Google AdWords
The latest chapter in the online piracy debate begins in Sweden, where new anti-piracy legislation resulted in the country’s internet traffic falling by 33%.
Sweden’s government statistics agency estimate that 8% of the entire country use peer-to-peer sharing, and it’s safe to assume that 100% of them are doing so with illegal content. That’s an incredible figure – almost one in ten Swedes have no objection to stealing.
The so-called Swedish Pirate Party is being widely quoted as saying that the drop will be temporary, and will only last as long as it takes users to change their security settings so as to remain anonymous.
Note that this is from the institution who want to “fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.”
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to reform copyright laws, but the Swedish Pirates believe that “All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free. File sharing and p2p networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized.”
I’m not going to bother tearing this to shreds. Their own words do a good job of undermining their position.
However, there are two things that irritate me.
Firstly, whenever a person starts to argue why they should be allowed to steal music or movies, they inevitably gravitate towards this being connected to their rights to privacy. Can it simply be that a person who believes theft to be justifiable is intellectually incapable of differentiating between piracy and privacy? Hint: look for the ‘V’.
The second source of irritation is an old one. Stealing is stealing. It isn’t a form of political protest, it isn’t victimless, and it isn’t right. If I steal money from a person’s car without them knowing about it, it’s still stealing. If I steal £100 from the mighty Barclays bank, it’s still stealing.
All of the companies we work with have been affected by piracy. All of them have had people using their software without paying for it, and all of them have invested considerable amounts of money and time to protect their work from pirates.
There’s nothing to argue. Whether a person has illegal software, music, movies or texts, it’s theft.
yeah well the free newspapers in the tube, metro and ubahn have managed to use advertising to build a reliable model, so why cant software/media publishers do it as well?? Stop whining and get with the times, especially if you are trying to argue your point using the example of software products which can make money through advertising, affiliation etc.
Internet advertising has become the largest source of customer acquisition for many products you mention above, so again, get with the times, it’s not by crying out in a blog that you are going to stop people sharing culture…
I didn’t want to sound offensive, so soprry if i did, but calling people thieves will not stop much… You gotta either educate them (positively, not discriminate them like you are doing) or again, get with the times and build a reliable model.
Just like the financial world, it is time the rules changed and software that enables end to end innovation was available to most people.
Thanks for the input.
To answer your points, software developers have tried advertising in their products. Don’t you remember AdWare? It really didn’t work out for anyone.
And if you think that software products can make money through advertising and affiliation, then you might want to look around. Look back about ten years or so.
And as for your comment that my crying out in a blog will stop sharing culture…. you have completely missed my point.
I do, however, agree that the rules should change. But that’s no excuse for stealing. The rules for banking should change, but that doesn’t legitimise bank robbery. Theft is theft.
“Internet advertising has become the largest source of customer acquisition”
And is also the first revenue stream (after stocks) to deflate in a bust – remember the Dot Com Bomb? The advertising model doesn’t work. Apart from the points Dave mentioned (all valid) in respect of Adware and the debacle of privacy that created, there is also the issue of crackers (and then users utilizing their work) to remove the adverts, which happened during the Adware hey-day.
“thieves will not stop much”
No, names never work – however putting them in jail (as per the copyright act in most countries signed to the Berne Copyright Convention allows) certainly will.
Had to laugh (sadly). A guy who lost his home in the Victorian bushfires had a massive collection of pirated movies he downloaded and burnt to disk and felt he should be compensated for this “loss” of movies. Now if that’s not an irony I don’t know what is.
How telling is it that mr. “nonsense” above didn’t give us his real name…
Anyway, Dave, I fully agree. Piracy IS theft, no matter how these pirates try to justify their actions.
Making software free and use advertising to make money? Yeah, that’ll work… not…
Freemiums, anyone? Greatful Dead letting ppl record their concerts (as long as they didn’t resell), selling merchandise and records to those who want it? Read Seth Godin? Bought Avinash Kaushiks book? I did and still it’s all free in his blog.
Complaining about p2p sharing isn’t helping your business forward – creating on the grounds of the new “rules” does!
Instead of being mediocre – set out to do something remarkable?!
Unfortunately (!) a lot of changes come from breaking the law – remember Rosa Banks?
And don’t talk about starving artists – cause fact is they only get a small % of what we pay for THEIR work. I would gladly pay that directly to them!
The problem I see with the Pirate Bay trial is that they are trying to convict a “tool” – sort of like convicting any tool for the miss use of it.
Have no data on Greatful Dead’s results from their experiment, but it was certainly judged a failure for RadioHead. Another to try and fail from memory was author Stephen King.
Certainly there are lots of “tools” using the pirate bay, but they’re not looking at convicting the user, in the instance of the pirate bay it’s about convicting the recalcitrants running the site who make money out of “sharing” stolen goods.
“New Rules” are great, always open to new ideas. But none of the ideas thrown around have worked. Reason? People do not pay, with a minority of exceptions, if it is avoidable. Plenty of studies out there on this, both in bricks and mortar and digital related.
Hi Linn,
“Unfortunately (!) a lot of changes come from breaking the law – remember Rosa Banks?”
Banks? Are you comparing the actions of a person who stood up to persecution to those of someone who doesn’t want to pay for the Artic Monkeys album?
“Instead of being mediocre – set out to do something remarkable?!”
Yes, I’m a fan of Seth Godin too! I’m not complaining about something that affects me. I’m pointing out how some people justify their lax morals, in the hope of provoking debate. And it’s working!
“And don’t talk about starving artists“. I didn’t.
“they only get a small % of what we pay for THEIR work. I would gladly pay that directly to them!“. Which is better, that they get a small amount or nothing at all?
Couldn’t resist to post a comment on this.
I agree with you that piracy is like stealing, except that in the digital world it doesn’t cause any loss of revenue because no product is “lost” per se, and people who download would not buy it anyway.
Your Barclay’s bank’s point makes no sense and you should compare apples to apples. You cannot compare stealing $100 and going to the movies without paying because you took the back door. In a case someone lost money, in the other case he didn’t get any. In this example, if the backdoor was secure, most people would probably not bother to go to the movies at all.
The movie maker complaining for XXXX of losses is either masturbating or lobbying (or both). See the difference now ? Good.
Again, I’m not saying piracy is good or should be allowed, but if it wasn’t there, business models like itunes would still be in its infancy (if even present !).
Consider this : The major labels in the music industry litterally stole our money for more than 50 years … all legally ! And just by promoting crap until people want to buy the pre-packaged marketing band of the year. Expect the current trend to be followed by “long tail” movie makers and independant games creators who will eventually take over half the market from million dollar ad powered clone blockbusters. You can think it’s more legal because millions of lobbying dollars created laws to control mass media and screwed over almost all independant artists in the process because they didn’t have the money to get their medias on the shelves or get a slot on radio waves, and we’ll agree to disagree.
You should really rethink your “all is white or black and I’m right end of story” statement, because it seems that you’re looking at it from only one point of view. While that’s OK for propaganda, you’re not doing a much better job than the “let’s make piracy legal” people you criticize.
P.S. Sorry for my english as it’s not my native language.
“…and people who download would not buy it anyway.”
Except that isn’t true, or at least isn’t always true. I have a friend (wink) that sold a popular software with a standard serial number based registration system. Such systems are weak because they don’t require “cracking”, users can just share the serial numbers they were issued. When this friend went to a hardware-locked activation system, sales shot through the roof (we’re talking about an overnight increase with *just* the change to the new licensing system). Keeping honest people honest is getting harder and harder. So much harder that I fear there are few honest people left. People *will* pay for software — if we make them.
The sad fact is that most people don’t consider software “real”. The same guy that would go to great lengths to return a lost wallet with cash in it to its owner will grab a pirated copy of AutoCAD or Windows in a heartbeat and think nothing of it. I’ve seen people that I consider exceptionally honest pirate software (never mind music and movies) without a second thought.
The temptation is very real – even for me. I know that I could get every movie I rent for free and every one of the 10,000 songs in my music library. I could order a hacked satellite box and get free TV too. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
No argument for piracy stands up. Not the “developers are too stupid to keep me from doing this” argument and not the “I wouldn’t buy it anyway” argument. Think whatever you need to think to get a good night of sleep but you’re still a pirate and, in my opinion, a thief.
(I say “you” not meaning you personally, Stephane, unless you’re a pirate
)
Stephane, you don’t know what you are talking about when you say “in the digital world it doesn’t cause any loss of revenue because no product is ‘lost’ per se, and people who download would not buy it anyway.” I can speak to this from experience. One of my past products had very weak piracy protection and was keygenned multiple times. For a while I gave up on improving protection taking the “people who use cracks wouldn’t pay anyway” position. Then I decided to give it one more try by switching to a commercial grade anti-cracking product. My sales IMMEDIATELY went up by about 20% and held. Clearly there were people who wouldn’t pay if they could get it free, but, who WOULD pay if they COULDN’T get it free. Piracy was costing me 20% of my potential sales until I found a way to stop it.
“…if the backdoor was secure, most people would probably not bother to go to the movies at all.” Ridiculous on its face.
“Consider this : The major labels in the music industry litterally stole our money for more than 50 years … all legally ! And just by promoting crap until people want to buy the pre-packaged marketing band of the year.” Sorry, but you will have to explain to me how my money was “litterally stolen” from me by the music industry “by promoting crap until people want to buy the pre-packaged marketing band of the year.” Did they use some kind of irresistable mind-control ray on us?
Stephane, if enough people sneak into the movies without paying, it damages the business. The moviehouse goes under, and eventually it affects the people who invest many millions into making the movie.
The point is people have created a product and have a right to use whatever license they want. If you don’t want it then you have the choice – use another product.
It’s like saying that driving on the wrong side of the road is okay because you never hurt anyone when doing so. The legality of it doesn’t rely on you hurting someone.
ZDNet’s tech blog has an article today: http://tinyurl.com/dhmw58 promoting the idea that Microsoft patches should be available to non genuine advantage (read pirated in most instances) copies of Windows. Why? Make the world more secure? Nonsense. It’s laughable that the very reason bots and worms are so successful is that people frequent websites and download cracks, keygens and torrents that invariably contain them and then complain they can’t get secure because thier OS uses a stolen copy. I must say though that I find it facinating that people try so hard to legitimize a crime by diverting the argument to semantics on whether or not it constitutes theft in the “real world” as opposed to “digital”, as if it’s even valid in a court of law at the end of the day. It’s still jail time, massive fines and a series of law suits.
I am appalled (but not really surprised) by the ignorance of some of the pro-theft advocates. “Remember Rosa Banks?” No, we don’t remember her. We do remember someone named Rosa Parks. She stood up with courage, endangering herself to fight racial discrimination. She didn’t sneak around and go shoplifting.
Those “free newspapers in the tube, metro and ubahn have managed to use advertising to build a reliable model” are all based on getting their actual news for free from real newspapers- the ones that are going out of business. The “money” from advertising barely pays for the printing and distribution of the “free” papers. When the real newspapers finish going out of business your free ones will vanish too.
Linn – about the freemiums. Agreed, the Grateful Dead were helped a lot by giving away their music. But they also had an alternative way to earn, which was gigging. I’d like to set up on stage with my computer but it’s not going to make me any money, I suspect
Many people often say they wouldn’t mind paying if they were paying muso’s directly instead of the labels. I wonder, because often the same people don’t want to pay for software, where most of the revenue does go directly to the “artist”. Sounds like an excuse, I think.
The concept of “intellectual property” — owning the fruits of ones intellectual labors (writings, songs, etc) is so vital to a free and productive market that the framers of the United States made it a part of the Constitution!
Piracy does indeed equal theft.
“theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person
intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another
without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the
taker’s use (including potential sale). [...]” – Excerpt from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
I know this isn’t an American blog, but still.
I have shareware that so far has taken nearly three years of development, with a team of four people (at its peak). You can try it for free, if you want to keep using it we expect you to pay (modestly) for it.
If it’s cracked, in the short term, people get relatively inexpensive software for free (but they become criminals in the process – good deal? I wouldn’t swap my integrity for 24.95!). In the long term, we go out of business, development stops, and everyone is worse off as a consequence.
I am sadly amused by the ‘all intellectual property should be free’ argument. It’s like the rush to buy VOIP kit: if nobody uses standard ‘phones, the telcos will either charge for VOIP calls instead (the infrastructure isn’t free, it’s VERY expensive, and if it’s not profitable they HAVE to make it so), or switch it off.
If people do work for you – make music for you, or useful software, or whatever, you should pay them for their labour. You’d expect them to pay you – why is it different the other way around?
The beauty of software and music distribution is that the costs can be shared around, so that we all pay _less_ than if it was made specially for us. The term being searched for here is ‘parasitic.’
But unsuccessful parasites are the ones who ultimately kill their hosts. Piracy, and short-circuiting normal payment systems for ‘free’ cable TV or long-distance calls, is a dangerous road to go down. There is no law that says Google, or YouTube, or Skype or software, or your-favourite-music or even the Net itself _has_ to exist. If companies go under, through theft or whatever, things WILL be turned off.
At that point the ‘everything for free’ argument won’t even be heard, let alone be supported. Not only do unsuccessful parasites fail, they usually die along with their hosts.
JFK was right, on a global scale too. It’s not what you can get, but what you contribute that matters.
Why is it that the people who say “all intellectual property should be free” think my time and labor is worthless, while their time and labor is valuable?
If the time and labor spent developing software should be free, then I want these bozos to come and cut my lawn for free.