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."

16 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Exactly right! by Stormx2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    1. Re:Exactly right! by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      RIAA: That'll be $7220 in "restitution", plus $750,000 minimum in statutory damages. Or you can just use the suicide booth down the hall; if you make a statement as you enter to the effect that "this is what happens to downloaders", we won't hound your family for more than half of the judgement.

    2. Re:Exactly right! by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Download != Lost Sale

      This is especially true for me, since I always check RIAA Radar before purchasing an album. If it's an RIAA artist, then they don't get any money.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Exactly right! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Informative

      That got shot down; a judge ruled that just having the file available for download did not constitute damages unless there was proof that that file had been downloaded.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Exactly right! by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, I think you are part of the problem in this. On one hand, you say the RIAA doesn't deserve money from you. On the other, you illegally download their creations, sending a clear message that you have some demand for what they offer. If you want the RIAA to go away, just ignore them, and everything they create. While people download their stuff, they can justifiably whine about people ripping them off (because even though 17,000 downloads != 17,000 lost sales, it's also true that 17,000 downloads != 0 lost sales).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:Exactly right! by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    6. Re:Exactly right! by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll never get a large enough group of people to boycott

      Then how do you explain their abysmal sales? Piracy? No, the years-long established boycott is working, but they're not blaming me and our boycott, they're blaming you and your piracy.

      Stop downloading that crap. Download their competetion, the indies, instead. Most indies WANT you to download.

    7. Re:Exactly right! by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture (I've abridged the quote drastically)

      File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.

      There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content.

      There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it.

      There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high.

      Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

      From the perspective of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.

      Type B (try before you buy) can do nothing but increase sales, and every study not financed by the recording industry has concluded that "pirates" spend far mor of their money on music than non-pirates.

      Lessig's book is available online under a GPL license, as well as in bookstores. Oddly, being able to legally "pirate" it hasn't kept it out of the bookstores, despite the atti-pirates' bleating that if you can get it for free you won't pay for it.

      Only thieves have the mindset "if I can get it for free I won't buy it". Most people have scruples. Unfortunately the people in the RIAA labels don't.

    8. Re:Exactly right! by StellarFury · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh shut up. Seriously, "wage slavery"? You've got to be trolling.

      Unless you want to supply your own means to live - farming crops, building and repairing your house, getting your own water, making your own clothes - then you have to get a job for money so you can pay other people to do those things. This is not slavery, it's an almost-universally adopted alternative to self-sufficiency.

      Property ownership and medical attention are not rights. We have the freedom to PURSUE life, liberty and happiness, not the right to them. You work in exchange for modern conveniences. It's a very, very complex barter system, but it most certainly not slavery. Suck it up.

    9. Re:Exactly right! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      This person is actually the operator of a torrent site, not a peer. He's already received fines and prison time for the sharing others have done using his site. The RIAA/MPAA asked for restitution in addition, which is based on actual damages. (The typical sky-high figures are fines and statutory damages.)

      Correct. And where this ruling becomes relevant to the statutory damages civil cases is that (a) the disproportion of the statutory damages being sought to the actual damages has been decried judicially and is the basis for a constitutional attack in several of the civil cases, such as Capitol Records v. Thomas, SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, and others, and (b) the theories which the RIAA lawyers have used to justify the size of the statutory damages are the identical theories whose logic was just shot down by Judge Jones.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    10. Re:Exactly right! by hobbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought I had spelled it out enough for you, but evidently not.

      When you are a slave, no matter what you do, you cannot gain your freedom.
      When you face potential damages for downloading copyrighted songs that you don't want to pay for, you have the choice of not downloading them.

      Do you understand the difference between the two situations? Then you understand that your forefathers would be horrified at your cheapening their experience by likening it to your own position.

      The straw man is yours: I never said that you said anything about your black brothers being inferior. You said that the position you would find yourself in if you downloaded music illegally (facing damages) is like slavery (i.e., unavoidable). The implication is clear: you have no choice but to download music without the permission of the copyright holder. The law says that this is stealing, so you imply that you have no choice but to steal.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  2. Common sense prevails! by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  3. 1. perform a song by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. It's a simple matter of cost vs benefit. by fructose · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  5. Living proof by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Economics 101... by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.