Would you stop pirating if content did not cost too much?

[Magic8Ball]

It's something I struggle to come up with a concrete opinion on, but I'll openly admit I've acquired some movies from good 'ole Jack Sparrow and I've demoed games even when there are "legitimate" demos to them.

 

That being said, when a Steam Sale goes on, I go crazy.

[Yoinkerman]

I mean entitled. People feel like they are deserving in whatever fashion to use the paid software for free. It's like the concept of IP is too abstract for them to grasp or something. I don't see people going "yeah, I know its wrong to use paid products without paying but I'm doing it anyway" I see "its ok take and use peoples livelihoods because of xyz"

There are demos and trials and stuff for software to try before you buy.

Sure marketing is great and pirating is definitely advertising, but stealing IP isn't the way to go about it, even if companines (I'm looking at you music industry) are in the stone age.

That's the second time someone's used "entitled" in a way that's itched me. Would "it's okay" be equivalent, or do you mean something more than that?

To answer your question, it's a case of "why not"? There are two possible scenarios...

1: I don't get Photoshop. I don't benefit from Photoshop and Adobe gets no money.

2: I get Photoshop. I benefit from Photoshop through enjoyment, education and a possible future in graphic design. Adobe still gets no money, but they get my advertising and may get my money in the future.

Now, of those two scenarios, one is varyingly advantageous to both parties, while the other, isn't.

[qwertywarrior]

i probably torrented over 3TB in my life time

mainly because of the following

1.I dont have any access to purchase it

2.soo old that they arnt being sold anymore

3.no money

4.try it out first and see if its worth my money

above im talking about games and shows mostly

when it comes to music most of the things i listen to are on youtube

and many of them only exist on vinyl

[rashdanml]

There are demos and trials and stuff for software to try before you buy.

Trials are way too limited to make any reasonable use of it.

Most cases, people looking into getting these programs as a profession can't afford it initially, excluding commercial users/big businesses. The trial lasts 30 days, which is not enough time to master a program and actually start earning something back from it. There are only a handful of graphics related programs that are inexpensive/free and feature-rich, for instance. Even less so with other media tools (video editing, compositing, etc). 

 

They're not entitled to it, no. They don't see any other option. So they pirate and eventually, when they can actually start making money out of it, they can consider the investment.

 

Then there are people who can afford programs, but don't want to pay the money because the alternative (pirating) is free. I'll agree that that mindset is wrong. My dad uses AutoCAD for all of his work and he paid $5000 for an older version initially which he still uses, but uses pirated copies of later versions and other major programs. He makes more than enough to pay for all of these programs initially even if most of them are in the 1000s of $$. Frequent upgrades could get expensive unless the cost is for a lifetime license, and in most cases, it's not with cheaper upgrade versions available (Adobe).

[Grooveriding]

I pay for my software.  Most games I play I buy immediately, some I am not sure of I'll download and try and if I plan to continue playing it will pick it up on Steam.  With all the sales on Steam, GMG and hot deals you can find on games all the time - it's not difficult to get even the newest games at a good price.

 

Movies/Music I pirate heavily though.  20TB of Blu-rays on my NAS... still buy a fair number of Blu-rays, but nowhere near the amount of movies I have in my library illegitimately.

[Samdb]

 

Images in signatures are against the CoC, although it is pretty cool.

[Maroman]

In my teen days when I didn't have a job I pirated anything and everything. Reason was no money. Now a days I still Download all the movies and TV shows but I also purchase them. I don't pay for cable TV as I think its pointless for what you really get out of it. I also don't like using iTunes as most of what they have as HD us garbage when its on a good tv. I buy the shows either in physical or on Amazon. But for streaming it to my TV I just use the pirated version.

Software wise I don't see the point. I run open source for what I need.

Games I use steam even if it doesn't run in Linux I use wine and nine out of ten I can get it to run. Most games I buy I know what I am getting into before I click buy so its no big deal.

Technically running a lot of games I have purchased in a wine+Linux environment breaks there ToS. Like WoW. I wasted 4 years of my life in that game and got banned for running Linux at one point due to them thinking I was a gold farmer or something. It got resolved at the end of it but it was the kick I needed to quit that addiction.

[Raptus]

For software I rarely pay, expect for Windows and such. Adobe suite is something I can't afford at all, I mean jesus. Some companies like DaVinci actually provide a free versions of software so that you get used to the interface and functions. That way they secure future buyers of their premium software. Smart move. 

 

Games I always pay for now. Either I'm a fan of the series and pay top price at launch, or I wait a month or two and get the game at sale on Steam or somewhere else. 

 

As for movies and TV I download some TV-shows and movies that I didn't catch in the cinema and things I don't have access to anyways. I do however buy collectors boxes and blu-rays. My DVD collection is huge and my blu-ray collection is growing steadily.

 

Music I don't pirate. Spotify ftw. 

[Toby]

I mean entitled. People feel like they are deserving in whatever fashion to use the paid software for free. It's like the concept of IP is too abstract for them to grasp or something. I don't see people going "yeah, I know its wrong to use paid products without paying but I'm doing it anyway" I see "its ok take and use peoples livelihoods because of xyz"

There are demos and trials and stuff for software to try before you buy.

Sure marketing is great and pirating is definitely advertising, but stealing IP isn't the way to go about it, even if companines (I'm looking at you music industry) are in the stone age.

There's so much here I could dig into, but primarily you seem to be making the same two mistakes as Nelodiavolo...

1: That "paid software" is a relevant system for a medium where everything is free.

2: That a pirated copy somehow equates to a "lost sale" for the IP holder. While there are obviously people who have pirated digital content that is otherwise available at a value they deem appropriate (tying into the previous point), the vast majority of pirated content wouldn't have been bought even if it wasn't available for free...If anything, it'd be less likely to be purchased.

The problem is you're coming from a mental framework where a paid system is the default...Where it's "right" for IP holders to proclaim the value of their IP and expect others to pay that value for it post-creation. That's fair enough for the physical world, where building materials have cost and the product is finite (and where people aren't really given any other choice), but it doesn't work for the internet world. Piracy is viewed as the circumventing of the default, when "piracy" is actually the default for a medium where the free expression and sharing of ideas is tantamount. That isn't to say that content creators don't deserve monetary reward for good ideas, or that they shouldn't be able to make a livelihood from them, but simply that they can't hold them for ransom for a value of their choosing.

 

There are no livelihoods being taken, only being lost from an inability to adapt.

[orangecat]

It depends what it is. If its a EA game I could care less or if its Windows. But when it comes to indie games or actual good software I feel as if people should buy it. Windows costs way to much and it kinda sucks. Ea games suck so who cares they are tons of money anyways. =D

[wkronbaek]

I think it's okay to do when:

1. The money i pay wouldn't go to the artist/developers (Beatles music etc)

2. There's no option to buy (ROM's, APK files to sideload on blackberry etc)

3. You want to try the content but there's no available demo - I think this is legal in EU

4. EA Games. (Serious: When you want to play the game, but disrespect the game and it's creators)

[mr-nipples]

What I usualy do is download a game illegally but if I like it I'll buy it off steam to support the developers.

Thats my approach! If there's no demo piracy has to be an option!

[Purple]

yaar

[Yoinkerman]

1.  "Paid software" is a relevant system for using said software, the same as paying for any other tangible or non-tangible product or service.  Some products and services are free, others are not.  That doesn't mean every product or service should be taken advantage of and used for free.

 

2.  I didn't say anything about lost sales, only that there is definite value in using someone elses IP without paying for it(for any use case), and that taking and using IP without permission/authorization/whatver isn't the answer.

 

Free expression and sharing of ideas is great and all, when the situation applies, but not when stuff is made for the express purpose of paying bills.

 

And yes, I do expect people to be paid for their work when they are working for money.  The same piracy argument can be made for authors that is being made for the internet.  A book only costs $3 to print, but costs much more, why?  Because you are paying for the contents, not the medium.

 

 

There's so much here I could dig into, but primarily you seem to be making the same two mistakes as Nelodiavolo...

1: That "paid software" is a relevant system for a medium where everything is free.

2: That a pirated copy somehow equates to a "lost sale" for the IP holder. While there are obviously people who have pirated digital content that is otherwise available at a value they deem appropriate (tying into the previous point), the vast majority of pirated content wouldn't have been bought even if it wasn't available for free...If anything, it'd be less likely to be purchased.

The problem is you're coming from a mental framework where a paid system is the default...Where it's "right" for IP holders to proclaim the value of their IP and expect others to pay that value for it post-creation. That's fair enough for the physical world, where building materials have cost and the product is finite (and where people aren't really given any other choice), but it doesn't work for the internet world. Piracy is viewed as the circumventing of the default, when "piracy" is actually the default for a medium where the free expression and sharing of ideas is tantamount. That isn't to say that content creators don't deserve monetary reward for good ideas, or that they shouldn't be able to make a livelihood from them, but simply that they can't hold them for ransom for a value of their choosing.

 

There are no livelihoods being taken, only being lost from an inability to adapt.

[iruixos]

I don't find myself illegally downloading games because you can get them cheap with Steam sales, especially during the Summer and Winter.

[LAwLz]

I think the worst offender of the illegal downloading is downloading Windows for free when building a new PC.

 

Everyone always raves on and on about how building your own PC will always out-spec a Dell PC or something, even at the ultra-low end, budget PCs.

 

If you were to realistically count the $100 Windows license, there is no way you could build a $300 PC that is better than a $300 Dell, since you'd actually have $200 for the PC and $100 for the OS.

 

Everyone seems to forget about the OS as part of a pre-built system.

Maybe this is just me, but I reuse my licenses, and I got several licenses for free through DreamSpark.

[deafboy]

I do whatever is most convenient... it's getting easier to buy things legally so I will do that if it's easy enough, otherwise I'll either miss it or download it.  I rarely download things illegally anymore, I just don't see the need for it like there used to...

[Toby]

1.  "Paid software" is a relevant system for using said software, the same as paying for any other tangible or non-tangible product or service.  Some products and services are free, others are not.  That doesn't mean every product or service should be taken advantage of and used for free.

 

2.  I didn't say anything about lost sales, only that there is definite value in using someone elses IP without paying for it(for any use case), and that taking and using IP without permission/authorization/whatver isn't the answer.

 

Free expression and sharing of ideas is great and all, when the situation applies, but not when stuff is made for the express purpose of paying bills.

 

And yes, I do expect people to be paid for their work when they are working for money.  The same piracy argument can be made for authors that is being made for the internet.  A book only costs $3 to print, but costs much more, why?  Because you are paying for the contents, not the medium.

 

Okay, so you're clearly saying piracy is a bad thing, but you haven't explained why. You talk about paying bills and getting paid, but having explained myself that pirating something doesn't equate to a lost sale, you claim not to be talking about lost sales...

 

So, if you aren't saying piracy equates to lost sales, then how is it affecting the content creator's livelihood, paying of bills or getting paid?

[Yoinkerman]

Sure piracy equates to lost sales.  It isn't 1:1, but it's some ratio.  Even with 0 lost sales, piracy goes against our western notion of copyright laws and IP.

 

Being a working person, I don't work for free, and I don't expect anyone else to.  If it's too expensive, I don't buy it.  I don't need to use whatever it happens to be that is the hot pirate of the month.

If no one ever buys a cd again and no one pirates it either you can be sure they'll find a way to get people to spend money.

[Matman24]

I personally never pirate games. If I can't afford it, then I'll just wait for a sale.

[Toby]

Sure piracy equates to lost sales.  It isn't 1:1, but it's some ratio.  Even with 0 lost sales, piracy goes against our western notion of copyright laws and IP.

 

Being a working person, I don't work for free, and I don't expect anyone else to.  If it's too expensive, I don't buy it.  I don't need to use whatever it happens to be that is the hot pirate of the month.

If no one ever buys a cd again and no one pirates it either you can be sure they'll find a way to get people to spend money.

 

It's some ratio (a small one), as is the amount of sales that are as a result of piracy. The problem however, is as you state, we have preconceived notions of copyright and IP (and sales) that don't work on the internet.

 

You also touched on the answer...We need to find other ways to get people to spend money. The idea of making people pay a set value for content that's been produced may be your ideal, but it's not practical for an internet environment. When people have the ever-present option to get that content for free, we need to find other ways to get people to spend money. I mentioned kickstarter earlier in the thread, but it doesn't even need to be that much of a gamble. Simply set up a crowd-funding page for an album that's already been produced, but unreleased. People can pay what they like, but it'll only become available after reaching X amount of dollars, upon which it'll be available on a pay-what-you-like basis.

 

That's just one example from my unimaginative mind, but even that is better-suited to the internet than the idea of making people pay a set amount for something that's already been set free. Who knows what the multitude of people cleverer than I could come up with...

 

People deserve to be paid for good work, and encouraging people to pay for it where it's due is certainly the direction we should be taking...but doing so within the flawed confines of the current system, that we've just copy/pasted from the physical world? That'll only result in doing our content creators a disservice.

 

Edit: Put simply, piracy isn't the problem, but simply the inevitable result of the internet + a broken payment system.

[Skcorpion86]

I don't download Illegally at all. Used to with music, not anymore though.  

[EChondo]

I buy all my music physically, games are purchased on Steam and I have Netflix to occupy my movie needs.

 

Software, well, that's a different story.

[Yoinkerman]

I'm talking more about business software that fits a need for business and less about creative works like music.  Music largely has changed to support the internet environment.  If I want to listen to something it's always readily available on youtube.  More and more smaller artists are making their stuff downloadable DRM free for a nominal cost or pay what you want.  This is awesome.  I don't buy CDs from the two big media companies anymore, and don't really listen to mainstream music either.  I don't support their current business model and won't until they get with the times.

 

Commercial products should definitely be paid for.  Why do people need (note need, not want) commercial production software at home to dink around with?  Free ones like GIMP are good alternatives, and free!  Because it's on the internet or because I want to use it seem like really crappy and flimsy answers.

 

(Hasn't adobe released a $100 photoshop or something recently?  That's finally responding to a market need)

 

It's some ratio (a small one), as is the amount of sales that are as a result of piracy. The problem however, is as you state, we have preconceived notions of copyright and IP (and sales) that don't work on the internet.

 

You also touched on the answer...We need to find other ways to get people to spend money. The idea of making people pay a set value for content that's been produced may be your ideal, but it's not practical for an internet environment. When people have the ever-present option to get that content for free, we need to find other ways to get people to spend money. I mentioned kickstarter earlier in the thread, but it doesn't even need to be that much of a gamble. Simply set up a crowd-funding page for an album that's already been produced, but unreleased. People can pay what they like, but it'll only become available after reaching X amount of dollars, upon which it'll be available on a pay-what-you-like basis.

 

That's just one example from my unimaginative mind, but even that is better-suited to the internet than the idea of making people pay a set amount for something that's already been set free. Who knows what the multitude of people cleverer than I could come up with...

 

People deserve to be paid for good work, and encouraging people to pay for it where it's due is certainly the direction we should be taking...but doing so within the flawed confines of the current system, that we've just copy/pasted from the physical world? That'll only result in doing our content creators a disservice.

 

Edit: Put simply, piracy isn't the problem, but simply the inevitable result of the internet + a broken payment system.

[Filthyfil]

It's like the women in my life.

 

Would you try before committing?

 

Same as downloading, do you play or watch the game or movie or TV show before buying retail copy?

 

I always try first before parting with my hard earnt cash. Has saved me hundreds if not thousands of dollars.