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.'"

65 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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)
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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
    17. 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!

    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    20. 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!

    21. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 25 Million Pirate Movies?? by siufish · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  5. 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!

  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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 Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

  11. 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 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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...

  14. 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.
  15. 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 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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 - }
  18. 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.
  19. 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.

  20. "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?
  21. 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?
  22. movie pirate by Quick+Sick+Nick · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.
  29. 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?

  30. 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.
  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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 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.

  34. 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 ;-)

  35. 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.