Slashdot Mirror
What Various Studies Really Reveal About File-Sharing
Dangerous_Minds writes "Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid has an interesting look at file-sharing. It all started with a review of a Phoenix study that was used to promote SOPA. Wilson says that the study was long on wild claims and short on fact. While most writers would simply criticize the study and move on, Wilson took it a step further and looked in to what file-sharing studies have really been saying throughout the years. What he found was an impressive 19 of 20 studies not getting any coverage. He launched a large series detailing what these studies have to say on file-sharing. The first study suggests that file-sharing litigation was a failure. The second study said that p2p has no effect on music sales. The third study found that the RIAA suppresses innovation. The fourth study says that the MPAA has simply been trying to preserve its oligopoly. The fifth study says that even when one uses the methodology of one download means one lost sale, the losses amount to less than $2 per album. The studies, so far, are being posted on a daily basis and are certainly worth the read."
I parse what you write as "i'm a moron, so i don't care about parsing what other people write with any level of comprehension"
you weren't in germany in the early 1940's by any chance?
No. It's copying certain data without permission. I cannot fathom how anyone could perceive that as being a much more severe problem than jaywalking. They may or may not be losing potential profit, but that is all.
I cannot see how copying music is a "huge" problem even as someone who supports copyright. We have much, much, much larger problems to worry about, and oftentimes, dealing with copyright infringers is both a waste of time and taxpayer money (at least when it's the government dealing with them).
I know geeks (and those with asperger's syndrome) usually think in this kind of 0/1 binary way. Since it's just data and your copy will directly only generate cost of the bandwidth, then there must be no other costs involved, right? That, however, is far from truth and I find people with this kind of reasoning to be either extremely stupid or lying. Sure, pirate if you must, but at least be honest about it and stop lying to yourself and others.
If you're suggesting that they make a product that can compete with the pirated versions, then that is a much more sound strategy. That means no DRM, good customer support, and hassle-free. But still, there will be those who will not buy no matter what.
Gaming industry is pretty much coming to this. Instead of DRM it means games that are so integrated into online world that there is no way to pirate them. It also means F2P and Facebook games. Many slashdotters hate this, as can be seen on Diablo 3 stories and stories about Facebook games. However, it is entirely result of the rampant piracy. I guess this wasn't the answer people were looking for when they said game companies should innovate and provide better product instead of using DRM, but well, they just got themselves to blame.