QandA

Rob Reid’s [“Copyright Math”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0&feature=player_embedded) presentation for TED is a great reminder of how misleading numbers can undermine an argument.

In this case, industry figures intended to show the impact of piracy easily tip from “exaggerated” to “comically absurd.” The viewer is left with a natural conclusion: illegal file-sharing is not that big of a deal.

But really, that conclusion needs some italics: illegal file-sharing is not *that big* of a deal.

Something can still be worth discussing even if it’s not an armageddon-level threat. Rational discussions might include the following topics:

* On an individual level, why does someone torrent a movie rather than pay for it? What would change that decision?
* To what degree do consumers have a right to watch something how and when and where they want to watch it?
* Where should the industry focus its energy: on the individual who downloads a movie, or businesses that make money selling material they don’t own?

You won’t arrive at a rational discussion by pulling numbers out of the air.

Tasha Robinson isn’t ready to [give up on DVDs and Blu-rays](http://www.avclub.com/articles/in-defense-of-discs-and-the-desire-for-better-thin,70396/):

> [F]or me, hanging onto discs isn’t about sentiment, a Luddite fear of technology, or even protecting a hefty financial investment in an aging medium, as so many people do whenever the market-dominating format in an industry changes. It’s a way of voting with my feet, or with my wallet.

> By saying, “I’ll fully switch over to streaming when it looks and sounds as good, feels as stable, and provides as much library depth as disc options do,” I’m encouraging streaming companies to prioritize improving those things. Because media conglomerates don’t care about sentiment, and won’t hold back on progress to comfort the timid. But they do care about where people are spending money.

I’ve generally come down on the other side of the debate — shiny discs are going to go away at some point, so why not now?

But Robinson makes strong arguments I’ve never seen articulated so clearly, particularly about how the transition to streaming prioritizes consumption over ownership:

> Media companies have every reason to not passively wait to see what consumers want, and to try to drive the market to places that will be more profitable and less expensive for them. And they simultaneously have every reason to drive people to value only the newest releases, and the most readily available content. They want purchasers to care about “new and now” because ideally, they want to sell you something new, right now — every minute of every day.

Robinson doesn’t address piracy, which is like discussing climate change without mentioning fossil fuels. The media companies aren’t moving towards streaming because they want to stop selling DVDs and Blu-rays. They are streaming movies because they need to compete with illegal downloads.

But from the perspective of a consumer who wants quality and selection, Robinson’s points are well-made.

Link via [@LoganHard](http://twitter.com/LoganHard).