please let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from the ping list.
Posted on 03/30/2004 10:05:35 AM PST by Hodar
A myth exploded
By : Tuesday 30 March 2004, 07:11
A study conducted jointly by researchers from Harvard Business School and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, has found that in 2002 music sales were unaffected by the increase in file sharing, and the industry may have even benefited from it.
Researchers looked at data from file-sharing services was used and 1.75 million downloads during a 17-week period in 2002.
They said that while there were a large number of downloads during this period most people who shared files appear to be individuals who would not have bought the albums that they downloaded anyway.
In addition the Harvard/North Carolina study found that in a "worse case scenario" it would take more than 5000 downloads to reduce album sales by a single copy.
The authors said: "If this worst-case scenario were true, file sharing would have reduced CD sales by two million copies in 2002. To provide a point of reference, CD sales actually declined by 139 million copies from 2000 to 2002."
Downloads helped flog the most popular CDs - for the top 25 per cent, 150 downloads increased sales by one copy. For the least popular albums (less than 36,000 copies sold) a small negative effect was seen.
The researchers also concluded that only 45 per cent of files downloaded in the US were hosted on computers in the same country.
This suggests that a legal strategy targeting mostly the US is unlikely to have any impact.
If the statistics are correct, the music industry might have to look closer to home for the reasons. Some oldies suggest that most of the popular beat combos peddled these days aren't that good and say nothing to teenagers anyroadmap. µ
It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for, unless the copyright holder says you can. Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.
Not to say that I approve of the RIAA's tactics in cracking down on this stuff -- most of their targets are small-time anyway. They'd be better served in trying to stop real piracy rings rather than a few file-swappers.
I really hate this whole issue because both sides are acting like jerks.
If I produced a product for profit, and people stole it, but I wound up making more money from it, then I would encourage this "stealing". Liberals don't understand marketing, and that's why most don't own businesses and get angry at file sharing.
And you kept it to yourself all this time? Geez, you could of save us all a lot of trouble!
I disagree with your premise. Does listening to a song on the radio result in lost sales to the group? How about listening to the song on your friends stereo? No, of course not. This is how you are 'introduced' to music; some of it you will like, some of it you will not like.
Filesharing results in being able to listen to lower quality (MP3 is NOT as clean as a CD) songs. If you like the music, you may buy the album, or attend a concert. If you never heard the song, the odds are close to zero that you will ever either buy an album, or attend the concert.
Just as cassette tapes did not destroy the video industry (in fact, it accelerated it), cassette tapes did not destroy the RIAA, nor has CD-R destroyed the industry. We burn the songs we like, and play them in our own 'mix' CD. I own over 300 CD's, and not every CD is loaded with good songs. So, I rip the songs I like, and burn them. I loan my CD's to friends, who may find that they like the CD; then usually buy their own copy, or will buy a different album from the same group, and share that with me.
File Sharing is not hurting the RIAA, despite the claims. Just like cassettes, VHS tapes, CD-R or DVD burners will not hurt. They help promote and sell.
Oh, I agree the labels are being completely stupid about this. Instead of cracking down on the freeloaders, they should be flooding the net with samples and working on electronic delivery as a product that would allow them to sell a much larger library at much lower costs. I know that some people use this system the "right" way -- get a couple of tracks to discover a new band or album, then go out and buy it if they like it -- the RIAA should be catering to thse types rather than driving them away.
But it still doesn't excuse people who are just trying to get something for nothing.
This is where you are mistaken. If I download a bazillionty songs, and never buy a single CD, the RIAA still benefits. Think of the Costco free-food samples. You try the frozen pizza, in fact you help yourself to 6 pieces, yet do not buy the product. Every weekend, you help yourself to more free samples, and every weekend, you don't buy. But, some day you are with a friend who is planning a party, and you say "Those frozen pizza's tasted pretty good". Your friend, based upon your good word then purchases 1 or more of those pizzas. The free samples result in your word-of-mouth advertizing, which is the highest goal that marketing strives for.
please let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from the ping list.
You're missing my point. Aside from the economics of the situation, I'm saying that it is morally wrong for people to download music they haven't paid for. As I've pointed out, I don't have much of a problem for people who use it for sampling stuff, but even that is morally tenuous because they are doing so without the permission of the copyright holder (who, IMO, needs to re-think that position in the first place.
Your analogy breaks down quickly because in the case you describe, Costco is providing the samples themselves, as a free sample or loss-leader. A more accurate example would be someone helping themselves (without permission) to free samples by opening boxes and taking a bite -- some of them will buy, but you could hardly justify their actions.
Let the owners of the intellectual property decide.
This is true, I agree so far.
A more accurate example would be someone helping themselves (without permission) to free samples by opening boxes and taking a bite -- some of them will buy, but you could hardly justify their actions.
Nope, because now the product has been tampered with, and the quantity and quality of the goods is altered.
Consider radio. Does air play serve to promote the song? yes. Can I record a radio show? yes.
We both agree that the RIAA has made the wrong decision, in that file sharing actually promotes sales. I noticed that some key points brought out by Sound and Vision magazine are missing. For example, the number of new artists released in the past 5 years, is lower than the new releases of 30 years ago. So, we have a larger public, but far fewer choices. This too impacts sales in a negative manner, but this tidbit is missing from this article.
The RIAA exists for a single purpose; to make money. They do this by promoting artists and releasing albums. What ever creates sales, thereby increases profits. Given a choice between file sharing, or Janet Jackson's boob .... I think I prefer file sharing.
I'm sincerely delighted you brought this up. When I buy an album, I buy the materialistic part; but according to the RIAA, I also bought a lifetime 'license' to listen to my album. The materialistic part of the price ($17.95) is neglible, as it is literally around 12-20 cents. Therefore, the bulk of my CD costs is buying the license, right?
I owned over 300 albums, I paid for them myself; thus I owned the license already. Yet, when I wanted to replace the media from vinyl to CD (of which the RIAA insists is cost neglible), I had to re-purchase my 'license' to listen to the same album again.
I did not receive a 'discount' or the opportunity to trade my Album for the CD and only pay the materials cost. No, I had to re-purchase the entire album. Now, multiply my CD collection by 2, for I paid to replace each and every one of my albums. Thus, the owners of the intellectual property defrauded me of over $5,000; and I am hardly unique in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.