Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

At Least 25 Million Americans Pirate Movies

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the you-or-someone-you-know dept.

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.'"

8 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  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: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
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 ;-)