Slashdot Mirror
Most File Sharers Would Pay For Legal Downloads
An anonymous reader writes "Two separate studies from Australia and Holland give the lie to corporate entertainment industry claims that file sharers are unprincipled thieves out to rob the honest but harshly treated movie and music studios. Over in Oz, news.com.au reports, 'Most people who illegally download movies, music and TV shows would pay for them if there was a cheap and legal service as convenient as file-sharing tools like BitTorrent.' And from the EU, 'Turnover in the recorded music industry is in decline, but only part of this decline can be attributed to file sharing,' says Legal, Economic and Cultural Aspects of File Sharing, an academic study, which also states, 'Conversely, only a small fraction of the content exchanged through file sharing networks comes at the expense of industry turnover. This renders the overall welfare effects of file sharing robustly positive.'"
This one cost me in karma probably.
Paying $2/epsiode is not cheap. I would pay $1 for an hour long show (42 minutes in reality) as long as it is commercial free. IF you try to sell me commercials, forget it! 30 minute shows I would pay $.50-$.75, but again, only for a commercial free version.
The purchased copy would also have to be DRM free.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
I am not a downloader. Despite all of the content-producing industry's failings, I believe that I should pay for what other people spend their long hours producing, even if that means, in the end, what the artist gets is minuscule. I didn't invent bad contracts.
But what really ticks me off is when people actually prevent me from willingly parting with my own money due to geography. There was a show on the SciFi channel recently, Defying Gravity. It wasn't exactly the greatest bit of science fiction out there, but I like Ron Livingston, the acting was generally decent, the story was compelling, and on the whole, the show was entertaining. About halfway through the season, ABC cancelled the show. But Canadian and Australian networks continued to show it. You could buy the episodes online via Amazon's video page, but after the ABC cancellation, you could only buy the first half of the show. WTF? I fired up BitTorrent for the first time.
While I'm at it, let me say: region coding for DVDs is a gigantic anti-competitive crock of shit. Fortunately, I have me a region 2 DVD-R, a Linux machine, and Handbrake, so that I can actually pay for and watch good television from another English-speaking country.
I periodically try to buy media from some service that is trying to sell it to me. Invariably, their DRM doesn't run on my platform, and I give up.
Part of my problem has always been DRM. I know it's a lot better now than it used to be, but if I pay for it, I want to get to keep using it forever, not just until a given music store shuts down or something like that. Granted, itunes won't be going anywhere anytime soon, but when all this was starting that was a serious concern.
Even xkcd knows it's true.
With all the people forking over $.99 for iTunes and software, I was under the impression that the thesis of this paper has been proven in real life.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Should be titled:
Most File Sharers Hypothetically Say They Would Pay For Legal Downloads
What people say in surveys and what they do when there is actual money in play are two different things. What is "cheap"? And what pay service could possibly be as convenient as BitTorrent? If you have to log in and provide payment information, it's already not as convenient.
Anyway, I wouldn't extrapolate too much from that survey.
That's why people illegally download things that they CAN legally download.
Seriously, how many people are going to say "No, I wouldn't do it legally even if it was cheap enough!"
Two anecdotes that are related to this:
I remember back in the 90s before filesharing became popular, I read an article by an expert predicting the demise of the recording industry within the next decade. It was so full of corruption (ie everyone trying to get their 'share', even at the abuse of the artists or the company, much like, say, Bear Sterns) that it was going to implode within a few years. Remember at that time they were still flying high off their boost from the switch to CD format and were spending profligately.
Second anecdote, I had a friend who was working for a major recording studio at the time iTunes first came out. He said iTunes completely saved the industry. People were all terrified because they could see the collapse going on, and were thinking of changing careers (have to when there's nothing else). They didn't know what they were going to do. Then iTunes music store came out and everyone started coming back.
In other words, it is true file sharers are leeches on society who take without giving back, but they aren't the ones who caused the problems in the recording industry. The industry brought it on themselves.
Qxe4
why?
Because there is no fixed target. For many your numbers may be too expensive, values set by greedy corporate types who eat babies.
That is why I think this survey is bunk. First off, they can feel good answering in the positive. It does not obligate them to give the feel good reply. Second, not only do you set a small dollar value on an episode you ladle it with conditions. Really, your numbers are ridiculous. I can imagine the grief you would feel if someone valued your output at such low numbers. By your logic why should software cost more than a few dollars?
Setting unrealistic requirements then complaining when they are not met does not make the other guy wrong.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This seems pretty logical to me. Speaking to my own experience, the things the I "pirate" lately have been because of convenience.
I "pirated" Avatar off of Bittorrent because I'd seen it 3 times in the theater already, but it wasn't out on video yet (I then bought it on Blu-Ray the day after it came out).
I "pirated" Survival of the Dead off of Bittorrent because it's not been released on DVD yet in the US.
I "pirated" nearly 200 individual songs off of Bittorrent recently, because I switched to Rythmbox and it couldn't import those songs with DRM'd content from my iTunes library (and though I technically can pay to "upgrade" to DRM-free music- FUCK paying twice just so that I can use my media on another player).
I truly don't mind paying for stuff, and I buy a lot of media. It's a matter of pricing and convenience. Don't DRM it - I don't buy DRM'd movies online because I don't know if I'll be playing it via XBMC (on either my AppleTV or my hacked Xbox), my Linux machine, or any other device that hasn't been dreamed up. They also better price it fairly. The $0.99 price point for a song I don't mind. It works, and I buy most of my music now with that (previously from Amazon because I'm trying to not support Apple, but now from the Ubuntu One store if they have the track). TV show episodes also shouldn't go higher than $0.99 each, and movies in digital download form shouldn't cost more than $4-5 each. That's about what the physical copies fall off to in a few years anyways. Why should I pay MORE for them not having to manufacture, ship, and stock a disc?
The studios are going to have to come to grips with the fact that they've lost a ton of control over a market that they once called every shot in. Consumers have been presented with a way to get what they want for free, but more importantly WHEN and HOW they want it. The latter part is what's important to me. I'm willing to pay if only to make sure that I'm getting a quality standard that a studio can provide as compared to some guy who ripped a copy of a movie with Handbrake and forgot to deinterlace it. When the "pirated" stuff just plain works better though, then they're just being naive if they think people will pay for an inferior product out of some sense of loyalty.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Since we're naming the prices that we would be comfortable paying, I think I would be happy buying a Lamborghini for not a penny more than $1400. The Pirate Bay wanted to fill this gap with a single monthly fee for access to the shared content but the industry didn't bite. I mean if you are Adobe and sell software such as CS4 receiving a fraction of a users $14/month sounds like a fantastic deal compared to retail prices.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Let's go with the big one: music. You can even download, legally, for a small price, DRM free MP3s from iTunes, Amazon... etc...
I'd love to pay for legal downloads. It'll never happen though. It's great that the iTunes store is offering generic MP3s (although lossless would be nice) ... but for $1/track? Forget it. I can buy it used for $6 and get the case, liner notes, and have it in whatever format I want. Downloadable TV? It had better be high def and MPEG4, and no commercials, and cheaper than they would ever dream of offering it. When I can buy a DVD box set for cheaper than buying a download of each individual episode, you're doing it wrong.
The content industry will simply never offer it in formats or at a price I find acceptable.
Most people might, if they had the money left over from so many others competing for their entertainment dollar. I don't mean to sound stupid, but I conversely and robustly positively don't understand what that from the second study means. On the other hand, proactively quantifying the synergy facilitated by that paradigm is a win-win situation for future-proof vertical markets, and I find that quite empowering.
So let's go with a counter-example from recent experience...
"Only You" (re-recorded version) by The Flying Pickets, at Amazon UK:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Only-You-Re-recorded-Version/dp/B001LBT6S4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1273254270&sr=1-2
This is geographically right next to where I live.. save for the north sea.
But I can't buy it.
There's no Dutch Amazon, so that's out.
The Dutch 7digital doesn't have it (fwiw, neither does the American Amazon).
Granted - I haven't checked iTunes yet.. too bad I have to go through a specific piece of software to even find out.
But clearly it's not as simple as "music. You can even download, legally, for a small price, DRM free MP3s from iTunes, Amazon", as that only applies to those items actually for sale.
It -is- that simple with illegal downloads, on the other hand. No geographic restrictions, no having to set up any account, nothing.
I purchase my music, movies, etc wherever I can or typically just do without. But every once in a while, if a company decides to be boneheaded to the core, I have no qualms with downloading (heck, downloading (music/movies) is legal in NL anyway, so I shouldn't have any qualms regardless).
I don't see your point. Those services are hugely popular and lucrative.
Exactly. And that is where I get my music; I haven't illegally downloaded any music in ages, ever since there has been a viable legal alternative.
I still download movies illegally (though in the Netherlands downloading isn't strictly illegal if you don't upload at the same time). Why? Not because I am unwilling to spend my money, but because the pirates offer a better product. I fully agree with our MPs who state that downloading of copyrighted material will not be prosecuted until there is a viable legal alternative. Viable... This means a good selection, a good price, a variety of formats, and no DRM so that I can actually download to own and play movies on any of my devices.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
What: Printing press
When: 1653..about
Who: Stationaries guild
I read an article by an expert predicting the demise of the book industry within the next decade. -
What: Player pianos
When: 1906
Who: Composers
I read an article by an expert predicting the demise of the music industry within the next decade. -
What: VCRs
When: 1970s
Who: TV industry
I read an article by an expert predicting the demise of the TV industry within the next decade. -
What: Software
When: Mid 70s, 80's, 90's, and the Naughties.
Who: Software industry
I read an article by an expert predicting the demise of the SOftware industry within the next decade. -
What: Cassettes
When: Late 70s
Who: Music Industry
I read an article by an expert predicting the demise of the Music industry within the next decade. -
They would be wise to learn from history and adopt instead of wasting money irritating consumers.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Part of the fault of this whole "downloading" mess rests on the "industry" shoulders, be it the music, movie or TV. Specifically the whole "region" concept.
Why, in this day and age, with globalization, internets and the like, do I have to wait MONTHS to catchup a TV series on my country (Portugal), after it broadcasts on the US? Why don't they just make it available straight away on iTunes, for me to *buy it*? Oh right. Because as of right now, I can't buy series or movies on iTunes Portugal, only music... Can someone explain me why?
Or why do I have to wait 6 (sometimes even more) months to get a movie on DVD, after it came out on the US? Granted, I can understand some delay related to localization costs (in the Portuguese case, only covers and subtitles, as we almost never dub movies, as the Spanish do). But even so, if I want to buy the whole English version of a movie, why can't I do it? Well, I can do it, I can order it from Amazon.com.... if I have a region 1 DVD player, of course.
In both these situations, I have two options: sit and wait months for the "region aproved" versions of the series or movies (if they ever get picked up by the local distributors, of course), or just fire up utorrent and have a Lost episode hours after it aired in the US.
My point is that I would gladly pay for DRM-free, "fresh", 0-day, English only media content. I don't mind waiting for a region 2 edition of a good movie, and buying it, and I have some original, payed-for box sets of my favorite TV shows. The problem is not exactly price. The problem is convenience. And artificial barriers. I still can't figure out why can't I buy my favorite shows on iTunes Portugal. Or why all of the sudden I can't watch The Daily Show on their website. Oh, the problem is add revenue, you say? It can't be free anymore? No problem, I would *pay* for episodes of the The Daily Show... If I had a place on the web to buy them!
The industry is still clinging to outdated business models, that don't make any sense in our age. Come on! In a few days, the Mac crowd will be able to enjoy Steam, and Valve's games! Talk about globalization and interoperability! But why can't I watch South Park or Lost or House, legally, in Portugal, after it broadcasts on the US?!
You see, the issue is not always price. My treasure can be the next man's garbage. The issue is convenience. Ever wondered why malls and big store conglomerates are so popular? Heck, ever wondered why Amazon is so popular? Convenience. When I want something, I want it in the fastest, most convenient way possible. Amazon delivers me books to my doorstep, in a matter of days. I've tried to do something similar with some "brick and mortar" stores here. Just forget about it. They told me I would have to wait for 2/3 weeks for a specific book that I wanted to order. I said to them "never mind then". I went to Amazon, and 3 days latter, I had the book. And it probably cost me a bit more than doing it locally. But I had the book *fast*, because I needed it.
So there you have it. Media industries, start to think about "costumer convenience" (this includes DRM-free stuff as well), even before the prices. If the convenience is there, even if the price is not the cheapest, the people that want it will pick it up.
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
We DO pay for legal downloads. What the fuck?
Indeed. Some of us even pay for legal CDs. I do so because I'm picky about the noises that I want from a sound system which I've spent a reasonable amount of money and consideration in building, and I prefer to encode my own MP3s for my iPod.
Yes, I am guilty of making the occasional (admittedly illegal) copy of CDs I have bought, and friends of mine are equally so. But in both cases, these copies have led to further sales from those artists, so everybody (including the recording companies) has something to gain from this cross-pollination of musical ideas.
I could spend forever trawling through torrents to find feeds that are in concordance with my particular musical interests, usually spending much of my time rejecting poisoned, poorly encoded or or mislabelled files, but in practice, what is available through these channels tends to be useless to anyone whose musical tastes extend much beyond the works of Abba or the Bay City Rollers.
As far as I'm concerned, my time is better spent finding a good deal on legitimate media without the headaches.
when you buy a DVD the first thing that happens when you try and watch it is you get told you are Criminal (FBI warning, don't pirate, etc) and then you have to sit through unskippable trailers, then crap dynamic menus, and finally after 10 min or more you get to the movie. With a pirate copy you get the movie first thing with no crap, which is what people buy. You would think that movie execs would put two and two together.
This is why TV and movies cost more than they "should". I'll add the same point for watching professional sports. Why should Jerry Seinfeld have made $1M per episode? The short answer is, because he could. Let's look at the cause and effect a little more closely.
IF people are willing to pay $9 for a movie ticket, THEN Sandra Bullock can make $15M on her next movie.
This is not the same as "BECAUSE Sandra Bullock wants to make $15M on her next movie, we need to charge you $9 per ticket."
As a society, our ideas of the value of being entertained seems to be out of whack.
Finally, through use of price discrimination and market segmentation, the entertainment industry can, and will continue to, try to get $9 out of the person who's willing to spend it. The question is, why are they not trying to get $0.25 out of the person who's only willing to spend that? It's better to figure out a way to charge that user and get something out of them than to continue to not serve that section of the market.
Anyway, if a show only brought in $3M per episode instead of $5M, that could potentially only affect the few top named stars and the executive producer. If each of them accepted a pay cut, the other 500 people involved with the show could probably even take a modest pay increase.
www.clarke.ca
They were setting ROMS royalties aside, as prescribed by Russian law, royalties that the US media cartels didn't want to collect for purely ideological reasons.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Some time ago, a publisher released a book that I wanted. It was part of an ongoing series, and I had all the previous as e-books (paid for). However, now the publisher told the stores they can no longer sell these e-books for people from outside USA. This e-book is now simply unavailable to me. They don't sell it in my country, or anywhere else that will sell to me.
To add insult to injury, after several attempts to talk to the publisher, they never, even once, replied to my e-mails.
Need prove I was willing to pay ? I payed for all the others before. I even payed premium for those "just released" books.
My option ? A pirate download, of course. Which was, I'm said to say, readily available after a few days.
It amazes people they keep complaining about piracy, when they seem to simply be unwilling to sell to people who wants to pay. In this particular case, even the author of the book (who DID reply me) was baffled by the publisher's attitude. Yeah, protecting the authors my ass.
morcego
In other words, to make a la carte episode viewing at a reasonable price (50 cents or so), TV producers would have to:
1) Put greater emphasis on good writing and make sure every episode was worth watching.
2) Hire actors and actresses based on talent rather than fame, to save money on salaries.
3) Rely less on special effects and pyrotechnics.
I can't see a down side.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.