In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying. Adding more barriers in to that just results in more people refusing to pay for it. I guess we'll have to look at the statistics if this happens, but I know that ebook publishers had similar fears.
Completely not the case in the many, many discussions I've had while working within the audio industry since digital pirating began, with people on both sides of the coin. Generally, and across the board, content pirates take content for free because A) they can; they can without getting punished; and C) because they now feel they are entitled to it if it's available anywhere to pirate from. It has zero to do with the idea that they would have bought it except that the price wasn't reasonable. Utter fantasy. People are either pirates or they're not, and it has nothing to do with budgets, only with a sense of entitlement. If you dropped the price of every pirate-able thing by 50% no one who does it would stop.
I'm not sure why you think this logic works. iTunes' success indeed was based on eliminating barriers, but by making content exclusive then that introduces a fresh barrier for anyone who would not use that service. For example, I wouldn't buy the latest Sunn album from an Apple service that wouldn't work on my phone. I doubt I'd end up pirating it but many people would.
Exclusive content doesn't prevent you from buying content from iTunes, so it cannot be, by definition, a "fresh barrier" to buying into Apple's content delivery service. It doesn't prevent anyone who would not use that service from using it.
In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying. Adding more barriers in to that just results in more people refusing to pay for it. I guess we'll have to look at the statistics if this happens, but I know that ebook publishers had similar fears.
Pirates are thieves, plain and simple. There is comprehensive accessibility to music now, hugely more than was the case before iTunes. Not only that, but the music is much cheaper, too. I find your defense
Pirates are thieves, plain and simple. There is comprehensive accessibility to music now, hugely more than was the case before iTunes. Not only that, but the music is much cheaper, too. I find your defense
of pirates utterly despicable.
What defence of pirates? Why do you feel the need to slander me so.
Exclusive content doesn't prevent you from buying content from iTunes, so it cannot be, by definition, a "fresh barrier" to buying into Apple's content delivery service. It doesn't prevent anyone who would not use that service from using it.
Imagine if labels released on Google's music exclusively for 6 months, it would therefore prevent you buying content from iTunes. That is what I am talking about, I didn't think it would need this much elucidation.
Exclusive content is definitely the only way Apple will attract users.
Nope.
Originally Posted by unknwntrr
Why would I buy iTunes content that I don't even own after buying it, when I can pay 9,99%u20AC per month to be able to listen to everything, whenever I want?
Because with iTunes you actually own the content and aren’t forced to have a connection to the Internet to enjoy it.
What defence of pirates? Why do you feel the need to slander me so.
'In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying.'
?That defence of pirates. There is as much excuse for people to pirate music now as there is for them to steal cash from the handbags of defenceless old ladies.
?So yes, I couldn't have a lower opinion of your view on pirating.
'In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying.'
?That defence of pirates. There is as much excuse for people to pirate music now as there is for them to steal cash from the handbags of defenceless old ladies.
?So yes, I couldn't have a lower opinion of your view on pirating.
How is that defending pirates? I never said anything about excuses, valid or not. This is simply the logic I've seen friends of mine use. My view on pirating is that it's basically a non issue and mostly hurts small independent developers. That's why I try and spend money directly with small indie devs or bands.
Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea I'm defending anyone.
How is that defending pirates? I never said anything about excuses, valid or not. This is simply the logic I've seen friends of mine use. My view on pirating is that it's basically a non issue and mostly hurts small independent developers. That's why I try and spend money directly with small indie devs or bands.
Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea I'm defending anyone.
You're trying to make it sound as though people who pirate have a reasonable excuse for doing so; that's how you're defending pirates. By saying you think it's a non-issue is also trivialising the crime, which is also defending it.
'In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying.'
Sounds less like a defense and more like an explanation.
Their behavior is still wholly unjustified, but his is only explanatory.
You're trying to make it sound as though people who pirate have a reasonable excuse for doing so; that's how you're defending pirates. By saying you think it's a non-issue is also trivialising the crime, which is also defending it.
If what I say sounds like a reasonable excuse to you then that's entirely your business. If I am not even allowed to express an opinion of disinterest without being accused of defending hypothetical people then I think I'll just avoid discussing this. It's the easiest solution.
In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying.
Absolutely. Many studies have shown that the people who pirate the most also buy the most content. They buy what they can get, and download what they can't.
Great argument. Never been true in Apple’s history, but great.
I guess the Beyonce iTunes exclusive album, which was iTunes' fastest selling album ever and is the reason they're making overtures for exclusives with other labels (and the reason for this headline) isn't what you would call "in Apple's history", so I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you don't consider 3 months ago and headlines in all the trades "history". Most people would.
I'm not sure why you think this logic works. iTunes' success indeed was based on eliminating barriers, but by making content exclusive then that introduces a fresh barrier for anyone who would not use that service. For example, I wouldn't buy the latest Sunn album from an Apple service that wouldn't work on my phone. I doubt I'd end up pirating it but many people would.
I've only met few pirates who consider it particularly dishonest, and I'm not suggesting that iTunes users would suddenly turn into pirates. I'm suggesting that say a heavy Amazon user who does not have a Windows PC is not likely to buy one just to use iTunes.
Catch me up here...why wouldn't the Sunn album (or any album for that matter), purchased from iTunes not work on your phone? Virtually every phone and music player out there can play AAC files now. And there's no DRM on the songs. The only thing exclusive about it is that iTunes was the only place you could get it the first week of release.
Imagine if labels released on Google's music exclusively for 6 months, it would therefore prevent you buying content from iTunes. That is what I am talking about, I didn't think it would need this much elucidation.
That does not prove your argument because its an appeal to emotion. Your argument has been illogical from the start and remains so.
But let's entertain your hypothetical scenario to see where it goes wrong. If Google Play had content exclusives, then I would have to make a choice: buy from them or do without it. If I hated Google Play as much as you hate iTunes, then that makes the choice easy; there's no conundrum. Because I consider myself honest, I wouldn't pirate the content. The people who pirate use excuses like "it costs too much" or "I hate Apple exclusives" as reasons to feel justified. All the pirates that I know use those justifications because no one wants to admit (to themselves) that they do unethical things. It's a two-wrongs-make-a-right philosophy that lets them feel good about themselves while they steal. And I see right through it. Do you?
Catch me up here...why wouldn't the Sunn album (or any album for that matter), purchased from iTunes not work on your phone? Virtually every phone and music player out there can play AAC files now. And there's no DRM on the songs. The only thing exclusive about it is that iTunes was the only place you could get it the first week of release.
Obviously Amazon and iTunes abandoned DRM a while ago. I was giving examples of places people wouldn't be happy to buy from. Many people on this forum would refuse to do business with Amazon or Google.
Comments
In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying. Adding more barriers in to that just results in more people refusing to pay for it. I guess we'll have to look at the statistics if this happens, but I know that ebook publishers had similar fears.
Completely not the case in the many, many discussions I've had while working within the audio industry since digital pirating began, with people on both sides of the coin. Generally, and across the board, content pirates take content for free because A) they can;
they can without getting punished; and C) because they now feel they are entitled to it if it's available anywhere to pirate from. It has zero to do with the idea that they would have bought it except that the price wasn't reasonable. Utter fantasy. People are either pirates or they're not, and it has nothing to do with budgets, only with a sense of entitlement. If you dropped the price of every pirate-able thing by 50% no one who does it would stop.
I'm not sure why you think this logic works. iTunes' success indeed was based on eliminating barriers, but by making content exclusive then that introduces a fresh barrier for anyone who would not use that service. For example, I wouldn't buy the latest Sunn album from an Apple service that wouldn't work on my phone. I doubt I'd end up pirating it but many people would.
Exclusive content doesn't prevent you from buying content from iTunes, so it cannot be, by definition, a "fresh barrier" to buying into Apple's content delivery service. It doesn't prevent anyone who would not use that service from using it.
In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying. Adding more barriers in to that just results in more people refusing to pay for it. I guess we'll have to look at the statistics if this happens, but I know that ebook publishers had similar fears.
Pirates are thieves, plain and simple. There is comprehensive accessibility to music now, hugely more than was the case before iTunes. Not only that, but the music is much cheaper, too. I find your defense
of pirates utterly despicable.
Pirates are thieves, plain and simple. There is comprehensive accessibility to music now, hugely more than was the case before iTunes. Not only that, but the music is much cheaper, too. I find your defense
of pirates utterly despicable.
What defence of pirates? Why do you feel the need to slander me so.
Exclusive content doesn't prevent you from buying content from iTunes, so it cannot be, by definition, a "fresh barrier" to buying into Apple's content delivery service. It doesn't prevent anyone who would not use that service from using it.
Imagine if labels released on Google's music exclusively for 6 months, it would therefore prevent you buying content from iTunes. That is what I am talking about, I didn't think it would need this much elucidation.
Apropos of nothing, I wish there were a lighter weight iTunes player-only app for the desktop. iTunes is verging on bloatware.
Nope.
Because with iTunes you actually own the content and aren’t forced to have a connection to the Internet to enjoy it.
What defence of pirates? Why do you feel the need to slander me so.
'In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying.'
?That defence of pirates. There is as much excuse for people to pirate music now as there is for them to steal cash from the handbags of defenceless old ladies.
?So yes, I couldn't have a lower opinion of your view on pirating.
'In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying.'
?That defence of pirates. There is as much excuse for people to pirate music now as there is for them to steal cash from the handbags of defenceless old ladies.
?So yes, I couldn't have a lower opinion of your view on pirating.
How is that defending pirates? I never said anything about excuses, valid or not. This is simply the logic I've seen friends of mine use. My view on pirating is that it's basically a non issue and mostly hurts small independent developers. That's why I try and spend money directly with small indie devs or bands.
Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea I'm defending anyone.
How is that defending pirates? I never said anything about excuses, valid or not. This is simply the logic I've seen friends of mine use. My view on pirating is that it's basically a non issue and mostly hurts small independent developers. That's why I try and spend money directly with small indie devs or bands.
Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea I'm defending anyone.
You're trying to make it sound as though people who pirate have a reasonable excuse for doing so; that's how you're defending pirates. By saying you think it's a non-issue is also trivialising the crime, which is also defending it.
'In my experience most pirates are pirates because they can't get what they want for a reasonable price, not because they are fundamentally opposed to paying.'
Sounds less like a defense and more like an explanation.
Their behavior is still wholly unjustified, but his is only explanatory.
Exclusive content is definitely the only way Apple will attract users.
Nope.
Yep.
You're trying to make it sound as though people who pirate have a reasonable excuse for doing so; that's how you're defending pirates. By saying you think it's a non-issue is also trivialising the crime, which is also defending it.
If what I say sounds like a reasonable excuse to you then that's entirely your business. If I am not even allowed to express an opinion of disinterest without being accused of defending hypothetical people then I think I'll just avoid discussing this. It's the easiest solution.
Yep.
Great argument. Never been true in Apple’s history, but great.
Absolutely. Many studies have shown that the people who pirate the most also buy the most content. They buy what they can get, and download what they can't.
Great argument. Never been true in Apple’s history, but great.
I guess the Beyonce iTunes exclusive album, which was iTunes' fastest selling album ever and is the reason they're making overtures for exclusives with other labels (and the reason for this headline) isn't what you would call "in Apple's history", so I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you don't consider 3 months ago and headlines in all the trades "history". Most people would.
I don't know what to tell you.
How about giving an example of how exclusive content is the only way Apple can attract customers, given that’s what you actually claimed, instead?
I guess start with proving how “exclusive content” got them customers of all of their hardware and software products.
I'm not sure why you think this logic works. iTunes' success indeed was based on eliminating barriers, but by making content exclusive then that introduces a fresh barrier for anyone who would not use that service. For example, I wouldn't buy the latest Sunn album from an Apple service that wouldn't work on my phone. I doubt I'd end up pirating it but many people would.
I've only met few pirates who consider it particularly dishonest, and I'm not suggesting that iTunes users would suddenly turn into pirates. I'm suggesting that say a heavy Amazon user who does not have a Windows PC is not likely to buy one just to use iTunes.
Catch me up here...why wouldn't the Sunn album (or any album for that matter), purchased from iTunes not work on your phone? Virtually every phone and music player out there can play AAC files now. And there's no DRM on the songs. The only thing exclusive about it is that iTunes was the only place you could get it the first week of release.
That does not prove your argument because its an appeal to emotion. Your argument has been illogical from the start and remains so.
But let's entertain your hypothetical scenario to see where it goes wrong. If Google Play had content exclusives, then I would have to make a choice: buy from them or do without it. If I hated Google Play as much as you hate iTunes, then that makes the choice easy; there's no conundrum. Because I consider myself honest, I wouldn't pirate the content. The people who pirate use excuses like "it costs too much" or "I hate Apple exclusives" as reasons to feel justified. All the pirates that I know use those justifications because no one wants to admit (to themselves) that they do unethical things. It's a two-wrongs-make-a-right philosophy that lets them feel good about themselves while they steal. And I see right through it. Do you?
Catch me up here...why wouldn't the Sunn album (or any album for that matter), purchased from iTunes not work on your phone? Virtually every phone and music player out there can play AAC files now. And there's no DRM on the songs. The only thing exclusive about it is that iTunes was the only place you could get it the first week of release.
Obviously Amazon and iTunes abandoned DRM a while ago. I was giving examples of places people wouldn't be happy to buy from. Many people on this forum would refuse to do business with Amazon or Google.