Consumer sovereignty equals piracy

21 Jan 2005

In an economic system where consumer sovereignty is famed to exist, such that there is sufficient choice across most markets to permit a degree of choice by the buyer, for which marketers compete, the major studios (this discourse is limited to movie production, for reasons which shall be disclosed) are doing something horribly wrong. Many would argue that the state of the movie industry at present does not honour the notion of consumer sovereignty by virtue of the range/variety or quality of content available — but I refute this; not only because it is untrue (the consumer is sovereign, even if only presented with fewer options), but also because there are far more substantial mistakes being made with regard to this, such that any offence in the aforementioned manner becomes somewhat irrelevant.

No, it is their distribution methods that are at fault here. I don’t mean to launch on the usual tirade regarding their apparent neglect of the existence of electronic global distribution infrastructure, although that certainly plays a part of it (Peer-to-Peer and the role it plays is addressed further on, although hopefully not in the usual rhetoric-filled manner we’re all learning to ignore); I’m more concerned with the way in which, given the self-established impact (or claimed impact) of Peer-to-Peer technology and the Internet as a distribution tool in general, the studios (I refrain from making locale-specific references such as the MPAA, etc.) persist in their old distribution model in terms of their film to home consumption (VHS/DVD) release cycle.

It is clear that piracy is not greatly hindered by staggered international release dates, as DVD rips of most movies are immediately available on Peer-to-Peer networks after their release ANYWHERE, and studio rips of many before then. As such, the notion of staggered international release generally is now fundamentally flawed and is clearly detrimental to the business prospects of the production houses, more than “traditional” (read: VCD/SVCD Asian organised piracy ring reproduction) ever was, if only by economies of scale (whilst a restricted number of people from affluent nations which present a target to the production studios could conveniently acquire these “traditional” pirate copies, now significant numbers of people are connected via broadband in these affluent target areas, presenting an ever-increasing problem!).

The solution to this, it would seem, is simply to use co-ordinated International release dates — this is not, however, an absolute solution, and is still flawed in that it does not recognise the degree of consumer sovereignty that undeniably does exist. It is important that the studios recognise that people do have access to file-sharing facilities, and release their products accordingly. As such, the gap between VHS/DVD consumer release (n.b. NOT rental release) and the end (or even winding down) of cinema screening must be decreased to such a point as to be utterly inconsequential — consumers have no reason to wait, as they enjoy sovereignty (legal issues aside) over their access mechanisms!

It is clear that the time to release between the cessation of cinema screening and home release is now utterly redundant — previously, it existed to protect the interests of cinemas, but now consumers widely have access to pirated resources as they wish, at or even before cinema release time! Clearly, in this present climate, consumer sovereignty is demonstrated by electing to go to the movies rather than simply downloading them and watching them at home. With this in mind, the respective anti-piracy propaganda messages displayed in countries around the world at the beginning of movies are now even less relevant than they would have been five to ten years ago! Then, consumers made active choice to partake in piracy — now, they make active choice not to, by patronising cinemas at all!

It is clear that cinemas, therefore, have intrinsic appeal in their presentation of content, rather than any exclusivity of content that may exist or be contrived to exist as a result of manipulation of releases by studios. If this intrinsic appeal is acknowledged, there should be little detrimental effect in a minor overlap of cinema/home release at the conclusion of a screening period, surely! Likewise, the video and DVD rental chains would not suffer substantially by changing their business model to permit the sale as well as rental of content — it is simply a matter of habit; habit which is proven to be outdated and rapidly becoming irrelevant in this new market of extreme consumer sovereignty.

I have a specific example in mind when I write this article, but that isn’t overly relevant. Suffice to say, I have seen this movie at cinema release, and was going to purchase it from Video Ezy (a local rental/sale chain; there was confusion on their website regarding the respective release for rental and sale of this movie) — but couldn’t. The movie is still in Overnight release stage, and I was planning on studying this film for academic purposes — something that is financially unrealistic given imposed rental conditions, and something which may be easily circumvented through the use of peering technologies. Will I buy it when it becomes available? Most probably. That’s not really relevant, though — I could elect not to, regardless as to legal/moral obligations.

The failure of major studios to recognise this capacity for choice and adjust their strategies accordingly is apparently far more damaging than the effects of piracy and human greed alone.