What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

Is downloading a CD or DVD via torrent stealing?

  • Absolutely stealing.

    Votes: 40 45.5%
  • Sort of stealing but ok.

    Votes: 16 18.2%
  • On the fence.

    Votes: 10 11.4%
  • Sort of stealing but not ok.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Absolutely not stealing.

    Votes: 22 25.0%

  • Total voters
    88
It seems silly to me that I can sit at my computer and listen to all the music I want for free by going to YouTube, but as soon as I save the music to my computer it becomes illegal. :loco: I agree with most of the others. The business model has changed. Gone are the days where musicians make money selling records.
Ok but what about the case of say The Insanity DVD's.These guys made these video's themselves and distribute them. While I do think they are overpriced, where is the line that these are not stealing?
 
Borrowing a CD or downloading an MP3 for personal enjoyment = not stealing

Using music for financial gain (i.e. marketing a product) = stealing

 
And I'd ask another question - is there a "line" for sharing? In other words, if I buy a CD I like, can I burn a copy for my son? Should I have to buy everyone in my household a copy that wants to listen? Hmmm.
Ever borrow a book? Ever lend a book? Ever xerox a page out of a book from the library? Ever borrow or lend a computer program disk to someone else? It's all stealing.
Awaiting the response to this one.
I disagree with the premise that it's OK to steal one thing if you may have stolen another. But there are substantial differences between torrents and these examples. First, borrowing and lending is not the same as copying and redistributing. Only one person can have the book at a time. There is utility to having a book that you have to pay for. The practice of creating an identical duplicate copy of a book is not common (although this may become a bigger issue with the risinng popularity of eBooks, Kindle, and the iPad). Second, when providing goods and services, the seller has the right to define the terms and conditions of the sale. Perhaps you've seen a DVD with a warning that this is licensed for authorized personal use? The terms and conditions for a book may also be spelled out. The seller has the prerogative to set conditions and the buyer can't just change their mind after purchasing it. So the people sharing the music are breaking that contract. Third, if a publisher chooses to make their media - book, CD, DVD, etc. - available over YouTube, in a library, etc., they should have the right to enter agreements with third parties to share their media for free, or for a price they agree to. If the library allows people to copy that media, and the publisher still chooses to share their information in this way, that's their call. The same thing goes if a publisher chooses to allow free downloads of their music. Fourth, I hope people here haven't pirated software as commonly as you suggest. You're right -- that is stealing, and it's worse than stealing music because there's no concert that these guys are performing where you can imagine they'll recoup their losses.
 
Stealing or not it's happening and I don't see it changing.

Entertainers need to come to peace with the fact that this is not the 80s/90s and the pricing structures that existed then are outdated and need to be changed. The need to make CDs, covers, cases etc. has drastically diminished as have the older distribution methods and these factors significantly reduce the expense of making CDs yet they expect the same pricing structure. Really the people complaining most loudly about this are all the middle men that used to be necessary to bring new music to market, well those people need to change careers. I am sorry for their loss but no more sorry than I was for the milkman or the ice delivery guy. Times and technology change and the recording industry needs to change with them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems silly to me that I can sit at my computer and listen to all the music I want for free by going to YouTube, but as soon as I save the music to my computer it becomes illegal. :loco: I agree with most of the others. The business model has changed. Gone are the days where musicians make money selling records.
Ok but what about the case of say The Insanity DVD's.These guys made these video's themselves and distribute them. While I do think they are overpriced, where is the line that these are not stealing?
Well, what's the difference between putting the videos on CD's and giving them to an i-friend versus sharing the videos via torrents? I don't really see one (besides if you intend to profit from the distribution).
 
I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.
I disagree with the bolded.Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.
Possibly, and that may be true in this case. In other cases, a company might choose not to create content, or choose to price it higher, because music thieves erode their ability to recapture their production costs.
 
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?

In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.

 
Movies are not impacted nearly as significantly by DLing. There is not as much of a demand because the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.

People also will continue to flock to movie theaters for the experience of having the best picture/sound qualities. Plus it is still one of the few relatively cheap entertainment options.

In addition the way technology is moving towards streaming videos we soon won't even have need of external content media players (DVD, BluRay etc) and with most OnDemand movies costing between $5-10 people would likely rather spend the small premium to stream a movie instantly rather than going through the long process of DLing movie content.

 
I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.
I disagree with the bolded.Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.
Possibly, and that may be true in this case. In other cases, a company might choose not to create content, or choose to price it higher, because music thieves erode their ability to recapture their production costs.
Insanity/P90x need to learn to license their concept like Crossfit or something like that.

 
Second, when providing goods and services, the seller has the right to define the terms and conditions of the sale. Perhaps you've seen a DVD with a warning that this is licensed for authorized personal use? The terms and conditions for a book may also be spelled out. The seller has the prerogative to set conditions and the buyer can't just change their mind after purchasing it. So the people sharing the music are breaking that contract.
Precisely. The original copiers are breaching a contract. (I think there is a worthwhile distinction between breaching a contract and stealing.) Subsequent copiers, however, are not parties to that contract.
 
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.
The price will always be what the market will bear. If music sales are down then the price is likely too high.
 
I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground
They should put all their stuff out on the web for free. That's the best way to get their music careers off the ground. If they're any good, they'll make the money they deserve playing concerts, selling merchandise, limited edition stuff, etc.
That's what some are doing.

Do you think they "deserve" to make money for selling a CD they created?

Do you think it's ok that people get the CD for free via torrents or other sites?

And I'd ask another question - is there a "line" for sharing? In other words, if I buy a CD I like, can I burn a copy for my son? Should I have to buy everyone in my household a copy that wants to listen? Hmmm.

J
What if 2 neighbors both have hedges and both need hedge trimmers. Wouldn't it be better if just one of them bought hedge trimmers and they just shared?
Only one of you can still use the hedge trimmers at a time. You both have perfectly good copies of the CD if you burn it. Now, if there were some sort of duplicating machine for matter*, then we might have a discussion.*patent pending

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.
:unsure:I will disagree with that statement.
 
I see lots of people talking about downloading dvds via torrents. Please stop doing that. I guess I'm more sensitive to that as I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground and this kind of thing directly impacts them.So please stop the posts about how to do it and please stop the advertising for PMs for people to send you copied disks.But I'm open to discussing the bigger picture here. For you guys that do the torrent thing, how do you justify it that it's not stealing from the music artist or the creator of the DVD?J
Disagree. The business model has changed and the bands need to adapt. Gone are the days where profit is derived soley from the distribution of a product. It was only that way because most people didn't have access to the data in a format that was swappable. That horse has left the barn. Bands etc would do go to get people to try and listen to their music. What better way than having someone else promote it, play it, listen to it, blog it etc.The Music Blogs are here for good. Odds are you can Google any band (that someone has heard of etc) and find their music on a blog. But that is also good exposure for the bands. Best bet really is to join em instead of beat em, by posting your own material freely available online (a la comedy central) so that you are at least capturing the ad revenue instead of Youtube of some random music blog.Trust me, a band that has tons of people downloading their songs will command more in the way of concert.tour/mdse revenues, and promotional opportunities.The new model also means you don't need to rely on the big 5 record companies, who would routinely rape and abuse artists based on leverage in the contract negotiations.
Even if the business model should be revamped (and has been for many), does that not make it stealing if you get music for free that was for sale?
 
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.
Over-priced when FM and internet radio is free.
SO don't buy - demand will always set the price of a virtually unlimited supply quantity. The record industry is trying to maximize revenue - they will settle on a price that does that.I think FBGs charges too high a fee, so should I stop paying and go find someone to give me the information for free?
 
Movies are not impacted nearly as significantly by DLing. There is not as much of a demand because the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.

Disagree. The quality of the torrents out now are dead ringer for DVD and in many cases BR. Maybe not in the first month of release, but not too far after that. And there are some black box setups (XBox360 for one) that make it completely push button once it's finished.

People also will continue to flock to movie theaters for the experience of having the best picture/sound qualities. Plus it is still one of the few relatively cheap entertainment options.

yes

In addition the way technology is moving towards streaming videos we soon won't even have need of external content media players (DVD, BluRay etc) and with most OnDemand movies costing between $5-10 people would likely rather spend the small premium to stream a movie instantly rather than going through the long process of DLing movie content.

Widely held movies take on a 6MBit connection roughly 25-30 minutes to DL in DVD format. BR it's more, but not obscenely more. If for some reason you want to burn this to a disk the process takes perhaps 1 hour to do a feature film.
I just quit caring about TV shows long ago. I pay for most of the channels anyways. There are a few exceptions where I'll pull down premium content ahead of schedule, but all this does is timeshift from DVD release on netflix a year or so in advance. I figure having a netflix account is a quasi-license to get video content I need if I want to watch it before NF will release it to disc or download. Maybe it isn't ethical, but I just don't care.

I never download music, but use pandora and youtube a lot. I haven't bought a non-kids CD or DVD in over 10 years.

 
bostonfred said:
eoMMan said:
bostonfred said:
I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.
I disagree with the bolded.Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.
Possibly, and that may be true in this case. In other cases, a company might choose not to create content, or choose to price it higher, because music thieves erode their ability to recapture their production costs.
eoMMan is right that pirating doesn't lead to higher prices. Prices are set to maximize revenues*. The idea that producers can increase revenues (to make up for money lost to pirates) by increasing prices doesn't work; if they could increase revenues by increasing prices, they'd do so whether or not any pirates exist. So pirates don't affect prices. (Similarly, to correct another common misperception, NFL player salaries don't affect ticket prices. Owners don't charge more to "make up for" high player salaries. They charge the revenue-maximizing price regardless of player salaries -- which is why Notre Dame tickets cost more than Chicago Bears tickets.)___

*Technically, to maximize net revenues. But the marginal cost of printing a CD is low enough that it doesn't substantially affect the price.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Generally I use torrents as a kind of "try before you buy". If I like it then I will generally buy it. If I don't then I wont. The exception would be ridiculously high priced items, most of the times it is a graphics program or something similar. Made for a design house or a content distributor. I don't use the products in that way I use it for my own personal use and not to redistribute anything. Now I would agree that this is still stealing, but it is easier to justify with myself.

 
eoMMan said:
Jason Bourne said:
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.
Over-priced when FM and internet radio is free.
There's a big difference between owning an mp3 and listening to the radio.If music were overpriced, the sellers would lower the price. They haven't, so clearly it is not.
 
Joe Bryant said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Joe Bryant said:
I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground
They should put all their stuff out on the web for free. That's the best way to get their music careers off the ground. If they're any good, they'll make the money they deserve playing concerts, selling merchandise, limited edition stuff, etc.
That's what some are doing. Do you think they "deserve" to make money for selling a CD they created?Do you think it's ok that people get the CD for free via torrents or other sites?And I'd ask another question - is there a "line" for sharing? In other words, if I buy a CD I like, can I burn a copy for my son? Should I have to buy everyone in my household a copy that wants to listen? Hmmm.J
1. Of course they do but many will justify it as only giving money to the record companies and not the artist. 2. Absolutely not. I always point true music lovers toward services such as Zune and Rhapsody which are reasonably priced. There is also the Pandora and Last.FM option for people that don't want to pay for their music.3. Not sure how old your son is but I have kids under 14 and everything we get is stored on a few NAS devices for easy playback throughout the house. I do believe once I buy it I should be able to transfer it to the devices I want to view/listen to it on. I don't however think you should be sending copies out to your entire family.
 
Walton Goggins said:
Joe Bryant said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Joe Bryant said:
I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground
They should put all their stuff out on the web for free. That's the best way to get their music careers off the ground. If they're any good, they'll make the money they deserve playing concerts, selling merchandise, limited edition stuff, etc.
That's what some are doing. Do you think they "deserve" to make money for selling a CD they created?Do you think it's ok that people get the CD for free via torrents or other sites?And I'd ask another question - is there a "line" for sharing? In other words, if I buy a CD I like, can I burn a copy for my son? Should I have to buy everyone in my household a copy that wants to listen? Hmmm.J
If someone lets you borrow or gives you their book (could be cooking book or any type), do you tell them "NO" and buy it yourself?
Those are the questions I'm asking above. It seems like there is a line in a physical item that is shared. I borrow a book and you don't have it anymore.If you made a copy of the book and gave it to me, does that seem different?J
 
videoguy505 said:
Chaka said:
the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.
:confused: I will disagree with that statement.
User name = videoguy and IIRC (I don't keep a notebook) you do some kind of A/V editing as your career.You are in the minority.Just curious do you stream from your laptop to your TV or do you process the file to DVD for viewing?
 
An interesting article about this:

Pirates Are The Music Industry’s Most Valuable Customers

Once again the music industry has come out with disappointing results for physical music sales, which they blame entirely on file-sharing. What they failed to mention though, is that their findings show that music pirates are buying more digital music than the average music consumer. Since digital music is the future, pirates are the industry’s most valuable customers.

Have you ever heard one of the major movie studios complaining about the decrease in sales of VHS tapes? We haven’t. The music industry on the other hand continues to blame the decrease in physical sales on digital piracy, ignoring the fact that there’s a generation growing up that has never owned a physical CD.

Yesterday the music industry lobby group IFPI presented its 2009 figures, again putting the blame for decreased physical sales on file-sharers. Unfortunately, most mainstream media outlets simply reposted the IFPI press release and their flawed analysis. In general, no effort is made to actually balance out or check the message being sent out to millions of readers.

In their annual Digital Music Report, IFPI states that file-sharers are half as likely to buy physical CDs than the average music buyer. Although the report is about digital music, they carefully avoid saying anything about file-sharers and digital sales. That would actually show a completely different picture as we will explain below.

The music group made this statement based on an IFPI-commissioned study that was executed by Jupiter research. Although IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak, we can conclude the following from the two pages that were published online.

Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.

* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.

* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.

* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer. In fact, the group that makes up the music buyers category actually includes the buying file-sharers, so the difference between music sharers and non-sharing music buyers would be even more pronounced.

How can this be true and why was there no mention of this in the Digital Music Report? They must be spending less on digital music then, right? But again, this is not the case at all. On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that’s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.

Mulligan has his hands tied and couldn’t say much about the findings without IFPI’s approval, but we managed to get confirmation that paying file-sharers are the music industry’s best customers. “A significant share of music buyers are file sharers also. These music buyers tend to be higher spending music buyers,” Mulligan told TorrentFreak.

So why do file-sharers download music without paying? According to the annual IFPI report, one of the main reasons people share music is because it’s free. This leads the music industry group to conclude that they are cheapskates and not willing to pay for music at all. But, as the above clearly shows, they are misinterpreting this finding, and we’d like to explain why.

In the digital age, people’s demand for music has changed significantly, but their budgets are still limited. The average file-sharer is currently spending $100 a year on music according to IFPI’s own research, not really a group that can be classified as freeloaders. However, their demand for music simply exceeds their budget and that’s where they start downloading music on file-sharing sites, because it’s free.

Just to be clear on our motivation to balance the ‘facts’ as reported by IFPI. We are not advocating that all music should be free and neither do most of the music lovers who share files online. However, the music industry continues to ignore that file-sharing is much more of a signal from the market that it is the increased demand for music that fuels piracy.

The solution to the problem is relatively easy. Start offering more unlimited and unrestricted music services and piracy will go into a free-fall. File-sharers are already paying for digital music, and they pay more than the average music consumer. File-sharing is simply a market signal showing that there is a need to compensate for the lack of high quality and affordable subscription services.

If anything, the music industry should have more respect for file-sharers, as they are their most valuable consumers. They are ahead of the curve and actually leading the way for the future of digital music, buying more digital music than anyone else. It’s the music industry that has to change, not the other way around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Joe Bryant said:
I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground
They should put all their stuff out on the web for free. That's the best way to get their music careers off the ground. If they're any good, they'll make the money they deserve playing concerts, selling merchandise, limited edition stuff, etc.
That's what some are doing.

Do you think they "deserve" to make money for selling a CD they created?

Do you think it's ok that people get the CD for free via torrents or other sites?

And I'd ask another question - is there a "line" for sharing? In other words, if I buy a CD I like, can I burn a copy for my son? Should I have to buy everyone in my household a copy that wants to listen? Hmmm.

J
1. Of course they do but many will justify it as only giving money to the record companies and not the artist. 2. Absolutely not. I always point true music lovers toward services such as Zune and Rhapsody which are reasonably priced. There is also the Pandora and Last.FM option for people that don't want to pay for their music.

3. Not sure how old your son is but I have kids under 14 and everything we get is stored on a few NAS devices for easy playback throughout the house. I do believe once I buy it I should be able to transfer it to the devices I want to view/listen to it on. I don't however think you should be sending copies out to your entire family.
could you unpack this storage/easy playback setup?
 
Jason Bourne said:
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.
In a competitive (or "free") market, price equals marginal cost of production. In one sense, I suppose you could say that anything above the free market price is "overpriced."The whole point of copyright laws, however, is to grant monopolies to authors so that they can charge more than the free market price. The market for songs and videos, therefore, is not free at all. (I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that monopolies -- whether good or bad -- are pretty much the exact opposite of free markets.)
 
videoguy505 said:
Chaka said:
the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.
:confused: I will disagree with that statement.
User name = videoguy and IIRC (I don't keep a notebook) you do some kind of A/V editing as your career.You are in the minority.Just curious do you stream from your laptop to your TV or do you process the file to DVD for viewing?
I have reason to believe it is extremely easy to limit a torrent search to just HD-quality files, a movie in such a format can range from 1.5GB to 4.5GB, so it can download in 3-4 hours if they're from a good site. DVD quality is less than 1 GB and can be had in 30-90 minutes. I also have reason to believe such files need no further processing or preparation to view on a TV if a person is 1) capable of clicking the media sharing tab in the Windows media player, and 2) hitting the "search for media servers" icon on a PS3-type device.I don't think anyone capable of setting up torrent on their PC would be unable of following through with the rest. I doubt that puts me in the minority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please See Mine said:
Hipple said:
Joe Bryant said:
I see lots of people talking about downloading dvds via torrents. Please stop doing that. I guess I'm more sensitive to that as I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground and this kind of thing directly impacts them.So please stop the posts about how to do it and please stop the advertising for PMs for people to send you copied disks.But I'm open to discussing the bigger picture here. For you guys that do the torrent thing, how do you justify it that it's not stealing from the music artist or the creator of the DVD?J
Disagree. The business model has changed and the bands need to adapt. Gone are the days where profit is derived soley from the distribution of a product. It was only that way because most people didn't have access to the data in a format that was swappable. That horse has left the barn. Bands etc would do go to get people to try and listen to their music. What better way than having someone else promote it, play it, listen to it, blog it etc.The Music Blogs are here for good. Odds are you can Google any band (that someone has heard of etc) and find their music on a blog. But that is also good exposure for the bands. Best bet really is to join em instead of beat em, by posting your own material freely available online (a la comedy central) so that you are at least capturing the ad revenue instead of Youtube of some random music blog.Trust me, a band that has tons of people downloading their songs will command more in the way of concert.tour/mdse revenues, and promotional opportunities.The new model also means you don't need to rely on the big 5 record companies, who would routinely rape and abuse artists based on leverage in the contract negotiations.
Even if the business model should be revamped (and has been for many), does that not make it stealing if you get music for free that was for sale?
I think you're hitting a point that's worthwhile. I hear people talk about the "business model has changed". What does that have to do with whether something is stealing or not?A business may have come up with a new plan to give stuff away while others are charging for it. That doesn't mean you can steal what the other guys are charging for now. The guys selling their stuff very well may go out of business if nobody will pay for their stuff because the competition is giving it away. But that's something entirely different.J
 
Downloading music now seems as harmless as checking out a book from the library.

however, software and video game downloads... when their game or software is the only way those people are going to make any money as opposed to artsits selling t-shirts and concert tickets... well that's another issue.

My XM player is specifically set up to record music from the radio so i can play it over and over again....

I will never specifically pay for a single song again, but i support the music industry through XM Radio (which has a recording artists fee i have to pay), Rhapsody internet radio, and occasional concerts

 
Not stealing plain and simple. Get it through your thick skulls.

It is a community to share things. Like when I borrowed a truck from a friend. Should Ford be mad I didnt buy my own truck?

 
Jason Bourne said:
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.
Some people split hairs over usage of the term "overpriced".Sometimes, a new product first comes to market, and there's a rush to buy it. A great demand. So demand can support the price. Then after the initial rush, demand tapers off a great deal. So the price comes down. Some people might say "The item just came out! I'm not buying it because its overpriced! It will come down!" Some people will claim they are using the term "overpriced" incorrectly. Others will get even more confused and say "how can something be overpriced in a free market?" because their definition of the word "overpriced" is different.
 
Jason Bourne said:
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?

In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.
In a competitive (or "free") market, price equals marginal cost of production. In one sense, I suppose you could say that anything above the free market price is "overpriced."The whole point of copyright laws, however, is to grant monopolies to authors so that they can charge more than the free market price. The market for songs and videos, therefore, is not free at all. (I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that monopolies -- whether good or bad -- are pretty much the exact opposite of free markets.)
I am assuming you have never been a salesman - NEVER sell on price. ALWAYS sell on value.Once you begin to sell on price - you are on the road to a commodity - and I would argue that music is not a commodity - each artist brings a unique value to their songs. More popular artists/songs should demand a higher price.

 
An interesting article about this:

Pirates Are The Music Industry’s Most Valuable Customers

Once again the music industry has come out with disappointing results for physical music sales, which they blame entirely on file-sharing. What they failed to mention though, is that their findings show that music pirates are buying more digital music than the average music consumer. Since digital music is the future, pirates are the industry’s most valuable customers.

Have you ever heard one of the major movie studios complaining about the decrease in sales of VHS tapes? We haven’t. The music industry on the other hand continues to blame the decrease in physical sales on digital piracy, ignoring the fact that there’s a generation growing up that has never owned a physical CD.

Yesterday the music industry lobby group IFPI presented its 2009 figures, again putting the blame for decreased physical sales on file-sharers. Unfortunately, most mainstream media outlets simply reposted the IFPI press release and their flawed analysis. In general, no effort is made to actually balance out or check the message being sent out to millions of readers.

In their annual Digital Music Report, IFPI states that file-sharers are half as likely to buy physical CDs than the average music buyer. Although the report is about digital music, they carefully avoid saying anything about file-sharers and digital sales. That would actually show a completely different picture as we will explain below.

The music group made this statement based on an IFPI-commissioned study that was executed by Jupiter research. Although IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak, we can conclude the following from the two pages that were published online.

Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.

* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.

* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.

* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer. In fact, the group that makes up the music buyers category actually includes the buying file-sharers, so the difference between music sharers and non-sharing music buyers would be even more pronounced.

How can this be true and why was there no mention of this in the Digital Music Report? They must be spending less on digital music then, right? But again, this is not the case at all. On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that’s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.

Mulligan has his hands tied and couldn’t say much about the findings without IFPI’s approval, but we managed to get confirmation that paying file-sharers are the music industry’s best customers. “A significant share of music buyers are file sharers also. These music buyers tend to be higher spending music buyers,” Mulligan told TorrentFreak.

So why do file-sharers download music without paying? According to the annual IFPI report, one of the main reasons people share music is because it’s free. This leads the music industry group to conclude that they are cheapskates and not willing to pay for music at all. But, as the above clearly shows, they are misinterpreting this finding, and we’d like to explain why.

In the digital age, people’s demand for music has changed significantly, but their budgets are still limited. The average file-sharer is currently spending $100 a year on music according to IFPI’s own research, not really a group that can be classified as freeloaders. However, their demand for music simply exceeds their budget and that’s where they start downloading music on file-sharing sites, because it’s free.

Just to be clear on our motivation to balance the ‘facts’ as reported by IFPI. We are not advocating that all music should be free and neither do most of the music lovers who share files online. However, the music industry continues to ignore that file-sharing is much more of a signal from the market that it is the increased demand for music that fuels piracy.

The solution to the problem is relatively easy. Start offering more unlimited and unrestricted music services and piracy will go into a free-fall. File-sharers are already paying for digital music, and they pay more than the average music consumer. File-sharing is simply a market signal showing that there is a need to compensate for the lack of high quality and affordable subscription services.

If anything, the music industry should have more respect for file-sharers, as they are their most valuable consumers. They are ahead of the curve and actually leading the way for the future of digital music, buying more digital music than anyone else. It’s the music industry that has to change, not the other way around.
This one is interesting too. Isn't that essentially saying "you can't stop us from stealing, so it must be ok"?

J

 
culdeus said:
Chaka said:
Movies are not impacted nearly as significantly by DLing. There is not as much of a demand because the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.

Disagree. The quality of the torrents out now are dead ringer for DVD and in many cases BR. Maybe not in the first month of release, but not too far after that. And there are some black box setups (XBox360 for one) that make it completely push button once it's finished.

People also will continue to flock to movie theaters for the experience of having the best picture/sound qualities. Plus it is still one of the few relatively cheap entertainment options.

yes

In addition the way technology is moving towards streaming videos we soon won't even have need of external content media players (DVD, BluRay etc) and with most OnDemand movies costing between $5-10 people would likely rather spend the small premium to stream a movie instantly rather than going through the long process of DLing movie content.

Widely held movies take on a 6MBit connection roughly 25-30 minutes to DL in DVD format. BR it's more, but not obscenely more. If for some reason you want to burn this to a disk the process takes perhaps 1 hour to do a feature film.
I just quit caring about TV shows long ago. I pay for most of the channels anyways. There are a few exceptions where I'll pull down premium content ahead of schedule, but all this does is timeshift from DVD release on netflix a year or so in advance. I figure having a netflix account is a quasi-license to get video content I need if I want to watch it before NF will release it to disc or download. Maybe it isn't ethical, but I just don't care.

I never download music, but use pandora and youtube a lot. I haven't bought a non-kids CD or DVD in over 10 years.
I did not mean to imply that it is impossible to take DLfilms and transfer them easily but the people with those setups are in the minority, much of the country doesn't even have broadband connections yet.Again streaming video technology (On Demand etc) will make the movie conversation moot within 10 years. Streaming video will make DVD/BluRay obsolete.

 
bostonfred said:
eoMMan said:
bostonfred said:
I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.
I disagree with the bolded.Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.
Possibly, and that may be true in this case. In other cases, a company might choose not to create content, or choose to price it higher, because music thieves erode their ability to recapture their production costs.
eoMMan is right that pirating doesn't lead to higher prices. Prices are set to maximize revenues*. The idea that producers can increase revenues (to make up for money lost to pirates) by increasing prices doesn't work; if they could increase revenues by increasing prices, they'd do so whether or not any pirates exist. So pirates don't affect prices. (Similarly, to correct another common misperception, NFL player salaries don't affect ticket prices. Owners don't charge more to "make up for" high player salaries. They charge the revenue-maximizing price regardless of player salaries -- which is why Notre Dame tickets cost more than Chicago Bears tickets.)___

*Technically, to maximize net revenues. But the marginal cost of printing a CD is low enough that it doesn't substantially affect the price.
That's not entirely true. If there are 100 people who will pay up to $1000 for a product, and 900 more who would pay at most $200 for it, then I might sell it for $200, knowing I'd get $200,000 for it, instead of $1000. If the price sensitive people begin stealing, though, I might correctly raise my prices to $1000, because it would maximize profits from the remaining marketplace. If pricing only worked the way you described, though, then the issue with torrenting would be a reduction in the quality of the media created until it became appropriately profitable.

 
Not stealing plain and simple. Get it through your thick skulls.It is a community to share things. Like when I borrowed a truck from a friend. Should Ford be mad I didnt buy my own truck?
No, but they should be mad if your friend builds an exact replica of his truck and gives it to you.
 
bostonfred said:
eoMMan said:
bostonfred said:
I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.
I disagree with the bolded.Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.
Possibly, and that may be true in this case. In other cases, a company might choose not to create content, or choose to price it higher, because music thieves erode their ability to recapture their production costs.
eoMMan is right that pirating doesn't lead to higher prices. Prices are set to maximize revenues*. The idea that producers can increase revenues (to make up for money lost to pirates) by increasing prices doesn't work; if they could increase revenues by increasing prices, they'd do so whether or not any pirates exist. So pirates don't affect prices. (Similarly, to correct another common misperception, NFL player salaries don't affect ticket prices. Owners don't charge more to "make up for" high player salaries. They charge the revenue-maximizing price regardless of player salaries -- which is why Notre Dame tickets cost more than Chicago Bears tickets.)___

*Technically, to maximize net revenues. But the marginal cost of printing a CD is low enough that it doesn't substantially affect the price.
Actually, never mind here. The revenue-maximizing price can be reduced by pirates who'd buy a CD if it were $5, but who'd illegally copy it if it were $10. Pirating is a substitute for buying, and any substitute can reduce demand.(My NFL player salary example still holds, however.)

 
and the above article about music pirates being the best consumers is probably true.

Everyone I know that does not pirate music really only uses FM radio, a free internet radio station like pandora, or listens to talk radio... and they probably haven't been to a concert in years because music just isn't something they take a lot of interest in.

so they are effectively contributing NOTHING to the music artists

 
videoguy505 said:
Chaka said:
the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.
:unsure: I will disagree with that statement.
User name = videoguy and IIRC (I don't keep a notebook) you do some kind of A/V editing as your career.You are in the minority.Just curious do you stream from your laptop to your TV or do you process the file to DVD for viewing?
I have reason to believe it is extremely easy to limit a torrent search to just HD-quality files, a movie in such a format can range from 1.5GB to 4.5GB, so it can download in 3-4 hours if they're from a good site. DVD quality is less than 1 GB and can be had in 30-90 minutes. I also have reason to believe such files need no further processing or preparation to view on a TV if a person is 1) capable of clicking the media sharing tab in the Windows media player, and 2) hitting the "search for media servers" icon on a PS3-type device.I don't think anyone capable of setting up torrent on their PC would be unable of following through with the rest. I doubt that puts me in the minority.
:goodposting: PS3 will play almost anything. Although I find it much easier to transfer the files to an external usb hard drive and plug that into my PS3. I hope that's not the processing Chaka is talking about.
 
The music industry needs to adapt to the changing times and create new ways to generate revenue. I dumped $15 into a jukebox the other night... Certainly they got a chunk of that. And if you think buying an MP3 is overpriced look at how much it cost just to play their songs 1 time.

 
eoMMan is right that pirating doesn't lead to higher prices. Prices are set to maximize revenues*. The idea that producers can increase revenues (to make up for money lost to pirates) by increasing prices doesn't work; if they could increase revenues by increasing prices, they'd do so whether or not any pirates exist. So pirates don't affect prices. (Similarly, to correct another common misperception, NFL player salaries don't affect ticket prices. Owners don't charge more to "make up for" high player salaries. They charge the revenue-maximizing price regardless of player salaries -- which is why Notre Dame tickets cost more than Chicago Bears tickets.)

___

*Technically, to maximize net revenues. But the marginal cost of printing a CD is low enough that it doesn't substantially affect the price.
That's not entirely true. If there are 100 people who will pay up to $1000 for a product, and 900 more who would pay at most $200 for it, then I might sell it for $200, knowing I'd get $200,000 for it, instead of $1000. If the price sensitive people begin stealing, though, I might correctly raise my prices to $1000, because it would maximize profits from the remaining marketplace.
Yes, you're right.
 
Downloading music now seems as harmless as checking out a book from the library.however, software and video game downloads... when their game or software is the only way those people are going to make any money as opposed to artsits selling t-shirts and concert tickets... well that's another issue.
Why is that another issue? Artists go out and create other revenue streams.So it's ok to steal one of their revenue streams (CDs)Video game makers don't have other revenue streams. So it's not ok to steal them?I don't see how someone would say it's ok to download a DVD via torrent but not a video game. Can you help me see what you're saying is the difference?J
 
3. Not sure how old your son is but I have kids under 14 and everything we get is stored on a few NAS devices for easy playback throughout the house. I do believe once I buy it I should be able to transfer it to the devices I want to view/listen to it on. I don't however think you should be sending copies out to your entire family.
could you unpack this storage/easy playback setup?
I run a 6TB server on a home network and watch all my movies/TV using a Netgear EVA9150. Cheaper options like this Western Digital Live player exist as well. I haven't put a DVD into a player in over a year. Everything gets ripped to the server and played from there. Even the wife likes it (a very high hurdle when it comes to my gadgets).

 
Also, can you help me understand the "overpriced" angle. I see people justifying downloading saying the product cost too much.

So because the seller asks too much, that makes it ok to steal it?

How is that ok?

J

 
There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information! :goodposting:

 
videoguy505 said:
Chaka said:
the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.
:goodposting: I will disagree with that statement.
User name = videoguy and IIRC (I don't keep a notebook) you do some kind of A/V editing as your career.You are in the minority.Just curious do you stream from your laptop to your TV or do you process the file to DVD for viewing?
I have reason to believe it is extremely easy to limit a torrent search to just HD-quality files, a movie in such a format can range from 1.5GB to 4.5GB, so it can download in 3-4 hours if they're from a good site. DVD quality is less than 1 GB and can be had in 30-90 minutes. I also have reason to believe such files need no further processing or preparation to view on a TV if a person is 1) capable of clicking the media sharing tab in the Windows media player, and 2) hitting the "search for media servers" icon on a PS3-type device.I don't think anyone capable of setting up torrent on their PC would be unable of following through with the rest. I doubt that puts me in the minority.
I was unaware that PS3's now had that capability. How are the data transfer rates? Do videos become choppy?Still taking 3-4 hours to DL a BR quality film (yes I know it can be faster) vs getting the same film instantly on streaming video for $10 will keep that usage in the minority.
 
Jason Bourne said:
Can someone explain why a song or video is "overpriced" ?

In a relatively free market, I have a hard time envisioning how a product is over-priced.
In a competitive (or "free") market, price equals marginal cost of production. In one sense, I suppose you could say that anything above the free market price is "overpriced."The whole point of copyright laws, however, is to grant monopolies to authors so that they can charge more than the free market price. The market for songs and videos, therefore, is not free at all. (I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that monopolies -- whether good or bad -- are pretty much the exact opposite of free markets.)
I am assuming you have never been a salesman - NEVER sell on price. ALWAYS sell on value.Once you begin to sell on price - you are on the road to a commodity - and I would argue that music is not a commodity - each artist brings a unique value to their songs. More popular artists/songs should demand a higher price.
With perfect competition, everything is a commodity. If you charge more than the marginal cost of production, you'll lose the sale to a competitor who charges less.I fully understand that in the real world, perfect competition is mostly hypothetical. In the real world, lots of stuff is overpriced. :goodposting:

 
3. Not sure how old your son is but I have kids under 14 and everything we get is stored on a few NAS devices for easy playback throughout the house. I do believe once I buy it I should be able to transfer it to the devices I want to view/listen to it on. I don't however think you should be sending copies out to your entire family.
could you unpack this storage/easy playback setup?
I run a 6TB server on a home network and watch all my movies/TV using a Netgear EVA9150. Cheaper options like this Western Digital Live player exist as well. I haven't put a DVD into a player in over a year. Everything gets ripped to the server and played from there. Even the wife likes it (a very high hurdle when it comes to my gadgets).
:goodposting: NAS is the way to go.

 
videoguy505 said:
Chaka said:
the process of DLing a movie and then preparing it for viewing on whichever HD TV format people prefer is tedious and time consuming. So DLers are stuck watching films on inferior computer monitors (ever seen a 60" 1080p plasma computer monitor?) with relatively weak sound quality.
:goodposting: I will disagree with that statement.
User name = videoguy and IIRC (I don't keep a notebook) you do some kind of A/V editing as your career.You are in the minority.Just curious do you stream from your laptop to your TV or do you process the file to DVD for viewing?
I have reason to believe it is extremely easy to limit a torrent search to just HD-quality files, a movie in such a format can range from 1.5GB to 4.5GB, so it can download in 3-4 hours if they're from a good site. DVD quality is less than 1 GB and can be had in 30-90 minutes. I also have reason to believe such files need no further processing or preparation to view on a TV if a person is 1) capable of clicking the media sharing tab in the Windows media player, and 2) hitting the "search for media servers" icon on a PS3-type device.I don't think anyone capable of setting up torrent on their PC would be unable of following through with the rest. I doubt that puts me in the minority.
is that better than just plugging your TV into the video card via HDMI cables?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top