Best Digital Piracy Analogy

So I’m just sitting on the toi- couch. And I’m taking this survey asking about technology and media. One question asks what I think of digital piracy.

“Do you consider digital piracy to be as bad as shoplifting?”

Negating my past actions (being from the age of Napster), I “Strongly Agreed.” For some reason this question made me ponder the actual thought of what shoplifting entails and how digital piracy compares to it. I thought back to every argument I’ve ever had with stupid teenagers (and some stupid adults) on this topic. I could never really make my argument stick, though.

I once came up with an argument which involved a never ending supply of chairs. You’d take one and it would duplicate. Just like downloading a song or movie. But the reality of such a situation makes the whole analogy fall apart quickly.

I’ve tried taking the “morals” route, but most people don’t care about what’s right and wrong in this case. After all, who cares about paying a few bucks to a multibillion dollar Hollywood studio who seems to be out to get all of your money for their trivial attempts at entertaining you?

Alas, I finally figured it out! Here’s the best analogy that shows digital piracy is in fact wrong, if not the same as stealing.

First off, lets take a look at what digital piracy entails: a studio makes a movie. They put the movie in digital download form, or on one of those disc thingy’s. You take this video and put it in a format which you can place on all of your devices, stream across your home network, and share with your friends, or strangers on the internet. Technically, you paid for that copy of the movie (or a viewing license to watch that copy of the movie in its intended portal). You may not own the movie itself, but that copy is yours. If you want to back it up in case you lose the original you should be able to, right? If you feel you already paid $20+ for the DVD and shouldn’t have to pay again just to watch it on your iPod, Xbox, or computer you’re not alone. Should you be able to make copies and hand them out to your friends (when they had the opportunity to purchase the DVD just like you did)?

Lets look at WalMart now. Pretend WalMart began making products beyond their special off-brand toilet papers. Lets say they make their own media player: the WalPod. And it only costs $30! Of course, everyone will want a WalPod. Now, being WalMart they have a ton of money to make crap like this. But you decide you’re not paying $30 for something made by WalMart. So you, and most of your friends manage to find a way to circumvent the security protocols at WalMart and begin walking out with one everytime you visit. In fact, since you’re all doing it, other people start doing it as well. Pretty soon, it becomes all the rave to steal WalPods. Like I said earlier, WalMart has lots of money. However, even thought you might not think you’re going to hurt them, the reality is they are moving product (losing product?) and not making any money. They still have to pay people to work on the WalPod: designers, marketing teams, programmers, and such. As time goes on, they begin to pay these people more than they are making off the WalPod.

Now, I know what you’re thinking… “That is obviously wrong, because you are taking something from them without paying for it. Now they can never sell it and lose out on the money it would have brought in if someone would have paid for it. Digital media is not the same thing.”

Well, you’re only half right. It is true that downloading a song leaves the original in tact and still available to sell. But that’s not the similarity between the WalPod and an MP3. The similarity lies in the end result, not the existentialism of the original product.

When you download a song, movie, tv show, video game, or other digital media you have just robbed that content creator of the money you would have paid to access/own that specific digital item. They might still be able to sell the original master file, but not to you. Nor to the other people who pirated that file.

The people who worked (and possibly continue to work) on those digital items will soon be out of a job if the parent company sees that they are paying the workforce more than they are making on that item. What’s worse, people will still have access to that digital media content and neither the parent company nor the content creators will be compensated for producing it.

If that doesn’t make sense you, then you’re probably a teenager… Or just stupid. Sorry.

Diggs out.

    The Problems with Digital Content

    I was going to remove my notes for this post, and just write a nice little story about the stupidity of mankind.¬†However, I decided to use my notes as bullet points, all bulleted and everything. So first, here’s what I wish to discuss:

    • people whine but don’t and aren’t expected to do anything about it
    • studios are greedy
    • people are creatures of habit
    • change is for other people – or – change is just conforming to someone else’s opinions
    • the internet is an awesome collaboration tool – but it’s anonymity is riddled with deceit

    Now on to the meat of my blog cow.

    The Internet is a vast, virtually unlimited place. Sure, it’s limited by laws and regulations, standards, TOS and Privacy Policies, actual hard drive space, mods and administrators, and let’s not forget about the forced takedown. But besides that, and the occasional fallen utility pole, the Internet is an always-on connection to every other Internet user in the world. As such, the Internet works much like a public forum. I know there are actual forums out there, but really the entire Internet works like one big (not as orderly as, say, a Gaia website) forum. Any grief you have, opinion you’d like to share, or point you’d like to make can be done on one of many websites. You can voice your concerns in your own, personal blog. You can share your opinion in the comments of a news article. You can even belligerently¬†attack other people on any forum, comments section, or your own blog. If you’re lucky, you’ll find someone on your side. If you’re really lucky, you’ll find a large group of people who think what you think: maybe even gather a following. If you’re really, really, really lucky you’ll even find people who despise your very existence, they hate your views so much.

    No matter how popular you are, how popular your opinion is, or who shares or opposes it all this work sharing these opinions is practically¬†pointless. Most people are only interested in voicing a distaste for current events and the people involved. But when it comes right down to it most of these people aren’t actually interested in taking any action against the¬†perpetrators of these villainous¬†crimes against humanity (as so these posters and commentors might have you believe). Further more, no one really expects anyone to do anything about it. Sure, every now and then a commenter¬†will say, “do something about it if you hate it so much.” But people rarely ever do anything more than simply comment back with a usually insulting, and useless,¬†rebuttal.

    Want an example? *sigh* OK, let me get out my example box… *dig, dig, dig* AH! Here we go!

    Sony Music wants way too much money for CDs, downloadable songs, or licences for streaming companies. If you are fed up with paying so much for something which doesn’t seem so valuable (something you believe you get for free from Pandora or the local radio stations) then you need to do something about it. Stop buying music. Don’t buy the CD, don’t buy the MP3, and don’t use services such as Pandora, Slacker, Last.fm, or any other streaming service, including traditional radio (all of which pay licensing fees to Sony Music in order to be able to play their songs). If you boycott Sony Music, it’s not going to make much of a difference. If you get all your friends and their friends (real and digital) to boycott Sony Music, it might get some attention, but it will still be virtually useless. Now, if you can get 100s of 1000s of people across the web to boycott Sony Music, then they will probably start losing money. It’s at that point they will finally realize pirating is not as big a concern as no one buying any of their music. If you are worried about harming the artist who has very little, if anything, to do with licensing and pricing… don’t be. If the studio is losing money, then yes, the artist will lose out on money. But we need them to join us, and maybe this is the only way to get them on board. Currently, the studio might be the only way an artist can get their music out. It’s my understanding that once you sign a contract with a recording studio they own everything you do now and will do in the future. You cannot, in many cases, release music on your own (per the contract you signed). So if everyone is feeling the financial pinch, perhaps they will finally do something to please consumers. After all, studios are greedy. They will not enjoy not having your money.

    This is why we’re in the situations we are in now. This is why DVD’s come with digital copies that you need to activate or pay fees to stream to your devices. This is why you listen to incessant ads on music streaming sites. This is why gaming companies are trying to find a way to keep you from selling used games and book publishers charge the same price for a digital copy as they do a printed book. This is why cloud storage such as Amazon’s cloud and Google Music (which let you access music you have purchased from any Internet connected device on the planet)¬†are in the sights of the RIAA and MPAA. Greed. The studios want you to buy content from them, but they don’t want you to actually use it. Well, they do¬†want you to use it, but only once. If you purchase content on a computer, then that’s where you can use it. Want to use it on a phone, MP3 player, game console, TV, tablet, work computer, or other device? They want you to pay a fee for each device you want to use. Maybe they don’t get it. Maybe consumers don’t get it. Maybe no one truly “get’s it.” Get it?

    Whatever the issues, whatever the problems, whatever the solutions nothing will change. People are creatures of habit. Some of us are creatures of the night… but that’s a completely different topic. If someone has been listening to music – no, wait… I’ve got a better example. Let’s say you bought a TV. You can enjoy any of the local TV stations without having to pay a dime to anyone. You already paid $100 to $300 dollars for a TV (we’re talking old CRTs… you¬†probably paid¬†much more if you bought a flat screen TV within the past few years). Now you can enjoy years of TV programming without having to pay another dime. Wait? What? You have to buy a special device which will convert the brand new broadcasting signals to a format your old TV can handle? Well, how much is that going to cost? WHAT! $50 to $100 for a decent converter box!? You have got to be kidding…?

    Ok, this isn’t that great of an example. The government mandated this because they felt we were too far behind Europe. TV networks didn’t make money off this, either. But it is kind of annoying. Here’s something which is essentially free, and now you have to pay to continue enjoying it. People were not happy about this. This is why we used our tax money to fund the DTV voucher program. People did not want to pay to continue to use their televisions. Not just that, but once they began watching DTV streams, they were not happy with what they saw. Sure, the video quality was consistent among all the channels; even beautiful if you only had poor signal, or now have an HDTV. But that’s only if you got a good signal. Say goodbye to poor but still viewable signals and hello to “slow Internet connection streaming” channels (with no ability to buffer). This all goes to show that people just simply do not like it when things change. I know what you’re going to say: “but change is good. Change forces innovation and allows us to move towards the future.”

    That’s a pretty simple, positive view of change. In actuality, most people think of change mush differently. Have you heard the one about the scientist and the priest? A scientist and priest meet up every Sunday afternoon to talk about philosophy, science, and religion. The scientist puts his “faith” in observable facts. The priest puts his faith in God. Both men talk to each other about how they need to change. The scientist thinks the priest needs to face the facts and realize God cannot be proven and “miracles” can be scientifically explained. The priest tells the scientist that he needs to realize the facts are not as important as the truth, and science can’t explain everything.

    Sorry, that wasn’t supposed to be a joke, but I did start it off like one. My bad. The point is both men think the other needs to make some changes in their life. These “changes” are no more than the opinion of one person about how to live, what to think, how to act and who to be. When we tell the record, movie, and gaming studios they need to change their strategies for a digital world, it’s really just our opinion. They’re opinion is not to change, but simply use the same strategies they’ve been using in the digital world, with little to no change. Why should they anyway?

    They should because everyone seems to think so. They should because people are pirating their content anyway. They should because it would be smart. But this just brings us back to the nature of the Internet. It is a great collaboration tool, with¬†millions of people contributing to projects, sites, and petitions.¬†It is very difficult, as I’ve stated before,¬†to get all of these contributors to act. Unless you want to right wrongs. The hacking group Anonymous has recently shown just how powerful their might can be. Studios are afraid of what this kind of power can mean for their precious content. Already people can upload movies, music, and any software to the web for other to download. There’s the concept of “free is free” where people download these things because they’re free, not necessarily because they wanted it. This concept in action has made studios think there is a huge market for their content which isn’t paying for the content but getting it anyway.

    Merge Anonymous and others like them with pirates, viruses and malware, phishing sites, spam, and identity thiefs¬†the Internet looks like (and in reality, can be) a dangerous place. Despite its¬†power for bringing people together, all that’s wrong with it is pushing studios away from its customers. Which, in turn pushes certain people *cough* anonymous *cough* together against the studios. Which in turn pushes the studios further away from its customers. Is there no end?

    Digital content can, for all intents and purposes, be thought of as nothingness; and only as valuable as the consumer believes it to be. After all, what is a digital song? What is the music on¬†a vinyl record for that matter? At least you can hold the record in your hand. I think studios put too much value on their content. Sure, it might take $2 million dollars to make a movie, but that doesn’t mean I want to pay 20 bucks for it. It also doesn’t mean I’ll pay any more for a movie that cost the studio $34 million to produce. And now it all comes back to greed. If people want to watch a movie, TV show, or sports game a studio will charge them as much as they can before people say, “no way!” They do this out of greed. The studio wants as much money as they can milk out of its customers. And they want to get as much money as often as they can. At least that’s how it looks, which is why Megaupload existed. People are as cheap as studios are greedy.

    But it’s not about us, right? We’re not the problem. Consumers are where the solutions lies. Right? We don’t need to change, the studios need to change. It’s a fact! Who’s with me?!