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."
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 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.
Well... discouraging consumption is discouraging consumption.
Piracy can contribute to a perception of plenty. Many people
tend to spend more freely on many things when they percieve
that things are "going well". Push people to "do without"
and they might do just that. They may also become entirely
too good at it in the process.
That's not even getting into the psychological implications
of "doing without". Most people associate this with dire
economic misfortune.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I would say that the most important conclusion is that the *IA*'s of this world are actively reducing the welfare/wellbeing of the people in order to make more profit.
Communism/socialism without bounds has been failing for some time now; I get the feeling that we can see more and more that capitalism without boundaries is also failing.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
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
> 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.
Wrong. The purpose and effect of copyright is to prevent to operation of the free market. This is not a judgement of the value of copyright: it is just a fact. The economics if "intellectual property" monopolies have little to do with markets.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Sometimes it is a matter of exactly who either makes or keeps their money. In the case of the Dutch they probably import more software and music than they export. It keeps those nice dutch dollars at home.
Florida used to be like that. All phone sales were fine with local law enforcement as long as money was being brought into Florida no matter how crooked the sale. The trick was that it was understood that they were never to try their sales pitches on Florida residents. Salesmen rarely really know the entire game plan. The salesmen were simply told that no Florida residents were to be called as then sales taxes would have to be collected. Back in 1980 there were probably at least 60,000 crooked phone sales persons working in the Ft.Lauderdale area alone.
This study keeps talking about DUTCH prosperity and the positive effects. Please note that hollywood is in the USA. If none of the businesses that are affected by piracy are in your nation, then you dont need a phd to realise that your countries prosperity is affected differently to the countries actually making the content.
Not suprised to see slashdot stories glossing over this with a YAY FILESHARING IS GOOD spin.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Well I can give my own personal anecdote that backs that up. In the late '90s I heard all these critics going on about this show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" written by this guy I had never heard of and based on a movie I hated. But they didn't have a WB station within reach from where I lived. So finally out of curiosity I fired up the mule and downloaded a couple of eps to see what the fuss was about.
I liked the show enough I ended up buying the complete Buffy, Angel, and Firefly which I have sitting in their pretty boxes on my shelf. If it wouldn't have been for P2P I would have never seen it(we never did get a WB station around here) and thus wouldn't have dropped nearly a grand on the set. So in at least my case they made a nice profit off of P2P.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Obviously they fear this.
The overhead cost of managing a single, huge superstar is much lower than managing dozens of smaller bands.
So they'd rather have the consumer buy the latest Britney Spears album than go out and discover new artists and bands, regardless of any musical qualities.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Firefly was actually a FOX show. Not that you would have known that, since FOX kept removing it from the schedule to show other junk ("When Gerbils Attack"). I hope FOX treats Whedon's new Dollhouse show better than they treated previous shows (like Sliders, Brisco County Junior, et cetera). Buffy ended its career on UPN (right after Star Trek).
For me the shows that P2P helped me to discover were cable programs, since I lack cable. The Shield. Monk. Galactica. Rome. Sopranos. All of these are or soon will be added to my library.
Without P2P Hollywood would be ~$1000 poorer, since those are the types of shows I never would have bought.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's very true. The music industry encompasses many things:
Performer
Recordings
Performances
Videos
Merchandise
The record labels decide what is a commodity and what is marketing. It's interesting they would dump millions into producing a video, in the name of promoting sales of a song or album. Maybe they just need to alter the business model so the songs become the marketing and other stuff is the saleable commodity. (Its been long said artists make more from concerts, for example). Without songs being heard by many ears, those people won't be going to shows.