[belorn]

>People who have made a concious decision to support the producer of the content.

Pirates are those that proportional spends more money to support artists and producers, than those that do not pirate. Many make very conscious decisions in regard to independent labels, so that money gets funneled to those that need them mostly.

As for your comment as a whole, rationalization to explain political motives is as old as politics itself. Worker movement = people who just want more wages and work less. Social reforms = people who want free money. Medical reforms = people who want free medical care. Tax abolition = people want to spend less money on taxes. Green movement = ...

Sorry, the argument of rationalization to explain political motives are a horrible bad argument.

[Tyrannosaurs]

I'm interested in the idea that those who pirate tend also to be those who spend the most.

Right now we know that's true and I'd surmise it's because those who pirate are those who are most interested in the medium therefore consume it most in all it's forms.

But most people now are those who've grown up with some understanding that music or movies or games are things you might / should pay for.

My question is will it continue to be the case that the largest consumers of media continue to be those who actually pay most once you have a generation who've been bought up with torrenting as their primary method of consumption?

Essentially are we in an interim space where it sort of works because the core consumer group have an expectation and a behaviour pattern which is a hangover from a previous time but which won't be replicated in the future?

[w1ntermute]

> My question is will it continue to be the case that the largest consumers of media continue to be those who actually pay most once you have a generation who've been bought up with torrenting as their primary method of consumption?

This is a very important question to keep in mind. Forget about when the economy is bad, like the last couple of years. Even in the best of times, children have a very limited amount of money when it comes to purchasing media, and conversely have a relatively large amount of time. Torrents completely obviate the need for children to spend their allowance or money they worked for on content, and are easy for them to figure out with some time. Why spend that precious money on music or movies when you can spend it on a physical object instead?

The real problem is that once the torrenting habit is established, it's very difficult to break it. I'm talking about people under the age of 20 here - people who started torrenting at 12 or 13, when torrents first took off in the early 2000s. Contrary to what many people on this site suggest, torrenting is not that hard once you've learned how to do it when you have the free time (as a teenager), and viruses are not rampant, particularly if you're downloading only media (and not software). The only thing it's missing is live streaming, but with fast connections these days (which will only get faster over time), you can still get an HD movie in under half an hour.

[belorn]

It's an important question, but I don't know why we need to bunch together childrens purchasing habits, and adults. They are after all quite different markets.

I don't think we can ever get back where childrens money, saved over months and months of having a paper route, goes back to pay for culture, art and useful information (programs). There is also a question if its morally right to deny children of culture, art and useful information, on the basis if they can pay for it. Currently, schools are the primary actor in bridging the gap between rich children, and poor ones, but its not a long term solution.

For adults, its a complete different question, one which usually ends up on the question of convenience, price and opportunity. Afterall, Wallmart will always sell DVD's and games, even if copyright would go away. They also sell bottled water, and in some places, air.

Torrenting and wallmart dvd's do not directly compete for the same market group. In same way, streaming provide a convenience that torrenting do not. Add channels with preselected entertainment, and we are talking about quite different experience between streaming and torrenting.

If you are a person who careful select what you want to view before hand, and got time to prepare downloads, and do not impulsive buy DVD's at stands, then yes you might be a person who would rather torrent than buy (and thus get a superior product without drm). On other hand, that kind of person is much more likely to spend money on independent movies, on cinemas and expensive collector boxes with additional items like props and books.

[w1ntermute]

> It's an important question, but I don't know why we need to bunch together childrens purchasing habits, and adults. They are after all quite different markets.

Because children eventually become adults. So the purchasing habits of those who are children now will become the purchasing habits of adults in the future.

> In same way, streaming provide a convenience that torrenting do not. Add channels with preselected entertainment, and we are talking about quite different experience between streaming and torrenting.

This is exactly the kind of misconception that I'm talking about. Most HNers grew up before torrents became hugely popular, and thus don't really understand their convenience. For those born after ~1995, services like Netflix are not that convenient compared to torrents. Not only does the service require a credit card to sign up for (requiring parental approval), torrents are just not that hard once you're used to them. Learning how to use torrents is a one-time investment of time, after which you're good to go forever.

> If you are a person who careful select what you want to view before hand, and got time to prepare downloads

And I already explained this. You can get the equivalent content from torrents in <30 minutes. 30 minutes is not that big of a wait (or if you get it in SD, like much of the stuff on Netflix, <10 minutes). Moreover, once you get used to it, it's not a big deal.

[henrikschroder]

> Because children eventually become adults. So the purchasing habits of those who are children now will become the purchasing habits of adults in the future.

No, as an adult I have a lot more money than time, so buying a game I want over Steam is much more preferable than torrenting it and finding a working crack. I know how to pirate games, it's just that I don't want to spend the time and I have the money.

So I don't think it's habit-forming, unless you're a compulsive hoarder that just downloads ALL THE WAREZ because you can, but then you have other problems...

[w1ntermute]

Like I said before, there's a distinction between software and other forms of content, such as media. Games have a significantly greater value when purchased through Steam instead of pirated. Not only do you get multiplayer/community features, but the install process is much easier (than with a disc as well), and you get automatic updates. I would consider Steam the exception, not the rule, when it comes to gaming. And I also don't think this applies nearly as much to other media.

[jiggy2011]

True, but that is mainly because steam has better usability.

If pirate sites weren't so dispersed and worried about being shut down all the time someone would have probably developed a system that searches a game database, downloads a torrent and auto installs it with the crack in a single click.

It's lucky I guess that pirates don't seem to care about usability that much.

Legit games on Steam also have the advantage that the multiplayer is more likely than a pirate game where the crack breaks as soon as an update is put out and the game dev actively tries to lock pirates out.

[Tyrannosaurs]

Maybe with games but for movies, books and music there's little knowledge required to pirate them, almost no delay compared to purchasing (in both cases you have to search and download) and when downloaded they're utterly indistinguishable from the "legitimate" version.

A colleague this morning was talking about streaming sites where for him one of the benefits is that he can be watching the movie faster than if he owned the DVD. You can make your legitimate purchase as fast as you like but when streaming and downloading is that quick and easy, you're not going to get it to the point that the legitimate mechanisms offers a significant convenience advantage and is anyone really going to hand over cash for be watching in 20 seconds instead of 60 seconds?

For anything mainstream where it's widely available the cash rich time poor argument really doesn't hold up.

[belorn]

Lets put ourself in the shoes of a adult worker. S/he just have worked a whole day, drove 30-45m, picked up a pizza, and just now sat down in the couch to see "something".

Now lets force that person to decide what they would like to see, and then wait 30m. Even if it was 10m, the question of what to see is as much of an issue as the wait.

[Dylan16807]

If you can 'pick up' a pizza presumably you preordered, right? Connect to the web interface of your torrent app and preorder the media you want.

There are also programs to torrent a file in order if you've managed to run out of all other media and have no subscriptions.

[jiggy2011]

True, I think that the perceived barrier to entry for using torrents is much higher than the actual barrier.

If somebody were to release a TV set top box that used the pirate bay as the back end they would sell millions overnight.

[graeme]

Very good point. I'm 27, and still remember a time of buying books, CDs and movies in the late 90s.

Anyone 21 or younger here who can say roughly what the opinion on buying things is among people your age?

It won't be wholly accurate, as my opinion on buying things (for example) changed as I got more disposable income.

[Taylorious]

I am 22. Back when I was a kid I torrented everything. Now I don’t pirate much at all. A previous poster hit the nail on the head, it’s all about time and money. When I was a kid I had no money and tons of time. Any money I was able to scrape together from part time jobs went to buying hardware and other things (bikes, musical instruments, etc.). Anything that wasn’t physical I just considered free for the taking. Not because I made up some moral crutch, I just couldn’t afford it and I wanted it. I don’t have a ton of money now, but I have a lot less time than I used. Two things spring up from this. Firstly, I desire a lot less content. I simply don’t have the time to play all of the games I used to play and watch all of the TV shows/movies that I watched as a kid. Secondly I don’t mind paying because now I have some spare money and there is a lot less content that I will be paying for. I think people underestimate the amount of children/jobless people who are using torrents.

People who have the money will pay for content if it’s presented to them in an attractive way at a reasonable price. I never pirate movies, because why bother? I can rent them from Amazon/Google for a few dollars or get them from a redbox that is a couple hundred feet from my apartment. I wait for TV shows to be on Netflix/Hulu, even though I might be behind a season or so but who cares? Same with movies, I don’t care anymore if I have to wait a year for a movie to go on amazon/Netflix/google. If I have to wait awhile or I forget about a movie and never see it then oh well the world still turns.

I do have to admit that I never pay for music though. I prefer to pay for live shows. To me music has always been free simply because of the radio. I know technically, it’s not because of advertisements, but that’s how it feels to me. That being said if I would be much more apt to buy music if I could buy it directly from the artist at a reasonable price (ie 5-10 dollars for an album), especially if the quality was high (320kbps mp3 or flac). That’s part of the reason why I don’t like mp3 services like amazon and itunes, the bitrate just isn’t high enough for me. I didn’t spend hundreds of dollars for nice headphones to listen to poorly encoded music, and I don’t live in the 90’s anymore so I’m not going to buy a cd.

In regards to ebooks, I think the belief that books are free has already been ingrained in culture due to librarys. Until I was an adult I never bought a book. Even now the only books I really buy are technical books. I rent everything else from the library. I don’t like ebooks, but if I did I would likely rent them as well.

[bradld]

I'm 22 (close enough to under 21), and my opinion on buying things depends on the type of media.

I buy plenty of games on Steam (usually during sales) & the Humble Bundles. They are a cheap, legitimate way for me to play a large array of games, and I'm more than happy to support the developers.

For books, I have a Kindle and tend to pirate ebook copies of books I own already in physical form. I'll also pirate audiobooks & ebooks on occasion if I can. Not a a big fan of audible & amazon DRM.

For music, I have a Spotify Premium account and listen to the vast majority of my music from there. I have a big back-catalog of pirated music from before I got my Spotify account. I have a handful of CDs that I bought as a child, but mostly just pirated since the dawn of broadband internet.

For TV Shows, I have a Netflix Account & Amazon Prime account. I also pay for Verizon FiOS cable, and get HBO/Showtime. I use HBO Go and whatever the Showtime app is called to watch those shows. I sometimes pirate episodes of shows I watch if I happen to miss watching them, can't see them on Hulu, or didn't record for whatever reason.

For movies, I buy Blu-Rays only on occasions where I want the HD experience. Think concert Blu-Rays and things like Planet Earth or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like I said, Netflix/Amazon Prime/HBO/Showtime get me through a lot of movies. If I can't find them there, I'll pirate them.

The reason I subscribe to these things and still pirate is basically a lack of $$. The services I pay for are a relatively cheap way to see a lot of content, and I would probably not go out and buy more DVDs/CDs/games if I couldn't subscribe to these or get great deals on Steam.

I do, however, intend to purchase far more content when my bills aren't so overwhelming. I also cannot forsee myself encouraging my kids someday to pirate material. I feel like I'd be instilling a value into them that I'm not particularly proud of, and without a doubt if they can say "but dad does it!" it'll be hard to explain to them why they should not.

[muhfuhkuh]

This echoes my usage patterns as well, and I'm 37; the only difference is I had a reasonable CD collection (~250 discs) before I met Napster and AudioGalaxy back in the late 90s.

I only ever rented VHS/DVDs and I buy blu-ray used and only if I want to own a re-watchable experience (Dark Knight, The 300, Pulp Fiction, etc.) First-run blu-ray movies are RedBoxed or downloaded in 720p x264 from usenet (RIP NZBmatrix) and deleted after viewing.

Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Pandora/Spotify round out content. I watch more stuff now that I don't have cable (around 2hrs/day) than when I did (30min. or less/day).

[oh_sigh]

> Pirates are those that proportional spends more money to support artists and producers, than those that do not pirate.

This means absolutely nothing. According to your logic, if someone spends enough money on media, they get an all you can eat pass to all other media?

How much money would these pirates spend on media if they did not pirate? Presumably more than they currently spend.

[Tyrannosaurs]

Difficult to prove one way or the other.

Some people may be able to afford to spend $50 (say) on stuff a month and then download everything they want they can't afford. Take away downloading and the still only spend $50 - they can't afford more and just put up with having less (by afford here I also include choose to spend $50 - essentially people who for one reason or another will cap their spending around a certain amount then after that make do).

In this case you're potentially damaging the artist by stopping them copying as there's no money to be had BUT they might get exposure to an artist through piracy and become a legitimate consumer of their work later.

In a similar vein they might be being given copies stuff by friends who like an artist and will then go on to buy other material by that artist actually increasing the total spend (I'm guessing I'm not the only person who has been given a mix tape / CD and gone on to love something off it and make a legitimate purchase).

Or they might be downloading on a "try before you buy" basis in which case they might just seek out other ways to sample stuff before they buy it and their spend doesn't go up.

They might be downloading stuff that you can't buy legitimately (I've done that) in which case the amount they spend doesn't go up because there is no legitimate alternative.

Reality is that the amount spent per person on average would probably go up some but not as much as the assorted industries being "wronged" by piracy make out and it's a fair bit more complex than they make out.

[jiggy2011]

True, but then if you buy your first $50 worth of media every month and then pirate the rest. Those unlucky enough to be in the second group get kinda screwed.

Maybe you the stuff you pirated is better than the stuff you paid for? In which case since you probably can't get a refund on that you should really buy the stuff you pirated next month instead. How often that happens in practise is uncertain.

Or maybe it all averages out in aggregate.

[jmsduran]

> "True, but then if you buy your first $50 worth of media every month and then pirate the rest. Those unlucky enough to be in the second group get kinda screwed."

His original argument was that those in the second group receive increased exposure of their work, which if you think about it, is almost just as valuable as cash itself.

[rattus]

I saw 50 Cent say as much on CNBC when asked about piracy of his music.

He said that he thought of it as loss-leading marketing iirc.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCzb5zpV0PA

[oh_sigh]

That's because he makes all of his music money from touring. Almost all music acts can't do that because they don't have the exposure - pirating or not.