The EU Suppressed a 300-Page Study That Found Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales

[mauserr]

That's a fair point to consider. I've heard music on websites that I assume was pirated which led me ot buy the artist's full album based on hearing one song.

Still, if 25% of gamers decided that pirated games are okay, it's crazy to think that wouldn't impact the industry. It's like saying shoplifting doesn't have any impact on a store.

Except game/music/tv show yada yada piracy is not like shoplifting or any actual theft. You don't steal something that has a limited supply. You pirating something you wouldn't buy anyway has no impact on the owner of said pirated goods. There is no loss whatsoever. How can people compare shoplifting or car jacking to pirating a movie or a game you wouldn't have bought is ridiculous.

[Shakari]

Must admit not surprised by the finding lol its been pretty much common knowledge for years despite the large companies trying to suggest otherwise.

[Lex Icon]

the way we consume media/entertainment has changed quite a lot in a short time and the fossils who used to control it are having a hard time to adapt.
thanks to the internet artists and the like don't need to rely on them anymore and can self promote. obviously they need to take a different approach at making money than selling movies,cd's,books. but when they figure it out they'll be better off than the ones before them.

[Redwolf]

That's a fair point to consider. I've heard music on websites that I assume was pirated which led me ot buy the artist's full album based on hearing one song.

Still, if 25% of gamers decided that pirated games are okay, it's crazy to think that wouldn't impact the industry. It's like saying shoplifting doesn't have any impact on a store.

Department stores factor in theft or 'shrinkage,' as they like to call it in the industry to their balance books, I can only imagine its prefactored into other industries.

[Sama-81]

Go ask an artist at any convention if you can take high quality photos of their artwork piece by piece. It's just a digital copy, they still keep the physical ones. Let me know how many are happy to see you showing such appreciation for their work.

As I believe I clearly stated, I'm not arguing that he/you don't have a point (or do have one, for that matter). Only that the comparison is highly illogical in and of itself, since the two concepts are different enough to be basically non-comparable in the context at hand - something I believe absolutely anyone with some sort of analytical capacity, spending the time/effort to use it, can plainly see.

If we go purely anecdotal here, I myself would have eventually bought an actual painting (if the price was reasonable) if I enjoyed the photo enough, whereas it is quite unlikely that I would have done so at the actual convention, regardless of whether or not I liked it. I prefer to see if the piece grows on me, and I have been in similar situations before where the end result was a painting or other object that now resides in my house. Either way I most certainly wouldn't actually physically steal the painting away from the artist (in regards to the argument that I quoted).

Besides, I'm a scientist myself, with plenty of intellectual property freely accessible online. More than one individual has 'shown appreciation' for my work by way of using data/experimental setups from it, for example, and yes, I'm in fact pretty happy with that. Not exactly the same thing, of course, but most definitely a FAR better comparison than the guy I quoted came up with...

[mauserr]

Shit, where I live downloading music, shows, books, movies is perfectly legal as long as you don't share what you're pirating - so no torrenting (since even if you have your upload speed set to 0 you still are going to be sharing tiny bits of it), but P2M or HTTP is perfectly fine. Games or applications is a different story, even if you don't share it any further.

[McFuu]

It's not specifically the EU since all major labels have been whining and howling about piracy.

Fact is - people who cannot afford to buy your records / books / DVDs / whatever else, will not buy it, no matter if they can pirate things or not. They have only a limited budget for media spendings, and they will not magically start to buy things which they would not buy. Getting things for free just allows them to get things they would not be buying in a different scenario.

And real fans would know that they are harming the bands / authors / studios by piracy, so they probably would buy things anyway. Some mp3 files on your PC simply don't compare to a CD with a well designed booklet and such.

This is basic psychology, really. But economists are often totally negligent of psychological phenomenons, hence we have so many problems in all kinds of areas.

Umm... Economists are very grounded in psychology. Most economists have been saying for years that piracy leads to more sales. Economists basically study human spending habits, which is pure theoretical psychology.

[Faroth]

In any case, long before there was an internet, in places like China (just as an example), there were pirate copies of, for example, movies and albums being sold. There were pirate copies of brand clothing and electronics being sold, too. However, the operative word here is sold. A copy of an original work is made, and then sold, for profit. This, much like actual piracy, is when a third party is actually taking away profits (the loot, the plunder) from the person or company who originally made the product. In a case such as this, you can actually show that the person buying the pirate product would actually pay for the product, since that's what they're actually doing. Someone else making money by selling the other person's or company's product, or the pirate copy thereof, that's piracy.

I don't see the difference in someone saying "I don't want to buy a movie for $30, but I'll buy this pirated copy for $5" as vastly different from "I don't want to buy this game for $60, but I'll take it from this pirate for free."

The only distinction between the physical goods piracy and the filesharing is the pirates (the one who took the original product) is selling it vs giving it away for free.

Taking something, making a copy of it, then distributing it is what's happening in both cases. Let's look at it this way:

If the people in China from the example were making pirate copies of clothing, electronics, movies, and games, then sitting in their store giving them away for free, is that no longer piracy? Yes, as we've come to define it as more than exclusively profiting.

In that regard, though, I suppose it's worth noting that the person offering the files is the pirate, not the recipient of said product.


For me, it still boils down to an uncomfortable conclusion "Creators and artists do no deserve to make a living by creating things. I deserve their things to be mine for free." That just doesn't sit well with me.

[Deleted]

If the people in China from the example were making pirate copies of clothing, electronics, movies, and games, then sitting in their store giving them away for free, is that no longer piracy?

That's right. It wouldn't be. Robin Hood wasn't called a pirate.

[Baelic]

Could just go the CDProjektRed route and... you know... MAKE A GOOD FUCKING PRODUCT!

And I'm not just talking about the game, but the business as a whole.

[Shakari]

I mean, of course it is, and it is so because of people misusing the term for so long that it has become common vernacular. That, or the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world have pushed the dictionary people to have that definition in there. That would just be a guess, seeing as though money talks, but I'm probably way off there.

In any case, long before there was an internet, in places like China (just as an example), there were pirate copies of, for example, movies and albums being sold. There were pirate copies of brand clothing and electronics being sold, too. However, the operative word here is sold. A copy of an original work is made, and then sold, for profit. This, much like actual piracy, is when a third party is actually taking away profits (the loot, the plunder) from the person or company who originally made the product. In a case such as this, you can actually show that the person buying the pirate product would actually pay for the product, since that's what they're actually doing. Someone else making money by selling the other person's or company's product, or the pirate copy thereof, that's piracy.

Filesharing, or warez, is data being shared among people freely. No loss of profit can actually be shown (although to protect the production companies, in a court of law, it's always assumed, to the fullest, of course), and in the vast majority of cases doesn't exist, because as said several times in the thread before, people who get a warez copy of a movie, TV show, album or game would not have paid for it in the first place, either because said product isn't worth it's price, or because they can't afford it. That's filesharing, that's warez. That's not piracy.

But sure, let's go by the dictionary definition. I'm fine with that, too. You'd have to remember, though, that it's in the interest of those parties to label and brand this all as "piracy", seeing as though the word "piracy" has negative connotations from hundreds of years ago, whilst "filesharing" sounds very nice and positive. Sharing, you know. Positive. Can't call it that. Let's rebrand it.

Thing is while I do think its actually a good thing in many way and can actually lead to more sales, your "filesharing" something that does not legally belong to you.
Its is Piracy currently regardless of how you personally view it, it does not make the system necessarily right or correct but that changes nothing.

Unless you have actually developed or made it or paid a fee to the person who has to distibute their product, be it a new design of boat or a film about a hedgehog .... copying or reproducing it and selling it or even giving it away for free is illegal.

[Mistame]

Freeloading (or being a "freeloader") in everyday speech refers to the use by an individual or entity of resources that do not belong to them in private and personal spheres, e.g. an uninvited guest's abuse of friends' and family's hospitality. A freeloader may also be called a "mooch" or a schnorrer.

Are you using that word correctly? I think not. No resources are being used.

You're really just splitting hairs. Anything one creates belongs to them and thus, they decide how or if it's distributed. Pirating is nothing short of theft. Period.

Robin Hood wasn't called a pirate.

No, he was a thief.

[Faroth]

That's right. It wouldn't be. Robin Hood wasn't called a pirate.

....he was called a robber. Which is what pirates did. They robbed ships at sea. He wasn't at sea, so of course he wasn't called a pirate. >_o

And no, pirating movies/games/etc is NOT the same as Robin Hood.

[TehTemplar]

So enforce a one year copyright? To protect games and movies that are hits?

I can't believe Game of Thrones profits weren't hurt by having 80 million illegal downloads.

I have the full HBO, Cinemax, etc cable package. That inclused the HD and other versions.

I still pirate the episode every week so I can get the 5.1 sound and all the fancy things that standard cable doesn't get me.

Only reason I even have cable nowadays is for when friends come over.

[Tijuana]

https://www.neowin.net/news/eu-paid-...snt-harm-sales
https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppresse...-do-1818629537



Julia Reda (German MEP)
https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/secret-...ngement-study/

Even if it doesn't harm sales, it's still theft. I wasn't going to buy a Ferrari today, but if I steal yours, it's still wrong.

I say this while being COMPLETELY hypocritical, as I have not had cable in several years. But at least I admit it's stealing, unlike so many in the thread.

[IIamaKing]

Someone should tell that to the production companies and everyone who keeps yelling about how "piracy" is ruining the movie, TV, music and game industries. Clearly it can't be even making a visible dent, being a very niche activity. Although, you do mean filesharing of course, I'm guessing, not piracy. There is actual product piracy in the world, but filesharing is not it.

I think from the standpoint of a "view is a sale", fileshare IS pirating. I dont agree with it but thats the way they look at it.

Piracy isn't why Hollywood is churning out shitty big budget sequels, prequels and reboots non stop. Viewership is down because ticket prices are skyrocketing and there are less and less really interesting movies to go see. How many blurry scenes of robots blowing shit up do we need?

Piracy isnt why Game Devs are selling 1/2 a game upfront the selling the rest as "DLC".

I haven't listened to new music in decades, and the music I do listen to supports the sharing of it, Jam Bands and the like. SO no worthwhile comment there from me.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if it doesn't harm sales, it's still theft. I wasn't going to buy a Ferrari today, but if I steal yours, it's still wrong.

Yes but Someone LOST a Ferrari in your analogy. opposed to me watching your file, you still have the file, as does the content creator.

[Tijuana]

I think from the standpoint of a "view is a sale", fileshare IS pirating. I dont agree with it but thats the way they look at it.

Piracy isn't why Hollywood is churning out shitty big budget sequels, prequels and reboots non stop. Viewership is down because ticket prices are skyrocketing and there are less and less really interesting movies to go see. How many blurry scenes of robots blowing shit up do we need?

Piracy isnt why Game Devs are selling 1/2 a game upfront the selling the rest as "DLC".

I haven't listened to new music in decades, and the music I do listen to supports the sharing of it, Jam Bands and the like. SO no worthwhile comment there from me.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes but Someone LOST a Ferrari in your analogy. opposed to me watching your file, you still have the file, as does the content creator.

What difference does it make? It's still mine, and I can do what I want with it. If you steal it, you are wrong.

Aside from the main retarded point that piracy isn't wrong, just the repercussions alone should be enough to convince you guys. What would happen if nobody paid for movies? Do you not see that they would stop making them?

Next you will say, but only some of us are not paying; not everyone is stealing it. But, that too is a crime against society. Because you are asking others to pay for what you are consuming. Not only are you getting off for free, but you are also driving up the cost for them. You see, if you had paid, perhaps prices would be lower.

Stealing is stealing. It's wrong, and you should feel bad when you do it.

[Endus]

Even if it doesn't harm sales, it's still theft. I wasn't going to buy a Ferrari today, but if I steal yours, it's still wrong.

"Piracy", however, is the equivalent of building your own Ferrari in your garage, with your own tools and materials. It isn't "stealing" from anyone.

[Tijuana]

"Piracy", however, is the equivalent of building your own Ferrari in your garage, with your own tools and materials. It isn't "stealing" from anyone.

Endus, forever here to call the moral low ground, the moral high ground.

It's theft. It's factually illegal. Carried out to it's end, it leads to content no longer being created at all.

Is this what happens to the left in the end? They become so against religion, that they deny the mere existence of morality? You people certainly do have a strange sense of morality, if it allows you steal like a thief in the night, with no conscience.

[Endus]

Endus, forever here to call the moral low ground, the moral high ground.

It's theft. It's factually illegal. Carried out to it's end, it leads to content no longer being created at all.

You made three statements in that second line. In order;

1> This is factually and definitively incorrect. Copyright infringement (which is what piracy is) is not in any respect "theft".
2> In some jurisdictions. Pretty legal here in Canada, at least downloading/streaming for personal use (uploading isn't, because that qualifies as distribution). So not "factually" in any objective, universal sense.
3> The study here completely contradicts this claim directly and in detail.

Is this what happens to the left in the end? They become so against religion, that they deny the mere existence of morality? You people certainly do have a strange sense of morality, if it allows you steal like a thief in the night, with no conscience.

Aaaand now you've devolved into attacking "the left" in a non-partisan issue, you've tried to insert religion into a discussion of copyright infringement, and accused atheists of being immoral because, apparently, the only reason you think people stick to a moral code is out of fear of being punished by a divine power, not because they actually think some things are right or wrong, in and of themselves.