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

[Cronus]

The day I stop pirating is the day that every form of media I consume has a service equivalent to that of Steam and/or gog. It's not simply about unlimited this or that, it's about how that unlimited content is distributed and the degree to which the provider/copyright holder respects me as a consumer. I have no qualms spending money on Steam or gog (though I dislike that Steam is still essentially DRM, and not just a delivery platform, but it's still more simple and has benefits that outweigh that particular fault), or likewise music services like bandcamp. But if you're going to toss something like SecuRom at me, or treat me like scum as certain companies do, then I'm going to act like scum. Treat me with respect, like a lot of the indie devs do, give me a copy on this and that and this platform, let me play it on any device in any way I want, and mold it into something else more convenient if I like and I'm glad to pay. I haven't pirated a game in three years because I feel like I'm being treated fairly and being given added benefits for being a legitimate customer.

Looking past games, a lot of other media still has a long way to go. Music is better than it used to be, encoded in 128-192kbps and being zipped into locked down containers, but I still refuse to pay for anything I can find "for cheap" unless I'm allowed my purchase in a lossless format to do with what I will. Until then, the music industry can quite frankly suck it. I'll be putting my money into artists like those on bandcamp, who give me my music however I want it and trust me to pay them a fair price or set the price they feel is fair. Then there's the matter of how much actually goes to the artist in services like that compared to those signed on to a record label, but that's another discussion entirely.

Videos are still kind of strange. I'm a member of Netflix and Amazon Prime, and we have a Direct TV subscription with the bells and whistles like HBO and Showtime, but I'll still end up pirating most of what I want to watch because those services are full of content holes that pop in and out of existence based on tenuous contracts and other nonsense. Again, it's a service problem. There's not much point in saying I should watch something through legitimate means when I'm not provided legitimate means to watch it. Just this year, I missed a couple Game of Thrones episodes. And what did I do? I pirated them. Why? Because HBO decided that the bandwidth bill was a bit too high for their HBO GO service, which, let me remind you, is only available to customers who subscribe to HBO on their satellite/cable network, which we do. So when I went to watch them on the site, I get something akin to 360p Youtube quality, which is outrageous considering we have 25mb internet, and other on demand services like Netflix are crystal clear. It's a matter of service. Give me what I can get through piracy, as easily, and with an equal or greater convenience and you've easily got a customer. Treat me like a cow for the milking, with disregard for my convenience and my quality of experience, and I'll pick the alternative 100% of the time. When what I have to choose from is a trashy low quality stream and a H.264 rip at ~4000kbps with AC3 audio, which am I going to pick?

 

Books are a different beast. I don't mind buying eBooks, even with DRM, but my one rule is that if the author is dead they won't get a cent from me.

I think that indiscriminate piracy is wrong, but if a company is going to treat me like a worm, and make it their business to deny me their content served in a high quality, sanely-priced form, then I'm afraid I'll be disposing of my disposable income to someone who does. Then if I don't have enough money left to get the re-re-release super-extended final final cut of The Hobbit Trilogy through legitimate means in 5 years, too bad.

[Yoinkerman]

Do you pay for a television package where you would be able to watch the shows when they do air?

 

I'm cool with downloading tv shows if you also pay the television provider.  You, not your mom and dad though.

 

I only pirate because of the delayed airing of TV-shows in Sweden/Europe and to get access to it all would cost a fortune.

[Mac]

If I had enough money, I would pirate still, but then buy the film after.

The main reason why I pirate is so i can see films before they're released.

[Yoinkerman]

Intellectual property is not property?  A book's value is only worth the paper it is printed on?  Your computer is only worth what you can melt it down for and sell it for scrap?  You are saying work done has no value, and don't seem to understand, or are willfully blind towards authorized use of IP.

 

I don't think theft means what you think it means.
 
theft
noun: The action or crime of stealing: "he was convicted of theft"; "the latest theft happened at a garage".
 
Stealing
noun: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".
 
The creator does not lose property when someone downloads their product illegally, and it is therefore not theft or stealing.
 
By the way, piracy is the word used to make it more horrible than it is. 
 

[ALXAndy]

I don't think theft means what you think it means.

 

theft

noun: The action or crime of stealing: "he was convicted of theft"; "the latest theft happened at a garage".

 

Stealing

noun: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".

 

The creator does not lose property when someone downloads their product illegally, and it is therefore not theft or stealing.

 

By the way, piracy is the word used to make it more horrible than it is. 

 

 

Without a valid license that game IS some one else's property. In fact, the source code,art work and so on all remains their property whether you buy it or not.

 

So, taking it without paying (just like taking any other object without paying) is theft. Why on earth would you not consider it their property if they had spent years making it?

[LAwLz]

Intellectual property is not property?  A book's value is only worth the paper it is printed on?  Your computer is only worth what you can melt it down for and sell it for scrap?  You are saying work done has no value, and don't seem to understand, or are willfully blind towards authorized use of IP.

 

Without a valid license that game IS some one else's property. In fact, the source code,art work and so on all remains their property whether you buy it or not.

 

So, taking it without paying (just like taking any other object without paying) is theft. Why on earth would you not consider it their property if they had spent years making it?

 

No, it's by definition not theft. It's illegal use of someone's intellectual property, but it's not stealing of theft. You are making strawman arguments. Also, just because it isn't theft doesn't make it OK. Personally, I don't think it's that bad and I highly recommend you go read my quite long post about it in this thread. It cites a lot of different sources which explains how to solve piracy, why it can benefit the people making it, why it doesn't harm the industry as much as you might think it does, why it isn't the same as theft or stealing and a lot of other common misconceptions about piracy.

 

My post is on page 11.

 

Here is the estimated value of my Steam library by the way, just to prove that I am not a big pirate of games.

[Forza-x73]

As long as the game is below 20$ i'll buy it, otherwise I'm a Pirate, argh  :D

[_wky]

I do not pirate films or games anymore. I do download TV daily though.

 

I download TV because I can get it at a higher quality than it is available elsewhere. I rent films from Google Play. It is easier and more convenient than adding them to a torrent client.

 

I think that the results to this poll on this forum would not reflect the general public. The average age on this forum is probably 14 - 17. People in this age range dont generally have much disposable income and are going to try and get things for free when they can.

I'd have to agree there (aged 16) If I had the money for stuff I wouldn't pirate it.

[CJPowell27]

I honestly just youtube my music because I have unlimited data and me and my friends trade games 

[PhilPC]

It's not about cost, it's about quality of service. I have a Bluray collection of movies I like, but since I sold my PS3, I haven't had a Bluray drive/player. As soon as someone who isn't Apple or MS release a viable option for legal HD distribution like steam, I will happily buy/rent movies and tv shows off of it.

 

And whilst Google Play does exist, the youtube bitrates (8,000kbps) are too low for me; If I paid for content, I'd be expecting 1080p to be 30,000 kbps as a barley passable minimum. I'd prefer see film grain and natural decay over digital compression scars, any day.

[JaeDee884]

I already have, thanks to netflix and steam.
Music is cheap anyway especially on places like bandcamp. soundcloud is even cheaper!

[newbie]

The only thing I pirate as far as I can think is music and if games and movies were cheaper I would buy them (I'm a bit of a cheap guy since I buy first hand when there's a sale or whatever)

[LAwLz]

It's not about cost, it's about quality of service. I have a Bluray collection of movies I like, but since I sold my PS3, I haven't had a Bluray drive/player. As soon as someone who isn't Apple or MS release a viable option for legal HD distribution like steam, I will happily buy/rent movies and tv shows off of it.

 

And whilst Google Play does exist, the youtube bitrates (8,000kbps) are too low for me; If I paid for content, I'd be expecting 1080p to be 30,000 kbps as a barley passable minimum. I'd prefer see film grain and natural decay over digital compression scars, any day.

30,000 kbps? No, that's waaaaay too much. That would make a 2 hour movie ~26GB big (without audio). Even 10Mbps is very high quality. YouTube at 1080 is usually around 4 megabit per second, not 8 megabit. I highly doubt that you think 30Mbps is "barely passable minimum".

 

The video "

" on Youtube, has a bitrate of 9444Kbps, and that's the 4K version. The 1080p version has a bitrate of 5005Kbps. Get the 4K version and look at it, do you really think that it would need to be over 3 times as high bitrate for you to even label it as watchable?

[JefferyD90]

Just so you guys know, with Xbox Music you can get unlimited music for only $10 a month... but anyways

 

I wouldn't pirate near as much if:

 

#1 prices were reasonable (I still don't think a video game is worth more than $40 even if its bran new and all the rage) not even a unlimited situation, just something more realistic.

#2 game developers gave EVERYONE a playable demo (usually when I pirate games it is simply to see how the game actually is, I will 99% of the time either buy it or uninstall it within a few hours of playing)

#3 if it was as easy as pirating to buy it legally.  Usually when you buy a game you have to enter your product code, and register the game, create a account, download a updater, and have internet access, AND still have the disc inserted into the system...  If I pirate a game I download, copy and paste the cracked exe and play hassle free for the rest of my life.  When it comes to movies and music if I pirate it I don't have to worry about it working on xxx devices and copying it and everything in between it just is there and works, not like how you have to use xxx format with yyy device...

[JefferyD90]

I agree... and whats with this PhilPC guy not accepting what Apple or Microsoft produces?  You mean to tell me if Microsoft or Apple makes a product that is absolutely perfect for you, you still wouldn't use it?  That sounds very ignorant...  I suggest you check out xbox music, its literally the perfect music solution.

[PhilPC]

30,000 kbps? No, that's waaaaay too much. That would make a 2 hour movie ~26GB big (without audio). Even 10Mbps is very high quality. YouTube at 1080 is usually around 4 megabit per second, not 8 megabit. I highly doubt that you think 30Mbps is "barely passable minimum".

 

The video "

" on Youtube, has a bitrate of 9444Kbps, and that's the 4K version. The 1080p version has a bitrate of 5005Kbps. Get the 4K version and look at it, do you really think that it would need to be over 3 times as high bitrate for you to even label it as watchable?

Downloaded the 4k using IDM, just to humor you. If you pause at any point there is little to no detail in the shadows, and you can still see the compressed chunks across any movement. There's no point having 1920x1080 pixels per frame if half of them look like crap. If you're happy to pay for an inferior product, by all means do it, you're entitled, but everyone who buys the product should be entitled to the highest quality that the publisher can offer. 

If you call a service that maxes out AAC at 256kbps, perfect, when Google Play does 320kbps, a CD is 1,411kbps, and the legally acquirable 24/96 Digital Edition of Muse - The 2nd Law ranges between 2,625 - 3,037 kbps, then you're more ignorant than I.

 

The publishers have access to the master recordings, and the theatrical releases, if you buy a product, you should have access to that level of quality.

[LAwLz]

Downloaded the 4k using IDM, just to humor you. If you pause at any point there is little to no detail in the shadows, and you can still see the compressed chunks across any movement. There's no point having 1920x1080 pixels per frame if half of them look like crap. If you're happy to pay for an inferior product, by all means do it, you're entitled, but everyone who buys the product should be entitled to the highest quality that the publisher can offer.

If you call a service that maxes out AAC at 256kbps, perfect, when Google Play does 320kbps, a CD is 1,411kbps, and the legally acquirable 24/96 Digital Edition of Muse - The 2nd Law ranges between 2,625 - 3,037 kbps, then you're more ignorant than I.

The publishers have access to the master recordings, and the theatrical releases, if you buy a product, you should have access to that level of quality.

So you want to download ~30GB files? I highly doubt that they would look much better than a ~10Mbps file to be honest. 10 to 20 isn't a doubling in quality, and the diminishing return just becomes greater and greater. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything about 256Kbps AAC being perfect. I don't understand why you are even brining up audio at all since my post was about the video bitrate (which by the way, you don't seem to know that much about and even goes as far as to post completely wrong "facts" as if they were true, such as the bitrate on youtube videos) . I can do a blind test with proper AAC vs FLAC if you believe that you will be able to hear the difference (I highly doubt that you will).

If I bought a physical disc then yes, you should get as high quality as possible, since using more of the disc would not have any drawback for you. If you download or stream something then you should get the quality where size:quality is at its peak (which will be much MUCH lower than 30Mbps for 1080p content). Why get a 30GB file when a 10GB one will look 95% as good? I am not sure what "compressed chunks" you are referring to during movements, can you please post an image showing them? Which downscaling algorithm did you use when you played the TimeScapes video by the way? That has an effect on the final video quality as well.

A CD is not 1411Kbps by the way, bitrate on audio is not necessarily a reliable indicator of quality. I can very easily make a 192Kbps file which sounds much better than a ~1000Kbps file.

[PhilPC]

So you want to download ~30GB files? I highly doubt that they would look much better than a ~10Mbps file to be honest.

 

So what if I do? Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean that I should have the option.

 

 I don't understand why you are even brining up audio at all since my post was about the video bitrate (which by the way, you don't seem to know that much about and even goes as far as to post completely wrong "facts" as if they were true, such as the bitrate on youtube videos) . I can do a blind test with proper AAC vs FLAC if you believe that you will be able to hear the difference (I highly doubt that you will).

See:

 

I agree... and whats with this PhilPC guy not accepting what Apple or Microsoft produces?  You mean to tell me if Microsoft or Apple makes a product that is absolutely perfect for you, you still wouldn't use it?  That sounds very ignorant...  I suggest you check out xbox music, its literally the perfect music solution.

He said it was "literally the perfect music solution". implying that Xbox music is the definition of perfection in the distribution of music. And if you don't know what lossy compression sounds like, then that's not my problem. You can listen to midi covers of an album if you want, because it should be up to the discretion of the customer as to what quality they receive.

and as far as youtube bitrates:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en

 

 

If I bought a physical disc then yes, you should get as high quality as possible, since using more of the disc would not have any drawback for you.

There is a drawback because it's been compressed to be limited by the size of an inferior medium, the publishers have the masters, and the theatrical copies, and they should be publishing that.

[Night]

Id like to add something. Demos. Release a god damn demo, then I wouldnt have to pirate anything.

I currently have Grid2 and Metro Last light both installed on my computer, both pirated, Both not being played. Ive played about 30-60 minutes of both and am still on the fence about buying them. 

The fact I couldnt just download a demo with the first few levels or something means I have to pirate it to decide if I like it not. Or rent it on console which is totaly beside the point.


Either developers/publishers need to make demos for everything OR piracy needs to have some sort of sub law regarding how much of the content you have experienced.


Demo Disks for PS2. Worked fantasticly. I buy the magazine I get a demo disk. I purchased Hitman: Blood Money and Shinobido from my experience I had on a demo disk. I only got one level on the demo disks but it was enough to show me that the game was fun and worth my money. Hitman: Blood Money is an excelent example of the demo working wonders since it is in actual fact the entire first level.

[Rhotis]

I dont pirate, i buy used, but if games and movies were cheaper i would buy first hand,I do understand why games are so expensive but with things like steam, i think, no used games on console would have helped make games, cheaper in the long run. this is just my opinion though.

 

Used games are not making games more expensive.  What makes games more expensive is people are willing to actually pay what they charge for them.  Back in the day they used to blame it on everything under the sun.  Its piracy (pre internet), its the cost of packaging, its the cost of marketing (they did almost none back then) its this that or the other.  They will always give you an excuse why its so expensive but the reality is it is so expensive because there are enough people willing to pay that price for them to make money.  

[Toby]

go without.

 

Why? Obviously buying is better than pirating, but pirating supports the content creators more than going without.

[Toby]

Not really. I would still recommend it. Think of it in terms of a Titan. You can't afford it but your not going to steal it. But you will still recommend it to people.

 

Except most piratical media isn't quite so objective as a GPU, which has concrete metrics.

 

When was the last time you recommended a song you hadn't heard?

[LAwLz]

So what if I do? Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean that I should have the option.

It's just placebo so it's stupid to include that in your service.

 

 

He said it was "literally the perfect music solution". implying that Xbox music is the definition of perfection in the distribution of music. And if you don't know what lossy compression sounds like, then that's not my problem. You can listen to midi covers of an album if you want, because it should be up to the discretion of the customer as to what quality they receive.

 

You might not have noticed this, but the person you are quoting is not me. I didn't even reply to him so again, I have no idea why you're brining it up in the conversation you are having with me. Want me to do an audio blind test for you? I know what badly compressed audio sounds like (either low bit rate or has been lossy transcoded several times) and I know what good transcoded audio sounds like (for example FLAC/ALAC/WAV transcoded to AAC, Opus or Vorbis at proper bitrate) and even with a very high end setup, you would be hard pressed to notice the difference. Want me to make a blind test for you?

 

 

and as far as youtube bitrates:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en

You might not have noticed this, but that's for when you upload. That is BEFORE Youtube transcodes it. Just look at the 4K video I linked before and check the bitrate on that video. The bitrate on the 1080p version is 5Mbps, and you say it would need to be 6 times as high for it to be even "passable" in your opinion. You're under extremely heavy placebo, or don't know what quality you get with different bitrates on average (which would explain why you greatly overestimate the bitrate used in YouTube videos, as well as overestimate the bitrate you think is needed for the video to be "passable" as far as quality goes).

 

 

There is a drawback because it's been compressed to be limited by the size of an inferior medium, the publishers have the masters, and the theatrical copies, and they should be publishing that.

50GB is much much more than needed for almost flawless image quality compared to the master. Again, the diminishing return is enormous after a certain bitrate (which I would argue is about 10Mbps at 1080p on most life action movies).

So what you want is the same quality as the master version? Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Let's say the Wizard of Oz as an example. The fairly new digital remaster of that movie is 50MB each frame. Let's assume that the whole movie is roughly 24 frames per second, and the movie is 103 minutes. What you are asking for is the master copy, correct? That means that the if you got the movies in the quality you wanted, a 103 minute movie would be over 7 TERABYTES big. Are you out of your mind? Each frame is 4K with a 16 bit color depth for those of you who are interested. It's still not super sharp by the way, since cameras are far from as good as our eyes when it comes to picking up images. I did not take audio into consideration when I calculated that size by the way, but that takes far less space (I doubt that it would be even 1GB with lossless audio with 6 channels, a sampling rate of 48KHz and a bit depth of 16 bits).

[Toby]

Sings are different because you can listen to them legally without buying them.

 

If you're listening to a song, legally, then you aren't really "going without", are you?

 

How about a movie? What's the last movie you recommended without knowing plot details of? What's the last game you recommended without playing? What's the last book you recommended without reading?

 

You also have the fact that pirating makes you more likely to buy things associated with it...When was the last time you watched the sequel of a film because of the original you'd never seen? When was the last time you bought the sophomore album of a band because of the debut album you never listened to? When was the last time you purchased DLC for a game you didn't own? I'm assuming you'd agree that someone's more likely to buy the sequel of a game they'd played in its entirety than a game they hadn't...

[Toby]

Yea, but they are likely not to buy the sequel but pirate it instead.

 

"Yea, but" is as far as you need to go. If people are more likely to buy "Y" if they pirate "X" than if they went without "X", then piracy is preferable to all parties, even if the majority would pirate the sequel, that minority who pay for it as a result of pirating the original is still better than none of them paying for it (though I'd agree that encouraging people to pay what they feel it's worth (not the price someone else has decided to set it at) is something we should be doing).