Slashdot Mirror
70 Percent of Young Swedish Men Are Video Pirates, Study Says (torrentfreak.com)
A new study from Sweden has found that just over half of all young people admit to obtaining movies and TV shows from the Internet without paying, a figure that rockets to 70 percent among young men, reports TorrentFreak, citing a study. From the report: According to figures just released by media industry consultants Mediavision, in January 2017 almost a quarter of all Swedes aged between 15 and 74 admitted either streaming or downloading movies from 'pirate' sites during the past month. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tendency to do so is greater among the young. More than half of 15 to 24-year-olds said they'd used a torrent or streaming site during December. When concentrating that down to only young men in the same age group, the figure leaps to 70 percent.
They're too busy being the next PewDiePie.
If you asked most non-technical people if they were using a "streaming site" to watch video, it seems like it would be hard to phrase a question in a way that would properly separate legal from non-legal use... how many would include something like Netflix? Of you said you hand't paid for it, how would they really know if website they used was legal or not? If you ask about specific pirate sites then you might get more accurate results.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wouldn't they be video vikings?
At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
In Scandinavia, being legal movie user is not even an option we have. Which movies are available when, is determined by some large media giants. Netflix and other streaming services contain a fraction of the movies the American one has. The series networks (ABC / NBC / ....) are not available or extremely difficult to get to because of geofencing. Someone else choose which subtitles are available, and if they are hardcoded.
Soehh.. I think many of the young men listed here, myself included, would be happy to pay some $10 to $25 a month to LEGALLY watch movies, if that was an option. The audio guys slowly learn: streaming is available everywhere, and people use the services instead of copying MP3 files. Movie guys still don't get it.
Just 2c from this side of the fence.
In socialist countries anything not considered a necessity costs at least three times what it does elsewhere. I would be pirating shit too if I lived there...
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
Fairly sure I saw a documentary on The Norden (the series is on YouTube) and one episode was about Religion, in which a US Baptist minister went to various Northern European countries. One was Sweden and he met one of the church members of the Data Sharing Religion, who believed that copying data and streaming was a sacred act.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
70% are pirates. The other 30% are liars.
Learn to love Alaska
And then what? Who'll pay millions of dollars to produce the movies/shows, that viewers can watch for free?
Are you sure, you want it all sponsored by advertising entirely?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We need to strive for 100%.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
That's all, just... *cough*.. yumpin' yimminy.
sig: sauer
When I was a kid I also pirated a lot (in my case all software though, not movies or music), up through college. Then I stopped...
It wasn't because I saw more value in work though. It was because I HAD more money. To me when I had no money pirating was obviously not stealing to me because there was no possibility to give them money anyway, so there was no loss.
When I had enough money to pay for things, I did because then it would have been stealing had I not. I have not pirated anything in a decade or more now...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How many of these people are also paying for legal streaming services?
Nobody is going to pay for one more streaming service, when you already have 2 legal streaming services, and you are really only interested in one show on that third service. Or worse, your favorite show is not available for streaming at all because it is licensed to a cable channel that don't offer streaming.
When that happens, I think most people feel torrent is a very reasonable alternative.
We can listen to almost any music on Spotify, Tidal, Itunes or Google Play. Why the hell do we need 5 different streaming services for seeing all TV shows?
If you want us to pay for your content, then make it easy for us to pay for it!
70 is good, but how do we get it up to 80?
to consume it anyway
*view it
Nothing is "consumed" when a work is viewed.
without paying the creators whatever they want — is hypocrisy.
Then how much does the Shakespeare estate deserve for West Side Story (1961) and Romeo + Juliet (1996)?
Even a torrent site isn't necessarily illegal, and in the case that it is, it wouldn't necessarily be used for video.
I want to buy. I really do. But what's offered simply is not good enough.
Take a show. Just choose one. You will not be able to see it here, not even for any sort of money you'd be willing to throw at the makers, until after it's been on local TV. Ok, you may say, that's understandable, so you get it a month later. Nope. Half a year to a year later. Why? Dubbing.
TV shows get dubbed around here. Invariably. And 9 out of 10 times they get dubbed badly. The dialogues are stale and it seems they go out of their way to take out any kind of joke or mood the original tried to convey, the lip syncing is hilariously bad (think old Eastern movies) and the sync actors seem to be whatever actor is currently out of luck and in dire need of work.
And when it finally gets available, hope and pray that you're lucky to get the original version instead of just the dubbed atrocity.
Can anyone imagine why people reach for torrents and other less legal sources? Why is it that I cannot simply buy the same DVDs that are available in the US?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Today with all the options available 'because I can't get it any other way' is a crock
Sometimes I can't get it because the publisher refuses to take my money. Try this exercise: Find me a lawfully made copy of these on a video format popular in the United States.
They will be subject to regime change when Hollywood manages to buy a democrat for president.
Would I be out of line to propose that everyone pays a fair price for all media and then can get it free? Just a thought..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Sometimes it's a matter of faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I prefer teaching Kopimism instead.
To mimic Kevin Flynn from Tron, distortion is simply a harsh term for market forces you disapprove of.
Because blockbusters can be made, it puts pressure on the market for lesser works. When people prefer to spend all of their money on higher priced entertainment, they don't have it to spend on lesser works.
But they aren't market forces. Economic markets are two-sided. This is a game where only one side is playing by the rules, and the strategy continues to work only as long as that one-sided situation remains.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Interesting theory. Is there any data to support it? Anecdotally, I feel like things are going the other way and the advent of services like YouTube and Spotify and of the Internet more generally means people are far less limited to mainstream entertainment these days.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Except that the vast, vast majority of works being pirated are recent, and would still have been covered by even the original copyright periods of centuries ago.
And plenty of those works aren't created by Big Media industries with vast budgets.
And any argument about copyright only applying to copies making money has to take into account that when these laws were first developed, that was basically the only kind of copying there was.
There are legitimate concerns about scope creep in copyright, Disney laws, and so on. But the idea that those somehow justify rampant piracy is not credible.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Because you can get away with charging full monopoly rents for your "work", you don't have to produce a new one to keep eating.
Only if your work continues to provide enough value to other people that the market is willing to keep paying for it indefinitely. A tiny number of people ever reach that point, and arguably those people have generated so much value for society that maybe they do deserve to be set up for life.
Moreover, you have already broken the copyright laws by your land grab extensions of time and coverage
Erm... What? By definition, those extensions were changing the law, not breaking it. I agree with you that a lot of the terms have become unreasonably long and some of the laws should be changed. However, I also don't think that matters very much in the context of piracy, because most piracy is of works that are recent and won't be affected by the "land grab", as you call it, for several decades.
Be thankful that we still feel sorry enough for you to spend as much as we do on it. We have no debt to pay for you when you broke the rules decades ago.
Your attempt to tar millions of people working in creative industries with the same brush is crude and illogical. If you think you shouldn't have any debt to pay to those people when you enjoy the fruits of their labour, feel free to campaign to get the laws changed to something you consider fair. If you succeed, good for you. But if you don't, or if you don't even try and just choose to break any rules you happen not to like, maybe you should be thankful that your name hasn't come up with one of the big content creators that has the resources to take real action against you. At some point you might find out the hard way that you're not above the law.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They're actually copyright infringers, not pirates.
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
The only reason people are breaking the law is because what's in place right now isn't even close to filling a need.
If the media moguls stopped playing games with artificial marketplaces, and also charging ridiculous prices for movies, then maybe the whole need for copyright infringment would go away.
The fact that they even need to resort to laws to protect their artificial marketplaces, serves to underline how fucked up it must be. The fact that governments even make protectionist laws like this also underlines how powerful and therefore how rich the media moguls already are from this scam.
No, you are confusing terms dictated by one party, with descriptions of how markets work.
It is not wrong for people not to be rewarded for their work. It is only wrong when two parties have agreed in advance what an exchange of work for reward will be and the party agreeing to the reward doesn't pay up.
...and fake news! There is no way 30% of us are not pirating. They probably just didn't admit to it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So you are objecting to people's choice? You feel they should have no option but "lesser works"?
Thieves! Do they realise how hard it is for poor Hollywood producers and actors lately?? They can't afford coke every day now, just every second. Poor, poor guys. How can you do that to them??
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
I'm objecting to the means by which they are given that choice. If that choice is unabailable without that means, then so what? There will be other choices. There is nothing that says that one set of choices are better than another.
The other 29.9% either didn't reply, or just lied.
This is not about specific people. This is about what rules I believe all people will be better off under. Rules deciding and not people is what makes something not authoritarian.
1. This is about one group (you) actively forcing their views on others.
2. Your belief is irrelevant. I do not care about your belief. I care about your wish to harm many, many others (creators and consumers).
3. Let's Godwin your ridiculous attitude for once and all. Following orders is obeying rules. Rules never decide. The one who makes the rules decides. The one that makes the rules is authoritarian. As you are. Good rules are seldom made by single minds. Not even yours.
You are willing to cause an immense amount of permanent harm (it would appear) to many, many people (an entire multi-national industry) based on your sole, totally unsupported opinion (hypothesis). Your attitude of "I'm right, you can all get fucked" is the problem; as well as being what makes you an authoritarian. You would make a great dictator.
Well then, there is no solution, so who cares. Harm gets done no matter how you slice it. I didn't make this about authoritarianism, so I can care less about whether it happens to be authoritarianism. No matter what you do, someone gets harmed.
Now you understand you have been a bourke, you try and trivialise? "harm gets done..." No retraction, no apology, about the fact that you are willing to create harm based on nothing but you think you are right.
You made it about authoritarianism when you expressed an authoritarian attitude.
Having to pay a reasonable price for a blockbuster is being harmed is it? No, not paying for it is doing the harm.
I am not a supporter of the current copyright situation. But your views are extreme and dictatorial. The views a child might have. You might want to reconsider them.
And nothing you have said makes this not a matter of principle.
Why should I apologize for merely changing who gets harmed?
You are totally correct in that.
Pity you do not seem to have consistent principles. Which I have pointed out.
What is "permanent" harm. I know that if you cut a limb off it doesn't really grow back, but what does permanent mean in this case?
Because; 1. that is not the case, 2. You want to impose your choice on everyone else.
How is that not the case? And so what if I am imposing my choice on everyone else. That's what reality is, people's choices being imposed on everyone else.
People lose their careers. People who have spent a lifetime building skills have no place to practice them anymore.
If they can't eventually find a way to practice their skills under the way I want things, it is due to their own lack of imagination and not a fault of my system itself.
Bullshit. Big things take big investments. Big things take big organisations. It is nothing to do with lack of imagination. It is, after all, creative people we are talking about. The issue is funding and organising.
You are being hypocritical again - "...not a fault of my system itself" when you do not have a system. You are just deeming certain thing to be unfit to exist. Arbitrarily. By fiat.
Big things are not the only things that creative skills can be used on and there are other ways to raise funds than the way it is done now. One way is to crowdfund things up front.
I suppose this is completely arbitrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Disingenuous.
A very strange idea of reality and one that is to be strongly opposed. I have a dislike for dictators, authoritarians and fascists. So do most people.
The claim that creative people can't lack imagination when it comes to how to fund utilizing their skills seems to indicate a lack of understanding of how creativity works. Creative people are creative in small zones of creativity. There is a wide field in which to be creative and people are creative in relatively small patches of it.
Why is it one to be opposed? People have a dislike for the idea of dictators authoritarians and fascists when all along, they all are. Everyone is that sort of person and fits into at least one of those categories.
Again you wish to force your choice on others.
It so happens I have ponied up funds for two movies being made. But I may not live to see their completion nor do I have any guarantee my money is not wasted. They will never have good production value because crowdfunding is simply inadequate to produce blockbuster quality movies.
The Missionary Church of Kopimism is as full of crap as Hubbard. Its philosophies inconsistent. They should study some information theory. Yes it it is arbitrary.
Everything is arbitrary then, including what is good production value. You seem to object to reality itself. That's all I hear from you.
Understanding how things work... hhmmm... I think perhaps better than you.
I paint water paints. I do not like to use acrylic or oils. If I had to use oils I would stop painting.
For me to make a living from my art (I do not) I need it to be seen and sold. Photos on the internet are not good enough. I need a physical place to hang my work and someone to take the money. Now painting is not well remunerated (in your lifetime) even if you are good the "hourly rate" sucks badly. This is reality. So, I earn my money coding. But I would rather paint - with water paint. I am not complaining. Its is what it is.
But you want to limit the choices of both artists and consumers.
I am done here.
That is because you are in an echo chamber and only hearing your own voice.
People have a dislike for the idea of dictators authoritarians and fascists when all along, they all are. Everyone is that sort of person and fits into at least one of those categories.
Well, no. Not everyone is like that and if you think that they are then you are spiritually defeated already. I pity you.
You do not make money from painting yet you start out with "If I am to make money from my painting". This does not reflect someone with a good grasp of reality. I don't want to limit the choices. In fact, I believe that the net choices will be expanded. But this is just arbitrary and whatever again, so what.
Hate to break it to you, but everybody is in their own echo chamber, for the most part. I actually strive to be a little more out of my echo chamber. But in order for people to get a little bit further out of their echo chambers it always requires work. You have shown no indication that you are such a person. But maybe that's just me in my echo chamber again, but you have zero interest in moving me further out of my echo chamber, but merely to tell me I am bad. You are a broken record.
Then teach me how to win.
What is a bourke? http://www.urbandictionary.com... does not appear to help.
Good rules do not exist. As The Doctor said on Doctor Who, "Good men do not need rules. Now is not the time to find out why I have so many." That being the case, rules are only made by men who are not good. As a result, the rules are not good.
Play positive sum games. Think in those terms. It is simple as that.
I try to play positive sum games, but I'm not sure how to evaluate whether a game is a positive sum game. I see the concept of intellectual property and I do not see a positive sum game.
Wow, does your echo chamber blur things?
If I could have supported and educated my kids by painting I would have done so. I stated what I would need to do incurred even further cost to the point where "painting for profit" only applies to house painters. And you seem to think that recognising the reality of the situation is somehow not a "good grasp of reality". You really have your head on backwards.
You have no reason (or given none) for your belief that the nett choices will increase. You know (have agreed) that some choices will be lost. So you prefer your speculation (silly speculation at that) over your facts. And you do not even attempt to detail what 'more' choices you think there will be.
When I was young, my sister and I did something, carrying on perhaps, my aunt disapproved of. She told us to go sit on the bed until we can behave. My sister got up immediately. I sat there for some time pondering the concepts involved. I had no intention of misbehaving and no real basis with which to judge any degree of effectiveness on the matter. It was really quite the pickle. I sat that way until my aunt came and found me.
Unencumbered by intellectual property claims all assets will be free for all to use in new works. That should open up more opportunity for everyone.
Then you lack creativity and balance. The definition for positive, zero and negative sum games are readily available.
Tell me, what are your feelings about public infrastructure? You think roads, railways, power plants should be built by crowd-funding? Oh! And what about libraries? That is where people who cannot afford to purchase books go. Round here it is the same with DVDs etc. If there is anything I want then the local public library will get it in for me (not speculation, experience). So if I indulged in any piracy it would be supremely arrogant. That is probably the case in most civilised or semi civilised societies.
Well, I definitely lack balance. I should really look into the concept more. So far, I haven't cared a fig for it. Nobody really made a good case for it. I cannot speak for your experience. I was about to say that you must have really limited taste, but that would be echo chamber thinking. I have no idea on that matter. i can only share that my experience is that the local library is severely limited in selection. Public infrastructure is funded by the government. If you are suggesting that all culture should be funded by the government as well, that is an interesting idea. Now this is not just about access to materials but reuse in new media which is encumbered by the concept of intellectual property.
http://www.essentiallifeskills... describes balance as between what you must do with what you enjoy doing. It says that it is essential with no further justification.
I have always maintained that there is nothing that you must do that you do not enjoy doing and have lived my life accordingly. It has been an unexamined belief though, so it is long due time to do so. However, sites that just assume otherwise are less helpful than they could be.
That must be why Sweden has so many content producers who are fully assured to be paid for their efforts.
... no one makes content people want to watch in the EU.
Oh wait