Not much to add, just read the article and see how a comic got a huge sales boost after a piracy event. It even has a graph!
Not sure what your point is - are you saying piracy boosts sales in general?
There are a lot of other people saying piracy costs them money. If piracy actually boosted sales and profits generally do you think they would complain about it? No, owners would renounce their rights and allow everybody to have the products for free, since according to some this would be beneficial to them and boost profits and sales
“Worldwide sales of recorded music fell by about 10 percent last year, a trade group said Thursday, as revenue growth from digital services was insufficient to compensate for a continuing fall in sales of compact discs.”
Estimate Places Total App Store Piracy Cost at $450M
http://theappleblog.com/2010/01/13/estimate-places-total-app-store-piracy-cost-at-450m/
Software piracy costs $34 billion
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Software-piracy-costs-34-billion/2100-1014_3-6075629.html
The Cost of Software Piracy
Symantec observed software piracy that represented over $83 million (USD) in retail costs. Considering that this was only a small sample of the total software piracy occurring over one protocol over a brief period of time, the value is substantial. A study conducted in 2007 estimated the annual cost of software piracy worldwide to be nearly $40 billion (USD)
The True Cost of Motion Picture Piracy to the U.S. Economy
"the LEK study determined that in 2005, MPAA member companies worldwide lost $6.076 billion in sales as a result of pirate activities. Of this total, U.S. market losses amounted to $1.311 billion while non-U.S. market losses sustained by U.S. companies totaled $4.765 billion. "
The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy
Don’t bother posting bogus “studies”.
How are those bogus?
Are you saying piracy boosts sales and profits?
The problem with every one of those studies (and the claims of the companies involved) is that they claim each instance of piracy as a lost sale, which is a fallacy. The fact someone would take your product for free is not proof that they would purchase it.
I’m not necessarily saying that none of the pirates were potential buyers, but having known the actions of people who ‘pirate’ software, the vast majority of them would not have purchased any of the products which they ‘pirated’. Not out of some weird ethics, just simply because they didn’t put that much value on the product.
There’s no measurable way to know what sort of lost wealth happens in regards to IP ‘theft’ because there’s no material loss on the side of the owner of the IP, nor can you prove each instance of ‘theft’ is an instance of lost profits. Likewise, it’s also too difficult to tell how much (if any) extra sales a piece of IP gets due to exposure from free spread on the internet (or elsewhere) and/or from people buying the product who would not have had interest in buying the product before instances of usage as such. Cases such as in the OP are a notable exception that often happens with low-key products (it’s also why a number of musical artists are making some of their songs available for free online).
The reason why it worked is because it is not actually piracy, it is viral marketing (albeit unintended).
A pirate steals something. Nothing was stolen.
Those studies remind me one case in US, when a woman, who shared 14 or so songs on the internet and was charged to pay FEW MILLIONS (don’t remember exact number) of dollars to some company.
re:“A pirate steals something. Nothing was stolen.”
A pirate in regard to copyright copies something. That’s what piracy has meant in regard to copyrights for decades, and I’m fairly certain, over a hundred years. It was a term also used for copying of books illegally.
As far as damages, I mainly posted those in response to the OP claiming one producer said piracy helped. My post was to make the point that many other producers dispute that, and claim they are losing money and they provide documentation about that. If they honestly thought this was a huge boost for their business then they would not be complaining and instead would encourage more copying.
It’s clear that the terms and conditions are a voluntary contract with usage limitations agreed to, which even third parties are aware of. Disregarding that private voluntary contract is against libertarian and liberal principles.
How are they losing money? It’s more like people are not giving money to them. How can they lose something they don’t even have?
Appeals to legality and history don’t really do a lot for me. A pirate steals. Nothing was stolen. Copying is not stealing.
Implicit contracts are not kosher with libertarian ethics.
Contracts don’t work this way. You can’t sign your rights away, even voluntarily.
A pirate steals.
I was gonna send this question to you in a PM so as to not derail this thread, but then I remembered something you had written in your profile.
Anyway, when you say “pirate” do you mean like someone who boards and loots a ship while taking the crew hostage, or is there a variety of what’s commonly termed copyright infringement that you consider to be theft?
I think CSJtheory is merely stating that pirating, or copying if you wish, tends to be, as a rule, unprofitable for the initial innovator. This shouldn’t be controversial at all.
I was referring to LS’s quote. I should probably have referenced it in full:
I think it is very controversial.
I don’t think copyright infringement is theft.
Piracy is just simple parasitism. As long as the pirates preserve the host they feed on, the system is more or less sustainable.
Contracts don’t work this way. You can’t sign your rights away, even voluntarily.
The very definition of a contract is a binding transfer of rights.
I don’t think copyright infringement is theft.
Which is what I expected (and I’ll just say that agree with you, so we don’t have a misunderstanding here) and why your statement of “a pirate steals” puzzled me. I mean, we’re clearly talking about people engaging in copyright infringement as opposed to robbery at sea.
I don’t know what to tell you. IP grants temporary monopoly power to the initial innovator. Having no competition, for a given period of time, is profitable. This is why IP exists, and why so many entrepreneurs defend this privilege.