Thoughts on Piracy and DRM from AI War Creator(christophermpark.blogspot.com)
christophermpark.blogspot.com
Thoughts on Piracy and DRM from AI War Creator
http://christophermpark.blogspot.com/2009/07/thoughts-on-piracy-and-drm.html
9 comments
Well, it's not quite that black-and-white. DRM and copy protection has always been broken and copyright laws have always been hard to enforce, so people have always been able to get what they want for less than the asking price. Every IP-based enterprise's business model has been broken for years; Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists shows his company's model was broken even before it started.
If people had no internal motivation to pay for something freely sharable, all these companies should be begging on streetcorners. And yet Microsoft, Disney, and Warner Bros. are far from charity cases.
I think that while people are aware that copying is not the same as stealing a physical object, they are also somewhat aware that it deprives the creator. In this sense, it's not unlike how people guiltily shuffle off as a street performer passes the hat around: they are aware of the expectation of payment, of the social obligation to reciprocate when someone gives you something of value, even if that thing is intangible and cost little to produce. This social obligation is enough to cause some people to pay.
Software benefits from other unwritten social rules as well. For example, it is less socially acceptable to pirate software that you use to make money. Likewise, it's less acceptable to give pirated software as a gift. I think the strength of these social rules varies among cultures, which would explain why piracy is more popular in some countries than others, even when the goods are affordable.
And software further benefits from the unknowable costs associated with piracy. If a pirated product doesn't run, has a bug, or installs malware, you have no recompense. And, of course, there's the fact that piracy is illegal... If someone can prove you pirated software, it will cost you (it's admittedly hard to prove for individuals, but easy for corporations with disgruntled employees).
So the software business model is tenuous in that it relies mostly on social norms, but it is viable.
If people had no internal motivation to pay for something freely sharable, all these companies should be begging on streetcorners. And yet Microsoft, Disney, and Warner Bros. are far from charity cases.
I think that while people are aware that copying is not the same as stealing a physical object, they are also somewhat aware that it deprives the creator. In this sense, it's not unlike how people guiltily shuffle off as a street performer passes the hat around: they are aware of the expectation of payment, of the social obligation to reciprocate when someone gives you something of value, even if that thing is intangible and cost little to produce. This social obligation is enough to cause some people to pay.
Software benefits from other unwritten social rules as well. For example, it is less socially acceptable to pirate software that you use to make money. Likewise, it's less acceptable to give pirated software as a gift. I think the strength of these social rules varies among cultures, which would explain why piracy is more popular in some countries than others, even when the goods are affordable.
And software further benefits from the unknowable costs associated with piracy. If a pirated product doesn't run, has a bug, or installs malware, you have no recompense. And, of course, there's the fact that piracy is illegal... If someone can prove you pirated software, it will cost you (it's admittedly hard to prove for individuals, but easy for corporations with disgruntled employees).
So the software business model is tenuous in that it relies mostly on social norms, but it is viable.
I agree with your point, but let me clarify what I mean: I don't mean to say that people are averse to paying for content they want. On the contrary, I do think most people are happy to pay what they feel is a reasonable price for things.
The thing though, is this: Once I've bought something I wanted and I have it, and it's infinitely sharable - why not share it with my friends, or even just anyone who might want it? That's where I think the real issue lies. I don't think most people see anything wrong with sharing something when it costs them nothing to do it. To the contrary, I think people in general are social and caring, and even desire sharing with others when possible.
Also, I think people are happy to pay someone for creating or providing goods they want. I don't think many people want to pay for copies of digital content, because single digital copies truly are worth nothing.
The thing though, is this: Once I've bought something I wanted and I have it, and it's infinitely sharable - why not share it with my friends, or even just anyone who might want it? That's where I think the real issue lies. I don't think most people see anything wrong with sharing something when it costs them nothing to do it. To the contrary, I think people in general are social and caring, and even desire sharing with others when possible.
Also, I think people are happy to pay someone for creating or providing goods they want. I don't think many people want to pay for copies of digital content, because single digital copies truly are worth nothing.
> If I had an infinite supply of food, I would not think twice about handing it out to others.
I don't know why people keep making this analogy, but it's a poor one imho.
Here's a better view:
* you have to work hard to produce that infinite supply of food, and when you're done people are not going to instantly buy your food ... it takes some time before your expenses are covered
* as time passes people will grow tired / bored of eating your food, and sales will drop as other infinite supplies of food from your competitors become available ... food that will keep them entertained
* for that not to happen, you immediately start working on a better version of your food supply ... and because expectations have been raised, you now have to work harder ... and it can take months, even years in some cases to produce a successful sequel
* you're also not going to abandon your existing customers ... if the food tastes bad sometimes, you've got to fix it. You have to write documentation and provide support, otherwise your customers won't know how to eat your food. And customers can also give valuable feedback that you must process.
* for you to keep on working, who's going to cover your expenses, who's going to pay the bills?
* and you also have to work a hell of a lot harder than the owner of a gas station that sits on his ass all day watching his employees, and that probably makes more money than you do
Really ... you don't see anything wrong with this analogy? Do you think software just pops out of the ground?
Intellectual property is as real as it can be. The only problem are the laws that guard it ... which have been turned against consumers for the benefit of large corporations (not content creators).
I don't know why people keep making this analogy, but it's a poor one imho.
Here's a better view:
* you have to work hard to produce that infinite supply of food, and when you're done people are not going to instantly buy your food ... it takes some time before your expenses are covered
* as time passes people will grow tired / bored of eating your food, and sales will drop as other infinite supplies of food from your competitors become available ... food that will keep them entertained
* for that not to happen, you immediately start working on a better version of your food supply ... and because expectations have been raised, you now have to work harder ... and it can take months, even years in some cases to produce a successful sequel
* you're also not going to abandon your existing customers ... if the food tastes bad sometimes, you've got to fix it. You have to write documentation and provide support, otherwise your customers won't know how to eat your food. And customers can also give valuable feedback that you must process.
* for you to keep on working, who's going to cover your expenses, who's going to pay the bills?
* and you also have to work a hell of a lot harder than the owner of a gas station that sits on his ass all day watching his employees, and that probably makes more money than you do
Really ... you don't see anything wrong with this analogy? Do you think software just pops out of the ground?
Intellectual property is as real as it can be. The only problem are the laws that guard it ... which have been turned against consumers for the benefit of large corporations (not content creators).
> > If I had an infinite supply of food, I would not think twice about handing it out to others.
> I don't know why people keep making this analogy, but it's a poor one imho.
You missed his point. It's the customers that suddenly find themselves with an infinite supply of food, for practical purposes, so why should their friends have to pay for food?
> I don't know why people keep making this analogy, but it's a poor one imho.
You missed his point. It's the customers that suddenly find themselves with an infinite supply of food, for practical purposes, so why should their friends have to pay for food?
Park mentions people might think piracy is "a victimless crime against rich fat cats and celebrities who don't really need the money". I wonder what would happen if instead of a fancy logo of the development company at the beginning of a game, there was an picture of the developer/development team with his/her/their names. With a picture, the faceless corporate entity becomes an actual person with a name. Has this ever been tried before? I suspect if it ever became too persuasive, then the crackers might just remove the picture, but it is a thought.
I think the WROX series of programming books (and nearly all tech blogs with thumbnail photos) make a compelling case against showing developer headshots. There's a reason we became computer nerds.
And I think you are making my point for me. Which would be a more personal website: a blog with some computer nerd's face on it, or a blog with a corporate logo on it?
If a person's profile picture on a blog doesn't reduce the readership, then why would it on the splash page of a game? If the looks of a person mattered, the only popular blogs with profile pictures would be hot girls.
If a person's profile picture on a blog doesn't reduce the readership, then why would it on the splash page of a game? If the looks of a person mattered, the only popular blogs with profile pictures would be hot girls.
You only talk to hot girls in person?
I'm not sure that would be very effective. Judging from the pirates I have known over the years (and, being in college and having come from a highly technology oriented high school, there have been quite a few), this would not serve as much of a deterrent. For the massive majority of them, the fact that it was a "crime" at all did not enter their minds. They were motivated by one of two things: either they wanted to play the game/watch the movie/listen to the song, or they thought it was good and wanted to share it. In fact, when it came to being a small group (such as several of the local bands, or indie movies), the desire to share was that much greater, because the pirates could say "Hey, these guys made something really cool, I want other people to experience this".
While I can't say that piracy is always like this, from what I have seen it tends to be a sharing situation, which eventually leads to future sales. While it is only anecdotal evidence, there were several bootleg movies that were passed around and led to large groups of students going to see the future movies (for example, after having passed around a bootleg copy of the Matrix, we all went to see both the sequels, and having passed around several Jet Li movies led to us going out and watching Fearless).
From what I have seen, piracy is largely done by people with a fixed budget for entertainment, who spend it on what they think are the best value in terms of entertainment. Very rarely would a entertainment company lose money from this, their product would not have been bought in the first place. On the other hand, when a new product is released, past pirates are much more likely to purchase the new products, as long as what they pirated was of a good quality.
This does not particularly help new developers, or developers who may only put out a product every few years. With something like the article, where an AI Wars II may be years off, if ever made, that doesn't help them right now (although its probably a safe bet that this blog posting helped sale quite a bit). The only way that I can see to help a currently released product is to continue to release content for it that is largely available only to register/verified users. Continually (or at least semi-regularly) releasing downloadable content seems to be the best anti-piracy method available. Giving out both a Product key (which is then verified locally, and will eventually be cracked by the pirates so that the game can be shared), and a DLC key, which is generated randomly and is verified against a database of the legitimate product key/DLC combinations server-side will make it so that while your game will be pirated, anyone wanting to get the new content will either have to jump through all the hoops of getting the cracked version of each piece of new content, or just buy a copy of the game.
This does require releasing high quality DLC on a regular basis, but it looks to be far more effective than DRM. By including various map/level/character/item editors as DLC, and encouraging submission, you can even remove large portions of content creation costs for new DLC by creating a community around the game that creates new content for you.
While I can't say that piracy is always like this, from what I have seen it tends to be a sharing situation, which eventually leads to future sales. While it is only anecdotal evidence, there were several bootleg movies that were passed around and led to large groups of students going to see the future movies (for example, after having passed around a bootleg copy of the Matrix, we all went to see both the sequels, and having passed around several Jet Li movies led to us going out and watching Fearless).
From what I have seen, piracy is largely done by people with a fixed budget for entertainment, who spend it on what they think are the best value in terms of entertainment. Very rarely would a entertainment company lose money from this, their product would not have been bought in the first place. On the other hand, when a new product is released, past pirates are much more likely to purchase the new products, as long as what they pirated was of a good quality.
This does not particularly help new developers, or developers who may only put out a product every few years. With something like the article, where an AI Wars II may be years off, if ever made, that doesn't help them right now (although its probably a safe bet that this blog posting helped sale quite a bit). The only way that I can see to help a currently released product is to continue to release content for it that is largely available only to register/verified users. Continually (or at least semi-regularly) releasing downloadable content seems to be the best anti-piracy method available. Giving out both a Product key (which is then verified locally, and will eventually be cracked by the pirates so that the game can be shared), and a DLC key, which is generated randomly and is verified against a database of the legitimate product key/DLC combinations server-side will make it so that while your game will be pirated, anyone wanting to get the new content will either have to jump through all the hoops of getting the cracked version of each piece of new content, or just buy a copy of the game.
This does require releasing high quality DLC on a regular basis, but it looks to be far more effective than DRM. By including various map/level/character/item editors as DLC, and encouraging submission, you can even remove large portions of content creation costs for new DLC by creating a community around the game that creates new content for you.
This recalls to mind what I think is a very compelling argument found at the beginning of "Freakonomics." Namely that people are not stupid, and they know that if they stop paying for the bagels, the bagels will dissapper. In the book, they examine the pay-rates and stealing rates of a service operated by a guy who just left a can for people to put their payment in and collected it each day when he dropped off the fresh bagels. This was in an office environment.
In the book it is very clear that most people, most of the time, will pay if you make it easy for them to.
Essentially, isn't that the insight behind I-Tunes? Just enable people to pay, and voila! They pay.
I suggest (to the OP) that maybe a better way of thinking of the way forward is to see people as people and make paying you as easy as possible. I definitely applaud your principled stand on DRM and open standards. Bravo.
I could not agree more. Now that iTunes has dropped DRM, I have paid for all my music since then. The last time I copied something, there were no non-DRM version on iTunes and Amazon was not selling the non-DRM version in Canada. So as a last resort I took a Torrent. Give me an easy way to pay you for what I want and you'll get my money.
It's such a tiny country. We must know each other!
Long-term piracy concerns aside, the author can take that listing on NowTorrents with a pinch of salt.
If you try entering any garbage text in the 'search' you'll see auto-generated results (soon to be search-engine indexed) which claim to have that item available for download. All you need to do is sign up for an account to see 'em! Yeah... It's an old scam and probably ropes in more worried developers than it does pirates.
Keep an eye open for pirated copies and adapt as you can, but don't freak about every piracy notice you receive on Google Alerts.
If you try entering any garbage text in the 'search' you'll see auto-generated results (soon to be search-engine indexed) which claim to have that item available for download. All you need to do is sign up for an account to see 'em! Yeah... It's an old scam and probably ropes in more worried developers than it does pirates.
Keep an eye open for pirated copies and adapt as you can, but don't freak about every piracy notice you receive on Google Alerts.
Interesting and I'm happy he doesn't see adding DRM as a solution. I wonder if he thought about long term effects of this piracy.
In the context of one game you can see piracy as lost sales, but in the long term those are people that were exposed to your product and that you may convert later. I know that I did copy a lot of games before working, but then for a couple of years I bought a lot. Now I play rarely, but most of the games I bought were from developers I had previously copied.
In the context of one game you can see piracy as lost sales, but in the long term those are people that were exposed to your product and that you may convert later. I know that I did copy a lot of games before working, but then for a couple of years I bought a lot. Now I play rarely, but most of the games I bought were from developers I had previously copied.
I feel like, fundamentally, the problem of piracy with digital goods is something like this:
I'm a wheat merchant. My store is located 10 minutes outside of town and I give people a fixed amount wheat in exchange for money. But one day there's a huge pile of relatively undefended wheat that people can just take for free (even if illegally) in the middle of town. Suddenly my wheat is no longer worth as much.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I'm a wheat merchant. My store is located 10 minutes outside of town and I give people a fixed amount wheat in exchange for money. But one day there's a huge pile of relatively undefended wheat that people can just take for free (even if illegally) in the middle of town. Suddenly my wheat is no longer worth as much.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I think a better analogy is:
You're an apple merchant. You sell apples, which are generally better quality apples than the ones people can get elsewhere. However, some of those people have now begun planting apple trees from your apples' seeds, and thereby getting more of your apples without paying you for them. These apples still aren't quite as good on average as your apples, since sometimes they come with worms.
This situation wasn't terrible until recently, when someone invented a way to make apple trees grow faster, and now the time to grow an apple tree in someone's backyard from one of your seeds is halving every few years.
You're an apple merchant. You sell apples, which are generally better quality apples than the ones people can get elsewhere. However, some of those people have now begun planting apple trees from your apples' seeds, and thereby getting more of your apples without paying you for them. These apples still aren't quite as good on average as your apples, since sometimes they come with worms.
This situation wasn't terrible until recently, when someone invented a way to make apple trees grow faster, and now the time to grow an apple tree in someone's backyard from one of your seeds is halving every few years.
I like that analogy.
It's interesting that we focused on different aspects of the quality of pirated goods. You assumed illegal copies are of worse quality than the original - and this can be true: that copy of Photoshop you grabbed illegally may well be carrying a Trojan.
But I don't think it's always that simple: A person can watch new TV episodes faster off of torrent sites than he/she can see them on Hulu, and without ads. I'm pretty sure the faster, ad-less version is more valuable than the original. Likewise, DRM-less MP3s are probably more valuable than locked ones from the original CD, etc.
It's interesting that we focused on different aspects of the quality of pirated goods. You assumed illegal copies are of worse quality than the original - and this can be true: that copy of Photoshop you grabbed illegally may well be carrying a Trojan.
But I don't think it's always that simple: A person can watch new TV episodes faster off of torrent sites than he/she can see them on Hulu, and without ads. I'm pretty sure the faster, ad-less version is more valuable than the original. Likewise, DRM-less MP3s are probably more valuable than locked ones from the original CD, etc.
I only added that in to be a bit more accurate; in general, I only think illegal copies are worse on average (meaning more of them have problems than "approved" copies have problems). I could continue quibbling by talking about movies copied via camera in the theater, but I won't bother; I actually do agree that in many areas the pirated copies are better all around than non-pirated copies.
The reason I felt compelled to give another analogy, though, was a another difference: the ease of making more apples / wheat / copies, in one's own backyard (or computer, as the case is). I felt that that was an essential part of the picture, missing from the wheat scenario. :)
The reason I felt compelled to give another analogy, though, was a another difference: the ease of making more apples / wheat / copies, in one's own backyard (or computer, as the case is). I felt that that was an essential part of the picture, missing from the wheat scenario. :)
By your example linux users pirate Windows and Macs since linux's free.
Thoughtful, fair, interesting discussion. I'd love to see Park hang out here and comment (does he?). I personally agree with everything he wrote, but I imagine there are positions out here he didn't consider.
What keeps piracy alive is the fact that it's almost impossible to get caught. If people could shoplift in physical stores and there would be no consequences associated with it, I imagine that there would be more shoplifters.
I think it's essential for the future of digital products to come up with a viable ID system for the whole web, so people are more responsible. In this regard Facebook seems promising...
I think it's essential for the future of digital products to come up with a viable ID system for the whole web, so people are more responsible. In this regard Facebook seems promising...
[deleted]
> People have been violating copyright and pirating and plagiarizing since long before the modern era. There's just something, deep down, that makes people believe that these sorts of ethereal products, or knowledge, can't or shouldn't be protected.
To me, the real issue is this: No one spontaneously thinks that sharing something freely sharable with friends and family and fellow humans is inherently wrong. "Intellectual property" is an unnatural and learned concept. If I had an infinite supply of food, I would not think twice about handing it out to others. I didn't use to, but now I do think that the problem is largely one of future shock and legislation: we simply have to come to grips with the reality that digital information will be copied, and that someone possessing a piece of digital information will expect it to be copyable.
So where does that leave him? I don't know. Maybe there is no decent business model for selling games like AI War in this age. Just like other business models have disappeared or, for that matter, appeared with the digital age.
I don't think the problem is that people in general view piracy as a victimless crime. I think the "problem" is that, deep down, people don't think it's a crime at all.