Legal Action Against Downloaders

Recently anime companies have taken legal action against anime downloaders (individuals who downloaded anime but may not have made it available to others) in Singapore. In a slightly different scenario, the North American RIAA took legal action against various music filesharers (individuals who downloaded, and propagated the availability of the content they downloaded). Meanwhile the anime industry has never taken direct action against file-sharers or downloaders in North America, focusing their legal enforcement activities on individuals and organizations that are first and foremost involved in making "pirated" content available (uploaders, etc..).

As always, we understand that the exact answer you want may not be available, please either select the closest answer, or skip the question.

¶ Do you think it's acceptable for companies to take legal action against individuals who consume (download / purchase) "pirated" material?
Yes, companies should be able to do whatever it takes to combat piracy.	439 out of 2883 (15.2%)
Only if an acceptable, legal alternative is available to the consumer.	1240 out of 2883 (43.0%)
No, it's never acceptable to take action against the end consumer, even if they are consuming "pirated" content.	650 out of 2883 (22.5%)
Only in cases where the individual has acquired a significant quantity of pirated content.	535 out of 2883 (18.6%)
(no answer)	19 out of 2883 (0.7%)
¶ Do you think it's acceptable for companies to take legal action against individuals who "file share" (make content that they have, or are currently downloading available to other downloaders via methods such as bittorrent)?
Yes.	533 out of 2883 (18.5%)
Only if an acceptable, legal alternative is available to the consumer.	1139 out of 2883 (39.5%)
Only in cases where the individual is "sharing" a significant amount of content.	635 out of 2883 (22.0%)
Never.	551 out of 2883 (19.1%)
(no answer)	25 out of 2883 (0.9%)
¶ Do you think it's acceptable for companies to take legal action against individuals who take an active role in making "pirated" content available to others, with no monetary compensation involved?
Yes, these people are the source of the problem.	690 out of 2883 (23.9%)
Only if an acceptable, legal alternative is available to the consumer, otherwise these people are just "enabling" consumers.	1255 out of 2883 (43.5%)
Only in cases where the individual is making a significant amount of content available.	351 out of 2883 (12.2%)
Never.	541 out of 2883 (18.8%)
(no answer)	46 out of 2883 (1.6%)
¶ What if the above individual was charging money (charging subscription fees, selling bootleg DVDs, etc...) ?
Yes, bootleggers are evil.	2297 out of 2883 (79.7%)
Only if an acceptable, legal alternative is available to the consumer.	261 out of 2883 (9.1%)
Only if the individual is making a profit, trying to cover his costs is okay.	217 out of 2883 (7.5%)
Never.	74 out of 2883 (2.6%)
(no answer)	34 out of 2883 (1.2%)
¶ When it comes to anime, what would you consider "an acceptable, legal alternative" (select all that apply) ?
Free, online streams	1853 out of 2883 (64.3%)
Free download to own.	1762 out of 2883 (61.1%)
Ad supported online streams.	1825 out of 2883 (63.3%)
Ad supported download to own.	1697 out of 2883 (58.9%)
Local, translated home video (DVDs, Blu-Ray, etc...)	2016 out of 2883 (69.9%)
Imported Japanese home video, untranslated.	601 out of 2883 (20.8%)
Imported Japanese home video, with subtitles.	1514 out of 2883 (52.5%)
Imported home video from any country with subtitles I can read.	944 out of 2883 (32.7%)
TV (Broadcast, cable, sattelite,etc...)	2007 out of 2883 (69.6%)
TV Video on Demand	1570 out of 2883 (54.5%)
Subscription online streams.	1259 out of 2883 (43.7%)
Pay per view online streams.	1103 out of 2883 (38.3%)
Purchased download to own.	1820 out of 2883 (63.1%)
A locally available theatrical screening (for movies)	1609 out of 2883 (55.8%)
(no answer)	53 out of 2883 (1.8%)
¶ When it comes to download to own, is DRM acceptable?
Yes	187 out of 2883 (6.5%)
Only if it works properly and always allows me to watch content I paid for on whatever platform I chose.	1539 out of 2883 (53.4%)
Never	992 out of 2883 (34.4%)
(no answer)	165 out of 2883 (5.7%)
¶ For downloads and streams, what is the minimum acceptable video quality?
Youtube quality (300x240)	379 out of 2883 (13.1%)
ANN Video Player quality (504 x 384)	466 out of 2883 (16.2%)
DVD / NTSC (640x480 approx.)	1595 out of 2883 (55.3%)
HD Video / 720p (1280x720)	391 out of 2883 (13.6%)
(no answer)	52 out of 2883 (1.8%)