This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Digital Top Stories
Nearly half of file-sharers say they would pay to legally file-share
By CMU Editorial | Published on Friday 28 May 2010
Media law types Wiggin have published the 2010 edition of their annual Digital Entertainment Survey which, the blurb here tells me, is “the largest and most up to date research report examining consumer trends and preferences in digital entertainment”. And we like large and up to date research reports examining consumer trends and preferences in digital entertainment here at CMU, so it’s party time here this morning.
But what are the key findings?
Well, music people will be most interested in the piracy stats. The survey found that 44% of those who currently access content via illegal sources would be happy to pay a monthly subscription fee if that meant they could continue to access music via those sources legitimately (ie if file-sharing was licensed), though over half said that only £3 to £3.50 would be a reasonable subscription fee, while a quarter would be willing to go up to £14.50. 29% of the file-sharers surveyed, though, admitted that if their favourite illegal sources went legit and started charging a subscription fee, they’d move to a different free-to-use illegal site.
On the three-strikes system set up to combat online piracy by the recent Digital Economy Act, a third of those surveyed said they wouldn’t change their habits regarding accessing illegal content sources even if other file-sharers did start to have their net connections suspended. If the penalty was stepped up to full disconnection though (which will be the ultimate penalty under the French three-strikes system), some of those would start to think twice.
About 20% said that once three-strikes goes live they’ll take a more active role in monitoring people using their internet accounts, while 25% said they thought a fairer way to deal with piracy – rather than three-strikes – was to block access to piracy-enabling services (which is easier said than done; while some provisions in the DEA sort of simplify the legal process for blocking such sites, serial file-sharers would still be able to circumvent blocks).
What else is in the big survey, though? Well, not overly groovy news for The Times, who are about to put a paywall up around their website. 90% of the people Wiggin surveyed said they weren’t so keen about paying for access to news sites, with 70% saying there was too much free news available to justify paying any one news provider for their content. There remains many a commentator still convinced The Times’ decision to start charging for its online content – while everyone else continues to provide theirs for free – is going to backfire big time.
The Times would probably point out that they’re selling comment and analysis, and quality writing, not straight news; that the number of free news providers will fall in the coming years, and The Times can afford to wait; that many of the news-freetards will learn to pay for good online content eventually; and anyway, 10% of the market is enough to build a pretty sound content business. But then it’s not my job to speak for the bosses of The Times.
You can buy a copy of the 2010 Digital Entertainment Research Report for £199 from this here website: www.digitalentertainmentsurvey.com. No word on what the survey says about people’s willingness to pay for rather expensive research reports in the digital age.
