Thread: The Effects of Piracy?

Ok so what kind of effect do you honestly believe that piracy has on industries such as the music industry, movie industry etc?

I was thinking about it after recently seeing a picture (and I can't for the life of me find it again) showing that despite all the gloom and doom the RIAA says they're under due to piracy, their sales however have constantly risen every year. While physical media sales have dropped off greatly, digital downloads of songs have risen exponentially. Also consider the fact that it's much cheaper to supply a song for download vs. the cost of producing an actual cd.

Personally, I'll buy a cd if I really like the artist, either digitally, or sometimes I'll actually pick it up at the record store. However, I was also pondering the impact it would make on the economy if pirating were entirely stopped. I know that's impossible, however just for arguments sake, nobody can pirate anything anymore... What happens? I mean for one, people save a lot of money by not having to download games or music they want however if they were no longer able to, the money they would be spending on other things (the money they have since they can pirate things) would get diverted back towards whatever they wanted. Other industries for products that aren't really pirate-able would definitely take a hit. The more I think about it, I really can't imagine what kind of effect that'd have on the economy.



What do you think? Also, does anyone else here still buy cd's, digital, or otherwise to support your favorite artists? Or do you get the majority of your media through pirating?

Absolutely. I will buy a movie or CD only after I have had a chance to listen or watch it first. I have also seen something about the industries constantly increasing in wealth even with all the "Big Bad Pirates" out there. Its all BULL. Great thread.

I believe piracy has a small effect on the over all picture. But not to the degree that the statistics show. If someone can easily get get a free copy of something then odds are they will never go out and buy the same thing they already have for free. To say otherwise is BS.

I still buy software and music. But only buy what I can afford. Having access to what ever I want has not changed my buying habits. I have software that I would never have paid for even if I didnt get a copy for free. To count me into a statistic that says by me having the software is a monetary loss to the company is rubbish. There is absolutely no way I would ever pay $500+ for Adobe Photoshop or $200 - $300 for some of the other software I use. My limit is about $100 depending on what it is. After that I will either do with out or get a free copy.

I still go to the movies on a regular basis. My wife and I are big movie buffs. We also go to concerts as much as we can also. So in our own way we give back. I dont believe the big numbers that the BSA throws around claiming that companies are losing money. How can they claim money that never would have come there way anyway? The only reason we have most software is for the convenience. Most of us would never have paid for it in the first place. It would have stayed on the shelf. So there is no cost or loss to be counted in my opinion.

Hurst

Piracy has a small effect on music, movies etc. And piracy will never stop because anti-p2p will never take down the "illegal" websites because they can send warning emails that mean nothing to 10 people, and 2 people will take it seriously and pay the fine before court and the rest will fight it and pay hundreds of thousands. They profit off of piracy. People just shouldn't respond to the emails, there more like false threats than anything.

(accidental double post)

Originally Posted by Hurst

I believe piracy has a small effect on the over all picture. But not to the degree that the statistics show. If someone can easily get get a free copy of something then odds are they will never go out and buy the same thing they already have for free. To say otherwise is BS.

I still buy software and music. But only buy what I can afford. Having access to what ever I want has not changed my buying habits. I have software that I would never have paid for even if I didnt get a copy for free. To count me into a statistic that says by me having the software is a monetary loss to the company is rubbish. There is absolutely no way I would ever pay $500+ for Adobe Photoshop or $200 - $300 for some of the other software I use. My limit is about $100 depending on what it is. After that I will either do with out or get a free copy.

I still go to the movies on a regular basis. My wife and I are big movie buffs. We also go to concerts as much as we can also. So in our own way we give back. I dont believe the big numbers that the BSA throws around claiming that companies are losing money. How can they claim money that never would have come there way anyway? The only reason we have most software is for the convenience. Most of us would never have paid for it in the first place. It would have stayed on the shelf. So there is no cost or loss to be counted in my opinion.

Hurst

There is to a certain degree, the examples you gave were of expensive programs. On the other hand have you payed for 100% of your music library? Part of what I was getting at is for example if couldn't download your music for free, how much money would you be willing to put towards the music you have? Then, take that money you would now be spending on music (since hypothetically you can't pirate it) what expenses would be cut then in order to afford the music you would then buy? Other industries I think have benefited from pirating (maybe not much, maybe even just a minute amount, but still, some) in that people save money through pirating, then spend it on things they otherwise would have spent the money to buy the music they can pirate. I think it'd be very interesting to look at the impact on non-pirated industries that would lose revenue in the case of pirating not existing. Or would it not change? Would that same money be spent on the same type of entertainment regardless, just a different facet of it?

Originally Posted by speedsauce

There is to a certain degree, the examples you gave were of expensive programs. On the other hand have you payed for 100% of your music library? Part of what I was getting at is for example if couldn't download your music for free, how much money would you be willing to put towards the music you have? Then, take that money you would now be spending on music (since hypothetically you can't pirate it) what expenses would be cut then in order to afford the music you would then buy? Other industries I think have benefited from pirating (maybe not much, maybe even just a minute amount, but still, some) in that people save money through pirating, then spend it on things they otherwise would have spent the money to buy the music they can pirate. I think it'd be very interesting to look at the impact on non-pirated industries that would lose revenue in the case of pirating not existing. Or would it not change? Would that same money be spent on the same type of entertainment regardless, just a different facet of it?

I'm 42 yrs old and aside from 2 45 records I bought when I was 13 and a Def Leppard Cassette when I was 15, I have not purchased any music ever. I've never bought a CD with my own money. I have had some given to me. But never went to the store to buy any,.. ever. And this dates back to well before there ever was an internet,.. or knowing what an MP3 was. I used to record music to cassettes from the radio when I was a kid and trade mix tapes with friends in school. Thats how we did it in my day. No one ever screamed music piracy,.. it was just oh how cute,.. they're trading music. I dont even download many MP3's. So I am not in that group of statistics. I never buy music,.. with or with out free MP3 music. I listen to satellite music in my truck and streaming music on the computer. Its all free.

Besides,.. record sales mainly benefit the labels. The artists rarely get 10% even from online music sales. The cost of a CD is ridiculous. I would never pay $15+ for 1 or 2 songs that I really wanted. Its just not my thing. I like concerts and seeing artists live. My wife and I really get into that. At least there I know a good portion of my ticket purchase will go to the artist.

So I really dont know what to say. I dont buy into all the statistics that they try to sell everyone. I just dont see it. My buying habits have not changed no matter how much material I have available to me. I have always purchased what I wanted and could afford. I left the rest alone and either did with out or downloaded it for free. I dont see where something I never had any intention of purchasing in the first place constitutes a monetary loss by me having a free copy of it. And the only reason I have a free copy of it was because of convenience. If I had no access to get it for free, I would not have it anyway. Either way,.. they would not have my money.

Hurst

If piracy was ever stopped, then people will start looking for other ways to entertain themselves. There are free alternatives, but sometimes it's better to pirate.

I believe piracy helped promote movies and songs. I've read it before that the movie producer (I think) thanked the torrent community for downloading his movie. The movie went up high ranks after few weeks. The anti-piracy is doing it's job to combat piracy and the pirates pirate for more. I guess balance is good.

Just so you know, I don't mean any disrespect to you at all, or to say you're less of a person for not buying cd's or not supporting artists. I was just thinking that there are a lot of people out there that do fit the statistic I was talking about, even myself included. While I know very little of what I spend on cd's / music goes to the artist, I feel like at least the little bit that does go them counts. That's also why I only pay for music from artists I really like.