They focused more on the effect of the content of games on our society, but I almost think that the time and energy dedicated both to playing and creating games has had a bigger effect on us than the content.
What's hard is that to be able to tell the true economic difference between an artist who says it's ok to copy their work, and one who vigorously persues the file-sharing public, is that we don't really have a control group and test group. even if an artist were friendly to copying (and the record label allowed it) for a specific work, and not another, trying to determine the relative popularity between the two with or without allowed file sharing seems like a statistical nightmare to figure out.
Adding to that - most file-sharers never check anything to see if it's ok to copy a specific item, so the effect of allowing or not allowing it may have no noticeable effect.
So all we're left with is speculation, for the most part. It would be nice if a disinterested third party could find a way to come up with the reality behind it all, but it is so complex that a clinical approach would miss real-world factors.
Then you have to ask if making the laws so that artists make as much money as possible is really the goal. Protecting artists is important but it's not the only thing.
Personally I try to make sure I buy anything I download for convenience, even if it is a trial copy of software and I am able to accomplish my tasks before the trial expires, because I think they deserve it. This is a recent effort, in years gone by I did not do this.
Once I have gotten the benefit (watched it, heard it, used it) how very easy it is to NOT pay for something, (media or software) if I don't HAVE to. And even worse, this is true even if it is priced at a "no big deal" price. I have to make myself do it. And therein is where I'd love to see studies of the end effect to the artist or publisher of file sharing. How do the new sales compare to lost sales? how does brand awareness affect future products? How does a "penniless youth" following mature into a following with means over time? And if someone decided, based opn those findings, that file-sharing specific media was allowable, how many current consumers would stop paying?
Slashdot Mirror
Still, a lot of good info.
Eric
---------------
(there must be a faster way to send messages)
Eric
----------------------
Adding to that - most file-sharers never check anything to see if it's ok to copy a specific item, so the effect of allowing or not allowing it may have no noticeable effect.
So all we're left with is speculation, for the most part. It would be nice if a disinterested third party could find a way to come up with the reality behind it all, but it is so complex that a clinical approach would miss real-world factors.
Then you have to ask if making the laws so that artists make as much money as possible is really the goal. Protecting artists is important but it's not the only thing.
Personally I try to make sure I buy anything I download for convenience, even if it is a trial copy of software and I am able to accomplish my tasks before the trial expires, because I think they deserve it. This is a recent effort, in years gone by I did not do this.
Once I have gotten the benefit (watched it, heard it, used it) how very easy it is to NOT pay for something, (media or software) if I don't HAVE to. And even worse, this is true even if it is priced at a "no big deal" price. I have to make myself do it. And therein is where I'd love to see studies of the end effect to the artist or publisher of file sharing. How do the new sales compare to lost sales? how does brand awareness affect future products? How does a "penniless youth" following mature into a following with means over time? And if someone decided, based opn those findings, that file-sharing specific media was allowable, how many current consumers would stop paying?
Eric