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.

Comments

Nothing to see here...

[__aaclcg7560]

They're too busy being the next PewDiePie.

Re:Nothing to see here...

[elrous0]

Is the Wall Street journal out to slander them too?

Results seem suspect

[SuperKendall]

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.

Democracy?

[Skinkie]

At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?

Re:Democracy?

[PPH]

change the law

We figured they were more actual guidelines.

Re:Democracy?

[james_gnz]

At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?

Never. That's not an option, because if the world succumbs to piracy, it will fall apart. We must continue efforts to address piracy in four ways:

• Preventative technical protection measures
• Monitoring
• Streamlining prosecution
• Harsher penalties

It's not impossible if you're willing to think outside the square. If the figure goes up around 90% we could just drop a nuke. We've got plenty, and we're not using them.

Legal isn't even an option we have

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Masturbation joke

[AK Marc]

70% are pirates. The other 30% are liars.

Re:Masturbation joke

[Mr D from 63]

And the remaining 10% are bad at math.

TANSTAAFL

[mi]

not make it illegal anymore?

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?

Re:TANSTAAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the current model is the problem. If 70% of people can be pirates and movie stars can still make millions more than their equally educated peers then maybe the amount they CHARGE to view the content is the problem.

Just thinking about entertainers like PewDiePie - He has 53 million subscribers and makes ~$12 million a year. That under $0.25 per person per year for all his content and I think he would say he is doing fine. This is a 100% ad-supported model.

If people paid just $1 for all his content each year he would make $53 million+ a year (not everyone subscribes)... The point is, the actors and actresses feel the need to make way too much and anyone in economics would tell you they are trying to optimize their profit. The problem with that is it inherently creates people who are not willing to pay the market rate for the content and since it is "free" to copy it - they do.

Obviously with physical goods you can't just "copy" the good and thus it isn't much of a problem when someone is not willing to pay market rate. They can still try to copy the item but it costs them $ and we don't call that pirating. We don't call it pirating when I take a stick and use it for a marshmallow skewer. We wouldn't call it pirating if I "copied" a patented idea with my own materials.

This is simply a massive market failure because the middle class / upper middle class see $20 for a movie (for their family of 4) as cheap while lower classes and young see it as very expensive for themselves alone or a couple. The media executives think they have found pricing that generates the most profit but the *necessary* side effect is a market failure for some people. The incorrect thought by these media executive is that the people would ever be paying customers at the current price. It will NEVER happen. The reason they are not paying customers has nothing to do with the ability to pirate and everything to do with PRICING.

Re:TANSTAAFL

[Yaztromo]

The point is, the actors and actresses feel the need to make way too much and anyone in economics would tell you they are trying to optimize their profit. The problem with that is it inherently creates people who are not willing to pay the market rate for the content and since it is "free" to copy it - they do.

This is one area I feel the entertainment industry just doesn't get it. The general attitude often seems to be "I cost us X to make this thing, therefore it is worth X".

Unfortunately, that's not how any other markets work. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. This goes for virtually anything that is bought and sold -- toys, comic books, computers, cars, stocks, collector coins, individual pieces of art, gold -- the price is based completely off what people are willing to pay for an item, and has little or nothing to do with how much it cost to produce. This is actually a good thing -- items with a high perceived value can command higher prices and reap more profits, while at the same time there is a push to find ways to lower prices to enhance the perceived value vs. price ratio.

I view media piracy along these lines. It's part of the markets way of telling the media companies that the perceived value of what they produce is lower for many people than what they charge.

Now admittedly in the last few years better pricing models with (legal) streaming services like Netflix have helped to improve the situation for many consumers. TV in particular seems to have done a really good job of coming up with ways of putting content online for free (TV shows are highly advertising supported anyway). But other parts of the industry seem to be fixated upon fixed pricing, especially for new media, that is above the value much of the population would put on it. People willing pay for things when they perceive the value as being more than the price; but when you price things above that perceived value line, you just drive piracy. It doesn't matter how much something cost to make -- if you want to charge more than the market is willing to pay, people simply aren't going to pay.

Yaz

Re:TANSTAAFL

[gweihir]

As it turns out, quality content does not have that problem. An artist that can not survive on what people are willing to give does not deserve to be able to live of his art. It has always been like that, except when in modern times Big Content has hijacked and perverted the system. Incidentally, copyright was introduced to prevent big publishers ripping off artists by printing their texts without permission and with zero compensation for the artists. As such, it is completely perverted today.

Re:TANSTAAFL

[Immerman]

How about "for non-commercial use only" as the discriminating rule for copying? Seems like that would get right at the heart of the ethics of the situation. Art belongs to the world, but the artist controls the right *profit* from it.

That would also dovetail nicely with maintaining venue owners into needing a license for public performance. Unless of course the performance/venue is completely nonprofit, which obviously doesn't apply to movie theaters, bars, etc. that expect to make money off the people that the performance. helps attract to their establishment. If we want to carve another exception, that's a separate question.

As for hypocrisy - hardly. Change the rules for all new copyrights granted from this day forth, and the artists know exactly what deal they're getting. (And it's a considerably better deal than they've gotten for most of human history.) If they choose to continue making art, and as a nonprofit artist I can guarantee you that many will, we should feel happy to view it. And if you want to encourage someone to make more/better art, you're welcome to send donations, contribute to crowdfunded projects, etc.

Such a tactic might mean the end of expensive blockbusters, but that business model has no special right to continue to exist. Especially if it depends on criminalizing the vast majority of the population.

Re:TANSTAAFL

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The trouble with your economic model is that it's ignoring the one-sided nature of piracy. It's OK to argue that work is worth what someone will pay for it and the market will determine that rate, but that is predicated on the idea that you don't get the benefit if you don't pay the cost.

The entire economic model fails if you say that someone can enjoy the benefits of another's work without having to make any choice about what it's worth because they don't have to pay anything at all. Obviously that is unsustainable if the whole market does the same thing, and in the middle ground the freeloaders are just distorting the market and potentially increasing the price paid by those who do support the work.

70% ? Thats good, but its not good enough

[Indy1]

We need to strive for 100%.

Piracy Reasons

[SuperKendall]

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...

How about making your content easily available?

[rundgong]

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!

Not good enough.

[SuricouRaven]

70 is good, but how do we get it up to 80?

Sell me what I want! PLEASE!

[Opportunist]

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?

The publisher refuses to take my money

[tepples]

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.

• The TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea (the English-language dub of Les mondes engloutis)
• The film Song of the South (Unless you think LaserDisc was "popular")
• The film Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night (Do you consider VHS still a viable option?)

Re:The publisher refuses to take my money

[tepples]

Then you are not ENTITLED to watch it

How does this lack of ENTITLEMENT "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

Wait a few more years and it will all be worked out

This is not practical for copyright, which is designed to subsist for a period exceeding one human lifetime.

Re:And then you want isps to ban pirates?

[johanw]

They will be subject to regime change when Hollywood manages to buy a democrat for president.