An estimated seven million Brits are involved in illegal downloads of music, movies, software or games. This digital piracy is resulting in "huge economic losses" and confusion about copyright law, according to a study by UK government advisers published on Friday. The 85-page study, commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board …
From this observation the researchers make some dizzying statistical assumptions to draw up a guesstimate of overall piracy losses, which they claim run into the billions:
I hate it when they say that !!
each download does not equal a sale!!!
the amount of times ive bought a game and regreted not checking it first !!!!
Wait what? I smell bullshit again. Funny coming from the kind of wankers that make these things.
4.73 billion items becomes 120 billion pounds so each item is worth about £25? And every item can be purchased in the UK? Where do these wankers pull this bullshit from?
I can answer that.
".....impacts.......the future sustainability of our copyright industries."
The word "fucked" springs irresistably to mind.
The logic they employ is rather silly. Many people download things for free that they would never pay for. Things like niche movies or commercial software for personal use. One would never stump up several grand to use imaging software for their own use, so to say that is lost revenue is silly. I bet many people dont even use some of the stuff they have downloaded more than a couple of times and then uninstall it.
Title goes here
Ho-hum. Just the crock of shit we would expect from a government advisory board. I'll let the other 6,999,999 explain why.
Paris, because more than 7m have downloaded her movie.
Consumed to Missed Sales?
I must have missed the bit where they equated what was downloaded to missed sales?? As far as I read it it put a value based on the sale price of the items on what is downloaded. Does not imply in anyway that those are all missed sales.
'Ere we go again
Just who has paid for this study?
You guessed it! Billions lost in revenue ? My arse. Why not clamp down on all of them by shutting all the ISP and file Sharers.
The billions recovered will pull Britain our of recession within a month!
Even Paris can be counted on to make rational judgements.
85 pages - and still a biased conclusion
So out of those 7 million, how many make purchases based upon the 'free trial'?
I suspect the vast majority are like me, download it, check it out, and then go buy the CD or DVD unless it really is pure crap. Even the new Star Trek film, saw it on a 32" TV and then went to the cinema (kept the ticket stub, as I do with every film I see at the cinema). It is possible that the slightly younger generations (16 to 21) may not have built up enough moral fibre at that stage in their lives, but rest assured by the time they're 30 they'll know that if they want to continue watching good movies and listening to good music then they have to pay for it.
Being a nation of try-before-you-buytards is not quite the same as a nation of freetards. Are there really 7 million people in the UK who are dumb enough to harm the individual artists who prepare the visual and audio media we so thoroughly enjoy?
Thats all well and good....
....but can we have it both ways?
So if I stump up for a CD on which only 20% of the tracks are worth listening to, or a film that is effectively unwatchable but has selective review phrases on the packaging, or a game that does not work on my machine even though it easily meets the spec I can return it for a free refund?
25 quid is one, but every day? That's like 175 quid per week. Please, give me a break...
Bored of their hype yet?
lies damned lies and statistics. You cant even call them statistics when they make the stuff up!
Gotta love the mash's take on it:
Someone alert the Chancellor of the Exchequer! There are 7 million Brits sitting on 120 billion unspent pounds...
Surely there must be an error somewhere. Shouldn't this be Zimbabwe Dollars?
Somebody stop me!
I've not paid for any music, videos or software for years & I can't be the only one. The only thing I don't bother with is copies of cinema releases because the quality is usually crap. DVD rips are fine though.
All your 1's and 0's belong to U$...
> The report helps put the scale of the problem into context
The report puts some perspective on the problem of how irrelevent current copyright laws are in the information age and the futility and counterintuitive nature of dubious efforts to sustain legal frameworks designed to support outdated business models based around distribution and protection of physical media.
Statistic bovine fodder strikes again..
Statistically 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape
money to burn
so evreyone that uses filesharing has £25 /day (£750 per month) to spend on movies, music etc.
Can I get a refund for all the music I bought over the decades they price fixed and ripped me off?
You have got to love how these studies assume that the millions of people downloading this music would actualy pay for it if they had no other choice.
The fact of the matter is that if you can download for free (or nearly free) then you will listen to everything even the stuff you dont really like or jst random music. If you have to pay for it then you download specific individual songs/movies.
Personaly I liked the idea of paying what you think something is worth. If artist put whole albums up for sale on their sites then I would purchase those albums (admitably not for much) but I am sure so would humdreds of thousands of those illegal downloaders. The fact of the matter is that they only look at the small numbers. Make it so cheep people dont mind spending money on it and you will make millions.
By their own logic
The authors have ingored the supply-demand curve to their own ends and pretended that the number of copies is a constant. Therefore each free distribution is lost income.
If we apply the same logic but state that consumers' disposable money is constant; then they are overcharging by £130 billion, as this is the money being made by them that they should be earning by distributing these copies themselves (at a lower cost per consumer).
Since copyrights are government sponsored monopolies it appears that the copyright owners are guilty by their own admission of monopoly abuse and should be punished.
It's only logical.
£17k per year?
Does anyone spend £17,000 per year on Dvds, let alone over 10% of the population? 120 billion quid just shows how ridiculous these studies are becoming.
David Lammy, Minister of State for Intellectual Property, said, "Illegal downloading is not an issue confined by national boundaries."
Doesn't inspire confidence in the powers that be when even the tit-in-charge doesn't recognise that there is a difference between 'illicit' and 'illegal'.
Here's hoping he's on the Daily Torygraph's expenses list.
"huge economic losses"
So all this money that is not being spent on purchasing legal copies of music/movies/etc. is just mysteriously vanishing into nothing? Not being spent instead in other parts of the economy at all? WOW! that is some bizarro economics you people have over there!
"a study by UK government advisers"
They can safely make up the figures knowing that the Government won't actually bother reading it anyway.
I'll stop downloading stuff when they stop lying.
£120 billion? Bollocks.
The only purpose of these lies is to stop the public complaining when draconian surveillance is applied to the internet (and anything else for that matter)
I walk to the train station - that must mean I have denied income to a taxi driver,
I am not ill today - that must mean that I am denying a doctor a living,
I am listening to a radio - that must mean that I'm not buying 100 CDs a day and listening to one track a time.
so on and so on.
If, of the worlds population, a quarter is Chinese, does that mean I have a Chinese leg or something?
Statistics need to be presented and thought about very carefully otherwise they are meaningless.
The cult of the copyright is not serving it's customers, but itself, lets hope that things change to actually embrace the practice of file-sharing rather than trying to fight it.
Money to Burn
120 billion / 7 million > £17k
£17 thousand pounds on digital media every year. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
25.369978858350951374207188160677 is not a title?
That's the number of pounds each item downloaded is assumed to bw worth, and hence how much the copyright holders have lost.
3D cinema FFS
"Hollywood studios, meanwhile, have recently focused on keeping cinema attendances up via the promotion of 3D films."
Yeah, I saw a Nightmare on Elm Street 6 in 3D.
So did Jaws 3D.
My dad laughed, he said "We had 3D films in the 60s and they don't really work". How right he was.
...and how like Hollywood to attempt to flog another nearly forgotten gimmick to death when they've run out of other ideas.
cyber ware with no weapons
My view is this, everything on the internet is logged, tracked, archived, nothing damming will be done about it because allowing use of this information would mean enforcments are necessary, which no authority in the matter would ever do anything about.
plus, what is more important to the "real" authority is the fact that millions of people are still (even if its freely) ingesting the contaminated and highly hypnotic entertainment, put out by that SAME AUTHORITY.
if it was me i would think (well, we are still getting what we want, and i can just start a fake war if need more cash).
when the s*!t hits the fan, noone will be able to do anything without complete approval from those that feed us.
and, another thing...
if only everying that was down loaded was what it was meant to be.....
...........how many times when downloading the 'for review' copy of "Formulaic Hollywood Blockbuster Movie part 32" - do you actually end up with the 1001st copy of "Debbie does Dallas" or "animal Farm"?
Makes me Laugh on teh bbc site they say we can download a dvd in 3 mins on a 50mb connection...
Wrong lol never works out like that
The music holiday is over, get back to work.
Once upon a time, artists used to actually tour and play live to make their money. Now they release a single or two a year and spend the rest of the time on holiday. I really hope that file sharing completely destroys the music industry as it stands today, maybe then we'll have a return to real musicians rather than the fakers that fill the industry at the moment, just trying to make their quick buck and get out. Remember what music is about!
Aren't the claimed losses
Offset by the entertainment industries reselling the same stuff in different formats - don't we all know people who bought their favourite album on LP, cassette, 8-track, 180g vinyl, CD, 20-bit remastered CD, extended CD, enhanced CD, Super Audio, DVD audio, anniversary edition with outtake tracks, Japanese gold cd with mini LP cover, the album as a singles collection, then the tracks as video, vcd, dvd, hd-dvd, blu-ray. Great and £15 quid or so each time.
(Legal) downloading is gonna hurt the industry cos you just get the track(s) you want from an album not all the filler crud.
For some things you can't be a customer - albums that haven't been reissued - how does the entertainment industry intend to help meet our needs with those?
re and another thing
what realy anoys me is when I try to down load "Debbie does Dallas" and get "Formulaic Hollywood Blockbuster Movie part 32"
Did the art industry throw their dummy in the dust over the invention of the camera and the photocopier?
Suppose the music industry fat cats now realise they can't line their pockets as easily by rolling another over priced, generic template out of the sausage machine and expecting us all to lap it up in our millions. Oh boo hoo, so Simon Cowell can only afford a gold plated swimming pool instead of a diamond encrusted one filled with Bollinger.
Anyhoo, file sharing gives smaller bands the chance to reach a worldwide audience at the click of a button so it's not all bad.
@and, another thing
Animal Farm? Why not simply buy the book you will have it forever.........unless we're not talking about the same......
let me look at this way,
1st, is there a new movie coming out everyday of the year or a new game or a new song, if not then then the estimate is wrong.
2nd, I believe that many people download movies for a single viewing then remove it, last time I checked this is the equivalent of renting. Do people pay 25 quids to rent a movie or game in the UK?
3rd, there is no proof of the age of the downloaders, they can't prove that the download is not some kid (not even 15 years of age) who can't watch the said film legally let alone afford it.
4th, 25 quids x 30 days a month = 750 quids..... how many people out there are going to spend 750 quid on movies and games every single month? ( I know no one who does that and the only person I know who can afford it does _NOT_ watch anything but the news. READ: workaholic businessman)
Yep, same maths going on here as we get with 'massive drugs haul'.
How much have all these bloody surveys and presentations and inquiries cost?
'Kin parasites - and that ain't the downloaders.
Real pirates are the 'experts'
Isn't he also a minister for Higher Education? Since he's more concerned about BitTorrent that could explain the state of universities right now.
He talks about 'future sustainability of our copyright industries.'
Easy answer. There isn't a future for copyright. Time for a new model.
@ Lionel Baden
'the amount of times ive bought a game and regreted not checking it first !!!!'
Absolutely agree. And don't forget this government is a huge fan of DRM which means under a strict interpretation of the law I can't watch many movies that are region coded. I fail to see how downloading a movie only available in Region 1, or an eBook who's publishers have forbidden it to be sold in the UK, constitutes a lost sale.
Big story yesterday about a blind woman who bought an eBook version of the Bible from Amazon. The publisher had decided it would not work with voice synthesis software so she was unable to use her book. Amazon do not offer refunds on eBooks and the publishers refused to budge. What did she do? She downloaded a cracked version of the Bible that did allow for spoken word.
freetard, well sort of
i don't tend to download music though, the main thing i download are tv series as i really can't be bothered to wait 6months to a year for some of them to appear, only to miss it because i happened to be out. I'd much rather get it on demand and watch it when i want. I'd even be willing to pay a subscription for it like i did with virgin, before getting annoyed that all the stuff was several series behind what was available for free on teh net.
Same thing with Films, i refuse to wait 6 months to see something, just because some fool decided that the cinema in my town would be more profitable as a nightclub.
Notice a trend here? all the stuff i download illegally, i do because i have no legal alternative! Is there any good reason for dvd releases to be months behind the cinema release, instead of a week or two?
but it could have all been avoided so easily...
10 years ago, the first incarnation of Napster was just finding it's feet and the record industry was making a huge fussabout suing people etc. etc.
if they had just opened their fricking eyes back then to the idea that people were looking for new ways of obtaining their music they could have built up the infrastructure to deliver it at low cost to the consumer and keep their customer base secure.
unfortunately now, with the growth of the internet over the last few years the common man has had a peek into what geeks have been doing for the last 10 years and cottoned on to the idea that they can have all the music they ever wanted without paying for it.
all they have to do to get it is mentally smudge the lines of what is right and wrong and what is and isn't stealing and now the genie is out of the bottle and everyone has had a good taste of what 'fee' music is and thre's no way that the industry will be able to turn the whole thing back round to their way of thinking.
Paris cos she knows how to copyright her assets.
7 million would spend 120 billion without p2p?
In other words, every 12 year old will spend the average adult salary exclusively on music and video every year?
Lies help nobody.
"reviewed the available literature and spoke to entertainment industry representatives and regulators" ... so they didn't bother to ask ANYONE who uses these p2p services anything, yet they can decide what and why we do it..
i could write so much about how stupid this study is, but i have to get over to PB and find the latest [insert your free download here]...
Justifying your actions
This is the usual run of comments from a bunch of copyright thieves.
Yes you are stealing. Yes it is illegal.
Here are your usual flawed justifcations:
1) It was a rip off to buy...
2) It's a TV series broadcast on TV so it's okay to download
3) They make squillions anyway
And a new one for today
4) The statistics are flawed.
Well if it makes you feel better than well done you. If you want to steal then steal but don't wrap it up in some bullshit "power to the people" rant.
Words of Wisdom....
A few suggestions for the music / video / entertainment industry.
1) Don't assume that everything downloaded is a lost sale. It isn't. Rightly or wrongly, many folks "try before they buy", and if they like it, they will buy it - if it's reasonably priced. Which leads to:
2) Don't keep ripping off the consumer with silly prices and then whinging when they download off the internet. If the UK really is the "freetard" capital of Europe, maybe this is ever-so-slightly connected with the fact that UK consumers pay through the nose for everything. This is called "cause and effect". ;-)
3) Don't release on DVD months after a major film comes out. If people can legally buy at a fair price, then they will. If you stop 'em buying, don't be surprised when they turn to other tactics.
4) Get rid of this lame, brain-dead region encoding crap. Everyone knows how to get round it. By continuing to do it, you do yourselves no favours.
Want that Job
So if you have £17,000 a year to spend on digital entertainment thats disposale income after tax and living costs. Average house price is £150000 (approx) so mortgage payment on that would be £700 per month based on a 100% mortgage payed back over 25 years with interest @ 3%
Are there 7 million people living in Britian (11% of the population) who can afford £750 per month on digital media !
don't think so somehow .
...what about the rightsless content that is also on P2P networks, e.g. Linux ISOs, home videos, public domain sound recordings? What about all the movie trailers that are dumped out by the movie studios? Are they now worth 25quid a pop?
Yet another completely pointless, self-serving junk report that proves only that the "researchers" suckled deeply on the corporate teet and hardly bothered to actually research at all.
And of course the report then becomes the foundation of "policy"... policy that the electorate does not want, need or support. Worse, the content of the report is never questioned by those deciding the rules; I bet they only read the summary page and then claim the time on expenses......
So "If each “peer” from this network" of "1.3 million users sharing content (not the largest) downloaded one file per day the resulting number of downloads (music, film, television, e-books, software and games were all available) would be 4.73 billion items per year."
N_Items = 1.3 Musers * 1item/d * 365 d/y x*1y = 474.5 Mitems
Darn, I still don't understand statistics!
So we're all in agreement
No point making the point every other commentator already has.
But remembering the old saw "don't get mad, get even", I have to wonder if there's a legal counterattack possible. Given its historical antecedents, the government of the UK is a very high-handed outfit, but reading the news carefully, it appears that various actions of the nomenklatura nonetheless can be subjected to judicial review.
Who's got the deep pockets necessary to hire a good lawyer and go before a learned judge demanding that this shabby bunch of cooked statistics be condemned, disowned, and withdrawn?
It might also be fun to solicit the attentions of would-be moles and find out just who actually wrote this steaming pile of bullshit, then name and shame them.
Or perhaps they've simply plagiarized from propaganda emitted by the RIAA and/or MPAA. A revelation along those lines in one of the fiestier dailies might be good for a few laughs.
Special memo to Jacqui Smith and her subordinates: this kind of bullshit no longer works. No right-thinking person believes a word you say anyway, but when you issue lengthy reports that are so obviously biased in favor of pre-determined positions, you simply throw more shit at your own tattered reputation. Resign now, you horrible little ex-cooking teacher, you.
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64