Study: Half Of All Young People In UK Think Digital Content Should Be Free To Download
from the speed-and-convenience dept
One of the abiding delusions of the copyright industry is that if people -- especially the young -- could somehow be "educated" about the value of intellectual monopolies, they would learn to love them -- despite the fact that there is zero evidence any copyright "education" campaign has worked. In this context, some interesting research from the UK, reported by TorrentFreak, explored the attitudes of both young and old to accessing online content. Here's one of the striking results of that work, which suggests that the copyright industries are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of future online users:half of the up-and-coming generation believes that the Internet should be a content free-for-all. A total of 49% of the 8 to 15-year-olds questioned said that they believe that people should be able to download the content they want from the Internet for nothing.The following is particularly noteworthy:
The mainstream entertainment companies invariably insist that downloading movies and music without permission is tantamount to stealing. However, when it comes to the UK's children the survey suggests that Big Entertainment has a mountain to climb to have that notion widely adopted. While 16% of children accept that it's wrong to obtain content for free without the creator's permission, just 7% believe that file-sharing is a form of stealing.That is, 93% of the 614 young people interviewed do not accept the copyright industry's relentless attempts to brand file-sharing as "stealing." This result is comparable with that found by Swedish research among a similar age group. The rest of the UK survey throws useful light on what the main problem is here. Once again, it seems to be about the affordability and usability and online services:
Among the children, whose resources are often more limited, 44% said their motivation was financial, with a quarter of 16-24 year olds reporting that file-sharing is the only way they can afford to access content online.As Techdirt keeps pointing out to the copyright industry, all these studies suggest the same solution to reducing unauthorized sharing: offering easy-to-use services at fair prices. When will it ever learn? Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Unsurprisingly, the issue of accessibility came in at a close second place for both [age] groups. The speed and convenience of file-sharing was cited as a key motivator for use by 41% of adults and 38% of the children.
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: accessibility, copyright, culture, downloading, education, kids
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I invite bob (whos apparently still around) to explain why if this happens, copyright should still be enforced as a law, even if the majority of a populace wants to get rid of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Until the day comes when I can get my bread and cheese off of Bittorrent, Winco can count on my continued patronage, and the retailers will do just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The sarc is great in that one. Gotta hand it to him: Slamming both the claims of "a majority of industry in USA need copyright" and "people saying negative things about copyright are only 15 year olds who need to grow up" is pretty easy to mistake given how the actual article is about 15 year olds...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One is directly detrimental and can kill, the other is a cultural issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I will say this if you're serious. I work in the tech industry, one of the places that is the very definition by IP advocates for strong IP property laws.
Guess what, pretty much every software developer I know HATES IP laws and the IP system. We'd all be glad if all the patent and copyrights got declared null and void.
The company I work for has been sued once by patent trolls. While we've basically won that case, it was a very emotionally scary moment for the company, and drained a lot of our time we could have spent making our software better. Not to mention all the money we had to spend hiring a lawyer to fight it after the troll refused to settled for less than $150,000.
And no, I'm not some pirate who wants free stuff, nor would I pirate stuff if it were legal. I also refuse to buy any games or anything that have DRM built into them, it's not worth the hassle dealing with that garage in my busy life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. In fact, I don't know a single software engineer who thinks positively about the current IP laws (particularly patent law). It's easy to understand why: IP law is used as an anticompetitive weapon and introduces a huge amount of risk and uncertainty into the industry. It can ruin you even if you haven't actually done anything wrong. On the whole, it's incredibly harmful and prevents a lot of good work and true innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either way, the conversations on that show have always stuck in my mind. Basically, most of the artists interviewed not only admitted they pirated stuff themselves, but didn't give 2 craps if their own work was copied as well.
It's possible that some of them have changed their tune as the scene ballooned and making *real* money was possible. IIRC, artists like Wiley and Dizzee Rascal were among those interviewed, and they've become major label successes. But, it definitely struck me (in a general way at least) that those who have spent their formative years online simply see things differently to those who'd already reached adulthood before the internet because such a major mainstream force.
This isn't to say they didn't still value creativity, recognition or even copyright. They simply aren't trained to think about things in the same way as those who had to lug expensive physical objects around to enjoy and consume entertainment. This isn't a problem - unless your business is in creating and moving those physical objects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And as Larry Lessig discovered when he began talking to said representatives, public domain has no lobby.
To get back to where our representatives truly represent us in the US: https://mayday.us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know the difference.
Someone takes your car. That person now has your car, and you do not have your car. You have been deprived of the use of your car.
2. NOT Stealing:
Someone makes a copy of your car. Somehow, they make an exact copy of your car, and drive it away. You still have your car. You have not been deprived of the use of your car.
Question: Downloading movies and music and tv shows online is more like with of the above scenarios?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
You can't have it both ways. If you want society to support great jobs that reward creativity, you've got to support property rights for those artists.
But you would rather work cleaning the gutters, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>Implying every well-paying job relies on your dinosaur business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: >Implying every well-paying job relies on your dinosaur business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
Oh yes? And downloading will destroy that? Really?
So, please answer the following question, or forever shut your cakehole about file sharing:
Where can I purchase the X-Files in High Definition? Note, I said PURCHASE, not stream or rent.
** Note: "it is not available in High Definiton" is an incorrect answer. Also, "It is not available to purchase so you have to just live without" is an invalid (and ridiculous) answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
The first four seasons weren't even done in widescreen format, and widescreen after that was still in standard definition. HD didn't exist until 1998 and Fox didn't adopt it until 2004, long after the X-Files series ended.
Thus everything done between the original film and final product would have to be redone to make a true HD remaster of the X-Files series instead of just slapping an HD label on an upscaled standard definition video. Rumors are that Fox may be working on a 4K HD remaster though, but the edits and effects likely won't be exactly the same as the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
Do you think that is beneath FOX or something? My guess is there is someone with rights to a song playing on a car radio in the background and the whole thing is tied up while they negotiate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
The only thing is, they are from German broadcast of some kind, as all the titles are German, along with a little logo. But the video quality, including the effects, is most assuredly HD. I work in video production and know the difference, I have direct experience in what it takes to convert, upscale, or master HD.
So - WHY does this exist, but I CANT BUY these HD episodes on bluray, when they CLEARLY have already been mastered?
First person who answers with a REAL answer (none of this "regional markets" or licensing bullshit, I, as the consumer, DONT CARE what "deals" the studios have - the only "deal" I care about is WHERE DO I GIVE MY MONEY TO GET HD X-FILES?) gets one thousand internets AND is allowed to rebut these arguments raised in these threads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
In truth, we can have it both ways. Content as a business thrived long before copyright appeared and it will continue to do so long after copyright ceases to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
I say it to religious preachers and I'll say it again to you: I will not believe what you say if it does not match up with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
I am going to take the crazy standpoint of conceding to this point even though it is completely ridiculous.
So what? If I had my eyes set on a job as a telephone operator, or a buggy maker should we have outlawed the technologies that made these jobs disappear?
Let's say, for the sake of conversation, technology makes it completely impossible to make enough money to survive on writing new songs. What do you see happening because of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
Ignoring your usual childish attitude, yes they are. They are made by many, many people who either have no stake in the corporate status quo you support, or are actively hampered by their business tactics. Employment in those industries will continue, even if the labels and studios fall into their well deserved ruin.
"If can't even come up with a decent analogy"
I love the way you left the word "you" out of your sentence here, since horrible analogies are the preferred tactic of the AC troll in these parts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Property Rights
Wrong.
All you've got to support is that people get paid for the work they do, not the things they own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Property Rights
All those old space operas where humanity owns half the galaxy but has reverted to feudalism don't look quite so implausible now. Not when we've got a significant number of people who, though they probably don't think of it that way, support a system that's functionally the same: people getting paid for what they own rather than what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know the history
Now it's life of the author plus an additional 70 years. Quite frankly, that's insane. Why so much time? Especially when you consider that communications today is so much faster and easier than it was back in the early 1800's and that progress is so much faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know the history
You'd think in the internet age the term would decrease with the increase in communication speed.
It's just that over time, "making a living on your art" got turned into "all the profits are mine for ever and ever and ever you fucking thieves".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Know the history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or stated in another way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or stated in another way
It completely bypasses our inner animal. It doesn't conform to any established rules regarding value based on the hoarding instincts of that inner animal.
If you surveyed people in nursing homes you would probably get similar results simply because 50% of the population isn't even wired to relate to "intellectual property". They just don't get it on an instinctive reptilian level.
This is a problem that the Robber Baron wannabes continue to try and ignore despite the fact that these issues have all been raised before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or stated in another way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Publishers" meaning anyone who has been willing to not only publish and distribute the original text for a fee (which people still pay for despite being legally available for free), not just those who originally signed a contract. It also means artists, writers, filmmakers, musicians, game developers, etc. who have freely taken inspiration directly or indirectly from the original text and enriched global culture while potentially also enriching themselves.
It's depressing how many people are willing to sacrifice this so that "the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author" can benefit. It's nice to see that fewer people are buying into this immoral and unsustainable idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm all for artists getting paid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for artists getting paid...
I am against laws forcing us to pay them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for artists getting paid...
I'm even for the superfluous middlemen who are no longer needed getting paid if they can figure out how to stop being parasitical middlemen and provide some actual value to the artist/customer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for artists getting paid...
1. Press records?
2. Package and ship albums to record stores?
3. Get FM radio exposure?
4. Get ads printed in magazines?
5. Pay for lawyers and lobbyists?
C'mon! We need the major labels.
This isn't the dark ages. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for artists getting paid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for artists getting paid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for artists getting paid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the process of enforcement what the infringement forces have accomplished, is to get the public to hate them. That in itself is not conducive to winning hearts and minds to move the goal posts forward in the direction they wish. Nor does the idea that these alphabet groups are to blame leaving the studios not to have to shoulder the ire.
This is being reflected by the idea that these IP groups are dropping out of the enforcement groups or seriously lowering their cash contributions to enforcement groups. While the MPAA and RIAA have seen serious cut backs in funding the CEOs are not seeing that cut back. The good news is they have far less money to operate with, limiting their damages to more FUD in articles and less court and lobbying actions.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suckle This, Copyright Industry!
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, we could just do the math.
558 MILLION drives sold in 2009.
If we go low, and say $49.95 "average" price - well, 2% of 50 bucks is a dollar.
So $1 PER DRIVE is a half a BILLION paid out. PER YEAR. and that is JUST on drives...wanna count blank discs too?
So... where is all that??? how much have the artists gotten of that?
That equates to 37,287,000 units (at $14.95) in your "lost sales" fantasy land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or, we could just do the math.
Artists get paid on units of albums sold. Oh wait, you've been stealing their albums? Well, then they don't get paid. Way to go, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Or, we could just do the math.
The person you replied to was specifically discussing a media tax on hard drives and even those on discs. They specifically asked what if anything has been paid to artists from this media tax.
They did not mention anything about committing copyright infringement (i.e. your retarded "stealing their albums" bit) or anything of a similar nature.
As such, your comment is far from the mark and not even remotely related to the comment to which it was given as a reply.
tl;dr Try again, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Or, we could just do the math.
Now go fuck yourself, you Bubble Valley ballbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Or, we could just do the math.
So Hollywood fat-cats get fatter, whilst accusing *others* of stealing from the artists?
Don't go fuck yourself. Go kill yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Or, we could just do the math.
If contracts are where artists get all their pay then maybe it's time they started demanding better contracts, or just keep starving with their spare mansions and swimming pools. I'm just going to stick with my legally purchased video games via Steam. Why the hell should I support an industry punishing me for legal behavior?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Or, we could just do the math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Or, we could just do the math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not free ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at any computer game with a large modding community. Many gaming companies now go out of their way to make their games friendly for modders. Want to tweak, change or add on to our game? More content for everyone! Yay!
Companies allow and even actively support the ability to take everything they have done - turn it on it's head and make something new and cool. Yay!
Then look at the mods themselves... Copyright. Copyright. Copyright. No use without permission. Cannot distribute. Cannot be included in a mod-pack without express permission. In some places it's getting ridiculous.
Far too often the disturbing reaction from modders seems to be "thanks for letting me mod your game, but everyone better stay the fuck away from what I made because it's MINE!"
It's getting increasingly rare to see people slap a CC0 license or something similar, on their mods - even though they are effectively free to use.
Permission culture is definitely beginning to affect the younger generation. So... yay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice study
UK youth think that public drunkeness, fighting, stealing cars (joy riding) and unsafe sex at a young age are also good and acceptable ways to do things. It shouldn't be surprising that their attitude towards online content and copyright are similarly skewed towards self-satisfaction without concern for any consequences or the effects on others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nice study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nice study
It's so much easier to assume that over half of a generation are inherently idiots and criminals, rather than taking into account the actual opinions of the people your corporate heroes want as future consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nice study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: nice study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Random Anecdote
I had already seen it once, and had a copy on my DVR.
I paid $100 for a download anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Surprising Really
An entire generation of British citizens in their teens and twenties are learning that the idea of your nominal employer paying you a salary in return for your labour is now considered quaint. Why the hell wouldn't they feel entitled to demand something for nothing? It's demanded of them on a regular basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... we won't be fooled again...
I think the more important question is;
"When will we ever learn?"
What nobody seems to comprehend, is that all of this copyright infringement crap was started in order to gain full control of the internet.
The companies most involved in screaming THEFT, are the same companies that began the entire process of Peer To Peer file sharing in the first place. Warner Brothers, Disney, the big players, all had affiliated websites and these websites offered the very first peer to peer software packages and the instructions on how to download copyrighted material using this software.
Once they had made the process popular, they started screaming at legislators that they were being robbed by "pirates" and demanded legislation be written to protect their rights.
They fear the future and its inevitable internet based upstarts who will produce and distribute better films and music at better prices and with better quality than they do, and are working in cahoots with government who hates the web because its a place where the voiceless can speak and where the public can communicate anonymously, and where whistleblowers can expose government crimes as fast as they can perpetrate them.
All of this copyright shit is simply the means by which the old guard intends to take over and control the internet and turn it into just another TV channel, filled with shitty advertisements.
Now they have DMCA takedowns to remove any damn thing they don't like at will, and the courts do nothing when a company misuses this law, and soon the bad guys will be able to purge all the known facts about their crimes recorded on-line, through the use of the Right To be Forgotten laws.
Soon ISPs will start self censoring iffy statements and comments that MIGHT be "actionable" in order to avoid the inevitable legal ramifications. Places like TechDirt will no longer even be considered.
Or worse-case scenario, they will initiate an Internet ID card so they can end anonymity and free speech altogether over-night.
Each year will bring in new laws designed specifically to eradicate more and more of what makes the internet the most awesome invention of the last 1000 years, until there is nothing left at all worth giving a shit about.
Eventually, the internet will become nothing more than a commercial nation of walled gardens with a guard at every cyber-door who will take your money, stamp a number on your hand and let you enter, "IF" your name is on the list.
Everything else will be just Billboards advertising crap.
Its already half way there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content?
It's my understanding that almost half (actually, a minority if we're being pedantic/honest) of a handful of kids agreed with the statement "you should be able to download or access content you want for free from the internet."
Now, before we go extrapolation crazy, are we entirely sure that all six-hundred-odd kiddie winks had the same understanding of "content" that the survey-publishers are suggesting? Without getting bogged down in thee piracy debate (I do it, and feel guilty about it, so I also have Spotify, Netflix and Amazon Prime accounts, and tend to throw more money than I should at mediocre bandcamp productions, in the hope that the artists will use it to spend some money on someone who knows how to record music), I broadly believe that "content" should be free. Google should be free, YouTube should be free, Facebook, Lifehacker, Techdirt, the guardian, whatever - they provide content and it should be free (the less said about the Times, the better). The commodification of art as "content" devalues it, and bunches it in with all the other slurry we consume on a daily basis. Art should be valued and artists should be rewarded consistently with how many people value their art.
It gets messy when Thom Yorke or whoever starts complaining about artists not being supported. He's half right, but at the same time, if your work isn't getting the recognition you need to monetise it (ew, I just did a bit of sick in my mouth), well, tough. Not all artists gain the recognition they deserve - from Van Gough to Nick Drake - and that's a terrible shame, but sometimes that's just the luck of the draw, and one of the myriad potential pitfalls of choosing to pursue your art. Spotify or Piracy aren't killing those artists' bottom lines, and more or less than a new phone packed full of the remixed "content" of a dead kiddie-fiddler (sorry MJ).
Seriously, if we're going to call the works of the greatest artists (in all mediums) of our time "content", why stop there? Why not "stuff" or "shit"?
TL;DR - doubt that the youngsters conflate their favourite films, music and books with "content" the way the survey writers do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]