This morning, Nora interviewed Matt Mason, author of The Pirate’s Dilemma. They talked about digital piracy, and how smart businesses are dealing with it. A shorter version of this interview will air on Spark 99, but you can hear the full, uncut interview below, or download the MP3. [runs 26:57]
Play audio:
Note: The beginning of this interview references Cliff Harris, a video game developer who actively sought a discussion with people who were pirating his games.
If you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark Plus? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
[Original image by peasap]
Great interview, and the direction we need to be taking these conversations.
It was important to mention that ego is a big part of this, and that getting upset about what is happening and treating exclusive rights infringement as an enforcement problem won't help your business. The same is true of lobbying to change the law into being an even bigger stick at a time where successful businesses will be focused on the carrot. I tend to boycott creators whose political beliefs when it comes to the law are too different than my own, not wanting to help fund political opponents http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5108
I consider this an attitude issue as well: is the glass half full and rising, or is the glass half empty and lowering.
In a free market, the price people pay for something will tend to approach the marginal cost (the price for one more, which is not the same as the costs of production of the first). For knowledge, the marginal cost to the producer is zero.
If creators started from zero and look upward towards ways to entice people to pay more they will come up with many different ways to get more money. If creators start from believing that anyone who experiences their creativity should have paid a specific high entrance fee, and look at anyone who doesn't pay as some mythical loss (or even more out of touch, as if it were "theft"), they will continue to make decisions that will only drive their revenue streams downwards.
Forward/upward thinking will also help avoid emotional responses which tend to discourage people from paying, such as the various ways that DRM (Digital Rights Management) lowers the value to the recipient of the knowledge. My personal experience is that the most likely reason I won't pay for content isn't that I'm not willing/able to pay, but that the the rights holder has deliberately made the content inaccessible to me (IE: deliberately encoded the content in a way that is incompatible with my devices, etc).
As an example, I get my audio books from eMusic. Those publishers that only make audio books available from platform tethered sites like Audible will never see any of my money. http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4673
There was one part of the interview that made me cringe. The different areas of law that offer exclusive rights such as patent, copyright, trademark and related laws have very little in common with each other. While there is a concept of trademark dilution which forces trademark holders to protect their trademarks or loose them, no such concept exists for copyright.
I believe it is wrong to suggest that lawyers that start conversations with cease-and-desist letters are just doing their job. Lawyers that think that this is their job should be fired, and replaced with lawyers who will spend their time thinking about the legal aspects of the overall brand, reputation and interests of the client. Companies that don't deal with this human resources issue quickly and adequately may find themselves shut out of the modern marketplace which will be more and more about positive stories and brand than "product".
You may also want to read about the Mozilla Foundation http://www.mozilla.org before including that section as what Matt said was a bit misleading.
So they found ways to stop piracy?
Is it possible with so many tools readily available to the public?
i doubt so.
Comment Part 1:
Excellent interview however I think the industry are still operating under some mistaken assumptions. The very nature of the internet promotes the free transfer of data. Once one puts their "product" online, or deals in any kind of digital media whatsoever, they are in effect starting to convert their physical product into a service. I believe it a mistake software and artistic industries to view their digital works as if they were physical products and rather instead begin to think of themselves as service providers. An author who publishes his works online is no longer selling product, he is providing a service in the form of creative works. What makes computer gaming so big is the comunities that develop around them.
Comment Part 2:
That means quality games have good storylines, quality multiplayer options and quality modifcation options so that players can create third party software. If one sells a game that has to be played offline then one should focus on writing and game design but even so they are limiting themselves of valuable marketing tool. Games are becoming a group activity in several ways: They are a way players socialize together, they provide a creative opurtunity and they are a form of entertainment. Therefore thinking, and consequently selling, individual games as product is, in my view at least, a mistake.
Comment Part 3:
Trying to restrict games, art, and information in order to promote sales is quite simply folly. It's like a parent trying to censor their children, even if you succeed they will find a way around it. (And censorship in and of itself is undemocratic.) One can't fight the internet, it's too big. If there are some that pirate simply because its free then use it as a marketing tool. This was pointed out in the article, piracy is free publicity and advertisment. It is the people that decide the value of a product or service, not the producer. After all one can charge whatever they want but if people refuse to buy it then you have little recourse but to adapt.
Comment Part 5:
Another thing that was not mentioned in the article much is copylefting (using copyright to make something public rather than private), open source software and community developement projects. Granted they touched on Mozilla but there are many other open source projects out there. Why merely play a game when one can contribute to the development process itself. Open source projects are free. The developers however usually make money by placing advertising on their websites or, as was mentioned in the article, using their open source projects like a portfolio so that they may charge money for their services to others.
Comment Part 5:
Personally I believe money, and capitalism, is obsoolete in today's digital age, however advertising for proprietery software in order to produce free software of your own seems like a good compromise. Another would be charging a membership fee in order to use one's service. I think we can all say that Blizzard's World of Warcraft, and other pay to play MMOs have firmly grasped this concept. Another example is that of your typical dating site which charges money for usage and various privalages. There are many combinations but as I orginally said when something becomes digital it is quickly on its way to becoming a service. The physical world may be exclusive but the digital world is, like it or not, very inclusive.
After searching AOL I found your site about Full Interview: Matt Mason on piracy as a business model | Spark | CBC Radio . I think both are good and I will be coming back to you and them in the future. Thanks