P2P Users Spend More than Non-P2P Users?

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

There are many media executives around the world who would do anything to believe otherwise, but according to a recent report done by Frank N. Magid Associates, Internet users who pirate media, whether it be music, movies or what-have-you, spend more of their hard-earned money on media products. These products can include anything from going to see a movie, to purchasing a new HDTV, to buying a game console.

I'm sure there are many who won't, but I wholeheartedly agree with this research. I admit that in the past, I used to be a rather rampant P2P'er, downloading a fair amount of music over time. Today, I don't usually download anything unless one of my favorite artists' album gets leaked a few weeks early, but in the end, they still get my money when the actual product hits the market.

For me, P2P was a game-changer where discovering new music was concerned. Before the likes of Last.fm, P2P was the absolute best way to sample new music - especially music that's not normally played via convenient means, unless it's mainstream. As I look over at my music collection, I see a few artists that I would have likely never discovered had I never took a chance on downloading their album. For a few of those bands, I now own every-single album they've ever made (The Thermals, for example).

Today, rather than download random albums via P2P, I use services like Last.fm to discover new artists and then YouTube to hear the music. It's at that point that I can decide whether to move forward with a purchase or not. That setup sure works better than the foolish 30s low bit-rate clips of music that services like iTunes avail you, I can tell you that much. While I became bored of P2P, many haven't (obviously), and I still believe that people who get to actually sample what they want to buy first are going to spend more than someone who doesn't have such a capability.

We compared a random set of Vuze users with a national sample of internet users ages 18 to 44, and results revealed that users of P2P technology spend considerable money on traditional media and entertainment. They are, in fact, important and valued customers of the traditional media companies. Our survey shows that the P2P user attends 34% more movies in theaters, purchases 34% more DVDs and rents 24% more movies than the average internet user. The P2P user owns more HDTVs and is more likely to own a high-def-DVD player, too.

Source: Advertising Age​

 

[2Tired2Tango]

From our front-page news:

There are many media executives around the world who would do anything to believe otherwise, but according to a recent report done by Frank N. Magid Associates, Internet users who pirate media, whether it be music, movies or what-have-you, spend more of their hard-earned money on media products. These products can include anything from going to see a movie, to purchasing a new HDTV, to buying a game console.
​

It's true... a lot of the work I do is driven by P2P downloading. It's common for my friends (less so for myself) to download an album or movie then end up buying media to burn it to or as you point out they end up buying better speakers, displays etc, to take advantage of what they've got.

But there is a problem with this, as a justification for the downloads... the money does not end up in the hands of the artists and companies. It's being redirected to hardware manufacturers and still deprives the creators and distributors of their piece of the pie.

I have long mantained that P2P --particularly u-Torrent-- could be a major boon to the music and movie industries if they would just get on the bandwagon. What they need is a new business model where their money does not come from the end user... IOW... stuff in a couple of adds and get their money from the advertisers. I know a lot of people who would happily put up with an intermission in a downloaded movie, if it meant they could legally have it for free.

It's a very simple progression... hold the theatrical review, as always. A couple of days or a week later release the movie or album to the Torrent world with a couple of adds included. A month or two later, come out with the disk with no adds, extra scenes or an added track to attract the buying public...

Torrents present an established distribution method that won't cost them a penny and is eager to go.... Why they don't capitalize on this is beyond me.

What they've got going on now... closing down giants like Pirate Bay breaks the #1 rule in sales: "Never piss the customer off." ... and to be honest it's probably costing them far more than they'll ever recover.​

 

[Phineas]

Copyright Issue

I'm surprised no one was weighed in on the debate.
While it might be a foregone conclusion in the US, the copyright issue is far from settled in Canada.
There is legal question whether a copy of a music piece even can be copyrighted and whether different versions require a different copyright.
The original intent of copyright was for published materials only and the coverage to performance copies evolved over time without challenge, probably due to the fact that any State or federal politician will need the support ($) from the music/film industry if they want to get re-elected.

But here we have the legislation winding its merry way through the commons without so much as a whimper, probably because our politicians need the support ($) of the film industry to get elected.

Anyone interested in wading in on this?

 

[Kougar]

There is a great deal worth saying on this subject, but suffice to say even if some big studio execs did happen to be reading my posts I don't think it would make an iota of difference. Probably the only thing they'd remember are the dollar signs I used. My views are pretty similar to those expressed this far...

I just think it is ridiculous that traditional radio is still able to play music for free, yet internet radio stations have to pay to play the same music.

Of course lets be honest here, that's not anything as bad as being charged $80,000 per song for sharing 24 songs for a brief time on p2p, for a grand total of $1.92 million dollars. Excessive and egregious doesn't even begin to hold a penny to that, nor the music industry exploiting copyright law to sue people for their entire lifetime's wages.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

The original intent of copyright was for published materials only and the coverage to performance copies evolved over time without challenge, probably due to the fact that any State or federal politician will need the support ($) from the music/film industry if they want to get re-elected.

I don't know so much about the election issues but it is true that copyright law, in more or less it's present form, originated before the invention of the phonograph record. It started as a reaction to the printing press which was,even then, considered a threat to an writer's credits, rather than the only real means of making a profit it became. It strikes me that Copyright has always been a protectionist reaction against new technology, by the big bux publishing houses, rather than a means of embracing it.

In truth they think they are protecting their profits when in fact they are slowly alienating the one thing they need to stay alive... the artists who produce their products.

The big publishing houses could be on their last legs. Software exists for a writer to self-publish via PDF or EBK files. Software like Garage Band or Sibellius, will let any band produce professional quality tracks of their music. There is even software out there for the production of complete feature length movies that is easily affordable. All these allow an artist to go around the publishing houses and studios to produce their own stuff.

But up to now the kicker has been that only the big bux publishing houses had the means to distribute and merchandise the product. that has been their hold on the industry. But that too is melting away slowly as the distribution method, via Torrents, is right there and waiting for anyone who spends 15 minutes learning how to seed that first copy of a torrent.

Within today's technology it is entirely possible for (for example) a band to gain some notoriety on the club and concert circuits, produce their own tracks in a PC based studio, obtain a sponsor, and release direct to torrents. With modernized Torrent sites like www.1337x.org allowing some space for descriptions of torrent contents, they even get some free promotion for their product.

For the end user it means an extra file or two in the Torrent... ok so you download "Daddy and the Kids" and you end up with a copy of Ligotech's newest catalog in the process... For us, no problem. The band gets their money from the company, the company gets world wide distribution of their catalogs... Win Win Win.

I'm thinking these big bux publishers seriously need to rethink their business models and --especially-- their approach to artists and end buyers before they are left standing in a pile of unpaid bills wondering what went wrong.

Copyright subsists with the creation of an original work in all countries that are signators to the international treaties. I don't think there is much question who owns the original works... but there is going to be a real question of who controlls them in the future.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

There is a great deal worth saying on this subject, but suffice to say even if some big studio execs did happen to be reading my posts I don't think it would make an iota of difference. Probably the only thing they'd remember are the dollar signs I used.

With respect, I must disagree... Every voice silenced is a vote not cast. Your thoughts do make a difference and if enough people agree with you, we can jointly make a Big difference. Every new social direction starts with one voice, one idea...

Don't mistake resistance for deafness, my friend.

 

[Rob Williams]

I have long mantained that P2P --particularly u-Torrent-- could be a major boon to the music and movie industries if they would just get on the bandwagon. What they need is a new business model where their money does not come from the end user... IOW... stuff in a couple of adds and get their money from the advertisers. I know a lot of people who would happily put up with an intermission in a downloaded movie, if it meant they could legally have it for free.

This is kind of what services like Hulu are doing, right? It seems to be working out well for them. The problem with no money coming from consumers is that advertising all over a sudden becomes really expensive. For advertisers, the more people that watch the content, the more the ads are going to be. In some cases, ads can be as expensive as a dollar or more per person, and that will add up fast.

I don't think we can rule out subscription fees just yet, but you're right... there are definitely more innovative and less-expensive (for everybody) ways to get this done.

While it might be a foregone conclusion in the US, the copyright issue is far from settled in Canada.

Canada doesn't always have the most sane laws, and while I'm not familiar with copyrights up here, I do find it a bit humorous that it's not exactly against the law to file swap, like it is in the US. No complaints from me though. I'd never want to see the Canadian record industry and movie industry to give off such a bad vibe like the RIAA/MPAA do.

There is a great deal worth saying on this subject, but suffice to say even if some big studio execs did happen to be reading my posts I don't think it would make an iota of difference.

"It's the primary rule, you gotta wanna be fooled
It's our daunted restraint that keeps us silent in shame
It's our nature to be adversarial and free
Our evolution didn't hinge on passivity"
-Bad Religion

In truth they think they are protecting their profits when in fact they are slowly alienating the one thing they need to stay alive... the artists who produce their products.

Yup, there's a reason there are so many artists who would rather sell their own music than have a record company handle everything for them. It's a lot harder, but at least the larger artists (like Nine Inch Nails) won't be hurt financially by taking that route. And of course, it's the artists like NIN that would leave the biggest scar on the company's revenue.

For the end user it means an extra file or two in the Torrent... ok so you download "Daddy and the Kids" and you end up with a copy of Ligotech's newest catalog in the process... For us, no problem. The band gets their money from the company, the company gets world wide distribution of their catalogs... Win Win Win.

And the cool thing is that by taking this route, they likely earn more than they would through a record company. If you install software, sometimes it comes bundled with a browser or toolbar... usually those amount to $1 per new install. If it were the same for music, then for 10,000 downloads, $10,000. Not a bad haul. Of course, that's not going to feed you for long, but it definitely gets your music out there, and creates fans - fans which will go to your live shows.

 

[Phineas]

The good, the fat & the ugly

I'm thinking these big bux publishers seriously need to rethink their business models and --especially-- their approach to artists and end buyers before they are left standing in a pile of unpaid bills wondering what went wrong.

The business, especially the music business was too good. It is dying as a result of its own success, unchallenged even more than the advertising business, with the same executives in the same roles doing what everyone has always done since before Elvis, the first ever one named superstar [take that Bono].

In its heyday, the music business had enough money to throw around to buy most of the disk jockeys in North America, not that the price was all that high. The "talent" made millions, after production costs, while the industry absorbed billions. Everyone made a shoot load of money, lived well, mingled with the glitterati and no one worked very hard.

The move to compact disc didn't hurt either, suddenly what was retailing for eight, nine bucks was fetching $24.95 with little grumbling while recording and production costs plummeted.

You don't let go of that kind of lifestyle easily. What they don't know is that the world they knew is dead. The album purchaser of the 1960's is sick and tired of having to re-buy the same recording with every change of media, his kids still wonder why he bothered in the first place, and their kids are already laughing.

Any time you have to protect something with legislation, including the French language, Latin, General Motors, it is already dead.
In time anti-piracy laws will become like marijuana laws. When was the last time anyone even heard of anyone getting busted for a joint? Doesn't happen, not even in Tuscon.

So, they'll go after the "traffickers" whose servers will be found to be in Ecuador.

I'm the only guy I know with legal copies.

"Any fool can make a rule, and every fool will mind it."
H.D.Thoreau

 

[2Tired2Tango]

This is kind of what services like Hulu are doing, right? It seems to be working out well for them. The problem with no money coming from consumers is that advertising all over a sudden becomes really expensive. For advertisers, the more people that watch the content, the more the ads are going to be. In some cases, ads can be as expensive as a dollar or more per person, and that will add up fast.

I don't think we can rule out subscription fees just yet, but you're right... there are definitely more innovative and less-expensive (for everybody) ways to get this done.

I'm not familiar with Hulu. So can't comment on that.

But I think corporate sponsors are also going to have to rethink their advertising models as well. The idea of ad-inserted broadcasting is taking as bad a beating as purchased media... I'm betting that scheduled television's days are numbered.

One of the problems with Torrents is that once you unleash them you have no way of knowing how many downloads there are from the hundreds of sites they will propogate to, unless the artist is going to run a private tracker to follow the "seed" count. Probably the best route in that case is a "one time fee" paid to the artists by the advertisers who sponsor them. (And certainly not $1.00 )

Corporations that sponsor an artist or writer get their money back from increased sales.

Imagine getting the newest WallMart catalog in a free download of "17 Again"... you'll get the idea.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

So, they'll go after the "traffickers" whose servers will be found to be in Ecuador.

Yeah and an hour later they'll be in Madagascar. Believe me, no matter what they do they'll never stop peer to peer file sharing.... *Especially* torrents, which need no central server to work.

I'm the only guy I know with legal copies.

Ummmm ... No comment.

 

[Phineas]

For me, P2P was a game-changer where discovering new music was concerned. Before the likes of Last.fm, P2P was the absolute best way to sample new music ...

OK, I need to show my ignorance. The only time I ever downloaded music was when a friend got me an "i-tunes" gift card. The result was extremely disappointing as many of the downloads were of such low quality they were unplayable and it seems i-tunes likes to offer up "tribute versions" under the artists heading and I and probably a few thousand others wasted a lot of money on garbage.
But, I would like to explore some opportunities but have no idea how? If this is more appropriate off line, please message me.



"Any fool can make a rule, and every fool will mind it."
H.D. Thoreau.