Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 September 2

= September 2 =

Releasing intellectual property "same time, same price" worldwide - does it reduce piracy?
Owners of intellectual property (IP), particularly movies and TV shows (though probably also stuff like software and music) complain loudly and frequently of how online piracy is stealing their profits. Meanwhile the critics of these IP holders have stated that a significant part of the piracy issue is due to distributors' insistence on sticking to pre-globalization business models. They insist on charging different prices in different jurisdictions. And they insist on releasing the materiel at different times in different jurisdictions. (The latter means that for those that don't want to wait, the only option is to pirate). These critics claim that if only the IP owners would distribute the film or TV show "at the same time worldwide, for the same price worldwide", piracy would drop dramatically. The IP owners' typical response is, "that's not the issue; no business model can compete with free". My question is not regarding the moral rights of IP owners, versus pirates who don't want to wait. My question is what does the evidence say about the effects of the "same time, same price" release on piracy levels? I'm guessing that this has been studied. For example, when a new show is released worldwide, at the same time on, say, Netflix, how much less piracy has there been (on Bittorrent or whatever), versus shows that were initially released solely on the American platform? I'd also be interested in any other studies as to the effect of "same time, same price" release has had on piracy levels. According to the evidence, what effect does this strategy have? Eliyohub (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To get started, here's one study found through a search of google scholar with your keywords.70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt it would be very realistic to release material at "the same price" in countries with widely differing economic systems and levels of development. The definition of "same price" could also be disputed -- purchasing power parity?  The fluctuating exchange rate at a certain date?  (How is this date chosen?) Etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Charging different prices, and releasing products in different markets at different times is called “marketing,” and it is widely practiced in just about every (diverse) capitalist economy. Distribution and pricing of consumer goods products in the United States, for example, is not – nor required to be – uniform across geographies. More, the movement of goods sold (or not sold) from one market to another, perhaps for price arbitrage, is not part of any definition of intellectual property “piracy” that I have ever encountered. Grey market, yes; piracy, no. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have not looked enough then. Very often, intellectual property is not really "sold", but only licensed for use under certain circumstances. And sometimes such restrictions are enforced via technical means (e.g. DVD region coding). In such cases, transferring IP legally acquired in one market and reselling it elsewhere (maybe circumventing technical access controls) has certainly been called "piracy". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did Beatrice Webb call Robert Perks an "unclean beast"?
In there is a quotation from the Diary of Beatrice Webb: Two months of 'sampling' of the Liberal Imperialists has not heightened our estimate of them. Asquith is deplorably 'slack,' Grey is a mere dilettante, Haldane plays at political intrigue and has no principle. Perk [Sir Robert Perks] is an 'unclean beast' and as for Roseberry, he remains an enigma" I can understand someone like Webb characterising the others as she did, but what did she have against Perks? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * From The Diary of Beatrice Webb, Volume 2, p. 241:
 * 19 March 1902 [41 Grosvenor Road]. Met 'Imperial Perks' at Mr Haldane's - a repulsive being - hard, pushing, commonplace, with no enthusiasms except a desire to have his 'knife into the Church' - a blank materialist although a pious Protestant, who recognizes no principle beyond self-interest; I confess the thought that Perks was a pillar of the new Liberal League staggered me. How could we work with such a loathsome person! A combination of Gradgrind, Pecksniff and Jabez Balfour. And the choice of this man as their first lieutenant throws an ugly light on Lord Rosebery. Anyway, we and Perks are ' incompatible' in views, in tastes, and in all our fundamental assumptions as to ends and methods... The situation is made worse by the fact that Perks is the only man in the group who is in deadly earnest and therefore if the group succeeds likely to come out top. To think of Perks as an English Cabinet Minister: Ugh! The very notion of it degrades political life".


 * A commentary on the tirade is in Giovanni Costiga (1969)Makers of Modern England, p. 183:
 * "Arnold himself could not have done a neater job of dissection on a Philistine than that she did on Sir Robert Perks, an engineer - and Methodist. “Imperial Perks” was the agent of Lord Rosebery, a patrician whom Mrs. Webb distrusted..."
 * That was all the text I could tease out of those Google Books "snippet views". Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that does tend to reinforce my suspicion that it was her usual snobbery at play. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)