Fewer People Copy DVDs Than Once Thought

MasterOfMagic writes "According to a survey reported at the NY Times, very few people actually have and use DVD copying software. The survey reports that only 1.5 percent of computer users have DVD copying software, and of those 1.5%, 2/3rds of them don't even use it. The survey also revealed that users were more likely to download DVDs than copy DVDs that they borrowed or rented, and that about half of all downloaded DVDs are pornography. According to the survey's lead analyst, 'With music, part of the appeal is sharing your own playlists and compilations with your friends ... I'm not sure people share their porn the way they share their music.'"

I have copied DVDs

[night_flyer]

once was when it wasnt available for sale but Blockbuster had it, it still isnt for sale but I found a copy (Split Second). I have also had to copy some DVDs that were so scratched up they wouldnt play properly, but the copy would (used DVD shrink)

Re:1.5 percent?

[flitty]

1.5% of people with computers burn dvd's huh... Somone do the math and see if (Netflix Subscribers):(1.5% of people with computers) is a 1:1 ratio.

Re:1.5 percent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I have a set of tools to do DVD rips, but that's so I can watch movies on my ChiPod, not so I can infringe copyright by distributing it to other people.

I don't anymore, its not worth the time or effort

[Shivetya]

I buy all my DVDs, usually either on release day when they are heavily discounted or from online sellers (like deep discount dvd) when I can get most for 6 dollars or less. Yeah I know I am indirectly supporting the evil MPAA but the fact is I want these movies and its not worth the risk to just buy them, especially when I get them for such a great price. I usually buy odd movies; like those people like us like; and series (again those people here are more likely to buy) that don't hold their price original prices very long.

I tried many of the copy programs, have downloaded torrents of current series, and all that. Now I record on the fly with the tivo-clone what series I want and keep them around till the dvd comes out and gets to a ok price. For the most part copying DVDs was more of a novelty to me and others, its the "oh, I did that when I was a kid" type stuff that just isn't worth the hassle or civil penalties to do anymore

Re:Really not surprised

[Ironsides]

For most cds (By volume sold, aka pop crap), the labels get money from the discs, not from shows the artists sing (so far as I know). So, taking that into account, the artist doesn't care much about the CDs, just he concerts. The labels care about the CDs, not the concerts, as they don't get money from them, except as extra CDs sold. Then there is the radio revenue, but I don't think that helps much.

Off hand, I think part of the high cost of music is the shotgun approach labels use. Movie studios tend to be more selective, given the high cost of one now a days.

Re:Really not surprised

[Hoi Polloi]

The only difference I can see is that the record industry is based on business practices that date back to the early 1900s whereas the movie business has only been selling to consumers since the 1980s. Probably a matter of historical baggage and bloated payment schemes that create the huge price difference.

Absolute BS.

[Belial6]

That is certainly not it. My favorite example is:

http://www.cduniverse.com/sresult.asp?HT_Search_In fo=who+made+who&HT_Search=TITLE&image.x=11&image.y =9&cart=566907299&style=music&altsearch=yes [cduniverse.com]
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7275 727&style=movie&BAB=E [cduniverse.com]

There is absolutely no excuse for a sound track to cost more than the movie AND soundtrack. I would assume that MOST soundtracks cost more than the movies they are from within a year or two of the movies release to video.

Because it's nearly a complete waste of time.

[Simulant]

• It takes forever

• It fails frequently

• The burnt DVD's frequently won't play properly in a normal DVD player (or even be readable in a DVD-ROMdrive)

• Optical Media is a piss poor long term storage solution.

• If you're a collector and really care about quality/longevity, you probably want the real thing.

• If you just want to watch a free movie, burning one is really not worth your time & effort.

• It's far easier to download from BT or USENET and the quality is close enough to DVD these days that most people won't notice the difference. (assuming of course they can figure out how to hook up their PC/Laptop to their TV)

• How many times can you watch the same damn move again anyway?

Re:Really not surprised

[shark72]

"Okay... so when people stop buying CDs in droves (often while citing the price of CDs relative to other goods in their lives), what does that have to say about the location of the current price of CDs on their supply-demand curve?"

CD prices go into freefall. The average price of a new CD was about $20 ten years ago. Then P2P exploded. By 2004, the average price of a new CD was about $13.50. Then online venues like the iTunes store and became more viable (my personal reason for not buying CDs any more) and now it's quite easy to find new releases for $11. Most of the CDs on Amazon's best-seller lists are $9.99.

That $20 we were paying for CDs in 1997 is almost 25 bucks today's money. This means CD prices have fallen by more than half. Ain't the demand curve great?

I don't think CDs are going to fall much below $11 or so... their share of the market vs. online sales will continue to wither away to a core group of consumers who seek out a physical medium, but I don't think we'll see the record companies will chase it down much further.

Re:Really not surprised

[CopaceticOpus]

It's interesting that you talk about supply and demand, but the supply side is hardly mentioned. Once the music is recorded, the record companies can make as many copies as they like, and each additional copy probably costs them less than one dollar. So the supply is potentially enormous. By raising the prices high, they produce the same effect as a limited supply would cause, but there's nothing about the supply that is inherently limited.

This is where competition is supposed to help out. Some smart person should start a company that does less marketing, simple good quality recordings, and standard CD packaging, then sell the discs for $5. They could pay about $1 per CD to the artists, $1 for manufacturing and distribution, $1 on average for recording and production, $1 for company salaries and expenses, and $1 profit. Assuming they could get some big names on board, they should create quite a stir and make some good money undercutting the other companies and their artificial markups.

Unfortunately, the few big music corporations seem to have a stranglehold on the business, and they know better than to start a price war with each other. The status quo makes them all more profitable. It's a bit like OPEC, just done unofficially because it would be illegal to make it official.

Re:Really not surprised

[amper]

If you believe that the RIAA and MPAA don't understand this, then you don't understand so many things about basic economics and human behavior that it's almost a complete waste of time to mention the fact.

People don't use movie products in the same way that they use music products. Of course CD's cost the consumer more! Haven't you noticed the fact that in recent years, most popular movies and television shows have practically become advertisements for recordings that the studios want to push? What do you think they make more money from?

Even those of us who are die hard video collectors rarely watch any individual program or feature more than a handful of times (never mind the fact that my two year old is now obsessed with "Kiki's Delivery Service" and is doing her best to wear out the tape with repeated viewings), yet will continue to play songs from even decades ago time and again.

Re:Really not surprised

[ak3ldama]

I actually wish Amazon would just sell $30 or $40 boxed sets with complete collections of artists (perhaps with premiums if it included recent releases). It would be great to just buy straight up the whole collection of a band. Especially lesser known stuff like Testament, Exodus, Overkill (to single out a genre like Thrash metal.) Or to move to something different, consider that the first few Garth Brooks albums are not available brand new from Amazon.com!? The first few were Garth's best work, but you have to buy them threw the used channels.

I think if there were metrics available (which the Overlords of the Internet don't allow to be studied) the industry would have more information on how to actually reach their customers. This is why most bands love it that people are downloading their music, because its the best way to reach the people. Radio and conventional sales channels have failed. These metrics would also probably also provide proof that the music currently released isn't what people want.