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?
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
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!
Damn it, got the arrow pointing the wrong way... I was too concerned about getting it to show up at all what with the < and all.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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
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.
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".
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...
Of course there are lost sales.
For everyone here claiming they run out and buy the CD when they download something they like, there's going to be hundreds of people that ask themselves why they should buy it when they already have it.
Even if everyone who liked the song bought the CD (or purchased it in some other format), that still doesn't give people the right to infringe on other people's copyrights... if a music company is choking themselves of sales because they won't let you sample the content, that's their decision to make.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"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
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.
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."
I think all the attention and lawsuits have pushed CDs out of the "commodity" range and into the "luxury" range
Advancing technology does that all the time, too.
For example, when the horse-and-buggy were the common means of transportation, horses were a commodity. With the invention of the automobile, horses became a luxury.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.