The Great Copyright Holder Lie – Software
"Every time media is downloaded, we lose a sale"
Woe is us!
Copyright Holders (CHs for short) have been moaning loud and long about "illegal Internet downloads". It has become the subject of numerous lawsuits and is their primary justification for the much hated Digitial Rights Management (DRM) technology.
Granted when someone makes knock-off versions of Windows and sells them, it creates trouble for the buyer (whose copy won't validate or have support and might even be in the wrong language) and it creates trouble for the CH who then has to deal with an angry customer who thought that flea market was selling legit copies.
But sharing software and pirating software are two completely different things. While there may be some truth to the idea that the ratio of pirated copies sold to legitimate copies not sold is close to 1, that is NOT the case with downloads.
I submit, as evidence, the following:
People who wouldn't have bought it anyway
Most software is optional considering the vast amount of free alternatives to practically anything you could want. There's a free version of office software, of heavy-duty image editing software, and just about anything you can think of.
Many downloaders will grab a piece of software only to try it out, solve a particular problem (like a file conversion) one time, or just because it's convenient. If downloading weren't an option, they'd go try something else. These people aren't affecting CHs one way or another.
People who will buy it anyway
Once they've evaluated it, they will pony up the dough for the real thingSome people who download to try software do so because a legitimate trial isn't available or because they don't want to mess with restricted "trial versions". But once they've evaluated it, they will pony up the dough for the real thing either because they have a business and can't afford to be caught for piracy or they have one of those "conscience" thingies they tell me has something to do with dressing as your mother and murdering hotel guests who excite you… Or maybe that was something else?
…But anyway…
You can also bet there are at least a few people who download stuff because they can't afford it, but that leads us to our next point.
People who download it and lead to more sales
Adobe gets hundreds of dollars for each copy of the software that has become the industry standard in photo editing: Photoshop. Every time someone downloads the program rather than pay for it, they've clearly lost money… or have they? The fact is that many people (hobbyists, teens, etc) who download Photoshop can't afford it in the first place so that hardly counts as a lost sale! So if you're Adobe, you're sitting at neutral as far as benefit/loss is concerned.
Now say that same hobbyist/teen starts a job that needs photo editing software for it's new marketing or advertising department. What will they recommend? What they're familiar with of course! All those illegal downloads are turning into market share and fat corporate licenses.
People who download and advertise for you
Or instead take the army of digital art hobbyists who generate gobs and gobs of killer art with Photoshop for fun or for contests (many using "illegal" copies I'd bet). Every time one of their pieces becomes popular and makes the rounds on the net, people see it and that it was done in Photoshop. Where can you buy this kind of advertising?
Yes, I know that not all digital art is done with Photoshop, but a lot of it is which is my point.
Or in the case of a certain web comic artist who "allegedly" began his work with a pirated copy of some other Adobe program (let's say Adobe Illustrator). As he became more well known and earned some decent money, sure he bought a legit copy, but more importantly, he now preaches the value of the software to his readers. I wonder how much companies pay to advertise on popular web-comic artists' sites when, in this case, Adobe is getting a permanent ad for free.
So "piracy" as they like to call it is actually increasing their business penetration, entrenching their position as the market standard, and introducing up to millions of new users to the product with real life examples of what it can do both in art, hobbies, and work. Waa. Cry me a river.
People who replace a legit product
Just like with music and movies, people may find themselves in need of a new copy. This could be due to damage or loss of the original or just as a desperate attempt to bypass unnecessary annoying copy protection. I can't tell you how many times I've considered getting a "cracked" copy of Windows XP or Office even though I have legal copies just to avoid the activation nightmare.
It's not even available for sale
And one small note on abandonware. While I may not support the idea that software that's no longer supported is the same as freeware (and I might… I'll leave that to your imagination), the fact is that if something exists that someone wants and there's no legitimate outlets for it, they'll get it from the "illegitimate" ones.
Take for example someone who's been happy using their ancient version of such-and-such program forever and has recently upgraded to a computer that won't run it. There's a newer version of the program that will run on the upgraded system, but it's not sold anymore. If they downloaded it, does anyone care?
A word about game downloading
One note about software where the CHs have a legitimate beef is with game downloads. Either you've played game X or you haven't; there won't be a free alternative that's just as good or better as with much PC software.
The other reason is that in most cases you play a game and then you're done with it. Unlike software that you might use every day from now to the end of your natural life, games end. Therefore it at first appears that game downloading is a serious problem.
There have always been copy protection schemes on games (with varying degrees of success), but there are many other effective ways to handle this than implementing an audience hating form of DRM.
About the only legitimate beef CHs have is with game downloads. But even then...One is to have free games online that are played through a browser. In these cases, revenue is generated by the ads on the site. The second is to go subscription based as with most MMOs. Lastly, using the Starcraft/Diablo model, a game can have access to a free-play server online so long as it validates as a real copy.
But even for traditional games, the people copying it divide up into the same groups. Those that wouldn't have played it anyway. Those that download it, but still buy a copy. And those that download and never buy, but post blogs, develop fan sites, create web comics, etc. etc. Either way, you can't make the argument that each download is a lost sale.
To sum up
Adding complex, cumbersome, and annoying copy protection schemes to thwart hackers doesn't usually work and ticks off your users. We know the statistics you're citing are bogus and to expect us to take your side under the circumstances is asinine.
The CHs should take a look at the example of some of the top selling game publishers and just ignore the pirates. Maybe then, they wouldn't end up in the embarrassing situation of having to issue a crack for their own game because of their broken DRM scheme.
| What exactly IS DRM and why is it such a bad thing? |
| We should all get to profit from and control our creations, but there are many reasons why we support the hackers and not the copyright holderss |
| The great lie told about movie downloads and why it's wrong. |
| The great lie told about music downloads and why it's wrong. |
| The great lie told about software downloads and why it's wrong. |
Share This
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
