Monday, December 19, 2011

Why Piracy?

This is a true story.

Over the weekend, I celebrated early Christmas with my wife.

Because she's awesome, and because she listens to the things I say, she got me a Kindle Touch.

"Yaaaaaay!" I said, flailing my arms happily.

The next day, started in on the nasty business of "setting up my Kindle." I configured my wireless connection, synched up my account, and prepared to make with the digital downloading.

I decided to buy a Kurt Vonnegut novel -- he's my favorite author, and I've read quite a few of his novels, but there's still a lot of quality "lesser works" that I've either never read, or started and stalled halfway through.

"Bluebeard!" my Kindle screamed at me.

"Okay!" I screamed back.

"Awesome!" shrieked my Kindle. "That'll be $11.00, please!!! LOL!!!!!"

"Oh," I balked.

I looked at the listing for the paperback version. I could get a used copy for $6.49 (after shipping). Heck, I could get a new copy for $10.20 (with free shipping). I thought this whole "digital distribution" thing was supposed to be cheaper. Wha...?

And I quickly realized, you know what? I could find this in PDF format for free. If I wanted, I could actually find the complete works of Vonnegut in every digital format available from one download link (I did so just now, using a simple Google search that took less than a minute).

I mean, how cool would that be -- I could just fire up a complete library of books on my Kindle the first day...and leisurely make my way through the works of one of the greatest authors of our generation, if I so desired.

So, not only would that save me $11.00...it could potentially save me over a hundred dollars, and it would cost me nothing. Besides, I've already purchased several of his books in paper copy -- what would be the harm in simply transferring them over to digital copies?

And Mr. Vonnegut is dead anyway (So it goes). The only people profiting from this would be the goddamn publisher.

I was tempted. Very, very tempted. I could load up my new sweet new gift with books that, to be honest, I probably would never have bought anyway (I'm never going to purchase Galapagos, Timequake, or Hocus Pocus, so it's not like the publisher would be losing any real money). And hell, I paid for the Kindle, and I already buy tons of stuff on Amazon...is me pirating one little book going to make an impact at all with that enormous company?

And what the hell? $11.00? Who charges that much? It doesn't cost $11.00 to make one little frigging e-book. I was being fleeced. Some asshole publisher with and OCR scanner is making a butt-load of money, and little-to-no expense.

Screw those guys. They doesn't deserve my money.

This is the mindset of our generation. And thus, the true danger of piracy.

I did buy the e-book...not just because if I didn't I'd come off as a huge stupid hypocrite if I pirated that stuff after my recent pro-SOPA ravings, but also because I'm really trying to break myself of that "piracy is okay in small doses" mindset...which, even after three years working in anti-piracy, I still find myself fighting. Even sitting here now, typing this, I'm thinking, "Aw, who's gonna' know about those books? Or even care?"

I don't know. Certainly not one of the commenter in my last post, who branded me an "industry shill," "dinosaur," and an out of touch liar who has "no idea of how things work."

I mean, I know the guy who wrote that...and he's a complete asshole, so I'm not really bothered by any of his accusations. But there are others out there who might think that, because I'm so close to this stuff, and because I get a paycheck from enforcing this stuff, that I'm not the most reliable, unbiased source.

I disagree.

First off, SOPA might just put me out of a job. I'm a very busy man at work, but that's only because the company I work for goes out of its way to abide by the DMCA and US copyright law (more than most companies do, in my opinion). If SOPA were to be passed, it's very possible that my job would either change dramatically, or go away altogether.

Secondly, I would argue that I'm much more in touch with the realities and dangers of piracy than the average person. I've seen the numbers (and generated my own). I've done the research. I've looked at the "confidential" numbers reports. I've seen the breadth, depths, and realities of the problem first-hand. Like I say, this is what I do for a living. I ought to be allowed to express an informed opinion without being accused of bias.

Finally, although I'm a fan of the company I work for, I'm fully capable of my own free thought, and in the past I have been critical of facets of not just my own company, but of the industry as a whole. And like I said, no one in my office has even expressed an opinion about this law one way or the other, and I believe some of them might actually even be opposed to it.

I am neither industry shill, nor uniformed liar.

So what I want to do (after that super-long preamble) is talk a bit about "why" otherwise law-abiding folks pirate intellectual property. Or, rather, my three theories as to why they do so.

1) Convenience
. Seems like a no-brainer, but, for those of us born before 1990, think about what "watching a TV show" used to entail. You'd have to learn about the show (talking to friends or reading about it in the newspaper), find out what time the show starts (by checking the TV Guide), then you'd have to stay at home and watch the show in its entirety, commercials and all. Now, with DVR and Video-on-Demand, you can skip commercials, and you've achieved what was once only a dream: full control the when and the where you view content.

But with piracy, you can now add what to that list. Studios are interested in limiting availability, because it means the consumer will want to pay a fee to increase their content choices.

For the consumer, circumventing this inconvenience is the most obvious excuse for accessing pirated content.

For instance, you hear that Boardwalk Empire is a show worth watching. It sounds like a pretty cool show (and it is), but HBO is expensive. You could wait until it comes out on NetFlix, or until the DVDs come out, but that takes forever.

Well, what if I told you about a site that has every single episode of Boardwalk Empire available, right now, for free? Pretty sweet deal, yeah? It's not like you want to pay for all the other shows on HBO or anything, and you're bored tonight...so...why not? Maybe just a couple of episodes...to see what all the fuss is about.

Seems like a pretty obvious, yet seemingly harmless decision.

Or maybe you finally grew a goddamn brain, and started watching the best show on television: Community. You go to NBC.com, and holy crap! Full episodes! High def! Free!!! You realize that you want to watch the full series!

Wait, where the hell is season 2!?

Nope. Not on NBC.com. Only the 5 most recent episodes are on NBC. Hulu? Nope. Have to subscribe to Hulu Plus ($7.99 a month) to watch season 2, and you already subscribe to NetFlix and Time Warner Cable. NetFlix doesn't have it available for streaming, so you'd have to rent the DVDs...but you're not signed up for Qwikster (lol), and the second season DVDs cost over $20.

Once again...hold the phone. Turns out you can see every episode for free online! No subscriptions, advertisements, or anything. Sweet!

Besides, if you do download it, it's probably good for NBC in the long run, because they have a new fan (you already subscribe to cable, and you have NetFlix) and you'll definitely start watching the future episodes...once you're fully caught up with the adventure of those kooky kids from Greendale Community College.

Again, it's that convenience factor, coupled with this notion that people are somehow gifted with the "inexorable right" to consume any entertainment content they desire...and that to withhold (or make them work for) that entertainment is just "corporate bullshit."

It's a culture of entitlement...and it's empowering piracy.

2) Access. Imagine this nightmare scenario. You're a Browns fan (yes, that alone is a nightmare), but you moved to Minneapolis to pursue your dream of becoming the next Gregg Steinhaffel (as if there could be another Gregg Steinhaffel).

Sunday rolls around, and you're totally geeked about the prospects of watching the high-powered, Colt McCoy-led offense catapult the Browns to a Super Bowl. Problem. The Browns will never, ever, ever be shown on national TV, and for some reason, the people in Minneapolis would rather watch the Vikings.

So you go to a sports bar to watch the game. It's pretty cool...but you end up plunking down $30 a week in beer and cheeseburgers. After 16 games of mediocrity, that'd cost you $480 damn dollars.

You could sign up for NFL Ticket, but you don't have DirecTV, and that anyway, the additional service costs $100 a year (which would save money in the long run, but it's still too damn expensive). You used to be able to get these games for free back in Cleveland...but now it's just a huge pain in the ass.

Hold the phone (no, seriously, hold the goddamn phone), you mean there's a website that offers all of these games for free? And I can watch it on my couch, in my boxers, eating a $1 Hot Pocket!? Hot damn! What a bargain!

How on earth could you say "no" to that? Why on earth would you say "no" to that?

No matter what a company does, or how easy and cheap it offers its services, it will never be able to compete with free. This is great for the consumer, because piracy is driving down costs from legitimate streaming services.

But it's very bad for the content producers and distributors, who must now (in order to compete) find a way to distribute content for "next to nothing." This includes forcing viewers to watch advertisements intermittently (the "free" Hulu model), or charging a small subscription fee (the "Hulu Plus" model). It's not sustainable, since those fees will never ever cover production costs (which is why Hulu does not actually create content), so the studio will end up losing in the long run.

This is why studios need to limit content availability. There needs to be a reason for consumers to plunk down that extra $8.00 a month. If the content providers lose control of that, why would a consumer ever sign up for a $99 NFL ticket? Or go to a sports bar for $30 a week?

Once again, piracy wins, because it's not playing fair.

3) Because...fuck you! This is the most insidious. These are the people with a chip on their shoulder about the profits that the various studios, record labels, and distributors are pulling in. They are anti-corporation, and think that studios create easy-to-digest bullshit for the consumer to turn a quick buck.

To them, movie studios are gluttonous assholes ripping off the American consumer with terrible content. Film a Smurf's movie?! Great! It made $142 million in box office receipts! VICTORY! How about the Chipmunks movie? $217 million! Awesome! People love this shit, and it costs us next-to-nothing to produce! Transformers: Dark of the Moon? $352 million!!! Wait, what's this? The Descendants? Only $28 million?! Who is responsible for this bullshit?! You're fired!!! Goddamn, we hate our customers, but we'll keep shoveling out the shitty content and they'll keep lapping it us as our wallets get fatter and fatter!

So why should those assholes be getting any of my money? Screw them. I'll hop on a torrent and just grab every movie I ever wanted (including first-run theatrical releases) for free. I don't need a TV or cable box, I can just stream everything online. I'm not going to feed the corporate machine to churn out shittier and shittier content. Those guys can suck it (and by "it," I mean "my wiener").

Ah...that felt good.

Thing is, these people are not totally wrong. The MPAA posted record profits last year, mostly based off of terrible, terrible, terrible remakes and sequels. Good shows (like Community) get shitty ratings, while shitty shows (like Two-and-a-half Men) are just killing. Everywhere we look, corporations and are getting richer and richer, while content is getting dumber and dumber.

But...

If you really believe this, what are you watching? Obviously if you're a discerning viewer, you're staying away from dreck like Wipeout or X-Factor. But you're still downloading stuff, right? Who do you think makes that shit you're downloading for free?

Yep. Studios. Record companies. Artists. The assholes you're railing against. The ones with the talent and the money that you lack.

So how can you simultaneously be a fan of something, while hating the people who created it?

The hell is wrong with you?

Face it...you're just a greedy asshole, cloaking your theft in the guise of this "stick it to the man" bullshit.

I have no patience for people like you...who are just so cynical and hypocritical that they see nothing wrong with what they're doing, and feel no obligation to pay for any entertainment they digest.

I hope there are not many people out there like this...because if so, anyone hoping to make a buck off of a creative endeavor is screwed.

But I know they're out there...and I'm pretty sure that "industry shill" guy is one of them.


In Conclusion

Sorry, I couldn't figure out a way to transition out of that list format that I had set up, so I went all "10th grade history essay" on your ass.

Basically, I get it. There's a lot more going on with people turning to piracy other than the fact that "it's free." It's also a question of quantity. Content producers want to restrict access, while pirates want capitalize on that. Who could blame someone for watching pirated movies...something that they don't really consider to be harmful in small doses?

But it's our culture of entitlement that makes us think that way. It's hard to break free, but we must...because more and more people are going to realize just how much free content is available out there...and how easy it is to get. And it will start to have a financial impact.

Maybe it hasn't happened yet...but it will. Remember when no one had heard of Skype? Now, it's the only way to communicate long distance with someone. As piracy grows and overwhelms the companies trying to contain it, there will be a cost.

I believe that we need to address it, and that it should not be tolerated.

7 comments:

  1. 2 things. I have a rather extensive collection of Vonnegut, in paperback. You could probably have Bluebeard for free. Take a look at the book shelves upstairs next time. Thing two is one of my theories. It begins with the question: Why does criminal behavior persist? The answer is surprisingly simple. Because it works. Under the right circumstances criminal behavior isn't even criminal. In war killing, maiming, looting, destroying, and so forth are acceptable behaviors as long as they directly diminish the enemies ability to do the same to you. Some would disagree. Doesn't change anything. Even piracy was OK if it was a privateer. A privateer was an authorized, government sanctioned, pirate. I need to work out my theories about nationhood, the concept of sovereign statehood, and culture, as conflated by ethnicity, language, not to mention hair and skin color. Or, I could just adopt the Bokononist's mantra, "Nice, nice,
    very nice,
    so many different people
    in the same device."
    And find relief.
    Dad

    Non Illigitmate Carborundum!
    (Don't let the bastards wear you down)
    (Not real Latin)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, I actually remember seeing "Bluebeard" in a magazine rack in the back of Poopdeck Pappy for several years. I always thought it was about a pirate...still did to this day, actually (not the Vonnegut interpretation, of course, but the original 17th century fairy tale).

    But I wanted to get the book in a digital-type format, to give my Kindle something to chew on, and so I wouldn't have to go lugging around yet another hard copy book (better for the environment and all that).

    I suppose I should have checked with you first regarding my next Vonnegut novel. I've finished Slaughterhouse V, Sirens of Titan, Breakfast of Champions, Slapstick, and Cat's Cradle. I tried to plow through Welcome to the Monkey House and Mother Night, but stalled for some reason or other.

    Busy, busy, busy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I only have 1 question... Who the hell is Gregg Steinhaffel?

    Okay, 2 questions... can you use Gutenberg.org on a Kindle?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gregg Steinhaffel? Only the greatest mind on the planet...as well as the current Target CEO (I was just looking for a famous person from Minneapolis...and Target was the first thing that jumped to mine).

    Also, looks like Project Gutenberg uses multiple formats, including Kindle-friendly MOBI, so according to this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-book_formats#Supporting_platforms) you are able to read the books offered there on a Kindle (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200375630).

    Hot damn...you know what? A free copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare might not be a bad place to start. Nice idea, Evan. (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/100)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Tyler,

    I have no idea who you are, I found your blog after I googled "In defense of SOPA" because the piracy-nuts were annoying the hell out of me.

    I used to, in younger years, play pirated games and didn't really care much about it. I mean hell! It's free! (Except the cost of a CD).

    But I changed to a firm anti-piracy stance. I do not play games that are pirated and I scold friends for doing so. In fact, I've made my stance so known and have been so vocal that they seem ashamed to talk about it when they're around me.

    I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. The "free for all"-crowd is running rampant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting points, but I thought I'd point out that Hulu is now making content of its own: http://adage.com/article/digital/hulu-enters-original-programming-battleground/232103/

    So clearly they're making SOME money, right? Netflix, too. There are many folks cutting the cord from cable TV and moving to all-online viewing habits (hey, if my TV has a network port I might as well use it!). Ease of use has never been, uh, easier.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Danke for the feedback, Mr. Dom. As I said in the e-mail I sent to you; "What's the highest-budget Hulu show? What's the lowest-budget major network show?"

    When those two aren't off by a magnitude of 100, then I'll be convinced. Until then, I don't buy the argument that there's the possibility of a financially viable web distribution option that can hope to compete while piracy grows un-checked.

    ReplyDelete