Study Reveals 53 Billion Visits to Piracy Sites In One Year

[engine]

Study Reveals 53 Billion Visits to Piracy Sites In One Year [bbc.co.uk]

A study by anti-fraud firm MarkMonitor has offered a snapshot into the changing nature of online piracy.

It monitored illegal traffic levels on 43 file-sharing sites and found that they generated more than 53 billion visits per year.

Mark Mulligan, an analyst at research firm Forrester, points out that the numbers of visits does not necessarily equate to the number of downloads.

But it does show that commercial file-sharing sites, alongside other non-network based methods, are becoming as popular a way of sharing pirated music and films as peer-to-peer technologies.

"These upload sites index their files. It is very easy and convenient," he added.

[rollinj]

Finally, a site that indexes files! Pretty sensational article.

[StoutFiles]

Shouldn't this be "Study Reveals 53 Billion Visits to 43 Piracy Sites"? There are many more piracy sites that have been left out of this study.

Also, what about the free music and video that comes from YouTube?

[koan]

I recently read someone who was complaining they had to watch 13 minutes of unskippable previews, warnings and other ads in a DVD they purchased before they could watch the movie.

Hollywood is pushing people to piracy because of their idiocy.

[thecoalman]

That's a very good point koan, a similar example is availability. With region coding and some titles simply not available for sale some resort to pirated material.

As the snippet from the article also points out "easy". Many people get frustrated with all the hoops they have to jump through, portability and other issues associated with legitimate content.

[koan]

When legit customers have it harder than pirates, it's not going to get better, that's for sure.

[jecasc]

All legal online movie websites in my country only offer localized dubbed version. Once I paid for a film but the dubbing was so bad that after five minutes I stopped watching and went to youtube where the film was available in 10 minute pieces. But at least I could watch the film I had paid for in english.

A friend of mine wanted to watch his favorite tv-series on Hulu, so he paid 20 EUR/month. Not to Hulu but to a VPN service so he could pass the country blocking.

[MaxM]

A friend of mine wanted to watch his favorite tv-series on Hulu, so he paid 20 EUR/month. Not to Hulu but to a VPN service so he could pass the country blocking.

Yes, US tv-series distribution model hasn't changed at all, unlike music with iTunes etc...

In UK, Scandinavia, Australia and other non-dubbing countries illegal downloading and that VPN service way are extremely popular. TV shows appear on local networks, if at all, often up to a year after US airing.

I don't remember where it was but Warner Bros TV pretty much agreed the current model with international distribution is broken, but they can't do anything about it.

[milosevic]

I think the idea of purchasing physical copies of films will be on the way out.

Bluray etc is great, but a 3-4gb H264/matroska file can provide reasonably comparable quality that would be acceptable to most.

And it's what other people have said - obtaining films illegally via streaming or download is (presuming decent broadband) more convenient and a better experience than buying the DVD, and that's the simple issue. No piracy warnings, no trailers, just the film. And you can store it on your HD and be watching it within 10 seconds - no digging around the back of a cupboard trying to find the disc, hoping it's not been scratched, and no listening to your DVD drive stopping and starting in the background while watching the film.

[Old_Honky]

milosevic has nailed the important - point ease of use. The film/TV/Music people need to realise this then find a way to monetise these currently illegal downloads. I favour a compulsory download licence (which like the BBC's TV licence would be more of a tax than a licence). This could be collected by ISP's and paid out proportionately to national organisations for redistribution to the copyright owners. It need not be expensive because the copyright owner is not recouping a large distribution cost.

Then everyone has to buy a licence to download and anyone can download from any site. No need for expensive and often futile anti piracy measures.

The problem is the industry which still wants to make the same high profits from this new low cost virtual distribution channel that they enjoy from the much higher cost physical distribution channels.

[James2]

I'm not convinced hard copies are on their way out. Look at vinyl for example.

Plus I really wouldn't like to have my collection on a hard drive. If it were to break, get stolen or stop working I would freak out with a five mile blast radius.

[jecasc]

Plus I really wouldn't like to have my collection on a hard drive. If it were to break, get stolen or stop working I would freak out with a five mile blast radius.

Why would anybody want a collection at all? What I want is every movie and every piece of music ready for streaming at my request. Like my napster flatrate. I pay 9 EUR/month and can access millions of songs. If I spent 9 EUR / month buying music for 60 years I would only get a collection of about 7200 songs. And had to store and handle them myself, transfer them to a new harddisk or rent a garage for my CD collection.

Same goes for movies. I don't want to buy movies, I want to rent them. If it is Sunday 3 a.m. and I want to watch the 1930 version of "All Quiet on the Western Front" or Inception from 2010 I want to pay a reasonable price and be able to watch it. Immediately. Without buying a DVD and not a localized dubbed version.

The problem of the film industry is: The illegal platforms provide this variety and they provide a large collection. The film industry does not offer anything that comes close to this. If people where able to pay 2-4 Euro for watching a film when they want it - I don't think anybody would spend time watching movies filmed with a hand camera in a chinese movie theatre. At least not those who can afford it. And those who can't don't buy a DVD either.

[StoutFiles]

Why would anybody want a collection at all? What I want is every movie and every piece of music ready for streaming at my request. Like my napster flatrate. I pay 9 EUR/month and can access millions of songs.

Because as soon as you stop paying the 9/month you don't have those songs anymore. People like to own things.

Also, there is still a large majority of people who don't have the internet with them 24/7. Sometimes I want music with me while camping. Sometimes I want to watch a movie on a plane without paying for WiFi. And then you've got phone companies trying to cap data...there are MANY scenarios where just owning the media is better than renting it out with an internet connection.

[walrus]

Want. The internet brings out part of our true animal natures. Most people wouldnt walk into a store and steal a DVD, because of repercussions. With the net, millions will commit a kind of microcrime because its mainly bigass corporations getting ripped off so the social responsibilty to our civilization is brushed aside so you can watch some tv for free. Just because you want doesnt mean you should get.

I would bet that half of the users of pirated video etc, could well afford what they steal.

The world economy however, leaves many unable to attain a decent income. The poor feel it is their right to have these material things we sell, feeling justified because they do not get the opportunities we do, perhaps they are, perhaps they need to accept they cant watch the new spiderman this year, and that there are millions of other legal things they can watch.

[James2]

not so sure it's a rich/ poor thing

also, say I want to watch a dvd again and again, there are some films I will never tire of, and I don't want to pay again and again for

also, I know it's not strictly legal anyway, but say I want to lend it to a friend or take round someone's house, sell it or swap it?

edit: oh, and also, I studied film at uni and what would happen to uni film libraries for example? try charging a student each time they do their homework (especially with the fee hikes). You'd also be taking away features like commentaries (which some people like me do watch!)

edit, edit: and say something comes up where you can't finish the film that day, i'd be irked if I had to pay to watch two halves over two days. also box sets for example. I'd rather buy a cheap series box set to watch at my leisure than pay per episode

edit, edit, edit: alright missed the flatrate bit but some of my pointes remain

[milosevic]

Because as soon as you stop paying the 9/month you don't have those songs anymore.

Exactly - I will never get into one of these monthly payment things because if you stop paying, you lose your music collection, and they often use vendor lock in tricks to make leaving an extremely unattractive proposition, that you aren't made aware of before signing up.

Many of the digital download services are the same as streaming sites in terms of vendor lock in, I'm sure we've all heard things about itunes and Apple products.

I stopped downloading tv shows from bit torrent (I don't really watch many films nowadays at all) and started watching them on streaming sites. But I'm aware that when I go away travelling, I'm going to lose all that unless I'm permanently staying somewhere with decent broadband, which will be almost never in many countries. I feel like some of these cloud services are going to create a generation of 'cloud prisoners' who are afraid to leave the safety of their home broadband connection for things like travel, particularly with increasing moves towards regional lock ins.

Traditional media doesn't fare much better, I lived in New Zealand for several years and my hypothetical DVD collection would have been coasters there, just because I went to a different country that's in a different region.

[jecasc]

I would bet that half of the users of pirated video etc, could well afford what they steal.

The problem however is that what those people want is not for sale. That's the key to the problem. The demand is not necessarily for free streaming or download but for immediate streaming or download. And what there is on offer in legal content online is simply laughable. When someone has two spare hours and wants to watch a movie he wants to watch it now. Being able to buy a DVD tomorrow won't satisfy his demand, because his demand is watching some movie now to kill some time. Not even necessarily a specific movie.

The movie industry is missing a big opportunity here. For example: I didn't play computer games for years. Totally had lost interest. Then my 5 year old nephew came for a visit and I bought a simple computer game on the online platform Steam so we could play. End result: Last year I spent close to 800 EUR on computer games. Simply because when I was bored I could buy a game with a click of my mouse button and start playing.

[milosevic]

The problem is the industry which still wants to make the same high profits from this new low cost virtual distribution channel that they enjoy from the much higher cost physical distribution channels.

Exactly - and it's the distribution channels and physical media producers that are losing out, more than the content producers, who have always been exploited traditionally - ie the band that owes the record company money after charting an album and doing a tour, the script writer's strike.

Part of boycotting traditional media distribution is because I genuinely believe the arts and media would be better without this system. There are plenty of content producers in all mediums who don't do so for the money.

[walrus]

Good points, it is reasonable to feel justified , I have to agree the film industry has ripped us all off in many ways, 7 mins of commercials etc. On the other hand I don't know what LA or New York is like but in a city like Toronto, one out of two convenience stores sell pirated video openly. It is about more than being justified, its plain social responsibility not to steal, or cheat in anything. You are making criminals rich, that is probably not good.

[James2]

I dunno. Films cost an incredible amount of money to make and distribute. Look at MGM, they are only just starting the new Bond film as they nearly went bust. They were due to start ages ago. One bad film can break a studio, every film is a risk which is why a lot of them are generic and less likely to break the mould. Because they are safer bets for a return on the investment let alone a profit.

It's understandable to feel that the distribution channels rape the muscians for example but without them the artists wouldn't get promoted. Cover art, marketing, production costs (in all forms, studio time, producers, remixes etc), touring costs (venues/ roadies/ equipment/ lighting/ sound) cost a significant outlay. The labels must first invest in these and they pay the artists an advance against potential earnings which are estimated. The artists then have to cover their advance etc before they can start receiving royalties etc. A lot goes on behind the scenes which costs a lot of money. And then it's still a risk. Robbie Williams signed to some label for 80mil and didn't make anywhere near that back for them.

There are rare example obviously like the Arctic Monkeys or Nizlopi who make it on their own (or say Kevin Smith in film) but they are rare examples and the majority can't cover the initial expenses so need label's or film studio's money.

7 minutes of adverts is hardly a huge imposition. Just because a film takes almost two hours to watch doesn't mean it took that time to make. Preproduction, shooting, star salary, post production, promotion, reshooting, props make up, sound, staff, distribution etc. They take years often.

[graeme_p]

Most people wouldnt walk into a store and steal a DVD, because of repercussions.

Not because of repercussions. Most of us think that breach of copyright and theft are not morally equivalent. The classic Jefferson argument.

Films cost an incredible amount of money to make and distribute

Partly because the current model inflates costs, especially paying excessive amounts for stars. If you paid stars $1m a film....

The cost of special effects has also come down a lot, and continues to fall.

IN any case there are plenty of good low budget films, and we are not begging to see cheap free films - Sita Sings the Blues is one of the best children's cartoons, is a free download, and made more money than the usual distribution channels for indie films would have made for it.

[jecasc]

7 minutes of adverts is hardly a huge imposition.

I believe it is a huge imposition when I pay money for a DVD and even five years later I am forced to watch adverts for movies that will come out on DVD in March. (that is March five years ago)

[James2]

'Partly because the current model inflates costs, especially paying excessive amounts for stars. If you paid stars $1m a film.... '




There's a reason they get paid so much. And again it's about getting a return on investment or even getting the thing into production.

If I were to say to you that there was a new Tom Cruise film out, you'd have a pretty good idea of what will happen in that film. So this works on two fronts, you are telling people about that film and you are already attracting that audience. People do go and see: the new angelina joley film, the new bruce willis film etc without finding out too much about it first as they know what kind of thing to expect.

In addition good actors keep the production costs down as they are actually very good at their jobs. They can hit their marks, deliver the same lines over and over and over and over and over and over again. To set up a single shot takes a lot of manpower so you can't have all that money, people, time, resources hinging on someone who isn't a professional.Especially back when it was actually done on film.

Obviously they can't do everything at once so they will often go where the money is/ to the highest bidder. If the star has any kind of integrity, they will do a film where they can play a good character/ is of interest to them/ will progress their career, and then sandwich that with a generic blockbuster to keep them in the lifestyle they're accustomed as the pay between the two often varies significantly.

The three major things you need to get a script into production as a producer approaching or working for a studio are: director, script, star.

Stars are bankable assets. If something works, you do it again. Or in film, if it makes money, you do it again. Hence sequals. It is a business.



'I believe it is a huge imposition when I pay money for a DVD and even five years later I am forced to watch adverts for movies that will come out on DVD in March. (that is March five years ago) '



Seriously, go put the kettle on while it's going through the clips.

[StoutFiles]

Not because of repercussions. Most of us think that breach of copyright and theft are not morally equivalent. The classic Jefferson argument.

Most people wouldn't steal the DVD because they'd feel bad for the store owner, not for the billion dollar film industry. People don't generally feel bad for large conglomerates.

[walrus]

Great points, I stand corrected, yet again, but thats one of the reasons I like this place, i always learn something.