Software that has a virus or worm will destroy your computer. You will find that it costs more money to replace an infected computer than it does to buy your software package from a legitimate source. Those who download, sell, or share software packages are breaking the law. This practice could result in heavy fines and/or jail time. It is unlawful for anyone to duplicate copyrighted software.

People often believe because they buy a software package that they own the right to install it on as many Computers is, as they like but the truth is that it is unlawful. This is still considered a form of Computer Piracy. When you use a software package for one of your Computer’s then you need to get permission from the software company before you can use it on multiple computers. The software companies will normally supply you with a code key that will permit you to use their software package on more than one computer.

When you are, a business and need to have a software package on multiple computers you can get permission. Business people usually do not pirate their software packages; most piracy is done on VPN game packages. The people who make copies of software that is used to play games so that they can sell it for a profit are known as pirates. These pirates commit Piracy on the High Cs. The reason why we call them that is because when they copy the software packages they become contaminated with a virus.

The virus will infect your Computer, which damages the PC. You are now no longer too able to use your system. The most commonly pirated software is the VPN because it is used for the gamers. The problem arises with the various different types of virus’s that are hidden in the software package. The pirated software may be passed down to many different people before it is taken out of circulation. This is still illegal act and most certainly Piracy on the High Cs.

~This is a guest post written by Victoria. She is a stay at home mom and a freelance writer. Currently, she is enjoying working with a Danish floor sanding company by the name of Gulvafslibning pris.

How we did it

Sites were selected from our own bookmarks, technorati and blog search engines. These were then ranked according to Page Rank, Alexa Rank, Sites Linking In (Alexa), Latest Post Date and our own quality score out of 10 (the latter being entirely subjective based on our own views on the site’s insight, editorial prowess and relevance to the piracy debate). We’re the first to agree that there is an abundance of further measures we could have used however we deemed those above to be the most indicative.

The Top 10

1. law & disorder (arstechnica) – strong editorial and news with great breadth of views on piracy (arstechnica were good enough to give us a write up in October but be assured this did not sway their position here!)
2. PaidContent.org – broader than just piracy and p2p and a popular site with some great content on emerging business models for digital content
3. TorrentFreak – the team at torrentfreak are hands down the best source for the latest news and views on P2P and run the related Freakbits site. TF’s Ernesto did a Top 10 P2P, Piracy and Copyfight blogs list a while back at Blogs.com however TF did not seem to make the cut at the time!
4. Techdirt – tech news with a strong focus on piracy and P2P
5. Guardian.co.uk (Technology: Piracy) – The guardian has devoted an entire category to piracy in their technology section to cover IP, digital media (video/audio) and DRM. Some great coverage of piracy news and trends in Europe
6. cnet news: digital media – terrific resource for digital media news which regularly includes piracy, DRM, P2P etc
7. NewTeeVee – everything you will ever need to know about the world of online video including business models, technologies, trends and ideas
8. p2pnet – no piracy blog list would be complete without a mention of the p2pnet team who remain strong advocates for the power of P2P and provide regular news and editorial on filesharing.
9. Digital Music News – the complete source for news and views of digital music with a deep focus on how this is impacting the major labels
10. Slyck.com – filesharing, digital media and tech news and how tos as well as some terrific video content covering usenet newgroups (a frequently forgotten filesharing practice)

One group of blogs/sites we assessed but who fell short of the top 10 were anti-piracy sites such as FightPiracy.org, The Industry Trust and musicunited.org. These tended to score poorly across all the criteria for content and popularity – possibly indicative of a larger challenge these organizations have in engaging their audience.

What next …

While the science behind our ranking means our very own PiracyPayback.org did not make it into the top 10 just yet, you can have the chance to change this. If you have strong views on the state of play in piracy and the rapidly evolving world of digital media, you may be interested to know that PiracyPayback.org is (reluctantly) for sale – a great opportunity to get your views heard for what is an amazingly low outlay (current bid at time of posting is a mere $10!). Bidding ends on 30 November.

Any other of your favorite piracy & p2p sites that are missing from the top 10? Let us and our readers know in the comments below …

This brings us to the second problem in that blaming movie piracy for the industry’s supposed misfortune fails to recognize the tremendous opportunities afforded by the online world (yes, even torrents and p2p). A compelling home download service results in distribution costs being almost zero (more so when it would utilize P2P!) while allowing studios to get closer to their end users – a win for everyone aside from those no longer adding any value to the movie distribution value-chain. In short, don’t make us go to a theatre or buy Blu-ray if we’re happy with an HD download. Furthermore, online media allows studios to more effectively market their wares – it is a canny studio who is able to utilize P2P to make the trailer for their next release go viral.

While we’re happy to concede that movie piracy poses challenges for the industry, it has been around for possibly ten years now and continuing to rely on it to garner performance concessions fails to exploit the opportunities it presents. It furthermore draws out the length of time studios are able to cling to already outdated business models that consumers are more than happy to leave behind.

Part of Iger’s move piracy scapegoat collective and want to payback to the folk that might need it? Make a payback now …

The premise here being that because the cost of production for digital music is near zero, the cost to purchase should also be near zero given perfect competition. This ignores the value of the product, regardless of cost to produce – an argument included in Paul Glazowski’s highly publicized rebuttal.

Regardless of who is right on this, the TC article proclaims that the industry will shift their revenue model to focusing on their “real products” – the live performance.

This angle is flawed as giving away music for free suggests there is no utility in the recorded product apart from promoting the live show. Anyone who listens to music for pleasure with no intention of seeing the live show effectively becomes a free-loader and compromises the market dynamics required for this to work.

The reality is that the music-listening but non-show-going user segment is likely to be significant for a range of reasons such as:
(a) I’m a fan of the artist but not a fan of the artist’s fans so the chances of spending an evening with them is slim
(b) I’m a fan of the artist but work/home commitments mean I can’t make the gig
(c) I’m a fan of the artist but they don’t tour where I live (or don’t tour at all)
(d) I’m a fan of the artist but know they suck in concert

Any music listener who can identify with these statements would have their listening pleasure funded by the concert-going public if labels were to give away music. This could readily lead to a downward spiral as concert prices ramp up to make up the loss – ultimately reducing the demand for tickets and destroying the now singular revenue stream for the entire industry.

While we agree that the nature of the music industry needs to change, giving music away for no robust reason lacks imagination and is a cop out – capitulation in face of the not insurmountable threat of music piracy.

What does it look like? It typically involves some radically new and innovative digital service being available exclusively to users who also have some legacy old-school die-in-a-ditch service.

The temptation to do this is arguably understandable but not defensible. Execs need to (a) show that they are innovating but (b) protect existing revenue streams. The result is defensive innovation (sans market disruption) or otherwise hard bundling (reduced market disruption).

The core problem with this approach is that you are effectively delivering two different services to two different markets but making it the same product.

This makes no sense yet you still see formidable companies such as Verizon doing this with ePixHD which is only available when you have the Epix TV Channel.

The result is a great deal for everyone involved (Paramount, Lionsgate, MGM, Verizon) apart from the end user.

Looking to play seriously in the digital media arena and migrate users away from piracy? Hard bundling content is not the answer!

A few months ago we stumbled across a brilliant article from TweakGuide’s Koroush Ghazi titled PC Game Piracy Examined which to this day remains one of the best opinion pieces available regarding game piracy.

It may be a daunting read for some but is surely worth the effort. We’ve taken the liberty of providing a synopsis here which does not do it justice – by all means take the time to visit TweakGuide for more (and maybe visit their sponsors too while you’re at it ).

Leaving aside the introductory chapters on piracy and copyright and the economics of piracy, Ghazi makes a strong arguments that bring into question some of the greatest arguments typically used by pro-piracy campaigners and highlights that PC game developers are much more vulnerable than their console brothers.

Firstly, game piracy is not because games are too expensive – some of the highest trafficked games on bittorrent such as Crysis Warhead are also among the cheapest to purchase outright.

Secondly, the argument that users turn to game piracy because of excessively restrictive DRM also falls flat as even the most non-intrusive titles such as Assassin’s Creed and Call of Duty 4 rank highly in the bittorrent stats.

One of the article’s less robust arguments concerns the hidden cost incurred by game developers in providing online/phone support for illegitimate users of their games. The reality being that if they know enough to know that they are supporting users with pirated copies of their games, they should be able to screen them out with relative ease. As such, the incremental cost argument here falls flat.

As with other forms of piracy, games are looking to combat piracy by adopting their business models. This includes experimentation with online and subscription-based revenue models (a natural development as demonstrated by the enormous popularity of titles such as World of Warcraft). Where users are not willing to pay a regular fee for their games, episodic content is an alternative to provide a sense of ownership (albeit for a smaller piece of the puzzle).

Ghazi concludes with a number of poignant observations regarding practical solutions for game piracy … but we’ll let you read those for yourself!

There was one arguably non-conservative idea on piracy that received a shredding a year or so ago when Trent Reznor repeated the concept originally touted by Pink Floyd’s Peter Jenner: piracy is unstoppable so content is best monetized by bundling it with internet access.

It received a cold response by industry commentators such as TechCrunch largely on the dated basis that it will kill innovation as there is not way to gauge what and how much is being downloaded.

In the age of the highly measurable and thus accountable internet, this argument holds no water. It would be relatively trivial to know how often a particular track is being downloaded and apportion the owners of the content with a commensurate proportion of the revenue.

We agree with the likes of David Ortez that this is achievable. We’d even go further and apply it beyond music piracy to movies, television, software and games.

How It Might Work

We see it working by having artists and publishers competing for a “slice of the pie” that is measured by the number of times their material is downloaded. The more your work is accessed, the greater your slice of the pie. The overall size of this pie would be reflective of the amount of usage your material receives.

This usage can be gauged either by working with the ISPs to track traffic or otherwise developing a reporting standard that could be applied across any digital distribution channel, regardless as to whether or not it is YouTube, Seeqpod, Limewire, PirateBay, iTunes etc. These channels too would receive a slice of the revenue based on the number of downloads from their sites (albeit naturally less than the owners).

This preserves market forces and thus destroys the notion that this concept would stifle innovation.

Sure there are challenges in quantifying the size of the digital download pie, ensuring that a critical mass of ISPs are involved and managing the distribution of revenue. Furthermore, there may need to be measures such as well constructed opt-in/out subscription models to ensure that this is not deemed to be predatory pricing.

However, these challenges are by no means insurmountable.

Once achieved, the benefits for all are significant:

• Artists can focus on creating great and innovative content and being fairly rewarded for their efforts
• Publishers/labels can focus on marketing this content through whatever channels without needing to worry about distribution or piracy (or attacking their users with court orders) while too being compensated for the benefit they provide to this value chain. It is also far superior to the infinitely daft Radio Music Tax
• Music properties can earn revenue and openly compete for users based on functions and features rather than worrying about how the labels may react to these innovations
  Illegitimate non-digital piracy channels such as the markets for copied CDs and DVDs would dry up
• Users such as you and me can freely access a dazzling array of content at an extremely low price-point without having to worry about DRM or breaking any laws.

Well, what are we waiting for? Maybe it is indeed time as per Jenner’s suggestion to “lock everyone in a room – the music industry, the unions, the performers, the record companies, the publishers, the ISPs – and tell them you can’t be let out until you sort it all out.” …

As foolish as this is, so too are the measures that seek to combat piracy by treating everyone the same way.

The staggering $1.92M penalty for music piracy from the recent retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset is an example of this. So too the outcry on France’s decision to NOT hold ISPs accountable for their user’s piracy. Both events cement the view that legal frameworks are the primary measure being employed to combat piracy (while others surely exist!)

While the industry does on occasion seem to be more selective in applying a softly-softly v heavy-handed approach to piracy, it is worth looking as possible pirate segments and the measures that may be involved in switching them to contributive consumers actively promoting digital media within a sustainable business model.

Based on a primarily qualitative assessment, we have had a go at proposing five key segments:

1. non-pirates (yes, they do exist)
2. innocents
3. pragmatists
4. seekers
5. blackbeards

Non-pirates
These are the consumers of media that pay retail for their goods – the more of these the better as far as most industry players are concerned.

They include those that:

• may not know that piracy is possible
• lack the technical knowledge or skills to access pirated media
• know how to access pirated media but refrain due to fear of legal reprisal
• know how to access pirated media but refrain for reasons based on principle

The first sub-segment is arguably a rapidly shrinking (if not already extinct) group. The second is in a similar state – piracy related technology is becoming easier to use and more accessible for more people. Any attempts to grow these sub-segments would be futile for obvious reasons.

No doubt the absurdly large figures being thrown about in the Thomas-Rasset case will be expected to do much for the third sub-segment as the fear of legal reprisal for piracy sets in. We anticipate that over time this will become more costly for the litigants to achieve on the required scale to effectively combat piracy. While ISPs may be seen to play a role, this is also now of questionable benefit as far as piracy is concerned.

The last of the non-pirates are those that avoid piracy for reasons based upon principle. We would suggest that any measure that grows this is effort worth undertaking. Reciprocally, don’t rely on their sense of principle to not invest in new media distribution platforms. Principles only hold to a limit.

Acknowledge them. Reward them. And they will surely grow.

Innocents
These are the media consumers who do not know that what they are doing is piracy. This too is an arguably shrinking segment as media producers increase their education programs. The opportunity here is to maximize the effectiveness of education through genuine dialogue. Furthermore, ensure legitimate avenues exist to access the same media with a superior user-experience.

The cynics among us may argue that this segment does not exist at all: everyone knows its piracy. The message remains the same, don’t give a reason for it to exist …

Pragmatists
These people know piracy exists. They know piracy is not legal. However, they operate on the fringes: the DRM on the CD they purchased means they cannot get it on their MP3 player … they bought the CD but it is now scratched … they rented the DVD but had to return it before getting a chance to watch it … they bought the software but have since lost the disc/key … they forgot to set the VCR for their favorite show …

We could go on but the crux remains the same whereby a user turns to piracy to address a shortfall in the existing technology and associated user terms and conditions. These shortfalls should not exist and any models that emerge to address or avoid them should be encouraged. Any progress in this area means that this segment is not drawn to piracy for less principled reasons and become part of the next group.

Seekers
This is undoubtedly the largest segment – your bread and butter piracy where users routinely download digital media to complement their purchased catalog. The trick here is to gauge the motive for the piracy: Is it to test/trial the content? Do they desire the content but not enough to warrant paying for it? Are there no sufficient access platforms for the same digital media? Is DRM too restrictive on legal channels? Are legal channels too expensive? Are Seekers just free-loaders?

Look at why piracy becomes an option for these folk and look at ways to compete. Be willing to innovate in ways that deliver a superior user experience even though it may threaten the traditional business model – otherwise others will do it for you. Read You can (and must) compete with free for more on this.

The approach here above all else is to avoid whipping out the stick and attacking this segment with the full brunt of piracy law. These people are the primary market and the most likely of all to be shifting their attention to more legitimate channels.

Blackbeards
The most hard-core of the pirates. They are looking to not only access pirated material but also distribute it. They include the DVD burning sweat-shop as well as the shyster smuggling the video camera into the movie preview session. They invest and take pride in their torrent “brand”. For them, piracy is a badge of honor. While possibly paying lip-service to the “evil media empire”, they are unlikely to settle for any business model that is not free.

A harsh assessment with a harsh solution – throw the book at them! They do not add anything to the digital media economy.

They will only be beaten by both increasing the barriers to piracy (eg camera spotting in theatres) as well as ramping up the legal pursuit. Note on the latter: the challenge is to make sure you are exclusively pursuing the hard-cores among the pirates as everyone else is your addressable market.

Think we are off the mark? Think we are missing segments? Let us know by posting your comment below.

Not true – and many lessons can be drawn from industries unrelated to piracy…

The bottled water industry provides a product that is arguably available to most people for free – yet we spend over $60 billion each year on bottled water for limited if any health benefit.

A look at hospitality is also relevant – we regularly eat and drink in restaurants, bars and cafés even though we often have the ingredients for the same output sitting in our pantries, cellars and refrigerators at home.

Yet, we never hear players in these industries cry foul at having to compete with free.

That is because they can compete with free and so can the industries who typically consider themselves to be victims of illegal downloads, counterfeiting and other forms of piracy.

We suggest any newly inspired drive to compete with piracy would look to focus on three key areas:

1. User Experience
2. Simultaneous Global Distribution
3. Networked value-add Content

User Experience

An anecdotal user experience from a friend in downloading (yes, pirating) a missed TV show went something like this:

1. Go to TV website to find the name of the missed episode
2. Go to torrent search site and run a search for title
3. Dodged border-line adult adverts, unclear title notation and duplicate entries to find the required title with sufficient leeches/seeds and hit download to open/download preferred P2P client
4. Waited for TV episode to download
5. Tried to open TV episode but needed another codec
6. Located and downloaded required codec
7. Began playing TV episode then realized it was dubbed in German
8. Repeated step 2 and 3 (though taking care to peruse comments and any other available metadata to ensure it was in required language (English)
9. Repeated step 5
10. Watched the show (while ignoring the Dutch subtitles)

Not ideal.

Surely we can imagine a world with the following:

1. Go to TV website to work out the name of the missed episode
2. Clicked on download link to open/download preferred content client (possibly even streaming, P2P or both)
3. Enter required payment details (once, if necessary)
4. Wait for TV episode to download
5. Watch the show

Though we are evolving towards the latter scenario, it is still a far cry from reality and usually involves steps such as:

1. discovering the title is not available on the catalogue you are searching
2. the service is not available in your country (grrrr … more on this below),
3. the proprietary DRM is too restrictive to allow you to play it on your required device

All of which results in a user reverting to the original steps outlined in my friend’s experience above.

While the example above is limited to a TV episode, the gist holds true for film, music and games.

The trick to combating piracy in this instance is to design the best possible user experience and then look at the best business models to fund it. Most ideas that have feared to tread this path have been squashed by the industries desperate to preserve the status-quo.

Simultaneous Global Distribution

If I don’t want to see a movie in a cinema, why do you make me wait until it is available on DVD

While these lead times have been reduced to address this already, there is little argument to not make it zero – any early release channel (eg cinema, television, retail outlet) should be able to rely on its own merits sans early-release benefit. The reality is that piracy happens arguably due to this anyway so who not combat head-on rather than ignore the obvious.

Not only should this be simultaneous across any distribution network, it should also be done globally.

Services such as Hulu and DRM-free Amazon MP3 are great but currently limited to North America. The traditional content distribution models tend to lean towards region (if not country) specific distribution deals that ignore the border-agnostic nature of the internet.

Hulu, Amazon MP3 and their burgeoning peers are great and innovative ideas that are cognizant of the realities requiring a revenue yield – the sooner they can be made available internationally, the sooner they can compete against less legitimate channels.

Networked value-add Content

This one has been bandied about ad nauseum yet we’re seeing only limited application of it in industry. The premise is that the WWW allows publishers/content-owners to bundle value-add content to their core offering. Gaming is an obvious example of this with the use of multi-player functionality across the network.

In the software field, Microsoft have begun offering bonus programs for registered users of their products through their Genuine Microsoft Software program – sure you may not like the freebies but the concept is sound.

Outside of gaming and software, the bundling opportunity here is no less ripe for film, TV and music.

So why does so little of this seem to be happening today to combat piracy? Why can’t we compete on user experience? Why can’t we optimize our content distribution approach? Why can’t we bundle networked content?

The answer is that there are massive industries for who the traditional monetization model was working just fine. Any attempts to innovate will dilute this model and create complexity by making us think differently. Thus we’ll combat piracy by resorting to chasing ISPs and closing down innovative start-ups that might drag us in this direction … all the while insisting that we cannot compete with free. Pity.

In the end, it is just the end user that suffers – unless they revert to dastardly piracy.

Been downloading to excess? Give something back. PiracyPayback.