Even in media mecca, plenty are willing to pirate
NEW YORK--Manhattan is the center of book publishing, all four music labels have headquarters here, and it's home to the country's largest general newspaper.
(Credit:
New York magazine)
But even in the Big Apple, many people appear unwilling to pay for media.
New York magazine conducted an apparently unscientific poll of 100 pedestrians in Manhattan's SoHo district and it revealed some startling and humorous results.
Few of those polled are willing to pay for The New York Times. Asked whether they subscribe to the paper, 79 said no. Asked how much they would be willing to pay to read the paper online, 63 said "nothing." To the question of how charging a fee to read the paper online would affect The Times, 65 answered that it would make it less successful.
The good news for the music industry was that 34 of the respondents say they pay for all their music. The bad news is that 61 acknowledged obtaining at least some of their music illegally.
As for downloading TV shows illegally via BitTorrent files, seven of those polled said "all the time." Five said never." 38 said only if they miss a show on TV. 12 asked "What the hell is a torrent?"
When it came to books, the respondents were much more willing to pay and don't appear to be Kindle fans. Check it out.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
:)
Consumers with intelligence know that nothing of value is free. Why should a content owner give away their content? Do you give away your work product for free? Would you write articles for free or make a movie or write a song for free? How does free pay your bills?
Regards,
Christopher
clevy@buydrm.com
Dude are you buying your own bs?We know you are biased and you are trying to sell something.drm is not the answer.the answer is getting rid of scumbags(corporate labels etc) who try to make millions off of artists and consumers and paying the artist directly.We also know that musicians make more from touring than cd sales.
If you need a million $$$ ad campaign to sell your stuff you are bs and "Consumers with intelligence" are not going to buy your bs anyways,so you can quit and find a real job.
What you are talking about is protecting big fat greedy basterds,not the artists.
Who are you fooling ? Yourself ? "Consumers with intelligence"?
Like I'm going to take anything about the worth of media at face value from someone whose slogan is "Effectively Market, Monetize and Monitor your Pay Media content."
Go spew your self serving, cost increasing and life over-complicating rhetoric somewhere else please.
DRM is a pox upon the digital society in its present form.
It's only later that the free was ripped out of the system and replaced with copyright creating the idea of "content ownership".
People of intelligence know that fair use was created the day they monitized content. They also know that the market sets the value and sellers can only ask a price that consumers are willing to pay if they want to sell anything at all.
Lastly since you asked. Why yes I do give away my IP for free and actually have no choice in the matter. Civil Engineering designs are copyrighted but we don't get the same privildge of charging royalties for their use like the a song writer who can. I'd love to be paid ever time someone drives on one of my roads. I'd be freaking rich. When you undersand why my IP is treated differently than someone elses IP you will have at least understand that the purpose of copyrgiht is more about the public good than it is about the IP owner/creator.
As for the newspaper, lets face it. 99% of "news" is available for free on-line. Why would anyone pay to read the news on a news site? Let us not forget that this same news is also available free from over-the-air TV stations, paid for by commercials that we don't watch anyway. Cable stations also have free news although you are paying your cable bill.
How do news papers compete with that?
If they want to pull their feeds from Google, that's fine with me. But they should realize their feed is just going to be replaced bu another source that's also free.
By the way I consider myself to be intelligent, and I get several bits of information from the internet every day that don't cost me a cent. If you want to consider the content on ad supported sites "not free" that's up to you, but like TV I just ignore ads on websites and that makes their content free to me. Perhaps by "Consumers with intelligence" you were excluding yourself?
The internet browser is free, and it is good. Open Office is free, and is good.
Enjoy.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/whats-black-and-white-and-red-all-over-top-newspaper-circulation-numbers/
Why does everyone always slam the entire NYT staff for being politically biased when only a small number of the 1000 who work in editorial there actually has anything to do with political coverage?
How do you think a left-leaning baseball writer will slant the coverage of the Yankees? If a movie critic voted for Obama, how will that affect their review of Saw X? How about the reporter covering a corrupt building inspector? How is their party affiliation going to come into play there?
I'm not saying that nobody at the Times has ever let their political views affect their coverage. I'm just saying that with most reporters on most stories, their politics has no relevance whatsoever. Thanks for reading.
I also do not DIG for my music. In that I mean that as of late music stores are treating their shelf stock
like a food store and they keep rotating it over and over again to the point that I am unable to memorize the location of my favorite section! You destroy the location then add another 5 to 10% that I may not buy the CD.
Add another 50% if that music store just removed 50% of its rap and hip hop and rock and heavy metal and replaced it with Latino music when the majority of the customers are still American.
You alienate me in my own country and I will not purchase anything from your music store.
What I am sick and tired of doing is BUYING music I already own from a previous purchase.
One time I bought the same CD 5 times because either it broke or scratched.
So I am sick of buying over and over and over again. I am suffering from REPLACING MUSIC TITLES FROM MY CD MUSIC COLLECTION. Lets call it purchasing burnout.
I am a legit consumer If i never had it before then yes I will buy it
Furthermore you are in the small small and increasingly smaller coven of freeloaders who don't realize that media has a price. Everything you read or watch or listen to has a cost associated with it. It's only once you start to realize that without that cost and the inherent of value being realized, do you as a consumer realize that if you don't recognize that cost and service it, you will be left with fewer and fewer options in your consumption of media.
The music industry is a bad example to look at in this discussion. They let Apple come in and completely destroy their marketplace and they let Apple insert themselves between the labels and the consumers. This was short-sighted and it just enabled Apple to decimate the business of selling music and to pimp it out completely for Apple's narrow-minded goals of selling hardware.
I am 100% unashamed of what our company does as we have many many many small mom and pop customers that make their money off protecting and monetizing their valuable media assets that they have invested in dearly. Nobody on this board has the right to dictate to the owner of a copyrighted work how and when they can sell it.
Hopefully readers here will come to understand this intrinsic value and recognize it and be willing to pay their way. The alternative is a world filled with "value-less" content and very few channels to consume it.
Regards,
Christopher
clevy@buydrm.com
OK, so clearly you do work in the media industry, so what's your solution for piracy? Give people value for their dollar....never going to happen. Stop overcharging for movies and music? Never going to happen.
How long has there been media piracy? Even since there has been media? Well, I would say that since the "media industry" has not been able to solve it after all these years, that they are not likely to ever come up with a solution. That would indicate to me that most "outsider" opinions are just as valid as people from the "media industry".
Sure, media has a price (I'm referring to printed media, specifically newspapers and magazines), but I'm not going to pay it while I can get the same information for free from other sources. If you work for one of these organizations, I would suggest you might want to see if your skillset can be moved to another industry, perhaps something on-line.
Free Doesn't mean devalued: http://techdirt.com/articles/20091109/1521136859.shtml
Thanks for playing, come back again next article!
And your Apple example is completely bogus. Apple provided what the music industry could, but would not. That is the opportunity to buy only the songs we wanted instead of having to buy an entire album just to get one or two songs. Apple has probably done a lot to help the music industry in spite of the industry itself. the fact that you consider the business of selling what they industry would like to call music in itself does not speak highly of your motives.
As for the written content, it is not worth what the industry would like to charge, but what people are willing to pay. It they don't want to pay for it then perhaps the industry should try to improve the product so people will want to purchase it. I don't pirate music or content, but I am what both industries fear the most. Someone who is able to recognize drivel when I see it and not afraid to vote with his pocketbook. If you can't understand this then perhaps you are in the wrong business.
Well i feel you might have missed some things reguarding your look on how things happened.
First off when music switched from records to tapes, ppl started to copy songs and share those songs with friends because it was hip and cool, and companies making devices to record those songs on blank tapes didnt help. Over time the price of music went up especialy when the music changed from tapes to cd's. When the music headed to cd's is when the the problems advanced. When ppl got the music on cd's they found that they could save the music on their computers and copy the music to other disks to play or other devices that came out way before Apple.
See, what it was is the music companies did rake in the money at the time because ppl didnt know to much on downloading music due to the lack of a computer or the know how. Over time, ppl got smarter and found ways to get stuff for free even if its illegal based on the fact that most of the time they will not be hunted down by the police.
But the music companies are a bit to blame for this as well. Back when they where making lots of money they lost track on what ppl where doing and didnt look ahead on what would happen to the music if it fell in the wrong hands. At this time when the music companies didnt know what to do, internet music distributing companies poped up and some where good and some where bad. One of the bad ones was Napster making it easy for ppl to transfer pirated music untill stopped later down the road, but the damage was done and ppl used it as a springboard to continue to pirate from behind the sceen websites.
Then when most of the music websites looked like they would die out, this is when Apple showed up and started to sell music at a reasonable price and with the choice of just picking single songs instead of full albums to help cut down on the price. So Apple wasnt the enemy here, they just looked at what ppl wanted and offered a product for ppl to buy and in a way where it more accessable. The only reason they are a powerfull today is because they got a great selection of product to sell and did things to make the music companies happy. Even if the music companies complain from time to time wanting more money, Apple just reminds them that ppl are the ones in control on content, if the price goes to high, the music gets pirated. If the music is cheap and worth it, ppl buy it. But at the same time Apple can be seen as greedy, but give Apple credit for coming up with a solution at the time where music companies where doing nothing to please the customers needs.
But now many years later we see music and movie, and news companies still not looking past old ways of thinking of what to do and its coming back to bite them in the behind. Take Netflix, Movie companies want a piece of the action from netflix, but netflix says no, or more to the point of, Netflix is saying to the movie companies..."If you wanted to get the movies to the ppl to keep the money in house, then maybe you guys should of did some research, spent some money on servers and started a download service."
Companies like the big movie studios and music studios should of done something long ago and spent the money they had at the time to keep evolving, but instead, smaller companies have come in and are now taking over areas the bigger companies should of though of long ago.
1. Online piracy ? while it is definitely illegal and immoral ? is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market ? especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people ? is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
You can find out more about how DRM hurts authors making money by going to "Gasp" the Baen FREE Library at
http://www.baen.com/library/
So year low data load stuff and SD cards but the music industry could fly if they made use well of what's around today.
A company Like microsoft and others could produce a movie maker that could take advantage of such an industry as a personal copyright licence to broadcast on youtube content thing.
Maximising the TV industries presence in the social media space for small data loads will be key to the Movie/TV industries survival through these early days.
- by jadehwood November 15, 2009 12:18 PM PST
- It's an interesting debate - I'm not sure how the newspapers will end up turning a profit, but perhaps they'll make their $$ in other ways as the music industry is heading. Digital content ends up being publicity for other things such as live shows. Nine Inch Nails did exactly this - they gave away their music under a Creative Commons licence and then proceeded to sell out their tour.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)Jade Wood.
http://www.opensourcemusical.com