Yet Another Study Suggests File Sharers Are Frustrated Buyers
from the but-is-it-true? dept
We've seen plenty of studies like this one in the past, but here's yet another in a long list (this one from Australia) suggesting that people who are file sharing unauthorized files are really frustrated consumers, who would pay if there was an actual reason to. That is, it suggests the reason they go to file sharing sites is because they're easier and more convenient, not just because it's free. While I'm sure that's true of some people, I'm not convinced the numbers in this report are anywhere near accurate. This was done as a survey, and surveys are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to having people tell you what they would do, compared to what they actually would do. Frankly, while studies like this do point out that file sharers are often willing to buy -- if given the reason -- the setup of the survey actually gives the industry a false milestone to work towards. It gets them back to thinking that there really is a market for digital goods, when the economics suggest they should be looking for scarcities, not trying to price infinite goods.Of course, even with that false hope, the industry still is confused. The response to the study from Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft was that the industry won't "compete" with unauthorized file sharing until it goes away:
"Movie industries obviously want to make their content available online, but they can't compete currently with a free alternative that's perpetrated through theft. Once there is a level playing field, I think you'll begin to see a lot more flexible, innovative business models."Talk about getting it backwards. The reason they have to compete is because file sharing is there. And, of course they can and do compete with free alternatives all the time, and have for ages. Saying you can't compete with free is a lie. Providers compete on things other than price all the time. In fact, saying you can't compete with free is a direct misunderstanding of what the survey appears to say: it's saying that consumers are more than will to pay for greater value, but the industry refuses to provide it. Saying you won't compete until the market changes in your favor is basically signing your own death warrant.
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
Filed Under: australia, buying, consumers, file sharing, study
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets make everyone outlaws...
The industry refuses to produce what the customer wants and actively thwarts methods by which consumers could transform what is currently on sale into what they want. The obvious end result of this is that "digital media" goes underground.
The video equivalent of iTunes would be sued out of existence. This leaves underground tools, or piracy, or buying into Apple's little iTunes monopoly.
None of those are terribly enticing.
Yet despite all of the whining from copyright-maximalists, the industry continues to do very well and continues to break all sales records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
Now why would I be tempted to turn to an illegal site to find that episode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
I’ve spoke to record companies. I went to Sony BMG and proposed we work together on another site. The guy from Sony said: "I feel that you raped me and raped my kids and you raped everybody I know and you're speaking to my face like you enjoyed it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
Consider the state of mind of someone making a remark like that.
Being a "rightsholder" is dangerous to your mental health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
The record labels really are an interesting case study. Five stages of grieving, paranoia, rage, Alienation, Cliques, Codependence, Cognitive Dissonance, Delusional Disorders, OCD, etc.
All going on in this weird multi level cyclical way. Where people in the industry come up with a reports to prove what they are selling. Then the industry it self believe those reports. Leading them making the same mistakes in ever larger ways. Its alot like watching the video of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
I hope the 110 percent reliable statement was meant as sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
'course, the tapes are harder to come by these days, and exactly how it interacts with all the encryption rubbish that gets used...
ahh, the joys of multi-channel, national and regional, free to air tv. *grins*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It all comes back to companies not listening to what potential customers want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, but $0 movies do.
why would the movie companies give up scarcity to satisfy the desires of the people wanting infinite and nearly fress?
Nobody is asking them to "give up" scarcity. We're recommending that they recognize that the scarcity they're trying to sell doesn't exist anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell exactly how much respect are these companies offering the consumer. I feel very disrespected by these silly entertainment companies acting like they are saving the world or something. For years we have been paying good money for products that often times sucked with NO recourse what so ever, No returns on video games once theyv'e been opened, same on CDs and Movies.
I have bought many CDs/tapes/records in my life because of one good song then the rest sucked, hard. Could I get my money back? Absolutely not, that is what is disrespectful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Know what I do now, if I want to watch a DVD that's in my collection that I haven't ripped myself? I go find a torrent for it. I then now have it on my media center server, that feeds to each TV in my house that has a media center computer connected to it. No fumbling for DVD's anymore. Does the entertainment industry offer me the ability to easily rip the DVD to an AVI format, or provide it on the DVD for me? Nope! So why pay for it anymore? When I have to spend hours upon hours ripping the DVD and reformatting to save space on my media center drives? And don't tell me that storage is cheap! Not when you already have 2TB filled and then backed up. Couldn't even imagine how many TB drives I'd have if it were 1to1 DVD rips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what is known as the free market.
, no matter how that affects the content companies ability to pay to produce the content.
and, in the free market, how the content is produced is not the consumers concern.
What you are advocating is some kind of totalitarian state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's cool. Plenty, and I do mean plenty, of other people will make things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, isnt it wonderful!
Now I know for a fact the labels, TV studios, and movie Studios are doomed. The Australian Federation Against Copyright says that until piracy is stopped they are not prepared to compete online. This shows a total lack of understanding of basic economic theory, and an understanding of their client base. Its very much like the statements made about how if piracy is not stopped in spain the media types would take their marbles and go home. This is a very recent repeating theme in entertainment industry I am unsure if it is the result of Hope derived from ACTA or from despair derived from knowing they are defeated. More than likely its is a battle line being drawn in anticipation of the war they plan to wage using ACTA as their weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey buddy
Of course they're frustrated. Who wouldn't be?
Your religious fervor on this issue continues to amaze me. What forms your belief system that a world of free, "shared" content is the ONLY possible conclusion for our culture/economy, even when common sense and evidence, such as this survey, present another reality? (Don't say "it's an economic condition," because it isn't. Plenty of people pay for digital content and the future is unseen.)
On the other hand, I appreciate that you will post things, such as this, that contradict your worldview and you've definitely assembled a great resource on this site for anyone interested in these issues. But back to me disagreeing with you...
People freeload content because they're lazy (physically and philosophically) and it's much easier to take something than it is to work, earn money and pay for it. Pretty obvious. Most consumers see little reason to pay for music because the RIAA lawsuits scorched the terrain of discourse, not because taking content for free is the "right thing to do." Most people understand that the idea of free content doesn't add up. You like to point out that Freeloaders spend more on music than the average consumer, but what is the overarching logic of this, that ultimately more Freeloading will equal more money being spent? It's a very "War is Peace"-type piece of doublethink. Global concert revenues have increased over a billion dollars in the last ten years, okay. That's great, even if most of that money is going to legacy acts jacking up prices or the Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly (the monopoly you should be talking about). Anyway, in the same time recorded sales have gone down by $8 billion in the US alone. So...freeloading is growing the industry?
And on the confusion about a copy not equalling theft... please explain to me the essential difference between a unlicensed digital copy and a stolen good. You can say, like a petulant child, "It's just a copy. Nothing has been taken!" But that's a superficially high-minded form of playing dumb on the issue. The only thing more absurd than saying that every freeloaded track equals a lost sale is to say that no freeloaded tracks equal a lost sale. Reality is somewhere in between the two.
The internet asks us to reach a higher understanding - appropriate an understanding of intellectualized commodities taking into account the rights of both consumers and creators to create a bigger, more vibrant, more democratic cultural space - not to choose to believe everything is suddenly free and then blindly and passively accept its disastrous effects as a state of technological nature.
You're peddling snake oil here, Mike, and I suppose someone else sold you the stuff along the way. It's people such as yourself, aka technological ideologues, who continue to hold this debate hostage, preventing any real progress for consumers and creators alike, as if you're still stuck the year 2001. Time for you to move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey buddy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey buddy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey buddy
There is free content all over the place. What "doesn't add up" about it?
And on the confusion about a copy not equalling theft... please explain to me the essential difference between a unlicensed digital copy and a stolen good. You can say, like a petulant child, "It's just a copy. Nothing has been taken!"
You just explained the difference. Is there something there you don't understand?
The only thing more absurd than saying that every freeloaded track equals a lost sale is to say that no freeloaded tracks equal a lost sale. Reality is somewhere in between the two.
I would say they're equally absurd, personally. ;-) I don't recall anyone claiming that no freeloaded content ever results in a lost sale though. It seems obvious that it would sometimes. The meaningful question is the net effect of this across a market.
not to choose to believe everything is suddenly free and then blindly and passively accept its disastrous effects as a state of technological nature.
What disastrous effects, exactly?
It's people such as yourself, aka technological ideologues, who continue to hold this debate hostage, preventing any real progress for consumers and creators alike, as if you're still stuck the year 2001.
I can't even make sense of this. Holding the debate hostage? What does that even mean? Do you mean preventing the RIAA from pushing through all its dream laws by raising concerns about their effects? Because if that's what you're talking about, that's a GOOD thing. How does talking about the economics of digital distribution prevent progress? Are you saying these markets are not progressing, and that it's because of discussing these issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no money in self-disciplined consumer.
> than the average consumer, but what is the overarching
> logic of this, that ultimately more Freeloading will equal
> more money being spent? It's a very "War is Peace"-type
> piece of doublethink.
...no it isn't.
If you condition people to "do without" then they will.
If you allow people to consume freely, they will. They might even pay.
It's hard to know that you want something without being exposed to it. Piracy is exposure, just like radio is.
If you are wiley, you can "pirate legally". That is, you can avoid paying without breaking the law. That makes most of the copyright-maximalist arguments pretty mindless.
They will never pay if they aren't paying any attention to you anymore because you've conditioned them to deprive themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey buddy
Those who adapted to the changing market place?
Your religious fervor on this issue continues to amaze me. What forms your belief system that a world of free, "shared" content is the ONLY possible conclusion for our culture/economy, even when common sense and evidence, such as this survey, present another reality?
An understanding of how basic economics works. And I never said that it is the "ONLY" possible conclusion, but it is, by far, the most likely. Going against fundamental economics needs a big reason. You have no presented one.
(Don't say "it's an economic condition," because it isn't. Plenty of people pay for digital content and the future is unseen.)
Economic forces are understood (not by you, perhaps, but by others). The fact that plenty of people pay today is meaningless to the future discussion. Plenty of people bought horse carriages at one time too.
People freeload content because they're lazy (physically and philosophically) and it's much easier to take something than it is to work, earn money and pay for it
Well, thank goodness you know what goes on in the minds of every human being on earth. Now that that's settled...
But, seriously, even if that's true, so what? People are lazy. Ok. That's not going to change. So why not figure out a business model that takes advantage of that fact rather than spending all this time thinking you can convince people to no longer be lazy?
Most people understand that the idea of free content doesn't add up.
Again, I'm fascinated by your ability to speak for "most people." It reminds me of Jon Stewart last night talking about how politicians know What Americans Want:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-5-2010/american-apparently
And if so many people knew it "didn't add up," they wouldn't be doing it.
You like to point out that Freeloaders spend more on music than the average consumer
I don't remember pointing that out, actually. And, uh, by definition, wouldn't that statement be impossible? If they were freeloading, they're not spending. But enough with your silly strawmen.
that ultimately more Freeloading will equal more money being spent?
Again, you seem focused on this word "freeloading." I can't respond because I don't know that word means.
Are you "freeloading" when you visit this site?
It's a very "War is Peace"-type piece of doublethink.
Yes, just like Adam Smith explaining that protectionism is bad for the industry's protected was "war is peace" doublethink, right? Just because something is counterintuitive to the ignorant does not make it wrong.
Global concert revenues have increased over a billion dollars in the last ten years, okay. That's great, even if most of that money is going to legacy acts jacking up prices or the Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly (the monopoly you should be talking about). Anyway, in the same time recorded sales have gone down by $8 billion in the US alone. So...freeloading is growing the industry?
The industry is growing, whether it's because of "freeloading" (again, no definition, so I don't know) or not is not the issue. It's a FACT that the industry is growing in every meaningful way: dollars, music made, consumer spend, business spend. So, the industry is growing no matter how you look at it, so I'm not sure what you're complaint is.
And on the confusion about a copy not equalling theft... please explain to me the essential difference between a unlicensed digital copy and a stolen good. You can say, like a petulant child, "It's just a copy. Nothing has been taken!" But that's a superficially high-minded form of playing dumb on the issue. The only thing more absurd than saying that every freeloaded track equals a lost sale is to say that no freeloaded tracks equal a lost sale. Reality is somewhere in between the two.
Reality is that making a copy is not theft. Could it mean that because a copy is available a sale is not made. Yes. Could it mean that a copy leads to a sale. Yes. Could it mean that copies lead to ancillary revenue elsewhere. Yes. Does any of that matter? No. What does the data say? The data says that as file sharing has increased, more music has been created and more money is being made. Is that a causal connection? I have no idea. The evidence is most certainly not clear on that point. But it does suggest that the claims that the industry is in trouble *because* of file sharing seem just a bit off-base.
By the way, I have never said that every unauthorized download does not equal a lost sale, so I really don't know why you feel the need to set up such strawmen. That seems to be your entire MO, by the way -- pretend Mike said stuff he didn't. Bizarre.
The internet asks us to reach a higher understanding
The internet does no such thing.
not to choose to believe everything is suddenly free and then blindly and passively accept its disastrous effects as a state of technological nature.
What disastrous effects are you talking about, because, again, the evidence there is lacking.
You're peddling snake oil here, Mike
Prove me wrong. I was convinced of my position with evidence. Prove me wrong with evidence. To date, you have not done so.
technological ideologues, who continue to hold this debate hostage
You can't be serious. Our side of the debate has been ignored and marginalized. We have no power at all. The debate has been hostage by monopolists and folks who have no understanding of economics or basic evidence, making totally bogus claims about an industry being destroyed when it's in the best shape it's ever been in.
preventing any real progress for consumers and creators alike
You should talk to those creators and consumers. They're in the best shape they've ever been in too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey buddy
...
And if so many people knew it "didn't add up," they wouldn't be doing it.
It seems the ability to speak for a large abstract group, their knowledge, motivations, and actions is less uncommon than previously thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey buddy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey buddy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riiiiight...
...and art thieves are just frustrated connoisseurs who object to the owner's monopoly on something he/she paid for.
If it was possible to walk onto a car lot and steal a car knowing that the chance of getting caught was very low, the same people who help themselves to digital content would help themselves to cars. 'Generation disrespect' would justify it by saying that transportation is a human right and why should the automakers have a monopoly on it?
Illegal file sharing exists because it's possible and because it is nearly impossible to prevent, not because it's the best business model. If it were simple to stop illegal file sharing, that wouldn't prevent artists from deciding to make their content free with a cwf+rtb business model when THEY felt it was in their interest to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Riiiiight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Riiiiight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Riiiiight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Riiiiight...
I saw the movie in the theatre, bought the VHS, bought the DVD, bought the DVD with special features, and now they've released the Blu-ray.
I buy an album based on the single and it is shite. Sorry, no refund.
I buy a computer game and when I get home, it won't run on my computer, even though I "intall all the latest drivers" or I lose my internet connection and it won't play. Sorry, no refund.
I go to Blockbuster, but they never have what I want, I get charged ridiculous late fees, and the prices keep going up.
I subscribe to Netflix but they keep sending me no. 39 on my list because 1 through 38 are always out.
I use Redbox but it keeps breaking down and the price keeps going up.
The prices in the Playstation Store never seem to go down, in sharp contrast to standard real-world supply and demand, and I buy a game (that had no demo) and it is shite. Sorry, no refund.
___________ OR ____________
I wait a few hours and I've downloaded whatever I want.
Don't get me wrong. I still do all those things above and probably spend the same amount on entertainment as I did in the past. I just consume way more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frostwire music downloads are often 128-bit files. I prefer a higher bitrate. The movies are also mislabled too often to make it worth bothering. What moron uploads Medea Goes to Jail and labels it I, Robot? I haven't had any particular success with torrents - there was a software program I wanted to try before I bought it, and the estimated d/l time was something like 20 hours. It was a better investment of my time just to buy the damned program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're called trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
All file sharing does is force the companies and artists that create the product that you desire so much, to compete with a free and illegal version of their OWN PRODUCT.
Then it's up to the consumer to decide if they want to be honest and pay a fair price for a product they desire, or to simply download it for free.
And if you do not see value in the product you do not want it, the fact you do want it mean you see value in it and desire it. The file downloaders desire it but are not willing to pay for it.
I desire many things, that I cannot afford to own too, that does not give me the right to take it.
But they certainly should not be forced to "compete" with a free version of their own product.
Clearly, that is not competition at all. so what is a lie again ?
What making many copies available of a product means that it's easier and cheaper for someone to download an illegal copy of the product they want, (by the SAME manufacturer or producer of that produce).
Even diamons would be 20cents each if they were as common as gravel.
So it's an enforced price war for the creators of the product against them, using their own product (an illegal but free version) against them.
So there is no competition, and if you claim there is what is the alternative product that is the competing product.
(apart from the illegal, but free version of itself).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
Or not theft, both literally and legally.
Free digital distribution vs costly shiny plastic disc distribution.
It forces companies who compete entirely on the basis of who provides the best service for creating copies of a work to live up to the fact that their job can be done at zero cost and by people who used to be customers.
There's no need to pay for copies when the ability to copy something is priced at zero.
That's a very accurate summary of supply and demand there. I hope that understanding will lead you to further realisations about basic economics, as it's a very promising start.
Zero cost copy making vs enforced payment of zero cost copy making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
The trouble here is figuring out which market your in and what you're actually selling. What the music industry is trying to sell is copies of audio recordings and distribution thereof. In the past this was done with plastic disks at real cost and it wasn't easily duplicated. Now we've moved beyond that and copies AND distribution are both done quickly and cheaply, to the point that anyone can do it at effectively zero cost. It's like trying to sell sand in the dessert.
What they SHOULD be doing to re-focussing on the things they can sell, *but aren't*. No one currently pays [Big Name Band Here] directly to create new music, but why not? That's a capability that they have which can't easily be duplicated and which they effectively have complete control over. Once the content has been created, duplication and distribution are trivial and can be left to the consumers. And that's just one option of many.
And if you do not see value in the product you do not want it, the fact you do want it mean you see value in it and desire it. The file downloaders desire it but are not willing to pay for it.
Value and price are not the same thing. Value can contribute to the threshold people are willing to pay, but supply and demand, basic market forces, are what actually determine price. Just because I'm WILLING to pay a lot for something doesn't mean that's where the price will end up -- and further doesn't mean I won't try to minimize the price I muat pay, since a higher value-to-price ratio is a better deal to me, regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frustrated Buyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not hardly, they want it free, bottom line, did I mention they want it free? why pay when you can download for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]