This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Piracy versus the secondary market

RymRym
edited October 2009 in Everything Else
So, a number of people have very strong opinions against media piracy. Be it games, anime, software, or even books, many people, including many of you, argue that piracy hurts artists and denies them the income necessary to survive and continue to make art.

I don't wish to argue this point. I wish to discuss a related point: the secondary market.

An artist is compensated equally whether someone pirates their movie, borrows said movie from a friend, or buys said movie second-hand. That is, not at all. The secondary market is not only legal, but it's recently been bolstered substantially by the Autodesk ruling in a federal court, which may pave the way to a full secondary market for older versions of, say, expensive Adobe software like Photoshop.

More and more people are content to wait for their media, largely, I believe, due to the fact that there is simply so much more media now than there ever was. The urgency is gone for most things. Why buy a game new the day it comes out, when I can buy it for $5 less used a few days later? Why buy a game at all, when I can borrow it from my friend once he's finished it, and then lend it on to some other friend again?

There's also the issue that many things, particularly software, have reached a sort of breaking point threshold of quality for most people. Old movies and old games are "good enough" for many, many people. I for example, could do just fine with a version of Photoshop even several years old. I need to buy the newest, expensive Creative Suite only because there is no way to buy an older version for less (yet). Once I can buy the old version on Ebay for whatever price the market bears, I disappear entirely from Adobe's customer pool. Their (possibly soon to disappear) artificial restriction on the secondary market is the only reason they can maintain such high prices.

I believe that, even if piracy became entirely impossible, the secondary market will have the same long-term effect on all media. Durable goods, like the effectively indestructible modern forms of intellectual property, can be sold and re-sold, borrowed and lent, not just for a long time, but forever. A digital copy of a movie, so long as my first-sale rights are maintained, will exist forever, to be sold and traded again and again without restriction (even if no copies are ever made) for as long as there are people.

Twenty years in the future, will I pay $20 to see the newest movie, or $0.00001 to see any of the thousands upon thousands of existing works to be borrowed and bought second-hand?

The only way to prevent this is to take away our collective right to first-sale. Unlike with piracy, where there are valid moral arguments to be made, I see no such overwhelming case against first-sale.
«134567

Comments

  • I'm just going to post this again, because I don't think enough people are reading it.

    http://questioncopyright.org/compensation
  • So you're saying the secondary market is as bad as piracy? I see your point and I agree with it. My arguments against piracy are mostly rooted in the legality of it. I have no issues with the secondary market and use it a lot myself with games and netflix. I only buy things from a retailer when I really want them. Things like Cowboy Bebop, Brutal Legend, and the Forza series.
  • edited October 2009
    A good site, that one. I made a thread linking it a while back but it never got any replies. As I said there, "The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World" is a great article as well.

    As for the problem Rym puts forth, it obviously stems from the fact that intellectual property is in itself a flawed concept.
    Twenty years in the future, will I pay $20 to see the newest movie, or $0.00001 to see any of the thousands upon thousands of existing works to be borrowed and bought second-hand?

    Theonlyway to prevent this is to take away our collective right to first-sale.
    Not true. There's at least two other ways to prevent it:
    • Abandon the notion of intellectual property
    • Use crazy DRM to manufacture self-destructing media
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • So you're saying the secondary market is as bad as piracy?
    I believe he's saying that the secondary market legitimizes piracy.
  • edited October 2009
    An artist is compensated equally whether someone pirates their movie, borrows said movie from a friend, or buys said movie second-hand.That is, not at all. That is, not at all.
    Wrong, in each case there has to be an initial purchase. Depending on the case, the number of transactions you describe per purchase varies and should be taken into account as priors to your argument. Bayesian logic 101.

    I just had to point that out since it so rare that you make inaccurate statements ;-). The rest of your post, I think, actually argues this exact point; of how well this need for an initial purchases works in situations where there is no immediacy in the market.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • I'm just going to post this again, because I don't think enough people are reading it.

    http://questioncopyright.org/compensation
    Not reading and not agreeing are two different things. I like some of the principles set forth, but the fact is that is not the way the system is setup. How do we can a system with such a powerful lobby in Washington is the real question.
  • An artist is compensated equally whether someone pirates their movie, borrows said movie from a friend, or buys said movie second-hand.That is, not at all. That is, not at all.
    Wrong, in each case there has to be an initial purchase.
    Wrong. Piracy can sometimes occur without an initial purchase. I just had to point that out since it so rare that you make inaccurate statements ;-)
  • I believe he's saying that the secondary marketlegitimizespiracy.
    I don't think that's it, because one copy can not spread like wild fire. The one copy will take a lot longer to make its rounds.
  • edited October 2009
    I like some of the principles set forth, but the fact is that is not the way the system is setup. How do we can a system with such a powerful lobby in Washington is the real question.
    This is the main gripe I have with most people advocating copyright abolishment, they have the tendency to go straight to Step 3) Profit!.

    I have become convinced that one of the most useful (and pragmatic) steps to advocate is introduction of standardized fees for abandoned works and works with no clear ownership. Look at e.g. the Google Books deal that's been up in the news lately. A step like this would be a boon to people who are actually trying to preserve our disappearing heritage like films that are rotting away in storage because no company will touch them for fear of copyright suits.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • Also, the FSF on "compensation" is worth quoting:
    To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt to the author which we must then repay. The first assumption is simply false, and the second is outrageous.
  • edited October 2009
    I believe he's saying that the secondary market legitimizes piracy.
    I don't read it that way. The argument is that the secondary market has a feature in common with piracy: the producer of a piece of media is not compensated when it trades hands. In the case of piracy, that effect grows (if pirate A gives a copy of an MP3 to pirate B, pirate A still has his copy); in the secondary market, a "legitimate" copy changes hands, but only one copy exists before and after the transaction.

    Both have similar effects on a media producer's sales (one will be bigger, but I cannot say for sure which). The difference is that there is a long tradition of being able to give/lend/sell things we own. Unlike piracy, the secondary market has no smell of theft.
    Post edited by Hank on
  • edited October 2009
    The difference is that there is a long tradition of being able to give/lend/sell things we own. Unlike piracy, the secondary market has no smell of theft.
    That's only because a lot of money and effort has gone into stinking it up. Otherwise, piracy would just be seen as sharing; perhaps illegal sharing, but sharing nonetheless.
    I have become convinced that one of the most useful (and pragmatic) steps to advocate is introduction of standardized fees for abandoned works and works with no clear ownership. Look at e.g. the Google Books deal that's been up in the news lately. A step like this would be a boon to people who are actually trying to preserve our disappearing heritage like films that are rotting away in storage because no company will touch them for fear of copyright suits.
    So, the government collects these fees, and if an author turns up seeking money, they take issue with the government instead? That's certainly a good idea.
    EDIT: Just in case it's necessary for me to say so, the above is not sarcasm.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Unlike piracy, the secondary market has no smell of theft.
    I think the secondary market also allows us to legally adjust the price of our purchase. Say I buy Brutal Legend next week for $60, I play it and enjoy. The week after I sell it back to Gamestop for say $30. I've just reduced the price of the game to about $30, which is much more reasonable in my mind and someone after me can get it for about $40 or whatever Gamestop charges for it.
  • Indeed, in doing so you are influencing the market price of what is otherwise a price-fixed monopolized product.
  • Indeed, in doing so you are influencing the market price of what is otherwise a price-fixed monopolized product.
    Yes, thus it is wonderful.
  • Piracy tends to do the same thing, but with a more radical effect on the price ;)
  • There is a very succinct one liner I came across recently, which crystallizes the change that is currently happening in a market with high (possibly infinite) availability, high (possibly infinite) product durability and where the only real value can be attached to novelty:

    "What we must realize is that we're all in the fashion business now."
  • Wrong, in each case there has to be an initial purchase.
    There's very often an initial purchase with many forms of electronic piracy. Let's say that I download a CD rip of Amon Amarth's Twilight of the Thunder God (which is an amazing album that I highly recommend to everyone). Someone had to buy that CD at some point. I suppose it's possible that someone stole the physical CD, ripped it, and put it on the 'net, but that can also happen without the electronic piracy occurring (as in, theft and sharing can happen either in meatspace or netspace).

    So, one guy buys the CD and shares it with a bunch of friends. Let's say he shares it with 100 friends over the Internet. How is that any different than my friend letting me borrow the CD? There's still only one initial purchase. What if I have 100 friends, and I lend them the CD in meatspace? How is that different? What if I make 100 copies of the media that I legally own so that my meatspace friends can borrow it?

    The point that Rym is making is that the sharing of legally acquired media on the 'net is the same as the extant secondary market. If the secondary market is legal, and often encouraged, why do people get their panties in a wad over 'net sharing?
    I have become convinced that one of the most useful (and pragmatic) steps to advocate is introduction of standardized fees for abandoned works and works with no clear ownership.
    I like this idea. Of course, my ideal route would be that an abandoned work is simply free for use, but that would get complicated.
  • edited October 2009
    Wrong, in each case there has to be an initial purchase.
    There's very often an initial purchase with many forms of electronic piracy. Let's say that I download a CD rip of Amon Amarth'sTwilight of the Thunder God(which is an amazing album that I highly recommend to everyone). Someone had to buy that CD at some point. I suppose it's possible that someonestolethe physical CD, ripped it, and put it on the 'net, but that can also happen without the electronic piracy occurring (as in, theft and sharing can happen either in meatspace or netspace).

    So, one guy buys the CD and shares it with a bunch of friends. Let's say he shares it with 100 friends over the Internet. How is that any different than my friend letting me borrow the CD? There's still only one initial purchase. What if I have 100 friends, and I lend them the CD in meatspace? How is that different? What if I make 100 copies of the media that I legally own so that my meatspace friends can borrow it?

    The point that Rym is making is that the sharing of legally acquired media on the 'net is the same as the extant secondary market. If the secondary market is legal, and often encouraged, why do people get their panties in a wad over 'net sharing?
    Two simple reasons. One, internet sharing is enormously more powerful. Two, the copyright establishment has a huge influence on public opinion, and has shaped a lot of the general public view of piracy.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited October 2009
    The point that Rym is making is that the sharing of legally acquired media on the 'net is the same as the extant secondary market. If the secondary market is legal, and often encouraged, why do people get their panties in a wad over 'net sharing?
    Because with net sharing there's no longer any limit to it. A torrent spreads like wildfire, it's what they're designed to do.

    Also, the media industry getting their panties in a wad is nothing new. They got all wound up when they started packaging cassette tape recorders with radios.
    Two, the copyright establishment has a huge influence on public opinion, and has shaped a lot of the general public view of piracy.
    True, no matter what people actually think, few will verbally advocate breaking the law.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • edited October 2009
    Because with net sharing there's no longer any limit to it. A torrent spreads like wildfire, it's what they're designed to do.
    So there's a limit to the extent to which I'm allowed to share my media? I was unaware of that.

    EDIT: To be less rhetorical: There's no enforced limit on sharing in meatspace. Torrents are simply another method of sharing my media. Yes, it's easier to share with more friends, but the 'net has generally expanded everybody's social network, so we all have more "friends" than we used to. There are more users with which to share, so the technology to facilitate sharing must also advance.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited October 2009
    There's very often an initial purchase with many forms of electronic piracy. Let's say that I download a CD rip of Amon Amarth's Twilight of the Thunder God (which is an amazing album that I highly recommend to everyone). Someone had to buy that CD at some point.
    Not necessarily. The of the main reasons that albums "leak" before their release date is because reviewers and store owners, who are sent advance copies free of charge, rip them and upload torrents. There is potential for piracy to yeild no initial purchase.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • Re-read TheWhaleShark's comment, Sail. He said that there is very often an initial purchase, but not always.
  • Right. If we're talking about actual theft of media, that's a different topic. Swiping a CD from a store and sharing or reselling it is very different than downloading a shared CD.
  • I believe he's saying that the secondary marketlegitimizespiracy.
    I don't read it that way.
    The point that Rym is making is that the sharing of legally acquired media on the 'net is the same as the extant secondary market.
    I'm far more interested in the reading-in you've all done with my post. This must be what an author feels when people analyze his books.

    I made no point but what I made. An exact and literal interpretation of my words is all that is required to understand it. The primary implication of a certain causal relationship was implied, but no one has inferred it yet here (though Timo came very close).

    I feel now that I should refrain from any further clarification, if for no other reason than to see where this goes.
  • So there's a limit to the extent to which I'm allowed to share my media? I was unaware of that.

    EDIT: To be less rhetorical: There's no enforced limit on sharing in meatspace. Torrents are simply another method of sharing my media. Yes, it's easier to share with more friends, but the 'net has generally expanded everybody's social network, so we all have more "friends" than we used to. There are more users with which to share, so the technology to facilitate sharing must also advance.
    But that's exactly my point. People have a problem with it because it is such a quantum leap in sharing technology. It's like going from bows to fully automatic machine guns, a massive increase.
  • But that's exactly my point. People have a problem with it because it is such a quantum leap in sharing technology. It's like going from bows to fully automatic machine guns, a massive increase.
    So, should we change the laws due the massive change? Both with copyright and gun ownership rights? ^_~
  • So, should we change the laws due the massive change? Both with copyrightandgun ownership rights? ^_~
    No, the whole series of posts that lead to that was in response to "why are people getting bent out of shape over net sharing?" An issue of public opinion rather than policy.
  • Twenty years in the future, will I pay $20 to see the newest movie, or $0.00001 to see any of the thousands upon thousands of existing works to be borrowed and bought second-hand?

    Theonlyway to prevent this is to take away our collective right to first-sale. Unlike with piracy, where there are valid moral arguments to be made, I see no such overwhelming case against first-sale.
    Wrong for a few reasons:

    1) Timing of demand. For a secondary sale of something to occur, there has to be a first sale. That means that item was purchased at some point. Generally, when something first comes out, there is a demand for it that outweighs the amount of secondary supply, which yields first-hand sales. After the newness of the material wears off, piracy and/or secondary market sales are not terribly important. Which leads us to...

    2) The market for new things. We already have low-cost media available to us that we could chose instead of buying new releases. Video rental stores generally charge less for older movies. Libraries rent out books and music for free. People chose to consume the new media anyway because they want to, not because they have to. The idea is to keep creating new things. As an author, you don't usually get rich off of a single book; you keep releasing books and you make money off of each new release. Some authors even give away free copies of books that are older to drum up publicity for their new release.
  • I think this is kinda related: John K on Capitalism's Aims
Sign In or Register to comment.