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."
Now I expect a full apology and retraction for the demonization P2P has gotten from the RIAA, et. al. They should be trying to increase downloads like radio stations try to increase listeners.
Record labels should distribute approved MP3 tracks, then offer them as singles on CD, just like the radio stations. They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks.
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
TV Production should do this too. If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right. Then they can still sell me the DVD.
That'll probably never happen, though.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
This doesn't hide the fact that it is still stealing. Plus, if you say A whopping one CD per 5,000 files downloaded, then how many files have been downloaded? (fives of) Billions? Then that's millions of CDs. So there is an effect, however small. If the study showed that listening to mp3s made people MORE LIKELY to buy a CD, then the study might help the napster community. If there is any lose, however insignificant, its just another nail in the coffin.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I have found out about so many bands that I like that I would buy their cds or see them in concert because of mp3 sharing. I never would just go buy a cd of some band I have never heard of; but I can download an mp3 or 2 and discover that I really like the band. I'm glad that there are people studying it from the opposite angle of the RIAA.
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
I love it when people pounce on one study that happens to agree with their viewpoint and discredit studies that contradict them.
I'm talking to you guys, not the RIAA.
Free over the air radio has always been considered a promotional vehicle for music artists, that hearing a song on the radio is more likely to inspire sales than prevent it.
More or less, at this 1 CD per 5,000 downloads number, downloading is being called a push, it gives just about as much as it takes away from the recording industry.
I think what the RIAA is really scared of is the fact that P2P distribution might allow an artist to gain fame and make money without going through the "major label system" and that'd be the death of that system. So, it's not that P2P threatens CD sales as much as it threatens RIAA-member CD sales by replacing them with something else.
There are probably no study in the world that could convince RIAA that P2P is good for business. They've made up their minds.
BUT, it might convince lawmakers to whink twise, and it shows the common man what they already know: if you want something that is good, you'll pay for it. If you got a broad selection to sample, you'll more likely find something YOU like.
of whether P2P hurts CD sales, the issue that still needs to be dealt with is the legallity and morality/ethics of the issue. Perhaps in light of this laws or business practices need to be modified but until such time people should not be encouraged by this to behave in an illegal and unethical/immoral manner.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Larry Rosin, the president of Somerville, N.J.-based Edison Media Research, said ...
"Anybody who says that the Internet has not affected sales is just not paying attention to what is going on out there," he said. "It's had an effect on everything else in life, why wouldn't it have an effect on this?"
I think everyone agrees that the Internet has affected CD sales. What they (RIAA) don't get is that it can have a very positive impact on music sales and marketing. It opens a new way to sell music, which the RIAA has failed to take advantage of in any meaningful way. If they were to embrace the possibilities I think they could increase sales dramatically.
SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?
If these same guys had determined that sharing hurt CD sales massively, would you accept it? Or would you scream it is "flawed"? Of course this study is automatically found correct, it supports the one result you want. Therefore it "has" to be correct.
Why doesn't Slashdot just simply admit that any study that finds P2P to hurt CD sales is to be considered bogus? You have to take the good with the bad if you want any credibility.
Let's end the charade.
This is not a troll. I really am interested in your logic.
How about these.
You bring your car to the garage. It gets fixed and the bill comes to some amount of money. You are expected to pay the mechanic this amount. Lets say it was all labor as well and no parts were replaced. You use your extra key and get your car back some night without paying the mechanic for the work he did. Did you just steal from him or did you just violate his right to collect the money you owe him. What is he no longer in possession of in this example? The car was always yours, you just took it back without paying the bill. If the answer is nothing then you did not steal from him although I think a court would disagree.
The following argument is a bit absurd but the point is made. Don't think about the details, think about the concept. Ignore that the charge uses $20 worth of electricity or the outlet is on the street.
Since many people claim that theft can only occur when a physical object is taken then how about electricity. Assume a city produces their own electricity via a solar grid. Say you are walking down the street. You see an outlet. You decide that you need to give your cell phone a quick charge and plug it in. You leave your cell phone there (because this is a perfect world and it won't get stolen) and it charges. When you get back there is a city employee there holding your cell phone (He unplugged it to plug his whatever in) telling you that you owe the City $20 for the electricity you used (your cell phone takes a lot of juice to charge). Did you just steal from the city or not? You didn't take anything "physical" from them.
But is anyone surprised by this? I mean really deep down surprised. What hurts CD sales is the shoddy quality of the entertainment on said CD's. If I wanted to hear one good song surrounded by 12 crappy songs, I'd turn on the radio.
is of course lagging music quality! If Metallica's St. Anger is not selling like hotcakes it's because it's abject, utter crap, not because you can get it for free on the internet.
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
You may think they are trying to keep what market and distribution methods are available at a cartel. While that's what they are publicly doing, I doubt the masterminds behind the member companies are that perversely blind.
You have a bunch of big corporations, that by definition are not going to be able to react quickly to new changes in the environment. There's layers of bureaucracy within, and many times (think Sony Computer vs Sony Music) the left hand wants to slap the wrists of the right. I think they're just looking for a way to take advantage of the new system but don't have a clean implementation ready to put into production. So they make loud threatening noises and otherwise put up a front.
Then they come out with a new system that everybody had already proposed ten times over three years ago. And everybody, especially the cartel members, end up happy.
"Intel will continue to use its own IA64. No, we are not going to use AMD's x86-64 extensions."
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
I think this information needs to be approached skeptically, as there's no way to measure reliably "what would have happened." Given a lack of P2P sharing, can you say for certain how many CDs you would have bought/would not have bought? Of course not.
If CD sales for a popular download increase by 2%, can you ever prove they wouldn't have gone up 3% if not for downloading?
I just don't think this can be proven either way.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
The reason I stopped buying CDs and continue to download mp3s is because of how the RIAA reacted to the situation. Many others feel the same why. Why should we buy CDs? I'll support the artists by going to their concerts instead.
They like to jump around like a big angry monkey and spread their lies and misinformation to get the public (and government) to see them as "poor me, people aren't buying our music" instead of coming to the realization of "Hey, maybe the music we're putting out is junk."
Then they huff and puff, throw lawsuits left and right in an attempt to SCARE people into buying their products. Coercion, anyone?
I think we've all known for quite some time that mp3 downloading is equivalent to when recordable cassette tapes were introduced. There was a frenzy from the industry as if it was the end of music and sales as they knew it. It wasn't.
Now we're seeing the truth.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I agree... this news is not really shocking.. if your album is crap and people find out before they spend their hard earned money on it... guess what? they're reluctant to buy it.
Iff the recording industry had a clue, they would take the poplarity of P2P filesharing AND the change in their sales numbers as proof that people are sick of paying inflated prices for music of decreasing quality. Just yet another example of people with money trying to use people with less money to keep their broken business model floating...
I would like to see more studies on this subject though. It would be nice if the entertainment industry would get over themselves and began to value their customers' wants and needs.
"Its still piracy," you say. What is?
:)
Do people illegally download copyright material? Sure. But --
Is it piracy when I download out-of-copyright old radio programs*? Or sample songs from bands who specifically encourage this? What about lectures stored on a Morpheus server in L. Lessig's campus office?
Both "downloading" and "p2p" can mean a lot of things. I plan to buy a CD of Nero Wolfe MP3s in part because of the excellent episodes I've downloaded so far.
Ah, well.
timothy
* Orson Welles' radio stuff is pretty incredible; his presentation of Dracula in particular is great
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
File-sharing music has hurt sales. Because now you don't need to drop a bundle of cash on an album before realizing that the cd sucks and never listening to it again.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
The only thing that will convinve legislators to choose the common man over the recording industry is an equally funded lobbying group... not likely
RIAA points to data showing that CD sales fell from a high of more than $13.2 billion in 2000 to $11.2 billion in 2003
[me] Who can I blame for my stocks, mutual funds and 401k falling during this timeframe.
[RIAA] Those bad people we've been talking about downloading music.
[me] So the tech bubble was just hype?
[RIAA] Yes and soon as we start making more money we'll refill coffers with funds.
[me] You mean from those $3,000 lawsuits from people that are buying your music.
[RIAA] Err, uh, ahem...
[me] I see so your working for the little guy now?
[RIAA] Err, uh, aheeem.....
You think it goes something likes that?
Doesn't this same thing occur every time you listen to the radio?
You might say no because there are advertisers who are paying for the space, which the radio station then gives a portion to the music industry, thus paying the artist back...a pittance.
Well, consider this. By downloading a song, many people, according to the study, often go purchase cd's from these artists whose music they have enjoyed for free. This is even better for the artist because they get at least a little more because it is direct revenue for them and the music industry.
Another example, you can go check out a book from the library for free and read it in its entirety. For free! Not a single cent goes to the author. Yet, you're still enjoying the fruits of the author's labor without paying for it.
Open your mind, see the possibilities.
Instead of circle jerking on slashdot--if you really care about this issue, send a copy of the study to your local congress-critters. Yes, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what the RIAA shovels at them, but it's at least more tangable than "mp3s @r3 t3h r0x0r" and it's a damned sight better than nothing!
I realize it is popular Slashdot dogmatism to insist that filesharing doesn't harm CD sales, and this may be true now, but what about in the future as bandwidth increases?? The RIAA might be evil, but they are not completely stupid. Right now, downloading songs one by one and tracking down every song of an album is time-consuming. But the RIAA realize that it is only a matter of time until it is faster and more convenient to download an entire album then go to a music store. When that time comes, their current business model will be borked. Other than distribution, the only service the record companies provide is marketing. When P2P distribution beats them out, they will die. Bands don't need a record company to finance the making of their album (with ever-cheaper home recording equipment). They can distribute music by themselves. So the only value the record company gives the band is marketing (and this doesn't add any value for the listener). So the RIAA realizes that in the long-term, they could be fucked. They might be able to retain the business of folks willing to listen to pap fed to them by marketing reps, but that is about it. (Not that this isn't a sizable source of revenue though....) I hope eventually artists will be able to build online music communities of people willing to support them, and then the RIAA will wither and die.
Deconstruct the State
to add clarification, i am not saying that the courtoom is solely ruled by the dollar. It certainly increases your odds dramatically if you can afford Johnny Cochran, etc.. But the fact that the judicial/patent system is not designed to handle technical things and is ruled by people who dont understand technical things well enough to compensate makes the courtroom inept at justly resolving technical issues.
I stopped downloading mp3s regularly already some time ago (about 2 years) not really because I was afraid of the RIAA/MPAA/whomever_else, but rather because I was tired of downloading Jason Donovan's latest hit under the name Rolling_Stones_Start_Me_Up_Live_In_Birmingham.mp3.
/. after all):
During the 3 year period where I did use Napster (and Kazaa later on) to download mp3s I bought the bulk of my 250+ CD collection, mostly of bands that I had initially heard via P2P. In that sense, it did work a bit like radio.
Not unlike many others, I also burned CDs with those MP3 files, but there's nothing like owning the real thing(TM) so I ended up buying the CDs of bands that I really liked.
This has been said (only today) already about 300.000 times but I'll say it again (this is
When will ??AA realize that CDs don't sell because:
a) sometimes the music does suck
b) we all get the feeling of being ripped off when paying 20 EUR+ for any CD or DVD, especially knowing how much of that goes to the artist
c) trying stuff is something you have to do. Would you by a new pair of trousers without trying them first? Would you buy a car you never drove?
.sig
Quoth the researchers:
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Respondeth the RIAA:
Weiss cited a survey conducted by Houston-based Voter Consumer Research that found those who illegally download more music from the Internet buy less from legitimate outlets. Of respondents ages 18-24 who download, 33 percent said they bought less music than in the past year while 21 percent bought more. Of those ages 25-34, the survey found 25 percent bought less and 17 percent bought more, Weiss said.
Earth to Weiss: These people bought fewer CDs in the past year, yes. But your stats show nothing about that being correlated with the fact that they are file sharers. Where is the control group? The stats on CD purchases of non-sharers? I'm sure their CD purchases skyrocketed last year, right? Oh wait:
illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Huh. Who'da thunk it?
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
If it wasn't for file sharing, I wouldn't have gone to see a band play live on Sunday (Icon of Coil, for those of you into industrial/EBM stuff, support from Deathboy, the most excellent Swarf [playing live in USA soon, go and see them if you can] and Solitary Experiments).
...
I wouldn't have this 3 CD limited edition box set of Blutengel sitting next to me here. I wouldn't have 3 Cryonica Tanz compilation CDs so I can pick other bands I like and then buy their stuff
I wouldn't even be into this whole genre! I'd still be looking around local music stores in a bored manner because there is nothing new or exciting on offer.
Now when I buy a CD, it's because it's a really good CD, not because it was marketed really well. I have P2P to thank for that. Besides, P2P is just a scapegoat. If sales are down, it's really because more of that disposable income is being spent on DVD movies.
Right. Except it isn't true.
Just because somebody downloaded it, doesn't mean they would have bought it had they not been able to download it. Before you rush to discredit that - it's true that this argument doesn't hold up as an excuse for piracy (which it is often used as) but it *does* hold up as a reason why just seeing the amount that's being downloaded doesn't let you measure the amount of sales the firms are losing.
For example, 6060 CDs a month? Do you think that most of those filesharers could have afforded to buy their share of those? Do you think that they would save up and buy those CD's a few months later instead of buying the new CD's released in the later months?
There is no way they are losing that many sales.
(Anyone responding with a 'but why should you get it for free because you can't afford it' argument gets a free bash on the noggin, which they certainly can afford. As above, the argument is *not* an excuse for piracy, but it *is* a clear reason for a disparity between piracy volume and volume of lost sales.)
RIAA has restrictions that you can't distribute the music they produce. The GPL has restrictions that you can't distribute binaries without giving access to the source code. Downloading music withot paying for it is morally equivalent to using the GPL in closed source products.
If you don't agree with the license, don't use it.
Hurt the RIAA by stop using their music.
Now I expect a full apology and retraction for the demonization P2P has gotten from the RIAA, et. al. They should be trying to increase downloads like radio stations try to increase listeners.
If you want to prove something from this, you have to let the market decide. If some labels allow file sharing and the P2P networks actually had mechanisms to enforce copyrights, we would soon see whether file sharing really has a positive or negative effect.
-a
From the article:
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
Well, without digging through your math, let's assume 72,000 CDs per year. At $15 per CD, that's roughly $1.08million dollars. Where is the rest of the $2BILLION they claim to have lost?
For the mathematically disinclined, where is the remaining 99.995% of their alleged losses coming from?
As Napster became more and more vilified, companies refused to let employees use napster at work. As a result, by the end of 2001, I was no longer able to use it at work (and had dial up at home, so the time it took to screen potential candidates was approaching an hour per song). With the covert and overt poisoning of tracks placed for sharing, it is not worth my effort to sift through the trash in the hopes of finding gems.
Since being unable to hear new music due to the interference of the record industry (and its cronies BayTSP and congress), and the concentration of ownership by conglomerates like Clear Channel, all the radio stations are becoming the same play list. As there is no way for me to discover new music worth listening to, my purchases of albums dropped from 200+ per year in each of 1999 and 2000 to 1 album in 2002 and zero in 2003. I have about 700 CDs, enough CDs that I probably do not need to purchase any more for the rest of my life. Since the record industry is determined to prevent me from discovering new music, it looks like I already have a lifetime worth of music. From 200 albums per year to zero, the RIAA has decided that I do not need to buy any new music ever again.
What could convince me to buy more albums? I would have to find stuff worth listening to. I enjoy classical, techno, jazz, new age, folk and stuff that gets called world. With the exception of 2 spanish language stations, my local radio stations only play country, pop and rap. The spanish language stations have more interesting music than the english language ones. Guess I need to brush up on my spanish.
The current distribution system for music is BROKEN. Existing and proposed legislation just serves to enforce and prop up a distribution system that was (and still is) corrupt and crooked for the last 70 years. I chose to not support the corruption with my money. I chose to not support the crooked politicians who dance to the tune of the RIAA. It is my money and there is no law requiring me to subsidise their corruption, not that it would be a constitutionally valid one even should one exist.
Unfortunately, the RIAA have painted themselves into a corner with the jihad they have declared against P2P. There is no possible way for them to admit their mistake without them losing billions in the RICO lawsuits that would result. Unfortunately for the RIAA, it is them or America, and and currently, the RIAA is winning the propaganda battle while subverting the justice system of the US. It is as corrupt and evil as if AlQeda was in charge of the White House.
A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is.
Also, I haven't seen this suggestion here before, but if you want to try out different artists/genres/whatever, and if you live near a half-decent public library system with half-decent interlibrary loan services, you can check out CDs instead of (at the moment) illegally copying them.
Just my 2 cents worth (for large values of 2).
Economics 101: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation
Just because there was an increase in P2P trading at the same time as there was a decrease in sales does not mean that one affected the other.
There were also an increase of shark attacks during that same time. Most people when they are being attacked by sharks don't buy CDs.
We're technologists, right?
We believe in the ultimate triumph of the network, right?
Unregulated P2P doens't affect CD sales -- c'mon, how stupid can this debate get? If the network gets faster, and the P2P reliability better, and the increasing ease of CD-burners, and printers, etc.
And what about pay-for downloads? Is unregulated P2P downloads also not an issue there?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
No matter what they do to the file sharing people they will be able to do very about people that copy each others CD's.
AFAIK there is no paper trail on a sneakernet.
You ignored that the study also said for every 150 songs downloaded from a hot album, 1 more CD is sold. Add that to your calculations and tell me how many CDs per month, or year they are losing.
But none of those bands were RIAA whores, and that's what scares the suits at the RIAA. Loss of control. It's been said about guns, but we'll adapt and say it about copyright, too: "copyright control mechanisms are not about copyright; it's all about control."
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
I agree... this news is not really shocking.. if your album is crap and people find out before they spend their hard earned money on it... guess what? they're reluctant to buy it.
I'm not so sure that this is the case. The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases in order to sell more albums - everyone knows the quality of the songs before they make a purchase. The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.
Unfortuneately this lack of taste is not limited only to children I've known many adults who listen to Britney Spears or Justin Timerberlake - and when I call them on it they claim that "it's irony". But I don't buy it - wannabe hipsters use irony as a way to legitimize their awful musical tastes.
The point is that many people like crap. They will continue to buy whatever the pop music/MTV marketing machine tells them is cool this month (including CDs, clothing, video games, sports drinks, batteries and virtually every other product). Filesharing has virtually no affect on the buying habits of these people.
Gentelmen from U.S. don't judge all markets. For example in Eastern Europe, there are many countries, where prices of CDs are high, but almost every person has access to internet. People don't buy LPs in shops, but they download them from p2p. Average man with average wages (200-250 euros) can purchase one CD per month (about 15 euros) or pay for internet access (about 10-15 euros per month).
It was said, that when one piece of music is often downloaded, the sales increase. I don't find anything special about it. When it's popular, more people buy it, and more people download it.
There is a possibility that somebody downloads mp3, finds it very good and decides to buy it on CD. But on the other hand, somebody who's waiting for an LP (and wants to buy it) downloads mp3 before album is released and finds it not good. Then he doesn't purchase it at all.
p2p decreases music sales, especially in developing countries. It's not only the mp3 thing. Images of almost every CD can be found on the net, as well as CD-RWs in people's houses.
Finally the most importand thing. When music companies set high prices, people steal music from p2p. There is no other way to listen to the music for many people in the world. If p2p was stoped, the sales wouldn't rise. People would steal music in other way. You can call music companies' policy stealing as well, but it's another topic.
There are two solutions. One is decreased prices. It's better to sale 1 mln copies for 5 euros, than 0.2mln for 15. I can tell you that it works, it's not just a theory. In Eastern Europe you can find cheap CDs (1/3 of average price). They always occupate first places on top sells lists. Doesn't matter if they are good or not.
Second solution is internet. Selling throughout the net, for a reasonable price, is the future market, which will wash away the present one. No matter what the music industry thinks, changes are coming.
When is the music industry going to realize (or admit) that it is not file swapping that is hurting the music industry, it's the Internet itself, as a straight media competitor that is hurting music sales. Listeners are spending less time in front of their stereos and more time in front of their computers. Wake up RIAA! You can fight file swapping all you want, you're still going to lose customers.
As grandparent already pointed out, advertisers care that you are aware of their *product* and buy their *product*, not their advertising. Being aware of their advertising might actually be counterproductive.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
I am not a music download data researcher, but I'll play one on /.
Really, why should it take a research team from an esteemed college or institution to figure out the obvious?
Games sales, console and computer, have increased dramatically in the period of time that CD sales have decreased.
One need not be a genius to figure out that games cost money. The demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales is the same demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales.
If I spend more money on games, I have less money to spend on CDs.
Entertainment priorities are changing, more people are spending more of their discretionary incomes on gaming rather than music.
Yes, it's that simple.
Remember that statistics can be twisted however one wants.
As long as it benefits the Slashdot crowd, we all eat them up and say "Yeah! Exactly!"
The second some statistics come out to the contrary, I've always seen the arguments here go "Well, those are just statistics, they skewed them to their advantage..."
Just an observation. Flame away. Thought about posting Anonymously, but I've got some karma, and I think it's a justifiable point.
Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do
Now I expect a full apology and retraction for the demonization P2P has gotten from the RIAA, et. al.
After all, this automatically proves everything.
They should be trying to increase downloads like radio stations try to increase listeners.
Yes, because after all, all those millions of Kazaa downloaders are merely "sampling" all those albums. They should be INCREASING piracy, which will magically increase sales!
Record labels should distribute approved MP3 tracks, then offer them as singles on CD, just like the radio stations.
You mean like THEY DO ON ITUNES AND OTHER ONLINE MUSIC STORES?
They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks.
How stupid. The users can just download what they want from iTunes and burn their own mix CDs.
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
No, it is a threat. This is the bizarre logic of the Slashdotter. Somehow, there is no connection when millions of people grab something for free and don't pay for it in the stores. Somehow, they think there's not going to be a drop in sales as a result. Somehow, they think sales are magically going to occur when people are sticking everything online to download.
But, yeah, CmdrTaco and the rest of Slashdot tells me they're idiots, and the RIAA is evil! The true distraction of the issue. After all, the RIAA is wrong for legally pursuing people illegally distributing their copyrighted product! Even though this is EXACTLY what Slashdot was saying they should do when they were suing Napster!
TV Production should do this too. If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right.
Yes, because posters on Slashdot should be dictating to everyone how they distribute their property.
Then they can still sell me the DVD.
People will just rip the DVD and put it online and download that. Seriously, you think millions of eMule/Kazaa users are going to "sample" the DVD and then go out and buy it when they've just downloaded the DivX?
That'll probably never happen, though.
That's because it's ridiculous. Thanks for playing.
Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating an artist's music. An artist who willingly signed their contract, who willingly went into the studio, who spent months recording and mixing and performing and having cover art done in order to have a CD in the stores--only for college kids to pirate the fuck out of it.
Minority Slashdotters, i.e., those who think their niche opinions magically represent the majority, are honestly going to go around and justify it as "sampling" and better yet, "free advertising," even though you don't have the right to decide for anybody how they distribute their works. You don't have the right to just obtain their product without paying for it simply because it's there. And your opinion that it's "sampling" is completely hilarious, and everybody but Slashdot laughs at it because those millions of p2p users are not "sampling" everything. I could list about 20 websites that collect e2dk links. The biggest, Sharereactor.com, was recently shut down by Swiss authorities. People like you, as usual, are bitching about it because it got rid of your convenient piracy portal.
All this stems from an attempt to remove the aura of criminality that permeates what you do. Sorry, you can't remove the guilt, because you are...guilty. The RIAA is not the bad guy here for--*GASP*--protecting their intellectual property by suing individual downloaders, just like Slashdotters said they should two years ago.
I think I'll disregard further studies, because a crucial piece of information is missing. Stop me if I'm wrong here, but the only way to actually show that CD sales were hurt is by showing that a poorly-selling CD's tracks happened to be very popular on P2P networks. That would also eliminate the "shoddy quality" argument. Last I checked, popularity has more to do with commercial "brainwashing" than with artistic achievement.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Then consider the case of DVD's, as you mentioned. For slightly more than that overpriced CD, I can get not only a full length movie, but usually a whole other disc filled with behind the scenes info, out-takes, alternate endings, directors commentary, etc. It's not just about wanting something without having to pay for it, it's about getting a product at a reasonable price. In any market where people feel gouged, any reasonably priced alternative will flourish, even if that involves the creation of a black or grey market. Of course, getting something free will always be an attractive offer if the perceived consequences are minor.
It's the strong-arm tactics of the RIAA, without the promotion of reasonable alternatives that earns them the label of "goon".
I read it on the Internet, it must be true!
Well, your assumptions are showing ...
The only songs I've downloaded are from iTunes Music store, so I reject the assertion that I don' t respect copyrights.
On the other hand, and the reason this is relevent, I refuse to pay $16 for a single disk music CD, so I've not bought a new release CD in about 4 years. Now, I was never a major CD buyer, but I probably bought 10 - 15 each year.
RIAA's pricing is a major contributor to the sales decline, I'd say. I suspect if one plots sales vs price one would see there's a price point at which sales plummet -- for me $16 was it. Also, once I made the decision to stop buying at that price, I didn't reset to "$15.99 is ok" -- I probably haven't bought a CD over $13 since then. A hysteresis effect, I suspect.
While I agree that most of the people downloading music from the p2p services are simply looking for freebies, the legitimate gripe that the rest of have is that the labels making up the RIAA have done nothing to address the root of the problem for people who would otherwise buy music. Namely, CD's are too expensive for the majority of the crap that is out there, and most of the legitimate online music services are pathetic.
See? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If you don't like CDs, use iTunes! Shop online! There are alternatives to ripping artists off because you don't want to go the store and pay for it.
Then consider the case of DVD's, as you mentioned.
DVDs? Did you know the full DVD-R rip of Return of the King is already online? And Matrix Revolutions? DVDs are freely pirated too.
It's the strong-arm tactics of the RIAA, without the promotion of reasonable alternatives that earns them the label of "goon".
Apparently, strong-arm tactics mean suing people breaking the law by distributing your product without your permission. Remind me next time Slashdot tries to rally the troops against the next GPL violation.
Promotion of reasonable alternatives? Yet again, Slashdotters ignore online music stores.
How can one reasonably expect people to follow the GPL while simultaneously arguing that the RIAA is wrong for stopping illegal piracy? Face it--piracy is wrong. It's ripping off artists because you think you have a beef with the "goons" of the RIAA. Once again, you completely ignore the artists who aren't getting paid because you're not buying their albums. How long do you think their record label is going to keep them signed if they don't make any sales?
Not for me there isn't. Not living in the US means I can't use itunes. So...now?
Just a question-- why do you think that Slashdot is some sort of hivemind with a single thought process? Slashdot is a large number of people (several hundred thousand if user ID numbers are to be believed). These people cross the spectrum. Some are against any copyright at all. Some think copyright is a perfect and should be expanded in power. Some hold more moderate positions. Some even hold more nuianced positions that appear contradictory on the surface. This diverse population posts the comments you read and submit the articles that the editor's post. End result: a huge pile of amazingly inconsistent content with little to no pattern to the belief system. All nice and clear?
Of course, I suspect you're just looking for an opportunity to troll. The situation isn't new, and it's been explained. Repeatedly. Furthermore, the post you replied to doesn't make any claims about the GPL or copyright!
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Nice Sig. I love the way in which you imply that everything thought by one group of slashdotters applies to all slashdotters. Thats a nice touch.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
A majority mindset? No. A collection of popular beliefs held by vary varying people? Yes. Slashdot is a large group. Contrary to popular opinion there is quite a bit of variance of opinion here. If one were to take the highly rated posts and and headlines as a whole, one must come to the conclusion that Slashdot both loves and hates both Gnome and KDE. The "majority mindset" of Slashdot, such that it exists is amazingly conflicted. I'm glad for it, it keeps the place more interesting.
As for the articles, well, the editors post what they get and what their audience wants. Their audiance submits and wants this strange mix of things, so they post it.
Fascism? "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." Heck, even the most appropriate definition, "Oppressive, dictatorial control," suggests a dictatorship that doesn't exist. I think the worst you can realistically charge is mob-rule and group-think, dangerous possibilities of democracy.
An equally valid possibility is that the moderators genuinely believed your post wasn't worth their time for any of a wide variety of reasons. Regretably, neither one of us can really support either theory. We don't have the data.
followed a bit later with...
You're not talking about some small subset of Slashdot. You repeatedly refer to Slashdot as a singular entity. As a member of that entity (as, indeed, are you), I felt it appropriate to refute what I see as incorrect views of Slashdot.
Okay, accepting that there are people who might hold both ideas in their head at the same time, just a few possibilities how one can do it:
"I should be free to redistribute any content I want, whenever I want." or it's cousin "All content should be free." Well, no problems here. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure that content can be redistributed. Someone violating the GPL is attempting to stop the redistribution of content. The two ideas certainly don't conflict.
"I'm against copyright on every level." This is seemingly at odds with the GPL. However, the GPL represents a compromise. Copyright exists today. If you release software for absolutely free into the public domain, someone else can take it and turn it into a proprietary, copyright protected program. So by using the GPL you ensure that at least some things remain (basically) free in a society in which copyright exists while you work to eliminate copyright.
Ultimately, the GPL is about giving people the right to share your work. Is it so surprising that someone who feels that their work should be shared (and remain free to be shared) should want the same thing of others?
Search 2010 Gen Con events
By using your purchasing power, you decide the fate of these almost-Nazi-like corporations. Send them the message where it hurts them the most, The Bottom Line. By denying the RIAA your hard earned dollars, their shareholders suffer. And while they'll claim p2p responsible for further reductions in sales (as if the economy, CD prices, the thousands of stupid lawsuits that contribute to the price of a CD aren't enough), the truth will be shown that the above study, and other studies that have shown the RIAA incorrect, are in fact true, and the RIAA will be forced not only to rethink their PR strategy, but their ailing dinosaur of a business model.
The number of independant bands/labels has increased a hell of a lot, and of course the quality of the music is superior simply because there isn't the corporate pressure to compromise musical integrity just to satisfy a shareholder. I discovered a progressive rock stream, progrock.com, via an article here on SlashDot regarding the current release of IceCast. This stream has been the main source of bands whose CDs I now purchase.
I haven't purchased an RIAA affiliated CD in probably over 5 years because they haven't released anything worth buying, especially at US$20 a CD. During that time I've been purchasing independant CDs from non-RIAA affiliated labels, and I do so gladly knowing the artist receives more of the money, and the quality of music is far superior. The cost of these CDs is typically US$5-US$7 (not including S&H) cheaper than RIAA affiliated labels CDs too.
As an independant artist, I offer my own original music in mp3 format, freely downloadable, and distributable, see the link in the sig below.
Here is how I feel about it.
If you can PURCHASE the media (song, movie, dvd) somwhere, anywhere... online store, for-fee download, brick and mortar store - if you can buy it somewhere, then you should really question why you are downloading it "illegally". It's pretty much as simple as that.
You may have to search the internet for the label; you may have to purchase from the label directly - if that's the case, do it. If you think it's too expensive, if you can't afford to buy it, then don't. But that's no excuse to download it. Bascially, just don't download anything that is available for purchase somewhere. It's unethical. Unless, of course, it's one of those rare books or works of art that are available under a creative commons license or some other license that allows you to do that. But those are exceptions, not the rule.
And this is sort of a catch-22, because prior to the "PC", young folks have often spent money on media (music, magazines, movies) that they couldn't really afford; it would be fair to say that the entertainment industry thrives on money collected from millions of people that really couldn't afford to give that money in the first place but were sort of suckered into it by the hype and the fanatacism that surrounds celebrity.
So the "PC", a.k.a Redmond, has usurped the scam; replacing it with another one.
But seriously, if you can buy it somewhere, don't download it. If you can't afford it, just be tough and don't download it either. Maybe if enough people don't buy because they can't afford, maybe the industry will recognize that and do something about it. Doubtful, but in any case, it's your money, and you shouldn't allow people to sucker you into spending it on something you can't afford. But that's not an excuse to try to circumvent the system, either.