dslreports logo
 story category
Downloaders Will Donate Generously For Content
Filesharing film shows people support piracy with their money
When Radiohead released their album on a “pay what you think it’s worth” basis, we saw that people are willing to donate some money to the downloads they obtain online. TorrentFreak reports that these people can often be quite generous with these donations. The news follows the release of Steal This Movie 2, the second part of a film about the history of filesharing. Although most people who are downloading the movie are doing so for free, those who are opting to pay are offering $15 and more for the film. There is some speculation that this is because of a promotional deal offering a ‘free gift’ for donations of this amount but the film’s producer says he believes that there’s more to the generosity than this.
view:
topics flat nest 
Krypty
join:2004-07-09
Olathe, KS

Krypty

Member

Yea but

I see what their saying, but I have a feeling less would be donated if it didnt stand out like a sore thumb (for being free)

If that made any sense... it makes sense in my head at least.

james16
join:2001-02-26

2 recommendations

james16

Member

Re: Yea but

I'd rather send an artist $5 over paypal for downloading their Album than have 5 cents go to them through the RIAA for buying their CD.

If you think about it, a single internet purchase has the potential to make the artist more money than tens or hundreds of CD sales.

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to Krypty

Member

to Krypty
The download and pay if you like idea might work for well-known bands but not movies. Gee, the stupidity of these people.
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA

lordofwhee

Member

Re: Yea but

Maybe if the movie sucks, but if it's a good movie, people would donate to show that they liked it.

woodward
XMission Internet
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT

woodward

Member

Another persective

Tent Reznor has just posted some interesting comments on »nin.com about his recent experience with online digital sales for an unsigned artist. Quite relevant to this discussion.

McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium Member
join:2003-08-13
Fort Worth, TX

McSummation

Premium Member

Re: Another persective

I found Trent's discussion quite revealing. I wonder how the artist's income from the 2 albums compared.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx to woodward

Premium Member

to woodward
That's a great read, but I think an 18% "take rate" is excellent if not stellar. I don't really understand Trent's expectations.

FiL25
Premium Member
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD

FiL25

Premium Member

Re: Another persective

Hell yea...I think the take rate is similar to points you got for an album. Your living the "life" if you manage to get 10 points, let alone 18.
robertfl
Premium Member
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL

robertfl

Premium Member

What format?

If I were to purchase something online, give me the .wav not a compressed mp3 This is a good idea but it's not near cd quality.

-Rob
Expand your moderator at work

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to robertfl

Member

to robertfl

Re: What format?

A .wav file would be like a 50mb for a 5 minute song.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

1 edit

djrobx to robertfl

Premium Member

to robertfl
I certainly wouldn't mind FLAC being available, but a high quality (256kbps or better with LAME encoding) mp3 is pretty damn good. So much popular music isn't even recorded well enough for it to matter that much in the first place.

So few people actually care about quality. Look around for surveys about satellite radio. The majority of people think XM and Sirius are CD quality! To me they both sound like an 80kbps mp3, with XM's "distorting" in a more tolerable way (but still bad). I realize most cars don't have great speaker systems, but yikes!
DoubleK
Doublek
join:2003-03-04
Beloit, WI

DoubleK to robertfl

Member

to robertfl
said by robertfl:

If I were to purchase something online, give me the .wav not a compressed mp3 This is a good idea but it's not near cd quality.

-Rob
As has been pointed out in many audiophile forums, over 90% of people cannot tell the difference between a well ripped mp3 and a wav file. The problem lies in the "rippers" lack of technical experience in doing so.

Now days it is even easier

GOOGLE: exact audio copy and lame

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

The thing is...

...even if they get less money, selling direct they're cutting out a lot of the middlemen who eat up the margin.

PenniesWOThought
@verizon.net

PenniesWOThought

Anon

pennies can add up...

People will gladly pay $600+ a share for Google stock. If google can earn $ Millions $ pennies at a time.. why can't content industries? Probably because their eyes are the the hundreds of $ Billions $ .... greed prevails, but then again, so does piracy.
Emiya
join:2006-03-30
Southington, OH

Emiya

Member

Re: pennies can add up...

Because there is no possibility that a mp3 will be worth 50000x what you paid for it in a year.
DoubleK
Doublek
join:2003-03-04
Beloit, WI

DoubleK to PenniesWOThought

Member

to PenniesWOThought
Excellent point! I have maintained all along that if they released a 128 bit mp3 or better (ogg, flac) for .10 to .25 cents a song they would certainly not make the money they did when the sole outlet was the overpriced mall store but they would make a hell of a lot more than trying to tell their kids they cannot go to prom with who they want.

The problem in our country isn't limited to Hollywood and the Music Industry, how much money is enough? How can you sleep at night knowing that you have enough to feed a small starving country for a week or in Saint Bill(Gates) case the entire starving world for a year. Empire Building, plain and simple.

AnonProxy
Premium Member
join:2001-05-12

AnonProxy

Premium Member

It's simple

If the donations don't cover the cost of making the movie, and the movie doesn't turn a profit...it doesn't matter ONE BIT how generous the various donations are.
This same kind of thinking led to that crazy thing called the dotcom bust.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: It's simple

Movies fail to make a profit all the time. The real money makers tend to be the low budget ones.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 edit

1 recommendation

Transmaster

Member

Re: It's simple

said by Corehhi:

Movies fail to make a profit all the time. The real money makers tend to be the low budget ones.
Because of the creative book keeping the IRS lets Hollywood use no movie has ever made a profit.
However the IRS still get it's share from the income taxes paid by all of the people who make their living from the production and marketing of these movies.
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

russotto

Member

Re: It's simple

The IRS does not let Hollywood use creative bookkeeping. Instead, they keep two sets of books -- one with accounting principles the IRS accepts, for tax paying purposes. And one with the Hollywood accounting scheme, designed to screw anyone who gets a percentage of the net.
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA

Ahrenl

Member

Re: It's simple

Actually that's how every business is run. There's you tax books, and your GAAP books. With GAAP offering lots of creative ways (called assumptions) to decide what you want your numbers to look like depending on what you've promised to whom.

AnonProxy
Premium Member
join:2001-05-12

AnonProxy to Corehhi

Premium Member

to Corehhi
You are absolutely incorrect.
Read the profit and loss statement from any studio, movies and the studios make money all the time.
Either in actual ticket sales, DVD sales, merchandising, rebroadcast profits, whatever.

For example (in fairly round numbers)
The budget for Titanic $200MM
The World Wide Gross (all sales) $1,835MM
Profit $718MM
That profit is a booked profit, a reported studio profit, now show my a low budget film that has an IRS booked profit of $718MM. Also explain to me how booking $718MM is not making a profit at all.

Now if you are saying that there is a higher profit to budget ratio with low budget films, you would actually have to prove it with real numbers. I would say that there certainly are some, but the exception doesn't prove the rule.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

Re: It's simple

No you apparently don't understand, yes the do make money but it is their accounting that always shows they just break even.
When I said they don't make money I meant they don't make what the IRS calls a profit.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: It's simple

If they report a profit then they obviously didn't just break even. It would be hard pressed for a movie production company to continually show no profit on projects year after year. Especially when revenue starts coming in that generate little to zero overhead (DVD sales, syndication, etc).

AnonProxy
Premium Member
join:2001-05-12

AnonProxy to Transmaster

Premium Member

to Transmaster
No YOU don't understand if they BOOK a profit, that is an IRS REPORTED profit on the movie in question. They also DO make a profit and report said profit to the IRS, have you never read a prospectus or earnings report from a media company?

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to AnonProxy

Member

to AnonProxy
The only people that know the true profit are Movie Studio execs and Producers. Even then it is murky.
ominae
join:2003-05-11
Columbus, OH

ominae to AnonProxy

Member

to AnonProxy
True, but we're talking about economies of scale. How much you need to make to turn a profit is directly related to how much it costs to produce your product. I think this idea works a lot better for music than it does movies. The musician and moviemaker both have a vision in their heads (which, by the way, costs nothing), but with technology it takes far less investment to translate that vision to reality for a musician than a moviemaker. Imagine a band that produces and records an album for $5k in a garage or local studio. The next step is to get it to an audience. It would be far easier with a record company's promotional contacts, but it's still possible. By doing it independently you cut a lot of people out of the process of making an album (or any other product) meaning fewer people to pay, lower prices for consumers and more profit for yourself. Of course, it would help if the music didn't suck. And for $5k, most people could cover the cost by holding a day job.

FiL25
Premium Member
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD

FiL25

Premium Member

Re: It's simple

lol...lots more overhead then a 5k studio session man!

And I mean lotttttttts more. You gotta pay to play. Its the same thing for the artist thats just starting out if you compare a huge blockbuster to him...Both are gonna have to make big sacrifices. Same thing with the label; marketing, production of the cd.

I hear what your saying, but you don't go from cutting the ablum to automatically selling it to the audience...thats if you cut out the mastering time and re-mixes of re-mixes, new material that can be added in, promo products...lots more.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

Re: It's simple

quote:
lol...lots more overhead then a 5k studio session man!
Sure, but that's exactly the point. Technology and audio mastering software keeps improving to where a recording studio's services are less and less needed, and this discussion is about digital distribution. If there is no need to produce a physical CD, there are no mastering or physical media costs. It becomes purely a marketing and data transfer matter.

NYDude25
join:2007-08-23
Massapequa, NY

NYDude25

Member

But...

Many of these artists are already well known thanks to their labels giving them a start years ago.

To truly compare how much an artist would make comparing this "donation" system to the current label method, the artist would have to be an unknown. They would have to create enough buzz on their own to solicit thousands of donations without the help from a record label...like without radio airplay, concert tours, and other promotions.

••••••

Jehu
Premium Member
join:2002-09-13
MA

Jehu

Premium Member

Radiohead = Pricks

Arrogant pricks to be precise.

They are the most popular band in the world, and could literally create a record of white noise and people would gobble it up.

What they have proved is that when you are the most popular band in the world and you have no need for money, publicity, etc., you can do whatever the fuck you want.

I hope this was not a startling revelation to most people: having lots of money means being able to comfortably do whatever the fuck you want.