how could one argue it costs millions, if not billions a year from "piracy" when all you're doing is making digital copies of a digital product? making copies of a digital song and the like is the equivalent of star trek replicator technology that created more supply than demand that it caused the elimination of wages since everything became virtually free.
yes it costs that initial sum to first create the product, but production cost afterwards is near zero. there is no way a single song, or an album costs millions, or billions to initially create. maintenance for hosting doesn't come close to those amounts.
these millions and billions claimed sums are based off of speculative "well if purchasing was the only way we could of made x" but that implies all those people would of purchased otherwise. being in the digital age, such high prices serve no other purpose than greed.
digital goods eliminated the high cost of media production by creating an infinite supply. digital goods are only costly due to holding on to pre-computer revolution production where one couldn't just "right click - copy, right click - paste" to produce.
if you're able to make copies, clones if you will, of software, unlimited amounts, for no additional costs, then truly does "piracy" exist at all?
The "cost" is a total of what it takes to make the product + (the important part) whatever they feel like charging for their profit.
If a movie already earned what it took to make plus an extra 50 million then well, they got paid already.
So to make dvd's all they need to do is charge whatever they need to charge to cover what it takes to make the dvd and whatever they want to charge as profit. They used to charge like 10-15 bucks but now that blurays are out they said fuck it let's try and get them to pay 10 dollars for a 4 in 1 dvd case.
If they decide they want to charge 50 billion per dvd then however many dvd's "not bought" times 50 billion will be how much "piracy has cost".
>>52333045
production after initial cost to produce is near zero. once cost to recoup initial production cost is covered, everything after that is pure profit.
a movie like the latest star wars movie not only recouped the cost of production at box the office, they already made hundreds of millions in profit.
most musicians make their income from tours, not album sales. and cost to initially produce music isn't anywhere close to the initial production of motion pictures. most cost for musicians is the time spent to create, and that's it. initial cost for the instruments is a long term investment. charging $20 for a music cd, and thereafter, even after initial production cost recoupment is absolute greed, considering now music is near majority digital obtained.
digital media has devalued the production cost, and the industry still wishes to behave as if it was still 1960.
selling that movie after theater release for $27.99+ is absolute greed because initial cost to produce has been covered and cost to produce new copies are null.
maybe they need to lower their profit expectations? or at least twinkle down the savings in the post digital world onto the consumer.
>>52332530
Well it's quite simple indeed.
People who complain about piracy poorly evaluated the market in the first place, and assumed "piracy", or copying, was wrong when it's rightfully part of it. They are responsible themselves for their wonky business models even when everyone told them it was wrong.
Now let's be honest, it's because the market has been profitable, as most people didn't pirate, that plenty great things saw the light of day, otherwise there would have never been enough money to make it happen. But then companies starting running at a rhythm far above of what they can afford.
Now there are other things you can sell, like services. Just look at how Blizzard made all its money with easy to pirate games but a killer online mode that would check for your authentic copy. Just look at how Apple made a ton of money selling players of pirated music.
But hey, that would require entering a new market, and companies are not quite ready. They know full well the era of selling digital content will soon end, despite claiming the opposite and still calling "pirates" anyone who exerts his ability to copy, but they'll complain until it's buried.
This might be the dumbest circlejerk I've ever seen, non-poorfags beware
I wrote a book. I charge under five dollars online for my book. Almost no person has bought my book, but a torrent of my book had a couple dozen seeders at one point. If everyone who torrented my book had bought my book, I could have proven interest and built my career.
I now work at an office store.
>your book was just shit! lol
>try before you buy! Greedy! Trying to sell me shit!
The site offers a preview. You can try before you buy. It was my book, they could have afforded a couple of bucks I bet, almost all of them. They were interested enough to give it attention, download it, give it a shot. It was my business practices they bypassed. They enjoyed my service without payment or consent.
Piracy is theft and it hurts people.
True story. Please go ahead and call me greedy and stupid.
>>52333768
You seriously think the people who pirated your book would've bought it if it wasnt available as torrents?
You have the same syndrome as the greedy companies who think if the millions of people who pirated a song would've all bought the album at excessive price.
And if you do truly think that they would've bought your book, then blame the industry for having create piracy in the first place.
>>52333768
If your book was any good, you would have turned a profit, even if 95% of people downloaded it for free. You book is, indeed, shit, or, possibly, only appeals to a very minute number of people.
Suck some corporate cock, sell your soul, and you will strike it rich, if you are a good writer.
M-m-murica!
>>52333768
How many pages is the book? where can you buy it? link?
>>52333768
If your book was worth it shit, it would have made sales and garner reviews from public.
Even if it was free the Worth of mouth will get normies to buy it.
Remember, normies cant torrent for shit.
>>52333768
Look at how much freely available content there is on the Internet. Now try to reason for yourself how your book has so much more value that people should pay for it, rather than move along to some other free piece of entertainement. There you have it! No one wants to pay for digital content because there's enough free digital content. There's so much free digital content because distribution and creation is free.
>>52333768
You made the mistake of making your product more difficult to obtain than piracy.
The reason why Steam and Netflix dominate the digital market is because their products are easier to use and more convenient than piracy.
What you should have done is punish the whole book as a series of webpages with a small ad on top. In that way, most people wouldn't bother to pirate and you would have more money than the honor system you basically used.
>>52334101
Pretty sure he's full of shit, can't even provide a link to his book if he's for real and he wonders why his shit isn't selling.
>>52334139
>implying that Anon wants you losers to know his real name
>>52334224
uhhh, so you won't let your customers know your real name? or you won't print your name in the book? Not sure what you mean by this.
Alright, well then maybe the people that torrented his book couldn't find the book anywhere because he didn't want losers to know about it? Alright. I guess he is for real. Just gets his shit torrented because he writes books and doesn't market it because he doesn't want people to know who he is? I guess.
>>52334276
No, he doesn't want Anons on /g/ knowing who he/she is. The trolls and NEETs that pollute this board.
>>52334329
>doesn't want losers/trolls/degenerates to know about book
>implies he doesn't want them to buy his books
>gets upset when he doesn't make money when those same people torrent his books
funny
>>52334361
He wrote a shitty book that nobody knows about, and has made zero attempts at marketing it. This much is clear. But no one on their right mind would post any personal information on /g/.
What is your full name and an e-mail address? Thought so.
>>52332530
greedy jews
>>52334398
>every single author that has been worth a damn is unwilling to post their professional info on 4chan
>>52334398
I don't care how many copies of Misery has sold, I don't want 4chan knowing my name. It'll be the end of me.
>>52334556
Please post feet
