Top 10 Reasons People Use To Justify Pirating Digital Content (And Why They’re Wrong)

79 comments

Pirating digital content is illegal. Full stop. 

Yet people continually steal eBooks and movies and television shows and treat it like it's no big deal. There's a couple of reasons it happens: Torrenting is easy and the chance of getting caught is low. And saving money is fun, especially when the economy isn't at its strongest. But an eBook is a luxury, not a right. If you can't afford it, too bad, but that's life. 

Still, people excuse the practice of pirating with a plethora of ridiculous reasons that don't hold up to scrutiny. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument in favor of it. Here's the ones I've heard so far--and why they're complete nonsense:

An eBook is a luxury, not a right. If you can't afford it, too bad, but that's life. If you go to Target and they have a flatscreen television you like, but you can't afford it, can you just take it? No.

10. We're only hurting big business.

Say you steal a book published by HaperCollins, a company owned by Rupert Murdoch. Yes, Murdoch has a lot of money, and I bet it's satisfying to take a few fractions of a penny out his pocket. But here's who you're really hurting, besides the author (which should be enough): The editors, the layout people, the marketing people, the cover designer... hell, even the maintenance staff in the building where the book was put together. Those are the people who are getting paid from the cost of the book. It takes a village. Murdoch isn't sweating the loss; the people who brought the book to market are. 

9. Authors already have a plenty of money.

J.K. Rowling may not notice a loss in income, but what about the self-published author? What about the author who’s counting on a royalty check to cover the rent? Publishing a book isn’t a path to fame and fortune. There are plenty of mid-list authors, or authors whose books are out of print, who don't see a dime from their work. And it doesn't help them if their books are pirated, obviating any need to buy them. 

8. The distribution method sucks.

Just because you don't like how something is distributed doesn't mean you can steal it. Game of Thrones is pirated at a huge rate, and sure, getting HBO shows can be tough--if you don't have cable and a subscription, you have to wait until the show is released on iTunes or Amazon Prime or on DVD. People like to say, Well, if they just offered HBOGo for $15 a month then I would pay for that. Except that doesn't work. HBO is an exclusive service for cable customers--if that service is no longer exclusive, cable companies might not carry it. HBO may be "leaving money on the table," but it's not enough money to justify losing the support of cable companies. Then they won't have enough money to make Game of Thrones

7. Digital content is too expensive.

I will acknowledge that pricing on eBooks is not ideal, but pricing is a different conversation--you can't just take what you want, when you want, because you disagree with what's being charged. If you go to Target and they have a flatscreen television you like, but you can't afford it, can you just take it? No. Same rule applies. 

6. We would pay for it if we just had access to it.

This is bullshit of the highest order. Some people would, sure, but you know what? Both season 1 and 2 of Game of Thrones are available on DVD, and through a variety of digital download services, and it's still pirated at a huge rate. If this was true, as soon as something was available for sale in another format, it wouldn't be pirated ever again. It's ridiculous for people to pretend they'd be noble, if only the circumstances were right. (As someone pointed out in the comments, season 2 of Game of Thrones is not available yet. Plenty of digital content gets pirated even though its for sale elsewhere, so the point remains).

5. What about libraries?

Libraries purchase the large majority of books in their collections through wholesale retailers like Ingram and Baker & Taylor. Money changes hands. Authors get paid. All this argument shows is you don't even care to check your facts. 

4. Everyone else is doing it.

There are a lot of examples of mainstream acceptance of pirating, but the most recent (and troubling) example comes from David Pogue, the technology writer from the New York Times. He wanted to get The Bourne Identity by Robert Ludlum for his son, but he discovered the eBook wasn't available because of a dispute between Ludlum’s estate and Bantam. Instead of downloading any one of a million other eBooks, Pogue downloaded a torrent and cut the publisher a check for $9.99. Except if the books aren’t available, the estate probably still has the rights, so the check should have gone to them. And he used the biggest and most respected paper in the world as a venue to justify a selfish, petty, and illegal act. Shameful.

3. We live in a different country so we don't get movies/books/shows until months later.

Distribution methods are not ideal--far behind the capabilities of technology. It's frustrating, and distributors should absolutley rethink how media is disseminated in our global cultural landscape. But it still doesn't give you the right to steal something. Again: Digital content is a luxury, not a right.

2. We already own the book/movie/show in another format.

If you have an eBook, you can't go to a bookstore and take the paperback version, claiming that you already own it anyway. I'm heartened to see that some publishers and movie studios are including digital copies with physical media--I'd pay a few extra bucks to get eBook versions of the physical books I buy--but until that's a common practice, this is the system we have. Buying something in one format doesn't give you the right to other formats. 

1. If you're a writer, you should just be happy to write.

I've seen this tossed out a couple of times--that if you're a writer or a filmmaker, you should just be flattered that people want your stuff, and you should take pirating as a compliment. Well, screw that. Writing and filmmaking and art are great jobs, but they're still jobs. A self-published author still has to sit down and proofread and code and release and track an eBook--these things take time. Expecting people to forgo payment because you wanted something and didn't want to pay for it? You're an asshole. And if you're an artist, you're an even bigger asshole, because you lack empathy for fellow artists. But, look, if you're utterly convinced that artists should just be happy to create, I'll make you a deal: I'll do my job for free, but you have to do yours for free. We'll circle back in a month and see how that went. 


Am I wrong? Do you think any of these reasons are legitimate? Let's discuss. And let's keep it civil, alrighty?

UPDATE: So in response to this article (an opinion piece you guys, so really, calm down) I got this anonymous e-mail. Just wanted to let you know you suck. You suck as a person. If I ran into you on the streets I would punch you in the face. I would punch you again just to do it.

I'd love for someone try to punch me in the face over something I wrote on the internet, because my life has been too normal lately. 

To leave a comment Login with Facebook or create a free account.

Comments

September's picture
September from England is reading Automata and Computability October 21, 2013 - 4:06am

Piracy doesn't hurt your sales. Piracy only ever affects potential sales, and that's nobody else's business. If you are concerned about those, you should find a better business model. Piracy is a fact, and you deal with it and adapt to it.

If I get raped because I had the stupidity to wander alone in a dark alley in the middle of the night, that's my fault. Yes, I know I shouldn't have to be afraid, but rape existence is a cold hard fact and will always be until people are genetically engineered out of it. The solution is not to whine on blogs that rape is illegal.

But on to the second point. If a person can't afford your book, they won't buy it, period. Nothing to lose, no "lost potential sales", nada, zip, zero. You should indeed be happy they are pirating it in this case - if anything, that's an automatic free advertisement, and even better if they like the book and recommend it to friends. Otherwise not only is your book less well known, but you also come off as a jerk ("I don't care about you, I don't care about my creative work, I only want your money"). Well, that's a tad too late. You are a jerk.

DavidB's picture
DavidB October 21, 2013 - 6:12am

Having followed the debates on piracy in music for the last few years, I could have warned the author that much of the comments thread would be taken up by 14-year-old-boys (mentally if not chronologically) earnestly telling him that 'copying isn't theft, so there!'

I think it is best in these discussions to avoid using the words 'theft' or 'stealing', and find a less disputable description for piracy.  I have a suggestion, but I'll leave that to the end.

Meanwhile, tedious though it may be, I will defend the use of the term 'theft' for copyright infringement.  We must consider this not only from a strict legal point of view, but from the point of view of everyday English.

From a strict legal point of view, whether copyright infringement counts as 'theft' depends on the particular statute or law code one is considering.  Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.  As several posts on the blog Copyhype have shown, there are some legal systems in which copyright infringement is literally and unambiguously classified as a form of theft.  Even in the United States Criminal Code, penalties for criminal copyright infringement fall under the general heading of 'Stolen Property'!

From the point of view of everyday English, the concepts of 'theft' and 'stealing' may be wider than in formal legal definitions.  No-one objects to the use of such terminology as 'identity theft' or 'stealing an idea', even though on a pedantic view you cannot 'steal' something if its original possessor still has the use of it.  A broad usage of the term 'theft' is commonplace, and has been endorsed by the highest legal authorities. Justice Breyer of the US Supreme Court has bluntly described deliberate copyright infringement as 'garden-variety theft'.  More recently, a Court in Illinois had occasion to directly address the question whether, in ordinary English, it was reasonable to describe copyright infringement as theft.  The context was that someone had infringed a copyright; the victim of the infringement complained that the infringer was a thief; and with supreme chutzpah the infringer then sued the victim for libel!  The Court lost little time in finding that in ordinary English it was theft, and there was no libel. 

But as I said earlier, it would be better to find a less disputable description, and I have a suggestion.  The essence of copyright infringement is that someone takes advantage of someone else's work or skill, against that person's wishes, and without compensation.  We already have a perfectly good word for that:  enslavement.  So I would be happy to give up the use of the word 'theft', provided the pirates are willing to say:  'I'm not a thief, I'm just a slaver!'

 

walwyn's picture
walwyn October 21, 2013 - 12:53pm

I had to laugh today when I visited a site that promulgates cracked versions of our software. For the last several years we've tightened the security of our flagship making it very hard to break. And the last crack we've seen is two years old. Anyway they still crack other software programs of ours which we haven't protected to DoD standards, and keep moaning at the cracker that there isn't a crack of the flagship software (cost $25K per license).

Anyway the reason I was laughing was because apparently we "should welcome piracy as more people will use the software", but now they'll just "have to go and pirate some competitor's software" and we'll "go out of business". So it goes ...

I have news for them they can go hammer nails in their eyes.

 

Tom Green's picture
Tom Green October 22, 2013 - 2:58am

Oh Lordy. So much hot air on both sides. My two pennorth is this- it's only partly about 'morality' or 'theft', it's mostly about NUMBERS.

In the old model, 'modest' sales in any form could sometimes support artists (writers,film makers, musos) for them to continue to create. Some of the greatest work ever made resulted.

In the new model, ONLY those with MILLIONS of sales will survive.

This is the conundrum. Like independently produced music, film, books? Then you'd better pay for it, or you won't get more from that source.

Forget all the moral/immoral stuff. That argument isn't worth bothering with, no one cares. What our societies have to decide is whether we want a strong indie scene that produces great work, and how to support it. Or else all we'll get is junk from big majors, and junk from millions of wannabes slapping it out for free.

 

 

Wozby's picture
Wozby January 18, 2014 - 9:23pm

When it comes to pirating music, little potential revenue is lost for artists (and possibly even some is gained from advertising), and I would think this is especially true for independent artists whom aren't widely known.  Most revenue comes from sales of tickets to live shows and merchandising.  A large majority of the total money spent to buy a single CD completely passes the artist by and goes directly to record companies, profit for the store selling it, etc.  Little reason is there to pay over 10 dollars for one album when you can get it for free, especially because it's often on YouTube, which means people are already listening to it for free.  

As for pirating other forms of media such as games and movies, it's nothing like stealing a physical item from a store, as then the store not only loses your potential business, but also actual money in the form of a product that they had to buy at one point.

Often times I wouldn't even buy the product (whether it be a game, movie, or song/album) anyway, even if pirating it wasn't an option at all.  I have so many other forms of entertainment, that I simply wouldn't spend my money on whatever it was in the first place (unless, of course, it was much more reasonably priced).

Ethan Reichard's picture
Ethan Reichard March 25, 2014 - 4:29pm

I don't give two shits who I am "hurting" by pirating movies, shows and games. The bottom line is that I can't afford to pay 30 or 40 dollars for a season of a TV show, or 20 dollars for a new movie. And, I usually don't download games because my computer can barely handle an N64 emulator. I don't care if it's immoral. All this shit is too expensive and not worth the price that they want, especially in this economy.

Robert Wasabi's picture
Robert Wasabi June 9, 2014 - 9:59pm

I definately agree that piracy is wrong. My question: Is it wrong to give away copies of songs and movies that I legitimately bought to friends and family? Would that still be considered piracy? 

 

livingpossession's picture
livingpossession July 2, 2014 - 7:00pm

The history of the world up until today has been about MAN exploiting MAN using the most novel method he can come up with. For us contemporaries, there's a strong belief that it is GOOD to pay money for an object created by someone else and BAD to take it in a way such that that the creator does not stand to gain anything.

For reasons I don't care to discuss, it has been determine morally, ethically, economically, and most importantly, LEGALLY sound to take a copy of book that was purchased in the most legitimate way feasible. In this particular discussion, the most legitimate sale is that directly from the author. The author does not bother to announce the sale to his publisher, he simply pockets the money with a smile. BUT, in a twist of fate, the buyer decides to sell the book at a price 1/2 what he paid the author. Thus, the first buyer has paid a total fee of 1/2 what the author received. The other half was returned to him when he sold it to the second buyer.

The second buyer decides to sell the book to a third buyer for 1/2 the price he paid. And thus, he paid only 1/4 of the price that the author had pocketed from the original buyer.

The author, meanwhile, re-released a new print of his book with updated photos. A savvy third buyer was not amused by this slight upgrade, and decided instead to purchase a used copy of an earlier edition -- from buyer number two, in this particular story. He naturally paid 1/2 the price of that the second buyer had paid. 

The third buyer sat on his chair and read the book, and thought to himself, what a worthless piece of garbage. It occured to him that he saved a hefty sum by paying for a used copy rather than a new version, with so little extra to offer. He ultimately passed this book along to his nephew, who needed that same book for a project at school. He didn't charge his nephew, and it occured to him that out of all the readers, he was the only one to pay the full price of the book. 

If you haven't figured it out yet. Life, right now, is all about obtaining something from someone else. A cost is determined and a transaction is completed. Right now, millions of users across the web have reasoned that it is more useful for their time to post a digital copy of a text WITHOUT any personal gain so that another "buyer" can receive that said text at a cost of nothing more than their time. 

So there you have it. If it is legal for buyers 1 & 2 to sell a used copy of a text created by the author, without giving any financial gain to him or her in the process, why is it any more illegal to gain access to digital reproduction of book at a cost of nothing more than the time to download? To clarify, all these buyers and sellers are agreeing upon a price they believe fits the transaction. If someone is taking their time to put a pdf copy of a book online, are they not determining its worth? $00.00 is still a cost -- you have to include TIME value. 

 

 

Adam Santee's picture
Adam Santee July 22, 2014 - 7:31am

10. We are hurting big business. They aren't working to change their distrubition model. How much more fucking time do they need? I will continue to apply pressure until they break.

9. Being a professional author has always been difficult, and the advent of piracy has made it even more difficult. So what? When athletes fail to go pro and we don't sympathize with their whining, it's because they aren't entitled to a career they love. If you don't make millions like JK Rowling, then work harder. If you never make it, accept it. That's life. You aren't owed the changed behavior of anyone.

8. The distribution method does suck. We're not hurting authors, the publishing companies are hurting them. Evolve or perish. 

7. Digital content is too expensive. $60 for a bluray boxset of 1 TV season of Breaking Bad? Get fucked. You can't beat free and you never will. That doesn't mean you can't make any money from my watching Breaking Bad. Put up every episode you got on your website, make it available in HD, play only one fucking ad (like YouTube) before the video starts, and voila! You just took away my incentive to torrent your show. 

6. This goes back to the pricing model. Some people have limited access due to cost. If people can torrent it for free, then that means they're potential ad revenue for you. You really want to read something that'll make your blood boil? I've given more ad revenue to The Pirate Bay than I have: 20th Century Fox, HBO, Dreamworks, Warner Bros, The Weinstein Company, Paramount, Walt Disney Studios, MGM, New Line Cinema, Sony Pictures, Fox Film Corporation, Fox Searchlight Pictures, and Columbia Pictures combined. Evolve or perish.

5. All your rebuttal shows is you don't even care to check your facts. Libraries buy the books. I rent them via an annual fee to my library. I take the book home. It's my favorite book. I lend it to someone everytime I check it out. I've checked it out 19 times over the course of 2 years. Now the book has been read by 20 persons and the only people making money on it is the library. If your point is everyone who uses your content without buying it is a potential customer and a dirty pirate, then libraries around the world are ripping you off and are actually the largest sites of booty of them all. They're quite literally, then, a building dedicated to piracy.

4. Everyone else is doing it. A company that refuses to adopt a new business models is a company that doesn't deserve my money. I'm not going to change how I consume media just because you've not bothered to know your customer. I'm the consumer, I call the shots.

3. Delaying availability of shows/movies to other countries is enough to warrant piracy in my opinion. TV shows and movies have become part of a global zeitgeist of a kind, and to delay someone access to it would force them to be unable to be a participant in the discussion. If you think your money determines my participation in the world, then fuck you, you can go get fucked, and also fuck you. Make the show/movie available in any country, play only one fucking ad, collect the ad revenue, and carry on. 

2. I don't have to pay a fee to consume water as a solid but I have to pay a fee to consume your media in a different format? Lol. No. It's the same thing. I'm not paying twice. This would be like Dasani trying to charge you for eating their water as ice.

1. This is true. You should be happy to write if you're an author. You should also have reasonable expectations of success. Just as not everyone can be Michael Jordan, so too can't everyone be JK Rowling. Your success is dependent upon your drive and talent. Simple as that. Harry Potter didn't become a one billion dollar industry due to a lack of piracy. That shit is amazing. Step up your game, authors. 

ryks's picture
ryks July 27, 2014 - 3:06pm

I have a quastion.is moral to duplicate a game from an autor to 1.000.000 copies?you just work for 1.the rest are copies(clone).who give the right to chooose how many copies you wana make?

Dan Barnett's picture
Dan Barnett November 17, 2014 - 4:10pm

When you talk about Pirating you're talking about the immorality of stealing. Since the concept of personal property or intellectual property is a human idea and not something that exists (like the product, the desire for the product and the ability to get the product for free) you can't really expect humans to care that much about it. Humans are opportunists just like every other organism on the planet and taking stuff when easily accessible is just something that happens. In truth, the only way to control human behavior is to create consequences for their supposed "immoral" acts. Until torrenting becomes threatening to torrenters, you can't expect people not to do it. 

Sad Tomato's picture
Sad Tomato December 26, 2014 - 12:41am

Are you equally outraged at what amounts to intellectual property theft by the corporate publishers?  For each $30 hardcover sale, an author will usually receive about a dollar.  That's a 3% cut.  Out of the publisher's 97% take, most goes towards the dark art of marketing, i.e. scientific propaganda designed to compel marks to buy crap.    

 

If I pirate an ebook and in return donate $5 to the author then it's a win/win for both the author and myself the reader.  The author can use the extra earnings to pay a professional editor and proofreader.  I the buyer save money and feel better for having directly payed the creator for his art.  Everyone is happier except for the marketing parasites who will be forced to settle for Corvettes instead of Ferraris.  

 

As long as our broken publishing system abuses both the consumers and the authors while rewarding those who have little to do with creating the art, books will be sought by means of piracy.  

 

 

Graham Barnes's picture
Graham Barnes May 10, 2015 - 3:33pm

What a load of corporate cock gobbling bullshit! which CEO paid you to write this tripe?

Pirate away baby!

Frank Mitchell's picture
Frank Mitchell May 17, 2015 - 8:41pm

the guy who wrote this article is a mug!

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated May 18, 2015 - 7:33am

Guys, you might disagree with him but get off the cross someone needs the wood. If you never pay for something it goes away.

Joshua Chaplinsky's picture
Joshua Chaplinsky from New York is reading Stories of YOUR Life May 18, 2015 - 9:28am

...and the lulz just keep on coming. 

Rob's picture
Class Director
Rob from New York City is reading at a fast enough pace it would be cumbersome to update this May 18, 2015 - 10:07am

I'm a mug?

Is that a compliment or an insult? 

I'm going to pretend it's a compliment. 

So, thanks!

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated May 19, 2015 - 4:43am

Not so much.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mug

Slang or euphemism for mutha fucka.
Man, I am drunker than a mug!

Joshua Chaplinsky's picture
Joshua Chaplinsky from New York is reading Stories of YOUR Life May 19, 2015 - 5:27am

I thought it was short for "muggle," which would make the statement incorrect, because Rob is magic!

Matthew Gibb's picture
Matthew Gibb June 14, 2015 - 5:26pm

Entertainment has existed along with its direct attachment to some sort of advertising, which continues to be increasingly pervasive. Let's take digital books, which will supplant books themselves soon enough.

 Amazon can charge about 10 dollars for a digital book that is in essence a perpetual rental. If I buy the used hard copy it might be 5 dollars for the same book and I can read it and pass it on to someone else. 

Digital also means virtual. Our lives are vacuumed up on the Internet as soon as we log in and so our constitutional rights don't apply on line. 

 

This is is a one way street big business doesn't get. All the stuff people download is like a kind of free advertising. I find myself buying music CDs as gifts for people even though I may have downloaded the song for free earlier.

 Furthermore greedy companies like Amazon, that I have generously fed my money to for years will now have to cope with Scribd and Oyster, which treat writers to a bigger slice of the pie. 

 

Disruptive technology will continue to evolve. Even Steve Jobs said," be a pirate".

someone's picture
someone July 16, 2015 - 1:32pm

The justification for illegal downloading - a marketplace tilted against the consumer (wildly tilted I would bet) due to decades of mergers and widespread collusion among sellers. Almost nothing anyone buys is fairly priced. Downloading is a way of fighting back.

Claire Logan's picture
Claire Logan January 2, 2016 - 1:36am

One thing's for sure...the industry will soon be faced out and all that's left for us are these: digital people, digital world. And the physical film industries, publishing houses, workers or staffs at company buildings wil be part of history. IOT is making the world smaller, lesser...threatening, however, innovating. Piracy will be no big deal. Centralization of the internet will be the next thing to face. We are in the era of free access of billons of information, WWW has done so much for this. Unless we'll stick to the status quo then will be able to seriously talk and retalk about piracy. Sorry writers, talents and workers. I've been there. But I guess time to face the reality- the world needs us less. Instead, what the world craves right now is how to cover all corners of the world with wifi zones. . .and get to us with just a click at google.com--FREE. EASY. FAST.  (P.S. just an idea)

Irem Nakip's picture
Irem Nakip February 6, 2016 - 2:49am

As a porate, I have to say emphasizing its illegality is completely pointless. Every pirate out there is aware that pirating is illegal, but the chances of actually getting arrested or sued is very low. We're not concerned about law, not at all.

Joshua Chaplinsky's picture
Joshua Chaplinsky from New York is reading Stories of YOUR Life February 8, 2016 - 12:44pm

I've never met an actual porate before.

Jerzy Dzi's's picture
Jerzy Dzi's August 29, 2016 - 1:05pm

Too fucking expensive.

I remeber koRn's song yall wanna single. Some artists wouldn't aprove companies making business on their music.

I get cheap CD's from DeaLz. (Worst happens if you buy something so expensive and you don't really like the genre, lyrics or technique is e.g.  Metallica's load era. King Nothing was a good song, other than that we all know it was the band at it's worst. If I bought same album for 4 euro, 2 euro I wouldn't mind... if I buy a tenner worth album which sucks, I get a really shitty filling - a feel of a stupid kid. Anthrax was worth 14 fucking quid ... Crazy.

Worst is if you buy a CD and do not listen to it. Sucks - I just prefer to download it , listen to know what music or genre I like ... at the moment I am into post-punk/ goth bands from 80's. I find an album, check everything about it on wikipedia and deicde what I should buy. They say charity shops have stuff as well. There is never stuff I am looking forward in hmv or Dealz. There still there is a lot of good modern stuff worth listening. Franz Ferdinand is great to listen on a CD, Razorlight is good, each of them I bought for € 1,45. 

I kind of feel sorry for people who don't know other singers  than Nicki Minaj, Ariana Grande, Jason Derulo, Britney Spears, don't know other rappers than Eminem. It sucks. Techno is really great to listen on a cd. I got moby Play, was fuckin' another dimension, loved it. Looking for new stuff. I might get Lenny Kravitz compilation in Dealz.

It's cool to buy CD's as a birthday gift if you do not want to buy alcohol or teddy bears and you know what bands is the person into. 

For a fifty euro I will buy 5-6 cd's, but for a tenner I would buy same amount of album in Dealz even if they aren't exactly brand new or fresh.

I never buy anything digital. I download everything from youtube.com . Everything is too deer these days

Jerzy Dzi's's picture
Jerzy Dzi's August 29, 2016 - 1:06pm

Too fucking expensive.

I remeber koRn's song yall wanna single. Some artists wouldn't aprove companies making business on their music.

I get cheap CD's from DeaLz. (Worst happens if you buy something so expensive and you don't really like the genre, lyrics or technique is e.g.  Metallica's load era. King Nothing was a good song, other than that we all know it was the band at it's worst. If I bought same album for 4 euro, 2 euro I wouldn't mind... if I buy a tenner worth album which sucks, I get a really shitty filling - a feel of a stupid kid. Anthrax was worth 14 fucking quid ... Crazy.

Worst is if you buy a CD and do not listen to it. Sucks - I just prefer to download it , listen to know what music or genre I like ... at the moment I am into post-punk/ goth bands from 80's. I find an album, check everything about it on wikipedia and deicde what I should buy. They say charity shops have stuff as well. There is never stuff I am looking forward in hmv or Dealz. There still there is a lot of good modern stuff worth listening. Franz Ferdinand is great to listen on a CD, Razorlight is good, each of them I bought for € 1,45. 

I kind of feel sorry for people who don't know other singers  than Nicki Minaj, Ariana Grande, Jason Derulo, Britney Spears, don't know other rappers than Eminem. It sucks. Techno is really great to listen on a cd. I got moby Play, was fuckin' another dimension, loved it. Looking for new stuff. I might get Lenny Kravitz compilation in Dealz.

It's cool to buy CD's as a birthday gift if you do not want to buy alcohol or teddy bears and you know what bands is the person into. 

For a fifty euro I will buy 5-6 cd's, but for a tenner I would buy same amount of album in Dealz even if they aren't exactly brand new or fresh.

I never buy anything digital. I download everything from youtube.com . Everything is too deer these days

makeit234's picture
makeit234 January 10, 2017 - 3:16pm

I own an indipendent press, and I've done a lot of research in this area as you can imagine.

It's simple. People pirate because the entertainment industry is charging too much. Consider this... 1 tv show season lasts me a week, 1 book lasts me 1 day, 1 movie lasts me 2 hours, and 1 album lasts me 30 minutes. Do you honestly think people are willing to pay $20 for a tv show, $15 for a book, $20 for a movie, and $15 for an album? It's ridiculus. I am not saying it is the people creating the works that is the problem. It is the people charging their services in the production budget and the marketing. 

Here's my philosophy: people should not have to spend more than $2500 a year on entertainment, which is still a damn lot. That is $208 a month which is about $7 a day.

7.25 x 8 x 5 x 50 = $14500. That is how much someone working minimum wage gets, and they are, many times, working tough jobs that need to be done in our society, like it or not. Now just think that these people would be living off $12,000. The shittiest apartments in my area (NC) are $500 the lowest (utilities included), and most of them require room mates for a price that low. That means these guys are dishing out $6000 for rent. Food cost per month for 1 person range from $200-$300, but I'll just take the lowest of that. $200 x 12 equals $2400 just to eat. Then you have to pay for gas (and maybe even car loans). Then you have car insurance. Then you have to pay for health insurance. And then you have to consider misc costs such as toilet paper and soap. You think those people have $5000 to spend on all our books and media entertainment? We really need to cut these prices in half.

And don't go saying that people working minimum wage should go do something better with their lives. Realize that WE NEED those people working minimum wage. Without them, who is going to labor in the crop fields so that the population can eat? They're breaking their backs for us like slaves. They deserve their share of entertainment! 

Just remember... it isn't the fault of the people creating the work and charging you so much. It's the distributors and marketers that ruin the business for everyone. For me it is the damn printing presses charging so much that I can barely make $1 per book sale. That's right... all that $15 went to the printer, the distributor, the author, and the retailor. I'm left with $1 per book to cover the $3500 production cost to publish 1 work of fiction. If the government needs to do anything, they don't need to chase the piraters, they need to chase the people charging an arm and a leg just to publish something of entertainment value. If I charge $3 for a book and people are STILL pirating it, then we can talk.

sally333's picture
sally333 May 24, 2017 - 8:03am

This was a very helpful website! I found it very informative, and very persuasive on why people should not commit piracy. I liked it! 

Anpuseshemfwi's picture
Anpuseshemfwi June 25, 2019 - 4:47pm

"you can't afford it, too bad, but that's life". Seriously!?  Believe it or not there are tons of people who cannot afford internet/tv/phone, etc. myself included.  I'd really love to see anyone live day by day without any form of entertainment and not go insane.