App Developer Fights Pirate With Politeness

Most major music and movie industry outfits go out guns blazing against those who dare to copy their content. They often label these people, who also make up a great portion of their legitimate customers, as thieves and criminals. App developer and owner of the website Word of the Day decided to take another route, and crushed a potential pirate with politeness instead.

Piracy presents content creators with a mind-twisting dilemma. No one wants to see the work they have to live off being copied for free, but in today’s age not being pirated is probably even worse. Being overlooked in this way generally means that the public is not interested in what you have to offer.

The situation gets even more complicated when one realizes that ‘pirates’ are often legitimate customers too. As previously highlighted, music pirates are the ones who spend the most money on legitimate music. In a way, speaking out against pirates is speaking out against one’s biggest fans.

So how does a content creator approach such a multi-layered species when he or she spots one in the wild?

If we look at Chris Baker, app developer and owner of the The Fucking Word of the Day website, confrontational politeness might turn out to be a good choice. Yesterday, Chris spotted a potential pirate on the xSellize forums, who posted the following request:

“Can someone please crack The F-ing Word of the Day app. Please.”

Although many content creators would have cringed upon reading the message, perhaps tempted to shout the pirate down, Chris opted for a more peaceful reply to the poster “HiDefinition”.

“Hello! I’m the creator of the *** Word of the Day website and more particularly the F-ing Word of the Day App. First of all, this is a huge compliment! As a person who pirates content, I’ve always placed the moment people are pirating MY goods as the exact time of my arrival, as it were.”

Chris Baker goes on to explain that, although he has a decent job in New York, he’s by no means rich. The app and website are his pet projects and he works on them during his free time in the hope that the public might learn something. Then he continues with giving the prospective pirate his virtual blessing.

“What’s my point in all this? Go ahead and pirate the app. It cost me 1500 bucks to have programmed. It’s not even a month’s rent for me. But if you think the site is cool, and you want to pay for one eighth of a Stella Artois for me, hook me up with 99 cents. The rapture will be here soon, I could use the drink.”

The above might not have been the response HiDefinition had been hoping for, but it did make an impact. Suddenly, the prospect of getting a pirated App without paying didn’t seem as appealing as it did before.

HiDefinition replied:

“Wow, I wasn’t expecting the developer to comment. Sorry, about that. You know I was only looking to get the IPA for free only because I have no credit, credit cards, or any kind of banking services. However, your attitude has seal[ed] the deal for me. It might end up costing me a couple extra dollars in nominal fees to figure out how to pay for it but I’d be glad to contribute towards that Stella fund raiser you’ve got going on.

“Besides, I really appreciate your response and I fully support your work. I hope no one actually cracks your app [and] for sake of respect, consider my request revoked. Thanks again Chris and have a good one bro!”

It appears that with his polite reply, Chris eliminated at least one potential pirate. But that wasn’t the end of the matter. Instead of eagerly waiting for HiDefinition’s 99 cents, Chris offered to buy the App for him, asking for a positive rating in return.

Chris then concluded:

“I hope this comment thread goes down as one of the more unexpected things that happens to you online. I like the unexpected. And I like making people happy, even when something stupid like learning vocabulary is involved.”

The thread is memorable for sure, and shows that the blazing guns strategy might not always be the best one, especially not for indie content creators. This doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘pirates’ should be cuddled, but it might be a good idea to try a more balanced response every now and then.

We got in touch with Chris, who shared his remarkable encounter on Reddit, and he told us that he expected people to pirate his app and that it’s not a problem.

“I knew people would try to pirate my app and I’d rather have people trying to pirate my app than not pirate it. If no one is trying to pirate you, you’re irrelevant,” Chris said.

In fact, Chris admits that he too has pirated software since he was eight or nine. Whether it is the moral thing to do is not up to the developers he believes, it’s something every ‘pirate’ has to decide for him or herself.

“The morality of pirating an app will be a topic that gets debated forever,” Chris told us. “If a starving kid steals a loaf of bread to feed himself, is that wrong? If a starving designer pirates a copy of a 700 dollar version of Photoshop, is that wrong?”

“A creative storyteller could produce narratives that make you see both sides to each story,” he concludes.

Read


Secrecy and Darkness Surround Mysterious $900m Piracy Report

Anti-piracy reports that are commissioned by the entertainment industries are suspicious by definition, but the mystery that surrounds a recent study goes far beyond that. Despite being widely covered in the press, no journalist has actually seen a copy of the report. Even worse, the company that produced the in-depth report was registered only four months ago, and appears to be carefully hidden from the public.

Image is Loading....To convince the government that harsher anti-piracy legislation is needed, a coalition of Australian entertainment industry outfits – under the umbrella name Australian Content Industry Group (ACIG) – commissioned a study on the economical impact of Internet piracy. Although by itself this is nothing out of the ordinary, the lack of transparency and shadiness that surrounds it is stunning.

In late February the report in question was first mentioned in a speech by Attorney General McClelland, who was speaking at a conference on future directions in copyright law. At the time the public were not yet aware of the report’s existence. Journalists too remained in the dark.

The same could be said for the Australian Content Industry Group. The copyright coalition, which doesn’t have a public website, was virtually unknown at that point also. The group consists of a variety of entertainment industry outfits, most prominently Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI), but until then had only appeared in a few recent government consultations.

That’s some background on the report, now let’s fast forward two weeks.

On March 6th, Australian newspaper The Age published a series of articles on Internet Piracy. Interestingly enough, the aforementioned report was at the center of the series that quickly made headlines. In particular the hit piece “Nation of unrepentant pirates costs $900m”, written by freelance journalist Neil McMahon, was picked up by dozens of other news outlets.

Curious about this seemingly influential report that dominated the headlines last week, we decided to take a good look at the company that conducted the research — Sphere Analysis. However, this was easier said than done.

Like the Australian Content Industry Group, Sphere Analysis doesn’t seem to have a web presence. With no website and no employees, not even a single reference to the company could be found. How could this be? Wouldn’t it be logical that such a big report would be written by a renowned company?

To us it seemed a little suspicious to say the least, so the first question that came to mind was: Who are behind Sphere Analysis?

With help from the Pirate Party, we found that Sphere Analysis is a business name registered to the ‘Sphere Property Corporation’. This company, which again has no web presence, appears to operate in the real-estate business. Not the type of business you’d expect to write an analysis of Internet piracy on the Australian economy.

Interestingly, ‘Sphere Analysis’ was registered less than four months ago, which means that immediately after it was registered they got this major contract. So who are these people?

Image is Loading....

To find out more about the company, calls were made to several numbers associated with Sphere Property Corporation but again without results. All calls went to so-called ‘virtual offices‘, where either the company name didn’t ring a bell, or where the person who answered the line was not allowed to give out information.

Additional research eventually led us to an alleged employee of Sphere Property Corporation, Phil Nott, who lists himself as a Real Estate Consultant on Linkedin. No other employees were found and Mr. Nott has two Linkedin profiles, each with just one connection.

Aside from dealing with real estate, Sphere Property Corporation also seems to be connected to the investing company Sphere Capital Advisers and the recruitment business Sphere Associates.

None of the above companies has a website of course, so that’s pretty much where our Sphere Analysis trail ended.

Now that our interest in the report had been pushed even higher, we wanted to know how Sphere Analysis concluded that illicit movie, music and games downloads cost the industry $900 million a year as well as 8,000 jobs. Aside from a few key figures quoted in The Age article, the full report was unfortunately nowhere to be seen.

But we were not the only ones left in the dark. The journalist who wrote the original article for The Age confirmed to us that he wasn’t provided with the full report either. His article was based on information he was given by ‘someone’ he didn’t want to name without permission.

In an attempt to get a copy of the report, we then began emailing several outfits that fall under the Australian Content Industry Group, but without a response. In addition the Australian Pirate Party submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Attorney General’s office, but that is still being processed.

So here we are. After a week of sending emails, making phone calls, and digging through all kinds of information we were unable to get our hands on the full report. On the contrary, the mystery surrounding the report is even greater because of the vagueness surrounding Sphere Analysis.

This is worrying, especially when the Attorney General clearly indicates that it influences future legislation. The Pirate Party, who helped us in our quest for information, agrees.

“Where such reports or studies direct the policy direction of our governments, there is a democratic imperative that the information is made available transparently, that the methodologies are sound and adequately reflect reality,” said Pirate Party’s Rodney Serkowski.

“The Age article inferred that the Attorney General was basing the government’s policy direction on these research figures. This is a very, very shaky foundation for public policy — especially when there is a growing consensus that the institution of copyright requires radical structural reform, lest it becomes irrelevant,” he added.

And then there’s the issue with hiring the brand new and unfindable Sphere Analysis to conduct such an important report.

“This study, carried out by a virtually unknown entity with access only being granted to one journalist is highly dubious, even for the copyright lobby. Any study that gets reported as fact should be made available to the general public. The fact that it is not casts a question over its contents,” said Pirate Party’s Simon Frew.

So, will Sphere Analysis step forward immediately with a full copy of this apparent policy-setting report either to us or another news outlet? Is transparency the way forward or are we to blindly accept spoon-fed ‘statistics’ from faceless groups, regurgitate them as fact, help build credibility where none has been earned and then work the whole thing into law? That can’t be the way forward.

Update: Just to illustrate that we’re not the only one who question these practices, here’s a comment from researcher Guy Cranswick.

“In my capacity as a researcher I requested the report from one of the organisations in the so-called copyright alliance but no reply has come which is very suspicious because normally these organisations are very happy to send their expensive studies to known researchers and other media contacts.”

“As no one has see this report it goes to the core of journalistic credibility that a paper such as The Age could have published news about this uncorroborated survey.”

Game Changing Study Puts Piracy in Perspective

To counter the many one-sided piracy studies that have been released by the entertainment industry in recent history, a group of dozens of academics have bundled their powers to write the most objective and elaborate piracy study to date. As many would have predicted, the results differ quite significantly from the message pro-copyright lobby groups have put out over the years.

The majority of the reports on piracy have one thing in common – they are funded by the entertainment industries to provide ammunition for political lobbying efforts. The downside of these reports, aside from the biased outcome, is that they tend to focus on just one area – the alleged losses for the industry caused by piracy.

Instead of focusing on the consequences, however, it might be much more constructive to also look at the causes of piracy. After all, the solution to a problem can often be found by looking at its origins.

To fill this gap, a coalition of academic researchers under the flag of the Social Science Research Counsel (SSRC) took up the task of providing a more neutral and deeper overview of what drives piracy. For several years they looked at the current piracy landscape, the past efforts of the entertainment industries to curb it, and with a strong focus on emerging economies.

This week the final report was released. Although it is impossible to summarize more than 400 pages of analysis in a single article, we’ll highlight some of the key findings, starting with some comments on the purpose of the study as put forward by director Joe Karaganis.

An Honest Look at Piracy

“What we know about media piracy usually begins, and often ends, with industry-sponsored research. There is good reason for this. US software, film, and music industry associations have funded extensive research efforts on global piracy over the past two decades and, for the most part, have had the topic to themselves. Despite its ubiquity, piracy has been fallow terrain for independent research,” Karaganis writes.

“Industry research consequently casts a long shadow on the piracy conversation—as it was intended to do. Our study is not envisioned as an alternative to that work but as an effort to articulate a wider framework for understanding piracy in relation to economic development and changing media economies,” he adds.

This type of research and honest analysis is much needed according to the project’s director. For too long piracy research has been little more than a political tool to warm legislators up to the implementation of harsh anti-piracy measures, despite the poor quality of the research itself.

“At the risk of over generalizing, we see a serious and increasingly sophisticated industry research enterprise embedded in a lobbying effort with a historically very loose relationship to evidence. Criticizing RIAA, MPAA, and BSA claims about piracy has become a cottage industry in the past few years, driven by the relative ease with which headline piracy numbers have been shown to be wrong or impossible to source.”

What Losses?

The researchers wisely stay away from calculating the losses piracy may cause to the various industries, but the report does hint that it is not always as bad as the messenger suggests. The movie industry for example has seen its revenues rise drastically in recent years.

“The message from Hollywood consequently has a schizophrenic quality: the movie business is in crisis; the movie business is thriving. Since 2002, the US movie industry has been a $9–10.5 billion business in domestic box office revenues, with successive record-setting years in 2007, 2008, and 2009. International distribution brought in some $16.6 billion in 2007, $18.1 billion in 2008, and $19.3 billion in 2009,” the report reads.

Other industries, such as gaming software, have fared well too. Entertainment software sales have gone through the roof in recent years and surpassed that of movie ticket sales and CD sales, the report explains. The researchers further note that games such as World of Warcraft are immune to piracy because of their business model, and that game consumers are often very loyal to game developers, and on average more hesitant to pirate.

Pricing and Competition

Moving on to what’s causing piracy, particularly in emerging economies, the report suggest that pricing is an important issue.

“High prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy. Relative to local incomes in Brazil, Russia, or South Africa, the retail price of a CD, DVD, or copy of Microsoft Office is five to ten times higher than in the US or Europe. Legal media markets are correspondingly tiny and underdeveloped.”

Prices are so high because there is a lack of competition, the report suggests. This is certainly true for emerging economies but one can also translate this to the United States, where licensing deals and copyright restrictions often hold back competition.

“The chief predictor of low prices in legal media markets is the presence of strong domestic companies that compete for local audiences and consumers. In the developing world, where global film, music, and software companies dominate the market, such conditions are largely absent.”

Piracy Enforcement is Futile

Looking at the efforts of anti-piracy outfits to slow down online piracy, the report’s authors note that they have largely failed. Online piracy is hard to stop through enforcement, and lawsuits against individual users have not had the deterrent effect hoped for by the industry.

“Despite the stream of lawsuits and site closures, we see no evidence—and indeed very few claims—that these efforts have had any measurable impact on online piracy. The costs and technical requirements of running a torrent tracker or indexing site are modest, and new sites have quickly emerged to replace old ones.”

The amount of Internet traffic associated with online piracy grows year after year, the report reads. As a result, the copyright lobby has focused more extensively on tracking down users alongside threats to disconnect them from the Internet through so called “three-strikes” deals with ISPs. It is questionable, however, whether this new approach will be effective.

“Over the longer term, stronger consumer-directed enforcement is certain to produce an arms race between encrypted, anonymized services and industry detection techniques. Although the industry currently presents graduated response as an effective response to consumer piracy, it far from clear that it will prove legally or politically viable, or do more than shift users to other forms of distribution.”

Even more worrying, the report warns that it may lead to increased surveillance of Internet usage, a path that is against the best interests of the public.

“As recent MPAA and RIAA comments on enforcement submitted to the US government make clear, however, three-strikes is not the end of the digital enforcement fight but the beginning. The next steps down the path include preemptive content-filtering by ISPs, the inclusion of home-based monitoring software in ISP contracts,” it reads.

Education and Crime

The report further suggests that the millions of dollars that have been spent on anti-piracy education have not resulted in much change in public opinion. “The authors find no significant stigma attached to piracy in any of the countries examined. Rather, piracy is part of the daily media practices of large and growing portions of the population.”

“What do these efforts to shape public discourse achieve? If dissuading consumers is the primary goal, the answer appears to be: very little.” Among other things, the report states “that pragmatic issues of price and availability nearly always win out over moral considerations.”

Finally, the authors of the report challenge the often recurring argument that piracy funds criminal organizations and terrorists.

“The study finds no systematic links between media piracy and organized crime or terrorism in any of the countries examined. Today, commercial pirates and transnational smugglers face the same dilemma as the legal industry: how to compete with free.”

The Future?

One of the main conclusions of the report is that competition rather than enforcement is the key to dealing with piracy. Implementing harsh and restrictive anti-piracy measures is useless if the causes of piracy are ignored. Gradually, the entertainment industries will start to realize this.

In interviews in 2009, MPAA special projects director Robert Bauer, sketched out a different agenda for the industry group: “to isolate the forms of piracy that compete with legitimate sales, treat those as a proxy for unmet consumer demand, and then find a way to meet that demand.”

In this regard, it is only fitting to end with the very first words of the report.

“Media piracy has been called ‘a global scourge,’ ‘an international plague,’ and ‘nirvana for criminals,’ but it is probably better described as a global pricing problem. High prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy.”

Read