as for citing LimeWire, I still don't see how this invalidates my point. We're still talking about groups that will threaten $50,000+ lawsuits to force people to settle for thousands. I'd try to give you a full response geared towards your reply, but you're bringing up a half-dozen irrelevant measures. I can go on to talk about how it's commonplace to go down to a store in Brazil, pay a sum, and then get a few movies burned on the spot for cheap. Which there, is the norm. It's a business which pays taxes and provides films that cannot be seen otherwise. But I just don't see the point in going on a tangent, it isn't the place for a discussion. Which still leaves me confused as to what point you're trying to counter. Oh, and I've ignored: [quote]If piracy absolutely did not exist, sales would go up.[/quote] Just on how loaded a statement like that is with not only with logical fallacies, but a slew of others as well.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47730863]But companies hate that because they get 70% of revenue as opposed to 100%. And they're under Steam's complete control.[/QUOTE] Then piracy will prosper.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47730971]Then piracy will prosper.[/QUOTE] And the only people who lose are the content creators

It just clicked to me that Shutting down piracy is like Nixon's Drug War of my generation.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47730997]And the only people who lose are the content creators[/QUOTE] Nah, they're already getting shafted by publishers, so their loss is negligible. The publishers are gonna suffer with their share becoming much smaller.

[QUOTE=kenji;47731004]It just clicked to me that Shutting down piracy is like Nixon's Drug War of my generation.[/QUOTE] Only if it were that simple, and didn't branch out into patents and intellectual property as a whole.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47730863]But companies hate that because they get 70% of revenue as opposed to 100%. And they're under Steam's complete control.[/QUOTE] The cut in other markets such as music and video is often much worse then it is on digital distribution pc games.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47731005]Nah, they're already getting shafted by publishers, so their loss is negligible. The publishers are gonna suffer with their share becoming much smaller.[/QUOTE] Yes let's make the content creators suffer even more since they're already being dicked over by the publishers. Great idea!

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47731108]Yes let's make the content creators suffer even more since they're already being dicked over by the publishers. Great idea![/QUOTE] I'd prefer that over enabling douchebag publishers. thankfully most smaller content creators also have ways of receiving donations.

[QUOTE=Coffee;47729857]Things like Netflix, Spotify and Steam are pretty good for providing a good service to a customer The only issue with tv/film streaming sites is that all the different networks on the usa like to have their own streaming site with blackjack and hookers, so it's not entirely beneficial to the consumer having television and films split across multiple services that have their own individual costs If all HBO, Fox and NBC shows were on Netflix in the UK, you'd reduce piracy quite a bit I think.[/QUOTE] Steam, providing a good service? Ha. Ha I say. Surely you must jest.

From a company's standpoint, a lot of pirates are "hopeless"; they don't care or they don't have the money. Fighting them is throwing money into a black hole. The rest are those that find piracy to easily be the most convenient option; those providing illegal content are, in reality, providing a service. If that service is both free and significantly more convenient than the legal option, it's no wonder consumers are so willing to choose the "illegal" option. Especially when piracy, in which no one "really loses anything", is such moral gray area that a vast number of people partake in it.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;47730881]I wonder how many people pirated games when they were kids, became fans(because they had the chance to play it) and later when they got jobs started buying the sequels, or maybe even backed a related kickstarter or two ?[/QUOTE] i dunno, i wonder how many people bought shit until they discovered they could steal it? "Piracy MAKES people money" is typically a laughable thing to argue

[QUOTE=Tone Float;47732137]i dunno, i wonder how many people bought shit until they discovered they could steal it? "Piracy MAKES people money" is typically a laughable thing to argue[/QUOTE] depending on the situation, it can in fact make money by helping popularize it, its not an impossible thing you know.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47731108]Yes let's make the content creators suffer even more since they're already being dicked over by the publishers. Great idea![/QUOTE] They should find publishers that better represent their interests.

OF course it's useless to do this. DUHHH One thing is to shut down something that resides in the cloud, in the internets And another thing is to shut down locals selling counterfeit brands, sweatshops, etc etc THat's because the capital required to set up a new site after having one taken down, is 9000000000 times less than setting up a new sweatshop.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47729987]That's the point. People keep saying if they just offer a better, more convenient service than piracy, they won't have to worry about piracy. But how do you do that, when piracy is just a few clicks and totally free? The solutions the game industry came up with are specific to gaming as a medium (updates, multiplayer), and the solution the music industry came up with was to abandon selling music as a profit source altogether and turn to things that can't be pirated like concerts and merch. Neither approach seems like a viable solution for film and television. They can fix specific issues like the exploitative pricing in Australia, but I don't see how they can ever offer a more convenient service than piracy. They're caught between a rock and a hard place.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's the biggest issue with things that aren't interactive and such. TV/Movies are forms of media that don't change so you don't need to worry about updates, only the next episode.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47731180]I'd prefer that over enabling douchebag publishers. thankfully most smaller content creators also have ways of receiving donations.[/QUOTE] You people will use any reason to justify pirating in your eyes as a less shitty thing to do. Just admit you want free shit, it's completely understandable. It's just a dick move is all.

My ISP recently started blocking torrent sites because of a court order, of all the sites I knew it only blocked the pirate bay, it didn't block kickass or some of the better known national torrent sites, just the pirate bay. And for some god damned reason it also blocked irc.gamesurge.net and some other IRC servers, it didn't block gamesurge.com just the irc adress, as a result of this retarded block I spent the following weeks teaching people about google's public DNS server and proxies.

[QUOTE=Tone Float;47730836]I carefully worded my statement. Sales would go up by a nonzero amount - but they would NOT go up [I]exactly[/I] proportional to piracy, because not every pirated item is a sale. But some proportion of them would be.[/QUOTE] Even that is debatable. In my previous post I explained how some sales may have actually be gained thanks to piracy. Unless we try to gauge the amount of those sales we can't even be certain that it made them lose money instead of actually boosting sales.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;47730881]I wonder how many people pirated games when they were kids, became fans(because they had the chance to play it) and later when they got jobs started buying the sequels, or maybe even backed a related kickstarter or two ?[/QUOTE] This is pretty much how I got into half life and gmod.