25% of UK File-sharers Would Pay $20 p/mo for Legal P2PAdded: Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
As the new Wiggin's annual survey says, more than 25% of file-sharers would rather pay $20 per month for a legitimate P2P service. The same number of people agreed that websites blocking can work as a countermeasure against copyright infringement. However, over one-third of pirates admitted that these threats posed by ISPs wouldn’t make any difference to their download habits.
The annual research into entertainment and consumer expenditure was conducted this year by the law firm Wiggin in cooperation with Entertainment Media Research, so the results published with a predecessor can be compared. Actually, there are some surprises hidden inside the results of a survey. It should be mentioned that the same survey made 2 years ago revealed that almost half of users thought DRM was a great idea. Now you can see the results of their thoughts.
This time copyright infringers were asked what price they are ready to pay for a legitimate peer-to-peer service. Users were also prompted with an array of fees they would perfectly feel comfortable with. As a result, almost 60% chose $4-5 per month, which equals to how much a pint of beer in the West End costs, or something around 20 minutes on a cheap seat watching a Millwall FC game (if it would be possible to watch it by the minute from a cheap seat).
That doesn’t seem like being met with a wild happiness from copyright holders, just because of 2 inevitable facts. The first one is that 2/3 of broadband users are not infringers in any form – they are simply not interested in the topic. The reason is undefined – they can be not fond of music (one can be reminded that about 44% of the UK people do not purchase recorded music of any type), or they can purchase it legally. The second fact is that the researches have revealed that many copyright infringers are real music fans who just pursue their interest, many of whom tend to pay for music.
This means that it is actually in the interests of performers and their representatives to leave some cash in real music fans’ wallets, because that’s them who spend the most money, thus maximizing revenue coming from a small part of their consumers. And that can’t be achieved by charging people $50 a year.
However, such unlimited deals like the one described above, may hurt indie filmmakers quite badly. Well, $20 for legal peer-to-peer service may do too, but less so.
June 9th, 2010Posted by:
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
|i think most downloaders would pay a subscription but again these things are going to have a knock on affect on other parts of either the (movie industry) (software&gaming) & (music) the downside of paying a subscripition is the smaller companies in all of these various industries would suffer some loss of revenue or worse go to the wall so your robbing peter to pay paul CATCH 22 who wins the big multi national companies with the brand names|
|posted by (2010-06-09 16:45:23)|
|well that could be very hard to do seen as we dont use $ in the uk|
|i choose free heh....nice read!!|
|i pay around Â£55 a month on dvds and games if they did a service for as many movies as you want for 40 quid i d be up for signing to that and wouldn t bother with the illegal route at all but alas the movie industry is still in the dark age|
|posted by (2010-06-09 21:05:20)|
well that could be very hard to do seen as we dont use $ in the uk
lol pun at ur best i c
|Pay extra for a free P2P service?|
Or pay a fee to download anything you want for a fixed amount per month?
Won't work for the very reason stated in the article.
Now if copyright holders set up a "internet Store" and advertised their product at a very fair price - might be interesting...
They wouldn't have all those production and distribution costs..
Think you as a copyright holder wouldn't have to hire a production company to manufacture you software disks and boxes, advertising and more...
But they will not at this time.. Those who won't will go under..
|Dosent matter it will never work. 2 many greedy fukers will have there hands out! Its much easier to blame file sharers than the economy.|
|ohh my gosh its gonna b very expensive 4 UK guys... hope dey can afford it.. lol...|
|posted by (2010-06-10 14:28:31)|
|thing is if there ever was a service like that I bet the powers that be would limit what you can download for that price each month|
|The problem with a legal service is that it would not offer downloads of the latest movies, music, books, etc. When something first comes out is when whatever particular industry it is actually makes money on it. If that weren't the case you'd be hearing the MPAA and such crying about netflix, blockbuster, your local library. They've all been offering content for free, or close to it, for years; which you could just as easily copy yourself as download someone else's torrent (in whatever codec and quality YOU chose).|
The issue is that technology has evolved quicker than the marketing model of the various industries. Ironically, the latest into the main stream of widely available P2P content (in my opinion at least) is the publishing industry with the boom of e-books and they are the only industry that is actually adjusting their business model so that the technology helps their business rather than hurts it.
Until the MPAA and the music industry starts to look at the web as something that can actually help their business rather than hurt it they will always look to put their content on it last and as a result people then will put it out their for them ;-)
|Â£186 i had to pay for 3 months internet with redused speeds and warnings about my download limits so pay the vampires any more blood they can all go to hell and burn sorry about that and et's great and thanks to all involved who make the site great||
Most Popular Stories