(no subject)
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/13848901.htm
So, at risk of repeating myself, there is a logical flaw here. I'm not saying piracy is good, but insinuating that all music/movie/software pirates have ties to organized crime treads a fine line of fear mongering.
Secondly, how exactly does one know how much money piracy has 'cost'. For example:
- A pirated work costs the company nothing to produce, therefor it has no value.
- A pirated work cuts into sales, which is potential income that is not coming in, and therefor is a loss.
- A pirated work not only eats sales, but the cost of battling it as well, in technology and research as well as advertising and lobbying.
They're all weak arguments, but they're the ones I hear the most. The first one makes no sense because there is a recognized up-front production cost, and -if it were truely value-less- would be freely available, rather than at low-low prices on your nearest streetcorner.
The second is most common, and completely bogus number-massaging. You can't say that every pirated copy that's sold (to say nothing of the ones that aren't) are lost potential sales. Read the article. These people are poor. They're not going to pay 10% of a weekly wage for a CD. *I* won't pay $24 for a DVD. Therefor, if I get a pirated copy, I am not a lost sale? Are you losing sales? Probably. But the numbers seem to be pulled out of some very dark places. What it really seems to say is that the industry is not responding to market forces. That's their decision, of course, but it seems to be killing them. If I could buy new DVDs for $9 (the cost of the used ones I regularly buy), I would buy more DVDs. But I'm not paying $24 for The Brother's Grimm. Just, no. Supply and demand. There's just no other supply, so people make their own.
The third is the truest statement, but.. well.. It's a self imposed hardship. I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be fought, just that if you're spending, say, $20M to combat $25M of 'losses', maybe you should save $20M, cut the prices in half, and make up the money in volume. Your target for 'profit' is $20M lower, after all. And if it doesnt work and you go bankrupt.. well.. it was meant to happen.
Or you could just stay in business and sue the hell out of anybody you pick out of a phonebook, despite any actual proof, or even probable cause.
Yeah, just keep doing that.
So, at risk of repeating myself, there is a logical flaw here. I'm not saying piracy is good, but insinuating that all music/movie/software pirates have ties to organized crime treads a fine line of fear mongering.
Secondly, how exactly does one know how much money piracy has 'cost'. For example:
- A pirated work costs the company nothing to produce, therefor it has no value.
- A pirated work cuts into sales, which is potential income that is not coming in, and therefor is a loss.
- A pirated work not only eats sales, but the cost of battling it as well, in technology and research as well as advertising and lobbying.
They're all weak arguments, but they're the ones I hear the most. The first one makes no sense because there is a recognized up-front production cost, and -if it were truely value-less- would be freely available, rather than at low-low prices on your nearest streetcorner.
The second is most common, and completely bogus number-massaging. You can't say that every pirated copy that's sold (to say nothing of the ones that aren't) are lost potential sales. Read the article. These people are poor. They're not going to pay 10% of a weekly wage for a CD. *I* won't pay $24 for a DVD. Therefor, if I get a pirated copy, I am not a lost sale? Are you losing sales? Probably. But the numbers seem to be pulled out of some very dark places. What it really seems to say is that the industry is not responding to market forces. That's their decision, of course, but it seems to be killing them. If I could buy new DVDs for $9 (the cost of the used ones I regularly buy), I would buy more DVDs. But I'm not paying $24 for The Brother's Grimm. Just, no. Supply and demand. There's just no other supply, so people make their own.
The third is the truest statement, but.. well.. It's a self imposed hardship. I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be fought, just that if you're spending, say, $20M to combat $25M of 'losses', maybe you should save $20M, cut the prices in half, and make up the money in volume. Your target for 'profit' is $20M lower, after all. And if it doesnt work and you go bankrupt.. well.. it was meant to happen.
Or you could just stay in business and sue the hell out of anybody you pick out of a phonebook, despite any actual proof, or even probable cause.
Yeah, just keep doing that.