Google: Piracy is An Availability and Pricing Problem

[DonPOETA]

 

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.

As in many other countries, online piracy is causing headaches for the Australian Government. A variety of anti-piracy strategies to deal with the problem have been suggested in recent years, but thus far without result.

Late last year Australia’s Minister for Communication invited several companies to share their thoughts on the reduction of regulation in the communication sector. The minister asked for input on a variety of issues including future legislation regarding copyright.

One of the companies that responded is Google, and TorrentFreak has obtained a previously unpublished copy of the company’s response.

In its letter Google warns the Government not to implement draconian ant-piracy legislation. The search giant notes that they believe piracy is mostly an availability and pricing problem, which is best tackled with innovation instead of legislation.

“We believe there is significant, credible evidence emerging that online piracy is primarily an availability and pricing problem. We would encourage the Government to promote new business models and a free marketplace for legal purchasing of content,” Google writes.

“We would be disappointed if the Government decided to go down the route of overly harsh regulation to combat piracy without considering the evidence from around the world that this would likely be costly for businesses to implement and with little effect,” they add.

Besides the warning above, Google stresses that some of the current legislation is also problematic. For example, Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act is used to censor websites, which threatens the free availability of information.

“It appears that this law has been interpreted broadly by various Australian government agencies to include the take down of websites that are deemed illegal,” Google writes.

“Google believes that section 313 does not contain sufficient safeguards, and could potentially impact significantly on the availability of information and content on the internet through the over­broad blocking of websites.”

Google recommends that the Government should create more oversight by implementing measures to make these website takedowns more transparent.

In addition, Google is also worried about the lack of a safe harbor for Internet services, which can now be held liable for pirating users.

According to the company it is of “critical importance” that this gap is addressed, as the current uncertainty has a chilling effect on innovation among Internet services.

Google’s suggestions appear to stand in sharp contrast to the plans Australia’s Attorney-General George Brandis unveiled a few weeks ago. In a speech to the Australian Digital Alliance forum, Brandis opted for a ”three strikes” graduated response system for persistent pirates as well as wide scale blockades of infringing websites.

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/google-piracy-availability-pricing-problem-140310/

 

Suprisingly wise words from Cyberdyne Systems...

[RelentlessAF]

But the mighty GabeN has already said this. Google is just passing on the word of our good Lord. Google must be one of GabeN's deciples.

[Snickerzz]

1.29$ for a song is bs

[helping]

I wonder what kind of hilarity would go down if Google decided to pull all of it's service from an entire country

 

it doesn't really have anything to do with the article, but humor me. 

[ToxicFire]

I wonder what kind of hilarity would go down if Google decided to pull all of it's service from an entire country

 

it doesn't really have anything to do with the article, but humor me. 

 

Given how poor australia's domestic internet is currently it might take a while for them to notice the 404's were not just timeouts.

[Imaginaerum]

1.29$ for a song is bs

Wasn't it always $1.29 and they'd just send you the reciept afterwards with the tax that would take it from your account or charge your credit card? Kind of like Amazon and their "99 cent books" + tax we forgot to tell you about.

[Snickerzz]

Wasn't it always $1.29 and they'd just send you the reciept afterwards with the tax that would take it from your account or charge your credit card? Kind of like Amazon and their "99 cent books" + tax we forgot to tell you about.

not sure but either way idc if it was always that much, it should be cheaper ~.~

[Misanthrope]

I wonder what kind of hilarity would go down if Google decided to pull all of it's service from an entire country

 

it doesn't really have anything to do with the article, but humor me. 

 

Apple and Microsoft would sweep in and make a killing.

[Vitalius]

1.29$ for a song is bs

This. 

$1.29 (how it's written in the US. Don't argue) /that's a joke

That's too much for a single song. $6-8 for movie tickets, to a movie I don't get a copy of, is absurd (not to mention the food prices). $20-$40 for a single Blu-ray disc is crazy.

$X a month (whatever it is) for a service to watch any show/movie I want to streamed to my house, when that service is being throttled by my ISP, when I don't want to watch 90% of what's on it, and the other 10% is old and irrelevant is too damn much. 

I mean really. When they say it's a distribution (the combination of availability and pricing) problem, they aren't kidding. I don't want to pay $30 a month for Dish to give me 900 channels I don't want and make me pay more for channels I do want. 

I know. I know. The South Park cable company episode fits soooo perfectly here. 

Let it be known, if I ever go to jail for pirating, it was justified. Words of the authorities be damned, it was justified.

[Snickerzz]

This. 

$1.29 (how it's written in the US. Don't argue) /that's a joke

That's too much for a single song. $6-8 for movie tickets, to a movie I don't get a copy of, is absurd (not to mention the food prices). $20-$40 for a single Blu-ray disc is crazy.

$X a month (whatever it is) for a service to watch any show/movie I want to streamed to my house, when that service is being throttled by my ISP, when I don't want to watch 90% of what's on it, and the other 10% is old and irrelevant is too damn much. 

I mean really. When they say it's a distribution (the combination of availability and pricing) problem, they aren't kidding. I don't want to pay $30 a month for Dish to give me 900 channels I don't want and make me pay more for channels I do want. 

I know. I know. The South Park cable company episode fits soooo perfectly here. 

Let it be known, if I ever go to jail for pirating, it was justified. Words of the authorities be damned, it was justified.

10000% agree, i can get 99% of what i will care about on cable with a hulu and netdlix subscription for 1/3 the price, total bs

[EChondo]

This. 

$1.29 (how it's written in the US. Don't argue) /that's a joke

That's too much for a single song. $6-8 for movie tickets, to a movie I don't get a copy of, is absurd (not to mention the food prices).

$6-8 for a movie ticket?! I have to pay $12 minimum, and that's if it isn't a "3D" or IMAX version.

 

Even then, I just sneak in food and candy.

[Rassilon]

I know people that pirate things because it's free. What price could they offer me to compte with that?

It's really just a human nature problem.

[Misanthrope]

I know people that pirate things because it's free. What price could they offer me to compte with that?

It's really just a human nature problem.

 

How about 75% discount or basically 4 games for the price of 1? A lot of those same people now purchase games on steam sales when possible. It's not hard to comprehend that people have budgets and limited resources and if they had no option to pirate they just wouldn't play games at all or at least not as many of them.

 

Human nature is largely dictated by circumstances and poor availability and ridiculous prices are certainly mitigating factors.

[Rassilon]

How about 75% discount or basically 4 games for the price of 1? A lot of those same people now purchase games on steam sales when possible. It's not hard to comprehend that people have budgets and limited resources and if they had no option to pirate they just wouldn't play games at all or at least not as many of them.

Human nature is largely dictated by circumstances and poor availability and ridiculous prices are certainly mitigating factors.

Not these people. They're more aquaintances than friends really, but they don't really care to pay for thinngs when they don't need to. I know that a while ago they used to burn games to dvds and sell them for maybe a buck.

I haven't met a lot of people like them, but I know that operations run by people like them create piracy. I don't think that, unless games become $5 at launch, legally buying games will ever beat the bootleg or pirate market.

[SirRoderick]

Not these people. They're more aquaintances than friends really, but they don't really care to pay for thinngs when they don't need to. I know that a while ago they used to burn games to dvds and sell them for maybe a buck.

I haven't met a lot of people like them, but I know that operations run by people like them create piracy. I don't think that, unless games become $5 at launch, legally buying games will ever beat the bootleg or pirate market.

Sure there are people like that that will ALWAYS think they're entitled to content for free. But a lot people that pirate tv shows and the like really would rather just pay a reasonable price to get a proper VoD service. I used to pirate stuff because I had no money, now I pay for ALL of my games because frankly it's easier to use steam than it is to get a good torrent on a lot of this stuff anyway. That in addition to wanting to support smaller studios is what keep my cash going into that industry. I'd never use TPB again if I could actually get my hands on House of Cards or Suits in an easy way, or any way for that matter.

[AlwaysFSX]

$6-8 for a movie ticket?! I have to pay $12 minimum, and that's if it isn't a "3D" or IMAX version.

 

Even then, I just sneak in food and candy.

Tickets here were like $20 here last summer. Plus, that's why I love my sweater with massive pockets on the inside..

[LAwLz]

Tickets here were like $20 here last summer. Plus, that's why I love my sweater with massive pockets on the inside..

Jupp same here. Cinema tickets cost ~130 sek for a 3D movie, and that's about 20usd.

The funny thing is that piracy doesn't even lower sales. This has been proven over and over again. Piracy is a good thing. I am not saying it should be legal (because then it might become harmful) but the punishments are absolutely ridiculous.

I have had to pirate things in the past because it was impossible for me to see certain shows any other way. I would have had to either learn a new language, then move to the other side of the globe or simply pirate it. I would gladly have paid a reasonable fee to see the show, but I couldn't.

[PortentousLad]

No shit Google?! ye think?

 

I live in Germany if I want to see anything in English the easiest way to do so would be streaming it and since all official streaming site's like watchever  or even amazon's own instant video are garbage even if not compared to the illegal alternatives which are vastly superior in every way, quality speed availability and so on(just thinking about silverlight makes my stomach grumble), guess what... when will politicians ever learn?

 

But the mighty GabeN has already said this. Google is just passing on the word of our good Lord. Google must be one of GabeN's deciples.

of cause they are!

 

Why is there no 'Steam Video'? not saying the Valve needs to bare that burden as well but the concept of the steam client is perfect for video-on-demand!

Why hasn't anyone done it yet? copyright can't be that much more complicated to deal with than it is with games and don't say it is that's just because the movie industry is even more absurd and blind than AAA Pubs.

?§"%Ä/)*!"$)(§%("?UC§I%!!!

 

this keeps me up at night, I'm serious! :angry:

[bronsonp4htdude123455]

1.29$ for a song is bs

especialy since there is no physical media so no shiping costs or cost to put it in a store! now if it were 10 cents a song or what ever I probably wouldnt pirate but I have around 1500 songs and that times 1.29 is 1925 im not spending 2 grand for FREAKING SONGS!

[bronsonp4htdude123455]

No shit Google?! ye think?

 

I live in Germany if I want to see anything in English the easiest way to do so would be streaming it and since all official streaming site's like watchever  or even amazon's own instant video are garbage even if not compared to the illegal alternatives which are vastly superior in every way, quality speed availability and so on(just thinking about silverlight makes my stomach grumble), guess what... when will politicians ever learn?

 

of cause they are!

 

Why is there no 'Steam Video'? not saying the Valve needs to bare that burden as well but the concept of the steam client is perfect for video-on-demand!

Why hasn't anyone done it yet? copyright can't be that much more complicated to deal with than it is with games and don't say it is that's just because the movie industry is even more absurd and blind than AAA Pubs.

?§"%Ä/)*!"$)(§%("?UC§I%!!!

 

this keeps me up at night, I'm serious! :angry:

I thought they were planning on it for steam boxes's so it would be more media freindly

[bcredeur97]

we should come up with prices that sound fair, and as consumers, demand this, instead of just complaining about it.

 

 

how about $0.40 for a song

$7-12 for a movie

$20-30 for a AAA video game

and no piece of video editing software should be more than $200...

why is MS office still $500 if you want the whole thing? i say $150.

[LePawel]

basically 4 games for the price of 1?

And those 4 developers will have enough cash for 1 more game instead of 4. I do agree AAA game prices are through the roof. But they're not the ones that go on -75% sales.Indies do, because they need a) cash to survive and b) user base to give them recognition.

Also, for a price of BF4 I could eat for a week in UK including few beers and occasional fast food, not to mention how this transfer to countries in eastern Europe where income is much smaller, but prices often translate 1:1. 

AAAs, shit or not will always be the apple of gaming, and while some of them are worth the price, I won't know until after purchase - bring back demos, so we won't have to pirate your shit to find out of we like it, because some of us won't be bothered to buy it after they already downloaded it once.

[wpirobotbuilder]

It's nice to see a major player like Google say this out loud. Take note MPAA, RIAA, Comcast, TWC, etc: We like your services, and will pay for them. But we don't want to buy the same content multiple times for different devices, don't want to pay for channels we don't watch, and want to be free to access content regardless of where it comes from. Also, internet speeds need to go up to support the increased demand for digital media.

 

If you can't survive as a business because you rely on these inefficiencies, then you shouldn't be in business at all.

[Misanthrope]

And those 4 developers will have enough cash for 1 more game instead of 4. 

 

Incorrect: Valve has proven that with the volume they move they make up for the cheaper price.

[LePawel]

Incorrect: Valve has proven that with the volume they move they make up for the cheaper price.

Source?