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.'"
I think the point about the general lack of quality in the music marketplace is right on. Most albums have one or two good songs, so you end up paying $7+ per song that you actually want. My urge to pirate music was drastically lessened when online stores (iTunes was the first one I came across but I don't know if they actually pioneered this or not) started allowing me to buy the specific songs I wanted by themselves. I'm happy to pay 99 cents for a good song. If all the songs on the albums were good then I would buy all the songs and they would make that much more money from me.
Wouldn't this study require the demand for music to be "perfectly inelastic"?
;)) and the demand wouldn't change because they've already published papers claiming that people downloading free music instead of paying were not doing it because of any price considerations.
i.e. if demand for a full-price version of some music is the same (in their model) as demand for a zero-price version of the music, then they're modelling the demand as being the same no matter what the price.
If that were so (and the wiki pages on economics suggest it's not possible) then it would suggest that you could sell music CDs for $10K each (recognise this theory from anyone's legal filings?
The summary (and the artiicle, for all I know) is not quite right when it says:
He's just fallen foul of Fingals First Law [*] of chart music - the widely observed principle that the charts always turn to complete rubbish within 5 years of quitting full time education. The cool kids will always be listening to something completely different from what we listened to, and we'll just think the new stuff isn't like music used to be, in the good old days. In turn the cool kids will grow up, and find that the music they like has been superseded.
The point is, it's older fans who think that much of what's available now is rubbish. There is a constant supply of new fans ready to be programmed with the new stuff.
Of course, not all of them will buy the new stuff, but that's another issue - and the posters above have covered that pretty well!
[*] I just made that law up right there! Don't expect to find it in the textbooks till next week at least. We're only at Internet 2.0, you know.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
>>There must be some effect here. I know plenty of people who don't buy any music at all, but
.02
>>certainly would if they couldn't download it for nothing. Obviously the 1 to 1 correspondence
>>between downloading and lost sales isn't useful, but does anybody know of any reasonable estimates
>>of what the loss actually is? Or even how you'd calculate it?
I'm not sure that is possible. I have purchased hundreds and hundreds of music CD's over the years. I have quit. After hearing what the RIAA was doing, I could no longer support such a company. How can you quantify that affect? I do admit that I've purchased some un-signed (indy?) artists CD's. I have a co-worker that in un-signed and I have his. I have one from a group in NYC and another from a signed but non RIAA member. In the last 3 years..
But I've quit buying music like I previously did. And no, I don't download it from P2P networks either. What I've done is switched to XM Radio. I have two subscriptions. I now understand the RIAA gets a cut of my subscription. I don't like that as I mostly listen to Fox News, XM Comedy, and other stations like that.