Anti-piracy messaging may just encourage more piracy
- Reference: 1659467067
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/08/02/antipiracy_messaging_piracy/
- Source link:
In [1]a paper titled "Doing more with less: Behavioral insights for anti-piracy messages," published in peer-reviewed sociology journal The Information Society, Gilles Grolleau, professor of economics, law and society at ESSCA School of Management (Lyon, France), and Luc Meunier, professor of finance at ESSCA (Aix-En-Provence, France), argue that anti-piracy messaging focuses on the wrong things and ends up encouraging misbehavior.
The economic impact of piracy, the academics observe, is consequential. They cite various figures to that effect from industry groups [2]without challenging them : an estimated 37 percent of software worldwide is pirated (BSA, 2018); an estimated 38 percent of people obtain songs unlawfully (IFPI, 2018); and US digital video providers lose between $29.2 and $71 billion annually to piracy (Blackburn, Eisenach, and Harrison 2019).
[3]
Yet this sort of litany of economic woe is just the sort of statistical broadside that fails to modify behavior when presented as a part of an anti-piracy campaign.
[4]
[5]
"Specifically, we argue that regulators and copyright holders backing these campaigns fall prey to 'the more-is-better heuristic,'" the authors argue in their paper.
"They inadvertently and counter-productively marshal the high number of victims (scope severity paradox, statistical victim bias), the high number of piracy actions (social norm trap), and the high number of arguments in disfavor of piracy or in favor of legal ways (excessive number of arguments, 'presenter bias') in anti-piracy campaigns."
[6]
Setting aside the inaccuracy of the term "piracy", which analogizes unapproved and sometimes unlawful content copying with maritime mayhem, part of the problem is that copyright holders and content consumers don't see things the same way. While rights holders try to categorize piracy as theft, the authors observe, infringers do not think of themselves as thieves and use terms like "file sharing" – which rights holders would consider a euphemism for unlawful file appropriation.
Thus, rights holders back anti-piracy media campaigns to promulgate their world view. But these campaigns fall short by focusing on the wrong things. The authors say research has established that "an identifiable victim elicits higher emotional reactions and willingness to act and help than numerous victims suffering from the same difficulties." And yet anti-piracy campaigns like the UK's " [7]Get it Right from a Genuine Site " focus on the high number of victims rather than telling the story of a sympathetic victim.
[8]We need a Library of Congress – but for the digital world
[9]Google, EFF back Cloudflare in row over pirate streams
[10]Russia mulls making software piracy legal and patent licensing compulsory
[11]Software piracy pushes companies to be more competitive, study claims
Similarly, anti-piracy ads err, the authors say, by calling attention to the prevalence of piracy. They argue that when describing what people do (eg, piracy) while directing people to adopt opposite behavior often just encourages people to behave as others do. For example, [12]a 2003 study (Cialdini) "found that messages and signs directed at discouraging theft, but informing visitors of the Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona, that many visitors were stealing small pieces of petrified wood, inadvertently increased the theft rate in comparison to the control situation."
Finally, Grolleau and Meunier observe that attempting to convince people to behave a certain way by presenting every available argument can be difficult because people will focus on the weakest argument. They cite the " [13]You would not steal this car " anti-piracy ad, noting that it compared illegal downloading to stealing a DVD from a store (a reasonable comparison) and stealing handbags, TVs and cars (less reasonable comparisons). And as a result, they say, the video was widely [14]parodied .
The authors conclude that instead of marshaling statistics and dictating desired behavior, rights holders might be better off expressing gratitude toward customers.
[15]
"Displaying descriptive information such as how widespread piracy is to paying users is ill-advised," they state in their paper. "Thanking users who choose legal means to get the desired products for their support might be more efficient." ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2022.2095683
[2] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/business-software-alliance-bsa-piracy-impact-study-inflates-effect-on-economic-growth-118437254.html
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YumelgXtlgD7TZvklq@3lAAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YumelgXtlgD7TZvklq@3lAAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YumelgXtlgD7TZvklq@3lAAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YumelgXtlgD7TZvklq@3lAAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.getitrightfromagenuinesite.org/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/04/digital_museum/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/21/cloudflare_google_eff_piracy/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/08/russia_software_piracy/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/04/software_piracy_competitive/
[12] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8721.01242
[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU
[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YumelgXtlgD7TZvklq@3lAAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
From "The IT crowd"
[1]You wouldn't steal a handbag
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
Re: From "The IT crowd"
Indeed. And to be fair, the article itself includes a link to that same video ( "...And as a result, they say, the video was widely parodied." )
The "poor" victims of piracy
From the article:
The authors say research has established that "an identifiable victim elicits higher emotional reactions and willingness to act and help than numerous victims suffering from the same difficulties."
So, according to the authors, they should have adverts with various pop artists sitting on the balcony of their $20 million Beverly Hills mansion, telling us we shouldn't copy their music because we are taking food out of their mouths? Or even better, the record company exec sitting on his $150 million yacht, complaining about how his income was down by 10% last year due to piracy? That will work!
We won't even start talking about how every copied song is "a lost sale" BS.
Re: The "poor" victims of piracy
I can't say that seein Sir Cliff Richard wringing his hands changed my attitude one iota.
Re: The "poor" victims of piracy
Well, they could show the session musician who played sax on said artist's first hit, who is struggling to pay for his kid's dental care. There are lots of people involved in the music industry, and the great majority of them are far from rich.
Re: great majority of them are far from rich
If more people bought music from legitimate sources would poor session musicians be any less poor?
Re: The "poor" victims of piracy
"There are lots of people involved in the music industry, and the great majority of them are far from rich."
And if there was NO copying whatsoever and everyone who wanted to pay for the product did pay (ie far fewer than those making free copies), then the industry's income would rise a bit. But very little, if any, would trickle down to the majority at the bottom. They'd still be struggling.
False equivalence as well...
Stealing a car, and copying some ones and zeroes that they simply won't sell you in any other way are not equivalent.
Re: False equivalence as well...
Yes, it's a false equivalence. Piracy is also easily solved.
Give people what they want at a price they're prepared to pay.
Re: False equivalence as well...
I do love how certain files, allegedly videos (not that I've seen, for example, 'pirated' versions of Star Wars:Rogue One, given that I have a legit copy and don't need to, ah, 'pirate' it...) which were directly copied from DVD or Blu-ray and contain _everything_, including the 'FBI Warning' notice. (Note to those who might have ideas: I got Rogue one in BR... and it shipped with a DVD version, _and_ an 'electronic' downloadable version. I stuck the BR and DVD in a safe place, and have only played the 'downloadable' version. I do have copies of certain tools available which can make 100% copies of pretty much any BR or DVD ever made, so if the 'downloadable' version ever gives me static it can be replaced... and Disney can bite me.
This might or might not have already happened.
Back in the day, I had non-technical relatives (still have) who would never think of stealing, or of not paying someone who creates something for them.
The problem is that since I was the person with the CD recorder and the empty disks they saw _me_ as the creator of music, not the musicians or the record company.
Remember when every video & DVD from the rental store started with a full blown "Don't be a thief" message?
A great way to alienate your paying customers, and things haven't really improved much since then.
Thanking users who choose legal means to get the desired products for their support
Yes, something along the lines of "Thanks to your honesty, 0.00003p of the £10 you paid for this album will be going to the artist".
Oh right, they're not into that sort of honesty.......
Re: Thanking users who choose legal means to get the desired products for their support
And you are guilty of equally gross exaggeration in the opposite direction.
Typically, something like 15% of the retail price goes to the performers. Then there's the writers, who will also be on a percentage. The shop that sells the CD, if there's physical media, will pocket maybe 40-50% - hey, they have costs y'know. (This is why online distribution is just as popular with the industry as it is with consumers.)
Then the various uncredited session musicians, engineers etc. involved in the production need to be paid. To say nothing of publicity, video production and the other expected expenses of modern music.
Then, if there's anything left over - and by this time there very often isn't - the publisher starts to make a profit. For maybe one song in a thousand, that profit is very handsome - enough to pay for the other 999 songs they need to produce to get lucky.
Pretty obvious
Psychologists - but not the ones the media companies use apparently- have known this stuff since I was at uni in the 70s.
Advertising a behaviour as a social norm isn't going to reduce it.
Making an overblown claim about it isn't going to reduce it.
Yeah, no sympathy
It doesn't help that I hate the people and corporations crying their crocodile tears about it and feel just great about not giving them any money. Sony Music (and Pictures), Universal, Warner, Disney - these are all the rich bastards filing false takedown claims on youtube videos with zero consequences, and re-partitioning off TV so you can no longer just watch a show. Then they give the artists fractions of a penny on the pound. Why yes, I sure would download a copy of a car if I could.
Note - where things are available at a fair price and I can (mostly) make sure a decent amount of the money goes to the artist I do so - I love Bandcamp for music, and GOG, itch.io, Steam, or Epic work fine for games even though the last two still take too big a cut. So I haven't pirated a game in decades (except I guess, my ROM collections for old consoles - that's convenience again).
It just confirms what many of us already knew.
If you have bought a legitimate DVD or Blu-ray then you are a valuable customer. Putting aggressive notices on there that imply you might be a criminal is not the way to encourage brand loyalty. People watching torrented copies are not going to be seeing those notices.
Unfortunately, the kinds of people that want these kind of notices on media are, I suspect, probably sociopaths. They don't understand that to insult your customer is probably not the best strategy.
"If you have bought a legitimate DVD or Blu-ray then you are a valuable customer. Putting aggressive notices on there that imply you might be a criminal is not the way to encourage brand loyalty. People watching torrented copies are not going to be seeing those notices"
Especially when the "anti-priacy" adverts are unskippable so the legitimate purchasers/renters have no choice but to wait for it to finish.
A small point about the worldwide figures, and file sharing
In poorer countries, or rather in countries where the vast majority of people are far poorer than in the bloated west, software at the headline price is just not affordable and people will not pay that price. It doesn't matter what somebody says about it being "illegal", it's just not affordable. When people in the UK complain about the cost of Adobe CC or perpetual licence rental (e.g. the recent article on Sage), what about people in say, Indonesia or India or Pakistan - three populous countries. Do you think somebody in Lahore or Mumbai is going to pay up monthly? Or are they going to use a cracked version of whatever software?
The term "file sharing" (cut down from "illegal file sharing") has also been coopted into something apparently illegal. A few years ago I had a short discussion with my ISP about file sharing. Oh, that's illegal. They said. Well how about I share you some FreeBSD source code or Linux? It really is a *lot* of people who don't understand that file sharing can be completely legal and above board.
Re: A small point about the worldwide figures, and file sharing
"The term "file sharing" (cut down from "illegal file sharing") has also been coopted into something apparently illegal. A few years ago I had a short discussion with my ISP about file sharing. Oh, that's illegal. They said. Well how about I share you some FreeBSD source code or Linux? It really is a *lot* of people who don't understand that file sharing can be completely legal and above board."
Yes, lazy people co-opting terms and adjusting them for their own nefarious uses. Using the anti-piracy lobbys own logic, "streaming" is also illegal because there are many sources out there where you can stream videos and music outside the licence terms, eg many of the 3rd party add-ons for Kodi. But then they have been constantly shooting themselves in the foot over the years with these sorts of misinformed arguments.
A poor analysis of a poor paper written entirely from the copyright industry's point of view
"...noting that it compared illegal downloading to stealing a DVD from a store (a reasonable comparison)..."
Like fuck is that a reasonable comparison. Stealing a physical object from a store is theft. Making a copy of the DVD's data has not deprived the store's owner of their property.
I expect candid and honest analysis from El Reg's journalists - not recycled press releases passed off as journalism. There are plenty of other organs which are quite happy to pay people for that kind of trash, but I certainly don't expect it from The Register.
It's this kind of bullshit research and journalism by press release which ensures that people will continue to not see things the way the copyright industry wants them to, regardless of how many starving academics they bribe to produce these nausea inducing "research papers" for them.
The copyright industry is rightly despised for its greed, corruption and exploitation. They could start to create a better market for all by cleaning up their act, treating performers in a fair and equitable manner, and paying them the majority of the income from sales, particularly when it comes to the music industry. Then, actually listening to the people who copy music and films instead of buying DRM laden, inferior or otherwise locked down digital copies and offering them what they want, how they want it and at a reasonable price would go a long way towards changing the way things are.
Then again, we've been sending them the same message for decades now and apart from a few players who have seen that light, the xIAAs of the world still have their hands clamped firmly over their ears and their eyes tightly blinkered. I don't hold any illusions about them suddenly getting the message.
DRM drove me to "piracy".
I simply will not engage with it. For my professional work, I will buy a license; but I will not activate online or by phone; I will open radare2 and fix the software instead and then I will share that fix anonymously online for less technical users because sharing is good and not being able to own a *copy* of software when you purchase it is in my opinion a criminal act.
Piracy is a service problem...
...and always has been. When Netflix first rocked up all the stats show that file sharing services took a nosedive in popularity. Why? Because people don't mind paying for things, they mind feeling like they're getting cheated. As Netflix has started losing more and more of it's most popular content back to Disney+ and Paramount+ and HBO Max and all the others their subscriber numbers have declined and piracy is back on the rise.
I'm more than happy to pay for the content I watch, but I'm not - and it would seem the vast majority of people are not - prepared to pay for 8 different subscription video services to watch one or two shows from each. This is taking us straight back to the predatory cable TV model of the early 90s where you had to buy the family pack, and the sports pack, and the movies pack, and the education pack all separately and see yourself paying for ninety nine programmes in a hundred that you don't care about and don't want.
Music publishing has already shown how this ends up. Once people get used to the idea that they can buy the content that they want - and only the content that they want - they will stop being prepared to pay a subsidy to a bunch of things they don't care about, be that in the form of buying albums with 50% awful filler tracks on, or paying a monthly subscription for something they don't use.
It's sad to see the TV and movie industries repeating the same mistakes.
It does for me. The harder they squeeze, the more that will slip through their fingers.
The financial impact of piracy is not as "consequential" as they like to whine about, as they assume that people are going to buy their rubbish in the first place. They are essentially thinking they are entitled to this money and if they don't get it, they blame piracy.
Some people will pay, some people won't, and fewer won't if it's crap, or they make it difficult. It's as simple as that. Ignore those that don't and concentrate on making it a better experience for those that will.
Yes, carrot works better than stick.
Gross overestimates don't help either
Rights holders count every illegally acquired item as depriving them the value of a sale. Many file sharers would not have bought the files if they had to pay full price, so it may be an offence, but it may not be a lost sale,