From above:
'The Dutch firm Ecory was commissioned to research the impact of piracy for several months, eventually submitting a 304-page report to the EU in May 2015. The report concluded that: “In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements. That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.”
The report found that illegal downloads and streams can actually boost legal sales of games, according to the report. The only negative link the report found was with major blockbuster films: “The results show a displacement rate of 40 percent which means that for every ten recent top films watched illegally, four fewer films are consumed legally.”'
But, maybe this report is taking this into account too??
I obviously don't have time to read a 300 page report—I wish I did—but the conclusion says:
> With regard to total effects of online copyright infringements on legal transactions, there are no robustly significant findings. The strongest finding applies to films/TV-series, where a displacement rate of 27 with an error margin of roughly 36 per cent (two times the standard error) only indicates that online copyright infringements are much more likely to have negative than positive effects.
The conclusion goes on to discuss each type of media. Here's the section on games:
> For games, the estimated effect of illegal online transactions on sales is positive because only free games are more likely displaced by online copyright infringements than not. The overall estimate is 24 extra legal transactions (including free games) for every 100 online copyright infringements, with an error margin of 45 per cent (two times the standard error). The positive effect of illegal downloads and streams on the sales of games may be explained by players getting hooked and then paying to play the game with extra bonuses or at extra levels.
If this is what was meant by "illegal downloads and streams can actually boost legal sales of games" (and it's possible they're talking about something else which isn't in the conclusion), I don't find that convincing. It's within the margin of error and includes free transactions.
Moreover, I firmly believe that we are never going to have good data on this! You're trying to measure two things that are virtually impossible to measure with any accuracy: (1) how much piracy is taking place, and (2) what would sales have been without the piracy.
(I've edited my comment to actually quote the paper)
A study showing no statistically significant effect is not an absence of evidence, it is evidence of the absence of a large effect.
I honestly don't understand how you would even attempt to measure something like this. There's no counterfactual. How can you possibly know what sales would have been without piracy?
This study appears to be relying on survey results. That seems questionable to me, because no one wants to admit "I totally would buy more books if piracy wasn't an option, but I choose piracy because I like having money and I think authors deserve to starve." I'm exaggerating for the sake of effect, but really, how can anyone ever know what they would have purchased under different circumstances? It's human nature to self-rationalize your actions. And yet, despite this, the study still didn't find statistically significant results!
Maybe if one country ever manages to truly cut off access to piracy websites, and there's another economically and sociologically similar country where piracy remains readily available, it will be possible to get some valid data on this question. I mostly hope this doesn't ever happen, because while I'm not a fan of piracy, I am a fan of the free internet!
This isn't true though, as they conclude a 40% displacement in blockbuster movie sales. You would need a better analysis of their methodology to dismiss their other conclusions
However, having seen the report now, this section on top films seems to use a different methodology to that used for books, so it's not really comparable, and in general I wouldn't put much confidence in these results anyway.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if evidence was sought and not found, and much of science is based on this. Or if evidence of presence should be expected ... consider for example the absence of evidence of an elephant in your living room.
This saying should die along with "you can't prove a negative"--Euclid proved that there is no greatest prime over 2000 years ago. What can't be proven is a universal empirical--positive or negative--such as "no raven is white" or "all ravens are black".
This is zero-sum thinking. Do you oppose libraries on the same principle?
Sometimes making a thing accessible can increase the overall market for the good, because it trains the behavior. The market for books requires readers, and readers are created by people reading.
No, because libraries have to buy the books! If lots of people check out a book, the library will have to buy more copies! Yes, maybe the authors loose out on some revenue, but there's a clear relationship between number of readers and the author getting paid for their work.
This is also why I thought the Internet Archive's lending lending library was great! I'm aware they got sued anyway, and I think that's a real shame.
I think this is a situation where doing so doesn't make much sense. This is all about compromising, I think that must be the premise.
As I said, I loved the Internet Archive's approach to this! That's very much not what Anna's archive is doing.
I agree the industry would have a hard time surviving off library sales alone, in the same way that most businesses rely on multiple revenue streams to make ends meet, but I think library revenue is much more significant than you're making it out to be!
As for anecdota, I have more than once borrowed a library book and then purchased a copy so I could read it again or to finish it if demand is strong enough that I would have to wait weeks or months to be able to borrow it again.
There's plenty of incentive for most people to buy the real book rather than wait for the queue.
(I've also found libraries a useful way to discover lesser-known authors, since you can quickly sample/browse books on the shelves. But they wont have all of the books published by those unknown authors.... so I end up buying/ordering other things by them)
I'm someone who used to be a voracious reader. In my childhood alone I would devour paperbacks and hardcovers like nobody's business. My summers were spent destroying the full summer reading list distributed by my school in weeks, and then going to the library to find more things to read. I have had thousands and thousands of physical books in my hands during my life. But I still prefer digital.
I only purchase digital books that either have no DRM, or stripable DRM.
I don't specifically need the physical book; space-wise it'd be difficult to keep all of the books I'd like to own. Just not enough space. That means that DRM becomes a major concern; I have absolutely no issue with stripping DRM for my own use whether it's a game, movie, music, or book.
> I'm not against consumer boycotts, but it should generally come with a sacrifice on both sides--for consumers, that means missing out on the product or service.
I'm curious as to why you feel this way, genuinely. The decision to boycott means that there is no sale, full stop, so no money is being handed over. Why does anything after that matter? The important part, the money, is already decided from the start.
But if this is already true by default, then we're back to square one where the important financial decision was already made. Again, if it was already decided by default that there is no sale to be made, then whatever the end user does after that is irrelevant.
But beside that, in my last response I gave you three very common reasons that people do buy things against their own financial interests, and you've ignored that part. How do you fit that into your argument?
The main reason to download "pirated" books is that they get rid of all annoying barriers that exist in "legitimate" copies. It's a better product.
Gabe figured it out eons ago, steam is the proof.
Because most people don't care! I wish they did, because I'm like you, I do care about owning DRM free media! I buy videos game from GOG wherever possible, and audiobooks from a combination of downpour.com and libro.fm. Guess what most people do? They buy games on Steam and audiobooks on Audible.
Audible is the one that really breaks my heart! Games and movies I understand, because the DRM free sources have such narrow selections, but I can find just about any audiobook I want on either Downpour or libro.fm; every once in a while I'll come across an audible exclusive, but it doesn't happen frequently. And yet, everybody uses Audible!
And, sure, there are known ways to strip Audible DRM, but with DRM free stores so readily accessible, why wouldn't you use those?
Just had a browse of Downpour. They say that it's mostly DRM-free. I don't get it. How come the rights holders don't complain? My experience of DRM-free e-books is that the available titles are, let's say, nothing I would want to read. And audiobooks have higher production value because of the voice acting. What A-list authors are narrating their own books and then allowing them to be sold DRM-free?
I can't tell you why publishers make the decisions they do, but there's no trick here, if that's what you're asking. DRM free audio books are widely available and have been widely available for a long time now.
The real question is, why does Audible insist on putting DRM on their Audiobooks when the publishers clearly don't care? I don't know the answer to that either, but the upshot is that everyone should stop buying from Audible!
I like the idea that consumers only buy stuff out of moral obligation.
Like if you went to your ethical friend’s house and saw that he had empty book cases and no art on his walls because he hasn’t yet been imbued with the requisite moral fervor necessary to buy anything. It’s hard for him to be sure what he’s obligated to buy or that he’s obligated to buy anything since it would be wrong of him to know what’s inside any book without buying it first.
And then you went to your no-good, dirty, downright despicable friend’s house and it’s full of books and art because for every 20 books he pirates he buys one, and because he’s just so darn unethical he pirates a lot of books
I'm not as certain as you are. Correlation does not imply causation, but media sales have trended upwards in the age of piracy which leads to some interesting hypotheses.
A few years ago Shirley Manson (lead singer of the 90s band Garbage) accused YouTube of making its fortune off the backs of content creators - basically charging the entire enterprise as being one big exercise in copyright infringement. And yet the music industry, as well as Hollywood, seem to be doing better and better each year in terms of dollars made. Some of the distribution models have changed - broadcast and cable television are pretty dead in the water, but the entertainment industries in general seem to be doing better than ever. And yeah lots of individual artists are still getting raw deals from Spotify and labels etc. as they always have. But industry-wise, in terms of dollar amounts, it seems there's more money to be made than ever before from creating and selling entertainment.
The statement you made that I absolutely agree with is that it's hard to get real world data on this. An individual who is able to get free access to something may be unlikely to ever pay for that same thing.But the answer to the question: "Does piracy hurt the industry's bottom line, or help it on the whole?" is a very difficult question to answer. And we have to consider the even harder stuff to measure. Things like: is a teenager who pirates recorded media more or less likely to buy merch and concert tickets? More or less likely to buy a special edition package with tangible collector items?
At the end of the day, I have no clue.
I also offer all of this being very pro-capitalism and pro-intellectual-property. I don't condone piracy. But if we're just looking at raw data and trying to form our hypothesis, we have to start with the fact that the raw data points to upwards trends on the whole.
But they were also on an upward trend before the age of piracy, so it's perfectly plausible to think they would be even higher. The same technologies that enable digital piracy also lower the cost of legal distribution, so you'd expect to see the industry doing better at the same time that piracy is rising.
Now, I'm of course not shedding too many tears for the major Hollywood studios, but I would like to live in a world with more niche films and games, and of course it's still quite difficult to make a living as an author or musician—a few manage it, most don't.
We agree that we don't have data—but to me, it just makes intuitive sense that a large majority of pirates are pirating lots of things they would have otherwise bought. For piracy to counteract that by generating buzz or aiding discovery or whatever it is... well, it would have to be an awful lot of buzz!
Occasionally in life, intuitions are dead wrong, and actual data leads to surprising discoveries. However, when faced with a lack of data, the first assumption shouldn't be "reality is the opposite of whatever I'd intuitively expect," that makes no sense.
I think there's a ton of motivated reasoning going on, and it just really bothers me. If you're going to pirate stuff, at least be honest with yourself about it.
But one of the point I also wanted to highlight is that I knew nothing about those stuff and would have had no opportunity to taste them and be convinced that they are GREAT stuff [for me].
And to come back to your comment regarding creators. The thing that I hate are creators [for example writers who are interviewed in radios] who sell their book with a marvelous speech, but the content is eventually very so/so. As a consumer I feel robbed.
The reframing that will help you understand this is that these people are fans (I stole this framing from Korey Doctorow who releases his books online for free and encourages his fans to buy a copy if they like it). Fandom is a positive sum game. The more you do it, the deeper you go with it the more you’re happy to pay the people who create the content you love.
The easier it is for you to find new content the easier it is for you to become a fan of a new thing.
For example: I want to buy a copy of prince Pukler’s hints on landscape architecture. I can’t find a physical copy anywhere and I’m not sure if it’s worth $120 for a reprint or $500 for an older version. I could pirate it (I use that word loosely since this work is obviously in the public domain) and check it out, but I haven’t bothered so I haven’t bought a copy. This is a case of me NOT pirating and therefore NOT engaging with new content.
Some of these countries are codified under the Roman law principle, ie whatever is not explicitly forbidden by law, is simply not forbidden (as opposed to common law).
In some countries downloading the published media (eg a film after the official release) is permitted.
And those who download, paid for it in the form of tax.
Directive 2001/29/EC for the EU only (Article 5).
Other countries rely in provisions of WCT, 1996 (Art 10) and WPPT, 1996 (Art 16)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy has several countries listed, with examples/extent of these laws
I hope you support downloading books/films/TV shows/music by the customers who paid for this privilege.
Looks like the only ethical way to consume the music is to buy it off the creator's website and go to concerts, yes?
You are kind of moving the goalpost.
The comment I replied to was suggesting downloading is unethical because it leads to the loss of sale (which was countered by the study results in another comment).
I replied to it saying that in many countries citizens (residents really) pay special tax (levy) that is compensating for it, at least in the name.
They have compensated the creators in the easy and legal way for the media they now can legally download.
I used to live in one of these countries. I still purchased odd CDs, I was still going to the cinema, I was still buying books and going to concerts, but I also had a very extensive digital library of the media legally downloaded from the Internet.
Because I was taxed so I could do exactly that.
The later story? This is for the creators/copyright owners/lawmakers to argue.
Personally I don't see any moral issue with copyright infringement with or without such laws.
> you are supporting the people you like as opposed to whose work you want to read
TBH personally I find that a much more convoluted reason. It might be an edge case of "I will watch this clip of horrible person to get the original source" but actively seeking out material for free just so that they get nothing, but I can consume it in whole? That sounds really rare to me.
Yes, I think you're an exception, sorry.
We will never have real data on this. But simply on its face, I find it extremely hard to believe that most consumers have a strong enough moral compass to go out of their way to buy something they already have access to. Maybe they will for a tiny handful of special books that they want hard copies of, or authors they really like, but not for most media they consume.
This type of system also becomes a popularity contest for creators; you are supporting the people you like as opposed to whose work you want to read. If an author says something you disagree with, it's easy to just read their work without paying them. I'm not against consumer boycotts, but it should generally come with a sacrifice on both sides--for consumers, that means missing out on the product or service.
You are free to feel however you want about this. I can certainly see the immense societal value of making things accessible to more people. But I flat out don't believe the "piracy doesn't lead to lost sales" shtick, of course it does.