Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Suppressed Report Shows Pirates Are Good Customers

Posted by samzenpus on from the biting-the-hand-that-steals-from-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The movie and music industry think pirates are criminals and parasites who cost both industries billions of dollars in lost sales. In order to prove this fact a number of studies have been commissioned to help demonstrate the effect a pirate has on sales of entertainment. GfK Group is one of the largest market research companies in the world and is often used by the movie industry to carry out research and studies into piracy. Talking to a source within GfK who wished to remain anonymous, Telepolis found that a recent study looking at pirates and their purchasing activities found them to be almost the complete opposite of the criminal parasites the entertainment industry want them to be. The study states that it is much more typical for a pirate to download an illegal copy of a movie to try it before purchasing. They are also found to purchase more DVDs than the average consumer, and they visit the movie theater more, especially for opening weekend releases which typically cost more to attend."

54 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. First to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The MPAA/RIAA lying about stats to justify unjust laws? Never.

    1. Re:First to say by kj_kabaje · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I believe that's called a lie of omission... still perjury in a court of law.

    2. Re:First to say by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a lie. "Not publishing a report" is still a lie. When you testify before congress that you are presenting facts revealed by studies and you omit anything that you want to conceal, it's perjury. "... to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..." I'd say that's a violation of the oath they take prior to giving testimony to not at least make available ALL information collected as that fits within the "...the whole truth..." part of the swearing in.

      I'd like to see a congressional investigation into the matter -- not that I expect one to happen -- just that I'd like to see one. And who knows, perhaps if some government scandal comes up, they will need "some distraction" to draw the public's attention away from themselves. This might be a good one though it might result in lower campaign contributions.

    3. Re:First to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are we really that dense slashdot? It didn't say "this is perjury" it gave an analogy of how serious some contexts consider lie of omission (specifically the context of a court of law). The original post was saying the act wasn't the same as lying and the response simply pointed out that in some contexts it is considered equivalent to a lie. I'm pretty sure it's time for you to pull out a Hitler analogy to prove you're point though so I'm sure I'm wasting my time trying to explain the use of logical constructs and analogy.

    4. Re:First to say by jc42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      To play devil's advocate, they didn't exactly lie here. This "GfK" just didn't publish a report that came to the opposite conclusions they were paid to reach.

      This has been widely discussed in scientific circles, too, including here on /.. Organizations that fund research often let the researchers know what results are expected, and if the science shows otherwise, the reports are very often suppressed. This is considered a major problem in a number of scientific fields.

      It's especially problematic that "no significance" reports are often suppressed. It can be useful to know that X and Y have no relation. But, for example, drug manufacturers don't usually like to hear that their profitable "miracle drug" actually has no effect on the conditions that they claim it will cure. Admitting this publicly means they'll no longer get income from the suckers who have been buying the "drug" to cure their condition.

      In general, it may be true that not telling everything you know isn't exactly a lie. But that's not exactly what's going on here. Continuing to say something is true when you've done studies showing that it's false is definitely a lie. This is what companies do when they suppress "no significant effect of X on Y" results, and it's what the **AAs do when they claim something they don't like is hurting sales when their study shows that it doesn't. It's a lie regardless of whether the claimed "piracy" actually helps or has no effect on sales.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    5. Re:First to say by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2

      "To play devil's advocate, they didn't exactly lie here. This "GfK" just didn't publish a report that came to the opposite conclusions they were paid to reach. That's not quite "lying" and it's not quite the MPAA/RIAA."

      From the article it doesn't appear that the company actually withheld the study.
      "Unfortunately, we will never get to read the official version of the study as the unnamed client who paid for it to be created has decided it should not see a release. The reason given for shelving it was that the contents proved “unpleasant.”"

      They were contracted to perform a study, they performed a study, they reported their conclusions to the client free of bias, the end. The client decided not to release the study.

      "The client" is being unethical by witholding evidence that is contrary to their own conclusions. Of course, making shit up is pretty much standard procedure for anything the RIAA/MPAA (likely clients) says, and the word "ethics" probably isn't even in their vocabulary.

      You might be able to call GfK scummy or unethical if the study revealed something that impacted the "safety, health and welfare of the public", but that's not the case here.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    6. Re:First to say by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How are the laws unjust? The piracy is still happening, the fact that the pirates also buy stuff shouldn't be a mitigating factor.

      Its up to the rights holder to decide if the piracy is something they can live with or not, not you or I - although its great fun watching people try to justify it on Slashdot...

      Also, the entire basis for this story is "an anonymous person says..." - thats great, a fantastic headline with no way to corroborate it at all.

    7. Re:First to say by JabberWokky · · Score: 2

      True. However, the rebuttal was pointing out that the context didn't apply.

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    8. Re:First to say by oconnorcjo · · Score: 2

      It didn't say "this is perjury" it gave an analogy of how serious some contexts consider lie of omission (specifically the context of a court of law). The original post was saying the act wasn't the same as lying and the response simply pointed out that in some contexts it is considered equivalent to a lie.

      But it is false. Lie by ommision is definately NOT perjury. Perjury is out and out lying. However if anyone ommits to say something in court... well that is built into the court proceedings with map hearings (what district atourney's are and are not allowed to bring up.).

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
    9. Re:First to say by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      How are the laws unjust?

      They were written for the publicly stated purpose of protecting copyright holders. If this story is true, then those copyright holders know that they actually benefit from piracy, as common sense would expect. In that situation, it's apparent that the media industries would have ulterior motives for such legislation. The most obvious such motive would be to concentrate all distribution control with themselves and killing of pesky indie distributors by cutting off their only competitive advantage.

      Wouldn't it be nice to have a legitimate-sounding excuse to ask Congress to give you complete control of your industry, even if you knew that excuse was invalid?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:First to say by Requiem18th · · Score: 2

      How are the laws unjust?

      How are copyright laws just? Why can I plagiarise from the Grim Brothers or William Shakespeare but I can't release a dubbed parody of Star Wars? Or post night driving videos of Montreal to the music of Richard Clayderman or fucking sing Happy Birthday on TV?

      Which of these works of art are cultural heritage and which private property?

      The law is: "the ones which someone is paying the government for protection are private, the ones which aren't are public domain".

      So I refuse to discuss copyrights in terms how just or ethical they are, or how unethical is infringement.

      Piracy, like abusive uses of copyright and the intrusions, are a socio-economic problem. One can discuss the best ways to reward artist or the problems of lack of funding for art projects.

      But one can't talk about copyright and fairness unless it is to repel it altogether or to extend it to the stone age and I can only hope you are not talking about the later.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  2. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They also lie on surveys about pirating and purchasing.

    1. Re:And... by Tyr07 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I 'played' mass effect before I purchased it, and it also garunteed me to buy the second one when it came out and I'm buying the third one. In my opinion, so far if someone can afford it and they actually enjoyed the game, they'll buy it. For the extra features, priestige of supporting the developer and online play. I'll admit when I was a child I had played a lot of games that I didn't purchase, because I had no money to do so with. Now a days I buy so many it's crazy, and even old ones I won't really play just for the nostalgia of it. I've SEEN all three original star wars, and I still bought a boxed set. You get the picture. I'd say it's safe to say a lot of pirates care more about content and quality, and refuse to crap money down the toliet on cheap gimmicks of no fun. I don't want to buy a game that takes 30 hours to complete and I get bored of it in the first hour.

    2. Re:And... by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lying is irrelevant if the study is decent and asks for proof of purchase, like this did.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    3. Re:And... by shermo · · Score: 2

      Similarly I played Diablo 2 without purchasing it for a couple of years. Subsequently I paid for my own WoW subscription for 4 years, and that of my girlfriend's for 3. That's got to be the best return on 'investment' ever.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    4. Re:And... by billcopc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know one person doesn't make a majority, but I would not be running a label and partering with two others if not for all the a.b.mp3 floods and multi-gigabyte "best of $genre" torrents. There is simply no way the mainstream media could have turned me onto 99% of what I listen to. Fifteen years ago I got all my music news from radio and TV, so you can imagine how awful my selection was. My only reprieve back then was the university radio stations that prided themselves on playing the weirdest niches of electronic and experimental music. Then one day, I downloaded a Slayer album. I didn't really know who they were, but the dumb thing grew on me. Now I'm a huge metalhead, I even have Slayer on vinyl, plus about 550 other artists of all genres, including a big chunk of Scandinavian metal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe they play any Katatonia, Pagan's Mind or even Ayreon on MTV.

      Had it not been for some altruistic soul on Usenet, posting his personal toplist for everyone to sample, I would never have heard of any of those acts, and if it weren't for online music stores, I would never have found copies to buy. Perhaps most importantly, I would never have attended any of those bands' concerts, and I sure as shit would not have nurtured the passion to launch a not-really-profitable business promoting indie bands beyond the local scene. Having access to that variety of music is what turned an idle hobby into an obsession.

      My music spending before piracy: $10/month for one odd techno CD.
      My music spending after piracy: $500/month for an artist's back catalogue, a concert ticket + travel, and a dozen open mic nights at the local bars. I'm not even counting all the hours I invest into my protégés.

      The problem is the RIAA probably doesn't see much of that $500, because it's often going to indie bands, small online stores, or foreign dealers for the hard-to-find stuff. The RIAA simply does not sell a product I wish to buy, not even consume for free. I swear, if I hear that stupid J.Lo Lambada rip-off one more time !@^&#!@

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    5. Re:And... by master_p · · Score: 2

      It may be that pirates who don't purchase the material they pirate are not willing to participate in the study or declare not being interested in that material.

      On the other hand, people that pirate stuff and then buy it may be more than willing to participate in the study, thinking they did the right thing and wanting to show it to the world.

    6. Re:And... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      When you were a kid, though, I'd wager that you'd just borrow a cartridge from a friend to play it. It's getting a fair bit more difficult to do that sort of stuff nowadays, and in 10 years it might not even be possible.

      They're the ones that started escalating the war, not us.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    7. Re:And... by steveg · · Score: 2

      Do we have to bring up "correlation does not imply causation" again?
      What else happened in 2000?

      The bottom dropped out of the economy.
      Record companies reduced their catalogs (fewer things released.)
      Radio stations reduced their playlists, partly as a result of the above item, but also related to increasing consolidation of radio station ownership and thus "scientificly" targeted demographics.

      There are lots of things that correlate. Which is the cause?

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  3. No big deal by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you can't deny the information any longer, you switch to discrediting it. Fighting truth is just a cost of business for the entertainment industry.

    1. Re:No big deal by commisaro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Forgive me, but I don't really understand the business model, though. If it's true that their own studies have shown that pirates are better customers, this would presumably indicate that allowing piracy would increase revenue. So if their goal is to maximize profit, why wouldn't they want to take this on board?

    2. Re:No big deal by another_twilight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Control.

      While I think a lot of the anti-piracy stance of the media groups is still driven by the assumption that piracy hurts sales, demonising pirates has turned into a great way to justify a kind of balkanisation of the market.

      Regional restrictions allow them to sell the same product at the price that the local market will bear without diluting the higher markets with product sold in the lower.

      Encryption and laws against circumventing it that are supposed to stop piracy also act to stop you buying one copy of something and then transcoding it to the form most useful to you.

      Ultimately, the cost of distribution for purely digital material is drastically smaller than for physical items, but media companies are still claiming costs for breakages associated with LPs in the CD age. If they can blame 'pirates' then they don't have to let competition drive the price of a digital copy down to reflect the reduced cost of distribution.

      It's oddly long-sighted of them. They have a monopoly and are fighting to keep it that way. This isn't about short term profit. It's about keeping control of the entire profit-making industry.

    3. Re:No big deal by next_ghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because if they can't keep their tight grip on our culture, they're done for. This group of middlemen stopped being useful over a decade ago. It's not piracy they're fighting, it's the market which is trying to get rid of unnecessary transaction costs. Piracy is just a ruse.

    4. Re:No big deal by Genda · · Score: 2

      Have you ever heard of the Malay Monkey Trap. You put a piece of fruit in a hollow log the bore a small hole where the fruit is. The hole is just large enough for the monkey to reach in and grab the fruit, but too small to get the fist full of fruit out. Logic would dictate the monkey would drop the fruit and leave. Instead, the greedy little monkey will hang onto the fruit even in the face of mortal threat.

      It would appear that the corporate controllers of our music and motion picture entertainment have descended from primate ancestors but just barely.

    5. Re:No big deal by billcopc · · Score: 2

      I, for one, would not be a "better consumer" without piracy. I would simply not consume at all. I do not like the stuff they play on the radio or on MTV. I really can't stand what they dare call hip-hop these days, this top-40 one-note tone-deaf-droning garbage with no message. I don't fit the mold because I have triple-digit IQ and damn critical hearing.

      It used to be, you could go to a record store where people didn't wear stupid blue uniforms, and they could spell their own name without a tutor whispering clues. People thought those 6-disc "listening stations" were novel; those dumbasses! Any respectable record store, particularly ones that catered to DJs, would have turntables and CD decks beside the counter where you could plug your headphones and audition *ANY* album in the store. No label-approved selection, no time limit, just walk around, choose a stack of discs, and try them out. If you had no idea what to try, you could chat with the staff, who usually had near-encyclopedia knowledge of one of more genres, and they'd help you find something you'll enjoy, or perhaps steer you toward a new subgenre you might grow into. You'd bump into other music buffs and geek out about guitar solos, or they'd tell you about the awesome album they bought last week. The product was a vehicle for the culture it represented, rather than some manufactured sense of popularity.

      When those record stores closed, we had to figure out alternatives. One of them is to find people online who share some of your tastes, and swap tunes until you find something you like. The knowledgeable store clerk was replaced by 10-gigabyte torrents of some random guy's favorite albums and the many pages of comments attached to them. The record industry, in its greed and impatience, has fucked itself over. Shat the bed. Screwed the pooch. Pissed in the cornflakes. They took away the one thing that made buying music FUN, and replaced it with more top-40 propaganda.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    6. Re:No big deal by shish · · Score: 2

      I find that current pirates are generally aware of the situation and the effects of their actions, and they buy to support the creators; if piracy were allowed, the normal people who don't know and don't care would see it as a valid option and download without thinking~

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    7. Re:No big deal by nyri · · Score: 2

      You are correct. All the blathering about 'control' and stuff are borderline conspiracy theories. The study is being suppressed because MPAA/RIAA and movie studios, believe or not, are different entities. This requires just basic understanding of bureaucracy. MPAA/RIAA do not want to release the study. They are afraid that movie studios and record labels execs would read it; afraid that they conclude that MPAA/RIAA are a waste of time and good money.

      Believe me, this report is read with great interest in head quarters of each and every movie studio.

  4. Let me be a customer by ccguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I often download the first season of TV shows, and then buy the blu-ray of the rest - which I have to ship from a different continent because they won't sell them in my country. Well, they often don't air the TV shows here (in any channel), and of course web access is country restricted.

    So I go out of my way to pay. If you still think I'm a pirate, fuck off.

    1. Re:Let me be a customer by Master+Moose · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Likewise, many times when I have missed an episode of a TV show, I will download it.
      I always forego the tv companies online "Catch Up" service as the quality of the streams are crap. Yet this is seen as me being an evil pirate by those in the industry.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    2. Re:Let me be a customer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The industry needs to wake up and license these movies and televisions shows to anybody who wants to show them online and make it available in a non-hostile format. Wack a mole doesn't work terribly well and mostly just costs them money. It justifies the actions of pirates and let me be the one who says. I don't respect the copyright although I do respect peoples demand for money when they provide a service. That is to say I'll pay for the movies. I'll pay for the ridiculously expensive pop corn and soda. So long as I can afford it I have no issue here. I won't pay for content online generally speaking without good cause. There are avenues to generate revenue without charging and those whom do make it available have a crummy selection (yes- netflix, amazon prime, apple, and hulu). I can go to a pirate site and get a better selection of STREAMING content than if I go to a legit site. Not to mention I end up with multiple formats to chose from. Which does impact me. I'm not running MS Windows and I do care what the format is! I prefer freedom compatible formats.

    3. Re:Let me be a customer by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They didn't have the WB when Buffy was on and frankly hearing the description (a comedy horror based on a bad movie with a soap star and the Taster's Choice guy?) I would have NEVER bough so much as a single DVD but there was enough good word of mouth I said WTF and downloaded the first two episodes. I ended up hooked and now have the entire Joss Whedon collection, Angel, Buffy and Firefly with a couple of BtVS collectibles my late sister got me for bookends.

      I probably spent a good $500 on that and I wouldn't have spent a dime if it weren't for piracy. Also after getting burned by several games where the damned things wouldn't run even when I was waaaay over the specs and finding the demo is usually the ONLY level they do real serious QA on (I'm looking at you Max Payne) I will always download the game first to make sure it will actually play before plunking the cash. If it doesn't? Bye bye. I want all the features like MP so I buy the ones that run that aren't shit (and I don't play shit so they don't even last as long as the demo on my drive).

      So these figures really don't surprise me. It really doesn't take getting burned too many times before you want to try before you buy. No way to have a real trial? No sale for me. Sadly though I would argue that no matter what you do they'll claim piracy as their little PPTs say if they made X last year then they should make X*Y simply because they are just wonderful and geniuses.

      Mark my words as piracy goes down thanks to plenty of online choices like Netflix when they see their sales don't suddenly spike and give them ever increasing profits? First they'll blame the darknets, it is a scary sounding word and they don't have to prove shit and it will let them ram more draconian BS laws through, then if they keep slipping they'll just have themselves declared "too big to fail" and take the money directly out of your pockets though bribery of congress critters.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  5. Pirate? by pookemon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess it depends on which part of the piracy chain they are speaking too. Are they talking to the people who buy/borrow DVD/Blurays to rip and distribute them? The people that go to the latest release movies to video tape them? Sure, they are "good customers". Or are they talking to the people that download them from the forementioned "pirates" because they're sick of going to the movies to see something that costs a fortune, in an uncomfortable chair with no surround sound, half the picture off the screen and some annoying little shit kicking the back of their seat? Or perhaps they're talking about the kind of people that download them because they can't afford to buy the DVD, and rather than recording it off the TV they get a version off the net that is only different from the TV version because it doesn't have ads in it, though if they got the cable version it wouldn't have ads in it, so in reality there is actually no difference.

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
  6. Correction by igreaterthanu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did they correct for the amount of media consumed for each person? Of course someone who pirates 50% of all media they consume, yet consumes a large amount of media is going to purchase more than someone who consumes far less.

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And this matters... why?

      Someone who goes to see 1 movie/year, and purchases 1 DVD/year vs. someone who pirates 50 movies/year and goes to see 25/year and buys 25 DVDs/year. No matter how you correct for the person who consumes less, the "pirate" who downloads 50% illegally is 25 times more gross revenue for them.

    2. Re:Correction by dslauson · · Score: 2

      Disagree. Nobody is saying that their piracy "causes" them to pay for more media. However, regardless of the causal relationship, this correlation serves as refutation of the image of a pirate as a freeloading, non-contributing jerk. Statistically, they are buying things. In fact, more than the average person.

    3. Re:Correction by zippyspringboard · · Score: 2

      As someone who consumes very little media, and I mean VERY LITTLE. I wonder if by having a large quantity of media readily available for pirating doesn't actually encourage the habit of consumption. I know that often my media purchases (almost exclusively CDs and books) almost always follow an influx of new media loaned or given to me by a friend. I'll listen to some new music and think "this is good stuff" and frequently go out and purchase a few cd's or a couple books as a result, usually tangentially related, sometimes not
                  I'm not saying that I purchase what was loaned to me I don't. Those poor starving artists usually get nothing from me. What I am saying is that fresh media tends to wet my appetite for more fresh media, and that if I'm in the mood for something new I usually don't hesitate to purchase it.

              In other words If it were not for books and CD's traded about I probably wouldn't purchase ANY media, other than what was necessary. For me I am quite certain that the amount of "free samples" that pass my way is directly correlated to the amount of impulsive shopping I do. Granted if I had access to all media known to man in high quality for free I wouldn't ever purchase any of it.

  7. Hardly Surprising by Sinthet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who torrent lots of media tend to enjoy being consumers of media. Many want to support artists but love the convenience P2P gives them, so they utilize it to try products and then support the artists they think deserve funds by purchasing DVDs/CDs/Games, or they simply want a physical copy as a result of wanting to collect things.

    I'm not discounting that some pirates are purely leeches however. There's no reason to believe that all pirates are so generous, just that it makes pretty good sense that a majority are willing to pay for quality entertainment. Hell, I've purchased each volume of MegaTokyo religiously since picking up the first one randomly in a bookstore, regardless of the fact that the comics are all available for free online (And not illegally either).

    1. Re:Hardly Surprising by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I consume shitloads of media.

      If things were more reasonably priced, I'd probably buy everything I wanted. As it is I need to guarantee its not crap before I buy it.

      At $10 per DVD, I'd buy everything. At the $25+ per DVD that I have to pay for most things I end up downloading the stuff then buying copies when they go down into my price range.

      I have probably in excess of 1,000 movies and maybe 20 full tv series downloaded. Of those I own about 600 movies and 18 of the 20 tv series.

      So yes, I pirate, a lot. However at the same time I'm one of the best customers the media industry has.

  8. Music for Me by LearnToSpell · · Score: 2

    I download a ton of stuff (the full-evaluation copy, my friend called it), but if I like it, I buy the CD. I'm pushing 4,000 right now, and I can't imagine I'd have a fifth that if I had to buy before listening. Digital distribution's made it so easy to try 20 different bands in one listening session, so expecting people to just shell out money in the faith that the product will be to their liking seems so... antiquated.

    --
    Haida Manga
  9. half agree by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The movie and music industry think pirates are criminals and parasites who cost both industries billions of dollars in lost sales.

    No, and yes.

    They aren't the idiots that they play themselves to be, that are blindly trying to sue everyone and don't understand how things should work. They are completely aware of the situation, and understand that they are playing the game in the most profitable way possible, and have absolutely no reason to change their ways.

    But yes they do recognize pirates (and customers, and little green men, and everyone else on and off the planet) as a threat to their bottom line, and will take any action they can find that will further to maximize their profit. Be it legal or illegal, moral or immoral, sensible or nonsense. They'll run the numbers and follow the compass to the $outh, past whatever it leads them through.

    Can't blame them really. They're experts at their job, and I'm sure their shareholders would agree, they're doing quite well at their job. (otherwise they'd have been fired long ago)

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:half agree by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't blame them really. They're experts at their job, and I'm sure their shareholders would agree, they're doing quite well at their job.

      They hell I can't! If they were robotic automatons that were preprogrammed with the single goal of generating a metric fuckton of profit for their shareholders and that were lacking the free will to reevaluate their values, then you would be correct, I couldn't blame them.

      However, the record companies are not run by robotic automatons. They are run by humans and, quite frankly, as human beings, they should have the cognitive capacity to understand complex mental abstractions such as morality, healthy social balance, empathy, and temperance. Trying to earn a profit is not a morally corrupt quest. Trying to earn a profit at the expense and livlihood of your fellow human beings, and at the disruption of the society that you, yourself, are part of is downright stupid, if not flagrantly evil.

      So you bet your ass I can and will blame these lying, piss-poor pieces of shit that were raised with such a moral apathy that they hardly even resemble a shell of what a thinking, intelligent, contributing member of this species is.

      You may think it is okay to be an apologist for sociopaths, but I, personally, hold my fellow human beings to higher standards than that if they are going to continue calling themselves human.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
  10. Some Notes by brit74 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We know from other data that music sales (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2) and DVD/BlueRay sales (*see below) are down. When adjusted for inflation and population growth, Box office revenues are down around 15% compared to 10 years ago.

    It's also worth pointing out that saying, "pirates buy more than the average consumer" is not actually an argument for piracy, since pirates tend to be disproportionately from a class of people who were originally big fans. Thus, it's possible that "big fans" who start using piracy end up buying 1/2 as much as they used to, but still out-buy the "average consumer" who was never all that interested. (For example, I don't pirate and I own zero DVDs or BluRay disks, which makes it easy for pirates to buy more than me.)

    * "Total revenue from DVD, Blu-ray and digital sales and rentals of movies and television shows in the U.S. declined 3% to $18.8 billion in 2010, according to new data from industry trade organization Digital Entertainment Group. Although the drops, particularly of DVD sales, are worrisome for the entertainment industry, studio executives can at least take some comfort in the fact that the picture isn't worsening as quickly as it did in 2009, when total home entertainment revenue plunged 7.6%."
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/01/home-entertainment-market-shrinking-slower-as-blu-ray-and-digital-make-up-for-more-of-dvd-decline.html

    1. Re:Some Notes by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe the economy has more to do with that then piracy. Also legal methods of watching movies as well. I don't buy movies now that I have netflix unless I really love them. In the past I did not buy many movies, certainly less than I spend on netflix. This means while I might be spending less on DVDs I am spending more on entertainment.

    2. Re:Some Notes by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      Maybe the economy has more to do with that then piracy.

      I think you hit the nail on the head there.

      I don't get it. It's like the MAFIAA thinks that an economic downturn is not allowed to affect them or something. Wake up, people! You provide entertainment services. That is a frill, not a necessity. If people have to choose between gas for the car or clothes for their kids and buying the newest (or even pre-owned) movie you're trying to milk for moar profitz, guess which one they'll choose?

      Overall, it seems to me that the entertainment industry has been hit with a softer stick than other areas of the economy. At least they're not looking for an official bailout package yet, although I suppose the income from their nuisance lawsuits is tiding them over...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    3. Re:Some Notes by Cederic · · Score: 2

      To add to h4rr4r's insightful comment, people have spent a few years building a DVD collection. Many of my purchases have been films from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. I now own those films, so no, I'm not going to buy them again. I'm only going to buy more recent films. I imagine many people are in this situation.

      The other factor is the quality of the output. Hollywood really does create a very large volume of very low quality work. Not only do people prefer to avoid paying for shit, but it's discouraging to attend the cinema at great expense when you're not sure whether the film will be any good or not.

      I suspect people are also wising up to the marketing practices of the media companies. I want to buy Black Swan on DVD. I think it's a great film - probably the best of the last decade - and I intend to watch it many times. But the Bluray version has additional material on it that the DVD lacks.

      I know this. It's an arbitrary decision. I also know that if I wait patiently, I'll be able to eventually buy a DVD with that extra material on. So the producers have deferred a DVD sale. Similarly I'm waiting for Kill Bill to come out with the extra material and versions released in Japan and other territories. I will eventually buy them, but it'll be at a discounted price and they're not getting that revenue now.

      (Computer games are even worse than this - I know any game released this year will within 3 years be released on Steam with all its DLC at a heavily discounted price. I have every Dawn of War and Company of Heroes game released by Relic except Dawn of War II: Retribution. To buy that game and all its DLC right now would cost £57; I know it'll be a great game, I really want to play it, and I have enough games to play for a few months longer to wait for the Platinum Gold Game of the Year Complete Special Edition to be released for £30 and then the couple of months longer than that for it to get a substantial discount.)

      No piracy, drop in revenues..

  11. This is nothing new by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A while back I came across a copy of Modern Recording magazine (this was a trade magazine aimed at people who worked in recording studios) from 1981 and there was an article about "piracy" of music. In those days there were no personal computers or internet. The villain, according to the record companies, was the cassette tape recorder. People were borrowing albums from their friends and making a copy on cassette tape. So the RIAA commissioned a study that they hoped to take to the government and get some sort of law passed to halt this terrible crime (much like the MPAA tried to stop the VCR).

    According ot the article, the RIAA study was shelved and never widely distributed because it revealed -- surprise -- that people who owned cassette tape decks bought an average of 75% more albums that people who didn't own any recording equipment.

  12. Re:Try before you buy by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, but you may get modded down for excessive use of hyperbole in a public place. Who is this Slashdot you speak of?

    Piracy does affect artists, but then so do the dubious actions of record companies. It's difficult to appreciate an impact though on artists when their slice of music sales is typically so low that record deals become more about trying to build enough popularity to earn enough from merchandise and touring. Piracy hurts artists, but it hurts everyone else in the chain far more. Unlike this curious Mr. Slashdot I don't think that all piracy is good. I instead opt to buy far fewer discs than I did in the past. DRM fucks up my ability to enjoy the content I buy, and money given is being used against me in the belief that I am by default a criminal. I'd rather buy from indies and go gigging. If I buy a DVD I cant rip then it's returned as faulty to the store.

    You're flamebait, and also a dick for playing the martyr to the mods card. Despite appearances to the contrary, it's dicks that are not welcome here.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  13. Re:Try before you buy by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Conveniently, the artists who aren't getting paid are left out of that equation, because they're a reminder that piracy has a negative effect, which dismantles the ideology that pirates are the good guys.

    Which part of "people that pirate spend more on media" leads you to believe that piracy has a negative effect?

    Are you suggesting that the extra revenue generated from pirates isn't reaching the artists? I'm not sure that would be attributable to the pirates, in their role of consumers.

    Shit, you'll get modded down because you're spouting illogical bullshit, and that's something the Slashdot community picks up on, not because you're anti-piracy. Many people on Slashdot dislike freeloaders; it just happens that many more recognise the reality that there isn't a binary situation here, and that (as recognised in the survey) people that consume more media will pay more for it, even if they don't pay for all of it.

  14. I live these studies by slash-doubter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I never went to concerts or bought records until I started pirating music. I never bought textbooks for pleasure reading until I pirated textbooks. I never bought art creation programs, before pirating them all and finding the ones that suited me. I also never went sailing before I started pirating, but I don't think there is a correlation there. I wouldn't have to pirate if there was some sane trial and advertising didn't lie. As is, pirating is the only thing that allows me to make an informed use of my very limited financial resources. A disproportionate amount of which goes to the people I "stole" from.

    1. Re:I live these studies by slash-doubter · · Score: 2

      According to TFA, I contribute more to society than you :P. (If giving money to record companies is a measure of societal contribution as you imply).

  15. Re:Justification by icebraining · · Score: 2

    Only dumb people use the Law as a replacement for their own moral code. I only need to justify criminal acts when I'm before a court.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  16. "It's the internet stupid" by the_raptor · · Score: 2

    The MAFIAA are seeing their revenue drop because they are no longer the gate keepers to popular entertainment. Instead of buying CD's of artists signed to members of the RIAA, people can buy songs from tens of thousands of other artists who would never get signed by the big studios. Instead of watching a movie people are watching YouTube videos, chatting via social media, or playing games.

    The reason the MAFIAA want to lock down the Internet and PC's isn't to stop piracy, it is to get back their position as gatekeepers of popular entertainment. How can they keep tricking artists into signing contracts that will see the artist get cents on the dollar, if the artist can simply market themselves via the Internet?

    It is like Microsoft getting money for every Android device sold. If you can't compete get the government to hand you monopoly rent.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  17. Re: Internet Shoplifters by Travelsonic · · Score: 2

    Calling them shoplifters is really an insult to REAL shoplifters, don't you think? Not to mention your post begs a lot of questions: Factually speaking, where are you coming from? Pirate is the CORRECT term, shoplifter is not since, *derp,* no shoplifting is occurring.

    --
    If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  18. Pirates by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can we please stop calling people who engage in copyright infringement pirates?

    Real pirates are scum who need to be wiped off the planet.
    Copyright infringers are breaking one or more laws in certain jurisdictions, and their moral status is more of a gray area.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife