Jump to content
LCVG

1 in 3 people illegally copy DVDs study says


exile
 Share

Recommended Posts

n either case, Futuresource concluded that DVD revenues are declining, and their research suggests that ?the vast majority? of those who admit to copying content said they would purchase at least some of the titles on DVD if they had not been able to copy them so easily. This clearly indicates what Futuresource calls ?significant levels of lost revenue due to home copying.?

http://www.macworld.com/article/134337/2008/07/futuresource.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they should be looking more at WHY 1/3rd of those people are copying DVDs.

And what particular DVD's are being copied. Ex. TV box sets. Super Uber Special editions, etc.

It would stand to reason to be due to the usual high prices for alot of those sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,

If you break the copy protection, then it's illegal whether you consider it fair use or not. The article addresses the fair use aspects. It doesn't mean downloading them.

Right. So my point then would be that breaking copy protection does not equate to loss of sales. If you could actually quantify how violations have occurred, I'd argue that a very low percentage of that number would account for lost sales.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In either case, Futuresource concluded that DVD revenues are declining

 

And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the fact that more and more people have finished building their libraries, right? Most people not only have a critical mass for the number of movies they're willing to own, but a certain back catalog that they'll want to fill. Once that's up to date, guess what-they're not going to buy as many DVDs. This is the same as what happened when people finished upgrading their vinyl/tapes to CD.

 

I'd like to see the breakdowns on why stuff was copied. Take out the people making copies that the kids can't destroy and copies to portable devices, and I wonder how much you'd really have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the important part is:

 

..of those who admit to copying content said they would purchase at least some of the titles on DVD if they had not been able to copy them so easily.

 

That doesn't sound like it's including people who are making copies of discs they own for their own private use, which might technically violate the usage license, but I have no problem with. These are people who would have purchased a DVD (at least some of them), except that they were able to copy it, and because of that, eveybody involved in the production of the DVD looses out on the revenue from its sale.

 

There is really no difference in copying a DVD that you didn't purchase and walking into Best Buy and hiding one in your coat and sneaking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is really no difference in copying a DVD that you didn't purchase and walking into Best Buy and hiding one in your coat and sneaking out.
There most certainly is a difference, but in your opinion it is an inconsequential difference. I disagree. And here are two examples.

 

My boss uses Netflix. As soon as the DVD arrives he copies it to his computer and sends it back to Netflix. That way he doesn't have to wait as long for the next movie to arrive. He deletes the copy after watching it.

 

I do the same thing with movies from the library. I don't copy them to evade paying for them. I copy them so I don't have the time pressure to return them as quickly. Then I delete them when I'm done.

 

Me and my boss also mug old ladies. But that is probably obvious given our propensity for shoplifting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to tell them this, but I wouldn't pay for most of the crap that is made these days anyway. I buy less and less DVDs because I have all the classics and movies I enjoy and there are fewer and fewer new movies being released that deserve a purchase. I don't copy DVDs because quite frankly most of the stuff isn't worth it anyway, and with Netflix if I really like a movie or my kid really likes a movie we just keep it till we are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is really no difference in copying a DVD that you didn't purchase and walking into Best Buy and hiding one in your coat and sneaking out.

 

Yes there is; one carries a fine of ?100, and the other is the subject of a lawsuit in 5-6 figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There most certainly is a difference, but in your opinion it is an inconsequential difference. I disagree. And here are two examples.

 

My boss uses Netflix. As soon as the DVD arrives he copies it to his computer and sends it back to Netflix. That way he doesn't have to wait as long for the next movie to arrive. He deletes the copy after watching it.

 

I do the same thing with movies from the library. I don't copy them to evade paying for them. I copy them so I don't have the time pressure to return them as quickly. Then I delete them when I'm done.

 

Me and my boss also mug old ladies. But that is probably obvious given our propensity for shoplifting.

 

 

:lol

I apologize if my comment came off as smug, which I’m sure it did. And believe me, I’m no saint, I have a few MP3s that I didn’t pay for, and they are in my personal music library, and there is no difference between what I’m doing and if I had stolen a CD from a store.

 

What you’re talking about is a grey area, and even though technically piracy, I don’t think there is too much problem with it. You wanted to rent a DVD… didn’t want to rush to take it back… you watch… you delete. Nobody lost a sale (one could argue that the library is missing out on late fees, but that is nit-picking).

 

But if somebody copies a DVD from a rental or from a friend, and keeps it in their viewing “library”, then it IS stealing in my opinion. It’s just odd that most people would never think of going into a store and stealing something, but society is comfortable with the murky area that is software piracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that when you steal inventory from a store the store loses the cost of that inventory. When you make a copy of something, the store does not lose the cost of the inventory.

 

The "Would you have bought it if it wasn't free" question is not relevant to the inventory stealer because if you steal inventory you've already harmed someone and have no place defending your actions.

 

But if you copied the item, you have harmed no one, so the intent to buy is an important question. If you intended to buy the product then you have "stolen" the companies profits. If you did not intend to buy it then you have stolen nothing.

 

Of course, justifying one's actions in this way is a slippery slope because once you start getting everything for free, you'll have a harder time telling the difference from the stuff you would have bought versus the stuff you wouldn't have, because it is all FREE now!

 

Anyway, there has to be a no tolerance policy on this type of stuff because it is completely unmanageable otherwise.

 

This is such a huge philosophical argument. But in my view, the extent to which I feel guilty about anything is directly proportional to the harm I cause. This coming from someone who has never done drugs because Nancy Reagan told him not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is no difference between what I?m doing and if I had stolen a CD from a store.

 

You really don't see a difference between copying something and stealing something? I mean, one is physically taking something, the other is creating a duplicate of it.... seems like the difference is quite obvious.

 

I'm geniunely curious, do you mean that you see them as equivalently "wrong", or that you see them as the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don't see a difference between copying something and stealing something? I mean, one is physically taking something, the other is creating a duplicate of it.... seems like the difference is quite obvious.

 

I'm geniunely curious, do you mean that you see them as equivalently "wrong", or that you see them as the same thing?

 

No, personally, I don?t see any difference. Just because I haven?t depleted somebody?s inventory, doesn?t mean that I have any right to own something that I haven?t paid for.

 

I am a software developer who owns and runs his own business. I?ve developed applications for a variety of clients. Sometimes they pay me a rate to develop it and I turn the code over to them and they do whatever they?d like with it. I?ve also developed applications that I have sold to people when they?ve needed them. That is code that I own the intellectual rights to. The application was my idea, I created it, I put the work into it, I marketed it, I sold it. Now, let?s say somebody buys my application and knows somebody who would also get some use out of it. They make a copy of the application for them, maybe because their friend won?t use it much, maybe because their friend can?t afford it, maybe just because they can. That person is using MY work and didn?t pay me for it! It doesn?t matter that I am not out inventory, it doesn?t matter that they probably wouldn?t have bothered to use the program if they had to pay for it. The fact is they ARE using it, and in doing so, they have stolen that code from me.

 

Is it as grave a crime as if they had broken into my office and stolen my computer? Of course not. Is it the same as if somebody got into my office and stole a CD containing the code that I had sitting on my desk? Uh? yeah. The cost of the CD doesn?t push the crime into a different level.

 

Again, I don't mean to come off as saying "I'm great and if any of you pirate, you'll burn in hell." I don't care what anybody does. I've pirated things in the past, I will in the future. I don't regularly, but it happens. If you find justifications in your actions when you do it, that's cool. When I own something that I didn't pay for, I'll just consider it stolen goods.

 

Keep in mind my father is serving 3 years for embezzling over a million and a half from a bank, so even though I may have stolen a song, my father?s set the bar pretty high, so I sleep fine at night ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to justify anything or change the comparison but it seems like when you steal a physical object you also remove the option of someone else purchasing the item.

 

As a fellow software developer I can relate to what you're saying about stealing code but it really seems like its not worth it to even try to counter.

 

I'd be curious how much companies spend on copy protection schemes vs how much of their product they have to sell to compensate for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people I know that copy the most movies would have only paid for .01% of the discs.

 

They Netflix-copy-return (they were going nuts with the Blockbuster online trade-in at the store scheme).

 

The one guy has so many pirated movies, he was worried when the cops came to check in after a break-in...that they would think he was running some sort of pirating business if they looked in his closet...and saw the spindles and binders full of pirated DVDs. I'm talking thousands, ditto with the other guy.

 

They would never had bought 5,000 DVDs or whatever. Maybe 100 or 200. They only collect that many because they can copy them for pennies.

 

Sure people copy. But the industry inflates the money lost numbers ridiculously. One copy != one sale.

 

 

Copying != stealing. Then again it's not really very right either.

BTW:

I think the industry could make money from even the super-hardcore pirating guys, by offering thousands of movies at their fingertips with a Rhapsody-style service for movies.

 

 

Anyway,

I'm no saint. I've run with some pirated software. I definitely purchase the overwhelming majority of games, movies, and the like legitimately...despite having the knowledge and ability to pirate stuff easily...

but I have no compunctions about oldschool ROMs or abandonware, stuff not commercially available any more. I've timeshifted a few titles (I watched Orwell's 1984 almost 2 years after I Netflixed it) but that's about it.

 

 

But going overboard against the piraters is a mistake. I've bought maybe 2 new CDs in over 4 years and a handful of used ones. I used to buy tons of them. I simply do not buy music any more. I detest the RIAA lawsuits, copy protection, and the like. You can drive away the legitimate customers with too much annoying DRM and crazy lawsuits.

 

 

And I have absolutely no qualms with format shifting content. If I want to rip a Blu-ray and compress it for my kids to watch on a DVD, or use a ROM of an oldschool game I purchased on the Wii VC, I will, and not feel at all guilty about it. I equally have no guilt about cracking DRM so I can play a game I purchased without the disc in the drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that copying something is not the same as the legal definition of theft. I also agree that when industries go crazy trying to stop pirates, the only thing they do is alienate their legitimate customers. The music industry is one that has REALLY lost its way, and I applaud bands like Radiohead who are trying new ways to give their audience what they want.

 

My stance is based more on a philosophical stance. Musicians, programmers, writers, movie-makers, etc. create something, and in order to enjoy or own what they create, they expect to be financially compensated for their work. I just feel that circumventing that hurts the economy of those industries.

 

I consider it the same as jumping the turnstiles to ride the subway in New York. It doesn’t matter that I’m not preventing somebody else from riding the subway, it doesn’t matter that I’d just walk 99.99% of the time if I had no other choice but to pay, it doesn’t matter that I’m not taking some physical item. These are all justifications, but the fact is, New York has created subways for people to use to travel around the city, and to be compensated for their work, they expect people to pay a small fee in order to use that service.

 

My original postings more had to do with isn't it odd that I think most people would consider that "wrong", where as copying of software (and I'm not talking about a "justifiable" copying) is more of a grey area.

 

However, I do think it’s the industries’ job to figure out how to make their business work. If Radiohead decides they will circumvent the music industry, and take a loss on album sales and make the majority of their money with live shows, then I REALLY hope that more musicians follow that same model. It’ll probably help weed out the crap that the recording industry is constantly shoving down our throats. Or how about they quit relying on a format that is over 25 years old, and give people a reason to purchase their product again? Either way, going after their audience, and making life difficult for their legitimate customers is a ridiculous plan of attack.

 

And, just because I don’t want anything I say to be construed as a condemnation of anybody here, I have a great deal of respect for the vast majority of the people who post on this forum. It’s why I’m a proud member here and why most of my online gaming is with the people here. I certainly don’t look down on anybody who copies a DVD or downloads a ROM of a Nintendo game, I have done it myself. With that, I’ll quit sounding like Metallica and get back to reading about features in Rock Band 2 ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, except I don't think Radiohead did make a loss on their album. Even before they sold enough copies of the regular release to get it to number 1 in the charts, they shifted what I suspect was a pretty large number of ?40 box sets, judging from how many people I know with them, and it seems somewhat pessimistic to suggest that the download lark didn't pay for its costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they certainly took the $750,000 they could do on the super-deluxe box of Ghosts. Niggy Tardust was a disappointment, which was possibly as much to do with the numbers being skewed by all the people who didn't even know who Saul was.

 

Of course, The Slip didn't take a penny on download, although we'll see how the CD sells when it comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...