A look at piracy from the "wrong" side
This article was born as a result of a careful reading of this topic on Habré. The topic of piracy for the Russian-speaking segment can be said to be “sick” and causes many disputes and disputes. In my article, I will try to be the “Devil's Advocate” and express an opinion from the opposite side of the issue.
One of the main arguments of the advocates of piracy is that the author’s product, in fact, does not have any physical value. Its use does not bear any damage to the copyright holder, but only cuts a possible profit, which is not yet the fact that it will be received. On the one hand, this is absolutely true. How to burn a disc, as well as downloading from iTunes for the publisher does not cost anything. And selling one or another product, it is not only that it gets its 100% profit (minus the percentage of the site share, but not the essence), it also has every right to put any price (as opposed to ordinary goods, where the price is determined by the market). Well decent conditions, right? However, many people forget that when creating a movie or an album, the company goes very negatively. One film, which costs $ 10 in a store, could easily cost the company 200 million of the same pieces of paper that a single purchase does not pay back, however, also a millionth. That is, in fact, the company is already entering the market in a huge minus, and in their hands is a product that is not food, and not warm felt boots. Goods that are not physically worth anything and that are sold in a world where there are people who are not morally ready to pay for “physically”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded a free music album, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not cause any damage to the company. But gives him the full right to do so? Question.
Of course, downloading computer games from pirated torrents, and, without having any money in your pocket, you have no effect on their sales. When on one side of the scale there is money that is not there now, and it is unlikely that it will appear, and on the other there are quite pleasant eleven hours that may or may not be, then the choice is made quickly and easily. The publisher won't get my money anyway, so why don't I play his game for free? It will not make him worse. And it is true. It will not get any worse. He has a point of reference - this is the worst thing that should be gradually corrected by sales. Ideally. There are already questions of an idealistic nature. Still, the game is not bread. And music is not warm shoes, without which in winter you can pick up an unpleasant disease. These are not basic necessities, they are not needed. The intricacies of the new Bioshock do not solve the issues of life and death, and Skyrim does not cure cancer.
')
Usually, when a new game project comes out with (surprise!) DRM binding, a whole heap of angry users appears with the words “now I’ll download it in spite”. So a man, as it seems to him, punishes evil publishers with a ruble. He also punishes game designers, script writers, programmers, composers and other quite decent people who honestly brought 3+ years of their life into the project. That is, actually everyone who stands behind him. The only one he does not punish himself. What is most interesting, for some reason, the decision is simply not worth playing. After all, nothing will change, whether he will play the game or not, he will definitely not pay the money. Nothing will change. Therefore, everyone is justly angry when companies are trying to impose their “paws” on this “nothing changes”. After all, this is the air of freedom, and they are trying to monetize it through sticks and laws. At the same time, the main defense argument, on which everyone converges, is usually such - it is meaningless and inconvenient. Pirates will still find a loophole and hack any protection, and the user, hiding in the basement and turning off the Internet and antivirus software, will still watch the counterfeit film.
At such moments, Gabe Newell's interview comes to mind. It says that the only way to defeat piracy is service. Provide players with a more convenient service than torrents, and they will stop downloading your games for free. For many opponents of copyright protection methods, this argument is the most important. On the other side of the river is DRM, which no one loves, which is inefficient and inconvenient, and which poisons life not only for us, but for the whole younger generation. However, there is another side to the coin. Remember the same Valve, which seems to be both for service and convenience, and which, since 2004, has not been releasing games without DRM in principle. It seems that we give people better service, better quality and we believe that they are ready to pay for it, but here we have barbed wire, and a guard at the entrance, which if anything can ban a pullet, and in general we have nothing more than multiplayer projects no plans. No one likes radical methods of copyright protection, they are furious, they slow down progress, they kill convenience and create problems that were not there before, but one cannot deny that they are effective. If public transport is a Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of refreshments, then surely every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if the aisle has a two-meter-high growth conductor, there is more money than if there was a regular box with a slot. Such a beautiful world.
In my opinion, power methods of protection are not so necessary, or useful, no, for each case their use gives a completely different effect. But I am sure that it is up to the right holders to decide whether to inject DRM into their product or not. It is their right, as is my right not to buy their product, if DRM is absolutely terrible. However, at the same time, it is not right for me to download their product for free. If the developer decides to distribute his program for the sake of humanity, free exchange of information and convenience, I will love it and will be happy, but again this should be his decision, and not a group of anonymous philanthropists from Rutracker.org. Actually the same can be said about the progress. As far as I know, nothing drives him more than money. As long as DRM makes a big profit, and criminal punishment makes even the slightest extra percentage of people pay for the product, then for progress this situation will be the best possible.
Or so.
One of the main arguments of the advocates of piracy is that the author’s product, in fact, does not have any physical value. Its use does not bear any damage to the copyright holder, but only cuts a possible profit, which is not yet the fact that it will be received. On the one hand, this is absolutely true. How to burn a disc, as well as downloading from iTunes for the publisher does not cost anything. And selling one or another product, it is not only that it gets its 100% profit (minus the percentage of the site share, but not the essence), it also has every right to put any price (as opposed to ordinary goods, where the price is determined by the market). Well decent conditions, right? However, many people forget that when creating a movie or an album, the company goes very negatively. One film, which costs $ 10 in a store, could easily cost the company 200 million of the same pieces of paper that a single purchase does not pay back, however, also a millionth. That is, in fact, the company is already entering the market in a huge minus, and in their hands is a product that is not food, and not warm felt boots. Goods that are not physically worth anything and that are sold in a world where there are people who are not morally ready to pay for “physically”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded a free music album, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not cause any damage to the company. But gives him the full right to do so? Question.
Of course, downloading computer games from pirated torrents, and, without having any money in your pocket, you have no effect on their sales. When on one side of the scale there is money that is not there now, and it is unlikely that it will appear, and on the other there are quite pleasant eleven hours that may or may not be, then the choice is made quickly and easily. The publisher won't get my money anyway, so why don't I play his game for free? It will not make him worse. And it is true. It will not get any worse. He has a point of reference - this is the worst thing that should be gradually corrected by sales. Ideally. There are already questions of an idealistic nature. Still, the game is not bread. And music is not warm shoes, without which in winter you can pick up an unpleasant disease. These are not basic necessities, they are not needed. The intricacies of the new Bioshock do not solve the issues of life and death, and Skyrim does not cure cancer.
')
Usually, when a new game project comes out with (surprise!) DRM binding, a whole heap of angry users appears with the words “now I’ll download it in spite”. So a man, as it seems to him, punishes evil publishers with a ruble. He also punishes game designers, script writers, programmers, composers and other quite decent people who honestly brought 3+ years of their life into the project. That is, actually everyone who stands behind him. The only one he does not punish himself. What is most interesting, for some reason, the decision is simply not worth playing. After all, nothing will change, whether he will play the game or not, he will definitely not pay the money. Nothing will change. Therefore, everyone is justly angry when companies are trying to impose their “paws” on this “nothing changes”. After all, this is the air of freedom, and they are trying to monetize it through sticks and laws. At the same time, the main defense argument, on which everyone converges, is usually such - it is meaningless and inconvenient. Pirates will still find a loophole and hack any protection, and the user, hiding in the basement and turning off the Internet and antivirus software, will still watch the counterfeit film.
At such moments, Gabe Newell's interview comes to mind. It says that the only way to defeat piracy is service. Provide players with a more convenient service than torrents, and they will stop downloading your games for free. For many opponents of copyright protection methods, this argument is the most important. On the other side of the river is DRM, which no one loves, which is inefficient and inconvenient, and which poisons life not only for us, but for the whole younger generation. However, there is another side to the coin. Remember the same Valve, which seems to be both for service and convenience, and which, since 2004, has not been releasing games without DRM in principle. It seems that we give people better service, better quality and we believe that they are ready to pay for it, but here we have barbed wire, and a guard at the entrance, which if anything can ban a pullet, and in general we have nothing more than multiplayer projects no plans. No one likes radical methods of copyright protection, they are furious, they slow down progress, they kill convenience and create problems that were not there before, but one cannot deny that they are effective. If public transport is a Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of refreshments, then surely every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if the aisle has a two-meter-high growth conductor, there is more money than if there was a regular box with a slot. Such a beautiful world.
In my opinion, power methods of protection are not so necessary, or useful, no, for each case their use gives a completely different effect. But I am sure that it is up to the right holders to decide whether to inject DRM into their product or not. It is their right, as is my right not to buy their product, if DRM is absolutely terrible. However, at the same time, it is not right for me to download their product for free. If the developer decides to distribute his program for the sake of humanity, free exchange of information and convenience, I will love it and will be happy, but again this should be his decision, and not a group of anonymous philanthropists from Rutracker.org. Actually the same can be said about the progress. As far as I know, nothing drives him more than money. As long as DRM makes a big profit, and criminal punishment makes even the slightest extra percentage of people pay for the product, then for progress this situation will be the best possible.
Or so.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/175215/
All Articles