Slashdot Mirror
Safe Harbor Cost the US Music Industry Up To $1B in Lost Royalties Per Year, Study Finds (musicweek.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: For the first time, researchers have quantified the "value gap" and its impact on the US recorded music industry. A study published yesterday (March 29) by Washington, DC-based economy think tank the Phoenix Centre For Advanced Legal And Economic Public Policy Studies attempted to calculate how much revenue the recording industry loses from the distortions caused by the safe harbor provisions. Entitled Safe Harbors And The Evolution of Music Retailing, the study was conducted by T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford and Michael Stern who applied "accepted economic modelling techniques" to simulate revenue effects from royalty rate changes on YouTube. It showed that if YouTube were to pay the recorded music industry market rates, similar to what other streaming services pay, its economic contributions to the sector would be significantly bigger. The premises used by the Phoenix Centre economists was that, according to the music recording industry, YouTube evades paying market rates for the use of copyrighted content by exploiting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions, which allow to post creative content online in good faith and remove it if rights holders so require. Using 2015 data, the Phoenix Centre found that "a plausible royalty rate increase could produce increased royalty revenues in the US of $650 million to over one billion dollars a year."
Half the music posted on YouTube is by the musicians for promotion.
So they are stealing from themselves?
It had to be paid for by the music industry or it would have shown the truth.
The *truth* is that online sharing costs the entertainment industries absolutely *NOTHING*...
The people who download file shares are the same people who never bought new music on casette tapes, 8-trakcs, vinyl albums or compact discs.
They are the same people who copied VHS tapes, or dubbed cd to cassette, or vinyl to 8-track, recorded radio to cassette on their boom-boxes.
In most cases, the media industry actually makes more money from downloaders than those that don't download. Why? Downloaders sample more music, television and movies than non-downloaders. That gives them a larger pool from which to find things they like. That usually means they find more gems worth purchasing.
Yet another false study with false data and false results.
If the music industry had things their way, music would be so restricted that nobody would be allowed to listen to it. At some point they have to realize that people listening to their stuff, even if not paying for it, has a lot of value.
The musicians are stealing from the record companies.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Someone watching a youtube video does not equate to a lost "sale" from a streaming service. The youtube viewer would have never paid to listen to your song.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Just because you didn't make money doesn't mean it cost you anything.
If YouTube were to pay the recorded music industry market rates, similar to what other streaming services pay, its economic contributions to the sector would be 0. This would be so because YouTube would simply not allow copyright music on its service.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Lack of Good Music Costs Them $2 Billion Per Year
This is only true if the money exists to pay the rights holders, this assumes that the people would pay for the music rather than just not listen to it
Musicians make money off of touring and very little from sale of media.
This would matter more to me if it was the artists being hurt and not some bloated corporation that has a long history of stealing from the artists and the customers.
I still miss the days of mp3.com when artists could avoid the music industry entirely and market themselves directly to listeners
Has anyone done any Math/economic modeling of how much the music industry is worth if everyone payed them "properly"? By my terrible estimates, it's worth more than the combined GDP of the entire world.
And they also say piracy costed them infinity+1 dollars.
Do your part. Go pirate some music today.
...I wonder how many billions of dollars excessive copyright terms have cost the U.S. citizenry directly. Half the Beatles are dead, for crying out loud, and it's been almost 50 years since their last album was released. There's no way copyright can encourage them to record another album.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I have never heard of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies so I went to the their website. Unfortunately I can't find anything talking about their funding sources. However, they do have a prominent endorsement on their homepage from Ajit Pai, which is a substantial red flag.
Propublica sadly only has their funding lumped together as "contributions", which doesn't help.
I read the internet for the articles.
by using the loaded word "entitled". For some reason that's a dirty word in America. We don't feel we're entitled to anything 'round here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The entire thing is based on a six-year-old news article that estimates that 40% of Youtube's views are for music.
Then they follow that up with a bunch of garbage economics that purports to show that Youtube pays less money per song than streaming sites like Pandora because not all of those 40% of views pay royalties, and then conclude that making Youtube pay more money for the songs it does pay royalties for will make up the difference.
I'm happy listening to royalty-free music from the last depression: RADIO DISMUKE (http://radiodismuke.com/)
I think the key phrase is:
This is the flaw in the study. The music industry has basically strongarmed and set these rates so that streaming services live on the edge of death and can be killed off at any time. If YouTube (and streaming services) paid what radio stations pay (nothing!) it would be a different story. We won't even get into payola and how radio stations were sometimes paid by the music companies to play their songs...
You know what, while large corporations can bring people straight in from other countries (illegally) where things cost less and undermine my value in the market, excuse me if I don't cry any tears about another part of the market being undermined for some large corporation.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
... Is that none of care how much the music industry loses in royalties, because they already manage to squeeze us for too damn much.
You could argue YouTube derives a good amount of its value from hosting content copyrighted by other people -- because at the end of the day, that's what people want to see, not other people's home movies. However, you also have to realize all of that "value" is derived from the fact that it's the only place to find things that people already think should be free by now.
Wow, you people lining up to identify with Google's interests are totally missing the point. Google is not your friend. This study is about Google paying royalties. Not you.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
I wonder how much cash the US industry loses for people not bothering to deal with the bands they sign, and signing the same lukewarm, heavily made up, autotuned actors that are fungible for the most part.
I would say that if the US labels signed more Trent Reznors and fewer Justin Biebers, that one billion would come back pretty quickly. Stop making bands (with the members picked and the music already wirtten), and start signing new stuff.
Only that much?!? That's nothing compared to what the music industry costs the public.
The music industry never should have allowed the public to find out they are getting such an incredibly lucrative deal from copyright law. This amazingly low number that they have accidentally leaked, is only going to persuade the public that existing safe harbor does not go nearly far enough.
So.. how do we expand safe harbor so that it's less unfairly biased toward the music industry? Let's get this ball rolling and present our ideas to our congresspeople. Are takedown notices too easy and safe? I know there are lots of complaints about automated notices being fraudulent...
because my values changed, i guess paying utility bills, buying food, clothing, and car insurance is more important, and besides that i rather just listen to the radio because it also includes local news and weather, and i rather search youtube for amateurs that upload their music because they do it as a labor of love not because of any profit motive, to hell with the music industry, the music industry is dying because that is exactly what it is "A for-profit industry" and when it comes to spending money music is not high on the list of most people's priorities, you know, stuff like food, rent, clothes, insurance, etc...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
If YouTube didn't have music listed, I wouldn't of found the last 3 albums I just purchased. So I would argue that the "safe harbor" rule helps with sales because how else would if I find out about 1000 Mods or Nightstalker?
Fuck the Music Industry!
Dismantle the damn music industry, they don't pay their artists, fuck them!
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Pop music and Hollywood movies aren't science and the useful arts. They are only frivolous entertainment. Also, "limited times" meant 14 years, renewable once for 28 in the original 1790 copyright law. Now, with extensions passed every 20 years to keep Steamboat Willie out of the public domain, it is virtually perpetual. This locking up ideas asp property is no less a form of censorship than trying to suppress them, and does not promote progress at all.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
If anyone that ever downloaded an MP3 without owning the original worked forked over the much praised reasonable fine of $750,00 then the music industry wouldn't be dying for decades now.
I'm beginning to think the music business is some sort of reanimating undead. It seems to be in a constant state of loss and on its last leg...if you believe some of these studios...
The industry lost millions because of radio. Lost millions because of bootlegs. Lost millions because of casette recorders, millions from CD burners, millions from MP3s and I guess more millions from music streaming sites and YouTube.
Oh! my bad, let's not forget "piracy" that "makes music available" and costs them more millions.
It always makes me wonder if there is so much loss making why does anyone bother to get into the music business and how can they stay in that industry for so many years and become stinking rich.
They keep looking at our pockets counting how much of that money is theirs because somehow they found a way we didn't buy all their shit...conveniently forgetting we paid double, triple and more with TV licences, cable/satellite subscriptions, radio tax if you pay seperately, CDs or records and paid for streaming services...what about our lost discounts?! -do I get a discount if I purchase the right to listen to the same shit on two different mediums?? $750,000 per instance please. Reasonable, right?
(How many songs on radio or TV etc could you have listened to for free on services you pay for while you read?)
Ideally they'd like us to pay on a per listen basis. You know, like when you go see an artist perform (as in see them work) and you pay for that -Right? cause the artist actually works for it. Only fair they get paid.
Hoever it seems clear that labels and studios want to record the work and still charge you the same rate as a performance, as if someone actually worked for it. After all, we're stupid, we don;t know the difference as we can hear the same...and there's a lot of work that goes into mastering and making CD copies...and artists are starving.
Of course they won't reduce prices, allow you to own high quality lossless copies or pay artists fairly; instead they all find all those ways they're theoretically losing money because of faux pas reasons....my heart aches for those poor poor souls.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
TL/DR;
Safe harbor is not costing the industry $1B. It is promoting product.
LONG VERSION;
Reminds me of something I would around a medical complex some time ago. Drug reps on a Wednesday afternoon; w/ large fiberglass lunch trays stacked with brown baggies. One big time Rep would often have a tray worth $110K, w/ 4 or more in the back of his car. So logically one could argue he cost the drug industry 500K a day in lost sales. The reality is promotion, promotion, promotion.
To be honest I don't feel like plowing through another "the record industry is losing billions to streamers!" report. Historically these reports start form a faulty assumption though, so I'm asking does this report address the issue of the feedback process?
In other words when they did the math did they assume that every play or every download that is currently happening would exist in the hypothetical world where the prices were raised?
With the attacks on P2P sharing the record industry always assumed every download was a lost sale and did the math accordingly, so 1 song download =$1-2. This is faulty logic as the majority of the down-loaders would never have purchased the song at the going rate. So it was more like 0.05 * 1 download = one lost sale = $0.1-0.2 per download...
If they use the former logic their entire thesis is garbage as the initial premise and subsequent model are invalid.
...would they make if YouTube did not allow the music to be posted in the first place *gasp*....I guess the studies authors NEVER considered that. Just saw millions of hits and said "X number of dollars time millions of hits equals big money"
What would be a more interesting study would be to find out how far the attitudes of the American people are from what the current law requires.
How may people are actually aware of what the law does and does not allow and when made aware of what it doesn't allow consider the law to be fair.
As a culture we really need to have a discussion about what is 'good' copyright law and what is not.
Perhaps the laws have outlived their usefulness in the digital age and need to be replaced by something more concrete that doesn't favor large corporations but still provides an income stream that encourages the creation and disseminations of art? I believe the library of congress has one copy of every book, why not some registry like that for all digital art and require all streams of that art to reference back to and give royalties to the artist who registered the art?
There could also be some kind of consistent algorithm developed to distributed those royalties. However there should be good consideration given to an easy way to allow people to create a register derivative works, for some 'reasonable' fee. Ideally the majority of Americans would get to define what 'reasonable' meant.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
The music industry must be watching what Netflix is doing to movies, and want to be disrupted in the same way.
This is hand-waving. The sentence "if everyone who downloaded free music paid for it" starts with if, and that doesn't work in practice. The industry likes to say "we are being robbed" but it is from not making the max they might ever ever make in a best case, outside of physics.
Reality is less than that, and the assumption precludes profit ... the stuff that Netflix is making and Hollywood is losing.
What we need to do, is invent a new storage system which is better than cellars, combined with some kind of means whereby the public can access it.
I wonder if the electronics nerds could come up with something. I remember watching a Woody Allen movie called "Take the Money and Run" where Woody's character mentioned his aunt had some kind of special machine. Does anyone know if that was just science fiction, or was it based on a real thing?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
YouTube evades paying market rates for the use of copyrighted content by exploiting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions...
Neutral phrasing, anybody?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Snickers candy bars are priced at $1, sold 20 million units last year.
If we'd priced them at $5 each, we'd have made $100 million, meaning we lost $80 million underpricing Snickers!
Anyone see the faulty logic there?
-Styopa
Somebody should look at all the lobbied for changes to copyright law in favour of rights holders (e.g. Mickey Mouse extensions). They should calculate how much revenue has been increased by these laws, and explain that that is how much the taxpayer has lost due to the law changes. The value will be in the trillions.
What -- the -- fscking -- eff ?!?!? "Distortions caused by the safe harbor provisions"? The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to let utility providers provide a utility without the market being distorted by secondary liability. Lots of businesses and utilities are done in that manner and are licensed to operate under conditions limiting their liability in return for certain mandatory checks (like for age, ID, license), exactly so that business does not get distorted by having to operate under uncontrollable threats and risks.
The safe harbor provisions allow legal operation in a conscientious and controlled manner without constant threat by fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That is not "distortion" unless the "undistorted" model is based on the concept of Original Sin where everybody is guilty and only by grace of the content industry (preferably bought by hefty bribes) might they be saved from going to prison.
This is not how a free society operates. A free society needs clear rules for conducting business within clearly defined regions of expertise. That is not "distortion". Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that the U.S. is ruled dictatorially by media companies considering themselves the law.
The Phoenix Center offer[s] policymakers rigorous economic analysis and legal acumen second to none. --- FCC Chairman Ajit Pai
OK, now I have a better idea of where this research center is coming from...
.
The research seems to take the approach of posing a hypothesis about how the music industry is losing money due to youtube, and then asking RIAA and a record company executive about the hypothesis. Lo and behold, they agree with the hypothesis.
imo, this looks like a for-purchase hit piece against youtube, probably because the RIAA is trying to justify its existence.
Like 30 year old music like Floyds Wall 40.00 fucking dollars.
Suck my nuts you made the CD so fucking cheap if you breath on it it would scratch.
I hoe all you mother fuckers die and the music there is you make you fucking self.
My tape deck still records radio.
1 Billion is pocket change compared to the industries that are possible because of the DMCA. We couldn't have a Slashdot, Facebook, YouTube or any real way for users to post content without the DMCA. In reality though, music sales are probably higher because of promotion through social media than they would be otherwise.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
If they were smart they would guilt-trip everyone by inferring that they would do something good with that money (instead of putting it in RIAA exec's pockets) by also studying the effects of what that money would do for inner-city children if used to buy them books, or something.
Alas, all they do is say, "look how much richer we could be!"
Economics 101. Market rate is the intersection of the supply and demand curve. Or in this case since the supply is infinite and the price is set by the copyright holder, the intersection of the demand curve with the set price.
As you lower the price, the demand goes up. So you can't simply do what the copyright industry always does - take the demand at a price of zero, multiply it by how much you'd like to be paid, and claim that as losses. Otherwise I could just claim plays of my song are worth $1 million each, and because it's been viewed 100,000 times on YouTube without my authorization, I've "lost" $100 billion.
You need to first figure out the shape of the demand curve, then project along it to account for decreased demand as you increase the price, up until you hit the price you're selling at. That'll tell you how much you're really losing. Which in the case of YouTube I suspect is a lot less than the free publicity they get from having their work on YouTube as the background music on someone's home video before YouTube mutes it.
I like to stream PMVs (pr0n music videos). That way I am screwing the labels and pr0n industry. Win win.
So a lobbyist "think tank" found out that our liberties cost them money (which they never had). That is truly unexpected and shocking.
Two Comments:
1). The more you charge for something the less demand there is for that something, unless you have inelastic demand. Music is a dictionary-worthy example of an elastic demand item, so charging more definitely reduces consumption;
2). I thought the DMCA was brought in by, lobbied for and fervently supported by the entertainment industry? So now they are complaining that the DMCA doesn't bring in enough coin?
Why do we have a system whereby if someone sings a sing/writes something, they're entitled to money for it for the rest of their lives +75 years? If I build a chair and sell it, I don't get money every time someone puts their ass on it. Why doe we treat "artists" so special?
Read through the stud and a lot of it is base on guessing than what the actual value is
I am seeing approximate, estimate, according to what public information is available, using data from different year to make extrapolation(pick 2 different years mix the data to give you the highest shock value), mixing in with global currency (If we pay lower rate in foreign countries then using percentage of the calculation for US won't work)
Lastly...."Much of the data available to us is provided by RIAA reports and data releases". SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? Geee I wonder what your independent finding would be
Safe Harbor diverted 1 Billion to the local economies like small family owned businesses from large corporations that are able to use tax loopholes to pay less cooperate taxes. Who knew fair digital dealing would make the local economy grow.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The researchers forgot to include The Kopimashin in their turd/study...
"My funded study says im harmed"
Break up the *AA on RICO. Now.
A teen girl with depressive disorder is left to the mercy of her mental illness Official movie released by truly talented film director Emma Barrett http://butterfly-in-a-tunnel.tumblr.com
http://www.takethereinsfilm.com
A. How had is it to lie? B. If you whine about losing that amount of money (for doing nothing) how much do you really make?? C. If you make that much, shut up!
I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with what I said. I mean, none of it was wrong, per se, but it really had nothing to do with the post you were replying to.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Please Halp you pal out, I want to BuY with my money some music (the good ard core shit eh), all I have is lots and lots of time and my skimpy bikini.
is my lucky day?
my ADD DRESS is one white silk gown with 2 + 2 = 4
Quick everyone, call your members of congress. Tell them an industry funded study showed that the DMCA is costing the studios money and should be abolished!
Give us cash
Requiem for the American Dream
Interesting situation. Actually I write and I have rarely done some video content, and also assisted some video content producers.
On the lines of the fourth group, it's an "if things are done right" situation still. In the situation you described, there is no safe harbor involved. If such a thing were posted on YouTube, for example, and they were taking payment via PayPal, YouTube is not the proper target. Rather, file suit and discovery against the entity that is directly accepting/charging money for the material. It's not a trivial matter. The material needs to be registered with the copyright office and such, which for some reason, even a lot of prolific smaller creators rarely do. Yes, there are things that can throw a wrench in the plans (out of country thieves), but historically I've had compatriots that were successfully making a living off nothing but lawsuit revenue from people who stole their otherwise-free work to sell.
I'm not certain what causes discrepancies in YouTube experiences. Really, we can only give anecdotal information. What we claim happened to us, or to somebody we know. So if we take it on good faith...
In general, a properly-filed DMCA takedown on YouTube will "officially" result in a removal of the infringing content within 72 business hours. In my experience, a perfectly-formatted DMCA takedown that successfully goes through the automated system will result in a removal within about 36 business hours and often within five. From personal experience (and again, anecdotal, so you'll just have to trust me or not as you see fit), the vast majority - or possibly all - of people I've spoken to who have not had success with takedowns encounter problems because they don't do it right. Mind you I don't believe that something made "By lawyers, for lawyers" is exactly easy to do right anyway. If I polled ten random people and said "Follow these directions and create a takedown notice", I'd expect zero of the resulting notices to be fully correct. The takedown has a very specific format, headers should be included, and information should be precise and verifiable. If a human needs to go into it to figure out the data, it slows stuff down.
If you can qualify for Content ID, that's generally the best. That system is automated and takes things down proactively, or allows you to monetize or fully-remove things that it discovers.
In general though, I've given up on giving advice. There's upsides and downsides to all the things and they are decidedly complicated. For a lot of people, the cost of registering pieces can exceed the revenue for example, but that registration can be necessary for certain actions.
For your situation specifically, I'd suggest looking at content type (Exclusive rights or no? Registered if so? Is it cost effective to do so? - Any "no"s? Then it might be an issue) and the filing process (Ducks. Every quacker in a row precisely. Zero quack-stacks.) because if filed "properly", no human ever looks at it and it's 100% automated, so you can't get a rep phoning it in. Start at this page on protecting your copyright on YouTube and remember that the initial learning is the hard part.
Aside from personal experiences and advice and such, really the main article seems to be more pointing to the fact that the big labels are trying to capitalize on experiences like yours to drum up support despite not really being on your side at all. They want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. For example, if YouTube lost Safe Harbor, chances are pretty high that you would never be able to put videos there. Nor would most of anybody else. YouTube would likely cease to exist, as would all of the other video sharing sites, because the moment somebody posts something that somebody decides is infringing, YouTube/Google get sued over it. It's not worth the risk, so, no more YouTube at all and every place that does accept video will likely require you to pay them to post your video there because if you post something bad, they get in trouble for it.
@Whee
Safe Harbor SAVES the world $1 BILLION from greedy royalty payments.
Does anybody believe the royalty collectors are paying anyone but the few superstars elected by industry insiders, while most musicians see nothing and starve?
Lots of ways that could be speculated as to why it failed. In general, the only time it will take days is in the event that the request is not perfectly readable by the automated system. Like I said, my requests and such are acted on within hours, and if you can qualify for ContentID, it's definitely a very good idea to do so. "Why should it take hours?" Because computers are not instant. Even just putting a video up takes hours for it to be seen in all the places, days for it to get into search systems in certain ways, and so on. Get the waterfowl lined up and the system works much better for you.
It would be nifty if more ISPs allowed that. These days, the vast majority of major ISPs in the US don't allow people to run their own servers unless it's a business account. Here, getting a business account with Comcast for example would bump a YouTuber's monthly cost to $250 up from $35.
That's not the problem though. Safe Harbor protects -all- pipelines from -all- user content. Take it away from one and you take it away from all of them. This means that if somebody posted something on their own personal server, the rightsholders can sue the ISP for not policing that. The likelihood of ISPs allowing any kind of hosting at all becomes even more slim than it is now, and the cost of just getting a normal connection would invariably skyrocket to make up for the costs of lawsuits over people who could potentially cause problems. So it comes back to a Baby, bathwater, out you both go situation.
A question begs here: If many people (myself included) make more money off what other people would normally perceive as their creations being stolen, what prevents that from becoming the standard? Folks are upset to a degree because the big studios and a lot of small creators want to continue running things the exact same way and have it continue to work, not adjusting to the reality. Then if the reality changes, fight that change to continue making money.
Imagine what the world would be like if...
Paved Roads Cost The US Farrier Industry $100,000 in Lost Revenue Per Year, Study Finds
Analysts have released a study that shows that farriers have lost significant revenue as a result of paved roads. "All these paved roads are great, I mean, they get people places faster and don't wear down, and yeah, they make it so the horseshoes wear down faster and need to be replaced sooner. But we're finding that more people are opting to skip the horses entirely and get their transportation from these horseless carriages and automobile things. People are using the roads to play games on in quiet residential locations and these car things go zinging down them faster than horses and without pooping. We've gotten laws enacted to ensure things like any car that scares a horse must be immediately dismantled there on the side of the road, in order to help protect and encourage the use of horses. As farriers were are very interested in the transportation and work industry and we want to be certain people get to their travel destinations and have good ways to handle their fields, and these paved roads are just not helping. They protect from wagon ruts, but they also make it far too easy to drive a car down. We figure if all those new cars had to buy horseshoes like a proper horse did, we'd be making a lot more money."
That isn't meant to be an exact same thing, so no need to pick apart differences. ;) The idea though is that instead of adapting to what is reality now, it's all working on keeping things as close to the way they were as possible. Their way is making lots of money, but they are sure they could make much more if they could just put a listening computer on every ear and extract $1.25 directly from every human's bank account if they hear more than 10 seconds of a song. Market rules no longer apply.
Take your videos for example. Thousands of views stolen? People making money often work off hundreds of thousands or millions of views. Is the video made in such a way that it's trivial to
@Whee
People not buying music because it's crap cost the music industry a trillion dollars.
You do realize, of course, that this is one of the many Koch-financed "think tanks" that have no agenda other than to promote the idea that business should be able to do whatever it wants without regulation.