David Levine and Michele Boldrin: Economical analysys of MPAA ads

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor
They're in for money, as they think the downloaders can affect the money they make. If they expected their legal actions not to have any effect on their monies, they wouldn't throw their antics, regardless of what's "moral" or not.

As I said... they aren't happy their product is getting ripped off... who wouldn't be. And I never stated they are doing this for "moral" reasons... it's purely about money.

If you were getting ripped off, what antics might you use

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The behaviour you describe is the behaviour of an old-fashioned peasant running after a kid who stole an apple. It's emotional, but it's not necessarily productive. It's not the behaviour of professional execs engaging in a risky multi-million campaign.

If they do nothing... they could be seen as legitimizing illegal downloads... They can't allow that to happen.

What else would you suggest they do... their options are limited. There is really nothing they can do about people who think this kind of theft is ok... And honest people will continue to buy or rent...

But they can lay a guilt trip on those who are border line.

You could say that they should lower the price a lot...
But, based on the comments in this thread, hardcores who Steal aren't going to change their ways just because of a lower price... All they will do is lose more money in the process...

Eventually, they will have to change their business model... but right now, they want to get what they can... who wouldn't.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
As I said... they aren't happy their product is getting ripped off... who wouldn't be. And I never stated they are doing this for "moral" reasons... it's purely about money.

If you were getting ripped off, what antics might you use

I think the question is not so much "if I were ripped off" (because it's far from clear that they're losing money because of filesharing), but "if I could earn money through legal action".

I mean, if "I" (an exec-minded person, more accurately) could get a few millions by suing Starbucks because their coffee scolded me, or by suing Jacko because I could make a convincing case that my son had been raped (whether true or not), "I" would do it. It would be mightily stupid for "me" not to seize the opportunity.

And I think it is exactly what the RIAA/MPAA are doing in their campaigns: their feeling of being ripped of (whether honest or not) is not the reason why they're in this, but because they think they can limit potential losses, and tap a yet untapped source of money. Just like the usual tort-accuser who expects millions for a loss that's worth much less.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
What else would you suggest they do...

change their business model...

Seriously, I think quite a few occasional downloaders would be swept by the idea of a convenient online download store that sells movies/music very easily. The real hardcore ones wouldn't change their ways indeed (i.e. the geek who starts a zillion simultaneous downloads, and doesn't care about when they arrive), but the guy who thinks "I feel like hearing that particular music right now", or "I want to see this movie this evening" would probably enjoy it.

Especially because filesharing has its inherent problems: for example, my spoken English isn't great, and I don't really appreciate English speaking movies without subs. You'd be hard pressed to find subbed versions for most movies (the version that spreads is the one with English dubs only). When me and my friends intend to watch a movie, this problem can be a real turn off for some members of the group. Unlike filesharing, the quickness and convenience of a download at an online store doesn't depend on the popularity of the file: you'll get the same speed regardless if you're buying the latest idol song, or the Indonesian sub of "Barton Fink" I think it can be a really potent method of distribution, that will call to most downloaders, except the real hardcore ones.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Just like the usual tort-accuser who expects millions for a loss that's worth much less.

Uhhhh... whether you agree that stealing movies is ok or not from your own perspective... it's still illegal.
Why shouldn't they do everything in their power to stop it. They are the ones being wronged here. I love how some might think they are stupid for trying to do something about it...

It seems like the only people that think they are doing the wrong thing are the ones that already steal from them on a regular basis... They aren't going to change the mind of thieves no matter what they do... they want to effect those borderline cases...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhhh... whether you agree that stealing movies is ok or not from your own perspective... it's still illegal.
Why shouldn't they do everything in their power to stop it. They are the ones being wronged here. I love how some might think they are stupid for trying to do something about it...

I actually think they are counter-productive, as they are slowing down a necessary mutation of the industry, which means that online downloads will remain the domain of freeloaders for a long time. I think they are narrowminded indeed, as they try to save a current situation that is bound to drastically evolve in the future (especially the music industry).
However, it is their right to fight against an illegal activity, and to advocate keeping it illegal, considering that they're the party which has money at stake here (losses and potential new markets). Just like it's the right of somebody who was wronged by Starbucks to try and get maximal money out of an issue.

It seems like the only people that think they are doing the wrong thing are the ones that already steal from them on a regular basis... They aren't going to change the mind of thieves no matter what they do... they want to effect those borderline cases...

I can understand that, although I haven't seen a guilt campaign so far (well, things are probably different on your side of the pond), only a scare campaign. But I do think that the actually effective way to get more money from the filesharing audience is to adjust to the specific demand of that audience. And the thieves aren't merely about getting something for free.

[Ming]

I would agree that they need to think long term... and figure out a way to make file sharing profitable... Electronic distribution of movies is the future... and they better come to grips with that. But right now, the current distribution model is still working, and is profitable. It is in their best interest to protect it as long as they can.

[pchang]

On the one had, you say the MPAA and RIAA are in it for the money and so their actions are greedy. On the other hand, you say you aren't costing them anything by downloading so your actions are justified. Which is it? If they can get money by going after downloaders then, clearly downloaders are costing them something.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by pchang
On the one had, you say the MPAA and RIAA are in it for the money and so their actions are greedy. On the other hand, you say you aren't costing them anything by downloading so your actions are justified. Which is it? If they can get money by going after downloaders then, clearly downloaders are costing them something.

1. I'm not an "all is good" guy, and I think that downloaders can be a serious loss for the media industries, especially for music. However, the figures so far are disputed, so I have no certain opinion on the extent to which it goes. That's because I think many people can download music they would have bought otherwise. Unless you're a music connoisseur, you don't really need to have the CD version rather than the MP3 version (again, movies are a different beast: even if you're the least connoisseur there is, you'll enjoy a popcorn movie more in the theatre than in front of your computer).
As such, when the RIAA/MPAA fights this behaviour, they are fighting an actual loss.

2. OTOH, there are also many people who download media that they never had any intention of buying, even if it wasn't available on the Internet. These people don't cause a direct loss to the media industry, but they can be seen as an untapped source of money: i.e., if they behaved differently, they would start to buy media, which would make the market grow.
When Asher is saying that he would genuinely never spend money on that movie, I don't think he is rationalizing theft (which would imply that he finds it morally icky in the first place), but that he effectively sees nothing wrong with his downloads, as he doesn't create any loss for the producer - unlike somebody who'd have bought the thing, if it wasn't available online.

There are thus two behaviours in filesharing. One that costs money directly, and one that doesn't cost anything, but which could bring money. Unless the RIAA/MPAA is completely dense (which is a fair possibility actually ), they are well aware that many filesharers don't cost them a dime. And they are clearly aware that many others do.

I think their rabid behaviour is not only about restricting the losses (which could be considerably cut if they adapted to the new forms of demand), but also about expanding their markets. They seem to be believing that every person who downloads stuff would buy it instead, if it wasn't available for free, and they seem not to understand that many downloaders would ignore the stuff altogether if it was the case.

The attempt to cut losses is a normal reaction (though counterproductive IMO). The attempt to grab an untapped market is an attempt to milk more than the problem is worth. You may say that "seizing the opportunity" is part of the American ethos, but it's exactly the same behaviour that makes people try to milk millions out of a hot coffee.