29 May 2009
New government research has estimated £12bn worth of copyrighted content could be freely consumed through just one peer-to-peer network over a year.
To illustrate the scale of the problem the research pointed out that a 50Mbit/s link could be used to deliver 200 MP3 files in five minutes, a feature film in three minutes and the complete digitised works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes.
The Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Policy (SABIP) commissioned the research to examine consumer attitudes to unauthorised downloading and gauge the impact it has on UK business and government. SABIP said its report is the most detailed study yet on the issue, using data collected across copyright industries and all age ranges.
The report, titled Copycats? Digital Consumers in the On-Line Age, argues that copyright infringement has a huge impact on the UK economy in terms of lost tax revenue and reduced employment.
“The fundamental question is not how or why the downloading, copying and dissemination of unauthorised content takes place but who does it, and can this behaviour be changed?” the report notes.
“And if it cannot be changed, what does need to change: the law, the business models, or the relationship between the creative industries and the public domain?”
Business models are already changing, according to the research, spurred on by the launch of the BBC’s authorised programme-streaming service, iPlayer, as well as music streaming services such as Spotify.
SABIP's findings echo intellectual property minister David Lammy's assertion that one in four UK citizens has tried file sharing – a figure that is bound to increase as high-speed broadband becomes more prevalent.
The SABIP report includes the findings of a study by the UCL Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research of a content-sharing net work with 1.3 million users. UCL suggested that if each 'peer' from the network downloaded one file per day, the resulting number of downloads would equate to 4.73 billion items per year, which would amount to about £12bn in content being consumed annually for free.
The issue of copyright has received increasing public attention recently, following the high-profile legal action taken against The Pirate Bay, a Swedish bit torrent tracker.
The ruling against the Pirate Bay founders coincided with a new law passed in Sweden in April, the Local IPRED law, which allows copyright holders to force internet service providers (ISPs) to reveal details of users sharing files. SABIP noted how this has led to file sharing falling by 30 per cent.
Meanwhile, the debate in the European Parliament on proposals by French president Nicolas Sarkozy for ISPs to throw illegal file-sharers off the internet if they commit three offences has also raised the issue in the public’s eye.
Latest stories from Communications
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
SAS / SQL Junior Data Analyst - Financial Services...
Mid level Java Developer - Systematic Hedge Fund Mid...
Mobile Developer - Android / Java / Blackberry My...
Financial Market Research, Consultancy, SPSS, Statistics...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
No Sympathy
I have no sympathy for the record companies and agree with what some commenters have said - the greed of charging up to £18.99 for a CD in the late 90s has come back to bite them on the backside. The music industry has changed forever and artists are now taking matters into their own hands using a whole host of internet services to distribute their own music. The future seems to be free music, which will be difficult for unsigned acts, but it is inevitable. Look at the popularity of sites like Spotify. And if you look at music download searches on google, you see that hardly anybody is searching for websites where you can 'buy' music. The majority of searches for music include the word 'free'. I do think this is a shame, as clearly some of the money (not much I admit) filters down to the artist. I think people should buy music, after all it is a financial acknowlegement of the artist and encourages them to make more great music. I think the decline in sales is due to people not wanting to line the pockets of music industry execs. Perhaps more sites like http://www.fairsharemusic.com will crop up where money from the sale of mp3s go to registered charities, so not only are you supporting your favourite artists but you sending money to good causes. Regardless, the industry has changed for ever, and only time will tell whether it is for better or worse.
Posted by: Barnaby Griffin 09 Mar 2011
Crazy
These figures are extremely misleading. They have almost certainly be manipulated to either apease MPs on the warpath or the researchers (hmm thats a rather flatering way of refering to them but oh well). Every download is not a lost sale! As a student for three years I downloaded frequently simply because I could not afford to pay for these items. If im not going to buy it if its not free hows is this lost buisness?
Posted by: O J 21 Dec 2009
Ripped Off For Years
The music industry has ripped off consumers for years. The shoe is now on the other foot.
Posted by: Guiltfreefree.com 09 Jun 2009
Illegal Downloads
The music industry has been ripping people off for years making you buy a high priced CD even though only 1 or 2 songs are worth listening to.
Posted by: Wayne 02 Jun 2009
Corporate propaganda
Illegal downloads, as others here have already eloquently pointed out, do NOT cost the treasury, artists, or publishers billions. This is simply an attempt to spin the truth in order to garner government support for draconian laws. The government NEEDS all the cash it can get now, but if it is gullible enough to believe this crap, it will alienate many more voters.
Posted by: Marcus Dyson 01 Jun 2009
NO
Who has a 50Mbit/s connection anyway? If the CD's/DVD's, that cost about £1 tops to make yet sell for LOTS more, weren't so overpriced, we'd be more likely to buy. Anyway, what about the physical swapping of DVD's? That's a much bigger problem and harder to deal with. Costing the Treasury billions? I might start doing some piracy. Anything to get the Government more bankrupt.
Posted by: JH 01 Jun 2009
A possible reason
i have a friend who i know downloads quite regularly, not massive ammounts bout still a bit. the reason he downloads mostly he says is because almost all films and tv boxsets are released in america or elsewhere before they are released in the UK. he also has OCD and wants all his films/tv series in one boxset, it really frustrated him when he heard about xmen origins cause he already had the trilogy boxset now its messed it up on him, so he downloads film series until he knows they wont make anymore and they release the "ultimate ultimate" boxset. he said if the film/tv industry had a sort of "trade-up" policy, whereby he could take his only boxsets or individual films and get the latest "ultimate ultimate" boxset he would stop or limit it down to a minimum and that the industry needs to do more to enable digital copies to put the films on PMPs and smartphones etc.
Posted by: phil brady 01 Jun 2009
lies lies lies!
The potential revenue from those downloads, if paid for, would be in the billions. However, if there was no way of illegally downloading, how much of those people would ACTUALLY PAY for those files, 1 percent, 2 percent? The usual manipulating of figures....
Posted by: ron aldo 01 Jun 2009
£12 billion
Maybe we should all do what the MPs do, and simply write-off P2P file-sharing on our expences claims?
Posted by: Edward Hugglebottom 01 Jun 2009
£12 billion
Well maybe. That's if we believe the British consumer should put £12 billion into movies, music and videogames. Rather than spending it on a typical basket of goods in the high street. If we can have this stuff for free, when most of it is produced by the US, a competing economy, then making us pay for it will just make the recession worse.
Posted by: dave 01 Jun 2009
Is this really a new problem?
Think about it. Years ago I could buy a CD and lend it to a friend. I would be without the CD for week or so, maybe. The chances are that my friend would have copied it on to a cassette tape. Now, if I download a song, even legally, there is no legal way I can lend it to a friend. The closest thing is to 'share' it. The internet blurs the lines between friends and strangers, and the technology we have today allows us to 'share' more easily. The copyright laws we have that are being infringed just cannot realistically be applied to todays connected world. Consumers expect to pay for material goods, not intellectual property or licence fees
Posted by: Chris 01 Jun 2009
Umm maybe not quite right
These figures most likey take each download as a lost sale, when actually the person downloading would not have brought the product in the first place (until they have tried it). And infact after trying, it they may indeed buy it! Think about that album you think you may like but not sure, or that very expensive professional software. - Although I belive that the rights owner should have control of distribution and P2P distribution of copyrighted material is wrong, I always cringe when I see these figures.
Posted by: Jon Norman 01 Jun 2009
Incorrect Numbers
Whilst I do not doubt that piracy hurts certain industries and equates to a loss of earnings the numbers that are always touted are a myth. The equations used always stipulate the fact that *if* the number of downloads were purchased it would lead to X M/Billion lost, has anyone actually bothered looking into if people would actually download said movie/music if it wasn't available freely? I am guessing the number would be drastically lower, but hat wouldn't read as good i guess
Posted by: sam lamvert 01 Jun 2009
Time to let go of the past...
This situation was on the agenda for sometime, if you sell the consumer a 5.1 cinema sound system, a 42" TV and then a top of the range computer which can download data at high speed then what exactly did they expect to happen? These people and their statistics are relics of a bygone era. Plastic discs will not pay the bills, live performances will. besides, this analysis is flawed, consumers download 'variants' of the original artifact, very few download DVD.ISO files or 4GB bluray files...
Posted by: Mr C 01 Jun 2009
Copyright protection helping kill the movie 'industry'
The 'UK treasury' have wasted more money than the entire sale of LEGITIMATE movies, they have no reason to whine and should give the public back money they have stolen. The easy answer is for the record companies/film companies/authors to stop being so greedy! From these figures we can see that the 'pirates' have found the answer! Some tips for the movie companies that are clearly where you are going wrong. 1. Prices - charge too high, public won't buy - Does packaging need to cost a fortune also? When is the last time you saw a film where the lead *earned* millions? When is the last time you spend money on a movie and thought 'that was well worth it' instead of.. 'what a let down.. 2. Release dates - We don't want to wait months to watch! 3. Release on DVD, People want to relax and enjoy a movie, perhaps a drink, perhaps a smoke, something to eat? (Without paying £££'s for a pack of potato chips) - Cinemas charge WAY too much these days, their greed has been their self inflicted demise. 4. Copyright protection - How many of us have discs that have become unusable due to scratches etc? DVD's were never meant to be durable, or even to last forever (as many seem to think!). If we have purchased a movie(or music), we should be entitled to make a backup of said disc (not under current UK law however :/ ), but they make this difficult. It's BETTER for us to buy a copy, we can make a backup! 5. I had to add this: Those stupid adverts - 'Piracy promotes terrorism etc' do these idiots really believe this? they don't think that they sell the dodgy movie and perhaps buy a packet of smokes from the shop? Or do they send the money off to a bomb factory? It is offensive that those adverts put down the intelligence of the people they want to buy their movies! Aim it as being real - quality may be lower, both video and audio, things like that. Just like £££'s are destroying football, the same is true of movies - pay the cast based on their ability, I can think of a few who would barely make enough to live on! I've wrote this mainly as 'movies', but most of it can be applied to music/games etc... Maybe there's a lot the movie/music companies could learn from these 'pirates'?
Posted by: TimeRider 01 Jun 2009
Despicable
File sharing is a terrible offence purely because of the cost to our already declining economy. We need to come down hard on those who use file sharing software such as emule and limewire. They should be fined and have their internet access taken away from them immediatly.
Posted by: William Jillings 01 Jun 2009
Tommyrot!
There are no measurable data, and therefore no measurable cost. although I am not in their camp. i am sure that only a tiny number of illegal downloaders would purchase a full price product even if this were the only way they could get it. they just don't want it badly enough to pay the exorbitant, extortionate prices of CDs, which are not only ephemeral, but also ( at 20p/minute) one of the most expensive forms of legal entertainment on the planet. Music is nice, but we can live without it, or get in on the radio. If the music industry recognised that its product is basically short-lived fluff, and priced it accordingly, ( and affordably) Nobody would bother to download, margins would shrink, but volume would increase hugely. I get most of my music from the Oxfam shop, at a tenth of the price of the original article......... but the greed of the misic industry knows no bounds. Who needs them, anyway?
Posted by: Roadkill 31 May 2009
Utter tosh!
Stop just printing the media industry press releases and come up with some proper journalism. Or start a campaign to decriminalise the offenders by radically changing copyright law. This is a pseudo democracy after all.
Posted by: james 31 May 2009
File sharing drop ?
lol a fall in filesharing, I very much doubt it, its more likely that there is not much new material worth downloading. many tv series are on there breaks or have finished. very little in the way of must have software or games at the momment. its the summer theres allways a low point people are in the gardens. and there appears to be no drop off in downloads of the summer block busters so i carnt see how they can make out sharing has dropped 30%
Posted by: andy 31 May 2009
really...
Yeah, likely just like the Canadian report that came out last week and was shown to be unsubstantiated - not based on any real studies, and simply mostly copied from the the American record industry manifesto on downloading... !!
Posted by: walter 31 May 2009
Figures plucked out of the air!
One thing they do not take into account is a majority of the people who engage in illegal downloading are often the ones which buy more cds / dvds than the rest of the population. If you download a film and it happens to be enjoyable, it's likely to be bought, along with related merchandise. If the film is a dud then you won't but by the same token, you can buy a dvd, and sell it after watching on ebay if it's rubbish and in a way this harms the film company's profits as well as they only got one sale.
Posted by: G Miller 31 May 2009
utter BS
Cost to the treasury, well less than the cost of MPs dodgy expense claims. The fact is that most of those downloads would not occur if they were taxable. Cost to the artists? Well after hearing them for free and liking what you hear you may be tempted to see them live.
Posted by: dave 31 May 2009
Illegal downloads ARENOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Illegal downloads ARE NOT, there is no law against downloading so it is NOT BREAKING THE LAW, AS THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT, it is a civil offence ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Andy 31 May 2009
Yeah,
The headline might be more accurate if each "illegal" download actually equated to a lost sale. The industry is going to be crying about how many billions and trillions of dollars they have "lost" until the cows come home. Hell I don't even need to say any more, anyone with an ounce of critical thinking capacity knows the score on this issue.
Posted by: David 31 May 2009
This assumption is based on a dodgy conclusion
Without commenting on the downloading, to say that the Treasury are losing billions assumes that everyone downloading illegally would be willing to to pay to download legally. May I suggest that if the stuff were not available free then many would simply do without. It is impossible to quantify what money is lost because of this.
Posted by: Kev M 31 May 2009
Hey!
So all the text written by Dickens take up MORE space than a film? I call shanenigans.
Posted by: >:| 31 May 2009
missing the point
Most free downloaders don't have the money to purchase the music, and have only downloaded because it's free. If downloading was impossible without charges, the majority of them wouldn't occur. The figures are massaged to make the issue seem worse than it is. "Lies, damn lies and statistics".
Posted by: jeng_meng 31 May 2009
every download = lost sale is just nonsense
i thought we were all in debt - where would we get the extra 12.5bn to buy all this ? We wouldnt and couldn't. Theres a pack rat mentality where many people download everything they can get their hands on. They wouldnt be buying it if that was the only way they could get their hands on it - they would go without in the majority of the cas i i'd be surprised if 10% of the product would have be bought if it wasn't available as an illegal download download. I shoot and sell video of tourist diving on week long dive trips. my work gets copied - its human nature to try to get something for free. i try to make sure my work has value that people are prepared to pay for. I certainly dont think that every pirated copy was a lost sale. i know that many people wouldnt have bought it anyway. thats life, Big media - stop talking nonsense and be realistic .
Posted by: simon Gardener 31 May 2009
Bull****
Most people in the uk struggle to achive 2Mbp/s according to statistics from another government department, and with very limited people on 50 Mbp/s I would estimate the figure to be more like £1.25 billion, this just smells like a precurser to introducing Internet Tax, they have been looking for an excuse for ages. Also how about reporting on the fact that in Spain they just took the stand that it is ok to download after a case where a individual was prosecuted for sharing over 3000 films, how come the news is only ever about the "wrong" that we are doing by downloadind, never the cases where file sharers win.
Posted by: steve wales 31 May 2009
Misleading
This article seems to be saying that there is a £12 billion loss due to illegal downloads, but this is a fallacious argument: there may have been a lot of illegal downloads that would have cost this amount of money to buy from a shop, but there isn't some £12billion of money that has been redirected somewhere, the £12billion doesn't exist, it hasn't been stolen or subverted, and with the current recession, it certainly isn't hiding in people's bank accounts. Ergo: if illegal downloading was stopped, it's highly unlikely that this £12billion would suddenly appear and enter the market.
Posted by: Craig 31 May 2009
Rubbish
What is the criteria for this calculation, how do they arrive at this ridiculous sum. I suppose they think that each download constitutes a lost sale ? : Rubbish. or have they calculated that each download would be shared 50 times.(each constituting a lost sale): Rubbish. or each download is an mp3 ? : Rubbish. How is this total calculated ? Most people who download software cannot afford to buy it, If the software companies had realistic pricing structures for home use, instead of forcing home users to pay business rates they wouldn't have their software pirated.
Posted by: Tony 31 May 2009
Its a fallacy
These figures are a complete fallacy, it assumes that if the songs were not available for "free", then the person would actually part with cash and purchase them. While I don't agree with piracy etc, this is a problem of the industries own making.. they refused to accept the internet and come to the party late.
Posted by: K 31 May 2009
Yawn.
Are these ridiculous numbers supposed to invoke fear or sympathy - or both? How can something imagined cost the treasury anything? It's full of false assumptions. The Intellectual Property Body should just go cry in a corner somewhere. Boo-Hoo. No one cares except greedy fools with no imagination.
Posted by: Brian 30 May 2009
Groan! .... Another Government Quango
"if each 'peer' from the network downloaded one file per day". What a load of twaddle: If my aunt was a bloke she'd be my uncle. In my experience real file sharers don't behave anything like that. So how many millions did it cost the taxpayer to set up this new quango and compile this so called "report" (for report read hypothetical guesstimate). I suggest that the REAL problem that costs billions in tax is all these ridiculous quangos. When NuLabour first came to power there were 135 Quango's. (They promised to reduce this number). Now there are 1,162 quangos in the UK, employing almost 700,000 bureaucrats and running at a total cost to the taxpayer of £64 BILLION (source the taxpayer's alliance) That's fact, not a guesstimate provided by a government funded body in order to justify their existence and stay on the gravy train.
Posted by: Mark 30 May 2009
rubbish
no normal person can download a (watchable quality) movie in 3 minutes - it takes hours, if not days!!! Yet another scare mongering article by oldschool authorities. Get real!! Why not come up with new business models that consumers can use, not more threats and stupid schemes that encourage illegal behaviour.
Posted by: The Hacked Pants 30 May 2009
No it doesn't
Given that not very many of these downloaders would buy the products anyway, I'd say that the loss to the treasury is minimal. It's just another scare story from vested interests unable to understand, and embrace, modern technology.
Posted by: bbuckle 30 May 2009
Poor old Treasury
Yeah, poor old Treasury eh? I`ve noticed how you put them first, before employment and the Copyright holder. Who actually cares about the Treasury? They aren`t bothered about us. These parassites get enough from the Tax payer as it is. Everything these days is Taxed, and even the freebies are now at cost. Why don`t we all just go to work and hand over our wages to these Parlimental clowns and see what pocket money they give us back?
Posted by: Neil 30 May 2009
oh god not this again(.mp3)
There are so many things wrong with the reasoning in these kind of reports that it's laughably sad. Just because we *can* download a tune, doesn't mean we *do*. And surely you should compare relative values- a downloaded movie does not compare in value to a dvd purchase since the cheaper option is to buy it off a legal download site. And what percentage of the uk has a 50MB/s line? And uses it to continously download coprighted content?
Posted by: GC 30 May 2009
No
It's sensationalist to assume 1 illegal download = 1 lost sale. I buy a lot more DVDs/CDs now than I ever have and that's BECAUSE of illegal downloads. I'll be damned if I'm paying for a film before I know if I'll like it, they have know way of knowing how many of those illegal downloads CAUSED sales. It is difficult enough to comprehend the damage they claim piracy is causing when you see the lifestyle movie/music stars have without these ridiculous statistics being thrown around.
Posted by: Gary 30 May 2009
What a load of tosh !
OK so, this is saying if people couldn't download this material then they would go out and buy the material in the shops. Complete tosh! Ask me if I want a CD for free and I will say yes. Ask me if I want to pay for a CD and I will think long and hard before saying yes, in most cases I will say no. Before paying $30 a month on internet access I used to pay $30 a month on CDs and DVDs. The same amount of money is going into the system. The only change is that I have a load of music I never listen to and would never pay money for.
Posted by: ted 29 May 2009
Illegal downloads cost Treasury billions = Not true
Rosalie Marshall was paid to write this arcticle you know who... They do anything pluck figures from they and thats evidence....Prove it, dont fantasise to justify payments .. as this way is a corrupt way to scare and blackmail society to benefit vested parties
Posted by: james reed 29 May 2009
can t afford it
Do they expect everybody to buy every cd or dvd? I could afford a £10 fee amonth to download what i want. but spending £10 on something i don t know if i will like it is stupid. good cd and dvd are the same price than bad ones.i ll rahter not download and wait couple of years for the movie to come on tv than buy the dvd. and music want to hear creativity for free go down to the pub and see some good band.(for free).piracy doesn t kill creativity. just stop the stars living crazy and indescent lifestyle
Posted by: nico 29 May 2009
Illegal downloads cost Treasury billions - A REPLY
Hi i would like to point out that alot of content released by media entertainment companies is rubbish. I would say only 15-20% is worth downloading or watching, why have the same companies not released a method of reviewing their products by consumers. Its like anything i buy i have to look on say amazon to see what other people thought about it. Yet those companies charge stupid prices for say an xbox 360 game that NO GOOD yet they want your money. Pirate downloads are a good platform to review these products if its good i will buy it have lots of blue ray movies if its rubbish thenhave saved a packet..
Posted by: Rob 29 May 2009
Right.....
I'm not too sure how this is seen as lost revenue. This assumes that if the copyrited material wasn't being downloaded the person would be buying it instead - when the truth is a person is more likely to go without it.
Posted by: Vomit 29 May 2009
No it doesn't !!!
Just because people download things does not mean they would have bought it if the download had not been there, they would have simply went without. Granted not in every case but in most, the reason people download something is because they think it's ok/quite fancy it and download it purely because it's free, basically they don't like it enough to pay for it. e.g If a cinema gave away free tickets to a film no-one has ever heard of plenty woulg go to see it, if they tried to sell those tickets they would not sell many if any at all.
Posted by: Andrew 29 May 2009
Big Business Greed
Illegal downloading is here to stay whether the big media companies or goverments like it or not. The internet has made this possible and as fast as a site is closed down there will always be more ready to take their place, as far as i am concerned most people would prefer to own the original cd or dvd but they are fed up with being ripped of for £14 for a cd or upto £25 for a dvd, i understand that companies need to make a profit and that artists need to be paid but most titles end up in the bargain bin being sold of for a fiver after 6 months, it occurs to me that if a new release cd or dvd was £5 to start with then you would sell a whole lot more and severly dent the pirates business to boot. Like i said previously i understand artists etc have to be paid but if i can buy blank cd's and dvd's for pennies then how much do the likes of Sony etc pay for them. CUT THE GREED SELL MORE COPIES
Posted by: Richard Allen 29 May 2009