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
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.
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...
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.
"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.