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."
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?
I have purchased some albums multiple times due to loss, wear, theft, etc. For example, I have purchased the Back in Black album by AC|DC 6 times: 1 LP, 3 Cassettes, and 2 CDs. When the last CD got scratched beyond repair, I said the heck with it and downloaded the songs. Now, technically, doing that was illegal. But seriously, how many times should I have to purchase the same music?
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.
See, I think you are part of the problem in this.
That may be true, but I really don't care. You'll never get a large enough group of people to boycott, so my feeling is that the best way I can contribute to their demise is to spread their product to all who want it, for free.
While people download their stuff, they can justifiably whine about people ripping them off
I don't care if they feel or sound justified. I just want them to make less money. The fact is that I can download their stuff for free with little chance of repercussions, and I can show others how to do the same. It's already forced them to change quite a bit... DRM free music from all the major studios - wow, what a difference a few years of bloodletting makes!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
From a point of view the parent has a point. Another poster on /. recently posted that he makes less than 10k/year and supports himself, his wife and their two kids in their $40k fixer upper home that was nearly paid off.
How many times a year do you have to call a plumber or electrician, really? There is a line between working for modern convenience and working to support an economy based upon gluttonous consumption. Game consoles, fancy restaurants, Wal*Mart's shelves full of junk are way outside the realm of necessity as far as leading a healthy and fulfilling life.
In a sense we "slave away" in our day jobs for what purpose? I read a paper a while ago (I don't remember from where exactly, but it was a pretty prominent university), dated sometime in 1996 which suggested our economic output was so far beyond that of 50 years prior we could all take a way more vacation than we do without any impact to our culture (in fact I believe it said 2 years per individual). How much MORE is the globe producing ~13 years later?
Property ownership isn't a right? Fifth Amendment? And I'm pretty sure you cannot be denied medical treatment if there is immediate need and if such a denial would lead to death or lifelong suffering.
While I'm not about to throw in the towel on the world I grew up in and know, I am personally looking to shed excess and focus on a more fulfilling (to me) way of life. This includes reducing the amount I spend on "things" and increasing the amount I spend on experiences (travel, guitar lessons right now). At some point, I really do plan on growing as much of my own food as I can, working on maintaining my own house, etc.
What good is having someone else do all that for me if I have to work my life away to pay for it and not enjoy it?
No sig for you!!