Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Movies Television Entertainment

70 Percent of Young Swedish Men Are Video Pirates, Study Says (torrentfreak.com) 207

A new study from Sweden has found that just over half of all young people admit to obtaining movies and TV shows from the Internet without paying, a figure that rockets to 70 percent among young men, reports TorrentFreak, citing a study. From the report: According to figures just released by media industry consultants Mediavision, in January 2017 almost a quarter of all Swedes aged between 15 and 74 admitted either streaming or downloading movies from 'pirate' sites during the past month. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tendency to do so is greater among the young. More than half of 15 to 24-year-olds said they'd used a torrent or streaming site during December. When concentrating that down to only young men in the same age group, the figure leaps to 70 percent.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

70 Percent of Young Swedish Men Are Video Pirates, Study Says

Comments Filter:
  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @04:24PM (#53888869)
    They're too busy being the next PewDiePie.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @04:26PM (#53888887)

    If you asked most non-technical people if they were using a "streaming site" to watch video, it seems like it would be hard to phrase a question in a way that would properly separate legal from non-legal use... how many would include something like Netflix? Of you said you hand't paid for it, how would they really know if website they used was legal or not? If you ask about specific pirate sites then you might get more accurate results.

  • Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skinkie ( 815924 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @04:27PM (#53888895) Homepage
    At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      change the law

      We figured they were more actual guidelines.

    • not make it illegal anymore?

      And then what? Who'll pay millions of dollars to produce the movies/shows, that viewers can watch for free?

      Are you sure, you want it all sponsored by advertising entirely?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Skinkie ( 815924 )
        The only thing that would be legal is the copying for personal use (hence: no reselling). Thus the franchise remains in tact. Similar to that the box office still makes money because people want to see a movie in a cinema or what to own a blu ray disk, instead of downloading it to a harddisk.
      • Re:TANSTAAFL (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17, 2017 @05:09PM (#53889169)

        Maybe the current model is the problem. If 70% of people can be pirates and movie stars can still make millions more than their equally educated peers then maybe the amount they CHARGE to view the content is the problem.

        Just thinking about entertainers like PewDiePie - He has 53 million subscribers and makes ~$12 million a year. That under $0.25 per person per year for all his content and I think he would say he is doing fine. This is a 100% ad-supported model.

        If people paid just $1 for all his content each year he would make $53 million+ a year (not everyone subscribes)... The point is, the actors and actresses feel the need to make way too much and anyone in economics would tell you they are trying to optimize their profit. The problem with that is it inherently creates people who are not willing to pay the market rate for the content and since it is "free" to copy it - they do.

        Obviously with physical goods you can't just "copy" the good and thus it isn't much of a problem when someone is not willing to pay market rate. They can still try to copy the item but it costs them $ and we don't call that pirating. We don't call it pirating when I take a stick and use it for a marshmallow skewer. We wouldn't call it pirating if I "copied" a patented idea with my own materials.

        This is simply a massive market failure because the middle class / upper middle class see $20 for a movie (for their family of 4) as cheap while lower classes and young see it as very expensive for themselves alone or a couple. The media executives think they have found pricing that generates the most profit but the *necessary* side effect is a market failure for some people. The incorrect thought by these media executive is that the people would ever be paying customers at the current price. It will NEVER happen. The reason they are not paying customers has nothing to do with the ability to pirate and everything to do with PRICING.

        • Re:TANSTAAFL (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @08:18PM (#53890013) Homepage Journal

          The point is, the actors and actresses feel the need to make way too much and anyone in economics would tell you they are trying to optimize their profit. The problem with that is it inherently creates people who are not willing to pay the market rate for the content and since it is "free" to copy it - they do.

          This is one area I feel the entertainment industry just doesn't get it. The general attitude often seems to be "I cost us X to make this thing, therefore it is worth X".

          Unfortunately, that's not how any other markets work. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. This goes for virtually anything that is bought and sold -- toys, comic books, computers, cars, stocks, collector coins, individual pieces of art, gold -- the price is based completely off what people are willing to pay for an item, and has little or nothing to do with how much it cost to produce. This is actually a good thing -- items with a high perceived value can command higher prices and reap more profits, while at the same time there is a push to find ways to lower prices to enhance the perceived value vs. price ratio.

          I view media piracy along these lines. It's part of the markets way of telling the media companies that the perceived value of what they produce is lower for many people than what they charge.

          Now admittedly in the last few years better pricing models with (legal) streaming services like Netflix have helped to improve the situation for many consumers. TV in particular seems to have done a really good job of coming up with ways of putting content online for free (TV shows are highly advertising supported anyway). But other parts of the industry seem to be fixated upon fixed pricing, especially for new media, that is above the value much of the population would put on it. People willing pay for things when they perceive the value as being more than the price; but when you price things above that perceived value line, you just drive piracy. It doesn't matter how much something cost to make -- if you want to charge more than the market is willing to pay, people simply aren't going to pay.

          Yaz

          • The trouble with your economic model is that it's ignoring the one-sided nature of piracy. It's OK to argue that work is worth what someone will pay for it and the market will determine that rate, but that is predicated on the idea that you don't get the benefit if you don't pay the cost.

            The entire economic model fails if you say that someone can enjoy the benefits of another's work without having to make any choice about what it's worth because they don't have to pay anything at all. Obviously that is unsu

        • Right now technical trades are mostly overrrun by greedy jerks. If we quit paying a few movie stars and ball players millions of dollars a gig, then even more kids will fantasize about taking over technical industries and droves of new greedy people might completely overwhelm us.
        • PewDiePie only has to support one person: himself. His investment to do his thing is a good camera, a good mic, a good gaming rig and that's it. And at this stage he probably gets paid plenty to endorse certain products. To shoot a movie, you need a much bigger investment, hundreds of people and experts with different trades, secure locations and studios, soundtracks, a distribution network etc ....
      • You have to admit it is VERY obvious that there is little, if any, support for this law. And such laws are actually very dangerous.

        • You have to admit it is VERY obvious that there is little, if any, support for this law.

          Except among the people who are actually doing the work and generating all the value, you mean?

          Most of us might care very little about a law that says your physical property is yours and someone else can't just pick it up and walk off with it if they want to. I imagine you have stronger feelings on the subject.

          • Laws apply universally, so saying that I care about a law protecting MY property is pointless. It protects everyone's property, I do not enjoy personal protection laws. Unlike a certain group of "property" holders.

            You see, that's the problem with the examples presented too many times by proponents of insane copyright laws: Most of them are far fetched and don't translate well into reality. I once, in a discussion, had someone argue that it's "impossible" to produce content the way the users want, despite ex

            • So it's not a personal law protecting your property because some other people have property too, but millions of people who work in creative industries are all getting special treatment?

              If it's all so unfair, and the efforts of content creators are of such little value, the same laws do apply to you, and you're welcome to take advantage of them just like anyone else.

              • The same laws? Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever. When was the last time you saw a bricklayer getting to charge everyone moving into a house he ever built? Or a plumber being paid every time someone flushes a toilet he connected?

                Sorry, but the content industry HAS its very special laws that everyone and their grandchildren up to 70 years after their death can at best DREAM of.

                • The same laws?

                  Yes, exactly the same laws. If you think the system is loaded in favour of content creators, you are as free as anyone else to create new content of your own and benefit from that system if you can. Millions of people make their living this way and billions benefit from the results, so it's not as if this is some crazy niche rule, nor one law for the rich and another for everyone else.

                  Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever.

                  Well, pretty much any investment-based business works this way. Landlords who rent out their properties are probably the mos

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        As it turns out, quality content does not have that problem. An artist that can not survive on what people are willing to give does not deserve to be able to live of his art. It has always been like that, except when in modern times Big Content has hijacked and perverted the system. Incidentally, copyright was introduced to prevent big publishers ripping off artists by printing their texts without permission and with zero compensation for the artists. As such, it is completely perverted today.

        • An artist that can not survive on what people are willing to give does not deserve to be able to live of his art.

          Most artists already can't live off their art directly. For every Hollywood A-lister, Grammy award winner or YouTube star there are countless bit-part players, local bands and casual vloggers who are just trying to make a bit extra to fund their creative work.

          Copyright does protect those people too. Indeed, given the costs of enforcement, copyright is most useful for protecting them against the kind of exploitation you described, when the damages they might receive could actually justify taking action to en

      • by Baki ( 72515 )

        If the majority would vote to abolish or diminsh protection of "intellectual property", there would be less money to produce profits and content.

        Maybe we'll see less content, maybe we'll see less lobbying and laws being bought by the content industry, or less absurd amounts of money going into the pockets of a few.

        I think humanity will find new ways of producing content for entertainment, it is not a law of nature that only monopolies and obscene amounts of profit can generate content that people want to wa

      • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

        And then what? Who'll pay millions of dollars to produce the movies/shows, that viewers can watch for free?

        More content we don't need just to keep movie/music studios and artists/actors employed or keep coal burning power plants around instead of replacing them with cleaner, more efficient ones so that coal workers have a job? You do the math.

    • by james_gnz ( 663440 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @05:04PM (#53889145)

      At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?

      Never. That's not an option, because if the world succumbs to piracy, it will fall apart. We must continue efforts to address piracy in four ways:

      • Preventative technical protection measures
      • Monitoring
      • Streamlining prosecution
      • Harsher penalties

      It's not impossible if you're willing to think outside the square. If the figure goes up around 90% we could just drop a nuke. We've got plenty, and we're not using them.

      • This.

        What have we got to lose?

      • by Z80a ( 971949 )

        This sounds nice in paper, but in practice, it's you and your little company against millions of people trying to subvert and break your thing.
        But making easier to get the legal alternative generally works a LOT better.
        This is why netflix is a thing, steam is a thing, apple store is a thing...
        Those worked much better at actually getting money to the companies than any form of law, DRM system or monitoring.

        • But making easier to get the legal alternative generally works a LOT better.

          Most people who say that have never tried to do it.

          It is true, up to a point, for mass market products. For example, if you region-lock your content so it isn't legally available in some places, of course you're creating an incentive for people to find it through other means.

          It is not nearly so true for small works in niche markets created by individuals or small groups. These are typically readily available for reasonable prices and with far less encumbrance direct from the original creators, yet still peo

      • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )
        Obligatory Danny Elfman:

        Don't you know we got smart bombs?
        It's a good thing that our bombs are clever
        Don't ya know that the smart bombs are so clever?
        They only kill bad people now
    • by Imrik ( 148191 )

      Or, more reasonably, make it on par with shoplifting for punishment.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?

      That presumes people are consistent in what they do, what they think others should do and what's really right. Take for example speeding, very few want to do away with speed limits entirely. Most people break the speed limit themselves. In fact, almost every year around school starting they have speed traps and some of those caught are bringing their kids to school. Like, everybody else should drive slow but I was in a hurry so... hypocrisy at its finest.

      I think most people fundamentally think the creator s

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      At the stage where you have a working Democracy that does not bow to US interests. The Swiss have made downloading for personal use legally tolerated, because if it ever came to a vote, a law criminalizing it would stand no chance. Of course, every new law in Switzerland has to be signed off by the population and that is what Democracy looks like. Not always smart, but usually keeping self-interest of the citizens in view.

    • At the same percentage it was justified to change the law in Germany in 1930s to make Jews illegal.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17, 2017 @04:29PM (#53888907)

    In Scandinavia, being legal movie user is not even an option we have. Which movies are available when, is determined by some large media giants. Netflix and other streaming services contain a fraction of the movies the American one has. The series networks (ABC / NBC / ....) are not available or extremely difficult to get to because of geofencing. Someone else choose which subtitles are available, and if they are hardcoded.

    Soehh.. I think many of the young men listed here, myself included, would be happy to pay some $10 to $25 a month to LEGALLY watch movies, if that was an option. The audio guys slowly learn: streaming is available everywhere, and people use the services instead of copying MP3 files. Movie guys still don't get it.

    Just 2c from this side of the fence.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      When shit is digitized, it becomes public property by way of CaptainDork's Third Corollary:

      For every mother fucker with a computer there is another mother fucker with a computer.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. This whole thing is a giant supplier-failure. Suppliers have zero standing complaining that a product they are not even offering gets copied without compensation. They are basically doing it to themselves and then are crying out for laws to fix the effects of their own stupidity and greed. That will never work.

  • Masturbation joke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @04:48PM (#53889045)
    70% are pirates. The other 30% are liars.
  • by Indy1 ( 99447 ) <spamtrap@fuckedregime.com> on Friday February 17, 2017 @04:54PM (#53889077) Homepage

    We need to strive for 100%.

  • That's all, just... *cough*.. yumpin' yimminy.
  • by rundgong ( 1575963 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @05:24PM (#53889247)
    How many of these people are also paying for legal streaming services?
    Nobody is going to pay for one more streaming service, when you already have 2 legal streaming services, and you are really only interested in one show on that third service. Or worse, your favorite show is not available for streaming at all because it is licensed to a cable channel that don't offer streaming.
    When that happens, I think most people feel torrent is a very reasonable alternative.

    We can listen to almost any music on Spotify, Tidal, Itunes or Google Play. Why the hell do we need 5 different streaming services for seeing all TV shows?
    If you want us to pay for your content, then make it easy for us to pay for it!
  • Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @05:28PM (#53889271)

    70 is good, but how do we get it up to 80?

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @06:30PM (#53889573)

    I want to buy. I really do. But what's offered simply is not good enough.

    Take a show. Just choose one. You will not be able to see it here, not even for any sort of money you'd be willing to throw at the makers, until after it's been on local TV. Ok, you may say, that's understandable, so you get it a month later. Nope. Half a year to a year later. Why? Dubbing.

    TV shows get dubbed around here. Invariably. And 9 out of 10 times they get dubbed badly. The dialogues are stale and it seems they go out of their way to take out any kind of joke or mood the original tried to convey, the lip syncing is hilariously bad (think old Eastern movies) and the sync actors seem to be whatever actor is currently out of luck and in dire need of work.

    And when it finally gets available, hope and pray that you're lucky to get the original version instead of just the dubbed atrocity.

    Can anyone imagine why people reach for torrents and other less legal sources? Why is it that I cannot simply buy the same DVDs that are available in the US?

  • They're actually copyright infringers, not pirates.

    Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.

    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]

  • The only reason people are breaking the law is because what's in place right now isn't even close to filling a need.

    If the media moguls stopped playing games with artificial marketplaces, and also charging ridiculous prices for movies, then maybe the whole need for copyright infringment would go away.

    The fact that they even need to resort to laws to protect their artificial marketplaces, serves to underline how fucked up it must be. The fact that governments even make protectionist laws like this also under

  • The other 29.9% either didn't reply, or just lied.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser

Working...