Slashdot Mirror
Latest Music Piracy Study Overstates Effect of P2P
Blackbeard writes "A new study from pro-business think tank Institute for Policy Innovation claims that music piracy accounts for $12.5 billion in lost output to the US economy. That includes 71,060 lost jobs and $422 million in lost tax revenues... if the figures are accurate. Ars Technica's write-up points out a number of flaws in the IPI's reasoning. 'The study makes for some alarming reading, but it suffers from a few significant flaws. First and foremost, it appears to fall into the "illicit downloads = lost sales" fallacy, the view that each song obtained over a P2P network is a lost purchase.' There's more: 'The IPI study also assesses the increased demand for music if piracy didn't exist and assumes the market would remain as "intensely competitive" as it is today. The problem is that music fans are largely disenchanted with the market. By and large, music fans think that music is too expensive, and that much of what is available isn't very good.'"
If a high-school kid was a massive warez junkie and managed to accumulate 1.5 million dollars worth of pirated software, would the IPI consider that 1.5 million dollars worth of lost sales... from a kid with a maximum $2K-$3K a year income?
Doesn't seem to me they're looking at actual buying potential of the 'offender'... just theoretical maximum revenue lost by the producer.
What kind of idiot still believes illicit downloads = lost sales. Simple economics, if the price changes (to nothing) then you're going to see a lot more use. . if right now the world downloads 100 million songs a day that doesn't mean that if piracy didn't exist they would instead buy 100 million songs a day. . .It's just such a blatant twisting of facts who wouldn't see through it? If someone hands you a pen and says "it's free" would you take it? Now if someone handed you a pen and said "10 cents please" would you take it? I bet those "free" pens would move quite a bit quicker even though 10 cents isn't a bad price for a pen. There is a huge difference between "free" and. . well. . anything else really.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
I wonder how many of those downloads are for music one already has? I know I had to P2P some songs because some idiot put protection on my CD, so I could not listen to it in my car (my car and "protected" cd's don't work well).
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
This concept that there is 'no good' music out there is a fallacy. While I agree that most of the mainstream music is pre-packaged twinkie pop, there is an entire subset of music (indie and non) that can be found with a little research. And guess what? It's available on iTunes and other services like eMusic (ad infinitum). And that said, with music being such a subjective topic, it's very difficult to say that one artist is 'bad' when they appeal to such broad demographics of teens that absorb them through their radio waves like mindless drones.
Music piracy INCREASES economic productivity because piracy is ULTRA efficient at copying and distributing songs. When consumers get the same (or more) stuff while LESS resources are required (labor and materials), that's an economic gain.
Now, it IS also true that piracy causes economic losses for record companies. But, economic losses for record companies are not necessarily bad for the economy, any more than economic losses for carjackers put in prison are bad for the economy.
To use another example, when the US instituted the Do Not Call list, it caused a lot of losses for companies whose business was paying people to call people who didn't want to be called. And it caused a lot of jobs in that industry to be 'lost'. Was this bad for the economy? NO! All the money that used to get spent interrupting people's dinner just got spent on something else, creating more jobs elsewhere.
So when someone pirates a song instead of paying for it, yes, the record company has a loss, but the economy does not - that money instead gets spent on something else, like a trip to the movies. That's an economic GAIN - the consumer gets to listen to music AND they get to go to the movies, whereas before, when they were paying for extremely inefficient record company distribution, they only got to listen to the music.
paintball
There are no "lost jobs". The jobs were shipped abroad years ago.
The 12.5 Billion figure stinks with the smell of excrement because of where they pulled it from.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
From what I've seen, the people that tend to buy the music that sells in big numbers (pop, top 40 stuff) also tend to only listen to the 1-3 songs that end up being singles off of that album (look at how successful the "NOW" series of CD's has been). Actually buying the CD single version of the song was never a very popular option b/c the price per content was even more unreasonable than the CD's themselves (and they often weren't available). By letting people buy single tracks from iTunes (or any other online music vendor) around the much more reasonable $.99 per song, the "masses" are able pick out whatever the cool song is. I would think that this would cut into CD sales on the same order of magnitude as piracy.
As a side note, music piracy has caused me to buy far more CD's than I otherwise would have. My first exposure to some of my favorite bands has been through (illicit) downloaded tracks, and I often end up buying their entire discography. I know, I know, fuck the RIAA - regardless of their evilness, it's not going to stop me from wanting to own a physical copy of Marquee Moon by Television (shameless plug for the album at the top of my playlist right now).
They assume: Most of what's pirated is clearly of good enough people would buy it anyway quality that it's a direct loss of sale.
The poster assumes: Much of what's pirated is of poor enough quality that no one would buy it but high enough quality that they'd go to the trouble of downloading it.
Both sides have pretty much retreated to their corners and are refusing to meet in a middle. Most likely, the situation is: Piracy, having a lower cost, allows people to consume more than they would otherwise do but that isn't a consumption that would go away if forced to pay the price requested, either. Instead, both retreat to their corners, pointing out how the other one's wrong whilst refusing to look at how their arguments are flawed too. It becomes a somewhat pointless discussion when neither side is capable of considering anything other than their own views.
Yes, there may be a link to lost revenue, but I agree with Ars that is isn't 1:1. Also in this case, it isn't a physical good that once stolen, couldn't be sold again. If someone stole something from a store, it can't be sold by the store and the sale is "lost". Downloads are different in that they equate that the person would have purchased it in the first place. I don't agree with stealing content, but the study is lacking some connections.
"On the other hand, music piracy accounted for $12.5 billion in gained income to the listeners."
Not only that, the $12.5 billion were instead spent on other things in the economy. Creating work for people like carpenters, contruction workers, resturant workers, etc. Which in turn means no lost taxes at all (in fact, considering the creative accounting of the entertainment business I'd say it's more likely the piracy resulted in $422 million in gained tax).
So the question is, is the economy better off with more coke snorting music execs, RIAA lawyers, fantasy accountants and boyband promoters, or with the others?
I'll bet the 71,060 who are currently employed instead of the RIAA lawyers would say piracy was a good thing for the economy.
I was thinking about something along the same lines. The only way the economy (GDP?) suffers is if the money doesn't circulate. Assuming *some* of those downloaded songs would have been purchased, as long as the money that would have been spent is spent elsewhere or invested (so basically not burned with a flamethrower), it's going to count toward GDP and its going to be taxed. The only possible losers are those who would have profited had it been spent on their CDs instead.
This brings up an important question though...if they're merely counting number of items downloaded they're not taking into account that someone might be downloading a whole album. Conversely, they're also assuming that the person wouldn't just go out and buy the single on iTunes for $0.99, but instead assume it's a lost "album sale".
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
One of the big problems I see with these studies is they don't consider legitimate on-line sales in their argument. They focus on "CD sales", and "Album sales".
...therefore revenue is down
They argue:
CD sales are down,
Cassette sales are down,
Album sales are down,
Record stores are hurting
However:
iTunes just sold their 3 billionth track.
wallmart and other stores now sell online
LEGITIMATE online sales are increasing.
I've found graphs online that show the increase then decline of vinyl sales as Cassettes became popular, then the increase of and decrease of Cassettes, then the increase and now decrease of CD sales... each hump bigger than the last... What these graphs nearly always fail to show is legitimate downloaded music sales.
This paper touches on the total sales but i don't think adequately addresses online sales. Interestingly it points out that there is a direct correlation between New Music Releases and sales.... and shows that there was a downward turn in new music that directly affected said sales. Just because the music world chose to heavily promote a handful of crap artists (i.e KFed - and who the fuck recorded that Paris Hilton album? - no not the pr0n, the album) and promote the hell of these half baked untalented hacks, they shouldn't blame US for their lack of sales (if indeed sales have gone down.)
Personally, I need to see an independent study of what the ACTUAL sales are that INCLUDES legitimate online sales INCLUDING singles, before I believe any more of the drivel coming from the RIAA et al.
If someone ships a hard drive full of music to someone else, would that be a federal crime? What would the value of that music be?
So let's say I borrow someone's external hard drive, and copy all the MP3s on it to my hard drive. In just a matter of hours, have I just cost the RIAA millions of dollars?
To be fair, I do think that illegally downloading music does hurt the music industry. But obviously, there is a market there for downloading or iTunes would have failed by now. When Napster burst onto the scene, the music industry should have seen the untapped GOLD mine that is music downloading. Instead, they fought it. They refused to embrace it. Did they think it would just go away? The ability to download and take music with you everywhere has only strengthened the fact that people WANT to listen to music. They still don't get it.
Years ago, I looked into a concept, and someone had it patented already. But here is what the music industry should do:
1. Digitize their massive stockpile of music.
2. Partner with music stores so they carry that music digitally.
3. Price it right.
It would be easy to come up with a tiered pricing model.
A: anything 2 years old or newer: 0.99 per track, or a flat rate per album ($8?)
B: anything 2 to 10 years old: 0.25 per track, or $3 per album
C: anything older than 10 years: 0.10 per track or $1 per album
Think about this... why would people spend hours downloading questionable quality music when they could go into a store and walk away with a CD, DVD, or portable device FULL of music for a decent price? Then, people are in the store - you can sell them DVDs, Tshirts, CDs, etc. You could have a massive digital catalog to choose from. Keep it in the stores, but maybe make the track lists available online so they could submit an order and go in and pick it up. Charge a nominal burning fee for media. You could have "top 100" lists from all genres, people could upload their playlists for others to purchase..... there are LOTS of possiblities.
Sadly, I am sure this will never see the light of day because it requires the "owners" of the music to open their eyes.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If it's too loud, turn it down.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
Last I heard concert attendance and revenue were down or stagnating. Since you can't pirate concerts, it would seem to indicate that people just don't find the music being produced today compelling enough to spend an ever increasing amount of money on. I'm sure concert promoters would like to have something like file sharing to blame poor attendance on, but they're stuck with the sad fact that demand for their product, at the price they're asking, isn't what it once was. The RIAA needs to realize they're in the same position.
Propaganda machines!
Pfft... Think-tank my crusty ass. The only thing they "think" about is who they can sell out to.
A real think tank would start off a report on this topic with the truth.
"Recording companies that hide behind RIAA are misguided by employing armies of lawyers, instead of one or two good innovative entrepreneurs".
"P2P networks are the definitive distribution model of the digital economy".
"Recording companies that hide behind RIAA either are so out of touch with reality they'd rather replace the internet with telegraphs than take the effort to lead the music industry".
"Recording companies that hide behind RIAA need not worry, where they lack vision others are more than willing to pick up the slack."
"All that recording companies that hide behind RIAA really need to do is to sit down and shutthefuckup."
That think-tank sounds more like a stink-tank to me, they reek of lies and inaccuracies.
Hope is the currency of fools
You didn't demonstrate your conclusion at all, you simply supplied an anecdote (which frankly is backed by nothing more than your word, which is worth the bits that carried it to me.)
What I'm saying is you can't disprove something with such a fallacious technique. It doesn't work.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.