Would You Buy A DVD Of A Show You Recorded?
from the depends-on-how-it's-sold dept
One of the fears that the entertainment industry always has is that if people can record/copy content, they'll never buy it. However, plenty of evidence suggests this isn't necessarily true. Plenty of people download music before buying the same CD. Now, a new report finds that a third of people surveyed claim that they'd be interested in buying DVDs of videos they had already recorded on their DVRs. This really isn't that surprising, but the industry is blowing it. By simply assuming this isn't the case and by automatically treating everyone as criminals, people are discovering that the "purchased" content comes with way too many restrictions. DVDs that come with cool and interesting extra content, along with informative/entertaining packaging is completely worthwhile -- if only the industry would learn to play up these differentiating factors instead of making us all feel like we're expected to do something wrong with the content we've bought or recorded.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Burn before you buy
Come on Music industry. Stop freaking out. We are still buying your stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burn before you buy
2004 was the best year in five for the global music industry. The fact of the matter is, that despite piracy and illegal downloading, the music industry continues to make money. The problem is that the RIAA believes that it is entitled to a higher rate of return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burn before you buy
There are a number of reasons that the music industry is losing sales.
1. The last 10 years sales has been over-inflated owing to people replacing their music collection on CD. This has stopped now and the result is a downturn in sales.
2. It's been the trend lately for the industry to promote "sure-thing" artists at the expense of lesser known ones, limiting the variety of new music promoted. The result is an overall fall-off in sales as the target markets become more and more focused.
3. While all you guys seem to buy stuff you've already downloaded / copied - the majority dont... I know I never have! And according to the atricle referred to, nearly 70% don't. It is eating into the sales.
They need to move to a business model where music is distributed for free and seek alternate means of gaining revenue from publishing artists. Because if they dont (and they wont), a counter-industry of free to share music distributers will arrive and take over. Maybe I should set up the first...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burn before you buy
You're playing directly to the RIAA's arguments showing arbitrary cause and effect. The problem is, how about those people that downloaded a song, played it, and then erased it immediately because it was garbage? If "buy after trying" is to work, then there has to be the option to "not buy" as well. The RIAA's arguments about people NOT buying after downloading is disingenuous to say the least.
Even the RIAA's biggest asset--radio--is contributing to the problem. When was the last time you heard the title and/or artist of a song you've never heard before on the radio? Hardly ever! Disc jockeys, even if they do announce, aren't allowed to pre-announce ("after these commercials, we'll have Madonna singing 'Sweet Baby James!'"), and they play five or six songs in a row, and MAYBE will attribute them fifteen minutes later. And now, the radio super-networks are going to DJ-less format (have you had the experience of radio station "Frank?").
When you download a song, however, the file usually has the information you're looking for... artist and title usually in the file name, and hopefully ID3 tags that show albumn and track number.
Radio is "free" (well, you pay for the receiver), and it's not illegal to listen. The Internet is just as free (you pay your ISP), but downloading is said to be immoral, according to the RIAA. The difference is that music downloaded isn't ephemeral, and is digital quality. This scares the hell out of the RIAA and ASCAP, which want a cut of every tangible copy out there. This will never happen--didn't happen back when people were recording analog off the radio with a cassette, and won't happen now.
Despite all the RIAA's claims about fairness, there is a simple truth. The RIAA wants your money, and as much of it as they can get their grubby hands on. They do NOT care about paying royalties... how many artists have seen ANY of the money that the RIAA has extorted from their customers in settlements? The answer: Zero. But to hear the RIAA's position, all this downloading is HURTING artists. Why don't they spare some of them their pain and pay them, then? Because they don't want to!
The day the RIAA cares about anything other than forcing people and suing them and extorting them is the day that they stop with the legalized slavery contracts and pay more than a couple of pennies in royalties for every overpriced $15 CD they sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burn before you buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burn before you buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try before you buy
As it is now, I buy one or two CD's every... 6 months maybe, when I just happen to be in the area of an electronics store or a book store like Borders, where they let you preview the CD's before you buy them. ... A far cry from the 15-20 that I used to buy every 2 weeks or so after I got my pay check, when we were still allowed to download. I used to go to the store just to buy CD's because I KNEW I wanted them. ... Now I'm not going to make the effort, unless I'm already in the area.
Apparently the entertainment industry doesn't realise that they are hurting themselves by turning their audience into criminals. We download... we like... we buy... it's as simple as that. So, to answer the question, Yes, If I copied/downloaded movies or other similar content I would still, in fact be very likely to go spend my money on the actual product being sold by the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Added value content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I buy burned movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I buy burned movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One major exception + Where RIAA goes wrong
One of the nice things about the internet is the pseudo-anonymity. That video you downloaded (whether from an internet site or from a P2P file sharing app) doesn't carry the same stigma that going into a store and having little Buffy Sue at the check-out shaking her head at your little obsession does. Interestingly, I see very few porn producers up in arms about illegal burning, and I have heard that a lot of these operations are doing rather good business, whether or not their customers are burning their purchases to DVD or whatever.
Aside from that, I find that despite all of Hollywood's crying over piracy, they have figured out the right move. They put all the extras that you get included with a DVD (interviews, commentary, alternate scenes and outtakes, etc.) and put a reasonable price for the entire package that makes purchasing movies a good idea.
Unfortunately, the RIAA still hasn't figured out that people are willing to pay for things if there is a compelling reason to do so. It doesn't take a rocket science to realize that people would purchase a CD if it has things I can't otherwise get in a simple-to-use package. After all, it only takes a minute or so to download a song (no big deal). It takes about a half hour to download every song from a CD (a bit more work), so what's to compel somebody to purchase a CD? There's the cover artwork, liner notes (not seen much any more... why not?) and, perhaps, let's say a music video or two and maybe eve versions of the song in AAC so I can easily transfer them to my iPod. If that package has a reasonable price (say, $9.99), then it would be something that's worth purchasing. I'd gladly spend ten bucks to purchase a CD if I know it has what I want on it.
Instead, the RIAA has decided to spend their money paying lawyers to extort money ($ettlement$) from their customers rather than figuring out how to get their customers to WANT to purchase their product. They only have themselves to blame that people now consider them greedy and stupid twits.
In the age of the Internet and TiVo, it's interesting to see that DVD sales remain strong and CD sales have slumped a bit. Both the MPAA and RIAA sell "software," but the one that has provided the incentive to purchase is doing well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One major exception + Where RIAA goes wrong
Yeah, very important point. To me, it is the "value added" aspect that should drive sales of music and video product. For those of us who grew up in the vinyl era, we knew our delicate media would not live forever (pops and scratches and clicks were inevitable), but we got sometimes terrific, relatively large artwork, often times a good read in the liner notes, and even posters and/or stickers and such. So, for your $9 to $15 bucks, you felt like you got a pretty good deal (and that is 1960's and 70's dollars).
Now, you get tiny abreviated inserts, jewel cases that crack apart in six months use (I have cardboard LP covers from 30 to 40 years ago that are holding up well), and no chance of some of the cool little "prize" extras (remember the stuff Pink Floyd used to throw in? How about the water color trick on Led Zepp's "In Through The Out Door", six different versions even)
Too bad the music/video content isn't like open source, with the option of purchasing something like what box sets give you: interesting factoid reading, posters, stickers, artwork, photos, etc.-BUT at a reasonable price, not 40 or 50 bucks!
That would lead me right back into the outlets and make me feel good about spending my money with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One major exception + Where RIAA goes wrong
Actually, my experience has been that the chix at said stores are usually pretty uber cool, and usually talk with you and make recommendations.
But then I shop more for "gear" than "movies," so YMMV.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
will I buy???
Its the same thing with renting at the video store. I prety much never but a movie before renting it. Now my girlfriend, she will be standing in line at wallmart and see a chick flick hanging there, and know she's going to like it, so she buys it. Me on the otherhand, while I will suffer through a chick flick and other atrocities, I am not going to spend 15-20 or more bucks on a movie that could turn out a dud. I dont believe hype, and I have high standards ( so obviously not buying alot of newer movies ;-) ) So yes, If I could download it and watch it, If I liked it I would buy it. I think thats the music and movie industries are afraid of... We will buy what we LIKE not what they HYPE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy a DVD of one already recorded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy a DVD of one already recorded?
I didn't like the movie so I will not be purchasing it myself. Someone throw me in jail or sue me for thousands.
The point people like you and the MPAA overlook is that I am not a customer. I am a potential customer. Until you can somehow convince me that the entertainment I will receive is worth the 20 dollars I must spend, I won't buy shit. How do you expect me to know whether or not something is worth buying? If you can solve that problem for me, then I won't be solving it myself by downloading or watching my friends' movies first.
WE CAN ALL LIVE JUST FINE WITHOUT CRAPPY OVERPRICED HOLLYWOOD MOVIES IN OUR LIVES.
I'm not a typical american who drops hundreds of hard earned dollars on BS useless products and entertainment. I actually research and spend my money wisely.
This website puts things into perspective when it comes to how stupid the laws can be in regards to copyright and legality. Why spend 20 bucks on a movie when you can simply "sell" and "buy" your physical DVD for $1 ?
It's perfectly legal to resell your purchased goods to whomever you'd like. What are you gonna do now MPAA? http://www.peerflix.com --> 100% legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy a DVD of one already recorded?
So the supreme court was wrong in Sony V. Universal? People have been archiving their shows for 20 years, Legally.
When put into that perspective, all of your analogies are garbage. You sound like old-bald-head in charge of the MPAA. (Dan Glickman)
So the MPAA introduces the broadcast flag, with which YOU *mpaa stooge* can control the recordings that consumers make.
I wouldn't be suprised if some 'broadcast flag' recordings expire on the date that the dvd is released, FORCING you to buy the DVD.
My response to the MPAA and their 'DVD' scenario is this. I WILL record everything I can in HD (using non-broadcast flag equipment). I will BURN them to Non-DRM'ed formats. (minus the commercials of course).
I WILL NOT buy any more seasons of my favorite shows on DVD until the MPAA stops this broadcast flag nonsense (In essence turning all of your viewers into criminals.)
If, by some streak of providence, the MPAA sees the light and stops trying to lock down everything (I mean region codes, and all the restrictions they are trying to put on HD-DVD) I might start buying TV shows on DVD. Not until.
The MPAA gets the broadcast flag through congress? I have two non-broadcast flag compliant HD recorders. When those break, I will watch what I recorded until I get bored. When I get bored, I will read a book.
CBS - you want to pull all your HD programming? Go ahead, I have enough of your HD programming archived to last me until I get a good supply of books built up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Buy a DVD of one already recorded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy a DVD of one already recorded?
And.. how can it be considered stealing... if you purchase the same exact thing that you copied anyway? ... That would be like saying you stole the music you put on your ipod, or copied to your computer, after you bought the cd.
When it comes to the point of a bank robber opening a checking account with stolen money.. it can't even be compared... because they aren't giving anything back to the bank to repay what they've taken. They are giving the money back to the bank to hold for them... ... where as... if you copy movies or music then you turn around and buy the CD/DVD anyway... you are in effect paying for what you have already seen or listend to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV on DVD
For me, there's still a couple of reasons to buy the shows on DVD:
For one, is when its broadcast on television, the quality isn't going to be nearly as nice as a DVD's is.
Another thing is that unless you're watching a new series weekly, reruns are shown in random chronological order most of the time. If you get the DVD you can watch the shows in the correct airing order, which in some series fills a lot of wholes into character development. Plus, reruns won't show ALL the shows, so if you get it on DVD you're going to see some that maybe you never caught the rerun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh, Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Packaging really does count for something, I suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already bought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already bought?
I have re-downloaded a lot of the stuff I bought when I was a teen that I cannot find anywhere on CD anymore. Even if I could, I've already paid for them some 20 years ago.
How about that? Am I really 'pirating'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already bought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I consider everything shareware
Same thing with movies. I use Netflix as a preview system. There's so many movies I've heard great things about but after renting them, there's no way I'd buy them.
For that matter, why can't you rent CD's? Obviously the movie rental industry isn't hurting, and neither is the MPAA. Heck, movie companies usually make more money from the DVD than from the actual theater movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I consider everything shareware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several things to point out.
Video and Music have different levels of repeatability. By that, I mean that If I buy music, I'm likely to listen to it over and over, while watching a video is significantly less repeated.
I think that's the entire economics behind video rental stores. I'm more likely to want to rent a video than to buy it. The main reason I want to buy a video is so that I don't have to worry about the video going out of stock or becoming exorbitantly expensive sometime in the future on the occasional time I want to watch it. If I know that for some nominal charge, I'll be able to rent a particular video at any time in the future, I’m much less likely to buy videos.
I have several hundred DVDs that I have to store and decide if I want to watch. I have realized that with a small few exceptions, those DVDs just take up shelf space and gather dust. I only pull them down when I want to force them on friends. “what, you’ve not seen xyz? You must see xyz!”
Music, on the other hand, I listen to constantly from when I get up in the morning, to when I go to bed in the evening. I have a couple of 400 disk cd players that are configured to fade back and forth, and just play CDs continuously. I also have all of the contents of those CDs converted to MP3 so I can load them on my iPod for when I’m traveling, or going to the gym. I also copy those CDs to put in the CD changer in my car. Radio is the free introduction of new music into my car, but I rarely listen to radio at home. I buy new CDs when I hear songs on the radio, but also on friends’ recommendations.
I wouldn’t have a DVD Playing constantly in the background, because video requires more attention than music.
I try to buy the items that I’m going to repeatedly use. I try to rent the items that I’m going to only watch once. I support the artists getting money appropriately, if a friend has a CD I want to hear, I may borrow it to find out if I’ll like it, but I’ll return it and if I want to listen to it repeatedly I’ll buy it. If a friend has a video that I want to watch, I’ll borrow it, and then return it.
I don’t believe that these patterns are significantly out of the ordinary. I don’t like being treated as a criminal.
If internet to the home had the ability to stream a dvd or higher quality video to me on demand, with a high quality title browsing system, I’d be more likely to rent videos that way than go to the store. The problem is that both the RIAA and the MPAA are trying to believe that it’s 1978 and home recording doesn’t exist. They are dragging their feet instead of embracing the new technology and figuring out ways of leveraging it. The genie is out of the bottle, and no cork can put it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]