Study: Piracy is Caused by Poor Choice
Written by Ben Jones on March 05, 2008According to a new study just released in the UK, one of the biggest causes of copyright infringement is a lack of choice. The study further shows that one third of the Brits have downloaded copyright infringing content, or plans to do so in the future.
This claim, published in the 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey (pdf), is only reiterating what has been said many times before – that trying to promote the artificial scarcity is what is fueling piracy.
In total, 70% of those who admitted to piracy agreed that “legal sites just don’t have the range of illegal ones” (try looking for Beatles tracks) whilst almost as many said they would pay for downloads, if what they wanted was available. This is probably also one of the main reasons why half of the BitTorrent downloads are TV-shows.
The fact that one third of the UK citizens can be labeled as a pirate is thus a signal that these customers want something that is not available through other channels. It’s more about availability than the fact that it’s free.
On top of the availability issue, 68% of the respondents who have downloaded copyrighted content indicate that the illegal alternatives are more convenient, because they can get what they want much faster.
In addition, the report shows that anti-piracy campaigns are not very effective. To the possible despair of industry bodies, however, 68% believed that that are very unlikely to be caught downloading, showing that slogans such as ‘You can click but you can’t hide‘ are understood as intimidation rather than a promise.
With a motion having being put forward, requesting the information being used to identify and prosecute filesharers, and judges getting annoyed with the methods used in these cases, the chances of being caught are steadily declining.
If there is anything the Entertainment Industry should take from this report, it’s that they should move with the times, and start releasing their back catalogs for sale, rather than let someone else do it for free.
Previously: NIN Confirms Uploads to Public and Private Torrent Sites
Next: IFPI Pressure Forces ISPs to Block Another File-Sharing Site
102 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All
[quote comment="304574"]
2. The quality, i am not gonna buy a dvd and ass rape my pc due to drm.[/quote]
OK, I know you corrected it in your next post, but that was the funniest thing I read today. lol
…
I download music all the time via torrent, and I would according to the MAFIAA, be considered a pirate. (which BTW is the coolest title they could ever have given me)
And there have been many times where I will buy an album from smaller bands, even when the music is top notch, but I download it because they are doing OK, and they aren’t filthy rich. But when it comes to artists who are multi-millionaires, I wouldn’t drop a penny to them. They are FAR more rich than I, and I work just as hard (if not harder (specialty farming isn’t easy, nor is delivering papers)). And I don’t know about you guys, but I have seen they way celebs live, and how wasteful they are! The money that I would have paid them would have probably gone down the garbage with the food they just throw away, and the gas they burn.
Now, if they only accepted 60,000 of the money that comes in, I would probably pay them.
It goes for the same with giving a tip in a restaurant, I only give tips to workers who make less than I. (but I gratefully give money to a waitress who makes less)
I almost never DL movies, since I don’t watch much TV ever. (although I am DLing a movie now, just to see if I like it, and if I like it I may buy the DVD (if I can find the DVD somewhere). I like to watch movies before I pay, because there are too many duds these days.
So my main point is: if artists were less greedy, I would pay them. (and as soon as I have some money again after college, I plan on donating money to various OSS projects since I am not much of a coder)
I hope the MAFIAA finally buckles due to it’s own disgusting tactics. Such a day would be rejoiced across the world. We might even get some good movies or music that are worth watching or listening to.
Movies and music will always be here, we don’t need big labels for that. In fact, we’d be better off.
I must admit however that I pirate every piece of commercial software, music, or movie I want or need, and will continue doing so. I used to be a software developer, so I know the real impact of pirating:nothing. The big companies keep selling their over-bloated, shitty programs, and they make tons of money.
I used to write server management programs for a large corporation (Symantec), and hated every minute of it. Even though I got paid, it wasn’t worth it. After I quit I tried out the open-source approach. Even though I didn’t get paid for my work, I felt like I was providing an integral service.
BTW: To everyone that thinks they’ll lose their job to so called “pirating”, tough luck, get a new one.
If you think the lack of choice is bad in the UK then you should come to Australia. We have like two legal download film and TV sites. Bigpond & reeltime.tv. Everything is so exspensive. For example for me to download a song from itunes it will cost me $1.69 But if I could download it from the USA store for 99 cents when I convert it to Australian dollars it will only cost me about $1.10. This is how stupid we are in Australia.
[quote comment="305423"]
How could the fascist he is re-educating have been so blind as to oppress his own daughter and deny her such natural birthrights as free Ja Rule MP3’s?
You comrade,
Putin 08
*Party lessons are subject to change without notice[/quote]
Your satire fails for many reasons, one of which is that the 15 year old in question is MALE.
I’d ask how you could possibly mistake him for being FEMALE after he was explicitly referred to as male, but you are clearly a moron; the question would be redundant.
Another reason it fails(and by extension, you), is that without a grain of truth behind it, satire is completely ruderless.
In summary… You suck.
This is very true, look at the amount of shows, especially HD rips that are downloaded online. Here in the UK it shows that there is a great demand for more HDTV shows. It’s time this country took its finger out it’s ass and sorted things out!
[quote comment="304142"]“Piracy” by any means offers something else that is steadily growing in importance:
PRIVACY
When you buy almost ANYTHING online, you could just as well agree to a body cavity search, have it filmed and posted online.
In a manner of speak … ;)[/quote]
Agreed.
Just one of the many, many reasons why e-business is stagnant / a tiny fraction of what it could and should be;
the mafIAA dinosaurs are only a problem in that although it would be easy to put them out of their misery if the tools [for a free-market digital economy, i.e. e-cash] were available, the tools themselves just don’t exist.
It would be easy to cure the disease if we had the pill [e-cash], but no one has invented the pill / the pill has been violently suppressed and repressed by not just the dinosaurs, but the actual power-brokers of the world [basically, anyone who stands to lose if online transactions are untraceable; untraceable = untaxable, traceable = inconvenient].
In short, prevalent e-cash –> free-market conditions online –> REASONABLY priced music, and MUCH more, available in a way that profits the creators and the workers directly, bypassing the middleman.
and heavens forbid, the taxman too….
[quote comment="304153"]
…
The Internet has no boundaries and thus cannot bind and restrict individuals wherever they are.
…[/quote]
No offense, but I strongly disagree with you.
Google censors out all politically dissident websites in China; Yahoo “accidently” made The Pirate Bay disappear until an ENORMOUS uproar brought it back; youTube regularly removes videos it considers politically dissident, religiously incendiary, or otherwise counter-establishment; MSN Live is a joke, backed by a company with a history of 100% abuse-of-power. Even Wikipedia is constantly in hot water for mentioning public speculation and even proven facts which are damning to political leaders and governments all over the world.
Our searchable internet, as we know it, has been brutally raped. Although it still exists in theory, the necessary / unrestricted search engines are completely unheard of by the vast majority of people.
Any _actual_ data you hear is NOT through Google’s internet; it is through IRC, through p2p, and through darknets.
[quote comment="305860"]This is very true, look at the amount of shows, especially HD rips that are downloaded online. Here in the UK it shows that there is a great demand for more HDTV shows. It’s time this country took its finger out it’s ass and sorted things out![/quote]
people only download HDTV cos they can… theres still not the demand for it on regular TV due to the cost of the service…
Gallus
Incidently, let’s put the movie industry into perspective with a quick look at a random movie; say, Spiderman 2.
Budget: $200 million dollars
Gross: $783 million dollars
So, every body punched the clock that year (sound guys, CG guys, actors, actresses, PR, catering, director, etc.) and got paid:
plus there was over $500 million dollars left over.
How about, oh, Pirates of the Carribean:
Budget: $140 million dollars
Gross: $650 million dollars
Again, every body punches the clock, gets paid, plus there was over $400 million dollars left over.
Let’s try my favorite, The Matrix [a dark horse].
Budget: $63 million dollars
Gross: $460 million dollars
Again, everybody punched the clock, got paid, plus there was over $350 million dollars left over.
Hell, I’ll go for a flop(per) now: Flyboys.
Budget: $60 million dollars
Gross: $13 million dollars (American)
BUT once again, everybody punched the clock and got paid; the INVESTORS lost money.
But did they? Poor men don’t invest $60 million dollars, rich men do; i.e. people who have $60 million dollars and more. They took an educated risk, and lost. All of the creators still got paid, all of the investors now own a movie, and all of the investors still have all of their other investments [diversify, diversify, diversify]; its commonly understood that when you are investing you win some and you lose some.
The point isn’t to win everytime, its to win more than you lose.
My point is, if the movie is produced, then everybody is paid, and there’s really good odds there’s a heap of money left over. THE MOVIE IS ALREADY PAID FOR!
Let me repeat that:
THE MOVIE IS ALREADY PAID FOR!
THE MOVIE IS ALREADY PAID FOR!
THE MOVIE IS ALREADY PAID FOR!
Not only that, but there are very good odds that not only did they all get paid, but once everybody was paid off, THEY KEEP CHARGING YOU THE SAME PRICE. Covering your costs, legit. Making a profit for your creative work (say, 10% profit on a $100,000 film), legit. Making 400% profit on a film? NO! Bad! Stop stealing our money, we already paid you bastards!!!
*chuckle*
Sorry, that was a “Flyboys” profit not in American dollars, but in the country of America; it doesn’t include global box office gross revenue.
And I meant my closer to be more effective; 10% profit on 100,000,000;
because a 10 million dollar profit is, alas, more provocative than a 10 thousand dollar profit.
Cheers
[quote comment="305733"][quote comment="305423"]
How could the fascist he is re-educating have been so blind as to oppress his own daughter and deny her such natural birthrights as free Ja Rule MP3’s?
You comrade,
Putin 08
*Party lessons are subject to change without notice[/quote]
Your satire fails for many reasons, one of which is that the 15 year old in question is MALE.
I’d ask how you could possibly mistake him for being FEMALE after he was explicitly referred to as male, but you are clearly a moron; the question would be redundant.
Another reason it fails(and by extension, you), is that without a grain of truth behind it, satire is completely ruderless.
In summary… You suck.[/quote]
Great observation comrade, but I assure you it is not gender discrimination (you may redeploy the feminist blitzkrieg back to Berkley).
Party elites in the propaganda dept. will have you know that statistics from enlightened countries with state run media, like Iran, Venezuela, etc., suggest females are more effective victims. We are all victims here aren’t we? I suggest you get with the times and liberate yourself from your oppressive meat missile if you haven’t done so already (highly unlikely).
Together we shall facilitate the demise of all entrepreneurial, technological, and artistic capitalist exploitation and, Stalin willing, embrace the glorious utopia people’s achievements such as open source software. Behold 2.01% of you are Linux users and have already freed your desktop from Mikkkrosoft. (http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php)
But I digress, a comrade can dream can’t he? The answer is no. The moral of this story is now completely null and void due to the gender technicality pointed out by our concerned friend, and rightly so. The unruly mobs may disperse, return to your mother’s basements and continue the struggle.
Comrade Anonymous, in our utopia of equality you have proven yourself more equal than others, prepare for an upgrade.
Your comrade,
Putin 08
[quote comment="304689"]to 37. Azlan
[quote comment="304608"]
from the musicains/labels point of view
- bieng in a band is expensive, the gear costs a hell of a lot, as does travel, maintinence, and living out on the road, not to mention the ludicrous prices charged by commercial quality studios, meaning that they simply cant afford to throw away revenue on illigal downloads (well mabye the big 4 can, but smaller labels, independant or otherwise run on far too small a margins for this to be practical)
[/quote]
first, isnt the gear a onetime investment. imean, ofc if u want to buy 235325325 guitars that costs alot but once u have bought one u got one, travling isnt that expensive, u take a buss etc. living on the road, ok acceptable.
does really illegal downloads fuck that up. you say “meaning that they simply cant afford to throw away revenue on illigal downloads ” its not like any artists have had to cancel their tour because of piracy?Lol. ofc its expensive to get makeup etc. but dont they get paid to do an concert??? dont they get paid for the cd’s that they sell to the people who like their music? if people like it they buy it, if not they probly wouldnt have bought it in the first place, you know.[/quote]
i appreciate what your saying there mate, but the instruments etc… its not just the £600 odd quid for a gituar, its getting two or three of everything in case it blows up, its the having to eat out every meal cos you dont have a cooker etc…
and the side with album sales, a lot of promoters/labels gauge how big a tour an artist can do by record sales, so low sales means smaller tours, which means a band is more likely to jack it in, which means theres one less band out there to write your fave. ever song
[quote comment="306084"]
Great observation comrade, but I assure you it is not gender discrimination (you may redeploy the feminist blitzkrieg back to Berkley).
(rest of drivel snipped)
[/quote]
Of course it isn’t gender discrimination, sweetums. It’s that you’re morosely stupid, and are consequently too cought up in your own feeble shtick to tell the difference between the words “he” and “she”.
Speaking of your feeble schtick, one more reason that it fails is because it operates on the premise that freedom itself is NOT the antithesis of oppression, but is infact just another KIND of oppression.
I give you bonus points for walking straight out of Orwell’s 1984, but I’m afraid I have to immediately take them away due to the unbelievably retarded execution, which culminates in your belief that you’re posing clever, subversive satire.
Also, here’s you:
http://jj.am/gallery/d/239-1/fattyorig.gif
i am still coming here and i like the site. meanwhile, i distest those who advertise a site, sugarmommymeet.com. it is said it caters to rich women seeking handsome men and a lot of sugarbabies join in the site. i suggest you keep away from it.
nice article well delivered
thanks
[quote comment="306334"][quote comment="306084"]
Great observation comrade, but I assure you it is not gender discrimination (you may redeploy the feminist blitzkrieg back to Berkley).
(rest of drivel snipped)
[/quote]
Of course it isn’t gender discrimination, sweetums. It’s that you’re morosely stupid, and are consequently too cought up in your own feeble shtick to tell the difference between the words “he” and “she”.
Speaking of your feeble schtick, one more reason that it fails is because it operates on the premise that freedom itself is NOT the antithesis of oppression, but is infact just another KIND of oppression.
I give you bonus points for walking straight out of Orwell’s 1984, but I’m afraid I have to immediately take them away due to the unbelievably retarded execution, which culminates in your belief that you’re posing clever, subversive satire.
Also, here’s you:
http://jj.am/gallery/d/239-1/fattyorig.gif/quote
wow, that is really inappropriate; for several posts you have spend around 10 words calling the guy an idiot for accidentally using the wrong pronoun at one point in one of his posts, for every 1 single word you use criticizing his actual posts. That is neither respectable nor impressive. Your one and only point that does not revolve around generic threats of stupidity and obesity is as follows:
[quote]one more reason that it fails is because it operates on the premise that freedom itself is NOT the antithesis of oppression, but is infact just another KIND of oppression.[/quote]
Now that is a very intelligent sounding statement; could you go into more detail about why you think his words make that statement, and what that statement means?
[quote comment="306334"][quote comment="306084"]
Great observation comrade, but I assure you it is not gender discrimination (you may redeploy the feminist blitzkrieg back to Berkley).
(rest of drivel snipped)
[/quote]
Of course it isn’t gender discrimination, sweetums. It’s that you’re morosely stupid, and are consequently too cought up in your own feeble shtick to tell the difference between the words “he” and “she”.
Speaking of your feeble schtick, one more reason that it fails is because it operates on the premise that freedom itself is NOT the antithesis of oppression, but is infact just another KIND of oppression.
I give you bonus points for walking straight out of Orwell’s 1984, but I’m afraid I have to immediately take them away due to the unbelievably retarded execution, which culminates in your belief that you’re posing clever, subversive satire.
Also, here’s you:
http://jj.am/gallery/d/239-1/fattyorig.gif/quote
Your attention to detail will take you places in the communist hierarchy. Fear not though Dear Leader, those snippets of text which may incriminate you on the same principle,like misspellings, childish name calling, nonsensical rants and lack of content, will be purged by your loyal storm troopers to maintain your infallibility (officially we never saw your shortcomings).
How many more pronoun-Americans are going to have to suffer at the hands undesirables? Dear leader, this is exactly why your campaign is so noble. I too envision a world where nouns are not restricted by gender, nationality or race but by their party approved filing numbers (which are all equal as well).
Our associates at the ACLU will see to it your will is peacefully imposed (by whatever means necessary) so us freedom fighters can continue our moral crusade of online media liberation.
Masses, please welcome our first ever Gender Defender to the party ranks!
I download shit because I just don’t intend to pay for it so it is either free download or no sale.
I’m happy for you both…
6 references to this post
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All
Add your response