Slashdot Mirror


At Least 25 Million Americans Pirate Movies

ThinSkin writes "Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally downloaded a full-length movie at some point in the past, according to a telephone and online study of 2,600 Americans. A typical movie downloader is 29 years of age, while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female. Kaan Yigit, director of the study, observes, 'There is a Robin Hood effect — most people perceive celebrities and studios to be rich already and as a result don't think of movie downloading as a big deal. The current crop of 'download to own' movie services and the new ones coming into the market will need to offer greater flexibility of use, selection and low prices to convert the current users to their services — otherwise file-sharing will continue to thrive.'"

392 comments

  1. hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Apocalypto.DVDSCR.XviD-iMBT
    Employee.Of.The.Month.DVDRip.XviD-iMBT

    Just downloaded them last night ;)

    1. Re:hey by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the person who modded the parent as "off-topic" is obviously a part of the *other* 82% of Americans who use the Intarweb.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    2. Re:hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this off topic??? I downloaded the movies last night! I'm one of the 25 million Americans.

  2. 18%? by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suspect the number is higher. Free is very attractive. Doing something that is perceived as "criminal" and getting away with it is also very attractive.

    Combine these two and you have a huge motivation for people to do this, regardless of their ever watching the movie.

    It may be too late to stuff the genii back in the bottle. The result is that this becomes an "entitlement" that people expect. We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result. Not the "stars" but the studio grunts and the folks in the promotions and marketing departments.

    1. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I think 18% sounds too high. I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average US movie-watcher.

    2. Re:18%? by hjf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dude. Bearshare. Ares. eMule. BitTorrent. Do you need to be smart to use any of these?

    3. Re:18%? by naoursla · · Score: 1

      > Doing something that is perceived as "criminal" and getting away with it is also very attractive.

      Really? Is that actually a motivating factor in most people?

      Man, am I out of touch with the world.

    4. Re:18%? by Chr0me · · Score: 0

      Then maybe the "stars" need to tighten the belt and trim a couple mil or so from their cut to help out the studio grunts.

    5. Re:18%? by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      18% actually seems a little high to me. I don't download full-length movies because it takes too damn long (unless the quality is really crappy), and when I decide I want a movie, I don't want to wait all day for it to download. If DVDs cost 50 bucks a pop, maybe things would be different. Maybe I'm the only geek who thinks like this, I dunno.

      I'd really like to know more about the way this study was conducted. It says it was at least partially done online, which opens up the possibility of a selection bias toward people who spend a lot of time online, who would naturally be more prone to this sort of activity.

    6. Re:18%? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not the "stars" but the studio grunts and the folks in the promotions and marketing departments.

      Dwindling profits for Hollywood's major studios is probably for the best. Obviously Hollywood has been incapable of producing--among popular blockbusters--a decent percentage of truly fine artistic achievements in spite of their huge profits. Meanwhile, in Europe studios haven't always been capable of turning a profit, but have been supported by private patronage or government subsidies for the arts, and look at the results: such money turns out to be enough to keep workers employed, and in spite of limited budgets it has given us monuments of world cinema. Just look at most of Ingmar Bergman's films, for example.

    7. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be surprised if the number was actually that high. Most people don't like long downloads and crappy quality. Why bother when you can buy or rent a DVD cheaply?

    8. Re:18%? by argoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Doing something that is perceived as "criminal" and getting away with it is also very attractive."

      It is even more attractive when doing something that is legally criminal is morally the high ground. Then you are not only gaining, but protecting others too.

      "We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result. Not the stars, but ..."

      I disagree. The need for people in media will always be there. When you kill the copyright cartel, that will force the market to center around information services instead of information controls. It's just like Linux. Linux taking over the datacenter space caused all that money that was being directed toward Microsoft, to be directed toward software related services. It was a painfull adjustment, but it still caused a boom for developer demand in that sector.

    9. Re:18%? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The Criterion Collection editions of Ingmar Bergman's films retail starting at around US$40, and are not usually found in neighbourhood video rental outlets. But I can download them for free. While I plan on buying all eventually, as I enjoy having a collection and the bonus features are useful, why shouldn't I download them if I want to watch them right this minute?

      Ditto for a number of auteur films. True, there might be no real need for the gainfully employed to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster that was ordered in the dozens of copies at his local video rental place, but for those who like more obscure cinema, Bittorrent is a marvel.

    10. Re:18%? by jenkin+sear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No frickin way is it 18%.

      Broadband reports has US broadband penetration at 47%.

      You're saying that half of all broadband users are capable of downloading a bit torrent client, running it, finding divx, installing it, and getting the movie to run... sure, they could be downloading quicktime movies or WMV files, but any of these combinations is equally challenging to your mom, your grandpa, and your brother in law- 1 person out of 5 is a hell of a lot of people.

      The US population is roughly 300MM. 18% of this is 54 million people. There's no way that there are 54 million people actively downloading 4GB movie files...

      Free is attractive, but it founders on the seas of technical illiteracy.

      --
      What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
    11. Re:18%? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 3, Insightful
      18% actually seems a little high to me.

      I'd say so, too...unless they are counting porn.

      I think the movie industry is really overstating their case here. A recent study claims that P2P downloads are 60% porn, 20% TV shows, and only 5% full-length movies.

      So what are they so worried about? Consider the fact that porn is by far the most downloaded copyrighted content, and it's probably safe to assume that pirated porn represents a much, much larger percentage of porn consumed in comparison to "legitimate" movies, and thus their "losses" are far higher. Can anyone honestly claim that porn is dying from piracy?

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    12. Re:18%? by vertinox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result. Not the "stars" but the studio grunts and the folks in the promotions and marketing departments.

      Really? Even if there were no copyright laws and the US basically had piracy like China there would still be multi-million dollar movies made because they still make more money than not making movies.

      Come to think of it... There have been a great deal of large scale movies coming out of China/Hong Kong lately. Like "The Promise" and that other that I can't remember its name right now but was made by the same group that did Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    13. Re:18%? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's no way that there are 54 million people actively downloading 4GB movie files..."

      well, since you backed that up quite logically...

      Now, if you had read the article:
      " U.S. online population"
      and then noticed the head line says 25 million.
      Any one of these would indicate to someone of average or greater intelligence that it's not al Americans.

      Based on the actual artical, 18% seem pretty reasonable a number.
      Now if broadband is at 50%(adjust for easy of math), that mean 150 million americans have
      broadband. Pretty cliose to 18%.

      Please. Try. To. Think.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:18%? by bfields · · Score: 2

      No frickin way is it 18%.

      Broadband reports has US broadband penetration at 47%.

      You're saying that half of all broadband users...

      Woah! Check your units--the 18% is "percent of the US online population"--so that's only 18 percent of people (or households? I'm not sure) that are online.

      Whereas that "penetration" number appears to be a percentage of *all* (online or not) households.

    15. Re:18%? by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're saying that half of all broadband users are capable of downloading a bit torrent client, running it, finding divx, installing it, and getting the movie to run... Why would you pay actual money for broadband if you didn't know how to use it?
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    16. Re:18%? by allaryin · · Score: 1

      Genii? That's like multiple geniuses or something, ne?

      --
      Ammon Lauritzen http://simud.org/
    17. Re:18%? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      There's two broadband ISPs in my city - one ADSL, one Cable - on either, using the proper sources, I can get nearly any movie I want within an hour or two.

      So that movie I don't feel like paying 20$ for to see at a theatre (After considering the cost of snacks and the ticket) turns in to me downloading it while I'd otherwise be waiting for it to start - me and all my friends -each- save 20$. And it's still playing on a projector. We can be as loud as we want, laugh as loud as we want, and get as drunk as we want. Liberties we don't have otherwise.

      I won't bother to mention sites, but especially some members-only torrent sites that force you to have a "Respectable" share ratio work well.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    18. Re:18%? by planetmn · · Score: 1

      Or you could rent them online. Blockbuster online has Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light and The Silence Criterion Collection films. I'm sure Netflix has them too.

      Just because you can justify it, doesn't make it right.

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    19. Re:18%? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      18% will admit to having illegally downloaded in a telephone survey.
      Another 28% are sufficiently paranoid about it to lie.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    20. Re:18%? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Not all of us live in countries with online video rental services, my friend.

    21. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I suspect the number is higher. Free is very attractive...
      But every time there's an anti record / movie industry story here, everyone says this isn't so. What gives?
    22. Re:18%? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      A good question comes to mind:

      Does getting a movie from netflix and making a copy count as an 'illegal download'?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    23. Re:18%? by Achoi77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we're talking about the majority of the US population, you know: the people that type in their search queries in their browser URL field because they can't tell the difference. These are the people that are confused by the big blue lowercase 'e', when internet is spelled with an 'i' ("I want to get on the internet - what? click on the lowercase e? That's totally retarded!"). They don't know how to check their hotmail account. They don't know how whether or not their computer is already hijacked. They can't tell the difference between the internet and American Online. You expect these people to start installing p2p software and start downloading files for their use (nevermind the fact that to go looking for the stuff in the first place)?

      I'm suprised by the age bracket, I totally suspected it would be lower, mostly consisting of teenagers and college kids, ages 13-22. I'm 29 myself, and to be honest, with my current lifestyle, I really don't have the time to fuck around with semi-corrupt files and the arduous process of assembling multiple files from different sources, just to get a cracked copy of a computer game or a movie file. It's much more convenient to take a few bucks and buy the stuff. Why go thru all that hassle? Especially at 29 years old? Sure, when I was in college I had all the time in the world to wait for that ultra-rare mp3 to finish downloading from Germany. But I'm used to fast now and more importantly if it costs a few more bucks for the convenience, I don't mind shelling out. I've got income, and I will pay for my fast-paced (or some would just call it lazy) lifestyle. So sue me. I pay for the service, not the art.

    24. Re:18%? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      All ya' do is just load a bunch of torrents into your bit torrent client, and just let it run when you're not using the machine (or throttle it while you're using it). Forget about it, and in a few days, you'll have a whole new batch of movies to burn to DVD (or so I'm told by friends who do this).

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    25. Re:18%? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      This is a good point - like MAME keeping alive arcade games that haven't been produced for decades, Bittorrent lets me find obscure TV shows that never made it to DVD (Starcade springs to mind) as well as videos I haven't seen in a rental or DVD shop for decades (like Wargames and Buckaroo Banzai), not to mention the Creative Commons and other licenses for titles like Star Wreck: the Pirkinning. Not every Bittorrent download is hitting Hollywood in the hip pocket, and the convenience and extra features that come with most DVDs makes them still competitive as a medium.

    26. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're saying that half of all broadband users are capable of downloading a bit torrent client, running it, finding divx, installing it, and getting the movie to run... sure, they could be downloading quicktime movies or WMV files, but any of these combinations is equally challenging to your mom, your grandpa, and your brother in law- 1 person out of 5 is a hell of a lot of people.

      They have NO trouble installing loads of other crapware to get free porn, smilies, screensavers, or whatever. It's not exactly rocket science to download and install uTorrent and VLC, then download pretty much whatever you want by clicking the .torrent links, so this is more or less the logical extension of that.

      Certainly no computer genius is required. Hell, most of the torrent sites even have a "what the hell is a torrent?" link that gives download sites for BT programs. Anyone who *doesn't* have a BT program at this point is either way behind the times (say, uses IRC still), knows that usenet downloads are safer if slower, or doesn't download at all.

    27. Re:18%? by BurningPi · · Score: 0
      You're right; It is higher.
      FTA:
      In a study of 2,600 Americans polled via telephone and online, Digital Life America, a unit of Solutions Research Group, found that 32 million Americans had downloaded a movie at some point in the past.
      100*(32 000 000/2600) 1230769.2307692308

      So 1230769%, not 18%, of Americans are pirates.
    28. Re:18%? by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      I have this theory that Hollywood should be allowed (by whom, I have no idea) to put out about 10-20 movies a year. That way they'd ensure that only the best directors, actors, writers, etc would be working, and anyone who has any part in the making of a movie is going to a damn good job of it. That would immediately filter out all the crap. It would also guarantee that movie production companies make money, since every movie would, at least theoretically, be great in terms of quality. And in the film industry, if you make a good movie people *will* see it. If I see a movie and rave about it, others will go too. That's buzz, one of the best forms of advertisement there is for movies.

      What would be interesting to see is which movies are the most popular to illegally download. I'll bet that list would be full of total crap. I doubt many people would try to illegally obtain movies they actually care about. For example, how many geeks here have *only* pwned copies of the Star Wars movies? I'd bet most everyone here has the DVD box set at least, or if you are a *real* fan, the original (read unaltered) trilogy on Laserdisc.

      This would also bring more attention to indie films, and this in turn would give Hollywood a good base from which to recruit writers, actors, etc. Not to mention that maybe people would start seeing some of the really good indie films out there.

      I know if will never happen, but what if?

      --
      blah blah blah
    29. Re:18%? by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      I of course would never do anything as naughty as download movies.
      But I think that when you were a teenager/college kid (10ish years ago) things were a bit harder than it is now. In my recent (and totally hypothetical) experience it's pretty damned easy to download stuff like a movie, without much concern over quality issues, and it's alot easier to get the needed bandwidth compared to then. Times they are a changin' :P Don't be an old coot!

      I wonder what the number would be if you added people who've rented a DVD and made themselves a copy of it? Higher than 18% presumably, but I wonder how much higher?

    30. Re:18%? by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      ...I had all the time in the world to wait for that ultra-rare mp3 to finish downloading from Germany. But I'm used to fast now...

      Wow... your internet connection must be pretty slow. Mine's not the fastest available to me, but is a decent speed (7Mb)... fast enough that a 4.5GB DVD would take about 1.5 hours to download, or roughly the amount of time it would take to watch it. Haven't had much call to do it, but that has more to do with my lack of interest in movies than my available bandwidth.

    31. Re:18%? by quenda · · Score: 2
      The US population is roughly 300MM. 18% of this is 54 million people.

      Mods - please!?
      How does this guy get +5 insightful when he clearly hasn't bothed to read the summary, let alone the article.
      No - he hasn't even read the fscking HEADLINE! It says 25m, not 54. 18% of the online population.
      Yeah, if I'm surprised I must be new here.
    32. Re:18%? by Swift2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, broadband isn't necessary. I downloaded a movie at 56k. I downloaded one movie, and it took me most of 2006.

    33. Re:18%? by Thexare+Blademoon · · Score: 1

      Just because you can justify it, doesn't make it right.

      Just because it's not right, doesn't make people go through legit channels...

    34. Re:18%? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Note, I didn't say there would be less movies made.

      Just fewer people in the promotions and marketing departments and a some shrinkage in the grunts. The stars will remain because if necessary they will finance their own movies just to have something to be a "star" in. Look at who the executive producers are for a lot of the movies today and you will see a lot of big, well-known names.

      But you can forget about movie posters being hawked on street corners. Billboards in Times Square for a movie will be a thing of the past. Movie theaters will exist, as will pay-per-view on cable and satellite. But promotions based around movies will die quickly. Paid-for placements is another thing that will go away because there will not be that much spare change.

      Movies? Yes, absolutely. Promotions, advertising and all the whatnot that exists today because of the big movies - NO.

    35. Re:18%? by markbt73 · · Score: 1

      We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result. Not the "stars" but the studio grunts and the folks in the promotions and marketing departments. Wow, that sure is some shiny green astroturf you have there. Not to worry; a used BMW is almost as good as a new BMW, at a fraction of the price.
      --
      "Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
    36. Re:18%? by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From TFA: "The study's authors didn't clarify whether "downloaded" implied illegal downloads or participation in legal services such as CinemaNow!"

      It seems that the rather sensationalistic headline is contradicted by the article itself.

      Not to mention that this seems like a typical Slashdot bias. Picture the reaction if one were to prefix the article with: "In a study conducted by the MPAA..." People would be falling all over themselves pointing out how the numbers have to be grossly overstated.

      Either way, since the article didn't provide any information about how the study was conducted, how the 2,600 people were found, demographics, et.al., I have to believe the numbers are simply bogus. Cherry pick your starting group, and you can extrapolate to any absurd number.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    37. Re:18%? by shlepp · · Score: 0

      well let me put it this way, if i can teach someone who is computer illiterate to download a movie in just a few minutes, i bet the number are about right.

    38. Re:18%? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1
      Why would you pay actual money for broadband if you didn't know how to use it?
      I've actually met people who've gotten broadband but couldn't figure out how to set it up so they just let it sit. My friend's parents would be an example. She's visiting this week, and apparently they've had DSL hooked up and a new computer in a box since Christmas. She'd set it up for then, but they've got Geek Squad coming next week (no, that doesn't make sense). So she just connected her computer to their neighbor's wireless.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    39. Re:18%? by Random+Destruction · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its true, ladies like 'bad boys'

      Trust me, fire up bittorrent, and you'll become a sex machine.

      --
      :x
    40. Re:18%? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're saying that half of all broadband users are capable of downloading a bit torrent client, running it, finding divx, installing it, and getting the movie to run... sure, they could be downloading quicktime movies or WMV files, but any of these combinations is equally challenging to your mom, your grandpa, and your brother in law- 1 person out of 5 is a hell of a lot of people. Umm...it's not that hard...

      Step 1: Download Bitlord.
      Step 2: Download VLC Media Player
      Step 3: Visit Mininova and find a tracker.
      Step 4: Open file with VLC and enjoy.

      But still I think your right. It's probably not 18% of all citizens, probably more like 18% of all households with broadband.
      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    41. Re:18%? by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Wow, that sure is some shiny green astroturf you have there. Not to worry; a used BMW is almost as good as a new BMW, at a fraction of the price."

      I agree with you 100% that picturing your typical film industry worker as capable of owning a BMW surely simplifies a lot of things and smooths out a lot of potential moral issues, but we know it's not the case.

      I wonder if many people who work outside the IT biz look at Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and all those dot-com millionaires and assume that the typical person who works in the computer software biz is well off enough to own a BMW. Perhaps it's this misperception that drives a lot of software piracy, much as the misperception you covered above appears to drive a lot of film piracy.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    42. Re:18%? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Lots of people sign up because it's "100 TIMES FASTER THAN 56K" and then use it to check their email and surf the web.

    43. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, because 2 days ago I downloaded a 1.1 GB 720p HD rip of the most recent episode of 24 from my favorite warez site, and it was completely effortless. Literally 3 clicks or so to download, and 3 more to queue it in my downloader. It started at lunch, and by the time I got home from work, it was done. And it was the best damn quality I've ever seen a show in.

      If you find it hard to use bittorent, maybe you're actually inside the "majority of the US population" that doesn't really know how to use the internet very well.

    44. Re:18%? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The crap is necessary. First, it's a good way to find the people who you let make the good movies, indie movies might help here, but I don't think they are sufficient. Second, those people need a way to practice(same as first point with indies). Third, occasionally, you get a polished turd. "Army Of Darkness" springs to mind as a great example of what I am talking about.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    45. Re:18%? by Krytical · · Score: 0

      I don't know why /. readers love to associate "online" with "intelligence".

    46. Re:18%? by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      I don't think I have the same definition of "hassle" that you have. Take bit torrent for instance. You use your favorite tracker site and queue up a bunch of downloads, let your computer do your thing, and you got your files. There is no assembly of multiple files, no corrupt files (this isn't the MS-DOS multi-pkzip file days).

      I don't download movies off the net because the quality is crap. Its much better to get into a service like netflix and just burn and send back the same day you receive them.

      --
      I got nothin'
    47. Re:18%? by Archades54 · · Score: 0

      This will give rise to more independant films, that can work on cheaper budgets and also explore various avenues of creativity, vs the time old blockbuster mould that seems to be pumping out multi-million dollar productions.

      Work will always remain, the industry will adapt, even with 80% piracy there will still be a movie industry, someone will always have a camera and want to direct. They'll learn to do more with less.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    48. Re:18%? by mikael · · Score: 1

      It may be too late to stuff the genii back in the bottle.

      The only thing that can be done now is to find a way of taking advantage of impulse buying - Allow someone to see a video on TV and instantly download it onto their computer. At the moment, there is still the time overhead of opening a web browser, going to a search engine and having to type a keyword search (pop-group, lyrics, title). The only way to get faster than this would be to have a Instant Messanging type service where a user could simply type in the Cable/Satellite/Terrestial channel they are watching and get the download.

      For MP3 players, there could be a points loyalty scheme where if someone recommends downloaded tracks to their friends (reference the download site, rather than just transfering the track), they get points or discounts off other stuff like T-shirts and baseball caps.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    49. Re:18%? by esobofh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny.. because I'm 29, and this article has me dead on. I'm not impatient like I was when i was a young buck (don't need to have everything NOW!) and I have more important things to spend my money on (like investments, mortgage payments, groceries, etc). My broadband connection is consistently fast and reliable and I have huge hard drives. I setup a number of bittorrent downloads and let them complete when they will. There are always 5-10 on the go, and there's always something new to watch when I have the time to sit down and enjoy a movie. The ones that are corrupt or fake - not a big deal, i delete them and move on to the next 100 downloads.

      So.. the thrill of stealing of movie? Not so. I had that thrill stealing chocolate bars when i was 13 - downloading a movie doesn't give me that thrill. Fact is, I think the only real stealing going on is what movie houses, rental places etc.. charge for movies. Especially because they're churning out crap lately.

      The fact is, this 18% represents where the market needs to be. Fast, easily downloaded, watch-when-i-want movies. I would pay a nominal fee for this. The structure has to change. Going out to the movies is fine for 15 yr olds.. i'm not going there to pay nearly $50 for my wife and I to have popcorn and catch the latest flick.

      Instead, i'll sit at home, comfortable (where i can pause the movie to pee or get a drink), watch movies when i want, eat what i want and enjoy high quality sound and picture with the home theatre gear i purchased with all the money i saved not going to the movies.

      C'mon movie industry.. catch up. Delivering a service means giving people what they want - the people are telling you in a very obvious way now, you aren't doing that.

      --

      ----------------------------
      Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
    50. Re:18%? by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

      Do you want to see a new Ingmar Bergman film or Lord Of The Rings 4? Some one has to pay for them if you you don't they go away.

    51. Re:18%? by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      You're right about that part, but I'd say 18% might be a little high due to bandwidth. Broadband is so poor in the US that I can't imagine a lot of people downloading movies often, but of course this statistic refers to downloading at least 1 movie, not 1 movie a month or something like that. I think that this number is off a bit because a lot of people will try to download a movie for free, but most of those won't continue to do it. A better statistic would be one that shows frequent downloaders.

    52. Re:18%? by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      Or you could move to the UK. "Scenes from a Marriage" is on free broadcast TV right now. The digital film channels here probably run one every couple of month sor so.

      If you need to watch them more often than that, you'll probably need therapy yourself.

    53. Re:18%? by leadsling · · Score: 1

      Ingmar Bergman? What an example of modern Euro film! When is she coming out on utube?

    54. Re:18%? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      His last film was just a couple of years ago.

    55. Re:18%? by leadsling · · Score: 1

      I have this theory that Hollywood should be allowed (by whom, I have no idea) to put out about 10-20 movies a year. That way they'd ensure that only the best directors, actors, writers, etc would be working, and anyone who has any part in the making of a movie is going to a damn good job of it

      So whatever field you work in should only allow 2% of its employees to earn income!?!?!?! After all, we only want the absolute best hamburger flippers, coffee makers, paper shufflers, etc, ad naseum, to wait on us? And who is to determine "crap"? Unless you are French, many thousands of brave soldiers have died so you can have the right to vote with your currency (or your torrent) what film is worthy.

    56. Re:18%? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      RTFA. It's 18% of the ONLINE population.

    57. Re:18%? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      ive got an idea why don't you put sub audible tones into the tv stream and have some sort of program that collects the codes hmm you could maybe have some sort of code block in print media also (and con a MajorRetailer into handing out the reader units)

      Cue:: millions of geeks screaming and being suddenly silenced

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    58. Re:18%? by leadsling · · Score: 1

      ;) I don't imagine the bit torrents are tearing up Bergman flicks. In the US anyway, anyone who knows who Ingmar Bergman is has the funds to purchase his films. His last US filmography credit is from 1996 according to IMBD, BTW.

    59. Re:18%? by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't imagine the bit torrents are tearing up Bergman flicks.

      I've gotten 20 Bergman films from Bittorrent already over the last several months.

      In the US anyway...

      I don't live in the U.S.

      anyone who knows who Ingmar Bergman is has the funds to purchase his films

      No. His work is quite popular with intellectuals and students, who tend to be poor. I myself haven't been employed in six years. While I get some money here and there and have bought a few of his films, it will take years to get them all in the expensive Criterion Collection or MGM sets.

      His last US filmography credit is from 1996 according to IMBD, BTW.

      His film Sarabande was released in 2003.

    60. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why would you pay actual money for broadband if you didn't know how to use it?

      One reason: they don't know how to use dial-up either. I am on dial-up and to make it work there is no flash installed (yes, I could use flash block but I just plain hate flash), liberal use of adblock, few sites with javascript/applets allowed, autorefresh is disabled, and my POTS line is used only for the PCs and emergencies (phone ringer set to OFF). It cost $7/month through - well I won't admit who it is through but it works just fine with Linux and no added software.

      OTOH, broadband is easy: buy your $500 Dell and call the cable guy. I surf on an obsolte work computer and a used monitor.

    61. Re:18%? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Fact is, I think the only real stealing going on is what movie houses, rental places etc.. charge for movies.

      . i'm not going there to pay nearly $50 for my wife and I to have popcorn and catch the latest flick.


      You must live in a pretty affluent area, if the DVD rental shops are charging $50.

    62. Re:18%? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      but especially some members-only torrent sites that force you to have a "Respectable" share ratio work well.

      The fact that you have to maintain 'respectable' credentials means, you know, that there's a fairly easy trail in place to track you down, when the time comes for 'the Man' to do so.

    63. Re:18%? by trent4852 · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Internet is basically in its infancy and people are still figuring it out. It's kind of like the Wild West. There weren't really any laws in the Wild West, and it was kinda cool to see who could shoot the other person the fastest. It was called the "Wild West" because anyone could walk around and get away with robbing trains, shooting indians, or whatever they wanted. Roaming around on the Internet is like roaming around the Wild West. People lie, cheat, and steal (movies) and rationalize it. Most people won't go into DVD stores and walk out with a bunch of stolen DVDs. But those same people that wouldn't steal from a DVD store will cruise around the "Wild West" Internet robbing and plundering all the music and movies they can. Because the Internet is different and new, people think the laws are different and don't apply the same way. But basically the laws should be--and for the most part are--the same. We just can't enforce them adequately yet.

    64. Re:18%? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Dude, bittorrenting a movie takes less than 2x the time it takes to play it.

      Download a season of TV and it'll all be right there.

      I haven't downloaded a corrupt file in about 3-4 years, yes bittorrent fixed that just fine (I did download a spanish version once :), and a password protected file once).

      Unless the video store is right next store, well even then, it's faster to download a movie (in terms of your time spent) the selection is way better.

      Plus you don't have to worry about it, imagine all the things in your life you wouldn't do if they cost money (going to the park, looking at a flower etc.) and add one more.

    65. Re:18%? by TheRon6 · · Score: 1

      Dear Sir,

      I was wondering if you could clarify some of your instructions for me. First, I couldn't find a "Mininova" store anywhere. They're not listed in the phone book and I've never seen one around town. But I don't think that's really a problem anymore since I managed to find a tracker anyways. The breeder says he's really good at it too since he's a purebred basset hound. But now I'm stuck. The dog didn't come with any files and he doesn't seem to understand my requests for him to fetch one for me. Did I get a bad tracker? Should I try to RMA it? Also I think I might not have the most recent version of the internet... is that why my tracker doesn't know what to do? Any help would be appreciated.

      Thanks,
      TheRon6

      --
      Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
    66. Re:18%? by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      So whatever field you work in should only allow 2% of its employees to earn income!?!?!
      No, but Hollywood is not your typical industry. Example: even if you are a not-so-great surgeon, somewhere, some rural hospital will hire you, because hey! at least you went to med school. None of us *need* Hollywood --it's just entertainment. If corporations could get by with just the top 2% of {insert profession here}, they would. My point is this: Hollywood, if you make crap movies, don't complain that people don't go to the movies or buy DVDs and don't care enough to not pirate your stuff. I am not saying piracy is OK, I personally don't download illegal stuff. But I also am not feeling any sympathy for an industry that keeps raising prices at the box office and for DVDs, churns out lots of crap, and then turns around and tries to squeeze more $ out of everyone via DRM.

      After all, we only want the absolute best hamburger flippers, coffee makers, paper shufflers, etc, ad naseum, to wait on us
      Actually, yes! If I spend my money, I want good service. I don't care about the top 2% or anything, but I don't tolerate mediocre service at restaurants, etc, which is I guess why I don't eat out a lot and when I do I go somewhere nice where they remember me or at least treat me with respect. But that's just me. Some people aren't as selective. The point I was trying to make was that if you only had 100 words to sum up your life, you'd choose your words well. If Hollywood could only put out X movies, they would be more selective and we'd have less crap to wade through. But don't take what I said so seriously -- I was just thinking and came up with something I found interesting.

      And who is to determine "crap"?
      Fair point, like I said, I was just musing. Of course nobody has the right to decide what's crap and what's not. It's all a matter of taste.
      --
      blah blah blah
    67. Re:18%? by Xeontg · · Score: 1

      pirate++;
      I agree, the number seems kinda high...but you gotta agree it's been growing in numbers..

    68. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High quality sound and picture from a torrent? Hah!

    69. Re:18%? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to claim that Hollywood makes good movies, but why is it that you "film" snobs always come out of the woodwork to bemoan popular American movies and proclaim the superiority of foreign cinema?

      Taste is subjective. Your own doesn't make you superior to those who like a fun action flick.

      Am I the only one who's tired of smug, pompous, egotists telling me what kind of movie I should watch?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    70. Re:18%? by Achoi77 · · Score: 1

      never underestimate the power of my laziness. And my ADD-like compulsive bahavior :-)

      when I last had some excessive free time about 18 months back, I used to be the bittorrent junkie like everybody else. Downloaded Rome after hearing good reviews about it here on /. actaully. I think it took several hours for several gigs. Then I started downloading everything I could get my hands on After being on bittorrent long enough, my service provider caught on and throttled down my download to unacceptable levels. While it was easily corrected, it was a pain in the ass to take care of.

      to be honest, while the appeal of downloading whatever I want was there, I didn't feel like being hassled with a throttled down connection, and any more slaps on the hand from my isp. Plus when I'm looking forward to a video or something, I want to watch it Right Now TM instead of Hours Later TM.

      If I like a certain movie or video enough (for example, the Firefly series) then I'll go ahead and purchase their fancy box set, and have a (relatively) hardcopy for my collection. Otherwise it's probably not worth my time (or money) in the first place. That's just my lazy consumeristic thinking.

      Besides, I don't really have time to watch that much tv, I'm too busy playing WoW. :-P

    71. Re:18%? by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

      aye, I cry Bullshit on that too. In order to come up with those neighbors they have to be changing the definition of the word piracy again. There's a heck of a lot more stuff on torrents than movies, there's Linux.iso's public domain books, podcasts with Creative Commons attributes encouraging them to be shared, and so on. They're just lumping all kinds of stuff together as usual and declaring it all "piracy".

    72. Re:18%? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      I doubt the "end of the world is nigh" as you put it. What we're seeing is the same thing we saw in the age of the VCR, and before that, TV. First they fear it. Then they try to eradicate it. Then they adapt to the changing climate. Then they innovate and assimilate it and make more money than God.

      Someone downloading a crappy 700mb copy of "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is not going to send the entertainment economy spiraling down into a swirly of unemployment and destitution. Hell, 500 people doing so won't.

      What will bring them down is their failure to adapt to a changing technology. And if they don't get out of the "eradicate it" mode, they're going to be left behind like so many other industries that tried to stall progress. Progress happens with or without them. The sooner they realize that and stop treating their customers like criminals... things will be alright.

      I'm not justifying downloading movies for free as some sort of social protest, nor am I condoning certain segments of the population *cough*spoiled children*cough* and their self-centered entitlement mentality. I'm just seeing the same thing happening over and over again when technology outruns the greedy hands of people who wish to perpetually make money off copyrights (something the Founding Fathers NEVER intended to happen.)

      Trying to stifle technology's march forward is like standing in front of a tank. At some point, you either move or get crushed. No laws, police-state attitudes, or pleading will stop it.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    73. Re:18%? by takeya · · Score: 1

      No but about half are capable of getting limewire or kazaa and searching for a movie, and downloading a shitty cam or telesync.

    74. Re:18%? by SuperDre · · Score: 0

      You are really as dumb as a horse's ass.. You really don't understand hollywood business at all, the blockbusters pay for the 'artistic' movies (which mostly won't cover their costs on their own) , most big studio's have special departments for those kind of movies, but you won't hear much about those movies since they won't showup in mainstream cinema's, but only in filmhouses.. The less studio's get from blockbusters, the less money there is for your artsie films.. Not only do you don't know anything about the hollywood business, but certainly also nothing about the european business as you really think those movies make big bucks.. Also if hollywood is turning out so much crap, why is it that people still want to see those movies.... Because not everyone finds it crap.. And if you want to see the movie, pay for it, or just wait until it comes on the telly..

    75. Re:18%? by SuperDre · · Score: 0

      4GB for a movie is only when you have a DVD-image, but there are more people who are just fine with the Low quality of 700MB Divx movies, and these days there are so many dvd-players that actually play divxmovies.. And about not being able to get a movie: Just buy a regular computermagazine, and there you find big articles on how to get your movies (even for dummies) (which should be illegal IMHO)..

    76. Re:18%? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      They can't tell the difference between the internet and American Online. You expect these people to start installing p2p software and start downloading files for their use
      Well, you might be surprised by how selective people can be. I've seen people who couldn't understand the concept of a folder/directory but who could install kazaa and grab some mp3 and avi without trouble (unless you count as 'trouble' the fact of turning the machine into a 'bot and then calling me to fix it).
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    77. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High quality sound and picture from a torrent? Hah!

      Yes. The quality of the Spooks series 5 torrents I was downloading 6 months ago were absolutely fantastic quality. Clean, crisp sound, high-resolution video with no obvious compression artifacts.

    78. Re:18%? by Biggest+Banana+Tree · · Score: 0

      The US population is roughly 300MM. 18% of this is 54 million people. There's no way that there are 54 million people actively downloading 4GB movie files...

      I think you don't - 700MB 1 CD, 1.4G 2 CD movies.... where did you get 4GB from?

    79. Re:18%? by grumble_au · · Score: 2, Insightful

      arduous process of assembling multiple files from different sources, just to get a cracked copy of a computer game or a movie file
      I can see you haven't downloaded anything in the last 5 years if you think this is still the case. We have things like bittorrent and broadband now you know?

      An example to clarify: My other half wanted to watch a particular movie the other night. We didn't have it already so I did a quick search in my favourite torrent site (isohunt - yes, it's back) and had a torrent with lots of seeds within 30 seconds. 20 minutes later it had downloaded and we watched it.

      That's a similar amount of time to head off to the local video rental shop, find it (assuming they had it), bring it home then take it back again except I did other things for those 20 minutes. And it was "free" and I now have it permanently on my hard disk (900MB DivX). If I could have paid a nominal fee for this service I would, only I don't have that opportunity. So I saved time, saved money, got a more convenient service and now have the movie for later. Wow, that really sucks huh?

      I am happy to "steal" content like this until the distributors learn that the horse has bolted and they would be better off to get a couple of bucks from me to do this than the absolutely nothing they get now. I still go to the cinema, still buy DVDs that I think are worth it but most movies nowadays are not.

      And to head off the FUD groups, divx movies look and sound just great on my 36" TV with 5.1 sound, just avoid screeners because they suck. If you really can't wait for the latest movie to be ripped from a DVD go to the damn cinema!

    80. Re:18%? by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      I really don't have the time to fuck around with semi-corrupt files and the arduous process of assembling multiple files from different sources, just to get a cracked copy of a computer game or a movie file.
      Hmm, not sure which p2p programs you use, but I'd recommend switching. I've never had to assemble multiple files from anywhere. Corrupt files also seem to pass me by, one of the strengths of BitTorrent's mass download nature I guess.
    81. Re:18%? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      I never said artistic films must make a profit. In fact, I said the opposite: historically outside the U.S. they are produced with the help of private patronage and government subsidies so that they do not have to make a profit. Please read more carefully.

    82. Re:18%? by oliderid · · Score: 1

      I'm European.
      The big problem with subsidies is that they truly don't care if the movie will be seen or not. They are completly cut from the lambda spectator such as me. The result is European movies are only watched by a minority, that you may call an "elite".

      There are noticeable exceptions but usually European movies are plain boring to me. I thank God that there are American movies such as "Usual suspects","Blade Runner" and countless of others.

      I can't stand French movies anymore. I really miss all these classics from the sixties before this boring thing called "nouvelle vague" changed everything. It was so contagious that approximatly all european countries have adopted it.

      European movies that I truly enjoyed were Amélie Poulain (Jean-Pierre Jeunet) or the Fifth element,Léon (Luc besson). They (as far as I know) received strictly no European subsidies (Luc Besson is one the most critized moviemaker in the French press). They needed US producers to be made.

      Of course there are some subsidized gems such as C'est arrivé près de chez vous/Man Bites Dog or Billy Eliot but they remain exceptions to me.

    83. Re:18%? by hemorex · · Score: 1

      Not the "stars" but the studio grunts and the folks in the promotions and marketing departments. I love that argument ... and it's funny how the studio grunts will be canned before these "stars" lose any income. Me, I'd cut the $10 million dollar salary before I laid off the guy who brings in the danishes. Gotta prioritize, you know.
    84. Re:18%? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result. Not the "stars" but the studio grunts and the folks in the promotions and marketing departments.


      That's not the fault of downloaders. When they studios still earn billions it is squarely the fault of the studioes when the bosses and "stars" want their amorally large saleries while refuseing to take a million or two paycut to pay "the little guy".
      In civilized countries there are rules about *how little* you are allowed to earn, there should also be rules about how much, because its sick when some of these people are the top get mega billions.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    85. Re:18%? by Heian-794 · · Score: 1

      And others of us live in countries with great video rental services, but own computers which are in a different DVD "region".

      While they give you five opportunities to change the region, eventually you use them up and are forced to either search for a hack that might damage your computer, or buy a TV plus DVD player just to watch the other region's stuff, or even a second computer in the local region.

      Who wants to go through all that? I'd actually prefer to put some money in the producers' pockets, and get the subtitles that come from local rentals, but a wholly-artificial system of incompatibility has made it so that my Region 1 DVD player is in effect a completely different device from a Region 2 player, despite the only difference being a few bytes in the programming.

      I would love to give my local video shop plenty of business, but can't realistically do it until computers can play all DVDs.

    86. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result.

      Name one. Just one.

      Are you shilling or brainwashed?

    87. Re:18%? by mkw87 · · Score: 1

      A few bucks? Where the hell do you shop at. Movies aren't exactly cheap, and games are FAR FAR from cheap - they are rediculous.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
    88. Re:18%? by THE+ROCK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the record I am 33.

      In the last 10 years, I have only very rarely paid for music. I have also not paid for any retail DVD in almost 6 years now. One reason is because literally 99% of what is being commercially released (musically) is absolutely horrible, and I would feel ripped off if I paid a nickel for it. The numbers are movies are not quite to extreme IMO but they are still way up there.

      p2p has come a very long way. I think that even a functional retard could figure out how to use bittorrent. Burning DVDs and CDs is not rocket science either. The other (and main) reason that I download music/movies (and tv shows) instead of paying for them is because its so damn easy. Even a dual layer DVD movie can be downloaded in about 6 hours, and I can even seed that up to 1.00 in just over a day on my $40/month DSL if I want to keep the mods on my favorite tracker happy. TV shows and music releases (even lossless ones, which thankfully are getting more popular all the time) usually take only a few minutes to download.

      As far as quality and reliability goes, this too is almost never a problem if you know what to look for. The scene is downright anal about enforcing their quality rules. Just try watching the PRE database for 10 minutes if you have any doubt about this. Anything as minor as a typo and a release gets nuked by one of several nuke nazis. All releases need to be packaged in rar files and furthermore have an sfv for an additional level of checking of you want to be absolutely sure the release you downloadeded is pristine. I would say that out of everything I download, I have problems with corruption literally less than 1% of the time. It is simply not an issue.

      As HD becomes the norm, bandwidth use and requirements will increase and that demand will be met by ISPs, just like it always has in the past. In my case, I dumped cable for DSL because even tho my cable company didn't worry about its infrastructure for 10 years, my phone company did (and they still are.)

      I've got income too, it sounds like we just spend ours in different places. It also sounds like what both of us do is working for us, so its all good. After all there is something to be said for buying retail...you get nice packaging, some recourse if you get a flawed product, and you know your media will probably last a lifetime.

    89. Re:18%? by esobofh · · Score: 1

      you mean that's not normal?

      --

      ----------------------------
      Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
    90. Re:18%? by flewp · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered what the ratio overseas is in terms of good versus crap when it comes to movies. I suspect it's relatively the same as it is here in the US. The thing is, it's often only the "good" foreign movies that make their way over here. To me, it's kind of like music. So many people claim the music of today is terrible compared to music from the 60's and 70's. They'll mention the same 10 or 15 bands, or songs, and convienantly leave out all the crap that came from those times. People tend to only remember the best of times.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    91. Re:18%? by markbt73 · · Score: 1

      Do you live in LA? I do. Plenty of VERY expensive cars running around, along with an incredibly irritating sense of entitlement. And for the record, I don't download movies. Most of them aren't worth the time to watch.

      --
      "Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
    92. Re:18%? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Other than tape swapping, digital distribution is the ONLY way to get ahold of the entire run of Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    93. Re:18%? by rho · · Score: 1

      C'mon movie industry.. catch up. Delivering a service means giving people what they want - the people are telling you in a very obvious way now, you aren't doing that.

      Exactly. I saw "25 million people pirating movies" and saw "25 million customers". They're not pirating because they love to pirate movies (except for a few folks who obsessively collect downloaded movies). They are people who want to watch something when they choose and don't want to pay a lot for it. I'd say their needs would be met with Netflix, but if they could download it for a buck or two from consistently fast servers, I imagine they'd be fine with that as well.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    94. Re:18%? by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      They don't know how whether or not their computer is already hijacked. They can't tell the difference between the internet and American Online. You expect these people to start installing p2p software and start downloading files for their use (nevermind the fact that to go looking for the stuff in the first place)?
      Yes.

      Because they have a good friend who told them, "Look, you just install this Azureus program like this, then go to this website Mininova.org, search for what you want, download the file, and open it in Azureus. I'll even set it up for you so your downloaded movies end up in a special folder in My Documents, so you can find them when they're done."

      People are not stupid. They don't know the difference between AOL and the internet because AOL marketed very hard to make them believe that, and won. They just don't have the time to invest in becoming knowledgeable about all things computer like you and I do. If they can create documents in Word and work their email, they won't have a problem with a Bittorrent client. They didn't have a problem with Napster... you don't think all those millions of Napster downloaders the music industry got upset at were computer science majors, do you?

      I'm 29 myself, and to be honest, with my current lifestyle, I really don't have the time to fuck around with semi-corrupt files and the arduous process of assembling multiple files from different sources, just to get a cracked copy of a computer game or a movie file.
      Agreed, I don't have time for those things either (I'm 26). But you have clearly not looked for anything of that nature since 2002... sites like isoHunt and Mininova have made the process fairly painless. We are no longer in the days of warez.com and 20KB crack programs that blast music at you and were packaged as 10 .rar files zipped up with a password with the link to download hidden among a giant farm of links to other toplists.

      It's much more convenient to take a few bucks and buy the stuff.
      Also agreed. However, the ability to buy it does not exist in the form I want it just yet. $20+ for a DVD is ridiculous, especially when the DVD is full of trailers for other films and commercials telling me I'm a dirty filthy stinking pirate whose wanton downloading is forcing the Third Assistant Grip's children to go to a second-rate college. Here's what I want: MPEG-4 encoded at a high bitrate, true surround sound, special features included, fast download pipe, ability to burn to DVD, no restrictions on how long I get to keep it, no f*cking spyware/DRM/rootkits, no special players required but a damn good one available, cross-platform, and $5 a movie. THAT I will pay for. Many times over. And, I imagine, so would a very large majority of people in your and my age group, the 24-35ers. Until that happens, Bittorrent is a better deal for most of us. Which is a shame really, because that vast untapped market is going to waste.

      All arguments above aside, I buy DVDs (typically from Columbia House or Amazon where they're cheaper) and I don't usually download movies. I am a ravenous Netflix subscriber. I do download a good deal of television, but only until my homebrew DVR is finished--it's very difficult to download live Big Ten basketball games over bittorrent.

      If anything, this piracy phenomenon should be seen as an opportunity for the distribution companies to see what people are looking for, in the wild. Tracking what people rip and what they ignore, what they download and what they ignore, etc. is the best set of raw statistical data on popularity I can think of.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    95. Re:18%? by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      All releases need to be packaged in rar files and furthermore have an sfv for an additional level of checking of you want to be absolutely sure the release you downloadeded is pristine.
      Rar files?! Why, WHY is it always .rar files?! Just give me a frickin' .avi and be done with it.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    96. Re:18%? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      most are based in countries that do not force the website operator to cooperate.

      For example in Canada, this is a privacy issue, and we are protected from it as such.

      In Finland, haha... computer security laws.

      As a US citizen, if you were to use a torrent site in Finland, you wouldn't have a problem unless your ISP is sniffing your traffick, or you are stupid enough to allow IPs from one of the many blacklisted IP lists to connect to you.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    97. Re:18%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way, since the article didn't provide any information about how the study was conducted, how the 2,600 people were found, demographics, et.al., I have to believe the numbers are simply bogus.

      Not only that, but how do you know if the people who responded are telling the truth? If I were an habitual movie downloader, and some stranger on the street asked me if I was involved in illegal behaviour, I would say "no". I'd be even more inclined to lie in a phone survey, as they have enough information with a phone number to initiate legal proceedings. With all the publicity the RIAA/MPAA have focused on illegal copying, how many of the people who responded just flat out lied?

  3. It's Still Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can use any number of people all you want to justify it, but the fact is that it's still illegal and in my opinion, wrong.

    It's just the ability to copy DVDs, and no fear of repercussions that make this so widespread. I doubt that any significant fraction of these 25 million people also shoplift movies out of Best Buy, which is what this is tantamount to.

    1. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt that any significant fraction of these 25 million people also shoplift movies out of Best Buy, which is what this is tantamount to.

      Not at all. When you take something from Best Buy, you are removing a physical object that the store can no longer sell to someone. When you download a movie, no physical object is involved.

    2. Re:It's Still Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think there is a point where something 'illegal' can be considered 'legal' because a high amount of people does it.

      In the end, laws are made by people with the morals of society as a base.

    3. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed. Let's not forget that copyright is a recent notion, proposed by a few people in Western Europe only a few hundred years ago. It did not exist in antiquity--Roman poets such as Martial had no problem with their works being copied and sold as long as they were given credit on the title page--and even today most of the world finds it a nonsensical concept.

    4. Re:It's Still Wrong by Drowledrow · · Score: 0

      Slashdot: The Movie Ready war-over-whether-or-not-copying-data-is-as-bad-as- stealing-it Que war-over-whether-or-not..

    5. Re:It's Still Wrong by PoliTech · · Score: 1
      There are always those who insist that anyone participating in civil disobedience is simply a criminal regardless of whether or not the law being disobeyed is a good law or not.

      While most people believe it's usually right to obey the law, most people would probably agree that there are some cases in which it's right to disobey it - especially if the disobedience takes a non-violent form.

      To draw on an obvious but compelling example, few would suggest that African-Americans were wrong to protest segregation in the South by sitting at whites-only lunch counters and refusing to leave, or by refusing to move to the back of the bus.

      Time will tell if civil disobedience of the DMCA and/or DRM is justified or not.

    6. Re:It's Still Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Civil disopbedience is very often criminal in nature. Criminal means Againsts the law.
      So those blacks were legally wrong. However, sometimes you need to break a law to fix an injustice.

      Of course, they were morally right, but that is different.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:It's Still Wrong by argoff · · Score: 1

      There is no equivlancy between propoerty and "intellectual property" other than a stupid name. It's wrong that it's illegal, which is why it's not only a right to copy, but IMHO a duty.

      You could say the emperor has no clothes. They go around pretending that their monopoly control over information distriubtion is the physical and moral equivilancy as any property right. It's not only immoral, but outright vicious against progress in the information age and spit in the face on "real" culture vs hollywood manufactured culture.

    8. Re:It's Still Wrong by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but "copiers" then were people who actually had to put the physical time and energy into manual reproduction. The disincentive there prevented much of the problem of cheaply copying an expensive idea and undercutting the originator, which is one of the primary drivers of copyright. It's only the age of mechanical reproduction, and the fact that it's unfairly easier to reproduce than produce, that makes copyright necessary.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    9. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that's a misconception. Roman literature was copied massively and sold throughout the Empire, with no money ever going back to the author. A large class of literate slaves made this easy. As I said, Roman poets knew that their work was copied and sold for profit, and had no problem with this practise, objecting only to other people taking credit for the composition of said verses.

    10. Re:It's Still Wrong by xeromist · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Too bad I can't modify -7 Tired Argument in my preferences.

      --
      This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
    11. Re:It's Still Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not at all. When you take something from Best Buy, you are removing a physical object that the store can no longer sell to someone. When you download a movie, no physical object is involved.

      This makes no sense at all. When you buy a movie from Best Buy, you are not buying a disc. You are buying the bits that encoded on the disc, which is a movie or whatever. The disc is just a delivery mechanism. It has value because of what's on it. When you download a movie illegally, you have just enjoyed the work that was for sale at that they can't sell to you anymore.

      Or do you think counterfeiting money is ok since you didn't physically take anything?

    12. Re:It's Still Wrong by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Aww, what a cute little AC MPAA shill-troll.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    13. Re:It's Still Wrong by FLEB · · Score: 1

      I might be more willing to accept media piracy as "civil disobedience" if there was anything politically or morally demonstrative about it. For the greater bunch of illegal filesharers, though, it's pure, simple, "It's there, I want it" greed. If this was civil disobedience, it wouldn't be shrouded in anonymous protocols. It would be executed in a public and pointed manner, made to expose injustice and force the issue.

      I'll agree for people like those who write the software and crack the encryption, and who host the information on it against the DMCA, as well as the people who put themselves on the line by hosting torrent trackers and other such hubs. I've found the "RIAA Sticker" and other such information campaigns to be a very innovative form of disobedient protest. Just clicking "download"? No.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    14. Re:It's Still Wrong by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      My god, can the mods not spot troll/flamebait posts at all?

    15. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      This is neither troll nor flamebait. This is the standard explanation of why the theft of an actual object is not comparable to the copying of so-called "intellectual property". As copyright is a recent invention limited to Western countries, this is how most of the world has and does think of things.

    16. Re:It's Still Wrong by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1
      I should have looked at the rest of your posts before assuming you were trolling. That's my mistake. Unfortunately, your mistake seems to be your belief that our society should behave like communism, in which artists don't require or desire any monetary compensation for their work. I don't believe it can, and I don't believe anyone should try it.

      I started to compose a large counter-argument on intellectual property, but I decided to delete it. Arguing copyrights with someone of your beliefs quickly reaches stalemate because of fundamental lemmas that you believe to hold, which I don't.

    17. Re:It's Still Wrong by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "To draw on an obvious but compelling example, few would suggest that African-Americans were wrong to protest segregation in the South by sitting at whites-only lunch counters and refusing to leave, or by refusing to move to the back of the bus."

      You've nailed it. By pirating movies rather than going to see them in the theatre, we're right up there with Rosa Parks. Saving money is just a fringe benefit. The 60's civil rights protests obviously come to mind here.

      I'd love to sit in on a meeting between your average "pirating all my entertainment is my form of civil disobedience" teenager and somebody who was actually there in Montgomery or Selma, facing down the police with the firehoses and the dogs and whatnot. I'd really like to see the look on the latter's face when the former tries to assign any equivalence to the two.

      "Time will tell if civil disobedience of the DMCA and/or DRM is justified or not."

      Stick around on Slashdot long enough and you'll find that it's extremely justified by those who do it... and that's really all that counts. Collectively, humans are very good at justifying their actions. I think it's an evolutionary thing.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    18. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      We both have fixed opinions on the matter, no doubt after much thought, and yet I hold "fundamentalist lemmas" while you, presumably, are the epitome of reason? Come off of it, two gentlemen can acceptably disagree on some issue without one being some kind of religious fanatic.

    19. Re:It's Still Wrong by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you are trolling here - I said "fundamental lemmas", not "fundamentalist lemmas". There's no religious fanatic connotation to the first.

    20. Re:It's Still Wrong by Headcase88 · · Score: 1
      My two cents, IANAL, etc.
      "It's wrong that it's illegal"
      As a fan of video games, I'm very glad that there is such thing as copyright. Without copyright, a lot of books, a few songs, and a few movies would be created by some people who want to get their message or story across, even without monetary reward (aside from donations, endorsements, etc).

      But games would have it rough. No profit-driven game corporations, just independent people and studios that run on donations. Don't get me wrong, there's lots of great freeware out there, and the effort the open source community goes into making games (and other software, of course) is just amazing. That said, there's a lot of great games out there that just wouldn't be here without the resources that only large, profit-hungry corporations can afford.

      I'm not defending anything that the **AA do, or that downloading movies is the morally "wrong" thing to do all the time (or any of the time, it's up to opinion), but the legal backing behind copyright makes a lot of sense at a fundamental level. Maybe there should also be laws to limit RIAA's (etc) power, but that doesn't deteriorate from the legal reasoning of copyrights.

      (Cut off about 45 years from that period before expiration though)
      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    21. Re:It's Still Wrong by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Of course they had no problem with it... the number of people willing to go through the effort of doing it back then was small enough that any publicity was good publicity. You talk about massive amounts of copying occurring prior to the invention of the printing press, and doubtless having an army of people manually copying and verifying the integrity of copies certainly would have made a substantial impression... compared to what anyone else might be able to achieve at the time.

      But that all changed with the invention of the printing press, which made copying possible on a scale that was utterly impossible for even a whole building full of people to accomplish in their entire lifetime lifetime manually. To manage the scope of the potential amount of copying that was certain to occur otherwise, copyright was created almost immediately afterwards. Or do you think it's a coincidence when copyright was invented?

      Misconception? No... it's quite thoroughly supported by the evidence of where and when copyright actually began.

    22. Re:It's Still Wrong by argoff · · Score: 1

      I like games and some movies too, and I'm sure that some of the things that I really like simply wouldn't be here without copyright, but dammit, don't sell out our freedom and liberty in the information age for the sake of a game or a song or show. If it was about anything less, I might be OK with it, but it isn't. This is an all or nothing game and they know it. This is about control of information in the information age.

    23. Re:It's Still Wrong by cliffski · · Score: 0

      I see. so did this Roman poet have to lay out 20 million dollars and employ 200 people for three years to knock up one of his poems?
      I doubt it.

      You are making the 'content will still exist without copyright' argument, which is valid only for hobbyist content done on a very small scale. It's ironic that the same people who take this view of copyright, are then happy to download multi-million dollar sfx-laden movies that are completely impossible to create unless copyright can guarantee that those who watch them, pay for them.

      Most people do not find copyright nonsensical. It's pretty fundamental that if you create something, you own it, whether that be a chair, a cake, or a song/movie. I don't have any inalienable right to see Lord of The Rings. That was a movie that Peter Jackson and hundreds of others worked hard on, based on a book that took someone else ages to write. I did bugger all towards it, so if I want to see it, I pay.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    24. Re:It's Still Wrong by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      I doubt that any significant fraction of these 25 million people also shoplift movies out of Best Buy, which is what this is tantamount to. I'd say a significant fraction of those 25 million would disagree with your astroturfed opinion. They are not remotely the same thing.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    25. Re:It's Still Wrong by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      in GP's defense, I originally parsed it as "fundamentalist" too. Too much time on science.slashdot.org, apparently. ;)

    26. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      You are making the 'content will still exist without copyright' argument, which is valid only for hobbyist content done on a very small scale.

      Private patronage and government subsidies have ensured the creation of many great films which were not likely to make a profit. Not only does content still exist when a studio can't make a profit, it can be of a high standard indeed.

      ...are then happy to download multi-million dollar sfx-laden movies that are completely impossible to create unless copyright can guarantee that those who watch them, pay for them...

      Multi-million dollar special effects-laden films are crap compared to decent cinema and I for one look forward to their demise.

      Most people do not find copyright nonsensical.

      No, they do. Have you travelled in the third world? That's most of the world population right there, and you can see how little respect people have for copyright. Ditto for the whole of the former second-world, Eastern Europe (no, not a remnant of Communism, but a trend established long before 1917). Even in Western countries like Spain or Italy it is entirely usual to buy pirated films on the street.

    27. Re:It's Still Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think there is a point where something 'illegal' can be considered 'legal' because a high amount of people does it.
      Well, no, that is simply not logically possible. I think what you mean is that something illegal can be considered morally justified when enough people do it. And at that stage the law probably needs to be changed.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:It's Still Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Multi-million dollar special effects-laden films are crap compared to decent cinema and I for one look forward to their demise.
      That is the worst anti-copyright argument I have ever heard, even though I broadly agree with your conclusion.

      In effect, you are agreeing with the film industry that illegal copying/downloading will destroy the industry and that the only movies you'll get will be amateur ones or else the product of some Ministry of Film.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      In effect, you are agreeing with the film industry that illegal copying/downloading will destroy the industry and that the only movies you'll get will be amateur ones or else the product of some Ministry of Film.

      One should not assume that government subsidies produce only arts that are sympathetic to the government. European funding for the arts is extremely generous, and ministries care less about what the final product is. Just look at IRCAM in Paris or the entire Swedish film industry, they turn out works which aren't populist or propagandistic at all--rather the opposite.

    30. Re:It's Still Wrong by OSXCPA2 · · Score: 1

      At the risk of belaboring the obvious:
      It costs money and time to create content. We may disagree about appropriate pricing of content, but a studio and its' employees and/or contractors spent resources to create content for others to enjoy.
      The argument "Oh, I bought a DVD and can do what I like with it" is valid on its' face - you bought it, do what you like. Rip to your iPod, etc. This is where DRM sucks.
      There is an argument to be made for accountability - you buy a DVD of "Pirates of the Carribean II", rip it, and make it available to your friends to watch (lend it) or have them over to watch it. Muddier, but really, no harm, no foul - this is still part of the normal use of your *single* copy of the video.
      End case - you rip the DVD to a full-quality copy using Handbrake and make the archive available online to anyone. Now, the argument goes, you are making a product available for free that anyone can access - people who would otherwise have to buy it. Do we assume people are ethical and will try it, then buy it if they like? Is it fair to force a corporation, who is out of pocket tens if not hundres of millions of dollars, to make that assumption?
      I am not saying the studios are 'good guys' at all - but the notion that IP theft is not *really* theft is wrong-headed and counterproductive. If I were a content-creator, and I saw my margins dropping because users felt free to copy and redistribute as they saw fit, I would happily remove any DRM and make it easier for them to trade that content - but I would alter my content so I could generate more revenue from alternate sources. In other words, my 'movies' would incorporate a lot more ads, sponsorships, product placement - I would add marketing garbage until people actually revolted and stopped watching. In case no one noticed, this has already begun - but the popular palate for trash (in the US) is pretty forgiving. Hell, I am listening to NPR right now, and THEY are doing sponsorships ("This American Life is brought to you by...")

      Pick your poison - DRM, ads or ethics.

      For my money, ethics is the least painful and easiest to work with. If you download and like the product, you should go buy a 'legal' copy. If not, delete it and call it a day - your dollars were not spent encouraging the production of garbage. 'Try before you buy' applies to pretty much anything else we pay for, why not media content?

    31. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      I am not saying the studios are 'good guys' at all - but the notion that IP theft is not *really* theft is wrong-headed and counterproductive.

      No, copyright is a notion that is wrong-headed and counterproductive. Most of the world for most of the history of the world has not believed that content creators have a right to make a profit from the copying of their works.

      If I were a content-creator, and I saw my margins dropping because users felt free to copy and redistribute as they saw fit, I would happily remove any DRM and make it easier for them to trade that content - but I would alter my content so I could generate more revenue from alternate sources. In other words, my 'movies' would incorporate a lot more ads, sponsorships, product placement

      No, there are other ways. In Europe, government subsidies and private patronage are the traditional means of funding for much cinema. Only someone who was already set on producing popular crap with no meaning besides entertainment would stoop to product placement, anyway.

    32. Re:It's Still Wrong by cliffski · · Score: 1

      jesus, you seriously want to do away with copy protection on DVDs in favour of "state control over what entertainment will be produced"
      It's called communism BTW, just so you understand what it is you support here.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    33. Re:It's Still Wrong by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      jesus, you seriously want to do away with copy protection on DVDs in favour of "state control over what entertainment will be produced"

      Government funding of the arts != "state control" or "Communism". If it did, the perfectly free countries of Western Europe would be Communist. The possibility of private patronage always remains.

  4. We are NOT CRIMINALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we are FREEDOM fighters.

    Movies are binary encoded Information.

    And Information Wants To Be Free.

    It is our right and our duty.

    1. Re:We are NOT CRIMINALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed you are not a criminal you are retarded.

      Just because you don't want to pay doesn't mean it is right to steal. Downloading movies is stealing goods and/or services. The argument that downloading is only making a copy is specious. The downloader is stealing the services of everyone whose job it was to make the movie. At least shop lifters who lift a DVD from Best Buy have guts.

      The phrase "information wants to be free" is pseudo religious nonsense.

    2. Re:We are NOT CRIMINALS by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's the shill again!

      "The phrase 'information wants to be free' is pseudo religious nonsense."

      You're right, of course. Information doesn't care if its free or not. On the other hand, it can be show that, with the advent of very low cost distribution, creation and promotion, the arguments for copyright protection (ie: to repay the high costs of creation, distribution and promotion) have fallen apart; there are no longer high costs to repay - and if there are, someone's been skimming.

      Is it you? Is that why you're sufficiently miffed to troll around an obviously pro-piracy sector?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:We are NOT CRIMINALS by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1

      No it is NOT stealing. It is copyright INFRINGEMENT (at least in my country). If your entire philosophy of the issue is based on equivocating the term "steal" into meaninglessness, then you really have no understanding of the issue. There is a reason why IP has been governed by a different set of laws, and one of the main ones is that it is not stealing, but should have SOME protection.

      You think that stealing from Best Buy is better? That's strange. You are actually costing the IP holder (or their proxy) something when you do that. When you download it, it costs them nothing. To say it costs them a sale is wishful thinking, and entirely unsubstantiated. There may be truth to it, but without that individual data, it has no actual basis in fact.

  5. Have you ever one of their union books? by Rix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't speak for the Californian ones, but having looked over a friends here in Vancouver, that's an industry that desperately needs to trim the fat.

    1. Re:Have you ever one of their union books? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      How many of those union guys could you pay for by paying your stars 10% less? Having worked in TV I know that there is alot of "standing by" waiting through four hours of shooting for the twenty minute dash of work to set the next scene. Then suddenly they need all of those people that seemed to be just sitting around. Maybe the fat isn't quite where it first appears to be.

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:Have you ever one of their union books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice those who complain the loudest, know the least?

  6. 25 Million Pirate Movies?? by siufish · · Score: 5, Funny

    and I've only seen one last year! Where can I find the others? :)

    1. Re:25 Million Pirate Movies?? by abscissa · · Score: 1

      and I've only seen one last year! Where can I find the others? :)

      Americans, or movies?

    2. Re:25 Million Pirate Movies?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ninjas raided the warehouse storing the original reels one night and destroyed the other 24999999. But they left the crappy one intact.

    3. Re:25 Million Pirate Movies?? by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Yes! I love pirate movies, I've only got a dozen, so where's the rest?

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    4. Re:25 Million Pirate Movies?? by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 1

      This bodes well for global warming. If enough people see enough of these movies, we'll reverse the trend by creating more pirates.

      --
      -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
  7. Too lazy to go to the library? by FellowConspirator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are these folks just too lazy to go to the library and rip DVDs from there? Young people today!

    1. Re:Too lazy to go to the library? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Library? Netflix delivers them right to my door to rip and save!

    2. Re:Too lazy to go to the library? by mabba18 · · Score: 1

      Netflix? Broadband delivers it right to my desk!

      --
      The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
    3. Re:Too lazy to go to the library? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should say that, as I happen to be ripping a Netflix DVD at this very moment!

    4. Re:Too lazy to go to the library? by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Do libraries carry rated R movies or have as large of a selection as Blockbuster, Netflix, or torrentspy?

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    5. Re:Too lazy to go to the library? by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      As far as the selection goes, that's a "no" 9 times out of 10.

      However, I first saw "Requiem for a Dream," the Director's Cut version, when I checked it out from my library. On top of that I've seen plenty of "heavy" material in the collection before and since "Requiem."

      I worked in that library's IT department for 7 years and during that time I got to know the acquisitions people's MO very well. The guideline under which they operated is that if a title (book, CD, periodical, movie, etc.) has some intellectual or artistic merit, it can go on the shelves. They believe in the principle of "everything is objectionable to someone, but nothing is objectionable to everyone." As such they had a lot of latitude in what they could carry.

      Now of course your mileage may vary, and this was in the suburbs of Chicago, a relatively progressive and (loath as I am to use political labels) liberal-minded area. I'm sure libraries in the bible belt are a different story.

      Anyway, long story short, the answer to your first question is in the affirmative more often than you might think.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
  8. It's easier! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the reasons I personally pirate movies is it's easier. I don't have to mess around with anything, I just find a torrent (easy as pie), click 2 buttons and I have it within a couple of hours (on a good torrent under 1 hour). Why ever would I goto the cinema or to a shop to buy something I can get for less effort and money?

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:It's easier! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why ever would I goto the cinema"

      Why? To enjoy the theater experience. You know, flying popcorn, being kicked by the idiot behind you, cell phones ringing, babies crying, people talking endlessly.

      Thats why!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:It's easier! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Why ever would I goto the cinema

      Hmmm interesting. You must be older than the most typical age of downloaders if you know what a "goto" is :)

    3. Re:It's easier! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Funny, I find downloading movies to be way more work than it's worth. Trying to find a functional torrent, alone, is a huge pain, and then you have to wait hours for the damn thing to arrive. And all so you can get a crappy Xvid transcode of something I could've gone to Futureshop and bought for $15, or gone to the video store and rented for $5.

    4. Re:It's easier! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1
      One of the reasons I personally pirate movies is it's easier. I don't have to mess around with anything, I just find a torrent (easy as pie)...
      But when ever the regular anti record / movie industry stoy pops up here, the story is exactly the opposite, that P2P file shairing protocols like BitTorrent are not used for this sort of thing, certainly not by anyone here! So which is it? You can't have it both ways...
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:It's easier! by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right, which is why an additional N% of people just have NetFlix and a good DVD ripper.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    6. Re:It's easier! by Toba82 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can. This and more is possible with Hypocrisy(tm).

      --
      I pretend to know more than I really do by mooching off google and wikipedia.
    7. Re:It's easier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention the drunk Mexican guy pissing in the corner. .. I'm serious. Really!

    8. Re:It's easier! by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      You forgot all the ads at the beginning of the movie. 30 minutes of sheer bliss I tells ya'.

      Swi

    9. Re:It's easier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off your lazy A** and rent the flick for a buck at McDonalds. Cmon' man.
      I can't believe that people are so frickin' lazy to support artists.

    10. Re:It's easier! by Monsuco · · Score: 1
      Why ever would I goto the cinema or to a shop to buy something I can get for less effort and money?
      You might not but teens like me will. The theator is a social experience. You and your date going to catch a flick. You and your friends going to watch Jackass the Movie. There isn't anything like the theater for films.
    11. Re:It's easier! by rolyatknarf · · Score: 1

      Now that hurts. I'm still writing a drawing application in Applesoft Basic on my IIC.

    12. Re:It's easier! by pglee2000 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hear ya brother. That's also one of the reasons I don't bother going through the checkout line at the grocery store. It's so much easier to just walk out and not have to pay. I just grab some chips and casually walk out like it's nobody's business. Amen to convenience!

    13. Re:It's easier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the most important..

      Witnessing the small sample of stereotypical depthless pop-culture consumers that remind you why you should have stayed home in the first place!!

      Not bitter. Really...

  9. That's not all... by TobyRush · · Score: 4, Funny

    Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally downloaded a full-length movie at some point in the past

    ...and roughly 34 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally downloaded the first few minutes of a full-length movie, then cancelled that download to try to find a faster one.

    --
    Sam! If you will let me be,
    I will try them.
    You will see.
  10. Smart by Monoliath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The current crop of 'download to own' movie services and the new ones coming into the market will need to offer greater flexibility of use, selection and low prices to convert the current users to their services

    That's the smartest thing I've read throughout this entire entertainment industry / piracy fiasco. Treating the root problem, instead of the symptoms is sheer brilliance.

  11. Sampling Frame? by FST · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In a study of 2,600 Americans polled via telephone and online

    The sampling frame would have an inherent bias towards a higher percentage, as those without internet (ie. those who weren't part of the sampling frame, and those who are very unlikely to pirate) weren't even asked. No mention of accounting for this in TFA. Flawed study. Nothing to see here, please move along.
    --
    46487 466780 252994 376409 96920 39622 205366 244315 622115 512361 668040 63608 259203 955314 811176 652718 166330 23922
    1. Re:Sampling Frame? by JRubatino · · Score: 1

      Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. online population...
    2. Re:Sampling Frame? by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hence why the summary starts out with "Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. [b]online[/b] population..."

    3. Re:Sampling Frame? by dlanod · · Score: 1

      That's not a flawed study. That's a survey investigating the number of Americans _with access to the internet_ have pirated movies. It's fairly obvious that people without internet won't be pirating movies all that frequently.

  12. Jealousy, That is all it is. by naoursla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And it has absolutely nothing to do with $10 tickets at the theater.

    1. Re:Jealousy, That is all it is. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      All the people who I know who download movies enjoy a good theater movie. Spending $10 to get to see a movie on a giant screen with no compression artifacts and an awesome sound system is still a reasonably good deal. The thing that downloading really replaces is DVD rentals, which are strictly a bad deal compared to 2CD XviD releases.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    2. Re:Jealousy, That is all it is. by borawjm · · Score: 1

      And it has absolutely nothing to do with $10 tickets at the theater.

      Ahh, but maybe it does. Perhaps, without pirating, ticket prices would be cheaper?

    3. Re:Jealousy, That is all it is. by naoursla · · Score: 1

      The people who are already pirating do not care and higher prices just encourage more people to pirate. If your statement is true then the studios are run by morons.

  13. Convenience by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is what the MPAA doesn't quite get. Most people I know over the age of 21 hate going to the theater. It's a fucking hassle.

    So when a blockbuster is released like LOTR the options are:
    a. suffer in the theater
    b. wait half a year for the DVD
    c. download the torrent

    Just make the first runs available for download and guaranteed the piracy problem will be minimized.

    1. Re:Convenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lord of the Rings was one of those movies which is, at least in theater release, safer from being competed with by piracy. Big epics like that call for big screens, not 15 inch LCD with terrible pixelation.

    2. Re:Convenience by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I like the cinima. I don't know where you people live that makes it hell, but I sure dno't want to go there.

      I seldom hear a cell phone, crying baby or anything like that.
      Of course, I don't go to the 2 dollar mantinee, so maybe that's the difference.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Convenience by flight_master · · Score: 1

      Convenience is right. The closest theater to here is a 260Km (that's ~156 miles). It's just not feasible to drive that far, catch a flick, and drive back... However, I don't pirate moves - I get them off of the iTunes store. Sure, the quality isn't the same as at a theater, but it's a much better deal!

      --
      "Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.
    4. Re:Convenience by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1
      You're going to the wrong cinemas, man.

      http://www.drafthouse.com/

      Over 18 only, a full waitstaff to bring you food and beer while you enjoy the show, and plenty of mainstream, non-mainstream, and local movies. I don't go to regular theaters anymore since I moved to Austin and discovered the Drafthouses.

    5. Re:Convenience by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is hell, especially this time of year when I have to sit there in a winter coat. I also don't like going back to a freezing car when it's over. I don't like waiting in line. I don't like being seated next to someone who ordered a smelly chili dog. I don't like the mite infested seats. I don't like the sticky floor. I don't like the teenagers with attitudes. I don't want to sit their worrying about my car being vandalized in the parking lot. I don't like cellphones going off, or babies and especially loud mouthed idiots who talk back at the screen.

    6. Re:Convenience by megaditto · · Score: 1

      How much might this pleasure cost?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    7. Re:Convenience by TheDormouse · · Score: 1
      Of course, I don't go to the 2 dollar mantinee [sic], so maybe that's the difference.

      Strange. I find that the matinees are generally not so bad compared to the 7-11pm shows.

      Moms take kids to kids' movies during matinees. Moms and Dads go to see R-rated action movies at night. Since they are too lazy to find a babysitter, they drag their tired/uninterested/scared kids with them and the kids whine and scream the whole time. Teenagers like the evening shows too, and they like to all sit and text their friends during the movies, lighting up the seats with backlit screens.

      It still doesn't matter what time you go, because at all times of the day you have to deal with dirty screens (someone threw a soda at it), out-of-focus projection, and sound that isn't calibrated properly so it either is coming out of the wrong speakers, isn't syncing properly, or both.

      I've gotten used to getting up and demanding my $9 back. They rarely hassle me about it, but since 80 people stayed in the theater and never bitch, they aren't going to improve anything since the margin loss is essentially zero.

    8. Re:Convenience by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1
      You're going to the wrong cinemas, man. http://www.drafthouse.com/ Over 18 only, a full waitstaff to bring you food and beer while you enjoy the show, and plenty of mainstream, non-mainstream, and local movies. I don't go to regular theaters anymore since I moved to Austin and discovered the Drafthouses.

      Holy shit you're right! I'm so stupid! I should drive accross town just to see a movie at one of the prearranged times, pay for someone else's beer and chips plus the babysitter!

      Or... I could press play from the comfort of my own TV, have a beer, water, soda, tea, coffee, whatever, listening to my children sleep, pausing whenever the baby monitor picks up something abnormal.

      Downloading movies isn't just about sticky floors. The Alamo Drafthouse doesn't solve every problem the over 21 crowd has. In fact, for a lot of us, it poses more problems than it solves (so much for the dinner in the movie, can't take kids). So, I'm left to wait for the DVD. Or, honestly, I've likely forgotten about all the movies that sounded good 3-6 months ago.

      For those of us who want to see a new movie and can't afford to hit the theaters a few times a week, we either can download what we see advertised on television (2 bucks for a movie would be a reasonable download fee but torrents are a convenient alternative), or we can do a bunch of research on Rotten Tomatoes to pick out something we can queue up in Netflix (waiting days to weeks for the selection) or drive to blockbuster.

      I don't know anybody who watches any downloaded movies they'd pay to see in the theaters. The geek crowd still turns out in droves to see Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, even though we all have the ability to download. Downloaded movies take the place of television, in my experience. MPAA members don't suffer from missed revenue. Maybe NBC and CBS should do the suing...

    9. Re:Convenience by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Going to the theater, for me, is exactly what you said in the first sentence. I want other people to cook, bring me beer, watch the kids, and above all I want to go somewhere other than my living room. I don't want to make dinner, try to watch a movie with distractions all over the place, and then have to clean up later. It's an activity, something to do to get away from work and home. And if I can do that in an atmosphere that doesn't have sticky floors, screaming kids, and lets me eat reasonably good food that I didn't have to prepare, not to mention the beer, I would do it there. I'm proposing the Drafthouse as an alternative to regular theaters for the over-21 crowd that wants to go out to a movie. If you don't want to go out, then by all means downloading movies sounds great. But to me they seem like orthogonal problems.

    10. Re:Convenience by Biggest+Banana+Tree · · Score: 0

      Lord of the Rings was one of those movies which is, at least in theater release, safer from being competed with by piracy. Big epics like that call for big screens, not 15 inch LCD with terrible pixelation.

      Why watch the movie on your pc, it's farily easy to display it through your tv (assuming you have one) - heck, you can even buy off the shelf in pc world boxes that'll do it.

      why do people want to watch movies / dvd's etc on their pc monitors, monitors and the seating enviornment at the desk where your pc is just isn't the right place to sit back with beer / drugs / whatever, and watch a movie.

    11. Re:Convenience by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Just make the first runs available for download and guaranteed the piracy problem will be minimized.

      True, but the Empty Theater and Sluggish DVD Sales problems will increase correspondingly.

    12. Re:Convenience by NightHwk1 · · Score: 1

      The Drafthouse is definitely one of the best things about Austin. I live next to two mega-theaters, and I still prefer to go downtown (or S Lamar) for a movie. Pitchers of local beer, decent food for the price of candy and soda at other places, and they don't run ads for 20 minutes before the show.

      The Open Projector night is pretty cool, too.

    13. Re:Convenience by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      This is what the MPAA doesn't quite get. Most people I know over the age of 21 hate going to the theater. It's a fucking hassle.
      That's because the theater owners still believe that the point of going to the theater is to see a movie. It's not.

      The point of going to a theater is to go out to see a movie.

      Theater owners are stuck in the belief that their market is like fast food: when people go to McDonalds, they don't want atmosphere or service, they just want cheap food. But when people go out to dinner, they go to a nice resturaunt with people waiting on them, a nice atmosphere, and a more relaxed experience. They are willing to pay a premium to do so.

      Likewise, I would be willing to pay $10 or even $15 for a movie ticket if the theaters were spotlessly clean, cell phone and talking rules were strictly enforced, the ushers provided refills (perhaps for tips), and the trailers and commercials were shown at the end of the movie, where they belong. This is going out to a movie, and not just watching a movie.

      The theaters just have to shift their market segment a little. Not everyone wants a cheeseburger. Some of us want a gourmet meal with appropriate levels of service, and are willing to pay more for it.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    14. Re:Convenience by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      This is what the MPAA doesn't quite get. Most people I know over the age of 21 hate going to the theater. It's a fucking hassle. So when a blockbuster is released like LOTR the options are: a. suffer in the theater b. wait half a year for the DVD c. download the torrent Just make the first runs available for download and guaranteed the piracy problem will be minimized.

      Don't forget TV! A *cough* friend of mine wanted to watch Season 2 of Stargate Atlantis before the season premeire of Season 3. Because there was no legal way for my *cough* friend to obtain Season 2, he had to resort to piracy!

  14. I don't believe this. by davidc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I really can't believe a figure of 18% of the US population. That's something like 60 million people. Considering scads of folks are still on dial-up, they must have been downloading the darned things for DAYS (only to find the crc is bad at the end of the download anyway...)

    1. Re:I don't believe this. by davidc · · Score: 1

      Oops, didn't RTFH properly. Make that 25 million people. I still don't believe it though.

    2. Re:I don't believe this. by ThePyro · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it's way too high. I just can't believe that 18% of the US population has the know-how to even install BitTorrent, much less download several gigabytes worth of movies.

  15. Study of the obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gee, I wonder why people do not think that this is stealing. Maybe because loss of potential sales does not equal stolen product?

    The reality is that these groups hate to admit that technology is devaluing their product. Basically, for the first time, these groups have realized that they are unable to set their price to whatever they like. Now that a consumer is able to download their product readily, their product is not as valuable as it once was. As hard as they try, this will not change because it is a structural issue...

    1. Re:Study of the obvious... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think rather logically we can assume that when the price of purchasing a movie for download from a commercial service reaches its perceived value, people will choose to purchase the legal version rather than obtain an illegal copy. I think a lot of so-called piracy is really people looking at the cost of purchasing a new release of a movie on DvD (up here in Canada probably between $25 and $29 Cdn) when they think they will watch it once or twice, then add it to the stack collecting dust, and the chance to download it for free, then delete it once they are done watching it - or possibly burn it to DvD and let it collect dust in their office instead of the living room.

      The breakpoint is the perceived value, the point where it becomes advantageous enough to pay the couple of bucks and get the legal copy, rather than download an illegal copy. With the legal copy you will probably get other features as well, not necessarily available on the illegal copy.

      Right now, most movies are simply not worth the price being asked for them, whatever the studios might like to think they can charge. If they lower their prices (I think around $5 or so would be reasonable) and their expected profits, they will garner more sales and see less piracy I expect.

      The problem is they are too used to having their customers by the short and curlies, and they are too used to just *squeezing* whenever they want more money. They now think its a right - not a privalege - to sell to their customers, and they are jealously trying to guard that monopolistic right to vacuum our wallets. Unfortunately for them their Castle walls are built of sand, and the whole thing is crumbling down on them. I think Piracy isn't a problem of people wanting things for free, its an indicator that the prices for music and movies are artificially inflated. The new methods of exchanging information electronically now have radically changed the market and there *nothing they can do about it*. As a Nun once said to the Pope (regarding the issue of Women becoming Priests someday), "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube" :P

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  16. Bandwidth by hypermanng · · Score: 1

    It would seem the next generation of bandwidth rollout predicates the true boom of pirating, considering that official services aren't likely to drop you and can usually keep a good data rate. P2P and the like are too unreliable for downloading a huge movie to be worth the hassle to most people.

    --
    I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
  17. Eighteen Percent?! by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless the phone poll was conducted exclusively in Silicon Valley, this seems way too high if you ask me. Last I had heard, the U.S. was at about 60% coverage of the population having broadband. I think it's reasonably to say that, bar a few insanely patient people, only broadband users download movies. That breaks down to 30% of the people that reasonably can download movies, have, and I think it's totally absurd to say that a little under 1 in 3 broadband users have pirated a full-length movie.

    --
    Unpleasantries.
    1. Re:Eighteen Percent?! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Unless the phone poll was conducted exclusively in Silicon Valley, this seems way too high if you ask me

      They may be counting copies distributed on the darknet after downloading. Burning a CD for a friend, that sort of thing.

    2. Re:Eighteen Percent?! by 666penvzila · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd say 1 in 3 is a little low. It's probably closer to half.

  18. Survey says... by CaptainDefragged · · Score: 1

    ... that surveys suck. When will people wake up that you cannot "survey" 2600 people and extrapolate that out as representative of the entire US population. This is such a small sample that it should be dismissed outright. What demographics did they survey? The fact that the survey was online and phone suggest immediately that the survey is skewed.

    --
    Don't tailgate - the end is near!
    1. Re:Survey says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That intuitively seems like it should be the case, but actually it turns out you can extrapolate a suprisingly small sample to a much larger population with good confidence, assuming the sample is representative and the survey is scientific / avoids bias. That doesn't change the fact that most "N% of Americans" surveys including this one are flawed, though.

    2. Re:Survey says... by Maian · · Score: 1
      1. You're right on the fact that the survey was skewed.
      2. You're wrong on saying that 2600 people isn't enough. Learn your math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
  19. Bullpuckies by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally downloaded a full-length movie at some point in the past, according to a telephone and online study of 2,600 Americans.

    Absolutely, positively false.

    Any not because I consider people more honest than that - If you include people copying DVDs or even back in the days of copying VHS tapes, I'd put the figure closer to 70-80% that have pirated a movie.

    But to specifically say "downloaded"?

    18% of the US population either doesn't have a net connection anywhere near fast enough to download a full-length movie, or has no clue how to actually do so. The most inflated figures available only put roughly a third of the country as having "broadband", which includes quite a bit of the "anything faster than dialup" you see in rural areas, usually under 384kbps. And of those households with "real" broadband, fewer than half of the occupants actually have a clue on how to use the internet (either young parents with kids too young to pirate, or older parents who only have it for the teenager kids).

    So no. 18% of respondants in an almost certainly urban area (much higher broadband penetration) have downloaded a pirated movie. The MPAA, however, needs to learn the meanings of "external validity" and "sample bias".

    1. Re:Bullpuckies by Tenebrarum · · Score: 1

      The MPAA, however, needs to learn the meanings of "external validity" and "sample bias".

      They certainly know the meaning of "vested interest", however.

    2. Re:Bullpuckies by ultramk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The report says "the U.S. online population", not the overall population.

      I'm willing to bet that a majority of the people in whatever "the U.S. online population" is, have broadband.

      Most people with dial-up don't sit there for hours surfing, looking for online surveys to fill out. I suspect that there are some flawed assumptions in this study, but adding more flawed assumptions doesn't help.

      M-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
  20. This hurts independent film makers the most by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

    This kind of activity drives the market price for movies down to nothing. The movie industry already has done much to discourage piracy. In particular, DVDs are sold at extremely low prices (with hopes of making profit based on high volume sales). But even low prices can't compete against free when quality and convenience are not at issue.

    While big studios creating mass market movies can absorb much of the impact of piracy by selling large volumes to people who don't pirate movies (at least not all the time), independent movie makers are hurt by this race to the bottom. Lower movie prices make it more difficult for independents to make any profit, reducing the possibility of funding. Higher volume sales of mainstream movies fills up the time of consumers who have less reason to be choosey about they spend their money on (especially when they don't spend any money).

    When justifying piracy, people ignore that their actions don't just affect the studios who they are stiffing. Their actions affect the market as a whole, promoting a culture of mass mediocracy.

    1. Re:This hurts independent film makers the most by PlatyPaul · · Score: 1

      The solution to this situation is to cut the connection between large movie house sales and independent sales. The conscientious downloader should know who is likely to get the money if they were to otherwise make the purchase.

      A good friend of mine was the first to clue me in about this sort of thing. Now, if I were to ever download music illegally (though I support the iTunes Music Store), I'd be sure to double-check that the record label was deserving of my scorn before I made my decision.

      Robin Hood didn't rob from the random.

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    2. Re:This hurts independent film makers the most by maxume · · Score: 1

      So stealing from the artists who 'sold out' in their own self interest is morally superior to stealing form artists who aren't quite mass marketable enough to be able to sell out?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:This hurts independent film makers the most by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

      The best way to show scorn for a record label deserving scorn is not to listen to the songs it sells. Likewise, the best way to show scorn for a movie studio is neither purchase nor download the movies it sells. When you are listening to the music or watching the movies of entities you don't like, you're not listening to the music or watching the movies of those who you supposedly support. It's like pirating Windows: you end up taking away market share from Linux, Apple, BSD, etc. Sure, Microsoft makes less money from you, but it keeps its dominant position. When you download major label songs illegally, you take away market share from independent artists, reducing their chances of achieving the celebrity status you're helping establish for the major label artists.

  21. Hollywood constantly loses money by Generic+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I found out that Hollywood regularly adjusts their accounting practices to show their movies all lose money, I decided to adjust my own checkbook to show that I paid for all the movies on my computer.

    --
    { - Generic Guy - }
    1. Re:Hollywood constantly loses money by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      Thanks for bringing this to my attention. They complain about people damaging their livelihoods by ripping DVDs when at the same time they are in fact actively ripping off people who have directly worked very hard for them. The next time a Journalist interviews someone from the MPAA about piracy who says "You are depriving all the writers and technicians etc of their livelihoods", I would like to see them turn around and say "If that is your viewpoint, why are your members so frequently stealing money from their workers?"

    2. Re:Hollywood constantly loses money by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Most of those workers receive union wages and are not entitled to a cut of the profits anyway. They are only screwing a few big names and they probably feel just as justified about that as 25 million Americans do about screwing the fat cat executives.

    3. Re:Hollywood constantly loses money by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      If they were screwing big greedy stars it might not be so outrageous, but they are screwing people like J. Michael Straczynski who worked so hard on Babylon 5, even writing entire seasons himself (almost going mad in the process).

    4. Re:Hollywood constantly loses money by naoursla · · Score: 1

      I agree that it is wrong. And it would be wrong even if they were only screwing other rich people.

  22. 18% of "online population" by frieza79 · · Score: 0

    What is "online population"? people online at a given time, people who have ever been "online"? Active ISP subscriptions?

    I am "sorry" for all of the quotes

  23. the real pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    war profits up, ... arr... arr...

  24. Numbers dont lie by bedonnant · · Score: 5, Funny

    A typical movie downloader is 29 years of age, while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female I am glad the summary thought best to inform us that all that are not male, are female.
    --
    ~~~ Paf. Le chien.
    1. Re:Numbers dont lie by Toba82 · · Score: 1

      This helpful information is for the benefit of those who haven't yet mastered the black art of subtraction.

      --
      I pretend to know more than I really do by mooching off google and wikipedia.
    2. Re:Numbers dont lie by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      Hey, there are some people out there who have Androgen insensitivity syndrome and are hence an XY female, and might not feel right reporting either. Plenty of others who identify as transgendered or two-spirited or, or, or...

      Just because you're not a guy doesn't mean you're a woman in everyone's eyes(yours/others)

      :P Granted, I doubt that population made up a very significant % of the 2,600 Americans they surveyed, but it's possible there were a few! Might just sigh and say "Male" to avoid the hassle of explaining it to some surveyor on the phone.

    3. Re:Numbers dont lie by bitt3n · · Score: 1
      A typical movie downloader is 29 years of age, while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female
      This is actually a stunning revelation. Apparently transgendered people have a much stronger moral compass than the rest of the population, and never download any copyrighted content. I wonder how the religious right plans to explain away this unpleasant discovery.
    4. Re:Numbers dont lie by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      I am glad the summary thought best to inform us that all that are not male, are female.

      No, it just means robots haven't started autonomously downloading movies yet.

    5. Re:Numbers dont lie by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I am glad the summary thought best to inform us that all that are not male, are female.
      You never know... There could be a significant amount of movie downloading by hermaphroditic or neuter people. Not to mention a large number of non-human web users.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  25. Kaaaaaaaaaan!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the nuclear wessels?

  26. Movie theaters suck by CatConnoisseur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the reason people pirate (new) movies is not because that they think celebrities are already rich. Going to the theater is usually a not-so-great experience. Not only do you have to drive there, but you have to deal with annoying people, pay $8 a ticket, and suffer through ten minutes of bad trailers. Then, once you finally think you are going to enjoy the movie, the people behind you talk or chomp annoyingly loud on their popcorn. Not to mention that it seems the best movies these days often are a limited release, so your *only* option is to pirate it. Somebody needs to offer a nice service where you can buy theatrical releases for $5, that become unplayable in 24 hours.

    1. Re:Movie theaters suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only ten minutes? The last movie I went to had over 20 minutes of trailers and ads.

    2. Re:Movie theaters suck by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Somebody needs to offer a nice service where you can buy theatrical releases for $5, that become unplayable in 24 hours."

      Or the option to pay a litte more (like 8 bucks) to "own a copy". I'd rather wait and pay 3 bucks to rent a movie than 5 bucks to see it once without the theater surrond sound and big screen.

      I really don't understand the current model of make people wait or pay through the nose.. would people who wait for the DVD or to rent the movie NOT do these things if they could buy the DVD or rent the movie on the day of it's release? Or is it about artificial scarcity to try and drive up box office results?

  27. It's about distribution by blurryrunner · · Score: 1

    The real competition for online legitimate media services is the ability for them to have what I am looking for. This is why napster was so successful--you could find anything on it and get it fast.

    I buy music now on iTunes, not really because I think it is the moral way to download music, but because they usually have what I want, they provide me a way to find other music I might want, and I can download it from them fast. For whatever reason, I don't get great performance out of BitTorrent. But on iTunes, I can do a search, select a song and have it downloaded in about a minute or so.

    That's my $0.02.

    br/

  28. "Robin Hood" effect? by benhocking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I love is that they called it the "Robin Hood" effect. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor - not to himself.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:"Robin Hood" effect? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's way it's the Robin Hood effect. steal from the rich to give to the poor...themselves.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:"Robin Hood" effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you never heard of the story of how Robin Hood fleeced the Sherrif of Nottingham out of his Golden Arrow ... or the ones about Robin Hood and his merry men shooting the King's deer and eating the deer themselves ... or the one about the gold coins they kept for themselves.

      Maybe you should, ummm, I dunno, actually learn something about the subject you are posting about before posting.

    3. Re:"Robin Hood" effect? by disckitty · · Score: 1

      In order of random:

        Rich == Hollywood
        Prince John (evil dude) ==RIAA, etc.
        Robin Hood & his merry men & women == People initially creating the torrents
        Poor == those who download the movies

      It's a great analogy. Though some claim that the theatre experience is bad, in many cases its truly because the "poor" don't want to spend their money on something that might turn out to be crap, when they have other things stretching their wallets.

      (Aside: Hearing about actors/actresses spending millions of dollars on a birthday party, and you realize that could cover your, and all your neighbors', 40+ yr mortgages, it might make you less willing to spend the money.)

  29. SneakerNet lives!!!1! by countSudoku() · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've never downloaded a single movie or song... I just copy them from friends, family and co-workers. Let's see the MPAA stop me! Come on you pussies I TRIPPLE-DOG dare you to stop me from copying DVDs. Asshats.
    I just counted a few days ago and estimate I have around 850 individual DVD discs, with about 60%-70% being real store purchased DVDs, the others being copies of movies, shows and the MST3K DVD collection project (every MST3K episode ever, all going to DVD).

    The reason I copy is so I can take my time with the "borrowed" DVDs and to watch stuff I would never be purchasing anyway. Nor would I rent them. How the MPAA can claim that they lost a purchase from someone like myself just goes to show what a bunch of useless, greedy douchebags they are. F them, I make plenty of real purchases. Perhaps I should just copy everything and never pay for it. Their tactics make a good case for me to just go all bootleg. *Then* what? Can they ever stop sneakernet?

    no.

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    1. Re:SneakerNet lives!!!1! by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Can they ever stop sneakernet?

      DRM stops sneakernet; if CSS hadn't been cracked you wouldn't be able to do that.

    2. Re:SneakerNet lives!!!1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRM stops sneakernet; if CSS hadn't been cracked you wouldn't be able to do that.
      But it was, and the next gen DRM is already cracked too. So will the next version of DRM and the one after that. DRM does nothing to stop sneakernet, it has only ever caused a small delay upon the its release.

    3. Re:SneakerNet lives!!!1! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      The reason I copy is [...] to watch stuff I would never be purchasing anyway. Nor would I rent them.

      And yet, you're more than willing to devote 2 hours of your life to watching something that you attribute so little value to that you wouldn't spend a dime on it. You gladly waste your time consuming a product you don't even like.

      You're the MPAA's bitch and you don't even realize it.

  30. Robin Hood! by andy_fish · · Score: 1

    I like that Robin Hood analogy! Personally I was just stealing movies because I wanted to watch them but I didn't want to pay for them. But that Robin Hood thing is great, I'm going to use that sometime.

    --
    & I wish I knew the password to your heart . . . &
    1. Re:Robin Hood! by Beefslaya · · Score: 1

      Yes, I like that too.

      I've always downloaded a movie or music to stick it to Hollywood or the record companies.

      Cause god nows they never stick it to us at 15 dollars per ticket to roll the dice on seeing a good movie (Maybe).

      BTW, I paid that to see all of the LOTR, Star Wars, The Matrices, and recently Pursuit of Happyness and countless other blockbusters in the past. But I will not pay for SHIT if given the opportunity.

      I have purchased the Led Zeppelin 5 disc box set, all of the Pink Floyd albums amongst hundreds of other albums, CD's and iTunes downloads. I will not pay for SHIT or one hit wonders, or music they no longer sell in the record stores.

      In order to sell me something, you must first create a quality product, or lower the price to accomodate the product you are selling (somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 dollars for most movies). Otherwise, it's only a good use of late night bandwidth.

  31. movie pirate by Quick+Sick+Nick · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's right, I'm a movie pirate! And I like movies rated ARRRRRRR!!!

    1. Re:movie pirate by PlatyPaul · · Score: 1

      Ahoy! Thar be bad rehashed jokes off the starboard bow!

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    2. Re:movie pirate by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      If there are really that many movie pirates, why is global warming still occurring?

      See? Science has proven this study's figures to be false!

  32. Just as I suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female.

    Showing that, for piracy as well as companionship, you can always trust a eunich.
  33. Indicates a Much Bigger Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless of whether the "real" number is more or less than 18%, the results of this survey still indicate the basic disrespect the "average person" has for laws they may not agree with. People who commit copyright infringement use the same sorts of justifications as the people who constantly violate traffic laws, throw their cigarette butts out the window or throw garbage out onto the street. They do not think it matters because it does not "hurt" anyone. It simply illustrates the basic moral decay of society. The rest of the world is hardly any better than the US and I would expect piracy rates to be higher in Asia and Europe.

  34. I call BS on this survey by unixcorn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I don't buy that percentage. Heck, it's higher then the percentage of Americans with broadband and I am sure that most employers would NOT be happy about their bandwidth going to movie downloads so don't tell me they are doing it at work. Who did they survey, hackers anonymous?

  35. Results are meaningless! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These results are meaningless! The article states that the "researcher" estimates the error rate to be plus or minus 2.4%. If it was a statistical sample, there would be no estimate of error rate, but instead an actual error rate. If this wasn't a statistical sample, then all that can be stated is 20% of the 2600 people surveyed.

    It's also interesting that a survey that was taken via telephone and online is used to extrapolate to the entire population. Since not everyone has a computer, then they could hardly be included in the population (statistical not US). Furthermore, telephone surveys only include people with listed telephone numbers, so again, your statistical population is skewed. Online surveys do not work if they are voluntary (ie would you like to fill out our survey?) Since there is no indication of how many people who chose not to fill out the survey.

    Based on the limited information given, it appears that this is another example of using statistics to get them to say what you want. Since most people are functionally illiterate when it comes to statistics, it's very easy for people to use bogus statistical methods to manipulate the data and ultimately the readers of the article.

    For any sample to be legit and extrapolated to an entire population it has to be random and representative. If it's not both of those, then the extrapolated data is meaningless.

    1. Re:Results are meaningless! by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is it with you people? You are not telling anyone anything they don't know.
      People who analyize statistice account for all this, and in face it can be very close.

      Back of envelope:
      47% of americans have broadmand(call it 150 million for easy).
      25 million of those are clamied to download at least one movie.

      Thats about 18%.

      Now most people in the US with broadmand have a listed telephone number. Yes yes I know your crowd is extremly cool people no one has one, but really you are an insignifigant statistcal abnormality at this time.

      The data is not meaningless, you just have to try and understand statistics in some practical way.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Results are meaningless! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      If it was a statistical sample, there would be no estimate of error rate

      Anything you get from a sample is an estimate.

      For any sample to be legit and extrapolated to an entire population it has to be random and representative

      Yes, but what proof do you have that this was not represnetative? There isn't enough information either way.

    3. Re:Results are meaningless! by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      They were not looking at the entire US population, just the population of broadband users.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    4. Re:Results are meaningless! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      People who analyize statistice account for all this, and in face it can be very close.

      I believe you, I really do. However, people who analyze statistics also use random samples to generate those statistics. As part of the process a standard error rate is calculated. The article says the author estimated the error rate to be such and such. That would imply that it wasn't a random or statistical sample.

      I don't fault your math or the author's. However, if the sample wasn't random, then the only thing that can statistically be said is that of the 2600 people surveyed, X amount downloaded movies. It would be invalid to expand that to 25 million as there is no mathematical foundation to do so.

      If the sample isn't random, those 2600 could be disproportionately comprised of,say college kids or AARP members. Either way, the results would be skewed so the data only applies to the sample itself.

      What is misleading is that 2600 would be large enough sample to extend to the population if it were truly random. However, you would have to look at the selection method. How the participants selected is one of the primary determinative factors.

      Again, statistics, in and of themself aren't hard. However, making sure you have a random representative sample is. That's why statisticians are in such demand.

  36. Adult movies by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 2, Informative

    What they don't tell you, because the question is never asked because nobody would answer truthfully if it was, is that most downloaded movies are porn.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  37. But It Was Out of Print by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    If MGM or whoever owns the rights to it would rerelease it at a sane price, I would have bought 1984 instead of downloading it. After watching it, I decided that it was okay, but it wasn't as good as I had hoped it would be (though whatsername...Jessica I think, looked pretty hot in her nude scene).

    I definitely would not have been happy about this had I shelled out the $100 or more that the resellers on Amazon are asking for this title. This is certainly one that could use one more remake, and hopefully be a little more true to the book.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  38. and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female," 0 percent are ...

  39. Robin Hood effect by Threni · · Score: 1

    > There is a Robin Hood effect -- most people perceive celebrities and studios to be rich already and as a result don't think of movie
    > downloading as a big deal.

    In the UK 10 or so years ago there was a campaign against people copying music they'd not paid for, featuring people like Paul McCartney. As you can imagine, it wasn't taken very seriously.

  40. 2,600 people? by c0d3r · · Score: 1

    Just wondering why they surveyed 2600 people and not 6900 people. =)

  41. Curiosity must be a factor by mandelbr0t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've mostly curbed my blatantly piratical activities and gone back into grey-area piracy (television, backing up my own DVDs, copying CDs to my iPod, etc.), but I think that's because the novelty has worn off. Yes, I can download using a torrent, but the quality is usually not as good as what I can rip myself from the original, so I give preference to buying/renting the media. BitTorrent is useful; it is unquestionably the best distribution network available today. My initial experience with it was basically "whoa! magic!", and I'm sure that's a major factor today. Everyone I've introduced to BitTorrent is equally enthralled.

    People are curious about what you can get on the wide-open Internet. Free stuff is all over the place. Downloading gives near-instant gratification (well, unless you're on a modem) without leaving your house. There is practically no competition to the ubiquity and convenience of P2P file sharing. Satellite and Digital Cable aren't IP-based solutions, so it's an extra service on top of your Internet fee. None of the major television networks allow you to pay them directly and get an Internet-based feed, nor do any of the major motion picture production houses.

    I think a more sane approach to P2P piracy is to increase the rate at which people get bored with BitTorrent. Offer competing, low-cost alternatives to buying or renting the media. Provide television service on the Internet. I'm certain that I would pay money for high-quality Internet-based content delivery. I *really* want to watch live sports on the Internet. I'd love to log into my local television network and download archived copies of stuff they aired. And I'm quite willing to pay for it. I've already chosen my distribution medium, and the pirates are the only guys catering to it. Don't complain about the piracy, offer an alternative.

    --
    "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
  42. Smart-"It's all YOUR fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "That's the smartest thing I've read throughout this entire entertainment industry / piracy fiasco. Treating the root problem, instead of the symptoms is sheer brilliance."

    Is it? People demanded "try before they buy", and that still didn't stop people from pirating. The problem with your proclemation is that everyone both on and off this forum will quickly forget how "brilliant" it was when the problem still continues, and we move on to the next "well you should have done this". Maybe we'll be that "wise" species that we like to think we are, when the blame game runs out of "victums" and we're forced to look within for the "root" problem.

    1. Re:Smart-"It's all YOUR fault! by Monoliath · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating piracy, and you're also making a rather large assumption. I didn't say this would SOLVE the problem, I said it's an intelligent approach to DEALING with it.

      My point is...given the nature of the internet...you're simply not going to stop it from taking place altogether. That simply will not happen. All I was trying to show, is that this is an intelligent way to deal with the issue, instead of suing people left and right, wasting the time of the courts and taxpayer money as well.

      Of course the root issue with piracy is found within individual choice, but the industry can't FORCE people to change their minds, what THEY CAN DO is use intelligent methods to make piracy less desirable by users.

    2. Re:Smart-"It's all YOUR fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My point is...given the nature of the internet...you're simply not going to stop it from taking place altogether. That simply will not happen"

      I could make a similiar slippy slope argument as it applies to computer security and spam.

      "All I was trying to show, is that this is an intelligent way to deal with the issue, instead of suing people left and right, wasting the time of the courts and taxpayer money as well."

      Maybe. That's *assuming* that all the causes mentioned are the root, and by satisfying them piracy will go away.

      "Of course the root issue with piracy is found within individual choice, but the industry can't FORCE people to change their minds, what THEY CAN DO is use intelligent methods to make piracy less desirable by users."

      Here's were me and slashdot part ways. Slashdot is in a constant search for things to blame for a problem that's caused by their individual choices.* As I pointed out, some of the people's demands were ceded to (try before buy), and people still pirated. Now we've moved on to another cause since the other must not have been the problem. And when services like iTunes comes and cedes to further demands, people STILL pirate. What next do you think the pirate crowd will move to? The fundamental problem is that GREED can NEVER be satisfied. The only thing a society can do is set up a system (copyright) that respects all parties (society remember?), and punish the most flagrent violators. Problem is is that technology can turn everyone into one without consequence (can't depend on social controls like shame, and since there's no God, can't depend on that either). That leaves PAIN as in "we've run out of excuses, now we have to face reality". Kind of like the lesson Global Warming is going to be delivering.

      *Voting with one's dollars, not possessing the content, and letting the parties know why, civic duties, etc are some of the choices. Not POPULAR choices, but nevertheless.

  43. A Crime without victims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy steps to get your free DVD movie:

    1) Get free utorrent cliente from www.utorrent.com
    2) Sign an account to a dvd tracker:

    http://thedvdclub.org/
    http://www.revolutiontt.net/
    http://www.demonoid.com/
    http://www.pisexy.org/
    http://www.bit-hdtv.com/
    http://thepiratebay.org/brwsearch.php?b=1&c=202&d= 0&orderby=date&page=0&orderby=se
    http://www.ilovetorrents.com/browse.php?cat=20

    3) Choose the movie you want and click on the torrent
    4) Wait until Download completes (few hours using decent bandwith).
    5) Burn the movie using a blank DVD+R disc, print disc label (optional)
    6) Go to www.cdcovers.cc, find the cover and print it, insert it into a DVD box (optional)
    7) Enjoy!

  44. Have you even TRIED it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I *cough* have reliable sources, but if you have even a lousy cable modem you can click the torrent the night before and watch it the next day, or else in the morning and watch it after work.

    Now, some people are going to whine "oh noes! I want it _now_!" but the trick is that you download a new movie (or TV show, etc.) every day, so you always have one or more available already while you wait for the new stuff. If you like TV shows (i.e. anime fansubs), you can have an entire series of shows in the backlog, and might only need to download once a week (say, on weekends), while you watch an episode or three each night.

    Or, hell, you can even watch a lot of things that are split into 10 pieces on YouTube and downsampled in to crappy quality. But I wouldn't bother unless you're desperate.

  45. Good Start by gatesvp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    18% sounds like a good start, I'd expect this number to increase to about 35-40% before the studios finally release non-DRMed versions for downloads (at lower than DVD prices).

    This board (Slashdot) is filled with a virtual panoply of views on this subject. As is usual though, I think the truth of the matter lies in the nebulous neutral zone.

    Let's face it, neither side has really taken the high road on this. People download and distribute movies like they were free commodities and the MPAA bullies people unreasonably and tries to make us all thieves.

    I have to sit in theatre with my $12 ticket and watch the stunt double talk about his belief that stealing movies is wrong (I just paid $12 for this, talk about preaching to the choir). And then I blow 20+ minutes watching advertisements for other movies (AKA: previews). When I take a movie home, I have to watch the trailers (they lock out the buttons) for movies I may already have seen or in fact may already own. And then I can't complain and return the video b/c it's already open.

    However, the vast load of downloaders are some mix of vigilantes and free-loaders, collectors and connoisseurs. So every solution proposed by the MPAA (i.e.: DRM) effectively blocks the good downloaders as well as the free-loaders.

    In the end really, both sides are too stuck up to take the high road and fix the problem. So we'll just end up with 40% of people stealing music before the studios just give in. After which we'll be flooded with 5 years of low-quality movies until people start anteing up again.

    Why not just skip the whole process, stop bad-mouthing everyone and figure out something that works. If I want to buy newly-released Italian movies for my family and I can't find them, then who can I lean on to get them out here? If I can't stand previews, then how can I organize around them? Can I show up late with a dozen friends and walk in near the estimated end of the previews? Can I take cell phone calls during the previews, I mean, it's not really the movie is it? You know the stunt double guy? I just stopped going to the theatre that showed him. Maybe I should start asking sales clerks about return policies on DVDs, or refusing to buy DVDs that are "not quite DVDs".

    I'm a basketball fan, but I don't have cable. Once they start posting my Raptors games to the Net, then I will start buying them (so that I can watch them on the bus to work). But until then, I just don't watch them. I don't download them illegally out of some self-righteous belief that I can, I'm taking the high road and waiting for them to catch up.

    1. Re:Good Start by kindbud · · Score: 1

      In the end really, both sides are too stuck up to take the high road and fix the problem.

      But movie downloaders don't think there's a problem. They got the movie they wanted, no problem.

      So we'll just end up with 40% of people stealing music before the studios just give in. After which we'll be flooded with 5 years of low-quality movies until people start anteing up again.

      And that would be different from today, how?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:Good Start by gatesvp · · Score: 1

      So we'll just end up with 40% of people stealing music before the studios just give in. After which we'll be flooded with 5 years of low-quality movies until people start anteing up again.

      And that would be different from today, how?

      Well for starters 40% of people are not stealing movies :)

      Now people have always complained about the quality, but let's be realistic here, even a bad movie like The Marine receives a $15 million budget. Imagine how bad The Marine would have been with half the budget. Not only would you have bad car chases, they'd also be done with bad cars :) I know that money != quality, but money opens doors for quality, money in the industry lets you do things like A Scanner Darkly. There will always be more crappy movies than good ones, but that's not the point really. The point is that Hollywood, with a lack of money (or perceived lack) will just cut stuff.

      Less movies == less good movies (at least to start). Good movies are hard to make and run the risk of small audiences. So unless we and our friends and our friends' friends, all start packing up the art house movies, then we're just going to get more John Cena movies. And if Hollywood becomes scared, they're not going to release less John Cena movies, they'll release more. (again for a time, until someone breaks the mold and everyone else sees $$$ again)

  46. Sort of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok let me see if I am cleer on this issue- they are forgetting a few things: Forign generes, Made for TV movies- of cartoons, only braudcasted in one language are 'thieves'. Yet these so called theves spend their free time vauluntarily translating these films and give them away-for free, with little to no expectation of any sort of graitude. Know how many copies their are of LOTR in Tagalog? care to guess how it got the subtitles (acurately translated? including odd cultural references that don't translate). How many translations are their of Ghost In the Shell: Inocence in languages other than Japanese and english butitles? How many copies of some the classic are on DVD (at a reasonable price) My point is that while it's fairly clear a portion of movie downloads is done without their permision because of malace or greed. However-as many for odd or forgotten fils anyway-don't-

  47. No shit, Sherlock!!! by jpetts · · Score: 1
    63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female

    Bloody hell, I'm glad they included the second figure, otherwise I would have been all at sea!!!
    --
    Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    1. Re:No shit, Sherlock!!! by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Funny that there's not a 2% of indeterminable (since for the majority of people, they don't have to ask 'male or female', and for the rest - well, it's rude to ask).

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  48. Good information here by popo · · Score: 1

    ...make that 25 Million...and one.

    : p

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  49. TV Shows by screensaver400 · · Score: 1

    I own an iTunes season pass for the current season of 24, but generally bittorrent each episode. Why? Because the "pirates" can rip from the broadcast, remove commercials, encode into xvid, and post on thepiratebay.org 12-14 hours before iTunes can get it online. That's a problem. I own the season pass because I love 24 and want to support the show. But it's just silly that people who go against the system can make it available before the people who do, when it's essentially the EXACT SAME THING. This is different from a telesync of a movie being posted before the dvd release. Since iTunes has the blessing of FOX and all the rest, they should have their downloads available at, say, 1 AM eastern the day after each show is aired. There is no excuse.

    1. Re:TV Shows by cdrguru · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So let's understand this. You signed up for a service that you consider to be useless and are paying for it.

      You then go around the service and grab the content that was posted by people intentionally violating the copyright.

      Why are you bothering with the service? This is the thing that I don't get. If you are going to steal, why then go ahead and STEAL. The paid service exists partly to convice people that control the content they are doing the right thing and "See, there's all these nice law-abiding people respecting our copyright." This completely skews the demographics and leads to more paid services.

      If you want it for free and to bring the idea of "intellectual property" down, STOP PAYING.

      If you respect the idea of copyright and want to support the content owners, STOP STEALING.

    2. Re:TV Shows by screensaver400 · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with paying. I think what iTunes is charging is fair. I'm not trying to make some statement that intellectual property laws are immoral by downloading it from another source.

      My point was that I do use bittorrent to download it, because iTunes doesn't provide as good of a service as the pirates do. If they want to convert "the masses" from bittorrent to legal methods, they need to provide a better service.

      I pay the $45, so I don't consider my bittorrenting episodes stealing.

  50. 100% by slowtuna · · Score: 1

    "...while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female." I guess that no hermaphrodites download, then.

    --
    Don't be fooled by imitations.
    1. Re:100% by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      The trans-sexual / hermaphrodite pirate lobby is notoriously low-budget.

      You've probably never even heard of them...

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  51. Think of the little guys... by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people believe that pirating movies and music does not hurt the big stars. Well, realistically it probably doesn't. But there are hundreds or thousands more people that work in/on movies than the big name stars and I'm sure their salary will be the first to be cut if the studios feel the pinch. You can save a few million by cutting salaries of all the other workers while keeping the stars' paychecks high.

    Same deal when a company falls on hard times, the lowly employees get canned, raises are suspended, some salary reductions may occur if voted in (sometimes employees are given this choice instead of being laid off), but the CEO and the high-ups still make a crapload of money.

    Not to say I'm a Saint or anything. Sometimes I get to thinking and realize I may be getting that one key grip laid off.

    1. Re:Think of the little guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the "Stars" and "CEO's" shouldn't make 400 times the salaries of the "Little Guys".

      If they were so "about" the little guys, like the say they do when they do their "charities", then they could take a pay cut, and keep the little guys jobs around.

      Get Real, Man.

  52. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone has pirated the movie The Pirate Movie?

  53. It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sigh* Typical slashdot. You guys should be lawyers. You'll get everyone off on a technicallity while still missing the main point.

    Here let me point it out for you. Regardless of physicality, the attitude behind both acts is the same. It's about benefitting at the expense* of others.

    *And I put this down here just because I know you're going to pull a "technicality" on me about the word "expense." Expense isn't always about economics, and people can lose more than just money. Try this on for size. Invite over to your house all the people you've "borrowed" from, and download in front of them. See how well that works out.

    1. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this on for size. Invite over to your house all the people you've "borrowed" from, and download in front of them. See how well that works out.

      Ah yes, the invisible hand of crime. Everytime you jack off to porn, the invisible hand kills a kitten. Every time I download a movie, the invisible hand slaps every single staff and cast member involved. In the face. Hard.

      This invisible hand you are grasping for does not automagically turn victimless crimes into crimes with victims.

    2. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here let me point it out for you. Regardless of physicality, the attitude behind both acts is the same. It's about benefitting at the expense* of others. Nope. One is about taking something away from someone else in order to have it yourself. The other is about benefitting by making a new copy, without harming anyone else. One requires a willingness to harm others; the other doesn't. That's why these 25 million people aren't out stealing DVDs from store shelves - they're different acts requiring a completely different attitude.

      Try this on for size. Invite over to your house all the people you've "borrowed" from, and download in front of them. See how well that works out. Without performing that experiment, I can predict how it'll turn out: they'll be upset. They'd prefer that I buy a copy from them, but unfortunately for them, they aren't morally entitled to make a sale, nor to keep me from downloading bits.

      Perhaps you should try this one: go down to the Ford dealership, get a few salesmen to talk to you about their most expensive truck, and then invite them to come watch you buy a Chevrolet down the street instead. They'll be upset too, but that doesn't mean you should buy a Ford just to make the salesmen happy. They'd like to make a sale, but that doesn't mean you owe it to them.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, huh. Missed the point and comes back with more of the same. You must practice before a mirror before posting.

    4. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's perfectly ok, huh? I hate the **AA, but it's still taking someone else's work and not giving anything in return...just not right, is it? Or are you ok working hard all day and someone else using it without paying you?
      Just curious...

    5. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's just that your argument is totally off the mark.

      Stealing physical products deprives someone of something. Downloading doesn't. Stealing requires an attitude that says it's OK to harm others. Downloading doesn't. The only common thread is that they both make people upset, but that isn't inherently bad: every time you choose not to buy something, you disappoint the person who wants to sell it to you.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    6. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it's perfectly ok, huh? I hate the **AA, but it's still taking someone else's work and not giving anything in return...just not right, is it? It's not especially nice, but it's not wrong per se. You see, that work was already done for free, without anyone promising to pay for it.

      Suppose you're in your car, stopped at a red light, when someone walks up and washes your windshield. You never asked him to do it, and he never made an offer; he just starts doing it. Then, when he's done, he demands $10 for this service. Do you owe him $10?

      I say no. That's not how working works - you don't do the work first, unsolicited and without a promise of payment, and then demand that whoever benefitted from it has to pay you.

      If you want to be a janitor for the city, you can't just go pick up some garbage at the park, and then march down to city hall demanding to get paid for the hours you put in. You have to offer them your services first and come to an agreement as to what they want you to do and how much you want to get paid for it. You have to face the possibility that maybe they aren't willing to pay you as much as you think your time is worth, and if that's the case, you can choose to spend your time doing something else.

      It's the same with this. If you want to get paid for writing a song, it's stupid to write the song first, for free, and then demand payment from everyone who listens to it or downloads it. You can't demand payment later for unsolicited work you did earlier. If you want to get paid, you should find someone who'll agree to pay you for your time, then start working.

      Or are you ok working hard all day and someone else using it without paying you?
      Just curious... See, I don't have that problem, because my employer and I have an understanding: if I do X hours of work, I'm entitled to Y dollars. If my employer doesn't want to pay me anymore, then I don't have to do the work anymore. (Of course, he still has to compensate me for the work I did while the promise to pay was still in effect.)

      A person downloading music, however, has not made any promises to the artist. An artist is not morally entitled to payment just because the downloader listened to his song, or made a copy of it, or shared that copy with a friend. The downloader didn't ask him to write it; the artist made that choice on his own, perhaps hoping to get paid, but knowing full well that he can't control what other people do with his song once they hear it.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    7. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still arguing like a slashlawyer I see, and got four mod groupies to agree with you. Wouldn't fly in a real court, but anyway. Yes an agreement was made between the two parties (society/artists). It's called copyright, and by wilfully gaining use from the copyrighted material you have indeed agreed to the terms.* That's why your "window washer" example is a red herring. The fact that the artists didn't get your permission to create doesn't entitle you to anything no matter how you argue it in the court of public opinion.* We can go back to the patron system (which is what your really arguing for) but we'll never have the scope and depth that we have now.

      *See slashdot has this persistent myth that the only contracts are the ones that have a signature to them.

      *One could argue that since open source meets your "unsolicited" criteria, anyone is free to do whatever they want with it irrespective of what the GPL (copyright) has to say.

    8. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Copyright law says that you may not copy an artist's work without the permission of the copyright owner. By living in a society which has copyright law you implicitly agree to those rules. If you do not want to follow them you have three options:
      1. Violate the law and accept the risk of consequences.
      2. Work to change the laws.
      3. Leave the society for another society.

      Let's extend this analogy to work/money. The law says it is illegal to steal and that you have to engage in commerce to make money. If you do not like this, you have three options:
      1. Steal from rich people and hope you do not get caught.
      2. Work to change the law so that your society becomes communist/socialist/monarchist (where you are the monarch) or whatever other social system allows you to get something for nothing.
      3. Leave the society to join a commune or found a cult or something.

    9. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Copyright law says that you may not copy an artist's work without the permission of the copyright owner. By living in a society which has copyright law you implicitly agree to those rules. Nah, I don't buy that nonsense. I believe actions should be guided by morality, not legality.

      Choosing to live in the country where I was born is nothing like choosing to sign a contract; any implicit agreement would be made under duress, because there are significant barriers to moving away, and not many places with more agreeable laws.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    10. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Yes an agreement was made between the two parties (society/artists). It's called copyright, and by wilfully gaining use from the copyrighted material you have indeed agreed to the terms. Bullshit. It's not an agreement if both parties don't agree to it, and you can't just claim that an arbitrary action (like "willfully gaining use from copyrighted material") represents agreement.

      If you believe this, then I should probably inform you that by putting on pants tomorrow, or at any time in the future, you agree to pay me $100,000. If you decline this agreement, then you must refrain from ever again wearing pants.

      See slashdot has this persistent myth that the only contracts are the ones that have a signature to them. Myth? Try fact. You have no moral obligation to abide by a contract that you never agreed to.

      The fact that the artists didn't get your permission to create doesn't entitle you to anything no matter how you argue it in the court of public opinion. I am entitled to remember, record, replay, and share any information I happen to receive, unless I explicitly promise not to. That entitlement doesn't come from the artist's behavior, but from my existence as a human being. Just as we all have the right to use language, math, and science, so do we all have the right to share information.

      We can go back to the patron system (which is what your really arguing for) but we'll never have the scope and depth that we have now. What I'm arguing for is that artists work for their money, just like everyone else. My employer pays me to work - does that make him a "patron"?

      As for "scope and depth", I'm afraid those aren't worth much when you can't do anything with the works. Who cares if you can go to the store and buy copies of a thousand items for $20 apiece; what really matters is how free you are to use them, share them, and build upon them. Shakespeare's works are more valuable than Toy Story precisely because we're free to use them.

      One could argue that since open source meets your "unsolicited" criteria, anyone is free to do whatever they want with it irrespective of what the GPL (copyright) has to say. Indeed, one could. In a world without copyright, we wouldn't need the GPL - the GPL gives back the freedoms that copyright law takes away.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    11. Re:It's Still Wrong-"/." technicalities. by naoursla · · Score: 1

      So you choose option #1. Fair enough.

  54. Some publicly steal images -- by eat+worms · · Score: 1

    This website http://www.pgol.us/ uses some engines to let you search images but it displays the images one by one like dynamic wallpaper on the website. It goes beyond the mere search and publicly steal images. On the other hand, it does show many, many results rather than a few images without boring clicking.

  55. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will you people please for the love of all that is holy get it straight.

    Theft is theft, and copyright violation is copyright violation. If they were the same thing, we wouldn't need two different laws to handle them each.

    To make it super simple:

    Theft: The act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

    Copyright Violation: The unauthorized use of material that is protected by intellectual property rights law particularly the copyright in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.

    Quit buying into the idiotic *AA party line that copyright violation is the same thing as theft. It is not!

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  56. What about hard to find stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Downloading full lengths movies seems a waste of time in a world with Netflix and a rental place on every corner.

    But what about using BT to download hard to find things like old public tv or foreign tv shows?

    /likes me some Frontline and Dr. Who

    1. Re:What about hard to find stuff? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Damn right.

      Seriously. I'd have never gotten through the Sci-Fi drought of the fall without a little bit of Torchwood.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  57. Pirates... by gamer4Life · · Score: 1

    Who says we aren't doing our part to stop global warming? ;)

  58. Just wondering... by postmortem · · Score: 1

    Did they include me?

  59. Supid Peopel by da_yingyang0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who was stupid enough to admit to that over a phone survey where they have your name, address, and phone number?

    1. Re:Supid Peopel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      average Americans.

  60. I must live in an alternative universe by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    63% male/37% women? Almost all of my male friend know how to use bit torrent and often download movies and TV shows with it. About 10% of my female friends know how to do this. A sizable proportion of my male friends do this macho thing where they show off how much of the hard drive space they have is filled with pirated material. None of the women I know do this. So I don't believe that 37% of downloaders are women.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  61. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand not reading TFA, but could you at least read the summary? It's 18% of the U.S. online population morons. Hundreds of mod points have just gone flying off into oblivion, never to return.

  62. Astroturf - please mod down by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    AC post, pointless panic laden rhetoric. Somebody please mod this down, and keep /.'s signal to noise ratio up.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  63. If by Pirate you mean watch foreign anime by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    that they won't even sell in the US - or watch TV shows they refuse to broadcast on my local cable channel - then, yeah, I'm surprised it's so small a group.

    Information just wants to be free (apologies to my brother-in-law who's in AFTRA and SAG).

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:If by Pirate you mean watch foreign anime by Shados · · Score: 1

      I agree. While I am incredibly against piracy of all kinds, there's just a point where it even I, in a moment of hypocrisy, will be typing to someone just this (That I'm against Piracy), while watching some show I can't find here. I won't try to justify it. While I think the system is flawed, I beleive in the value of copyright, so I don't think its right to do so: but being the flawed human that I am, there is a point where I just -want- to see certain shows that haven't made it here (I'm canadian, so that actualy includes a few american shows, not just stuff from abroad).

      If I could pay for it, I would, but I can't. If it can be obtained through import, I will do so, and it usualy can be. But there are a couple of exceptions, where my only bet is to take a plane and record the show myself in the foreign country, because its either not available to purchase even in the country of origin, or its all region locked and such. And thats just not happening, sorry.

      I'm not european, but I can picture such things happening around there with things such as video games too (I know the topic is about movie, but its a good example anyway). When all your online friends are raving about some game or another, and you have to wait 6 months to buy it, for twice the price (and not even localized, so it can't be used as an excuse), there's just so much resisting one can do...

    2. Re:If by Pirate you mean watch foreign anime by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I download a lot of anime myself, but come on, aside from the hentai pretty much everything can be purchased these days. Five years ago that wasn't true, but now?

    3. Re:If by Pirate you mean watch foreign anime by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Heck, I've even tried to buy Japanese versions of games I know have English subtitling and they won't accept US credit cards. Which is funny when they can buy our games.

      Seriously, at some point, you just have to give up and ignore things.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:If by Pirate you mean watch foreign anime by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Well, you couldn't purchase it as of four months ago. I admit, I don't know what it is now, maybe it's changed, but it took so long to figure out that one can't blame someone for not trying again, just to be told No.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  64. How did they conduct this survey? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Surveyor: Have you illegally downloaded a full-length movie?
    Random Individual: (nervously) Um.... no?

    Without more details as to how this study was conducted, we really have no clue whether these results are reasonable or not.

    1. Re:How did they conduct this survey? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      18% of the respondants admit to having illegally downloaded.
      32% of the respondants are paranoid enough to lie.
      40% of the respondants have downloaded TV, but no movies.
      10% of the respondants were being sued by the RIAA at the time of the call.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  65. IANAMP - I am not a marketing professional by KNicolson · · Score: 1
    ...although I do play one on my blog, but:

    those without internet (ie. those who weren't part of the sampling frame, and those who are very unlikely to pirate) weren't even asked
    Applying my vast intellect and deductive skills, I would hazard a guess that the percentage of those without an internet connection who have downloaded a movie from the internet would be a figure not terribly unadjacent to zero.
    1. Re:IANAMP - I am not a marketing professional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it depends. I didn't RTFA, but what if they downloaded it work or at school. If it only surveyed based on your internet connection, well that's different. I can tell you that I've never downloaded a movie at home. I downloaded one film from a friend while I was working at an ISP many years ago and I've been given copies of things on CD (divx) or DVD before. Another thing I'd like to know is how many americans have pirated movies from DVD. That is a much higher number. Its not very practical to download movies for most people. At DSL speeds it would be annoyingly slow.

  66. Re:And you guys wonder why the politicians listen by Fordiman · · Score: 1

    Ok, now, everyone! Stop buying movies and pirate what you want to see! They can't lobby if they got no cash!

    *removes tongue from cheek*

    No, seriously, a 'radio tax' would be lovely; there are precedents that say that's the only charge they can make for a given medium.

    And because of the fundamental flaws in DRM, I highly doubt we'll see the end of pirated anything, ever. Maybe if they smartened up and started using compression-resistant steganography instead of DRM, they might be able to scare enough of the /suppliers/ into not distributing movies, but I doubt even that would work too well.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  67. Cost, That is all it is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The above post, plus all the others I've seen over the years has convinced me of several things.

    1-You all have too much disposable income.

    2-You don't know how to manage it worth a damn.*

    *Dreamgirls at the theather up the street is $6.50 for an adult/senior, $5.50 for children. I could also wait a few weeks (Damn! No instant gratification), and see it cheaper at the other smaller theater down the road.

    Fortunately in all cases, I don't have to use theater pricing to justify a piracy habit.

  68. Purchasing? by Speed+Pour · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit curious, since they've already taken the effort to do a study like this, why did they not also ask what percentage of people have a large collection of legal DVDs and perhaps how many of them use their downloads to screen movies they would consider buying? I only ask, as I know a number of people who do exactly this.

    I happen to agree with a lot of other comments, the percentage of people they accuse as to be a huge download mafia is dramatically inaccurate. Even the most conservative math would make their guess unreasonable.

    With such a small sample group (which could have been 10-100 times larger if done as a serious internet poll), and the other points mentioned, this is just clearly meant to "shock" people into being more honest. It's a well known trick of manipulating the numbers and hiding behind the guise that it's a survey which MAY be inaccurate. This is also why they didn't bother asking people about how much they spend on legal products.

    --
    - Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
  69. How could you forget the sticky floor? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    Ahhh...the indescribable sensation of sneakers on a floor well-coated with the sugary remains of a 1/2 gallon "small" Pepsi

  70. That number seems very low by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    Pirate movies are great! Especially the one with Christie McNichol. ;-)

  71. It's just another damned study by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

    And as everyone already knows, any study's results can be interpreted any way, if filtered properly.

    So, until they've actually visited every house, business, hovel, wireless hotspot in the country, they CANNOT claim with ANY degree of certainty that their numbers are accurate.

    As a matter of fact. I can declare without a study, and have the same level of accuracy.

    Less than 2% of all Americans fileshare movies / music.

    However, IMO, 100% of all MPAA and RIAA members are out for 1 thing and 1 thing only, to RIP OFF the consumer to pad their seats by thickening their wallets through underhanded, immoral and nearly (sometimes actually) illegal methods.

    --
    Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    1. Re:It's just another damned study by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact. I can declare without a study, and have the same level of accuracy.

      The law of large numbers was proven by Poisson in 1835. Maybe you should read up on it.

    2. Re:It's just another damned study by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      No need. When you're dealing with what people will do in such a complex subject, there are too many factors to add in.

      ie
      How many of the people interviewed were on broadband, vs not on broadband? - Skew #1
      How many were in the age group where it was supposedly rampant? - Skew #2
      How many knew that downloading was unethical or illegal? - Skew #3
      How many had transfer limits on their accounts? - Skew #4
      How many were addicted to WoW, and had zero time to do anything else? - Skew #5

      I'm certain you could add more to the list..

      It's not just *large numbers*, it's also accounting for actual availability and capability.

      If you factor in how many people are actually on broadband, then factor in how many households have people within that age range, then factor in how many of them know it's considered unethical at the least, illegal at most, then factor in how many have transfer limits - sorry - there's no way all of these and more that I didn't mention were included in the numbers.

      I stand by my statement. Maybe you should think things through before just quoting the good old days.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
  72. make the experience better or offer an alternative by grapeape · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For most adults going to the Theatre stinks, the seats are too close, the 30 minutes of commercials are annoying and by the time you pay for one ticket, an 8 dollar tub of popcorn and a 5 dollar drink its cheaper to buy the dvd 6 months later.

    When I was a kid I would go to the movies a couple times a month, now its a couple times a year. I actually have more free time to do so, but the negatives far outweigh the positives so I stay home.

    Legal downloads are insane, most of them are more expensive than DVD's, have crappier resolution, and have so much drm they are basically useless. If streaming movies were available day and date with DVD or PPV releases at a cost similar to PPV it would probably go over much better.

    I know Divx (Not the encoding but the format pushed by Circuit City) wasnt popular in the store, but something similar would be a pretty decent solution for downloads, a limited play but burnable download for $3-$4 sounds alot more attractive than driving to a rental place.

    Whatever happened to Mark Cuban's experiment with day and date theatrical releases? It sounded like a good idea, I really dont think the theatre crowd will shrink much, the few times I go it seems its mostly teenagers there for the hang out so they will still show up. Movies that have to be experienced on the big screen will still draw crowds.

    I suspect alot of the fear with day and date releases is that streaming or downloads will even the playing field, at the theatre you get anywhere from 1-20 choices where with an online service you could potentially have hundreds, suddenly art and independent films have the same marquee as the big studios which will only hurt the big studios.

  73. Same as early years of mp3 copying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this really differ from the early years where mp3 music was copied extensively across the internet? Are we likely to just be going through a phase until Apple or another company comes up with the flexible iTunes for movie download? The original author mentioned that online movie download sites need to offer this sort of flexibility to compete with this, and that's true, but I think that once they establish a good easy system, it's going to create a vast amount of revenue as new kids, unacoustomed, and unwilling to learn the intricacies of bittorrent and other peer-to-peer searching techniques to find media, will simply pay an accetible amount (remember, these kids happily spend a monthly fortune on mobile phones) to download and view the newest and latest movies with their friends.

    I wonder if we will look back and see that the movie industry was poised on a potential gold mine with distribution via the internet, as the number of pirates becomes insignificant to the number of people that willingly pay to download and view media.

  74. Jack Valenti DRM companies are your real enemy by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 1

    I've done some impromptu surveys at social gatherings over the holidaymas. At every single one, *everybody* said they pirate movies. I'm not talking geek here. There were business people, tradesmen, mechanics. One coworker said on the bus he overheard two old people talking. One said "Well, ya gotta use 'DVDShrink' ya see"

    Yes, everyone is doing it. I'm amazed really. The Anti-P2P companies are very efficient in finding downloadable movies and sending warning notices. They say in 85% of cases the people who get them, even though the notes are usually anonymous and quite calmly written "please remove this", they panic and never go near bit torrent again. Pretty much every Donkey server in the U.S. is run by Anti-P2P companies. Privacy Firewalls like BlockManager and PeerGuardian do blacklist the IPs used by these companies, ad companies and web trackers too, but that's fringe stuff and I seriously doubt most people are that careful or even know. "Whats an IP?"

    If the numbers are true the copyright laws are broken, by sheer virtue of the fact so many people are breaking them. I guess most people don't mind paying for movies, so long as the prices are fair. If you give people the option of downloading DVD-quality movies for a fair price *that they can watch over and over again without DRM trying to limit that*, on a very high speed network (many seeders means high-speed, and legal means many seeders), you could have a winner. Jack Valenti, if you're reading this, lay off the DRM crap. Look at bit torrent a way to sell a DVD without WalMart and the distributor taking their 75% markups, and you could have a winner. When it becomes cheaper and easier not to pirate, people won't pirate.

  75. How different is downloading from... by MassEnergySpaceTime · · Score: 1

    How different is downloading a movie compared to programming your VCR or TiVo to record a channel at a certain time for a movie? In either case, you end up having a copy of the movie for yourself. The only difference is that the downloaded movie is unedited, uninterrupted by commercials, and at your convenience. So from this perspective, why would anyone think that movie downloading is a big deal?

    --
    Respect the laws of physics, for the laws of physics have no respect for you.
  76. Phooey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... most people perceive celebrities and studios to be rich already and as a result don't think of movie downloading as a big deal.

    And they're right ... it isn't a big deal. Not in the overall scheme of things. It's only a big deal to a few organizations that cannot survive without protectionist laws, or at least don't believe they can survive without such protectionism. Or simply don't want to, in order to maintain their traditional practice of gouging their customers. My feeling is that if they can't make it in the Age of Peer-to-Peer then we can just live without them, after all, the movie studios are hardly some great national treasure that must be protected at any cost (given what the DMCA and copyright extension have already cost us I think we've paid enough already.) I know the studios think of themselves as being more important than the economic output of entire nations, but they are sadly mistaken. They're not worth the damage they're doing. Certainly most of what we download is not.

  77. Wrong (times two million)==right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Will you people please for the love of all that is holy get it straight."

    WE don't need to get anything. Anyway while it may not be stealing from (insert slashenemy here). It's certainly stealing from the honest who do pay. Something to think about while you're going for a "freebie".

  78. Fuck Blockbuster by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Their brick-and-mortar stores have given me too many shitty DVDs that get half-way through before cutting out and yuo miss like 10 minutes because someone's crotch dropping scraped the disk.

    I'd rather risk the RIAA and MPAA before I give another cent to Blockbuster and their hateful religious agenda.

    I consider my downloads payment for the industry's collusion with politicians to take away the 'fair use' back-up rights I once could not be prosecuted for exersizing.

    Don't worry, I buy plenty of DVDs too.

    --
    Blar.
  79. My Opinion by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

    If it's not good enough for me to want to buy outright or see in the theater I'm not going to add to their argument to infringe on my rights by downloading it illegally.

    Now if they'll only stop the ridiculous notion of "this film/TV show/album isn't available here because of this contract," I'll be able to get rid of my torrent client entirely. There's no way I'm waiting more than a year for a butchered version of Dr. Who or Torchwood.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  80. Re:movie pirate the pastafarian choice by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    If there are really that many movie pirates, why is global warming still occurring?

    Because they refuse to wear eyepatches. Everyone knows real pirates have eyepatches. Even pirate fish.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  81. I'm a downloader too... by erroneus · · Score: 1

    But I still vote with my dollars too. I think I wouldn't be in the minority to say that I buy the ones I liked, and don't buy the ones I don't like enough to buy. YES, the MPAA sees downloading movies as an unexploited opportunity to make money and I'm not particularly sorry about it either... at least I'm not until they send me letters or summons or something.

    The public wants to be able to be more picky about where and how they spend their entertainment dollars. Who really wants to buy something only to find that later they didn't like what they bought?! To the MPAA, I propose this:

    Let me download a movie and watch it. If I liked it, send me a bill and a DVD. If I return the DVD without payment, you'll know how I voted. What is it with this constantly increasing vampire-like thirst for revenue exploitation!? Back when I was younger, companies once valued the good-will exchange with their customers... why has this changed?

  82. Why download? by flar2 · · Score: 1

    1. I have no interest in going to the theatre. I hate the noise and commercialism and it's way too expensive. 2. I hate video rental stores (or should I say Blockbuster, because they put all the good rental places out of business and charge over 5 bucks to rent a movie). 3. I refuse to pay 30 or 40 bucks for a DVD. We all know that a big chunk of that goes to the retailer, another big chunk goes to the studio, another big chunk goes to the star and the director, and a few cents go to the rest of the people who worked on the movie (the ones I'd like to see paid). The internet makes the physical production of discs and packaging, and the distribution and retail obsolete. The only people who need to get paid are the creative talents behind the movie, ie: the ones who make a few cents in royalties. Anyones whose business is production/distribution of movies (and music for that matter) are SOL, they can follow the railroad industry into oblivion. Fsck 'em, they don't make good movies anyways.

  83. From the "We Are Watching You Department" by LifesABeach · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female..."; There, we have it, Hermaphrodites are honest folks.

  84. Two Things To Think About by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    1. Survey is an online survey - people online are not representative of the general population (for one thing, they're online) of the US - most people don't answer online surveys unless they are on one side or the other of the issue (survey bias) - respondents are not randomly chosen.

    2. Why would people illegally download full-length movies? Basic reason - much is pr0n. People might be willing to pay for said movies, but don't want: a. incriminating movie CD/DVD that shows what it is b. incriminating record on credit card so spouse or SO finds out c. don't want FBI able to find out from rental store that they got it.

    Now, after showing how the survey itself is not just flawed, but hilarious, can we admit that reality doesn't match the survey and get some tech stuff instead?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  85. 67% / 13% by scuzzman · · Score: 1

    "while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female."

    I read that 63% are male and immediately wondered 'What are the other 37%?'. Then, lo and behold, they tell me. Thanks for clearing that up, I'd have been up all night.

  86. Piracy in Europe by Findeton · · Score: 0

    Last time I tried to explain here, i got modded down. I know most of you are americans, but, think that "piracy" (sharing culture between peers, just like when you copied you friend's tapes) is legal in most of the european countries. Now go and see your recent history, guantanamo, the fact that your country only had 10 years of peace on the last century, the 'free-speech zones', the Patriot Act, eavesdropping on americans and so on... Maybe making piracy illegal was just one more of those stupid things you allowed to happen? I'm absolutely sure that's the case.

    Here, in Spain, even our special RIAA/MPAA says that they won't ever support a ban on filesharing, and that it would be stupid to illegalise a practise that if ever properly enforced would send millions of spaniards directly to prison!

    How the hell do you allow a law to say that a common and accepted practise among society should be banned? No law should seek to send to prison half the population of a country (who has never ever used a pirate copy of something?).

    Maybe you should reconsider voting you Pirate Party. Of course they won't win a seat, but you can say that you didn't contribute to this insanity! Or maybe you should convince Nader to support those views ;)

  87. European films good? by AnnuitCoeptis · · Score: 1

    Dude, I live in Europe and I saw maybe 80% of recent and noteworthy German and French cinema productions and I must say they sux to the bone compared to 'benchmark' set by Hollywood. God thank we've got those California productions, also there is the music and other aspect of the Hollywood film making that is still beyond compare to anything in the world with a small exceptions like New Zealand (LOTR) or Prague (CasinoRoyale,Hellboy) studios. Or may be take a look at the film crap that is produced in Asia, 'take tour', you will be enlightened..

  88. Pirate or own "Pirate"? by durnurd · · Score: 1
    I didn't RTFA, but are you sure the statistic isn't how many Americans own "Pirate" movies?
    • Pirates of the Caribbean 1
    • Pirates of the Caribbean 2
    • Pirates
    • Hook
    I could go on, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.
    --
    --Edward Dassmesser
  89. REDBOX $1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spend your time doing something better than searching, downloading, burning, etc.
    redbox.com
    $1 per night. Rent any time today, return by 7PM tomorrow. $1. Not a huge selection BUT a very current selection. Reserve from home, work, etc, pick it up, watch it, return it. $1. No brainer.

  90. Sweet! by Prysorra · · Score: 1

    THANKS GRANDPA!

  91. "grey area piracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Its sad that they have even convinced you that you're doing something wrong, because every one of those things you say you do (recording TV, backing up your dvds, ripping your cds to you mp3 player) is PERFECTLY LEGAL, it is fair use, and is your right.

    That shows how effective these bastards have been with their propaganda - making you feel a little guilt for doing what you rightfully and legally can do with your OWN possession.

  92. news at 10! by OiToTheWorld · · Score: 1

    RIAA sues 50% of america for pirating movies!

  93. Here is one of the reasons by cyberscan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To tell you the truth, if I had to watch cartel product, I'd prefer "pirated" movies to store bought DVD's simply because I am not forced to watch or skip all of the damned advertisements. I have seen these movies on home made DVD's at other people's homes. I am amazed at their high quality. It should be high time that the movie and music industry stop suing and start listening to their customers. They can start doing this by removing Digital Restrictions Management from their products and stop overcharging. The only reason why these cartels have gotten away with their overcharging for so many years is because they have shut out any competition. Thankfully, those days are over.

    With that said, I also want to state that I download video and music from the Internet all of the time. Just about everything that I download however, is not owned or copyrighted by the entertainment cartels. This is not because I have any moral qualms about doing so, rather, it is because most of the stuff produced by the entertainment cartels is pure unadultrated crap. It is a good thing that there are so many people "pirating." I hope that the piracy rate goes even higher until the entertainment cartels finally get the message. When the cartels finally accept the fact that they can no longer overcharge for their product and put unreasonable controls over how their product can be watched, they may regain some of the customers they have lost.

    Much of what has been put out by the cartels these days has been little more than glorified reruns. If I want original entertainment, I go to the Internet and such sites as You Tube. The entertainment cartels will most likely never again make the kind of money that they once made now that they have competition, however people will be better off, and new producers will be able to enter the market. Yes, "piracy" is good, and no, it is NOT STEALING.

    1. Re:Here is one of the reasons by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that I hadn't been threatened by the FBI until recently, when my family got together and rented some DVDs.

      Think about it: When you download a movie, you get a movie. When you rent or buy a movie, you get threatened by the FBI and Interpol. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife and sell it to dumb tourists.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:Here is one of the reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FBI warnings are laughable (they can't find Bin Laden, you say they're going to rush in my living room SWAT-style and arrest me for a download?), but if it was only that... There's about a million reasons why I prefer to download:

      -lots of DVDs that you buy have those previews you can't skip (along with FBI warnings indeed)
      -I hate most DVD menus with a passion
      -most DVDs are overpriced (30$CDN+ is not uncommon at all)
      -DVD cases take a fair amount of space when you have a lot (vs 700MB AVIs on a network share on cheap HDs), not counting you have to dust 'em (no thanks) and buy shelves (and make place for those, and my place's already full). I'd have an entire wall covered in shelving.
      -lots of the stuff I like can't be bought locally (lots of old movies, like say, Louis De Funes or Terence Hill & Bud Spencer), and even some of it can't be bought at all (most of my DVDs are PAL/R2 imports!)
      -renting online is cheap, but most of the titles I want are only available at different places (rent from one, cancel, rent from another, etc), and they tend to ship not in the order you want them (I rented the back to the future trilogy one time, I got the 2nd, then the 3rd, and a month later the first of the 3... heh). Also, scratched discs. And frequent trips to the (somewhat distant) post office.
      -buying a DVD requires me to get ready to go shopping (get family ready, drive there in city traffic, go look for movies -- not that Best Buy has IMDB reviews on the DVD stands either), wait in line, etc, wasting a few hours in the process. Sometimes I download them faster than it would take to go buy it downtown.

      Downloading them is simple (2 clicks and it's underway) - no wasting time driving/at the mall, takes basically no space, costs nothing (already paying for broadband), no work required to copy/reencode it, sits nicely on a network share (ready to be played with XBMC, load up the laptop before traveling, or any way I so please), no discs that get scratched, easy to share with friends/family, anything you could ever want (and more) is available, along with IMDB reviews, no pesky FBI warnings and annoying menus, etc. It's just SO much more convenient.

      Theaters are bad in their own way too. Expensive tickets is just the beginning (although expensive tickets for the whole family quickly gets expensive -- more than the DVD would cost), but a fountain/carbonated beverage & popcorn costs even more (lots of my friends like to have some beer with their movies or such - can't have that at the Theater!) You have to wait in line a while. Then you sit in uncomfortable chairs. Watch 20 minutes of previews. People talking, cell phones, all kinds of annoyances. Can't pause the movie if you have to use the bathroom. Large screens are nice, but otherwise it SUCKS. And large screens are getting affordable: a non-HD projector that will give you a 100" picture at home can be found around 600$ locally. Compare that with (10$ for ticket, 10$ for popcorn & drink) * 4 people. It pays for itself after 8 movies only (a bit more if you pick a nicer projector). Movies don't play when you want 'em unlike at home. Lots of time wasted again (driving both ways, wait in line + previews) -- about an hour or so (almost as long as the movie is). And you have to go there when it plays (adapt your schedule). At home, I can even watch movies in my PJs.

      Again, downloads are just SO much more convenient.

      No wonder people are pirating.

    3. Re:Here is one of the reasons by ThePengwin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think its worthwhile outlaying pros and cons to piracy :)
      Pros
      • Free
      • Ad Free
      • Versatile
      • Distributable
      • Modifiable
      • Abundance (I love this one the most. I know what its like to hear "Sorry no-one but you listens to/watches that, so we don't stock it")
      Cons:
      • Illegal
      • No nice packaging (I love a good box that i can display, but sadly this is fading away a lot)
      Did i miss anything?
    4. Re:Here is one of the reasons by noddyxoi · · Score: 1

      The cartels would never exist if the internet would be invented before CDs or Tapes, or physical medium. They are a virus that refuses to die, altough their death is inevitable. Their model of content distribution only serves to constrain the free sharing of information. Make the world a favor and leave Mrs. you can keep your savings from the OLD days, we won't go after you... Wikimovies, free content, free thought, free ideas, GET OUT OF THE CAVE.

    5. Re:Here is one of the reasons by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You missed permanence in the Pros. That is, a retail DVD will last damn near forever. A DVD burnt on a DVD+R, even if it's a Taiyo Yuden DVD+R, will last for a maximum of about 10 years. And DVDs stored on a HDD will only last until the HDD gives out. So every couple of years you end up having to transfer your movies to a different disc or new HDD, whereas you can just leave DVDs sit on a shelf and never have to move them.

      At least, that's one of the things I think about when downloading.

    6. Re:Here is one of the reasons by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      To tell you the truth, if I had to watch cartel product, I'd prefer "pirated" movies to store bought DVD's simply because I am not forced to watch or skip all of the damned advertisements. I have seen these movies on home made DVDs at _other_ people's homes...
      --
      Mmmmm

  94. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong redux! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Anyway while it may not be stealing from (insert slashenemy here). It's certainly stealing from the honest who do pay.

    So you're suggesting that the reason why movies cost what they do is a function of how many people download them? There's a magical ticker in Hollywood that says 492,781 people downloaded "Herbie Fully Loaded", so we have to sell it at $17 instead of $15? Do you honestly believe that?

    Conversely, if nobody downloaded a movie, do you think the industry would suddenly slash prices in appreciation for everyone's honesty? Give me a break.

    Something to think about while you're going for a "freebie".

    Cry me a river, astroturfer.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  95. Slashdot User Survey - please answer non AC, (Y/N) by drDugan · · Score: 1

    Have you "illegally downloaded a full-length movie at some point in the past"?

    Yes.

  96. Who is the real thief now? by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ask the guy who wrote Forest Gump. the movie studio rigged their accounting so he didn't get a cent. Peter Jackson is suing Newline for ripping him off on royalties. This is called "Hollywood Accounting"

    Yes, piracy is stealing, but so are the studios when they steal from these guys. I doubt the Forest Gump author would shed a tear if you told him you stole 'his' movie ;-)

  97. Robinhood Effect. by bronney · · Score: 1

    There is a Robin Hood effect -- most people perceive celebrities and studios to be rich already and as a result don't think of movie downloading as a big deal.

    It's not so much of "rich already" but more of "richer than me". Most movie pirates don't give a jack downloading movies because they know the producer and the crew would probably still have proper meals after "we" rapez their screener.

    While some of us watch movies hungry.

  98. They're smart to do that... by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    "you know: the people that type in their search queries in their browser URL field because they can't tell the difference."

    You know: if you do that in Firefox 2.0, that's the fastest way to do a google search. Try it!

    So I guess those people are pretty smart after all...

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  99. 2600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A survey of 2600? Hmmmmmm...

    Coincidence? I think not!

  100. Forgive me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's simply no place where one can buy the Mini Moni movie with English subtitles.

  101. Have you ever taken an online survey? by gravyface · · Score: 1

    Let me enlighten you on the process...

    "Win a free zebra! Fill out this online survey now!"

    random click... random click... random click...
    [submit]

    Seriously, and telephone surveys are even worse -- they call at supper time and ask long-winded, multiple choice questions while you're trying to eat Taco Bell and watch Family Guy.

    --
    body massage!
  102. How did the study get these numbers? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    The numbers do not seem impossibly high. In fact the numbers could be much higher. But: how did the "study" determine these numbers? Did they ask people if they pirated movies? Did they just make the numbers up? Is it a WAG based on the numbers of movies sold this year, as opposed to last year? These sorts of "studies" are never specific about that sort of thing.

  103. 200 million Americans get raped by MPAA/RIAA. by liftphreaker · · Score: 1

    What happened to that headline? Oh wait, we're expected to lay down and take it up the ass, quietly.

  104. That doesn't matter by Rix · · Score: 1

    The stars are a limited commodity, so their pay rate will fluctuate with demand. A lot of the crew are just grunt work (say, grips), and the only reason they're making more than minimum wage is the union atmosphere. That's fine if you have a giant cash cow. They want their piece, and they've gotten it. If the golden goose goes away, that attitude has to follow.

    I forsee the content industry having a lot less excess cash to throw around in the medium-long term. People just aren't going to be willing to pay the same amount with the cost of distribution so obviously at 0.

    This isn't a bad thing. The movies worth watching, and music worth listening to, doesn't really need all that. Britney Spears and Waterworld aren't going to be feasible, but I don't think that's much of a loss.

    1. Re:That doesn't matter by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      "A lot of the crew are just grunt work (say, grips)"

      No, just because they work with their hands doesn't make it grunt work. If you get some green kid in the mix: at best things slow down because he need supervision, at worst someone get hurt (HMI's are heavy, hot, and high voltage. Grips are in charge of rigging the lighting over head. Often in less than ideal on location situations.) Sure I could teach you the basics in a day, but that doesn't make you a pro. Just like I could teach you to weld in about an hour, but that doesn't mean you get to help build a bridge.

      --
      We are all just people.
  105. Re:18% is totally bogus by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Even if everyone had broadband, 18% of the population couldn't find, say, Swordfish nor any other movie file on the internet to download if you had a gun to their head as punishment for failure and oral sex on tap as a reward for success.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  106. equal wages by keatonj · · Score: 1

    re: Robin Hood Effect... The day the two guys who spend 8 months in post-production editing the fancy master piece movie, gets near similar salary to the actors who spend 2-3 months filming, is the day I'll consider the ramifications of the actions when it comes to people downloading movies from big Hollywood production studios.

  107. Don't they teach stats in the the states? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Counting statistics say that the error in any determination of an infinitely large population when extrapolated from a small sample approximates the students-T distribution if the sample is random.

    A simpler version is to take binomial (counting) stats: the number variation is sqrt(n)/n as a fraction.

    sqrt(2600)/2600 = 0.0196 or about 2%.

    therefore a sample this size is good for determining the value with a standard deviation of +/- 2%.

    1. Re:Don't they teach stats in the the states? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Of course the teach statistics in the states. On the other hand, binomial stats and standard deviations, etc. only apply if one has taken a random sample. If the data isn't random, then the error rates are meaningless. If they are random, then an actual error rate should be produced via a formula and there should be no estimate or approximation. The fact that there wasn't an actual error rate, but only an estimated error rate seems to be strong evidence that there was a problem with the sample being valid statistically. Most likely, it wasn't random.

  108. Robin Hood stole stuff, he didn't copy it. by Heddahenrik · · Score: 1
    The reason I wouldn't feel bad about downloading a movie is not that I think it's OK to steal from rich people, but that I'm not stealing anything. It doesn't matter to them if I ignore the movie or if I download it.

    Then it's their problem to figure out a way to make money out of people download the movie. Honestly: It shouldn't be that hard.

  109. On the "Power of laziness" by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    I have timed recently, that it took a longer time of "user interaction" to get a DVD bought at Amazon out of it's "theft protection" packaging without damaging the clamshell than it took to download and burn the movie.

    Granted, the download and burn process took longer than that, but the shipping of the bought DVD took even longer, so the "I want to watch it right now" doesn't work either. ;-)

    So about the only reason for me to buy stuff is when after I have seen it I decide that that was great, and I go buy it so they make more like it. And that would surely work better if I knew the money wound up at the right spot, at the artists, and was not spent to hire some lawyers to sue people.

  110. I am beginning to understand... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    most of the stuff produced by the entertainment cartels is pure unadultrated crap...If I want original entertainment, I go to the Internet and such sites as You Tube
    Most of the people out there are idiots. Perhaps that's why we look for intelligence in space?
    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  111. 25 Million Pirate Movies? by ear1grey · · Score: 1

    Pirates of the Caribbean was certainly enjoyable, but Keira Knightly's going to look very haggard by the time she's made that many sequels. Oh, wait...

  112. Why I get films off the 'net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason I "pirate" films are the following:

    1 Last time I went to the cinema was in a group of 10. We rang in advance and asked when the main feature started making it quite clear that we were not going to sit through the 30 minutes of advertising shown before the film and that we wanted to know when the actual feature started. We made it quite clear that if they told us the time that the advertising started we would be walking out and demanding a refund.

    We were duly told the time when the advertising started so we returned to the foyer and demanded our money back. Cue ugly scene which ended with us blocking the foyer until we'd been refunded.

    Result: I've given up going to the cinema.

    2 Advertising, copyright notices and other unskippable content on commercial DVDs. Fuck you. I've bought the DVD to watch the film. If it doesn't let me go straight to the menu so I can watch the film I'm not buying it. I used to go to the trouble of ripping and reauthoring DVDs I bought to remove all this crap but life's too short.

    Result: I've given up buying DVDs

    So now I get any films I fancy watching from the 'net. Admittedly this is a rare occurence as I don't really have time to watch films any more but when I do I just want to watch the friggin' film. Using re-authored content from the 'net allows me to do just this.

    If I could buy reasonably priced, downloadable, decent quality, DRM free films which featured just the film itself and which I could burn onto DVD for watching on my TV I'd do so. But as I can't I "pirate" instead.

    c'est la vie.

  113. Yet Hollywood survives? by darrkside · · Score: 1

    That's a lot of movies. Yet Hollywood still manage to survive, pay actors huge paychecks, budget multimillion dollar films. I think it's going to take a lot to cripple the industry. Downloaders don't stop going to the movies if they enjoy a night out in the first place.

    --
    No Sig Required
  114. Pirate Movies by TechHSV · · Score: 1

    I had no idea pirate movies were so popular I must really be out of mainstream culture!! I knew Johnny Depp had made a few sequels of "Pirates of the Caribbean", but I didn't realize it was in the millions. If Hollywood can keep producing these things I say go for it. But one thing that puzzles me is if Pirate movies are so popular why haven't eye patches come into style. My wife is certainly looking forward to that. She hates having to wear that glass eye.

  115. Coding with "Argument on Rails" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A lot of the crew are just grunt work (say, grips), and the only reason they're making more than minimum wage is the union atmosphere. That's fine if you have a giant cash cow. They want their piece, and they've gotten it. If the golden goose goes away, that attitude has to follow."

    I feel the same way about IT. Outsourcing can't come soon enough. Now go code me something useless.

  116. phone interview? by s31523 · · Score: 1

    ... according to a telephone and online study of 2,600 Americans.

    You mean people really admitted to pirating movies on the phone from some "survey center"? Imagine...

    **phone rings**

    You: Hello?

    Phone: Hi, yes, my name is, phile, err, phil mcracken, and I am doing a survey about online movie downloading, do you have a second?

    You: Sure!

    Phone: Ok, great, tell me, have you ever downloaded a copyrighted movie using, say BitTorrent?

    You: Oh yeah, you kidding, I do that all the time, in fact I am burning several movies right now that I plan on selling to my friends...

    Phone: Oh great, well thanks for the survey data! Have a good day!

    **10 minutes later**

    *BANG* (Front door kicked in) "FBI, freeze! You are under arrest!"

    Seriously, who the f- would say they downloaded movies?
  117. Misread headlines by Minwee · · Score: 1

    While skimming the titles, I read this as:

    "At Least 25 Million Americans Like Pirate Movies"

    That sounds like good news for Johnny Depp.

  118. Re:Adult - either legal, or 114% of US pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's crazy talk. Why would anyone illegally copy a whole porn movie when there are a 100 billion clips of the best parts, non-pirated, available for free?

    Now of course, it's possible these clips *are* pirated - who would know? If the clips *are* actually pirated, that would push the piracy estimate way over the top - it would be more like 114% of US population pirates movies.

  119. Time for a legal adjustment by c4ffeine · · Score: 1

    If 1/5 of the population does something that is against the law, it's time to change the law.

    --
    "73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
  120. There's an old saying... by nerd-persona · · Score: 1

    There's an old saying that you reap what you sow. The MPAA is now reaping, in droves, what they sown for the past 20 years.

    When they treat their customers like criminals; when they automatically assume their customers will pirate content, then why in the world are they shocked when people start to do that very thing.

    The MPAA could mitigate most of the "illegal downloading" problem by treating their customers fairly, and allowing fair use on copyrighted material. This would require them to give up their greedy, money grubbing attitude, but it would certainly make the world a better place.

  121. Convenience and Inestimability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big reason people download movies is convenience. The reason they are so apparently apathetic about 'stealing' is they are often not really doing anything wrong.

    Some reasons people 'steal' movies and TV:
    - They missed the episode or movie on TV (what's wrong with that? It's time shifting, isn't it? It was free on TV.)
    - There is a conflict in their DVR scheduling, which means they might have to wait months for a repeat of the movie. (time shift)
    - They can't wait for their online DVD rental store to finally get the movie, due to the studios' self-created staggered release system (what's so terrible about that? It's time shifting. Outside the US the marketing pressure is quite intense. We get all the marketing via the internet, but can't pay to watch the movie. You may care passionately and download so you stay current with global cultural discourse, or forget about it for a while, let apathy set in, maybe not bother watching it after all. It's like a Steve Jobs keynote video: after a few days of unavailability, you stop caring. It could go either way.)
    - They don't want to wait for the online DVD rental store to deliver it. (It may be faster to download; who knows? Let's race them: download vs. postal system. Again - time shifting.)
    - They once owned the music or movie on several different formats, so they already paid twice, no three times... (media shifting - bill me twice, shame on me...)

    There are lots of legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with 'piracy' or 'stealing.' Those were a few off the top of my head. Personally, I like the cinema experience. The only bad part is the commercials (UK). They are about 20 minutes long, so you have to time your journey to the cinema to miss most of them and find your seat in the dark. It's unnecessary stress. Bizarrely, no one boos, throws popcorn, starts ripping up the seats - pay, yet watch commercials - weird.

  122. The real shocker.. by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

    is that the transgendered and hermaphrodites of America appear to never pirate anything.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  123. 2600 by throx · · Score: 1

    Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally downloaded a full-length movie at some point in the past, according to a telephone and online study of 2,600 Americans.
    Well, if you're going to use the number 2600 then of course you're going to find piracy and illegal activity rampant. Duh!
    --

    Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

  124. 18%? no way by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    I find this an absurd estimate. Examine how the survey was concocted, conducted, sample was generated, etc. for ridiculous, if unintentional, bias. No way has 18% of the population downloaded full-length movies. This statistic is useless, anyhow. A useful ratio might be the number of "pirated" movies _watched_ compared to all movies _watched_. SSDD... just like claiming copied software is lost revenue at face value times number of copies, regardless of whether the copier ever uses or even installs it. A downloaded movie is not necessarily lost revenue.

  125. Hadn't considered the torrent creators by benhocking · · Score: 1

    That does at least make it a better analogy. I also like your bit about Prince John. Seems a bit too clever for someone named after a feline. Did you steal this particular bit of intellectual property?

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  126. And in other news by bill_kress · · Score: 1

    "Roughly 81 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally viewed a full-length movie at some point in the past by theater hopping"

    Although I made that up, theater hopping must cost the movie industry MUCH more than illegal downloads.

    Where is the outrage at all this thievery???

    My wife and I still do theater hop whenever there are two decent movies out at the same time (which is pretty rare these days)

  127. If you download a movie... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    If you download a movie you never would have paid to rent or buy, does it make a sound?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  128. Why go to the theater when you can download pr0n? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to go to the movie theater when I was 16 just to make out. the movie was not important.
    Here is a good tip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpA Just get a big tub of popcorn, cut a hole in the bottom, and place it on your dick. Great surprise when you offer your girlfriend to help herself.

    Now I am over 40, and i just download porn. Thats easier than going upstairs to the wife and it sure beats the movie theater.

  129. Re:movie pirate the pastafarian choice by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

    So then...do pirate sharks wear eyepatches over their laser beams? And does this impede the firing of said laser beams?

    --
    Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
    http://www.tsanewsblog.com
  130. Re:movie pirate the pastafarian choice by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    of course not, the laser beams are mounted on the heads of the pirate sharks.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  131. Ripped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I don't want the MPAA to have numbers on is how many people rip DVDs borrowed from friends or rental outfits. I know a couple guys that have hundreds and hundreds of movies (literally terabytes each). It is a nice concept to have 500 movies to choose from on the HD of your PC that is attached to your nice projector...sort of an ultimate on-demand that's way better than cable TV. And this seems to me to be a much more effective method of getting reliably high-quality movies than anything I've seen online.
    As far as a time investment goes, this method is way better than torrents. And far, far harder for authorities to detect. Netflix can be your best friend.

  132. All I gotta say is.. by necro2607 · · Score: 1
  133. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18% of the US population either doesn't have a net connection anywhere near fast enough to download a full-length movie, or has no clue how to actually do so.


    It is called "dial-up". Combine this technology with FTP or BT and you get stuff off the net. People have been doing this for over 20 years now.

    Great one, also, for responding to this troll article.

  134. Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. and being blasted because they haven't set the sound settings correctly for the movie. The last 4 times I've been the movie has been shown in a smaller theater.. it the sound settings for the biggest theaters. Guess what? Yep, your ears get blasted. It's.. wonderful. You pay $15 to have your hearing degraded. If I wanted to do that I'd go to a Wellington nightclub or a Rave..