Slashdot Mirror
Study: MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales
pkaral writes "The two distinguished gentlemen Strumpf and Oberholzer-Gee have most likely made RIAA executives choke on their lunches. Those two economists at Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill have done the research and the math on how much CD sales are actually hurt by P2P sharing. The answer: A whopping one CD per 5,000 files downloaded. Needless to say, RIAA are already trying to discredit the study."
Don't forget NEW SALES due to people finding songs they like via MP3's.
Just like radio.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
It may be piracy, but it's not stealing... it's called infingement, escape the common misconceptions ...
The # 5,000 does not even appear in it, and it says they sold MORE copies, not less.
they concluded that file sharing actually increases CD sales for hot albums that sell more than 600,000 copies. For every 150 downloads of a song from those albums, sales increase by a copy, the researchers found.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
If you read the actual article, it says that the study concluded that file sharing INCREASES CD sales. On their "most pessimistic model", which is not the one they think is most likely correct, they compute a decrease in sales of 2 million CDs in 2002, which they say is statistically insignificant in comparison to the decrease of 139 million CDs sold between 2000 and 2002.
You have a point, but your analogy is horrible. Is the case of the vehicle, you are paying for a service rendered.
Downloading/distributing pirated music/software/movies/etc is not theft, it's copyright infringement. US Code Title 17
What?
Available in PDF format via Koleman Strumpf's site.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Don't get me wrong, tim. I want this as bad as everyone else, and I want to see some of these laws reviewed and revised for the new millenium. My post wasn't necessarily my opinion, but a reminder of how lawmakers will view it. I was just trying to bring it down to earth before people started claiming P2P victory. ;-)
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Radio stations actually pay licensing royalties when a given song is played. Airplay benefits music producers because of the exposure. In order for music to be desired (and purchased) it needs to be exposed well. P2P downloads are generally songs that the downloader already heard on a radio station. Downloading a song for free cheats the producers out of the sale of the song. Moreover, as the law exists, downloading copyrighted material w/o the copyright holder's permission is unlawful. If you don't like it, change the law. Otherwise illegal downloader face possible penalties, civil and criminal.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
You're missing part of the original data, though. The poll also covered non-file-swappers, and more of them had increased their purchases of music over the last year than had reduced it.
If you went to the library and checked out a book, made a copy of some pages, and then returned the book, you have not broken the law. This is an example of "fair use".
If you then sell that copy that you made to a third party, you have certainly broken the law, but would you describe yourself as having "stolen" the book (or a part of it) from the library? From the author?
The law provides the definition of the words that you are seeking -- "having something that doesn't belong to you" is possibly the WORST definition I could think of for things that involve the legal liabilities associated with actual theft, or copyright infringement, for that matter (If I borrow a screwdriver from my friend, is that not also "stealing", using such a definition?).
The only way to provide meaningful definitions and terms for the activities we are discussing is to look to the legal terms. After all, in the absence of the law, the activity we are describing wouldn't even amount to a minor misdeed, but would rather be described with positively-connoted words such as "sharing", or "giving". And in the eyes of the law, the only proper way to refer to Napster-like appropriation of music or other copyrighted materials is "copyright infringement".
The use of any other term(s) (especially ones with a distinct positive or negative connotation) is an attempt by the person using it to try to influence another to see such activity in an identical manner to their own view.
This Wired Article talks about how one company is already using P2P networks for marketing. The article talks about the battle between the RIAA and the Radio Conglomerates. Appearently the RIAA has a hard time getting radio stations to play new/different music. The radio (shocker i know) is at a point where they would rather play the same tired songs instead of risk loosing listeners with un-proven works.
.... you get the idea
The company in the article, BigChampagne, monitors P2P networks and (secretly) sells the information to the Recording Labels. The record execs then turn around and use the statistics (which are locatlity based) to pressure the radio stations to play tracks more.
"This song that only played 5 times last week had 3,000 downloads in the same area. While this song that was played 100 times only had 500 downloads"
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
It's more than simply infringement. It is unlawful infringement. Moreover, this unlawful infringement usually involves denying legally due royalties to the copyrighter holder, songwriter, producer, and artists, and their families. No, it's much more than simply "infringement."
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
Check out the original link from washingtonpost.com; includes links to archival materials, the study etc.
I have not bought a cd in five years, the RIAA has every reason to hate me. However, I have found a number of new bands through p2p apps. I like the bands, not the distribution associations. Therefore I have a large collection of hats, shirts, posters, and other merchandise, bought directly from the bands websites, where they made more than 5% of my purchase price. Support the artists, not the leeches.
There is one great way to get the music you want, pay less, still have all the packaging and liner notes, and not give any money to the RIAA. They're called used CD shops. Just around the corner, I can buy 4 CD's for $20. Sure it's not the newest, most popular music, but I still find stuff that interests me. If I get an early release of a still popular band, I may be inclined to go to HMV to buy their new album. It's true that used CD's don't give money back to the artist, but they still contribute to their overall exposure. Wait, isn't this like P2P? Only difference is the government still makes taxes of the used CD sale.
Those of you who say you have stopped buying CD's because that supports the RIAA are missing the point. Keep buying CD's, just buy them used. Once you're bored of them, or if they ended up being albums you couldn't stand, sell them back to another used store. The artists still get exposure, which will increase ticket sales, more people at concerts mean more T-Shirt sales, and since this is how artists make money today anyhow, it's a win win situation. And the RIAA never sees a cent.
I'm never going to stop buying CD's. There are just too many good ones, and having a burnt copy, or a digital playlist just doesn't compare to cover-art, liner notes, and the satisfaction of adding to your collection.
So basically all this is helping the majors. I can't count the number of times when I've played a record for a friend and they've asked me, can you burn me a copy of that? I say no. They scowl and accuse me of being a zealot. Then I point out that I'm friends with the band and another friend owns the label, and I don't rip off my friends. While people claim to only be after the RIAA labels, very few people know who they're ripping off - never mind what the record contract actually says (a typical indie deal is a 50/50 split after expenses).
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
I agree that most new music is crap but perhaps the reason people are buying fewer CDs is due to cost?
I can think of several albums that I wouldn't mind getting but I'm to cheap to spend the $13-$16. The online services that offer an album for around $10 are only slightly more reasonable and the DRM handicap doesn't make them worth while. Instead of buying the music or downloading it I simply go without. Other things are more important then CDs (mortgage, food,...)
If the price of the album was closer to reality (say in the $4-$5 range) I would defiantly purchase more. Personally I think the decline in CD sales has more to do with CD-R media costs then P2P. When you can buy a 100 pack of CD-Rs for almost the same price as 2 CDs it makes you start to wonder what planet the RIAAs member companies are on since they can't seem to find the same deals. Granted there is some setup cost to creating CDs but you can't tell me they haven't found a way to lower it since CDs where invented. To me it's simple price gouging.
The RIAA needs to pull its head out of its ass and realize that we don't buy their claim that P2P is causing a decline in CD sales. Apparently all the years of raping us has made them believe that we are all morons and will believe anything their hype machine spews out. Who will they blame next? Unicorns and the Easter bunny?
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas. - Ned's Mom
Pirating any copyrighted material creates a userbase that allows the product to remain alive and increase it's popularity(if it's a good product) If kids wern't able to get a pirated copy of Photoshop they won't go and buy it, they just don't have that kind of money. However they get it for free and this creates a huge userbase for the product, free marketing for adobe. The product becomes so popular that sales actually increase. There's is no doubt that the userbase of piraters may eventually convert to the userbase of purchasers of the product.
The RIAA's argument is that if they force people not to download MP3s then they are forced to go buy the album, which is more affordable for most people on their budget. I guess that seems pretty fair for the artist that is trying to sell the album. I think that peer2peer sharing would directly decrease cd sales if popularity and userbases would not increase for the artist. However this is not the case. Artists userbases are strengthened and a more widespread popularity for people to buy the album is created.
Not living in the US means I can't use itunes. So...now?
In Soviet Russia, music downloads YOU!
Mods: check the link.
Fellowship 9/11
Amen brother. People like the parent don't seem to understand that an artist gets ZERO money from a store-online-whatever bought CD.
THEY MAKE MONEY OFF OF TOURING AND MERCH SALES AT CONCERTS ONLY. END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION.
Go talk to a few bands, a few artists; learn the truth. I've pointed this out several times, but none of these jackasses seem to understand.
Bands have to buy their shit BACK FROM THE LABEL to even sell it at a concert.
THEYRE RIPPING US ALL OFF.
The idea of making people pay to receive ads started with professional sports. People pay a lot of money to go to games where the focus is at times more on the sponsors than on the game itself. Some stadiums are so whored up with ads it distracts from the game. Once advertisers caught on to this, they realized this concept could be extended to games broadcast on TV (see ESPN fees).
Once it was clear that people would accept it, they moved on to other cable channels, stores, theme parks, and lets not forget the internet. I love how AOL users pay more for their service than anyone else with a comparable connection and then they are blasted with ads on top of it! You would think its not just slashdotters that are sick of this crap, but based on society's response to it, I really wonder.