Bizarre survey finds digital copy preferable to downloading
by Darren Murph 
posted Dec 14th 2008 at 6:40PM
Maybe we're just off our rocker, but we can't figure out what NPD Group hoped to actually discover from this here survey to save our lives. Apparently these folks asked around 1,500 movie buyers (read: clearly not movie thieves) if they preferred purchasing a video that included digital copy or simply downloading it from the internet. Shocker: 79% said they favored the digital copy, while only 21% confessed that they'd rather get a low quality rip from a shady website that could potentially infect their computer with some rare strain of virus. Seriously, what's the point? If you're buying a film in the first place, why wouldn't you want the studio to do the hard work for you and include a portable copy? At any rate, this groundbreaking poll also revealed that 38% of those interested in digital copy "appreciated having a physical disc as a backup," while 27% admitted that they would be "more inclined to buy a portable device in order to take advantage of the digital copy feature." Moral of the story? Let us know, will you?
Filed under: Industry, Blu-ray, Other formats, Internet
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
steveo @ Dec 14th 2008 7:57PM
Perhaps what was meant by the survey was a paid-for download, like Unbox.
Brad Clarke @ Dec 14th 2008 7:59PM
For god sakes Almo, Just buy the movie, these companys spend millions of dollars producing these movie, the least you could do is just pay for the thing. If everyone believed in your ways movie production companys would go bankrupt and then there wouldn't be anymore good movies.
I believe they should include the Digital Downloads with dvds and blu-rays as they have done with many major releases. After all you own the movie after you buy it, you should be able to access it anyway you can.
Galley @ Dec 14th 2008 8:30PM
I've gotten several of these Digital Copies with Blu-ray Discs. If I want to have an SD version to play on my iPhone, I would want to control the bitrate, so I would then rent it from Netflix and rip the DVD.
Jeremey @ Dec 14th 2008 9:15PM
If you want to control the bitrate, then buy the HD movie and a BR player for your PC for under a hundred dollars now. I like the idea of the DC's, but are they limited to one iPod? Ive got 2 iPods and 2 Zunes and I believe I should be able to run it on all my PCs and PMPs.
Brian @ Dec 15th 2008 9:24AM
@Darren: The point is simple... Do you prefer your digital movies to be distributed on physical media or via downloads. Just like software... Do you want to hold it in your hand on a Cd or download it from the Internet?
The source link you provided did not say downloading pirated copies. Although not exploctly mentions (possibly intentionally) the movies could bedownloaded from iTunes, Amazon, Vudu or other sites.
DustoMan @ Dec 14th 2008 10:17PM
Hmm... I go out of my way to buy releases that DON'T include a digital copy. It's a waste of a CD and I'd rather download an HD version online if I had to.
hey hey @ Dec 14th 2008 10:22PM
I avoid it if possible when I buy BD's. Just started using Digital Copy's on my iPOD. Thats about the only thing I could use them for.
Stin @ Dec 14th 2008 11:36PM
I agree. All that low quality virus infected talk is BS. 1080p scene rips are awesome. Get with the program people. Cry me a river that the big money studios don't get fatter with cash. Most movies nowadays are not worth buying anyways. I think actors will survive on their measly $20 million a movie salary. Music is still around isn't it? I don't know anyone who has bought a cd in 10 years.
mitchelljd @ Dec 15th 2008 12:08AM
stealing is stealing. i like my blu-Ray movies with digital copies. though i'd prefer a lower price on them and skip the digital copy.
Garst @ Dec 15th 2008 12:10AM
I sure as Hell don't prefer digital copies. Last year, I bought "Resident Evil: Extinction" on DVD. It came with a digital copy of the movie. Before I put the movie on my computer, I actually did read the EULA. I definitely had an objection to it. In the EULA, it states that Sony Pictures or Screen Gems or whatever can change the terms of the EULA at any time without any notification. I did put the movie on my PC despite my objection. Want to know what I found out after I did that? I found out that the DC will only play until October 1, 2027. Nowhere in the EULA did it mention that. That make it null and void. If you don't mention an expiration date on the license then you can't put one on it. Someday, before 10/1/2027, I might get around to stripping the copy protection from the DC. If Sony tries coming after me for it, I'll tell them "too fucking bad you violated your right to coming after me for doing that." I know that probably won't keep them from trying to get "free" money from me, but it makes for a damn strong defense case.
skcusynos @ Dec 15th 2008 2:24AM
Sony sucks, simple.
Stin @ Dec 15th 2008 12:43AM
Again, pirating movies by downloading them online is not "stealing", it's "piracy". It's perfectly legal in many countries including Canada. I'm not going to wait a month to go buy an overpriced blu-ray in the stores just so I can have a hard copy in a format that will be dead in a few years. Not to mention I don't have to deal with all that DRM bullshit and firmware updates.
Josh Becker @ Dec 15th 2008 3:17AM
Are you sure the study wasn't asking about "legal" online movie downloading, i.e. iTunes?
Because you are still buying a movie, owning a digital copy, but you have no disc backup.
This seems like a much more logical study to be doing. Seeing how many people want a digital copy but don't want their film purchase to ONLY be a digital copy. They like owning something physical, while some people don't mind if their movie purchase only exists as data on their hard drive.
Fred @ Dec 15th 2008 3:35AM
I don't get Darren's response... unless I am mis-reading something. The survey is not about paying for online vs, a disc copy.
Its do you want a disc with good quality to rip onto your computer from the company itself, or do you want a version where god knows where it came from, whats on it, and the quality about 99.9% sucks?
I want a good digital copy, and not some crap from the internet. Simple... whats so hard about that.
A bigger concern is why is it 71 to 29 and not a bigger margin???
Thomas @ Dec 15th 2008 4:49AM
Although I think "Digital Copy" is a good idea for the avarage consumer. I will never use the "Digital Copy" editions myself. Since the industri argued they had perfectly valid reasons to install rootkits on my machine and reserved the right to do it again - I will never put anything in my computer that might install ANY code from them.
When I buy a Blu-ray/HD-DVD (and that happened 210+ times this year) I rip it and create a PC playable version without DRM. Life is so much more simple without DRM and I get the movie I want it - without trailers etc.
Slysoft - THANK YOU!! You are my heroes. It is not about piracy, but simply fair use.
djmattyb @ Dec 15th 2008 7:55AM
Doesn't this study show that people want a physical copy of the movie with their digital copy? That is all it shows.
I'd have to see the exact questions asked to know for sure.
And the article backs me up on my idea too "the results underscored the opportunities available to studios to promote and extend the value of standard DVD and Blu-ray over electronic distribution."
j_g_puff @ Dec 15th 2008 8:14AM
Almo, Stin, you're nobs. Anyone who sympathises with is also a nob.
Someone has put a lot of effort into creating the media you enjoy. Taking it against their will and without compensating them is wrong; it doesn't matter if you call it stealing or piracy or whatever.
Yes, the industry has problems and yes, DRM is horrible, but you're just making it worse for everyone. Stop being so tight.
squiggleslash @ Dec 15th 2008 9:01AM
I don't prefer one over the other. "Digital copies" tend to be low bitrate crap in SD or sub-SD, controlled by a half-arsed DRM scheme that means the copy can only be used by one or other proprietary software application that in turn only supports a tiny subset of devices. I'm sorry, but for my purposes, that is completely useless. Not interested.
Online rips are, by reputation (Darren Murph's bizarroworld description notwithstanding - but this is the guy who hates Toshiba because they don't sell a Blu-ray player he'd never buy anyway) much higher quality, generally very close in quality to the source (Blu-ray, HD DVD, or DVD), but, well, they're not legal and even if they were they don't provide funds back to the studio to help pay the cost of the movies.
In the end, neither is an acceptable "solution", and Hollywood is unlikely to entertain one in the short or medium term.
The fact most people do not want to watch movies on arbitrary portable devices (we prefer big TVs with great sound systems) means this isn't like the music industry where almost all users needed - not just wanted, but needed - their music to be DRM-free in order to make use of it in their preferred manner.
And, again, I want to shed a tear for the passing of HD DVD, which made mandatory managed copy a feature of the standard from the start. While BD "technically" supports it, in practice the confusion at the beginning means it'll never really be implemented on any real players. MMC would have meant a standardized digital copy system that didn't require a separate copy on each disc. No "This disc will play on my iPod, and this one will play on my Zune", every disc would have worked on every player whose manufacturer was willing to put "HD DVD compatible" on their players.
Digital copy is a stupid hack designed to get around the fact that HD DVD's death essentially lead to the death of MMC with it.
On that note, there's a third solution not asked by the survey, which is a "local rip" of a legally bought disc by the owner, using a tool like AnyDVD or the numerous free software alternatives. The legality of this varies by jurisdiction (alas, it's illegal under the DMCA in the US), but it's certainly preferable to the above two solutions and it's actually more than acceptable if it's legal where you live. If it were legal here, I'd say it's the one I want. I pay towards the movie, but I get to play it in the way I want. And that's what most of us ultimately want.
Joel @ Dec 15th 2008 4:01PM
The people at these companies that are surprised by results like these are the reason downloading is so big. People do not want to have to pay for a movie more than once, regardless of format. But, they would also like to be able to play it on another device as well. A high quality copy is a nice addition i prefer to even all the stupid extras on blu-ray i care less about. I love blu-ray, have nothing against it, except the movies are stupidly expensive. For 35 dollars in some cases, You pay for these extra features, i'm not really interested in commentaries or much else, just a perfect hd audio and video version and a digital copy. They can be downloaded for free or from pay sites, i have downloaded movies i really liked After i saw them in theaters anyway, i just didn't want to wait 3 months for it to come out. Day and date releases of movies in theaters, vod, download, blu-ray need to become the norm, and the theaters need to update their systems with features that aren't available in your average home theater. Most movies i would rather experience in my own home, on my own theater, in peace and quiet. People go to the movies for the experience, when they get the same experience cheaper at home, why go spend $10 a piece for a movie? Digital copy would be even nicer if it were an hd copy.....
Jason W @ Dec 15th 2008 2:30PM
I second the lower price thing even tough I do have TDK on my touch from the digital copy that came with the disc.
I saw T2, Total Recall and several other BRs at Walmart today for $10.00. Even though I have these on HDDVD (imports) and have a LG bh100 that plays both types of disc (though im having issues with DVD playback for some reason) I still thought about picking them up. Its a great price. If all BRs were $10.00 to $15.00 I would one buy more movies and 2 never buy DVDs again.