Most File Sharers Would Pay For Legal Downloads 370
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.'"
People will even pay for first post (Score:4, Funny)
Re:People will even pay for first post (Score:4, Insightful)
And if we mod it down, the comment will have insightfully predicted this!
Epimenides is watching us and snickering somewhere.
How Cheap? (Score:5, Interesting)
The purchased copy would also have to be DRM free.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be ok, if the item would be posted right after it aired (like bit torrent)....
Exactly. That pisses me off. A friend recommended switching from the 'pirate life' to an xbox. He said just about every TV show and Movie I could want is available through Zune and/or Netflix.
I switched, and everything is several years behind. Wanna watch Season 1 of Heroes, sure. Wanna watch seasons two through five? Not on your xbox.
Is it really that fucking hard to figure out? I don't want to pay Comcast $65/mo for a crapload of channels and shows I don't want to watch. But I would spend abo
LOL - Your a perfect example (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL - Your a perfect example (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing the math (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
that - and let me say that $2/episode is nowhere near expensive (a beer at a bar is easily $2 and all you get from it is the need to take a piss).. not sure what GP would pay for a 3.5 minute song, if anything - and...
Re:LOL - Your a perfect example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL - Your a perfect example (Score:4, Insightful)
If 5 million viewers were watching each episode of my tv show, I'd be pleased as punch to get $.25 for each person. You've got to have a top notch piece of entertainment to make it worth a dollar or more an hour, and frankly, most television does not meet this standard. The studios need to recognize that only their top billed shows should be $1 (at most, even for HD), and everything else should either be dirt cheap or subscription based.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the point (Score:3, Interesting)
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 soci
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would any of those talentless hacks have demanded $1 million *pinkies* if the show only earned 25c. per showing? They're preening egomaniacs, just as much overpaid (for what they actually do) as professional sportists.
By what metric are they overpaid?
The producers were happy to pay it, the actors were happy to accept it, and the audience was happy to pay for it (by viewing the commercials, buying the DVD, or whatever).
Apparently, everyone involved in the process thought the asking price was worth paying. They were the best at what they did (making money for the network), and deserved well above average prices in the market.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How Cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Universal Iron rule of the Internet: Everyone would be happy to pay for X, but they're only willing to pay half of what's being asked. Songs are a buck? 50c please. Netflix is $10 a month? I'll only pay $5 a month, and only if there's a bigger selection. An iPad will be $999? Well I'd happily pay $500, and only if it isn't crippled with Apple's retard-o-platform!
It repeats itself over and over in just about all of these conversations... for just about anything people have a choice to buy, there are those that pay it, and those that don't and rationalize their decision with the concept that the price is too high and everything would be unicorns if only the price were 0.5x. And since it isn't, this establishes a platform for griping about collateral issues (usually DRM and license terms),
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yep.
That's why I don't use Linux. Yeah it's free, but if it cost half that amount, I'd gladly pay it.
Re:How Cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous. I agree completely that $2/episode is too much, and it has nothing to do with whining about current pricing.
It has everything to do with comparing prices with comparable purchases.
If I subscribe to cable TV I might follow 5-10 shows, along with my family members following their own favorite shows. Most shows have 20-26 episodes per season.
If I instead drop cable TV and purchase my episodes, at $2/episode x 10 shows x 4 family members x 26 episodes x 3 seasons I would be paying $6,240 per year or $520/month for the privilege on the high end, or $1,800 per year or $150/month on the low end.
That is ridiculous pricing! Clearly they are NOT pricing individual episodes at a competitive price to cable TV.
I have already canceled cable TV in my house and I watch the few shows I follow on Hulu. I would be happy to pay $1 per episode to watch without commercials and to avoid any hassle downloading or getting Hulu onto my TV screen instead of a computer monitor. I will never pay $2 per episode.
Re:How Cheap? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fast forward to this week. I missed an episode of The big Bang Theory on CBS. Not available for purchase on iTunes, or Amazon VOD. I checked Hulu which directed me to CBS's website. CBS didn't even have full episodes for viewing on their website. My solution... bit torrent. I would have gladly paid for it, or sat through a few Hulu commercials, but they simply don't make it available.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Universal Iron rule of the Internet: Everyone would be happy to pay for X, but they're only willing to pay half of what's being asked. Songs are a buck? 50c please. Netflix is $10 a month? I'll only pay $5 a month, and only if there's a bigger selection.
You're not wrong. I think these surveys are worthless, because what people say they will do, and what they actually do, are very different things. There will always be an excuse.
Re:How Cheap? (Score:4, Interesting)
>"Universal Iron rule of the Internet: Everyone would be happy to pay for X, but they're only willing to pay half of what's being asked. Songs are a buck? 50c please. Netflix is $10 a month? I'll only pay $5 a month, and only if there's a bigger selection. An iPad will be $999? Well I'd happily pay $500, and only if it isn't crippled with Apple's retard-o-platform!"
Universal Iron Rule of the Copyright Cartels: Our intangible assets are PROPERTY that must remain with us for time immemorial, we have the right to set the price in collusion with other cartels to extract maximum profit and price-fix. We will not compete with piracy or free because we have a monopoly: we are sovereign rulers and you will like it.
We will make you pay through the nose for digital products equalling or exceeding the price of physical goods, even though our costs are vastly reduced, because we are sovereign, and you will like it. We will buy and write laws, and whisper poison in the ears of the ignorant and gullible politicians and we will cripple new technologies so that we industries of the past may continue to be fat and prosperous despite the changes in technological reality.
Our profits shall remain guaranteed and anything which threatens them or dares suggest that they were temporary boons, will be ignored and condemned as untruthful.
We are powerful and rich middlemen and we will have no truck with reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Without a Monopoly someone will always step in and offer a less expensive product to satisfy that segment of the market. The existence of a higher priced choice does not in any way negate the parent's point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm for even the price of the show on the DVD. If you sell the Seasons's DVD set for $39.95 and it has 20 episodes on it, I'll give you $1.99that for one episode in full pristine resolution and no commercials.
but they want 3X-4X for it, at low res, and full of commercials.
There is no reality in the heads of the executives. They are all a bunch of morons.
Re: (Score:2)
but they want 3X-4X for it, at low res, and full of commercials.
And charge per viewing. At least with the DVD you can watch it multiple times and in multiple places.
$1.99 should buy you a local copy to do what you please, following your same logic.
Oh, but I forgot. Streaming provides a convenience that you should pay more for, right? Right?
Re:How Cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've discovered that for DVDs, I'll readily pay about $1/hour for TV that I really want to collect and save, or about $8 for a good movie that I'll watch more than once, without thinking too much about it. (Somewhat less for ephemeral stuff, but I seldom buy that at all anyway.)
But if I have to spend my time to download it, muck about with burning it to DVD if I want to save it, etc, then I expect to pay a small fraction as much, because I've done a good part of the distribution work for them, and ALL of the unit manufacturing work.
Or do they expect me to work for free?? See, that goes both ways...
Re:How Cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What about shows that just plain aren't available? I've been following HBO's mini-series The Pacific for the last few weeks. The first episode was a freebie on their webpage. Decent quality stream and no commercials. None of the subsequent episodes were made available though.
I would happily pay for the privilege of watching this show but that isn't an option. The only way I can get it is to sign up for an insane cable package that will cost me $60-$70/mo. Fat chance of that happening. So I've turned to other avenues to see the show....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why pay $1 per episode?
Why bother even to pirate?
Just stream it from Netflix.
As far as $1 per show goes: a lot of DVD sets already meet that pricepoint or better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet somehow they can afford to stuff that same show onto DVD's and nice fancy printed packaging for the same price. I can usually find a season of whatever show I want to buy for around $20 for a 22 episode season. Not too far off... seems like they can afford it, especially when the marginal price they're getting for the product now is $0. People always want to take the reverse view of reality. I say you should pay $$ for it so you should. Wrong, learn about the free market, supply and demand applies even
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How Cheap? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I know how much it costs, and I also know how much of that is graft and waste -- about 80% on average, per my experience in the industry. I have personally seen TV and films made for 10-20% of the typical budget -- solely because all the cost was coming out of the producer's own pocket, instead of being funded by a studio.
If this stuff was priced where it really should be, then maybe "Hollywood accounting" wouldn't be such a miracle of creative bookkeeping, because there wouldn't be so much money available to waste and embezzle in the first place.
Oh, so true (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hardly consider that rubbish a language even if those aussie shielas know how to make me crack a fat.
Re: (Score:2)
"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"
what does that have to do with downloading? How is it different from getting content over the air?
AFAIAC, they could put it online with commercials and I would watch it just the same as over the air.
Re: (Score:2)
By "downloader", I meant "illegal downloader". You know, what TFA is about.
Re: (Score:2)
ABC did the exact same thing, with a show on the same timeslot the year before, named Kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_(U.S._TV_series) [wikipedia.org]. I liked both of them, and both of them got stopped partway through the season, then eventually bounced to another time, unanounced months later, and finished out.
It's beyond convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What's even worse is when you legally are gifted a CD that won't play, at all, except with only ONE tool that has virtually no interface on one platform (for example, cdcontrol on FreeBSD), but works like normal on a different, crappier, platform (Windows).
Reeks of DRM. Not happy.
DRM (Score:4, Informative)
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 [xkcd.com] knows it's true.
Didn't Apple demonstrate this already? (Score:4, Insightful)
So they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet if you came up with a system that remembered your payment information where you remained logged in, enabling you to go from viewing an item to having purchased it in one click, it would be such a clever system that you'd be issued a patent for it.
Re:So they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
over and over again it has been shown that giver a convenient method and a cheap price people will pay for the goods.
Apple has sold billions of songs, all of which could be gotten for free.
There is no correlation between the advent of bit torrent, and a decline in music sales.
If the industry put up a easy to use feed and embed advertising, they would be fine.
AS it stand right now, I'll grab a series online, watch soem episodes. If it's good, I'll get the DVD, if not I dfelete it and move on.
Just like when would listen to a tape of songs before going and purchase an album.
I had tons of 8 tracks I down^H^H^H^H copied front the air waves to listen to.
The same shit has been said since the introduction of the printing press. Seriously the exact same argument. Yet the entertainment industry is still a multi billion dollar industry, and the easiest thing to copy in the world, software, is a multi-billion dollar industry as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave up on music downloads because buying an MP3 album was usually more expensive than buying the CD. I've not bothered with TV downloads for the same reason.
Whatever your definition of cheap is, they are trying to sell digital media in a marketplace. I would think given the
Re:So they say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh-huh. I believe them. (Score:2, Insightful)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's why people illegally download things that they CAN legally download.
Like what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's go with the big one: music. You can even download, legally, for a small price, DRM free MP3s from iTunes, Amazon... etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gave up on iTunes. About 1 in 5 items I purchased were either incorrectly labelled so I didn't get what I wanted, or very poor quality but with a high quality sample.
The pricing was fine but getting these things fixed via their customer service is pretty painful, particularly when it was a very similar item (show 5 from season 2 instead of show 2 from season 5).
Sample set was well over 100 items. I haven't tried the alternatives yet, but iTunes is out.
So a counter-example... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [amazon.co.uk]
This is geographically right next to where I live.. save for the north sea.
But I can't buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's go with the big one: music. You can even download, legally, for a small price, DRM free MP3s from iTunes, Amazon... etc...
Okay, I get you now. I see it from a different perspective, though. Music trading has been super easy for over 10 years. iTunes has been enormously successful and Amazon isn't doing too bad itself. iTunes even dumped its DRM and is still doing fine. I don't think the number of people 'illegally' downloading MP3s when they could get them otherwise is anything remarkable. For all we know, they're just downloading songs because it's easier to do that than to rip all their CDs sitting in the back of thei
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, they could be doing that. In my experience, most people aren't doing that. Most people that I know that illegally download music are downloading tons of albums, either just for the fun of it or because they don't want to pay for it. Usually, they will say "if I like it, I'll pay for it." However, anyone can claim that and make themselves feel better. How many people actually DO that, I don't know. :)
My main point was that someone claiming "oh yeah, I would do it legally [if it was cheap e
Re:Uh-huh. I believe them. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> Let's go with the big one: music. You can even download, legally, for a small price, DRM free MP3s from iTunes, Amazon... etc...
That's fine so long as the download services carry what you're interested in.
Much like Netflix, the idea that they have whatever you want or even anything that's available on physical media is something you can't assume.
There are a number of things that iTunes doesn't carry.
Some things aren't even available at all. Perhaps they never have been or didn't sell well enough when t
Re:Uh-huh. I believe them. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they region-restricted though?
Re: (Score:2)
That's why people illegally download things that they CAN legally download.
Like what?
As far as I understand, in Netherlands - like in the rest of Europe - HTTP downloads of media files (not software) are actually legal (as they involve no redistribution on your side, and provided that you don't intend to spread the files further - i.e. sole personal use). Therefore, many people here actually download stuff legally already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but the AU thing looks to be BS... (Score:2)
They asked filesharers whether they would be "nice" if given the chance? Well duh, people tend to paint themselves in better light when presented with such questions.
The Dutch thing is actually a study, with nice numbers.
Two anecdotes (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
A trip through history: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
iTunes (Score:2)
The music industry insisted that computers are only for piracy and that no one would ever pay for music online.
iTunes is now the single largest retailer of music.
Now Hollywood and TV studios are being dragged into this, and most are slow to catch on to the fact that if you provide a good service for a good price, people will pay for it.
Why watch a low-quality pirated copy of a movie on a streaming site if I can subscribe to Netflix on the cheap?
Re: (Score:2)
I would gladly pay a buck (or maybe 2) for an hour long episode with no comercials.
Yet the industry say's that its not enough.
My cable company pays a few dollars per subscriber month to the biggest media companies. (thats a holdover from the early days, when cable TV wasn't supposed to have commercials, cause WE were paying for it) If I pay for a few episodes (like say, a buck a week for 30 Rock) then they should end up making even more money off of me, than they would with the local cable company. Grante
Re: (Score:2)
I think Hulu will eventually move to a model like this.
It amazes me that it was someone at NBC who was willing to do something like Hulu before anyone else.
True to a point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Best comment I read in a while!
Laughable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Laughable (Score:4, Insightful)
> I think I would be happy buying a Lamborghini for not a penny more than $1400
Except under the conditions that you are trying to ignore in your analogy, we already get Lamborghini's for less than that price.
Big Media can't erase decades of gratis radio and TV.
correction: Most users would.... (Score:2)
Pay a REASONABLE price for downloads.
Honestly, I'd love to be able to buy access to my TV shows via RSS feeds instead of pulling them from eztv.it and then torrenting them all. But I cant.
No Hulu is not an option. I want it in 720p on my playback device of choice. not their blessed device or at a horribly crappy resolution plus disabling skipping of commercials.
So I simply have a mythbox to grab what I can locally, and I torrent the stuff I cant get in the country.
Make it so I can pick 25 tv shows for $50
Repeatedly (Score:2)
I dont have the links, but dont articles mentioning this same thing keep appearing every few months?
Most != ALL (Score:2)
Sure, I would. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Sorry, but this is bunk (Score:2, Troll)
In the example of music, we already have mulitple, cheap means of buying songs, most of them legal, most of them DRM-free. Amazon MP3 sells songs for 99 cents and most albums for under 10 bucks, with a huge selection of albums even cheaper that that. They regularly hold sales with popular albums in the 5 dollar range. All of it in standard MP3 formats without DRM.
There are several East European sites that sell MP3's for as little as 15 cents apiece.
And still, the torrents flow. Because if you make something
Re: (Score:2)
> We have a generation that think music is free because it's on the Internet.
No. We have generations that think music is free because of radio.
Music has been free since before most people alive today were even born.
Statistics (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Please decrypt everything after ". I don't mean to sound stupid,"
Re: (Score:2)
Post subtitle: "Lies, Damn Lies, and..."
Now it covers both the researchers AND the subjects interviewed.
Make it easy (Score:2)
The key to making money from paid content is to make it Easy, Cheap, Safe and Reliable.
Easy - The site must be fast, easy to navigate and have a good search function.
Cheap - I don't know exactly how cheap it would have to be, but the general philosophy would be, cheap enough that the buyer does not have to think about the purchase for too long, and the penalty for making a mistake is minimal.
Safe - No viruses or malware.
Reliable - The site is always up, downloads always complete successfully.
And..
banned stuff (Score:2)
Is downloading banned stuff , games like manhunt2 outside USA piracy in its criminal form, as it did not result in a lost sale for the publisher, just that the publisher did not want to sell it to me
Subscription media (Score:2)
I want a service that provides me with live streaming access to all media ever created. I would be willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for this service, probably up to the $100 USD/mo range. This is *almost* what we have with the vibrant torrent community already.
Would I pay to have a "download subscription"? (Score:2)
Yeah, probably I would. How much? Another good question. I might pay $30/mo but that depends on the terms. If I stop paying would I lose rights to everything I downloaded up until that point? If no, then yeah... if yes, then hell no.
AllOfMp3.com (Score:2)
Before they were shut down had reasonable prices and an extensive library; they charged by bit-rate (hence bandwidth) at very reasonable prices.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Zune Pass got me to stop pirating music.. (Score:2)
Its cheap enough, its selection is big enough and the keep 10 incentive/deal makes it very affordable. Not only that but the software is pretty cool, integrates with zune hardware, xbox 360 and remote windows media players easily.
I could say the same for netlix.. i quit using torrent for tv since instant watch has plenty of things for me to watch and quite franky i enjoy waiting a few months until all episodes are available on disk or on demand instead of waiting a week between each episode and planning my
WHY (Score:2)
'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.'
If only someone would create an online service which allowed you to buy music! What kind of twisted mockery of a universe do we live in that has kept this from happening?
Why must the universe mock us so?! WHY?!
(For reference, it is raining behind me, and I am wet. The two are not related.)
Two words: DVD regions (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
pirates provide a better product (Score:3, Insightful)
Personal Experience (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
At least partly because this. [r3dux.org]
When I say “convenient”, I mean convenient.