Piracy in the United Kingdom Decriminalised

[NInety]

And if you're pirating it, you were never going to pay for it in the first place.

My friend saved up $500 for FL Studio and then he just pirated FL Studio and put his money in his bank account.

[Jumper118]

Sorry, no one loses money because of piracy? Oh course they do. 

 

How is it nowhere near the same as theft? You steal a DVD and watch it without paying = Theft. You download a DVD and watch it without paying = Still theft. 

i wouldn't have gone and bought it or stole it, i just wouldn't watch it at all. therefore they have lost nothing.

[Oshino Shinobu]

Any sources to back up your claim that people would buy a film/game/music product if they couldnt download it?

 

And how is it a lost potential sale? Is somebody that has downloaded a song or film banned from buying it or something?

No, but anyone making opposing claims likely doesn't have a source to back it up either. It's more opinion and speculation than hard fact. I'm just going off what I've seen amongst those that pirate. 

 

What do you mean by that? They lost a potential sale in the sense that someone that could have bought something didn't and got it for free instead. 

[LukaP]

@ "I cannot prove it. Simple as that."

 

may I acquaint you with the sentence The burden of proof lies on the claiming party?

 

if you have something to claim, you are the one who has to prove it in order to be considered legitimate.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Can't you let a man dream? 

Dreams are for hippies. God damn hippies. 

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

No, but anyone making opposing claims likely doesn't have a source to back it up either. It's more opinion and speculation than hard fact. I'm just going off what I've seen amongst those that pirate. 

 

What do you mean by that? They lost a potential sale in the sense that someone that could have bought something didn't and got it for free instead. 

Im not making a single claim, you are. 

 

What I mean is that just because somebody has got a game|album|movie from a torrent site doesnt mean they arnet going to buy it. There is nothing stopping them from buying it. How can it be a lost potential sale if they can still buy it?

[Me1z]

I could ask the same about the opposite view. 

 

I cannot prove it, simple as that. However, I think it's very likely that if pirating didn't exist and wasn't an option, then a fair amount of those who would pirate would buy it. (that's very badly worded). I mean that if someone can get something for free, why wouldn't they? Maybe they had to pay a bill or something so they were short on money and couldn't afford it, so they pirated it instead. If pirating wasn't an option, maybe they would have just saved up for it instead. 

 

But that is based on a impossible 'what if' scenario where pirating doesn't exist. Even long before torrents and online file sharing, people would make copies of VHS', so piracy will always happen. Rather than dreaming of a world where the problem in question doesn't exist you need to think of  'what if' scenarios where there are reasonable solutions to the problem. If we were in a world where piracy were a major crime and the risk was not worth it, people without money or proper access to media STILL would not buy it and content creators would likely suffer due to lack of exposure. There is no situation where content creators lose money, instead they simply don't gain MORE money. Honestly, if content creators want to maximize their profits without irritating consumers and losing word-of-mouth exposure, the best thing they could do is stop. And by stop I mean stop trying to change laws because they will all most likely backfire if they have any effect at all. They should instead work to maintain the delicate balance they currently have where some people pirate, but the vast majority still pay for their content and they benefit from this because more people enjoying their content means more people recommending their content and more sales from those who WILL pay. People who don't pay won't pay regardless of their ability to pirate and the idea that a few laws could ever stomp out piracy completely is less realistic than world peace.

[Tech_Dreamer]

[Oshino Shinobu]

But that is based on a impossible 'what if' scenario where pirating doesn't exist. Even long before torrents and online file sharing, people would make copies of VHS', so piracy will always happen. Rather than dreaming of a world where the problem in question doesn't exist you need to think of  'what if' scenarios where there are reasonable solutions to the problem. If we were in a world where piracy were a major crime and the risk was not worth it, people without money or proper access to media STILL would not buy it and content creators would likely suffer due to lack of exposure. There is no situation where content creators lose money, instead they simply don't gain MORE money. Honestly, if content creators want to maximize their profits without irritating consumers and losing word-of-mouth exposure, the best thing they could do is stop. And by stop I mean stop trying to change laws because they will all most likely backfire if they have any effect at all. They should instead work to maintain the delicate balance they currently have where some people pirate, but the vast majority still pay for their content and they benefit from this because more people enjoying their content means more people recommending their content and more sales from those who WILL pay. People who don't pay won't pay regardless of their ability to pirate and the idea that a few laws could ever stomp out piracy completely is less realistic than world peace.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread anyway. 

 

I shared my opinion, and was wrong about certain things. I made some claims without evidence to back it up, and for that I apologise. @xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt @IdortMasterRace

 

However, Me1z I actually find that block of text very hard to read, so I'm not going to try It needs paragraphing and such. 

[smjpl]

A lot of people who pirate would have bought it if pirating wasn't an option. They technically don't lose money, but they do lose potential sales which have a value in business. 

 

That's simply a technicality and a literal interpretation of a word and its meaning. If you interpret everything literally, then a lot of things that aren't legal will suddenly be technically legal. 

 

You can't look at an individual case and say it is stealing therefore loss in revenue. All you can do is look at the overall affect piracy has on the entertainment industry sales. Many people pirate, some would have bought it but a large portion would never have bought it even if they couldn't pirate it. But 100% of the people will advertise it to their friends. How might this affect it?

 

I am going to make up figures here so don't quote me or anything but lets guess that possibly 25% of all pirates would have bought it if they couldn't get it for free. But the other 75% who would never have bought it could possibly encourage other legitimate customers to purchase it. Let guess a figure of 26% (just so it is different). So if that were the case, then they could possibly recover 18.75% of the total loss in potential pirate sales resulting in a theoretical loss of 5.5%  of total pirate downloads. (5.5% = 25% - 19.5%)

 

So the formula:

 

R_L = revenue lost (% number downloads)

P_L = % of pirates who would buy if couldn't pirate  (25% = 0.25)

P_r = % recovered from pirate advertising (26% = 0.26)

 

R_L = P_L - [(1-P_L)*(P_r)]  

 

Plug in the values:

 

==> R_L = 0.25 - [(1 - 0.25)x0.26] = 0.055 = 5.5% (loss)

 

Now I would say those numbers are a bit conservative. I would guess 8% for potential loss P_L and here is why. You seem to forget the sheer volume of stuff pirated. Most people wouldn't be able to afford the amount of stuff they have pirated over the years. From my own experiences, I would say people most people might possibly buy around 5-8 percent of what they pirate, and I live in a developed country. If you take developing nations into account,  I'd say it is a lot less. Now for advertising, I would say the recovered rate mighty be somewhere around 10%. I tend to recommend films quite a bit and most people I know don't pirate that much. The tech heads do but we are a rarer bread. So lets plug these values back in.

 

R_L = 0.08 - [(1 - 0.08)x0.1] = -0.092 = -9.2%

 

A negative value for loss? Wait, doesn't that mean profit? So total sales could increase by 9.2% of the total number of downloads.

 

Okay before someone attacks me, I am not saying piracy profits the entertainment industry. All I am doing is creating an oversimplified model to show how the piracy numbers could affect sales numbers. And you could argue all day over those numbers.

 

It isn't as simple as to say piracy is stealing and to put the total download numbers as lost sales.

[mr moose]

Well, I certainly think many people in this thread had made their mind up and refuse to listen to reason or be rational about the realities of life.

 

In my world (1st world living standards, decent pay and access to everything) of about the 50 odd people I know IRL who pirate or could pirate if they wanted to, it is split equally into 1/3rds.

 

1/3rd pirate because it's easy and free, they have the money but don't care.

1/3rd don't pirate, and only have legit copies of everything.

1/3rd pirate, but would prefer a legit copy, however they just can't afford it.

 

 

Therefore I suggest that regarding the moral standing (or lack thereof) should address the what if's rather than dismiss entire arguments because the what if contains opposing possibilities.

 

1. if you pirate and can afford it + have access to a legit copy you are damaging revenue, 

 

2. If you pirate and don't have access to legit material then you are not stealing, because the product has not been commercially made available to you.

 

3. if you pirate because you can't afford it then this is a moral question for the individual,  they aren't causing damage to a product because it wouldn't be paid for anyway. however they are using a product they don't have permission to use, ergo a moral dilemma for the individual.

 

Even though all three are piracy,  because the underlying conditions/drivers of each are different, the outcome from ceasing the activity will have a different outcome.

 

If we could stop piracy dead today then:

 

1. will result in an increase in revenue for producers/developers

2  and 3 will have negligible effect.

[mr moose]

 

 

A negative value for loss? Wait, doesn't that mean profit? So total sales could increase by 9.2% of the total number of downloads.

 

That could equal a shit load of revenue they won't see. 

[IdortMasterRace]

Therefore I suggest that regarding the moral standing (or lack thereof) should address the what if's rather than dismiss entire arguments because the what if contains opposing possibilities.

 

1. if you pirate and can afford it + have access to a legit copy you are damaging revenue, 

 

2. If you pirate and don't have access to legit material then you are not stealing, because the product has not been commercially made available to you.

 

3. if you pirate because you can't afford it then this is a moral question for the individual,  they aren't causing damage to a product because it wouldn't be paid for anyway. however they are using a product they don't have permission to use, ergo a moral dilemma for the individual.

 

1. Just because someone can afford it, doesn't mean they would have bought a legit copy. And, either way, they aren't losing money anyway. Their money is constant, it isn't going up or down due to poracy.

 

2. Piracy isn't the same as stealing anyway.

 

3. But then I could argue that someone pirating because they can't afford it means the dev is losing money because that person could have saved up. This would be equally as stupid as point 1.

[Altecice]

I find it odd that our PM wants to push spying bills though parliament... and we go and do this?

 

[mr moose]

1. Just because someone can afford it, doesn't mean they would have bought a legit copy. And, either way, they aren't losing money anyway. Their money is constant, it isn't going up or down due to poracy.

 

2. Piracy isn't the same as stealing anyway.

 

3. But then I could argue that someone pirating because they can't afford it means the dev is losing money because that person could have saved up. This would be equally as stupid as point 1.

 

1.No one said they were losing money, they are however on a reduced revenue because of it.

2.each case is specific, I never sad it was the same as stealing.

3.again forget about "losing money" it's not about "losing" but about reduced revenue.

[IdortMasterRace]

1.No one said they were losing money, they are however on a reduced revenue because of it.

2.each case is specific, I never sad it was the same as stealing.

3.again forget about "losing money" it's not about "losing" but about reduced revenue.

 

They aren't losing revenue either, they had none to begin with.

[Juggernautilus]

Say whatever you want but there is no why I am going to pay 60 euros for an AAA title on release date with a salary of mine. Even if I wait for a -50%, I still don't have the money. Piracy is the only way I can enjoy games. 

It's pretty easy to say "piracy bad, buy pls, support devs" when you are living in a country where 60 bucks for a game you might play for 10h is no biggie. I think I have spent about 100 euros total through steam sales, humble bundles and ingame items so it's not like I only pirate stuff.

 

Also, there just is no legal way I can access the movies I want. No channel broadcasts any of the new shows or movies, Netflix or simliar services are unavailable. Ordering DVDs from Amazon? Sorry, too much money needed for shipping.

 

As for music, Spotify is pretty much all you need and I have been a premium user for over a year just because I need music on my iPod and HTC.

 

So the next time you complain about piracy and "lost sales" for content creators, think how much of the pirates could actually afford the stuff legaly.

[ViruZ_HUN]

the reason i pirate is because it is a option. i would have to buy it if it was not

[mr moose]

They aren't losing revenue either, they had none to begin with.

 

do you know what revenue is?

 

http://www.bgr.in/news/software-piracy-reduction-can-generate-1-6-billion-in-india-idc/

 

It's a fact that piracy effects revenue, the question is by how much and what types of piracy has the largest effect.  E.G as I pointed out before, certain types of piracy will have zero effect while others might be enough to slow the growth of whole industries.

[Prd_407]

my situation,the reason i pirate is the cost and retail availability of content in india,atleast for eg,to buy a legal disk of gta iv,i have to go to shopping mall (no other place i know that sells legal games/movies in 'bhopal' city i live) and pay rs1500 for a 5 year+ old game,while to buy digital download i need a credit/debit card to pay, (16,so no cards)+even in mall new pc games arrive very late,and our family internet connection just cost rs1000 per month,so it's cheaper,many local computer hardware shops (small ones) sell pirated content on dvds,thegood thing is online retailers like,flipkart or amazon offers cash on delivery,on my defence, i paid for allot of symbian apps,as from nokia store they simply can deduct the money,from my prepaid sim's balance,and the apps also costed rs10,15,35,50 etc. (While on iphone pairing credit card is necessary to make apple id and apps cost rs50 and above)o

[Misanthrope]

I could ask the same about the opposite view.

I cannot prove it, simple as that. However, I think it's very likely that if pirating didn't exist and wasn't an option, then a fair amount of those who would pirate would buy it. (that's very badly worded). I mean that if someone can get something for free, why wouldn't they? Maybe they had to pay a bill or something so they were short on money and couldn't afford it, so they pirated it instead. If pirating wasn't an option, maybe they would have just saved up for it instead.

That's not how burden of proof works: if you make a claim like "piracy cost us sales" then you need to prove it and the evidence just doesn't supports that claim

[LAwLz]

I am just going to copy/paste what my friend who lives in the UK has to say on this:

If you've read anything about this country in the past 2 years you realise this new tactic is probably a huge ruse, since it goes against everything they've been trying to do, you'd be naive to believe they're actually going to keep it this way.

Most people think they're doing this to get "proof" that pirates won't listen to reasonable "polite" ways of telling them to stop, and then use that as an excuse to bring in a law to actually make it illegal with some sort of punishment. So they can say "we tried to be nice but it didn't work so now you go to prison".

Also they've only removed criminal penalties, the movie/music studios can still legally sue you in civil court.

 

"But sources close to the discussion suggest there could be a bigger game at play here. Within the leaked agreement, one important point: if this system does not have a big effect on piracy, then rights holders will call for the "rapid implementation" of the Digital Economy Act, and all the strict measures that come with it. Steve Kuncewicz, an expert in online and internet law, agreed. He speculated that the deal "may be a Trojan horse exercise in gathering intelligence about how seriously downloaders take threats. In other words, if it can be shown that asking nicely does not have a significant effect on curbing piracy, rights holders will for the first time have a seriously credible set of data with which to apply pressure for harder enforcement on those who simply do not want to pay for entertainment."

 

Basically, this is a slimy tactic that won't change anything right now (you can still be sued etc) and they will then use it to make even stricter laws.

I am willing to be that they will lie about the results of this legislation change if they have to. If they notices that this does not change anything they will either lie and say that it did, or they will go "we have now tried the soft method and it didn't work, so now let's try the harsh method". If it makes companies earn more money and piracy goes up then they will ignore the benefit and only focus on the "negative" aspect that piracy went up. If piracy actually goes up and companies makes less in revenue then they will just say "see? Told you so. Here comes the much harsher laws".

[LAwLz]

Sorry, no one loses money because of piracy? Oh course they do. 

 

How is it nowhere near the same as theft? You steal a DVD and watch it without paying = Theft. You download a DVD and watch it without paying = Still theft. 

The two scenarios are nowhere near similar.

In the DVD example you are physically removing something from the store. The copy you removed can no longer be sold and they might have to make another physical copy, which costs money to do.

 

In the first case (the DVD one), a physical thing which has a value is removed from someone. That is theft.

In the second case (the piracy one), you make an exact copy of something and leave the original alone.

 

To make it more comparable to piracy you would have to add a magical device that can scan an item and then make an exact copy out of it. So if you walked into a DVD store, pointed your device to the DVD and then pressed a button, you could now make an infinite number of perfect copies out of it. Oh, and the store and everyone else also has one of these magical devices.

 

 

 

Multiple important people in online entertainment services have said things along the line of "Piracy is a problem of availibility and cost".

 

This will probably be more effective than suing people.

They will still sue people though. This change in legislation still allows for example the MAFIAA to sue you for downloading something they hold the rights for.

 

 

 

A lot of people who pirate would have bought it if pirating wasn't an option. They technically don't lose money, but they do lose potential sales which have a value in business. 

 

That's simply a technicality and a literal interpretation of a word and its meaning. If you interpret everything literally, then a lot of things that aren't legal will suddenly be technically legal. 

What the hell are you on about?

Can you please give me a few examples of these laws that are only valid if you don't take them literally? It sounds absolutely insane that someone would write a law which doesn't apply if you actually read the law as it was written.

 

 

 

In some cases they might actually gain sales by spreading their content and creating fans (free marketing) who might otherwise not exist.

Exactly

Here are three good examples of this:

South Park (Matt and Tray have said that piracy helped South Park become big)

Neil Gaiman's books (The more people pirated his books, the more copies he actually sold)

It's not my fault that I am not popular manga (pretty much every single person outside of Japan pirated it, it got a massive fanbase, the author acknowledged the popularity and it ended with the manga becoming hugely popular)

And I am sure there are many many more examples, but these are three ones I know about.

[mr moose]

I am just going to copy/paste what my friend who lives in the UK has to say on this:

 

Basically, this is a slimy tactic that won't change anything right now (you can still be sued etc) and they will then use it to make even stricter laws.

I am willing to be that they will lie about the results of this legislation change if they have to. If they notices that this does not change anything they will either lie and say that it did, or they will go "we have now tried the soft method and it didn't work, so now let's try the harsh method". If it makes companies earn more money and piracy goes up then they will ignore the benefit and only focus on the "negative" aspect that piracy went up. If piracy actually goes up and companies makes less in revenue then they will just say "see? Told you so. Here comes the much harsher laws".

 

And this is why all laws should be based on proper unbiased research from completely unattached research entities.  Not lobby groups with their own funded "research"...

 

EDIT: although I admit this isn't always easy to do.

[LAwLz]

I could ask the same about the opposite view. 

 

I cannot prove it, simple as that. However, I think it's very likely that if pirating didn't exist and wasn't an option, then a fair amount of those who would pirate would buy it. (that's very badly worded). I mean that if someone can get something for free, why wouldn't they? Maybe they had to pay a bill or something so they were short on money and couldn't afford it, so they pirated it instead. If pirating wasn't an option, maybe they would have just saved up for it instead. 

Sorry but that's not how logic works. If you make a statement such as "piracy results in lost sales" then the burden of proof is on you.

Oh and by the way, I can actually prove that in some cases piracy will increase sales. I have posted three examples of it in my previous post. So right now all you got is an empty statement that piracy is harmful and you admit that there are no facts to support it, and I got three good examples of piracy being helpful.

 

 

 

I feel like we've strayed off topic a little. 

 

Either way, I would personally class piracy as theft. Even though you're right, by definition and law, piracy is not theft, it would be considered copyright infringement. 

 

As for no one losing money. Yeah, they don't lose money or even physical goods for that matter. But to a company, it will still be the loss of a potential sale and therefore (in the eyes of a company, retailer, artist etc.) it's a loss of potential money in a way. Even though you cannot really prove if a pirate would have bought it or not if the situation were different. 

They don't lose a potential sale. That argument would only be true if it was impossible to buy something after you had pirated it. A good example of this would be Alex Day.

He puts up all his songs on YouTube, and on his website and on torrenting sites, and he still sells many many MANY copies. I don't think he would have sold so many copies if it weren't for him putting up the songs for free. It helped him tremendously in spreading his music.

 

 

 

1. if you pirate and can afford it + have access to a legit copy you are damaging revenue, 

 

-snip-

 

If we could stop piracy dead today then:

 

1. will result in an increase in revenue for producers/developers

-snip-

You're assuming that people wouldn't just go "meh that costs too much". I can afford a lot of things that I want but I won't buy (for example the Asus PA279Q).

While I do want it I don't think they are worth the price (at least for me) and therefore I went with some cheaper Dell monitors instead. So if I could pirate it, I still wouldn't have affected the revenue of Asus (again, I can afford it but I won't buy it) and I would have gotten something much better than I got instead. I am sure many people are in the same situation on the software side. They can afford the new COD but they don't want to spend 60 dollars on it so they pirate it instead. If they really like the game they might even buy it afterwards (in order to play multiplayer for example).