Slashdot Mirror
The File Sharing Report
An anonymous reader writes "In July, Slashdot posted an article about the file sharing experiment, which was a database where users could report items they've purchased as a result of file sharing. The author has completed the experiment and written a report outlining the results. He offers the philosophy that file sharing is a result of the industry's failure to meet the business models demanded by today's consumer, and provides many suggestions to the various industries on how to take advantage of the market emerging from file sharing to generate revenue."
What about all of the files that these people continue to listen to, but don't delete or buy legit copies of? How much of their music do they actually own? My friends like to tell me that they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway, so downloading it doesn't hurt anybody. This may be true in some cases, but I think most of the time people just decide that they wouldn't have bought it post download.
But how are you supposed to make an educated decision without downloading it? ;-)
--- Egads, I glow in the dark!
"file sharing is a result of the industry's failure to meet the business models demanded by today's consumer"
This is true, but the music/movie/computer software industries are unable to grasp that concept. They are so consumed with greed, so consumed with an unquenchable thrist for more money -- even when they are already taking in record profits -- that they believe there is only one way to do business:
An iron-fisted, totalitarian control of everything, in a world where there is no such thing as "fair use".
Their thinking is so clouded by a fog of greed that they can't even begin to grasp the idea that selling a good product at a fair price will bring in more money than all the lawsuits and copy protection schemes combined.
There is demand, and demand creates market.
And when there is complete disregard for the investments of the companies that worked to make the supply, there is bankruptcy and mass unemployment.
The television industry is obviously benefiting from the consumer's ability to download a few episodes online.
It is doubtful the industry would complain about "a few episodes."
Making the media available in a much more timely fashion may increase revenue.
Agreed. Entertainment companies in particular are the undisputed champions of foot-dragging when it comes to the requests of their markets.
There is a significant market of users who would download software should they find it useful to them, however these same users refuse to pay for software that won't run on their system, is poor quality, or misrepresented.
There is also a very large group of users who refuse to pay for software at all, no matter the price or the quality. Oh, they'll download it and make full use of it, but they will also categorically refuse to contribute a single dollar to the purchase price.
Quality must be paid for. This is no less a fact than any of the other statements in this argument. The economy depends on the ability for artists, producers, retailers and all of their vendors, suppliers, etc. to invest time and money and make a profit on these products.
If there is no demand (demand requires sales) there will be no supply. If there is no money, there will be no products.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Interesting report, and after reading it it seems to me that it was well done and the result may be valid, but the RIAA doesn't care. It's not just about the money, it's about control. Consider that the **AAs are organizations that produce nothing.
They do however control everything they get their greedy little hands on. File sharing isn't just a threat to them because of copyright violations, it's a threat because the media is distributed beyond their control. I'm sure the idea of any piece of content flowing from the artists to the eyes and ears of the public without first passing through their gates is a nightmare for them. After all, with today's technologies, who needs a **AA ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Actually there is.
One of the killer aps of the Napster age, is the ability to "surf" collections. To basically see what other people who have similar tastes, and to explore then looking for new stuff. Because of the consolidation of radio, that was and still IS the killer app of the P2P age. Community. We all want it.
Yeah and once they find that perfect way of making it so you can only listen to it once that's how they'll start selling things...
/whines make all those albums that have been recording in very high quality analog or digital available as 192kbps/24bit surround sound dvd-a stuff? There's like no dvd-a's out there. If alkaline trio's record label put out re-releases of their best stuff on really high quality dvd-audio discs I'd be in my car right now to buy them... Give me something cool to buy!!! Something I can't just download for free!
now for a little redundant ranting...Tapes, cd's, minidiscs, vinyl albums... its all THE SAME thing.. a little different in quality or size or portability... But very similar to each other.
And on that note why dont they at the very, very least
Has there ever been a time when you were listening to something and you were like wow, I wish I could turn the other instruments off and just listen to the piano here, or just listen to the singing there, or just listen to the background vocals there... Why dont they make some dvd-a discs that let you do that? That'd be *COOL*!!!
Or make it so that when you buy a disc it includes a code that lets you go to the web and...guarantees that since your a buyer of this disc the band will let you ask them a couple questions which they promise to respond to.. Or they will grab their digital camera, take a pic *just for you* and send it. I'd pay a few extra dollars on top of a cd's usual cost for that, and I think any big fan of a band would too...
Even better would be that you dont *hafta* pay, but if you go to their web site and enter the code, you get the ability to pay the band a few dollars directly, for that one time specialty (that way the band gets the money instead of it being filtered through retailer, distributor, label, etc).. I'D BE ALL OVER THAT SHIT!!!
Instead we just get some cd-audio disc thats the same exact thing as I can just have in my hands without having to move in 5mins by using bit-torrent...It's not a moral issue here people.. Its a common-sense issue.
If mcdonalds sold a pasta dish that was as good as the olive garden, and was an exact copy... Yet offered it for half the price and delivered it to you for free... well shit... it might be a copy but damn.. thats some convenience... If corporations are allowed to make decisions based on economics not morals.. then I get to make decisions based on economics not morals when I'm dealing with corporations... fair.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
You can't seriously be comparing the MPAA to helpless old ladies. Of course you can't, because that would make you a complete tool. To make things more realistic, we can say the old lady is in line so she can get another mortgage on her house to cover the RIAA lawsuit from letting her granddaughter use the internet.
Sorry, but when I must choose between the large, heartless, monopolisitc corporation and an individual, I'm going to pick the individual no matter what the crime they stand accused of. All of this contreversy is related to the dilema in American politics: Group rights/corporate rights vs. personal rights. There used to be a day when corporations carried a larger burden of taxes than families. That ended around the time of Reaganomics, when families started to pay a larger percentage of taxes than corporations. Since that time, we've seen a politicians take rights away from people to make corporate life easier. The DMCA added few new laws and protections. It just made enforcement easier, at the expense of personal rights and privacy. It makes me seriously question who is lazier, the downloader or the people charged with protecting copyrights.
Every person who downloads a song is protesting, regardless if they know what message they are sending. People are voicing their complaints about an aging business model that produces merchandise of questionable quality. If yoiu buy a CD that has 1 or 2 good tracks and the rest is crap, you can't return it. Almost any other type of merchandise can be returned if it doesn't meet the customers needs. You also can't send in a damaged CD and get a new one for the cost of the medium and S&H. You have to go out and buy a new one at full price, which means that you have two licenses but one medium. They are also protesting unfair practices that buy politicians and remove personal rights (like fair use) and privacy. Instead of seeing the writing on the wall, the music industry has decided to sue thousands to prove a point. They are proving that, in America, it is cheaper to settle than to defend yourself. They are proving that business can force consumers to stay within a decades old business plan to spare the pain trouble of evolving. They are proving that the idea of the free market is inferior to a planned economy. They have proven that you don't need to listen to your customers as long as you have lawyers.
It seems to me the RIAA/MPAA/ETCAA need to come to some sort of compromise now on how they're going to accept and compromise with P2P. For all of its plusses, P2P technology is not great yet. The downloads are usually very slow. It's hard to find everything you want and so many items use Windows Media Player and its ability to take you to websites that automagically download spyware. In other words, it's not perfect for users.
Yet.
When this technology becomes rock-solid -- that is, when P2P means fast, good, non-malware-downloads -- THAT'S when the *AA will realize their nightmares.
This _is_ coming. They should really stop putting their fingers in the dyke and work out a compromise.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Something I feel a lot of people have forgotten is that, before copyright, authors wrote books and songs, poems and music and never got paid. Then, the printing press came along, as did publishers. Copyright came into being to help out authors, and publishers faught that, but then jested that they owned works (that were previously public, just not easily copyable).
Nowadays, I go onto Suprnova.org or shareaza, and I can find millions of different works, and I always wonder how many of them are still under copyright, of if this vast library of data will ever be opened up to everyone. Sure, it's illegal, but not necissarily immoral. Everyone seems to think corporations have a right to profit, but nobody ever wonders why corporations have an such an insatiable thirst for money that they'd work to digitally, or physically, enslave people.
Frankly, if mickey mouse wasn't still under copyright, as well as nearly every other single great american book, novel, movie, ect, I'd change my tune some. Companies have a stranglehold on information nowadays, one that the design of the internet is facilitating the destruction of. The MPAA and RIAA are about control, they are cults worshipping the false god of money. What is the best way to make money? Enslavement. If they were to innovate and change their business models and be constructive to society, would they then be worshipping money and making as much as they might be able to if something like the Induce act passed, or copyright was indeed extended forever?
I look on P2P apps, and I wonder what they'd be like without infinite copyright but a more logical system in place. Can any of you greedy idiots imagine that? Every single movie ever made, home video's, pictures, games. Bands from 50 years ago could become top hits today. Want to learn calculus? There are already over 20 titles on p2p apps, but there could be 100. Convert a schools book budget into the computer budget; every student gets a laptop (not even a new one, an older P2 with 386 megs of memory running win2k or linux).
Candy-Coated Knowledge
If corporations are allowed to make decisions based on economics not morals.. then I get to make decisions based on economics not morals when I'm dealing with corporations... fair.
wow, I just wanted to re-iterate this. If i wasn't busy whoring my project I would make this my sig. Really, it is one of those things you read that kinda give you the shivers becaue they are so friggin right.
P.S. check out Crackpot They are really good, on an independent label and give away songs for free hehehe.
You don't get a house built and then just pay the workers for the material. That would be stealing.
This is a singularly bad comparison when dealing with IP. To build a house, you need to hire workers and buy materials FOR EACH HOUSE. When selling copies of a book or record, you pay the author or songwriter/artist to create the work, and then per unit for duplication costs.
In the case of the house, once you get paid, that's the end of the contract between the workers and you. In the case of IP, once the initial costs of paying off the author/artist are recouped, YOU CAN STILL PROFIT FROM THE MATERIAL, assuming that there is still a market for it.
So why are the publishers and recording studios (not to mention the movie studios) complaining, and what exactly are they complaining about? They're complaining because they can no longer recoup their costs in the same amount of time that they used to, and that running up their advertising and promotion tab does not deliver the corresponding boost in sales that it once did.
To illustrate, in the movie industry, the rule of thumb is that a movie must gross 3 times its production cost at the box office, IN ORDER TO BREAK EVEN. If your movie cost $100 to make (not uncommon, if it is a large production with stars and directors pulling in $10-$15 million a piece, with special effects), P&A (prints and advertising) at $40-60 million, it will need to take in AT LEAST $300 at the box office to be considered a success (because the studios only get half of the box office - the theatres get the other half, nominally anyways.) Break-even is good because there's always the ancillary markets (paytv/cable/satellite/DVD/syndication) to deliver future profits.
So what is the solution to this? The model needs to change - either the market for their product isn't as big as they think it is (meaning they need to scale back promotions, increase per-unit pricing), or they need to relax their timeframe on ROI (return on investment) - something that is hard to do in cases where the producers are using borrowed money to to push an act, or sell a movie, they need to lower per-unit pricing in order to expand the market (I have no idea what the demand and supply curves are like for music/movies/books), and compete against alternatives, OR they need to find new ways of repackaging and reselling content to different markets.
To illustrate one way of selling old material, look at Baen Books. There's a lot of old paperbacks that came out years ago that Baen is repackaging into "Mega Book" or omnibus editions. Not only is Baen filling a market need (because a lot of this material has long since gone out of print), but they are providing e-book editions in addition to the dead-tree hardcover editions. The authors of these works got paid a long time ago, and now, they're getting paid again.
Contrast this to record companies, who agressively push new acts (which are expensive, bland, and short-lived), when they're sitting on a gold mine of existing material that can be repackaged (compilations, licensing), for both CD, radio (I cannot, for the life of me, understand why record companies didn't jump on the idea of broadcasting theme stations using streaming media, and start cutting the radio stations out of the loop), and digital (ie, iTunes.) This is bizzare, because record companies made money hand over fist repackaging their libraries first for tape during the transition from 33rpms to LP records, LPs to cassette tape, and cassette tape to CDs. Why stop now?
Going back to the house labor vs. materials argument, hiring somebody to build a house for you is completely different from buying a mass-produced good. You're not dealing on a one-to-one basis with the laborer, but buying something someone produced in mass quantities, speculatively relying on the market to buy them. If more goods are produced than there is want, is it stealing when people decide not to buy those goods at the same prices that the prior buyers