The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Robert Fraser]

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> Warning: this can turn into a long debate...

Eh; I'm enjoying it ;-P. Gives a good break from Windows Forms.

> Democracy is a compromise between the rights
> of the individual and that of the community he belongs to, for one
> example. this notion of compromise is inherit in our discussion as well:
> on the one hand we have the right of the content creator to do what he
> wants with his creation and on the other hand we have the right of the
> public to access that creation.

Indeed, the discussion is about that right.

>>> A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
>>> that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff. this
>>> is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use other
>>> alternatives.
>> Sure not everyone would have paid. But at least one person would have
>> paid. Back in high school, I would have paid for a lot of the music I
>> downloaded (perhaps not all of it) -- but I didn't since it was so easy for 
>> me to pirate it. The statement is that piracy costs at least $1 million/day in
>> LOST SALES; if you would have used a free alternative, that's not factored
>> into the argument.
> 
> Hence, that statement is flawed since the vast majority of people would
> *NOT* have bought the content in question.

No, _TAKING INTO ACCOUNT_ that some people would not have gotten the 
content "legally" and some would, I believe there's still over $1 
million/day lost through piracy. Obviously, there's no way to measure this.

Can we agree that there is at least one person who downloaded some 
content and if he had not been able to that he would have BOUGHT the 
content. If so, then there is a lost sale.

> As I said above, it's all a matter of balance:
> people are willing to pay for the _convenience_ of being able to
> download music online in good [lossless probably] quality. people are
> also willing to buy merchandise to support their favorite artist and of
> course, people are willing to pay to attend a concert/performance/etc of
> the artist. Those are all logical business models. however, people
> *aren't* willing to pay for the /right/ to download music.

Right, and that's the problem ;-P. There are also people who will go 
into an electronics store and aren't willing to pay for the right to use 
a certain MP3 player so walk out with it under their shirt.

> Where's the balance? simple - The record companies where selling us a
> cat in the bag for years and demanding us to pay again {and a larger sum
> at that] each time they switch formats. That's unacceptable to me. I am
> willing to pay for the convenience of an online service if that service
> was in fact convenient and I could get a feeling what I'm paying for.
> This does not mean DRM [this is finally dawned upon the companies]. A
> consumer expects that just like when he buys a car where he can drive it
> on what ever road he wants, the same would happen with the music.
> Since Apple allow for non-drm music in itunes - this is the last thing
> that needs to change in order for me to buy my music there. (also, I
> think the price is a bit high but that's just a matter of pricing which
> is solved by market forces)
> As soon as those online service evolve into something that is really
> convenient there will be no reason for the average user to want to
> pirate. pirating will never completely disappear but they'll be a minor
> thing.
 >
>> Selling software/music/video/intellectual property for money is an extinct
>> business model...? If that's your argument then o_O.
> 
> That's partly my argument. When was the last time you used a telegraph?
> That technology was replaced be better technologies. So what what about
> all those people that where trained with Morse code and telegraph
> equipment? Should the government force us to use telegraphs in order for
> them to keep their jobs? What about silent film actors? today actors are
> required to be able to speak properly as part of their profession, So
> what about all those actors that cannot speak properly? There are of
> course more examples where a new technology deprecated some profession
> or job. Same goes for all the jobs at record companies - they are
> unneeded and the record company itself is redundant in a world where the
> artist can create he's work alone and reach his audience directly via
> the web.

There's already good DRM-free music sites (eMusic is one; Zune store is 
about half DRM-free and has an unlimited subscription plan). For video, 
most TV stations in the US provide free streams of their popular shows 
now, and Netflix has a good portion of its content available for 
streaming/instant-viewing. Many games are available for download via 
Direct2Drive, Steam, etc., and most productivity software is now 
licensed online so you never have to even go to the store. All this 
stuff is just as easy as piracy, the difference is you have to pay.

Point: there are many paid alternatives that provide the same quality of 
experience that piracy does. People don't use them because they have to 
pay. Arguing "it's a better experience if you pirate" may have been 
valid 5 years ago, but it's not today.

Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites 
are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's 
restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software 
(I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit 
your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day 
developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to 
use it without paying you?