Study Finds P2P Has No Effect on Legal Music Sales

MBrichacek writes "The Journal of Political Economy is running the results of a study into P2P file-sharing, reports Ars Technica. The study has found that, contrary to the claims of the recording industry, there is almost no effect on sales from file-sharing. Using data from several months in 2002, the researchers came to the conclusion that P2P 'affected no more than 0.7% of sales in that timeframe.' 803 million CDs were sold in 2002, according to the study, which was a decrease of about 80 million from the previous year. While the RIAA has been blaming that drop (and the drop in subsequent years) on piracy, given the volume of file-sharing that year the impact from file sharing could not have been more than 6 million albums total. Thus, 74 million unsold CDs from that year are 'without an excuse for sitting on shelves.'"

Comments

Rubbers too

[dotancohen]

No shit, Sherlok. Condoms have no effect on birth rates either.

Try signing real talent

[Perl-Pusher]

Thus, 74 million unsold CDs from that year are 'without an excuse for sitting on shelves.'"

Maybe people are tired of being sold mass marketed crap. They should try marketing their music to increase erectile function and virility. That will at least get the Asian market. Rhino horns and shark cartilage are in short supply.

Re:How bizarre...

[I'm Don Giovanni]

I love how slashdotters continue to rationalize their piracy.
Regardless of the effect, it's still illegal.
If someone creates media content and offers it to the public for use according to specific terms regarding authorization (which normally means, monetary payment), then you do NOT have the right to make use of said content outside the bounds of those terms. You can rationalize it all you want, "It has no effect on purchases!! It actually INCREASES purchases!!!!11!!!", but it makes no difference. The content creators don't agree, and you have to abide by their terms.

We wouldn't have to put up with DRM if it weren't for pirates, yet slashdot derides DRM but at the same time condones, or at least excuses, piracy.

(There's also the subplot: Slashdotters buy into RMS's doctrine that software be "free", so they want to apply that to all IP regardless of the feelings of the creators.)