Slashdot Mirror
17,000 Downloads Does Not Equal 17,000 Lost Sales
Andrew_Rens writes "Ars Technica has a story on a ruling by a US District Judge who rejects claims by the RIAA that the number of infringing downloads amounts to proof of the same number of lost sales. The judge ruled that 'although it is true that someone who copies a digital version of a sound recording has little incentive to purchase the recording through legitimate means, it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the recording had not been available for free.' The ruling concerns the use of the criminal courts to recover alleged losses for downloading through a process known as restitution. The judgement does not directly change how damages are calculated in civil cases."
I have like ~1,000 albums downloaded. Would I have the money to buy 1,000 albums? Hell no. Not unless I sold all my possessions.
Download != Lost Sale
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The albums I've bought that I wouldn't otherwise have had I not been able to download and try it first? I buy MORE albums now that I did before Napster et al opened my ears to new artists and songs.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I'm with the Judge on this one! Even when I first started downloading music on Napster, I often wanted to get a better perspective of a particular musician or group before purchasing CDs or going to a concert. There are a lot of artists out there whose music I enjoy that I would not have if I had not downloaded their music. Much in the same way as listening to the radio -- except that, thanks to major corporations buying out all the radio stations in the country, that media is now dead. Sadly, the music industry neither has accepted this, nor have they embraced the new media (internet). Hopefully, they'll eventually realize that you can't sustain an entire industry based on income from lawsuits alone, and get with the times. If they don't get this, then I say, let 'em die!
2. distribute it online for free
3. make cash via ancillaries: special fan material, concerts, etc.
this is the economic model of the music industry for the future. probably for books and movies too
of course, there is always room for step 1.5: go into contract with a traditional music conglomerate to massively hype your music and reap larger windfalls of ancillary cash. this represents though a radically different business model for the traditional industry stalwarts: promoter. and nothing more. a much smaller financial footprint. oh well
but what there is NO more room for is revised step 2: charge for your music online
yes, itunes is radically successful and profitable. but mainly because it matches a low price point for a useful service: quick download, quality assurance, robust cataloging, easy searching. none of which can't eventually be beaten by competing free services as the riaa and the dead business philosophy it represents fades away
recorded music, from now on, is nothing more than advertising material
advertising material for revenue streams comprised of fan-appreciated ancillary materials and live concerts
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.
I mean, seriously people. I'm no economics expert, but I did take the required class in high school, and I'm pretty sure that was covered. Do these law degree holding people really think you can ignore basic economics and not expect anyone to realize it?
Saying that there is no necessary relation is a huge step, because it throws the whole question open to interpretation. Given that there isn't a one-to-one correlation, it becomes an issue of individual cases as to how many songs are able to be cited as damages by the plaintiff, which does have a major effect on restitution and final costs (since the labels have been basing their claims on a per song basis).
I can only imagine the indignity of being forced to pay whatever obscene per song is required for some crappy piece of music that you downloaded out of curiosity, hated on first listen, and never deleted.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I mean what percentage of illegal downloads are because of poor college kids who have extremely little disposable income or even younger kids who at best have a meager allowance? I think if it wasn't free for me, I just wouldn't be into music much at all.
Furthermore, if illegal music downloads were put to a stop, people who make mp3 players wouldn't be very happy as I am sure their sales would take a huge hit after a huge percentage of their customer base no longer has any music to play.
Why?
If someone downloaded a song, she could make a backup and if the original song (with her email in it) was accidentally deleted, she still has the backup.
If someone bought a CD, and her dog ate it, she'll have to buy again.
You guys are kidding yourselves if you think that one pirated song equals one lost sales.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
There's one band in particular whose entire discography I downloaded. I couldn't find anyone who has the CDs and the previews on Amazon were insufficient. Within a month, I liked it so much that I wanted to have higher-quality, lossless rips and to support the band, so I bought every album the band, and have bought every one since.
I know I'm certainly in the minority in my desire to support the band for its efforts, but there are more people out there like me.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Demand at $0 < Demand at $14
And they get paid to figure this out?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
It's important to note that this decision does not directly affect the thousands of civil cases that the RIAA has launched against accused copyright violators. Dove was convicted as a criminal copyright offender where restitution is a consideration, while the RIAA's civil suits can ask for monetary damages determined on an entirely different scale.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
I've been saying this for years (as have most of you); the fact is that people who steal music are generally just being cheap and greedy. Cheap and greedy don't by CDs, at least not to the extent they would if they couldn't steam them.
I won't claim no money is lost or the absurdity that the companies actually do better because of copyright infringement, but certainly the damages are no where near what they claim.
I think they should just look the other way, it's probably costing them more to pursue the infringers who are actually costing them money, and it's costing them more for ridiculous DRM schemes that they have to pay royalties for, than they could possibly recoup from those actions.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Thank god judges are starting to turn up the heat on the RIAA. We really do need more judges like this presiding over these cases. This judge took a step back and asked, "If someone downloads a song, would that mean there is a lost sale? Not always."
It does not logically follow, by any stretch of the imagination, that a downloaded song is a lost sale. In fact, it may be more logical to conclude that a downloaded song is a gained sale. Maybe not in the sense that I ran to iTunes to download it for $1, but maybe if I liked the song, I went to a concert, or bought a hoodie... both of which put more money in the pocket of the actual artist than the record label.
Record labels eat ~95% of the money taken in by music sales. This means that "supporting the artist by buying their music" is simply wrong. The artist sees almost none of the money from direct music sales. People, if you want to support your favorite artists, buy a shirt or go see a show. They see almost 100% of that money back, minus the cost of the roadie to see it at a show or the venue they held the show at.
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
AhAhaH Welcome RIAA representative :)
Completed download = free publicity, visibility.
If it's good many will buy it. If it's poor then they won't sell any.
It's not being a THEFT, it's being WISE :P
I can't call that English
There's a lot of major label music you just cannot buy new (which is the only time they get money on a sale).
Lots of film scores are out of print in the US. You can only get them used or as imports.
Sure Patton was an obscure movie with a forgettable soundtrack (sarcasm there folks) but that doesn't mean the only legal way to get a new copy of the original soundtrack (not the re-recording with tora tora tora) should be buying the collector's edition dvd and extracting the soundtrack from the photo-montage on the extras disc.
Up until a few months ago you couldn't get a copy of the Raiders of the Lost Ark soundtrack for under $80 (thank you eMusic, especially for using a good import version!!!). They've finally re-released it as part of a cd set, but they've made changes and omitted some cues which is a big turn off for anyone who knows the original score.
If you (the music labels) want to cut down on illegal music downloads and increase your sales, take a look at all the music that is unavailable (Terminator soundtrack) but widely downloaded and put it up on your own digital distribution system. There's a massive demand you are not fulfilling though people with no economic gain are making the effort to do it for you.
If you really think every illegal download constitutes a lost sale and that the downloader would have purchased the music legally if they weren't able to get it illegally...
You're an idiot.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Its not your decision what they should charge for their "crappy" music.
Your choice is to buy, or not to buy.
Right now, you temporarily have the smug 3rd choice of "copy/share/illegally acquire/whatever-else-you-call-it-to-avoid-feeling-like-a-thief". But you won't always have that option.
So how does that work if someone downloads two songs from the same album?
Is that one lost sale or two?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
17,000 downloads may not equal 17,000 lost sales, but even the most fanatical people here would agree there are probably some lost sales there, right? 100 sales? 500? Maybe even 1,000?
Or do people only download music that they don't particularly like and would not pay for under any circumstances?
If you had read the ruling, you'd have noticed that this judge seems to be smart enough to realize that, even assuming a sale was lost, the amount the victims lost is not the same as the sale price.
The price of sale is equal to cost + profit. If a CD costing $10 is shoplifted instead of sold, the seller loses $10. If a CD is downloaded illegally, the seller may claim he lost a sale, but he cannot claim he lost the CD he had to produce and deliver to the store at a price. He still has the CD to sell, at a profit, to another customer.
I wonder what the reaction would be if a judge told the RIAA this: "OK, you lost a million sales. You can get $10 million in restitution, under the condition that you manufacture and deliver one million CDs to the defendant, who is free to sell those CDs at whatever price he can get".
It's cute the way you pretend that the law of supply and demand doesn't exist. Do you make lots of money selling useless widgets in your little fantasy world?
You guys are kidding yourselves if you think that one pirated song equals one lost sales.
I do not think they're kidding themselves; I think they're deliberately fooling others, for fun and profit.
You can't take the sky from me...
"I think you're right, which is a shame. There is music out there, really GOOD music, that will not survive in this business model."
could you explain why you think this way?
you apparently believe the pre-internet business model somehow supported quality music. yes, there was plenty of quality music under the pre-internet model
and plenty of crap
i think some starry eyed folks think quality will improve in the internet music business model. no, i believe quality will simply not change. for many reasons, not least of which: quality is completely subjective. i do not think the internet music business model will give us a flood of quality material, it will still give us plenty of crap
but i don't understand this thinking of yours that supposes that quality will go down
what WILL change is that the music world will become heavily fractured. before there were a few fiefdoms in music on a national level: pop, country, rap, etc. that's it. now, there will be a thousandfold such fiefdoms according to genre, but also, a massive new dimension of music fiefdoms: local and microlocal band appreciation will increase a lot due to distribution and networking ease. aficionados of a local new york city band may never hear of a los angeles band, and visa versa, when before, both la and nyc would be exposed to the same bands on radio
additionally, the ability to internationalize will be easier now, so that new york city band will also have a better chance to get a following in auckland and brisbane as well, as effortlessly as it has a chance to get a following in philadelphia. however, what is unknown is how that new york city band will promote in auckland and brisbane. not that in the pre-internet world they had a better ability to do so (unless they were among the rare few bands like oasis or the beatles). but the rare few bands like the oasis or the beatles will come again, and they will not be lost due to the nonexistence of the music conglomerates. no, they will find a way. quality always trickles up. and in fact, there is a lot of money, a new niche, for promotes who sniff out top level local bands that they think can go national and international as well, and make a financial bet by promoting such top shelf local acts, in order to reap the windfall of ancillary cash later
in fact, this model is a lot more democratic than the traditional music conglomerate practice of cherry picking bands according to whim and perceived taste. which means, according to some arguments, better qualit ymusic for all, after all
yes, i'm contradicting what i said before: maybe the internet music distribution model WILL result in better quality music, due to being more democratic than the old corporate model
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am fascinated about the fact, that the music industry can sell that much auditive pollutive material.
cb
There's also still /reason/, if not whatever specific definition of "incentive" the judge pulled out of his ass, to purchase other forms of what was downloaded. This also seems to completely ignore "downloading a song because you already own it but want to listen to it elsewhere". Ie: it's not a lost purchase, it's an already-happened purchase.
Try this one instead:
"I don't want to pay the iTunes price"
These are the ones that make up most of the lost sales.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Um yes, yes you will.
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
I wonder how many court cases and lawyers it will require before the RIAA and the other producers realize that they can't stop online piracy. Why can't they just realize that they would make more money by releasing the album themselves either cheaply or free while still gaining income from advertisements. I'm very sure the majority of people won't download illegally if it was almost as cheap to download it legally, such as $2 an album or something. This is one of the only viable ways I can see to combat illegal file sharers without taking almost everyone that even looks at an illegal album to court.
put more money in the pocket of the actual artist than the record label.
That predictable outcome is why the record labels are pooling their money for a large campaign of propaganda and litigation/intimidation.
You can't take the sky from me...
Am I the only one who got an ad for "Free Country Music" along side the PDF?
RIAA wastes time Of US court system because of failure to attend 2nd grade and learn that if all doodads are thingamabobs that doesn't mean that all thingamabobs are doodads.
At the time the illegal download is completed it immediately counts as a lost sale.
Yes and no. The owner of the rights to the song isn't necessarily out of something. In that sense it's very different than shoplifting. Let's say I have a favorite song I really want you to hear. You aren't interested. I insist and actually email you the song (or send you a link and beg you to download it). If you download it, has the record company lost a sale from that download? I'd argue they haven't lost anything. In fact, I may have given them free advertising. If you like the song you may buy it. I'm not saying that they don't lose anything from downloads, but there are certainly situations where people download songs they wouldn't buy, so a download isn't automatically a lost sale.
she can, and has, made money:
1. reading from her books on stage and other special lectures and appearances
2. selling special signed copies and other unique author-tweaked material (hand drawn artwork, hand written material, etc.)
3. selling rights to hollywood to make a movie
4. selling figurines, MMORPG rights, licensed kids toys...
5. etc., etc., etc.
will jk rowling of the future make as much as jk rowling as the past?
no, not at all. probably a tenth of what jk rowling of the past has made so far. and?
and now we have a new argument: what coherent morality or philosophy dictates that artists, nevermind distributors, have a right to make obscene amounts of money off their works?
of course they deserve SOME remuneration and consideration. and its not like their fame is going away, which is a totally different kind of reward unto itself. ask any musician about female groupies and backstage antics if you don't think fame is another kind of capitalization
but they deserve obscene levels of remuneration? really? so i write a popular song. society now has the responsibility to make my great-grandhcildren millionaires because of that?
that's the current understanding of copyright, and its morally bankrupt. and soon to be economically bankrupt, regardless of current ip law. the internet simply routes around absurd current ip law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's a pant load.
Of course we get to decide - everyone does.
The vendor gets to decide what they think the product is worth.
If we disagree, we don't buy.
Whether or not we then illegally download a copy is an entirely different matter.
DROVES of people have already made the determination that the Itunes prices are excessive and aren't buying.
In most cases, it's the drm and not the music/cost that people object to.
It's ok though. Itunes isn't the only, or remotely the best, place to purchase digital music.
my point is that even if I downloaded songs and 'liked the artist' enough to buy more, I am still more likely to buy USED cd's on amazon than new ones.
first, I control the mp3 quality and encode process (or even flac). second, I know that NONE of my money is going to the riaa or mpaa for movies.
this is the elephant in the room that no one talks about: used cd and dvd sales NEVER 'help' the artist yet they are 100% legal.
we have to get away from the whole 'if its not good for the artist, its not good for anyone' thinking. its just wrong. downloading doesn't hurt artists anymore than used cd's hurt them. or help them. the x-axis doesn't "help" the y-axis either - they are different things that have no inherent correlation.
until 'first sale doctrine' is updated, I refuse to believe the industry in ANYTHING they say about sales, right/wrong or how things 'should' be in some new model they are hoping for.
as long as I can buy used cd's - I will continue to ignore the industry and its crying about 'fairness'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
See the Baen Free Library.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Dude, I happen to know people that download and upload Barbie Horseride adventure games just because they can. The guy is only running Linux (Gentoo to be more precise) on all his 4 computers and server. He doesn't have Windows and the only he played was Unreal Tournament 2004.
Are all of his downloads lost sales? No, just one of them.
And by the way, how many people download games and by them a week later so they can play it online if they realy like the game? How about all these people that later on buy the game out of respect? [Valve entering the building]
Here be signatures
It looks nice on the numbers and sounds easily defensible. However we all know this is untrue. When they find 1.000 Rollex watches, this is not a loss of 1.000 Rolex watches. The problem is that it most likely also will not be 0. So it is somewhere between 0 and 1.000. But where.
Obviously the 1.000 sounds nicer, especially when you put a value next to it. The same can be said when drugs are cought in large quantities and the street value is quoted. Well, sorry, but the value is wholesale value, not street value.
So even if I downloaded 100 albums, that does not mean I would have bought them otherwise, because I would not.
It just looks nicer having large numbers. It would be pretty stupid to say: We cought somebody and he did cost us 15USD and that is why we go to court.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That's an important step in legal history. Finally the courts have arrived at where we around here have been for years. But what the courts think matters, what we think matters little, in the context of immediate real-world impact.
It's a good thing, and it takes away the RIAA/MPAA's most important FUD element.
I'm certain, in another 3-4 years, the media will arrive at where the courts are now, and stop spreading the RIAA/MPAA FUD unchecked.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Whether or not we then illegally download a copy is an entirely different matter.
It's absurdity to presume that knowledge of this option does not affect one's opinion of the song's worth.
It's cute the way you pretend that the law of supply and demand doesn't exist.
You're the one who fails to understand supply and demand.
Please tell me where the free market price is, when supply is infinite (ie, in the case of digital media which can be copied and downloaded as often as you like)? Oh, that's right, with finite demand (there are, after all, only 6.odd billion people on the planet) and infinite supply, the price is driven down - to ZERO. P2P is a cheap way of shifting the supply curve to the right. And since a legitimate copy is just as good as an illegitimate one for the consumers, the demand stays the same. So the price moves to a new equilibrium - $0.00.
You can't really beat supply and demand, you just have to understand it. What the RIAA want to do is artificially limit the supply, in order to keep the prices higher. Well, good luck with that. Madonna earns around $1BN (yes BILLION) dollars per year from her concerts. I really don't think piracy is putting her in the poorhouse.
The RIAA need to stop wasting limited court resources on these frivolous lawsuits, and embrace the power of the internet to make sure their artists' concerts are filled, at $200+ per ticket. After all, you'll only fork out that much for a concert ticket if you have HEARD the music and actually LIKE it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If the music is so crappy, why are you downloading it?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Here hold the bong whilst I explain...
17000 Cars on the dealers lot for free does not mean 17000 Lost Sales??????
Here's the lighter, now toke!
Yeah I know you leftist mongrels the future is free, free software, free music etc., too bad it will all suck and since its all for free, there wont be any need for your services anymore and its already happening.
Its a good thing I, not only am a skilled technical pro but can also construct and repair all sorts of tangible things with my hands and for you button pushers, there's always the rewarding career of fast food! ha ha ha aha ah aha aha ahha ha ahh ahaa ha haa ha
This looks like a Mad-Libs entry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nobody is illegally downloading anything!
If you have a license for the media, you are allowed to do what it states. If you offer the files for download without license, and someone takes them, then you have broken the contract (=license)! The downloader got it from you with no license (that is your implicit contract), so he can legally do with it, whatever he likes to do with it. Like offering it to others. Nothing illegal here at all. No theft (original still in the hands of the owner). Only a broken contract, that the seller can sue for (and rightfully so). So first and foremost: Stop spreading bullshit FUD propaganda from the RIAA!
Now on to the question, why people download the songs rather than buying them. First: It's easy and cheap. Second, and more important: To them, it's not worth the money that they could buy it for, somewhere else. Ask people from which spot on they would buy it, and what comfort they would expect. Most of them want it to beat the easiness of some file-sharing app (nice tool, no copy protection, fast downloads, everything available [even a live version from 1972]), while offering the full package (high quality, properly tagged, cover, lyrics, replay gain, bpm... whatever tiny plus you can get, include it!). The amount that they want to spend, on the other hand, varies greatly, with personal views, taste, personal budget, and so on.
To me, some song from the charts, that I like, but that is not in my top list, in good mp3 quality, would be worth some 5-20 (euro)cent. A rare DNB track that I loop over and over, because I love it that much, that has all of the above mentioned features, and that comes from an artist that I respect and know, could easily be worth 5 €.
But I can't pay those prices. I have to pay what they say, or not get it at all. Despite there not being any costs in producing the copy, and the huge costs of the original coming mainly from the giant budgets that those people assign themselves (like the producer getting 60% of the money, while the artist gets 3.5% [and the RIAA even wanting this value to drop].) If you calculate maybe 100,000 sales for a song, what's the price for a single track, divided by 100,000? It sure does not cost 100,000, to create that song, including all profits. Calculate the material (amortized over the years of usage), the studio rent (including the producer), and the marketing. Then add some cash for the artist himself. And a RIAA member fee (should be something like $50 a year). Then divide this by the tracks produced (eg. an album). And you get maybe some thousand dollars per track. Not 10,000, and surely not 100,000. So this would result in less than 10 cent per track for this example. A price that I, an a buyer, can completely agree on. Even if it only sells so 10,000 people (a rare track that i love), I would stay at or below $1.
But the greed of the industry, and being used to living in luxury.
I worked with someone who had direct contacts to the bosses of all the big five (now four). He told me, that usually, "meetings" look similar to this: He gets out of the elevator, and gets offered cocaine in lines as thick as your fingers. And after (or before) the actual talking, they call themselves some hookers.
I know he did not lie to me, because I sat right next to him, when he was loudly speaking to them on his phone, laughing about what fun they had, and that he would have a new offer, so he should call the bitches in, or something alike.
I hope this makes reality a bit more clear for you.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
A price that I, as a buyer, can completely agree on.
.
But the greed of the industry, and being used to living in luxury.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Bad Analogy Man can't tell the difference between buying durable goods and watching television!
Its always enlightening to see the Slashgobbers reason away reason.
Intellectual Property is not durable goods according to their logic of which is pulled straight out of their ass. Then another cites some other blowhard psuedo intellectual "curve theory" to explain way why the future should be free.
All of this reason is as sound as the recent trends in the financial markets of using complex mathematical modelling to predict markets and look at the wonders of what that wrought, you fucking lemming idiots.
Suit yourself dipshits, its your future and its wanning and I for one will enjoy watching you die on the vine and look around you, its happening now.
To translate it all into terms you can understand your labor free = slavery/poverty/indentured servitude
I'm not aware that the revenue lost or potential sales lost have any bearing whatsoever on the statutory fines for copyright infringement.
That means that if I self-publish the most awful unreadable novel ever and someone infringes the copyright they are subject to those statutory fines and possible punitive damages regardless of the "fact" that this piece of garbage might not ever sell a single copy.
let me give you some advice: never go into business. you don't really grasp much of money making ventures and opportunities. your criteria for saying "not viable" is humorous. thanks for the laugh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that even without money, there will always be music.
Capitalism and music aren't dependent on one another. Each can exist without the other, though many times they can help each other.
No matter how much the RIAA and similar interests would like to suggest otherwise... money did not make music.
Probably because it's value is $0.10. So, paying $1 isn't worth it to the OP, while $0.10 just might be. I know that I rent tons of crappy movies from Netflix. Sometimes they are just crappy, and sometimes I get pleasantly surprised. At $18 per month for the good movies, and no extra charge for the crappy ones delivered to my door, that is worth it. At ~$3.50 with me driving to a video store it would not be worth it to rent a crappy movie. The price of the crappy movies is near 0 but it is not 0. As more and more movies get added to the Netflix streaming, I am even more likely to watch crappy movies as the price will go down again.
No doubt you too use products that are crappy if the price is right.
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag?
1. people see something like daft punk, or depeche mode, or erasure, a whole host of very electronic bands, in performance. all the time. if you assert that they are somehow less compelling than a performance of traditional instruments, i'll actually differ with you: watching some guy playing a trumpet, is well, boring. or rather: at least as boring, or exciting, as watching a guy press a button a computer keyboard on a stage or scratch a record. in other words, there is no objective criteria to new forms of music and new instruments that makes them any more, or less compelling, to an audience, than watching someone play a traditional instrument. and besides, concerts always have sideshows and gimmicks as the "entertainment" while you listen to the music, regardless of the act
2. if an artist doesn't want to tour and perform live, then, yes, you are absolutely right, he is giving up on a large portion of his income in internet dominated music world. to which i can only say: and? so what?
are you telling me that the income from the pre-internet music world somehow created more quality music? really? there's a whole host of dubious assumptions in this implication of yours. for starters, that the artist needs this money in the first place to create what he does, and conversely, that all of those millions in the pre-internet music world somehow guaranteed quality. what in your mind establishes this connection? the connection between money going in and music quality coming out, is completely nonexistent
or, rather, perhaps you are correct in one respect: pure technical recording quality... but then, only in a world where you needed high production values in order to create good music. which is now a historical reality, not the reality we find ourselves in today. today, some teenager in his parents basement with less that $1,000 can create music of higher objective audio quality than the best studio that millions could buy in the 1960s. which means that, if you are talking about quality in this regard, your point is mooted by simple technological progress
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You're absolutely correct! I placed no value on music (it simply did not matter to me at all) until I came to college, where I realized how easily pirateable it was. A bit of sampling later, I found that good music actually existed when it's no longer the case that you only hear the current top-20 hits. Since then, I've started buying a fairly decent quantity of music.
Also, how many digital downloads were done to restore a lost or broken CD. I can't tell you how many times I have purchased the same "The Doors" CD only to have it stolen from my car or what not. After a while I gave up and downloaded it. After buying it like 10 times over (at least), I feel I am entitled to download it.
A large portion of the stuff I download, I download because I want that 1 song and you can't just purchase that 1 song. Why ? Well, because they are a 1 hit wonder and you can't just buy the single of it. The record companies know that people wouldn't buy the entire album if they didn't have to. iTunes also makes it "Album only". So, guess what ... download it is.
Now, there has been a crap ton of stuff I have purchased *after* I downloaded it. Downloaded it, listened to it .. liked it, so I went out and purchased the remaining albums. Did I honestly buy that same album I downloaded ? Well, no ... however, I did purchase a few more albums and they got more money from me then they would have otherwise.
The record industry needs to realize that it needs to embrace new technology and advertising means. Issuing a DMCA against a Youtube video to take down a video that some kid put together using some semi popular song only pisses off customers. I have found a lot of music I like this way and if the industry doesn't want my money, then fine I will go back to downloading.
The more difficult they make it for me to legally obtain and keep music the greater the chance I will download it. Face it, I am lazy and I don't like to leave the house. I *HATE* going to music stores, I don't like the environment or sales people. By making it easier for me to get it online that only means more sales. I am not going to go to a brick and mortar store to get it, it just won't happen. They are way too over priced anyway. Why the hell do we even need these stores anymore ?!
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Wow, some common sense in the US justice system! This has to be a first.
... that the downloader would not have made a purchase because the recording was available for free.
Most of the audio compression schemes offer somewhat less than the highest of fidelity. Perhaps OK for the iPod, but if I hear something that I like (on either the radio or the Interwebs), I buy a CD.
Have gnu, will travel.
Somewhere deep in the pits of hell some RIAA exec has been heard to utter something to the effect of...
"Dammit, but we had a deal!"
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Did you even read the post to which I was replying? GGP was claiming that not only is every illegal download a lost sale, but it is possibly multiple lost sales due to media failure. Thus "lost sales > downloads".
Anyway, regarding the supply shift: you're correct. However, "illegal downloads" is not an exact substitute for "legally-obtained CD/MP3" – some people will switch to the substitute, whereas other people will object on moral grounds and will only get music legally. Since some consumers won't consider them equal, the demand for the more expensive alternative will not entirely become demand for the free alternative, and your analysis over-simplifies this detail out of the equation.
Anyway, my main point was that GGP is utterly wrong in saying that lost sales exceeds illegal downloads.
I bought my last CDs in 2001. I bought 2 CDs for my ex-wife because she wanted one song off of each CD. One of the CDs was so bad that she asked me to rip the single and make a new CD so she wouldn't have to listed to the rest of the sh*t. I paid $17.99 plus tax per CD to Best Buy. It cost me almost $40 for two friggin' songs. I hope they invested it well, because it was the last dime they'll get from me.
"Their arguement is like someone discovering how to copy a Rolls Royce for free. Suddenly all the millions of Rolls Royces on the road being driven by people of modest means represent lost sales?"
I think a potential real world example of this happening is with synthetic (i.e. lab-made) diamonds. Companies like De Beers are scared shitless because they can no longer create a situation of artificial scarcity and charge massive prices for their diamonds, since they're relatively easy to make in a lab now via CVD.
I was at a conference recently that had a trade show going on and there was a company there selling relatively small lab-made diamonds for cheap (a couple hundred bucks). Now these lab-made diamonds are supposedly very high quality (I've heard that an expert can spot synthetic diamonds specifically because they're flawless, in a way that no natural diamond would ever be). Just for the sake of comparison I wrote down the specs for a small, high-grade diamond they had at the show for something like $300 and asked in a diamond store how much a stone with those characteristics would generally go for, and the answer was in the $3000 ballpark.
I can afford a $300 diamond, but I can't afford a $3000 diamond (at the moment). So in my case buying a $300 synthetic diamond would not be a lost sale for De Beers. I'm sure they'd feel differently though.
I just wish someone could alert certain cartels to this fact.
"Penalizing me or my countrymen 1-to-2 dollars for every song we download is fair."
Excuse me? When is a penalty for performing an illegal act supposed to be "fair"? First, charging the same price as a legitimate download definitely isn't fair, and actually is an INCENTIVE to steal.
What if you were caught attempting to steal a CD and they only charged you the price of the disk? Everyone would try to steal. Best case, you get away with it, and worst case, you pay no more than if you had paid the legitimate price. Where I live the fine for littering and dumping trash is $1,000. Is that "fair"? Don't know, but what I do know is that you don't see many people throwing trash out the windows of their cars. The risk simply isn't worth it.
And what's with the "tree of liberty" BS? Attempting to equate stealing a purely discretionary item that's available from plenty of legitimate sources with patriotism is simply laughable from one side, and an insult to those who died fighting for our liberty on the other.
Finally, try to RTFA for content. The article does NOT say anything about "Penalizing $150,000 for every [song] song..."
FTFA: "For example, the RIAA said that 183 albums were transferred through Dove's server 17,281 times, then multiplied that by the wholesale price of a digital album in 2005 ($7.22) to conclude that its member companies were owed almost $124,769 in restitution..."
That's $124K TOTAL, and not $150K PER SONG. (And charging a "fair" price per album, BTW.) Making up your own numbers doesn't help your argument, as it makes people wonder just what else you're lying about...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Realistically, the first download wasn't a lost sale either. Your domestic partner presumably would not have bought the game even if he hadn't pirated it.
Who the F*^$ uses record labels these days anyway?
most of the albums i've downloaded lately are ones i bought years ago and lost
The other elephant that seems to be missing is, if you never buy anything that supports the artists, then the artists won't be able to make a living doing the music you like and soon you'll have to make your own because if not enough people support the artists, then there will be no artists.
It's a lot like wagon wheel makers. Once the advent of cars came along the amount of people buying wagon wheels went down, and hence more and more wagon wheel makers went on to do something different.
Now, I'm sure that the last wagon wheel maker was the best damn wagon wheel maker out there!
I'm, of course, dramatizing this because naturally there are still wagon wheel makers, but they are mostly all Amish, and if you want a wagon wheel you'll have to buy used or do some serious searching because they likely won't be in the city directories.
Lastly, my prediction is that eventually the music industry will be seriously cut down in size and profitability. A great many artists, will cease to exist, and the prolific music industry will become a backwater replaced by a number of people who do music part-time as a hobby or for Disney. And choice in music will be drastically reduced.
If it is not worth the price then you have no right to download it instead of paying for it. You simply have the right not to download it. I hate to tell you this folks, but if it is priced above what you place its worth as then you simply don't get to have it. My god does no one understand this simple concept. It's why you don't get to drive the Caddy home when all you can afford is the Chevy. And if you don't think the Chevy is worth the price then buy a dodge or something but quit belly aching about the cost of something you place so little worth on. If you want it then the price is justified if you don't think its worth it you are free to buy something else.
Why bother
I for one have purchased items after downloading them first to see if i wanted them or not. No 'preview', no sale. Gained a sale on me.
But i agree with the opposite too, somethings if it wasn't available free id not have it at all. They lost no $ on me.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He might or might not, but GP never referred to the person in question as a "domestic partner", merely "the guy" he "happen[s] to know".
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
In other words, "Your crappy music is not worth its iTunes price [to me]".
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Not necessarily. It could be that you'd rather keep the money and buy something that isn't free.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Once again, you're just restating the same idea. If I'd rather keep my money instead of buying a song file, then that song file isn't worth the price to me.
What I choose to spend the money on instead isn't really important, but I'll play along for now. Let's say I'm choosing whether to spend $1 on an iTunes track or a junior bacon cheeseburger. That means the price of the iTunes track can also be stated as "not eating a junior bacon cheeseburger". If I decide that downloading the song from iTunes isn't worth forgoing a tasty snack, then presto, I've just concluded that the iTunes download is worth less than $1 to me.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Of course. I would feel more comfortable in leaving it alone if people wouldn't subtly alter my words in order to make them sound more appealing. What do people call that again?
There's a subtle distinction here. If the music wasn't available for free, would you still rather keep your money and not have any music from your pirated collection? There's value in the economics sense, in that people won't want to pay for it. Then there's value in the sense that I was referring to, which is more intrinsically linked to the product itself, not the external factors surrounding it. There's value in an enjoyable music album, even though it's possible to get it for next to nothing. The fact that the music isn't worth the iTunes price is mostly an indicator of the sick and dying music market than the actual music itself. The actual music is, well, enjoyable, and in terms of enjoyment per dollar, it rates reasonably well against any other ways to spend $15.
It depends. The choice needs to be either downloading the tune and not having the snack, having the snack and not downloading the tune (and not getting it for free back home), or keeping your $1. Personally, I think that spending $1 on an unhealthy, short-lived snack is, far more often than not, worse value than a music track that you'll get to listen to as much as you want, even if it's only 5 or so times over your lifetime.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The RIAA need to stop wasting limited court resources on these frivolous lawsuits, and embrace the power of the internet to make sure their artists' concerts are filled, at $200+ per ticket. After all, you'll only fork out that much for a concert ticket if you have HEARD the music and actually LIKE it.
There's one ever so small problem there. In most cases the record companies are not engaged in 360 degree deals that get them part of the artist ticket sales (as much as they're trying to do that these days). If you're already a large artist - why would you?. The companies that make up the RIAA (and others) want to maximise their part of the pie, not give their part away so someone else can make all the money.
Having said that I haven't much sympathy for their situation either.
There's a subtle distinction here. If the music wasn't available for free, would you still rather keep your money and not have any music from your pirated collection?
Hold on, who said anything about not having any of that music?
Most people who have collections of pirated music, if they were forced to choose between paying full price and throwing it away, would likely keep a small fraction of their collections and throw the rest away. For every song that a pirate would rather throw away than pay for, you can conclude that it isn't worth the iTunes price to him.
That is exactly why it's wrong to equate each pirated copy with a lost sale: I might be willing to pay $1 for "War Pigs", but I'm sure not going to pay $1 for "Baby One More Time", even if the only alternative is to go without.
Then there's value in the sense that I was referring to, which is more intrinsically linked to the product itself, not the external factors surrounding it. There's value in an enjoyable music album, even though it's possible to get it for next to nothing. [...] The actual music is, well, enjoyable, and in terms of enjoyment per dollar, it rates reasonably well against any other ways to spend $15.
That sort of "value" is called utility, and it's subjective just like economic value is. You might think that $15 for a CD provides the same utility-per-dollar as some other form of entertainment, but of course not everyone will agree with that.
Personally, I think that spending $1 on an unhealthy, short-lived snack is, far more often than not, worse value than a music track that you'll get to listen to as much as you want, even if it's only 5 or so times over your lifetime.
It sounds like junior bacon cheeseburgers are worth less than $1 to you, then. See how easy that was?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
If you want the RIAA to go away, just ignore them, and everything they create.
Hold on here guy. The RIAA's creations? The RIAA isn't the musicians. The RIAA is an organization that promotes and defends musicians whose labels are affiliated with the RIAA. The RIAA also, if memory serves, is the organization that designates albums as having gone platinum, etc. The RIAA on its own though, creates nothing but lawsuits. I'm not knocking that as a creation. Briefs and discovery requests get downright poetic at times. Well, or attorneys can't keep them under 300 pages of text. Either way. The RIAA easily produces hundreds of books' worth of briefs and motions every year. By your logic, I just don't read those briefs and motions and I'm doing my job in standing against the RIAA. Unless, of course, you really are that dim and can't tell the difference between a group of attorneys and the entertainment industry folks they represent.
Absolutely true. And that's why the (R|MP)IAA should have gotten creative from the get go and figured out how to harness digital distribution rather than attempt to stifle it.
This is a losing battle: you just can't restrict this stuff. In stead you should be the first person to invest tons of capital in harnessing it.
They didn't do that, and while it may or may not be too late for them now they still aren't embracing this new trend. The openness is here. Bandwidth is increasing, CPU power (for cracking your encryption...) is increasing.
Rather than keeping your old business model afloat, adopt a new one and be the first (or the first with your amount of money) to do so. Your market is fading. Find the successor.
17,000 downloads amounts to 17,000 infringements on copyright, incrementally devaluing some of the intrinsic worth that might be ascribed to the ownership of that copyright. The "right to copy" that the copyright holder has is supposed to be exclusive (that is, anyone else requires explicit permission to legally copy the work), so by very definition if somebody else copies the work without permission then that the exclusivity is compromised and it stands to reason that the value of having that copyright (not necessarily monetary value) takes a negative hit because of that. It's certainly not a lost sale... but it's still a loss. So how much, in dollars and cents, is the worth of that copyright being devalued by each infringement? That would be anybody's guess. I think it would probably have to be determined by the situation, although I can't see it being any less than the equivalent of one retail sale. Although I personally think there should be legal consequences for a copyright infringer in addition to any financial obligations to the copyright holder, which I could certainly agree ought to include very heavy fines, although such amounts would be payable to the court or the state, and not an obligation to the copyright holder. And of course, such infringement should burden the infringer with a criminal record that he will have to carry with him until such time as he might be able to get a pardon, if he is ever fortunate enough to qualify for one.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Agreed.
Also agreed, however I never contended that it was objective (in fact, I often bring people up on that exact point in copyright discussions when they start talking about fantasy worlds where all music is according to their tastes). The question is: if you didn't have the option of keeping your dollar and getting the goods, then would it be worth your $1, or $15?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I suppose that people would like whips to be a bit cheaper, but there aren't many whip makers now that the buggy is gone, so the economy of scale is not there.
But that's a consequence of a free market.
If you want something different to happen with music, don't depend on the free market.
and RIAA members pay a lot for that.
Someone with a copy may give it to someone else who may like it.
Rather like playing the song on the radio.
What I was trying to say is that "The guy" is one of the "people" I "know" and people that I talked with about gaming and downloading.
I hitted submit without thoroughly reading my own post. I usualy have this problem when I want to say thing right away and just write down my entire 'though train'. I have this problem in my native language too. There is no language that seems to match my thinking logic.
Here be signatures
Also agreed, however I never contended that it was objective (in fact, I often bring people up on that exact point in copyright discussions when they start talking about fantasy worlds where all music is according to their tastes). The question is: if you didn't have the option of keeping your dollar and getting the goods, then would it be worth your $1, or $15?
Isn't that also a fantasy world? We live in a world where information can be copied. That is the fundamental nature of information in this universe. All the DRM, legal wrangling, and industry propaganda in the world isn't going to change that.
I'm not sure what the subject of the debate is anymore. We agree that a typical pirate would not pay full price for most of the things in this collection if he were forced to choose. We agree that this means those things aren't worth the full price to him. We agree that it's wrong to equate one download with one lost sale.
If your point is that people will sometimes pirate things that they'd otherwise be willing to pay for, well, we agree on that too. Sometimes a download is a lost sale. But I think we'd also agree that that's a minority of cases.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.