New UK Report on Illegal Downloaders

[Ninjalawyer]

There's an interesting report available here from Kantar Media, prepared for Ofcom (the UK's independent regulator and competition authority for communications industries) on illegal downloading.

Some of the more interesting findings from the report are the following:

• The Top 10% Infringers accounted for just 1.6% of the 12+ internet user population, but were responsible for 79% of infringed content. The Top 20% infringers, accounting for 3.2% of 12+ internet users, were responsible for 88% of infringements. Generally, the study found that as people consumed more infringed files they also consumed more legal files, and spent more on legal content.
• Despite their high levels of infringement, the Top 20% Infringers also accounted for 11% of the legal content consumed.
• The Top 20% Infringers also spent significantly more across all content types on average than either the Bottom 80% Infringers or the non-infringing consumers (£168 vs. £105 vs. £54 over the six month period covered).
• Of infringers, "free infringers" (those that infringed because it was free) made up 42% of infringers, were responsible for 35% of infringement and spent the least on legal content.

The top four survey responses when the question was asked, "what would make you stop downloading or streaming content illegally?" were

• If legal services were cheaper
• If everything I wanted was available legally
• If legal services were more convenient\flexible
• If everything I wanted was available legally online as soon as it was released elsewhere

One is almost led to believe that Gabe Newell (co-founder of Valve Software) was right when he said that many pirates are really under served customers. I'm tempted to go so far as to say that maybe content providers would be better served by making more of their content available legally and easily (and for a price people are willing to pay for) rather than lobbying government for tougher and tougher copyright laws and launching costly lawsuits against people who would appear to be some of their best customers.

[whitearrow]

I think the "If everything I wanted was available legally" category is particularly relevant to ebooks. There are still so many great books not available at all, for any price. My "Waiting to Be Kindlized Watch List" on ereaderiq includes titles by Carl Sagan, Colleen McCullough, Herman Wouk, Frederick Forsyth, Simon Schama, Antonia Fraser... these are not obscure authors, and the books are all still in print. These are not orphaned works but books by bestselling contemporary writers.

Before anyone pops up to say this doesn't justify illegal downloading... I'm not saying it does. But ebook readers are definitely still "underserved customers" when it comes to backlist titles.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

• Of infringers, "free infringers" (those that infringed because it was free) made up 42% of infringers, were responsible for 35% of infringement and spent the least on legal content.

Pardon my French, but what the hell are "free" infringers?

[Canuck_in_Japan]

It means that they pirated what they pirated because they didn't want to spend any money, rather than pirating because the product was not available for purchase for them (region blocked) or because they couldn't get it immediately (TV shows).

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

Pardon my French, but what the hell are "free" infringers?

The report is interesting in that it sorts the data based on why people said they infringed; So "free infringers" are the people who said they infringed because it was free, rather than because of the cost or unavailability of legal sources or to try before they buy (Justifying Infringers).

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

The top three survey responses when the question was asked, "what would make you stop downloading or streaming content illegally?" were

• If legal services were cheaper
• If everything I wanted was available legally
• If legal services were more convenient\flexible
• If everything I wanted was available legally online as soon as it was released elsewhere

With 4 items in the list of 'top three' I'm led to believe there was a tie-but was it 1st/2nd or 3rd/4th or what? Checking the link I couldn't readily tell-apparently you paraphrased this. (I appreciate the paraphrasing, but would like to know where the tie was. Thanks.)

Personally the only reasons that impress me are 2 & 3. #1 is the same reason people give for shoplifting, insurance fraud, etc. #4 reveals some immaturity. (As written. If you drop the 'online' then I'd have more sympathy-but if it's legally available offline then I see no reason why a person should steal it online.)

[teh603]

I tend to be part of the whole "if this was (still) available legally" set. Sometimes what I want is too badly out of print (and in a lot of cases, only available from scalpers in the secondary market), and in others it might be unlicensed in the US or have been licensed and then chopped beyond recognition to make something unrelated.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Personally the only reasons that impress me are 2 & 3. #1 is the same reason people give for shoplifting, insurance fraud, etc. #4 reveals some immaturity. (As written. If you drop the 'online' then I'd have more sympathy-but if it's legally available offline then I see no reason why a person should steal it online.)

You don't? Not that I always agree with infringing copyright just because something isn't available, but I do understand it in this case.

Books are available offline and until recently were available many months if not a year earlier than the eBook (if available at all). For customers who left paper books behind, being available offline in paper form isn't really relevant.

eBooks should be released around the same time as books are. Online downloads should be available for purchase for music, games and movies around the same time that their offline counterparts are. For movies, music and games it's a no brainer to do so. For ebooks I partly understand their reluctance due to hardback vs paper vs mass editions and the relative profit margins, but if anything that should be a cost factor of the ebook with a gradual reduction around the time the various editions would come out. It's not a reason to keep the ebook from existing. (I think there are better ways to provide the hardback/paper/mass margins on different editions even in ebook form, but pricing is a whole other debate)

As for the, "it's too expensive", I agree with you. A high cost is not a reason to pirate, it's a reason to not buy that product and buy an alternative.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

With 4 items in the list of 'top three' I'm led to believe there was a tie-but was it 1st/2nd or 3rd/4th or what? Checking the link I couldn't readily tell-apparently you paraphrased this. (I appreciate the paraphrasing, but would like to know where the tie was. Thanks.)

Personally the only reasons that impress me are 2 & 3. #1 is the same reason people give for shoplifting, insurance fraud, etc. #4 reveals some immaturity. (As written. If you drop the 'online' then I'd have more sympathy-but if it's legally available offline then I see no reason why a person should steal it online.)

Calling that list a "top 3" was what we in the posting biz call a typo

With respect to the #1 reason (it's too expensive), from the perspective of the content producer, what is the difference between someone that pirates and someone that doesn't buy? Neither situation results in money going to the content producer.