Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable?

Updated:11:12 PM CEST Sep,08

NEWS / RSS
CHEATS

REVIEWS

ARTICLES

HARDWARE

DEMOS

FORUMS

LINKS (new)

CONTACT

Please e-mail us if you have news.

Gameguru Mania News - Oct,12 2009 -

Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable? - briefly
(hx) 02:59 PM CEST - Oct,12 2009 - Post a comment / read (9)
German pirate-tracking outfit DigiRights Solutions shows that copyright holders can earn 150 times more money from illicit downloads than from iTunes and other legal stores. Wait. What?!? The presentation starts with some basic information on the various file-sharing networks, and details how the company's software can detect illegal downloads and automatically send out requests for damages to alleged pirates. Their setup is similar to those at DigiProtect and Logistep who run comparable operations all over the world.

After finding out the addresses of alleged file-sharers they send out requests for damages directly, usually in the range of a few hundred dollars (or in the UK, around £600) per infringement. Thus far, little has been known about the actual profits generated by these operations, but this is exactly what the last part of the DRS presentation covers.

DRS says it generally sends out emails to alleged file-sharers requesting them to pay €450 (650$) per offense. According to the company they get to keep 80% of the money, leaving 20% for the copyright holders. The anti-piracy outfit claims it uses the money to cover their IT costs, administration costs, attorney fees and other costs.

So, for every illegal download the copyright holder gets €90 (130$), and that is where the presentation turns into a marketing talk where the company explains how piracy can be turned into profit. They start by comparing the profitability of legal and pirated downloads.

last 10 comments:

JamieKirby

(03:13 PM CEST - Oct,12 2009 )

Well, some people that do download illegally tend to do so to try out the games, the can't say 'try out the demo then' or 'check out the trailers' they do a demo giving you something VERY fun to do and the full game only have 5mins worth that is fun, while the rest is utter trash.

If only developers would bring out a demo BEFORE the games' release AND give it a couple of levels from the full game instead of just giving you the best part of the game in the demo to get you to buy it and then find out, the rest of it is boring.

gx-x

(03:53 PM CEST - Oct,12 2009 )

This is about music, not games Jamie ;)

On topic:

How about all producers and record companies pay 50% of their income to family line of the one who invented notes? They are all using his patent and don't pay squat. They should be sued because that is intellectual property they are using!
Under same argument, if I dowload music, I download bunch of notes that make music. They are just rearanged in different order etc. So why should I pay if I don't at least get a cover or a medium with thoese notes recorded on it?

And since they are more or less all the same, if I pay for download, shouldn't I be the one who sues record companies for scam? They are selling me basically the same thing over and over again...

I know this sounds silly, but so does paying 1.5$ for downloading a compressed and downgraded version of song...There is a BIG difference in buying and listening to a CD and downloading some compressed version of it, especially if you have a good sound system (talking about 1000$ + range) or good headphones.

beqerel	(05:52 PM CEST - Oct,12 2009 )
they think they will earn more money but they will not , i dont want to pay for new game anyway i pay only for multiplayer games as COD l4d or mmo

Koogle	(06:32 PM CEST - Oct,12 2009 )
the article is about MUSIC FFS! anyway its disgusting, those guys are nothing but criminal scum. They aren't providing the solution to pirating they are just profiteering off of it.

Majnun	(07:08 AM CEST - Oct,13 2009 )
So it's like the war on drugs. It's more profitable to keep it illegal than to legalize it and regulate it in some sensible way. Destroy all humans. My ass, your lips.

nb411

(09:04 AM CEST - Oct,13 2009 )

gx-x, do you think that the musical notes magically arrange themselves into new, creative and interesting configurations? A person's labour was inputted to create the new arrangement, so the record companies are selling you the rights to enjoy that IP. The same IP you seem to think the musicians should be fairly compensated for. I mean would expect someone to come and mow your lawn for free just because you don't get a 'physical' product? What would you want, a clump of the clipped grass framed and autographed?

gx-x

(03:38 PM CEST - Oct,13 2009 )

nb411> gx-x, do you think that the musical notes magically arrange themselves into new, creative and interesting configurations? A person's labour was inputted to create the new arrangement, so the record companies are selling you the rights to enjoy that IP. The same IP you seem to think the musicians should be fairly compensated for. I mean would expect someone to come and mow your lawn for free just because you don't get a 'physical' product? What would you want, a clump of the clipped grass framed and autographed?

YOu can't make such comparison. Such comparison would be valid if musician were to make song, sell it ONCE and move on to the next song. What we have here, using comparison you gave, someone mows my lawn and than charges everyone who looks at it. :)
Also, that guy put physical effort into it, iTunes didn't. iTunes also did only ~80% of my "lawn" (since mp3/wmv) is not the same quality as uncompressed music. And I certainly wouldn't pay to the man who only partially mowed my lawn! :D

nb411

(09:55 AM CEST - Oct,14 2009 )

Music and lawns may not be perfectly analogous, that we can agree on. I was most interested in pointing out the fallacy of new music having zero new value.

Selling a single mp3 for, say, $2 ONLY ONCE as you suggest does not quite compensate the musician or the record companies for all the costs associated with making that music available to people to download does it? Let alone making some profit. Music sales due to the nature of the 'product' must be a volume sales business in order to operate effectively.

Your only legitimate gripe is that the quality does not match (assuming analog) music.

gx-x

(04:47 PM CEST - Oct,14 2009 )

My argument in the first post was that both my argument and this whole matter is silly.:) I will not seriously defend my viewpoint on this, except for the quality part.

All I am saying that when you buy CD in store for 10-15$ you pay for:
Artist profit, Record company profit, profit and materials for making blank media, for printing music on that media, plastic that makes casing for CD and salaries for employees in all these companies, than, printing of cover and profit for print studio/factory and also salaries...You get a nice product, you have full quality music to listen to, cover to look at it, some photos of band/artist/something else (someone was payed to design that)

versus

downloading music from greedy iTunes.
Their expenses? One admin, site design, monthly server and bandwidth costs. 2000$ all together per month? And they charge ~1$ per song, so if you buy whole album mentioned above, you will pay more and get a crappy mp3 and that's it. Well, I don't want to pay for that.
I download that same mp3 for free, if I like the music - I buy the CD.

To me, this is the same compared to buying a painting and buying a digital copy (.jpg) of it. Would you pay for scanned painting just because artist put effort into painting it?