Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Study Says Filesharing Has Positive Economic Effects
An anonymous reader writes "In a study conducted by TNO for the Dutch government the economic effects of filesharing are found to be positive. According to the 146 page report (available for download, but in Dutch) filesharing is good for the prosperity of the Dutch: with filesharing more media are available, even though this costs the media industry some profit. One of the most noticeable conclusions is that downloading and buying are not mutually exclusive: downloaders on average buy just as much music as non-downloaders, but they buy more DVDs and games then people who don't download. They also tend to visit more concerts and buy more merchandise."
...but where's the torrent?
since 15th century, dutch speaking countries (low countries) have led the world in modern and visionary concepts, in areas ranging from humanism to trade. erasmus, spinoza and more. and now this ....
a little big nation. kudos.
Read radical news here
This is the evidence to wwhat I've suspected all along - file sharing is patriotic and the RIAA is trying to destroy the economy by undermining media sales with their spamigation method!
This is definitely the case for me. I'll download an mp3 or two, and if I like them, I'll go out and buy their album (normally directly from the band if Im able to), and go to their shows if they play locally, buy their merchandise, etc.
I've discovered a lot of great music from filesharing, that I wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise, and went on to buy their stuff.
This is the final proof that pirates are destroying the economy!
Pirates are like terrorists!
And they pervert children to pirate more!
Pirates steal music and musicians everywhere are suiciding because they're so poor.
Did you already forget the article? Or do I have to blabber about children and wars for a while until I totally misdirect your atten... Until we really concentrate on the pirate comunist music thieves.
RIAA/MPAA spin to debunk this report will begin in 5..4..3..2..1..
Double Dutch?
File sharing net positive economic impact
.. For society as a whole is against this turnover of the sector the benefits of the large group of downloaders who would otherwise never have to purchase. On balance, there is a significant welfare gains.
The economic effects of file sharing on the Dutch welfare in the short and long term net positive. Consumers will benefit as a result of file sharing access to a wide range of cultural products. On the other hand, a fall in turnover from the sale of sound recordings, DVDs and games as a result is plausible.
This is reflected in joint research by TNO, SEO Economic Research and the Institute for Information Law (IViR) to the economic and cultural consequences of file sharing for music, movies and games on behalf of the Ministries of Education, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Justice. The analysis was conducted on the basis of a study of statistics and scientific literature, interviews with fervent downloaders, a representative survey of the population and a number of informational workshops in the sector.
Estimates of the volume of the global download unauthorized movement vary widely. The world is in any case, many billions of files per year, a substantial part of international Internet traffic. Some 4.7 million Dutch Internet users aged 15 and older in the last 12 months unpaid ever downloaded. Citizens see the download and share music, movies and games as a general social acceptance, but know little of the technology and regulations that it faces. Regulatory unclear
It appears that there are many unclear about the admissibility of download. The download for personal use of copyrighted music and movies may. Downloading games is prohibited. In the case of p2p networks is often not only downloaded, but material, often automatically, again made available to others. This upload files without the permission of the owner, as such not allowed.
The effects of unpaid downloading the purchase of paid content are difficult to determine. Download and buy are not mutually exclusive: an average music downloaders buy more DVDs and more games than people who never download. Even more downloaders go to concerts and buy more merchandise. Net profit prosperity
For the music industry is that downloaded pictures of 1-to-1 can be translated into lost sales. Many consumers who download music would not be in the same amount at current prices to buy and download unpaid not feasible. There are people who download music and get to know where to buy if they like. Although there are also positive effects on the purchasing behavior of downloading, is a negative impact on the turnover of the sectors likely. This is particularly true for the sale of recordings, especially as downloading music has become the most established. In addition, there are differences between artists known artists seem to have more damage, while relatively unknown artists may even benefit when exchanging files increased their awareness
New business models emerging The music and film industries face the challenge to match their offerings with the changing consumer demand. New business models are emerging. The music is made for new movements to tap revenubronnen (concerts, merchandise and sponsorship). There is a place for music recordings, but in future it does not seem possible only on the basis of recorded music to run a profitable business. Within the film industry to grow the markets visit cinema and DVD sales still. DVD rental has fallen. Over time this can change quickly if the Internet is available. Again, there are important new business models. The game industry is growing boisterous, especially the console games and their hardware-software combination content. Here is file sharing on the watch less than eg PC games, where turnover is now stagnating. A related official platform game has so many advantages that it is not inconceivable that this industry is the file-sharing practice the music industry now faces a far greater extent could avert or circumvent.
She made the willows dance
So, assuming this study is accurate, there are two conclusions one could come to:
1) Downloading opens people to things they would not know about, causing them to buy more. So, downloading should be allowed as advertisement.
2) The people who download are the most fervent fans. So, downloading should be allowed as a means to not drive them away.
Any others? /I was a a 1) when I stopped downloading, and consuming, all RIAA media.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
See title. And good grief!
filesharing is good for the prosperity of the Dutch
Without reading the 146page (in Dutch) report, I'm curious to know which copyrighted works they included in their study.
If the Dutch only download US works then of course it would be good for their economy.
I'm curious to know what's good for the "prosperity of the GLOBE".
IMHO, increased exchange of ideas and culture would help make the world a smaller place, but I'm not qualified to determine the long-term impact.
Not spending money on music = Spending money on something else
If people don't spend a thousand "dollars" on music, they might buy a new TV... TVs are probably bringing more money to the Dutch economy than buying songs online where not even a penny is going back to the country's economy...
The music industry doesn't care if the end result of file sharing is good for the economy (which I can easily agree it probably is) because they don't make money from the economy as a whole. They don't care if fans of music (including file sharers) are more inclined to pay outrageous prices to see a concert - most music companies don't make money from concert proceeds. For me, however, POLITICIANS should be paying attention to this information. Sure, they may have some lobbyist chewing their ear out about how bad file sharing is and that it must be stopped before the end of the world comes as a result but they need to be shown the bigger picture so that they can make the best decision for the people.
I know. I know. I can hope that there are still some politicians who are actually interested in doing the right thing for the people they represent...
And to do something in return I'll give you my attempt at translating the interesting parts of the article (which is quite interesting). Note that the net effect on the content industry is still negative, and the net gain for Dutch prosperity is positive, this might be because quite a bit of the losses are outside the country. It can also be seen as a proof of the failure of the normal free market model to give an optimal allocation of resources in the case of near-zero marginal costs.
----
File sharing has positive net effect on economy
The economyic effects of file sharing on Dutch prosperity on long and short term are positive. Consumers obtain access to a wide range of cultural products due to file sharing. On the other hand it is likely that there is a decrease of turnover in the sales.
This was shown by a joint study of TNO, SEO Economic Research, and the Institute for Information Rights (IViR) into the economic and social consequences of file sharing for music, films, and games ordered by the Ministries of Education & Culture, Economic Affairs, and Justice. This analysis is conducted based on a study of statistics and recent scientific literatur, interviews with frequent downloaders, a representative survey of the Dutch population and a number of informative workshops with the [media] sector.
Estimates of the volume of global unauthorised downloading are widely divergent. The global count is at least several billion files per year, a substantial part of the international Internet traffic. Around 4.7 million Dutch Internet users of 15 years and older have downloaded something without authorisation in the past year. Citizens view downloading and sharing of music, films, and games as socially accepted, but know little of the technique and regulation involved.
[...]
Net prosperity gain
For the music industry the downloaded recordings cannot be translated 1-on-1 into lost sales. Many downloading consumers would not have bought the same amount of music [that they downloaded] against current prices if downloaded would not be possible. Additionally, there are people who download music in order to get to know it and buy it if they like it.
Although there are also positive effects of downloading music on sales, a negative effect on the turnover of the involved sectors is likely. This is especially the case for music because downloading music has become the most normal. There is a differentiated effect based on the artist: well-known artist are most impacted negatively, while relatively unknown artists can even profit when file sharing increases their reknown. For society at large the lost turnover of the [media] sector is opposed to the gains by the large group of downloaders that would otherwise not have made a purchase. The net effect on prosperity is substantial.
Rise of new business models
The music and film industry are faced by the challenge of matching their supply with the changed consumer demand. New business models are on the rise. The music industry is moving to use new sources of revenue (concerts, merchanise, sponsoring). There is a place for music recordings, but in the future it will probably become impossible to run a company on music recordings alone. Within the movie industry the markets of cinema and DVD sales are still growing. DVD rentals are down strongly. In the longer term this might change as faster internet becomes available. Here also new business models are important. The gaming industry is growing in spurts, especially console games and their combination of hardware and software. Especially here file sharing is less prevalent than in e.g. PC games, where turnover is stagnating. A platform bound official game has so many advantages that it is not inconceivable that this branch will be able to aboid file sharing to a larger degree than the music industry.
Consumer studies? In which people admit to file-sharing? Wouldn't studies like that be skewed by the file-sharer's perception of themselves?
That American corporate/government policy would have it backwards?
It applies here. The article claims that people who download music and movies tend to buy more music and movies than those who do not download.
Perhaps the link is simply that the people who download music and movies are the ones who _like_ music and movies. The real question is "How much would these same people be buying if piracy were not an option?"
The article is also full of the same generalities and excuses that pirates love to make, from "Lots of people are just trying it" to "People who pirate music probably go to more concerts and probably buy more merchandise."
Some people think that the only way to truly determine the effects of filesharing on media purchase would be to perform a significant number of intrusive case studies to see how filesharing availability has affected individual spending over time... but that's not really true. All you need to do is analyze the overall market and look at the filesharing trends vs. the market economy.
We -know- that file sharing is bad for big record labels, but is it bad for the economy as a whole? I don't think we know, yet. I hoped this article would present some kind of study with a definitive answer, but all I see is a rehashing of the same tired, fallacy-ridden arguments... except this time in Dutch.
Initial situation: 100 people have the file. Music company has x dollars.
Process: I get copy of file.
Final situation: 101 people have file. Music company still has x dollars.
Q.E.D.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
If this study was meant to persuade the RIAA to change their policies, then so be it. But until those policies are changed, it remains true that rights are being violated. The ends do not justify the means.
This works because the Dutch still generally care about private property rights, and have a sense of the need to reward people for hard work. The "entitlement mentality" has not fully set in because most of Dutch society is still working from the older mindset, but slowly we are seeing this falling away across the Western world. Give it another 100 years, and it's doubtful that this will be true.
The fundamental problem with this issue is that the business model is forced to work based on the good will of the buyers. In every other area of the economy, you don't get access to the goods and services until you pay for them or come to an understanding that allows you to get them for free. Why should this be any different?
One of the things we need to face up to here is that in another century or two, manufacturing technology will be advanced enough to allow people to fabricate complex physical goods from raw materials. What will happen when any good on the store can be replicated at the cost of materials? I suspect that a pirate culture would end up meeting with utter disaster here.
So really, we need to face up to the fact that we need a culture that says "you don't deserve it just because you can't pay for it or don't want to pay for it." That sort of thing would pay dividends in other areas, since such a culture would also tend to promote an attitude that you have no right to tell others what to do on most things.
People who don't download music or films aren't interested in them and they're obviously not going to buy tickets or merchandise.
then there CAN be causation.
Hell, look at the "piracy is killing us" bollocks. Not even correlation to back that up. If anything, a correlation stating the reverse.
So, if there is no causal link between P2P and increasing sales, how did sales of CDs increase with Old Napster and drop sharply when Old Napster stopped? If there were a causal link between P2P and dropping sales, the sales would have gone UP EVEN MORE when napster shut down.
And since sales went down, there must then be an even BIGGER cause for a sales drop that meant that with napster gone, the sales figures would have been EVEN WORSE.
AND that item has to kick in about the right time.
Got anything?
No???
Whose economy? We need to distinguish between the wealth of nations/society and the profits of the corporations. Built on a primary source of raw materials a manufacturing "economy" relies on a scarcity of manufactured resources. Commodity products will destroy it, but the society is greatly enriched by the cheap improvements in living. It leads to freedom from labour and poor health and to a (secondary) service economy. A service "economy" relies on a scarcity of services. Free services destroy it but everone is fullfilled, employed, occupied, which is half the challenge of attaining a peaceful society. It provides security and opens up a society to pure "thinking", to permit a knowledge economy. Likewise, a consequent "knowledge economy" or "information economy" relies on a scarcity of knowledge and information. If the benefactors of that scenario had their way they would destroy the internet and burn all the books. That's where we are now in the USA and most of Europe. Look at the RIAA and other anti-progressive agendas. Controlling the channels of knowledge is no different from the ancient battles between pirates and thugs who used to fight over the spice routes. So, the next step of human development, free information and comodity media resources like art, music, literature and scientific knowledge greatly enriches the society at large. But where does that lead? What is the next level of social enlightenment and progress? What does free knowledge, built on free service, built on free manufacturing, built on automated primary industry facilitate?
The answer is something that frightens the shit out of the corporations. Some people believe it is a "lesiure economy". It's that utopian future where people just live their lives, because in fact as every truly intelligent person knows, there is no scarcity, only a manufactured illusion of scarcity. Energy is the single most abundant thing/concept in the universe. Money is a fiction. There is no need for banks, or corporations, or any kind of "economy".
It's scary shit, because many people cannot see beyond the current model, and to many it;s just too much to contemplate. Yet we arrive there by simple logical steps. Therefore, you cannot conflate the two uses of the word "economy", they mean different things depending on whether you are talking about. It is a self evident truth that sharing and bringing the cost of knowledge down to a social commodity is vastly enabling and increases everyones wealth. But what it enables isn't a continuation of the ruling class model for "economic activity" to simply move up another level. There is nowhere left to move up to, We have arrived. It'll probably sound like Bill Hicks to say but, you know, the corporate cock is burried so deep in our asses, and the lies, denial, and illusion needed to keep it there is piled on so think we can't even see the fucking obvious in front of our noses any longer.
Actually, if I try to imagine beyond a "knowledge economy" I do not see a "lesiure economy" where we all play around on jet skis like dolphins frolic in the ocean. I think humans are naturally industrious. We will get one of the following:
1) A care ecomomy. Wehere we turn our attentions to poverty, medicine, extending and improving human life. Peoples status and "worth" will be measured in how much they contribute to the welfare of others. It will be a complete reversal of capitalism.
2) A colonial ecomony. We decide to explore space. Human industry aligns behind the expansion of the species into the solar system.
3) A permenant war economy. A new dark age where we spend the next 100 years thinning out the population in a state of endless global conflict. Peoples status will be determined by how many others they have killed or whether they can build a more lethal bomb.
At the moment (1) is the only viable option, and the danger of (3) is so awful that we may as well continue with the market capitalism illusion and burn the books in order to perpetuate a contrived knowledge economy long enough to keep us out of trouble.
They are talking about results.
And the result is that P2P is good for the economy.
HOW it does that would be causality. But the correlation is there. After all, the number of breasts correlates well with being female as opposed to male. But "being male" isn't the cause. Hormones are the cause.
...I see an article that correlates two phenomena, someone tags the story correlationisnotcausation. It's probably just a coincidence, though.
Small (niche) content producers benefit from file sharing. Because more and more people encounter content that isn't advertised or played in the mass media. When there wasn't no Internet people had rely on the radio/tv/newspapers for bringing them the newest cultural content but now people can find suitable content for them self. Therefor I think that it's fair to share files. Look how much the big corps. earn and how much the musician/actor/director etc earn. The revenues are too large to complain.
That's all good in theory, but it's the music company that's putting money in these politicians pockets, not the general public at large... so I wonder who they'll really listen to...
Downloading is really self-inflicted advertising.
When more companies understand this, information will flow more efficiently.
(And we will be billed for services and other stuff instead of just the data.)
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
I've posted this before but when Napster was in its height, I bought more CDs in the year I used Napster than in the 13 previous years I owned CD players. I downloaded a LOT of music (I'd search for the letter A, download, listen to bits of tracks, then go out and purchase new CDs with the tracks I liked, etc.) and discovered a lot of new and old acts I would never have been otherwise exposed to, in genres ranging from rap to country; jazz to pop, and everything in between. I also tracked down tracks I remembered listening to on 8-track when I was a toddler but couldn't remember anything other than most of the tracks had names of foods in them - it turned out the album I was looking for was Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass' Whipped Cream and other Delights -- and the specific track I was trying to find was Taste of Honey. Well, the next day I actually went into work late because I had to run out and find and buy that CD. I felt like I was in heaven - I had tracked[sic] down a childhood favorite! I played that 8-track so much I wore my parents' copy out. It took me a long, long time using Napster to find that song. Then, I'd export the list to a spreadsheet, delete everything and download more to try. The vast majority of tracks I'd play I'd think "crap" but there were many, many downloaded tracks that would prompt me to go out and buy the CD. On the way to work, I would usually listen to top 40 radio, too - and buying what I liked.
There were many, many others and I was buying up to 15 CDs a week at one point. I would literally go to Best Buy, Strawberries (now defunct) or drive down to RI to Luke's Records every single day and I'd buy 3 to 5 CDs. That was every work day, on the way home from work, or if I found something I really "had" to have, shift my schedule and work a later day and buy it on the way to work. Granted, I had a lot more "disposable" income then, but were it not for the RIAA turning against its biggest "fan base"/"consumer base" I'd still be buying at least 3 to 5 CDs a week.
As soon as the RIAA started making noise about filing suits I quit not only using Napster, but I also quit listening to top 40 radio. In fact for quite a few years I listened to only Christian talk radio and the local big classical station (then WCRB 102.5 and 99.5, now it's just on 99.5).
I only recently started purchasing CDs but my purchases are very few and far between, and it is usually based on recommendations of my favorite artists (for example: Dave Gilmour recommended Radiohead for folks who like Pink Floyd, since fans are clamoring for more), or on what I find on Pandora or what friends in bands or who are composers expose me to. :) I also check out Youtube a bit, but the RIAA labels are trying to alienate me even further by demanding that obvious Fair Use projects are being removed at their demand.
The RIAA has lost me as a big-spending customer. I track down USED CDs now, on the rare occasions I do buy.
They need to embrace models such as the original Napster; I am NOT happy with the rip quality of downloads - I used it to sample music at random, and would discover whole new worlds of music that appeal to me in genres you normally couldn't PAY me to listen to (e/g. rap, country) because I could try it for free and then go out and buy the perfect-quality product on CD. I'd always shop around though - I nearly always refused to pay more than $15 per CD.
That's a lot of revenue the RIAA has "lost" - and because I don't expose myself to top 40 radio, I'm not even tempted to buy new material. I have most of the old material I want. RIAA members, are you reading this? That's up to $225 per week I'm not spending on music now, and the temptation truly is not there because I don't expose myself to stations where payola drives the play lists.
Now, I spend my entertainment dollars on DVDs and cable TV.
I might consider iTunes when I upgrade to an iPhone - I hate Windows (it's installed on my desktop ONLY for games) but might put Tiger on my
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
File sharing net positive economic impact
The economic effects of file sharing on the Dutch welfare are in the short and long term net positive. As a result of file sharing, consumers will get access to a wide range of cultural products. On the other hand, a fall in turnover from the sale of sound recordings, DVDs and games as a result is plausible.
This is reflected in joint research by TNO, SEO Economic Research and the Institute for Information Law (IViR) about the economic and cultural consequences of file sharing for music, movies and games on behalf of the Ministries of Education, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Justice. The analysis was conducted on the basis of a study of statistics and scientific literature, interviews with fervent downloaders, a representative survey of the population and a number of informational workshops in the sector.
Estimates of the volume of the global unauthorized downloadtraffic varies widely. Worldwide it is many billions of files per year, a substantial part of international Internet traffic. Some 4.7 million Dutch Internet users aged 15 and older have downloaded unpaid in the past 12 months. Citizens see downloading and sharing of music, movies and games as socially accepted on a broad base, but know little of the technology and regulations that it faces.
Regulations unclear
It appears that there are many unclearities about the admissibility of download. Downloading for personal use of copyrighted music and movies is allowed. Downloading games is prohibited. In the case of p2p networks files are often not only downloaded, but also automatically made available to others. This uploading of files without the permission of the owner, is as such not allowed.
The effects of unpaid downloading on the purchase of paid content are difficult to determine. Downloading and buying are not mutually exclusive: average music downloaders buy more DVDs and more games than people who never download. Also downloaders go more often to concerts and buy more merchandise.
Net welfareprofit
In the case of the music industry, downloaded recordings can not be translated directly into lost sales. Many consumers who download music would not buy the same amount of music at current prices if unpaid downloading would no longer be feasible. There are people who download music to get to know it and eventually buy it if they like. Although there are also positive effects of downloading on the purchasing behavior, presumably there is also a negative impact on the turnover of the sectors. This is particularly true for the sale of recordings, especially as downloading music has become the most established. In addition, there are differences between artists, known artists seem to suffer more damage, while relatively unknown artists may even benefit when exchanging files increases awareness about them .. For society as a whole opposed to this loss of turnover of the sector there are the benefits of the large group of downloaders who would otherwise never have purchased. On balance, there is a significant welfare gain.
New business models emerging
The music and film industries face the challenge of matching their offerings to the changing consumer demand. New business models are emerging. By the music industry movements are made to tap into new revenue sources (concerts, merchandise and sponsorship). There is a place for music recordings, but in future it does not seem possible to run a profitable business only on the basis of recorded music. Within the film industry the markets of cinema visits and DVD sales are still growing. DVD rental has fallen dramatically. Over time this can change if the faster internet is available. Also in this case new business models are important. The game industry is growing boisterous, especially the console games and their hardware-software content combination. In this case file sharing is less likely then e.g. PC games, where turnover is now stagnating. A relation of the official platform with a game has so many advantages that it is not inconceivable that this industry could avert or circumvent the file-sharing practices the music industry are now facing to a far greater extent .
Ignoring that "downloader" is being used in a derogatory way, I believe it. I'm the music companies' worst nightmare; I don't listen to their music. Since I don't know what the latest band/song/blond-bimbo is, I am far less likely to buy a CD or MP3 of the music.
The Dutch get a positive economic effect because that's where all the gray-area seedboxes are leased! And since there is likely far more U.S. content being shared than Dutch content, the net result for the Dutch is a positive.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
While I don't have any verified tests or studies to support this claim, I do have my personal experiences to draw my own conclusions.
(1) Electronic file sharing has not affected music/movie purchases. Some percentage of people will always share. There were a lot of dubbing cassette decks in the 70s and 80s designed specifically to copy cassettes. In the 90s and this decade, we use MP3s.
Similarly, we recorded TV and movies on our VCRs. There were pulse amplifiers to eliminate the effects of copy protection.
(2) People who copy and download are INTERESTED in the media. They are consumers and they buy what they like but they like to try before they buy. The emergent fact is that they DON'T buy everything the download and that is because it, to them, not all of it is worth it.
(3) The very people who download and share are their best customers.
[quote]Of course I haven't read the article, not knowing Dutch and not bothering with a translate this page thing, and I know nothing of the music industry - for all I know the Dutch distribute 99% of the world's music, though I doubt it.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
But let me see what's in my playlist as a european at this moment:
De-Phazz - New Format Recordings, HQ Germany
Gotan Project - Beggars Group, London, UK
Buena Vista Social Club - Wold Circuit, London, UK
Cheb I Sabbah - Six Degrees Recordings, NY, US
While none of them are from the Netherlands, most of them are not from the "overseas" either, but more like next door.
NT
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
...big grain of salt needed.
While TNO has been in the far past a research *company* with a respected name, nowadays they are more and more on the hand of whoever it is that pays them to do a study.
When I saw this headline in Dutch papers, it clearly was that "more and more people are downloading without paying". Maybe somewhere in the appendix, it read that they would buy songs when downloading.
TNO was the same agency that approved our voting computers multiple times in a row - the same ones that are forbidden right now.
TNO also researched the chip used for the public transport system in The Netherlands, and approved its security multiple times.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Am I the only one who is utterly bored of the correlationisnotcausation tag?
Try having neighboring countries outlaw something, e.g. drugs, piracy, etc...
Then declare yourself a safe haven for the items listed above.
No doubt it'd be beneficial!
From the few English language translations it seems as if the study was limited to studying the economic impact of file sharing to content publishing businesses (Seagate products store a lot of porn, you know, their CEO said so).
Nor did it seem to address the economic impact of reinventing/remixing/reusing/repackaging/redistributing/mashing up digital content available for free (legally or illegally)
If so, then the study, by no means, is an accurate depiction of the economic impact of file sharing.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
The study's written in Dutch. If it didn't have typos, it'd be in German.
Interesting, but that doesn't prove the activity is harmless or positive. This just shows that people who pirate music, like music (go figure). What would happen if they didn't unlawfully gain copies? Then they might actually pay the artist fairly for what they use, rather than what they feel like, when they feel like it. People are understandably ignorant about the affairs of specific musicians, about their financial needs, and about the musicians motives, but nothing flaunts and accentuates that ignorance like deciding unilaterally what a musician "deserves" based on public appearances.
Well, DVD and game piracy just isn't as mainstream music piracy. It's understandable that music lovers could be entertainment lovers, and that media that is pirated less often could be bought more frequently by these people.
That's great. So all a musician has to do to regain the right to set his own prices is to stop recording altogether, and just do live gigs, perhaps with some slapdash, garage band, unpolished free recordings as advertising. Brilliant, if you happen to only like live gigs, and music that can be performed live, and you have mainstream tastes.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Actually nobody ever mentions this but stealing is great for the economy!
Something comes up missing, you have to buy it again or steal from someone who can afford to buy it again!
Nifty eh?
Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
The business model cannot function in the long run if the only thing allowing the business to profit at all is the tendency of the people to no plunder its products. You can argue until you are blue in the fact that there is a major difference between copyright infringement and outright theft, but in the end, the entitlement mentality that justifies both on moral grounds is the same in both cases. Give me one good reason why anyone has a natural right to simply copy the recorded work of an artist or musician. This isn't food or medicine where you can at least argue that it is needed to live, and stealing only what they need to not die is acceptable when they cannot acquire it through an honest means.
No one needs pirated software. No one needs to watch movies, listen to music, etc. Books are cheap, and often barely make anything for the author so if you copy them without compensation, you may be hurting an author even worse. None of these things are necessities. They're all luxuries, unless you are one of those effete, refined intellectuals who cannot imagine a life without a vast stock of cultural artifacts as a life worth living.
Sounds like the broken window fallacy to me.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
the lists STARTS with spinoza. go to wikipedia, search spinoza, read who he actually is, then keep on reading. you'll get stupefied with the sheer number of dutch names on the list that will grow in front of your eyes.
a little clue tho, for the sake of charity ; reading spinoza will start you on the subjects of Age of Reason, which evolves into Age of Enlightenment, which evolves into modern day societies and societal norms like freedom of speech, individual freedoms, equality and more.
Read radical news here
so you invented something (slavery) that existed well over 5000 years.
read some history.
Read radical news here
Dutch Study Says Filesharing Has Positive Economic Effects
From the same researchers who said weed has no effect on intellectual capacities.
we all know that the mentioned causes and their effects exist, due to the examples we live and see in our daily lives.
Read radical news here
I have seen reports that smoking is correlated with a high incidence of cancer. I don't need to know exactly which way the causation goes before I avoid smoking.
Perhaps more, perhaps less. I can't speak for those people, but I can speak for myself. I love music and films. I find myself buying less and less music and films, not because there's the piracy option, but because CDs and DVDs are so expensive.
I have always had the option to tape music from FM radio, with a quality that's good enough for me. But I didn't do it in the past, because I preferred to buy the records. For me, "piracy" was never an option, even if it has always been widely available. I have many old LPs that I haven't listened to in a decade or more, some of them I bought on a whim.
With CDs costing upwards of $30, price starts becoming an important factor restricting my option to buy. I want to be very sure that I like that music before I buy. I'm buying less and less music. I don't remember when I bought my last CD, it must have been a couple of years ago. And no, I didn't download any music in that time either.
If the RIAA realized that, no matter what they want to believe, so-called "piracy" *is* an option and started to price their product accordingly, their business would certainly improve.
I don't think the intent of the study, nor of the article, was to justify a crime by touting its economic benefits.
The intent was to refute the claim that file sharing should be a crime because of the economic harm it does.
If honest investigation reveals that file sharing is not economically harmful, then there is one less reason for it to be a crime (or a civil violation or what-have-you).
It may be that file sharing should remain illegal, for other reasons. That, however, is a different debate.
Firstly,
I should say that I am coming from the original american idea of copyright and that other countries may have different ideas.
No, firstly you should ask yourself "why did he mention that Beaumarchais and Jefferson were buddies?".
Then you should take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror while you ponder this: "Could the writers of the US constitution have taken some of their ideas from others, rather than including only original notions?"
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, duh. Ask Western Digital and Seagate. They loooooove file sharing!
but what about the prosperity of Hollywood and the Labels Executives !
The above post was retarded, and therefore posted by a retard.
Have you even eaten Dutch food before? It's fucking excellent!!
It does not take a genius to come to conclusion that P2P is good for the market.
I made of myself for years a marketing experiment: follow the law 100% and see what happens, no matter how silly many friends considered me for that, no matter how huge my bandwidth has been in the years.
I can tell you the media industry lost very high earnings from me only. I disregarded several dozens titles I found interesting because I considered them too expensive to buy,or not worth buying entire CDs.
I often did not feel the interest on collecting more info on numbers I found interesting, therefore never buying either DVDs, CDs nor any merchandise. Many pretty good new artists I did not even hear in their early years.
Last but not least about the few DVD and CDs that I did buy: frustration was so high often because of odd and stupid protection mechanisms, sometimes the inability to copy songs to any media player, sometimes having to watch 15minutes forced marketing before watching a costly brand new DVD convinced me every time it was not worth to invest in this market, made me lose my interest in movies and hits and the intention to buy new media for long times.
A disaster for the media industry, valuable in 10000$ or more in my last 15 years, not to consider all fancy DVD players or new HiFi systems I did NOT buy. Not to consider the one I DID buy to find out it did not handle good certain types DVD and bring it back.
Some better came since the iTunes era, but I got pretty sick of that soon: no use on Linux, then I got crazy every time I had to reinstall Windows and DRM was still in the songs, then they removed DRM and only let my name and surname in the songs, but I was already fed up.
I never have downloaded anything wrong and I kept feeling as a criminal every time had to buy a new song. Not acceptable.
So, you see, media industry people: I may not be a genius but you just don't seem to me very smart.
You want to keep the market model as it is because of lazyness or because you earn too fat salaries and fear to lose them through innovation? Well, losing your jobs is exactly where you will be heading..
I happily keep listening the radio and music from my younger ages, before the madness..
Buccaneers could do both: attack Spanish and be paid by English, and attack English and be paid by Spanish. Benefiting both trades.
The media industry doesn't make money on the concerts. They make money on album sales.
We simply can't have those poor recording conglomerates losing out on profit margins while those mean old bands make more money on tour and evil pirates get to partake in entertainment! It's unthinkable!
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
The moral argument supporting private property rights is a product of scarcity, which doesn't apply to copyrights. Even the pro-copyright crowd doesn't really treat copyrights as though they were property; differences include time limits, statutory damages, higher penalties than are imposed for outright theft, etc.
Reproduction and distribution costs for intellectual property can be zero because there's no scarcity there, but there is scarcity of the resources that went into the initial creation -- at the very least the labor if nothing else.
I'm not saying that copyright should be treated exactly the same as physical property (so don't go putting words to that effect into my mouth), but saying there is no scarcity involved in the economics behind intellectual property is simply wrong. Copyrighted music does not just pop out of the ether into the hands of the RIAA to evilly horde from the public.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Yes, and apparently you don't understand the meaning of the tag.
No, we understand the meaning of the phrase. We just don't find it very insightful. It's a knee-jerk comment that has become extremely tiresome with repetition. We know we don't have proof of a causal mechanism. That doesn't mean the correlation itself isn't interesting or exciting. Posting "correlation is not causation" just a great big "Bah, Humbug!" to the story and serves no productive purpose.
I'm seriously considering Troll-modding every post that rehashes this old argument in the future. I'm sick and tired of it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
But it does tell you that you can look for a causation.
HOW???
Zune: dead.
Plays4Sure: dead.
Zune part 2: Is there one?
What happens is you lose rights to mine.
Your book? Read it, copy it, do what you like.
Sell me a copy if you like. But then YOU don't get rights to MY copy.
Or read it to me.
And if I read it to someone else, they have a copy in their head like I have one in mine. And YOU don't get rights to MY thoughts or MY actions.
Extension of copyright terms.
Extension of copyright rights.
Extension of copyright controlled activities.
They started it.
they would otherwise have bought it AND would not buy it now, THEN it is a lost sale.
If they would not have bought it otherwise, or if they still buy it anyway (or both, in which case it is a NEW SALE, extra profit), then it is NOT a lost sale.
How come you put an "if" in your statement (describing a possibility) you then go on as if it is a certainty.
Idiocy?
Probably.
i trust people here. the people who regular this site are not your average joe and jill. they have better perception and cognitive judgment abilities.
Read radical news here
spinoza, rather not too ironically, laying the groundwork for the coming of age of reason, in a country that not only accepts him, but also takes his thoughts seriously. that country has been netherlands.
Read radical news here
you havent seen turkish people yet. they dont even hold a calculator.
Read radical news here
if you read middle east history, dating back to 3000 bc, you would see that you look like an earthly angel compared to there.
Read radical news here
Distributing media for free vastly increases standard of living. It's almost a free lunch. Every single person who has any demand for it gets a copy. The downside is that it reduces reinvestment, making it potentially harmful in the long run.
The hard part has always been finding the sweet spot between increasing the value of the product to society and increasing investment in future products over the long term.
We can observe copyright applications over time, file sharing usage over time, non-filesharing internet use, tech sector growth, media sector growth, and economic growth over time.
You don't need to be a genius to come up with an endogenous model that accounts for the positive effects of IT spending, the negative impacts on value per copyright, the positive impacts on number of copyrights, and the positive impacts on the overall economy. But it helps. With the time series and time series path regression, you can show causation and get published. I'm too lazy to do it, just give me a thanks in your acknowledgments ;)
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I do not want to research what every country in the EU historically thought about copyright to have an informed discussion on that topic.
I'm telling you about one specific man who has a specific connection to the man who co-authored the only document you are willing to consider on the subject. "every country in the EU" has nothing to do with it.
I had a point I was trying to make, but you xenophobia blinded you to it.
Willful ignorance it is then, so buh bye now.
You can't take the sky from me...
but they buy more DVD's and games then people who don't download. They also tend to visit more concerts and buy more merchandise.
Yeah, because their scared of the feds knocking on their doors and getting a baton up their ass.
They also were the worst colonizers
That title belongs unequivocally to the Belgians. Just look at all their achievements in Congo.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
The whole propaganda about copyright law is crazy and backward - I've been looking at this for a while. I think piracy is fueled by demand and in turn fuels demand (as some of the posters above have mentioned).
It goes further then that; I saw a show down here where they interviewed a representative of the music industry about various topics, and two questions/answers stood out to me - firstly he was asked about the state of the industry and he went on about it going from 'strength to strength' and talked about the steadily increasing profits. Next he was asked about piracy and he lamented about its incredible rise and the 'fact' it was destroying his industry.
I don't understand how he could have put those two answers that close to each other with a straight face.
With the basic stats I have access to it appears that all the industries which have undergone massive growth in piracy have also undergone massive growth in sales (and it appears to be correlating, though I'm sure a case could be made against that); software, then games, then music, now films.
Basically - although I'm sure it can never happen - we need to scale back copyright laws and people should have more realistic notions of what their work is worth; a doctor can save a life and get paid well for it - but he doesn't continue to get paid for that bit of work for the rest of his life (like a recording artist who writes a song does).
Also - public domain is important; just because you wrote a song shouldn't give you the sole rights to that song; you didn't invent the instruments you used, software in the recording studio, the road you got to the studio on, the police force that stopped you getting mugged on the way or the stable society that gave you the time to make music (as opposed to working in the fields or fighting off animals or disease) - and yet you have complete rights to that song? You stood on the shoulders of societies giants to make your art and then gave nothing back.
I don't like copyright law :-(
im turkish. yet even i know that the liberties and freedoms which we are living in our current age are the product of the age of enlightenment, which comes from labors of age of reason, and which started and flourished in dutch speaking countries.
excuse me pal, but you wouldnt be watching no great hollywood film, or hearing an 'actual good music', or any other kind of shit if those stuff didnt happen.
instead you would be born as a son of a serf which was under the yoke of a local lord, and be toiling your ass off for nothing for your entire life.
what your founding fathers have read and studied in their youth, and the ideas they nourished and practiced in your country are the product of age of reason and age of enlightenment.
next time before blabbering about rights and living off the fruits, first learn what fruits you are living off yourself.
Read radical news here
i didnt say anything to the otherwise. i told 'when they expelled his family'.
Read radical news here
In short they found that anarchist communism is better than capitalism.