Slashdot Mirror


Survey Suggests P2P Users Buy More Music

elashish14 writes "A new survey commissioned by Google suggests that music listeners who utilize P2P filesharing services buy 30% more music than non-sharers. The survey also probed users' opinions on enforcement practices. Users were strongly against either throttling or disconnecting users' internet services, but the majority suggested also that search engines should block access. 52% of Americans also said that downloading infringing content should be a punishable offense."

19 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Big Shock by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not all people are dumbasses, and some actually prefer to make sure that what they end up blowing their money is not complete garbage. Is that a crime?

    1. Re:Big Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not all people are dumbasses,

      [citation needed]

    2. Re:Big Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are not a dumbass, therefore not all people are dumbasses.

      QED

      Feel free to disagree with my premise.

    3. Re:Big Shock by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Is that a crime?"

      It would seem so, since I saw similar survey results clear back in 2000... that is, 13 years ago.

      The music industry has known about this. Their campaigns and lawsuits are not about fairness. They are about screwing as many people over for $$$ as possible.

    4. Re:Big Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is this fallacy called? Proof by seduction?

    5. Re:Big Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who put forth the effort to download music are more likly to have an interested in music.

    6. Re:Big Shock by Genda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think so. I think its way bigger. I think they want to have the right to control all media. They want to own "The Absolute Right" to control the traffic of all IP. This means draconian punishment for listening to/viewing owned media today, but in the future means that they will need to be paid every time you hear, or watch, or use, or make physical items from, or create Intellectual property (including the future IP involved in producing 3D printable goods.)

      This is just one of the many corporate wars on what will be possible in the future. We will either build a robust free (as in liberty) system of trading IP not produced by the bankers, or our heads will be fitted with meters from birth and we'll never escape our indebted servitude. We'll either be exalted to the stars or die in the dust of our own greed and petty avarice. So while most people (52%) just regurgitate the stupid they're spoon fed at the theaters while they watch that 10 minute COKE commercials that they paid $15 to see, people with a measurable brain wave and an interest in something other than Jersey Shores, will mourn the loss of Aaron Swartz, and work diligently to preserve a future in which life is worth living.

    7. Re:Big Shock by shentino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody will listen to studies like this, because the producers with a deathgrip on the market don't care about profits. They care about control of the market.

      Which is why they get all whiny and bitchy at TWO things:

      1. piracy
      2. artists bypassing them and going directly to customers

      As far as they are concerned, it doesn't matter if money is dodging their own pockets by fair means or foul.

      They don't just want to succeed. They also want everyone else to fail.

  2. Far cry 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hated Far Cry 2, thought it was a terrible game and regretted buying it. A few weeks back I saw a stream of Far cry 3 and thought it looked fun so torrented it. This lead to be really enjoying the game and completing the pirated version, which lead me to buy it for Co Op, with another friend who bought it on my recommendation and a 3rd who grabbed it after.

    I pirated 1 copy of the game (-£0)
    I sold 3 copies (+75)

    Ubisoft can thank me later.

    1. Re:Far cry 3 by Genda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You missed something, what part of they still want the $25 for the pirated copy plus damages for circumventing their business model is unclear. In the eyes of purveyors in this society today... you are an end-looser. A guy in China ate a bowl of spicy soup that burned a hole though his stomach because the restaurant was able to shave a few pennies off of the more expensive chili paste by buying a cheap chemical substitute, that just turned out to be lethal. To the modern corporation you are simply a resource to be bled dry and discarded (at both ends of the buy and sell equation.) Your labor is bought wholesale, and sold to users by the corporation at retail. You buy other services and products from corporations at retail prices for which they buy or manufacture for wholesale or less. Labor is a commodity, they buy life insurance policies on you hoping you'll die and make them a windfall. When profit supersedes humanity, the final use of human beings is predictably inhumane.

    2. Re:Far cry 3 by rjr162 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if the co-op had worked with the pirated version? Would you had still purchased the legit copy?

    3. Re:Far cry 3 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm glad we have avoided going down that road in Europe. We have strong employment laws that prevent us being treated like cattle, for example, and strong consumer protection laws that prevent companies leeching off us. It isn't perfect but it does for the most part work quite well.

      That's why I feel bad for Americans when they talk about such laws taking away their freedom to made deals. The employee and the consumer are almost always the weaker party, easy for the corporation they are trying to strike a bargain with to crush. Sure enough American workers have few rights and few holidays, and often no sick leave*, and consumers get boned all the time.

      * Did you know that in Europe if you take holiday time off work and get sick, you can get the holiday time back? Holiday time necessary for a human being's mental wellbeing, employers have to pick up the cost of people being sick (within reason).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This goes to show that more than half of the USian population believes in the tyranny produced by the power elite and believe in punishing people for non-crimes. That the population of the US is so badly educated and brainwashed that they believe these things. It goes to show that the US is not a civilized nation with rational, reasonable laws that make sense in any sense of the word.

    Waves hand.

    I believe downloading infringing material should be punishable.

    I also believe that the current penalties are absurd and way out of proportion with the offense.

    And, just for the hell of it, I also think current RIAA anti-piracy efforts are counter productive and they should instead focus on delivering their content in ways that make infringement less appealing, rather than ramping up DRM and suing people.

    But hey that's just me supporting the tyranny of the power elite.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  4. Survey says: everyone pirates but pirates buy more by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Based on the article's writeup of the survey, the survey seems to suggest that everyone is "pirating", with the only difference being where they get their music from. As we'd expect, P2P users had larger libraries with a larger proportion of their library being made up of illicitly acquired music, but in raw numbers, they still purchased more than non-P2P users. Meanwhile, non-P2P users had smaller libraries and were found to be acquiring music through shady means nearly as much, with the distinction being that they were getting it from friends and family as opposed to from the Internet.

    Long story short, P2P or not, people are pirating these days, but the P2P folks have a larger appetite for music, and that includes purchasing it in larger quantities. Nothing really earth-shattering for most of us, though hopefully it'll be a wakeup call to the RIAA and their kind.

    Well, we can hope, at least.

  5. Re:Control for interests? by Genda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You have to understand the mentality... they've been raping and robbing artists for a hundred years. So when you're dealing with cheats and criminals, all they can see is when they aren't getting paid its a crime and you must be cheating them. Its called projecting and its as common as sunrise. Problem only exists when these scum bags buy laws codifying and ultimately imposing their criminality on society.

  6. Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is STUPID... I can go over to Spotify for free this very second and listen to nearly anything my heart desires. Then when I hear something I just love, I listen to the whole album, and I find damn that's wonderful and I BUY IT because I want it in high fidelity. Or its a piece of rancid wombat feces and I flush it. I buy tremendously more music this way, try things I would never consider buying then go wow, that's not bad and a sale is made that wasn't ever gonna happen.

    So the media moguls don't give a flying fsck about selling content. They care about controlling access and creating artificial scarcity so they can bleed the public. That is all, there is no sane argument to the contrary, no meaningful defense, no "But, what about..." There are only two futures, the Spotifys will inherit the earth or the current Media Moguls will legislate free (as in liberty) access into oblivion.

  7. Re:Old technology was awesome by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Converting to digital at CD standard loses nothing you can hear. The frequency range covers all of human hearing, and the quantitisation noise is too small to notice on a properly normalised track. What you hear isn't anything inherent to the CD medium: It's just that the preferred style of mixing has changed in the intervening years, something commonly referred to as the 'loudness wars,' as labels seek to make the music stand out more in a public setting by increasing the average volume at the expense of dynamic range.

    With MP3s, you get as good as you allocate bits for. 64kbit music is going to sound like rubbish, but you'd need superhuman hearing to notice anything changed at 384kbit. Better, newer codecs can easily match that quality at a lower bitrate - MP3 is quite dated now, technologically. It achieved such dominance while it was the best around that when better codecs came along it was too entrenched to displace.

  8. Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. by shentino · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't have a choice.

    The 99 percent police crackdown proved that the elite are willing and able to use force to silence their critics. Said elite also hold a collective monopoly on the mass media that wanna-be politicians need to get elected.

    Finally, the elite use their money to support whichever candidate will kiss their ass, and they threaten to support the opposition if they don't. You either kiss their ass or get sold out to someone who will.

    The only way you will get into a federal office is with the backing of the power elite. If they don't like you, they will:

    a) Bankroll your opponent's campaign
    b) Refuse you air time entirely
    c) Violently suppress your wanna-be constituents

    The power elite already have the country by the balls and they know it.

  9. Re:Control for interests? by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    In your knee-jerk parroting of the "filesharing isn't theft" semantic argument, you missed the AC's point: to be meaningful the survey would need to control for the users' level of interest.

    This is a classic example of the correlation-equals-causation fallacy. While it's being trumpeted by filesharers as proof that it results in people paying for more music and movies, it can just as easily be interpreted as indicating that people who are sufficiently into commercial media that they spend 30% more money on it, also fileshare it. Which would be totally unsurprising, and also a lot less of a challenge to the MAFIAA's argument, because it's possible that these people would've spent 40% more if they didn't have access to stuff without paying. Or maybe not. This survey doesn't tell us.

    Don't be like a Creationist, looking for and latching onto any dubious study that seems to support the belief you already hold. Demand – as AC suggested – better studies that control for interest, to show whether or not your religious beliefs are sound or not.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/