Independent File Sharing studies

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, my point is that the academic consensus is that piracy causes harm, although there are studies holding either way on the issue.

Any study that unequivocally attributes a large scale problem to a single cause for the ENTIRE harm, is so flawed as to be laughable.

[plib]

First you quote Tschmuck, and then Liebowitz. Tschmuck actually doesn't think very much of the "unrealistic assumptions" in Liebowitz's study (quite apart from the fact that Liebowitz was a fellow of the Heartland Institute - hardly a recommendation). Maybe you should also link to a more detailed summary of what Tschmuck has to say, in particular his conclusion:

As a conclusion, Tschmuck offers the following (translation L.D.):

Anyone who wants to belong to future winners has to abandon traditional business models and harvest new opportunities for making profit. The battle against music file-sharing networks is thereby definitly not a sensible way to pursue. One should rather consider how these new forms of using music can be economically capitalized, which brings us to the discussions on music flat-rates and new types of copyright.

Actually, maybe you should just find a better source than "Copyhype" for your links.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Perhaps a modest proposal is in order to avoid that messiness: Given Stonetools' comments above, instead of using the terms "stealing", "file sharing" or "copyright infringement", can we simply use "genocide" to describe the practice of downloading a file without colour of right?

But, but.... Is it genocide of the children?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Sidebar

Oh good, I can see this thread is already on the verge of descending into the usual "copyright infringement is not stealing", "yes it is", "no it's not..." argument.

Perhaps a modest proposal is in order to avoid that messiness: Given Stonetools' comments above, instead of using the terms "stealing", "file sharing" or "copyright infringement", can we simply use "genocide" to describe the practice of downloading a file without colour of right?

I'd be OK simply with using " copyright infringement,". What its called is less important than noting that it causes substantial negative effect.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by plib

First you quote Tschmuck, and then Liebowitz. Tschmuck actually doesn't think very much of the "unrealistic assumptions" in Liebowitz's study (quite apart from the fact that Liebowitz was a fellow of the Heartland Institute - hardly a recommendation). Maybe you should also link to a more detailed summary of what Tschmuck has to say, in particular his conclusion:



Actually, maybe you should just find a better source than "Copyhype" for your links.

Both of those writers nevertheless agree that piracy causes harm. That's the issue.
How to proceed is a seperate question. Note that apart from vaguely referring to "new business models" ( Just what ARE these new business models? Are they like unicorns?) Tschmuck doesn't offer anything substantial on how to proceed.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Both of those writers nevertheless agree that piracy causes harm. That's the issue.
How to proceed is a seperate question. Note that apart from vaguely referring to "new business models" ( Just what ARE these new business models? Are they like unicorns?) Tschmuck doesn't offer anything substantial on how to proceed.

Actually both of them don't. The only studies that Tschmuck seems to consider reliable are those of Olberholzer-Gee and Strumpf of Harvard, in reference to which I quote your original post:

a handful of studies have argued that online piracy has no effect, or even a positive effect, on music sales — most notably an earlier study by Olberholzer-Gee and Strumpf

Without perusing all their academic research I tend not to have a problem with that as I place a bit more credence in a couple of Harvard profs than Liebowitz in his sagebrush tower of academe somewhere in Texas. Tschmuck doesn't actually say that piracy causes harm, indeed if he is in agreement with Olberholzer-Gee and Strumpf then he believes the opposite. He acknowledges the existence of a substitution effect of file-sharing and record sales, but considers it balanced by a “network effect” in the form of new music discovered via file-sharing. That corresponds to anecdotal evidence I hear.

Which leaves Liebowitz. Nuff said.

You appear to be correct that he doesn't recommend specifics of a new business model but he does talk about "flat rates" and new forms of copyright, sounds a bit like the (successful so far) Netflix/Spotify model to me. He does seem confident that the current oligopolistic business structure and pursuing file sharing networks is on a hiding to nothing, which seems fairly self-evident.

Whether the suits are going to make as much as they're used to under those models is debatable, but that's what happens when an industry changes. One of the specific points he makes in his blog is that there is a shift in the balance of power from the intermediaries to the artists. That in turn is likely to mean more recompense for the artist and less for the intermediaries, a shift I would have thought you would favour. I certainly do.

I do admire your persistence in your cause, but I doubt it's going to succeed. I still recommend a better source than a blog written by a newly hatched media lawyer hoping to make a few bucks working for the media companies.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not every illegal download is a lost sale, but plainly some proportion of them do indeed represent lost sales. The problem is that it's impossible to say what that percentage is. It's almost certainly not 0%, and neither is it 100%; it lies somewhere in between ("the most obvious statement of the week", I know!).

Just as impossible to measure is the percentage of people who download something for free and then go on to buy other titles by the same writer. But you could make a vague guess based on statistics from a free promo on Amazon. Different market I know, and if all your titles are free they'd be more likely to just download them all. But it certainly does happen.

[stonetools]

do admire your persistence in your cause, but I doubt it's going to succeed. I still recommend a better source than a blog written by a newly hatched media lawyer hoping to make a few bucks working for the media companies.

(Shrug)
Its kind of unimportant who the aggregator is( so far as I know, the guy who wrote the Teleread post has NO legal, economics or business training. THat doesn't mean that we should dismiss any source he quotes out of hand.
The key fact is that the majority of independent academic studies conclude that piracy causes significant harm, even if they disagree as to how to measure the harm or what the remedy should be. That alone should explode the myth that there is no evidencethat piracy causes no harm.Both the US government and the courts also agree, justto pile on.
Don't like Copyhpe? How about this guy?

Who Am I?

I realize that some of you may not know much about me or even who I am. I like to think that I am uniquely qualified as an artist, entrepreneur and geek. I was trained as a mathematician. My first job after I graduated involved being the systems operator for an MPM OS system and I wrote a lot of DBASE IV scripts. I had a fascination with the old RPG punch card programming language. I am deeply involved in the digital amateur radio world. You can sometimes find me operating PSK31 on 20 meters. I spent some time in Chicago near the CME. I worked as a “Quant” doing some semi high frequency trading. While there I became involved with a company called www.thepoint.com which evolved into www.groupon.com.

LINK

So please forgive us if we roll our eyes at the Digerati who tell us we need to “embrace the web”, “work the new digital ecosystem” or come up with a “new model”. It’s a little like your great aunt seeing you at thanksgiving dinner and telling you something like:

“You should make some T-shirts for your band and sell them on tour”.

You politely smile and try not to roll your eyes.

Actually that’s the number one “new model” that the Digerati suggest. Sell T-shirts at your shows to make money! This despite the fact it’s not new. Bands have been selling t-shirts at live shows since the early 1970s. Recording albums to sell a few t-shirts is a terrible way to make money. Thanks for the advice but no thanks. Plus t-shirts are just as bootlegable as music.

RTWT. Its long but good. He's an independent musician, sohe has a lot more street crred than you or me.
AAAAAAAAAND this guy, who is not only an independent musician, but a trained economist:

Needless to say that the economic effect of illegal file-sharing is depressing the market price of recordings towards zero. Zero price means zero revenue. Even if by some miracle of chance your recordings gain widespread exposure through file-sharing, their value as a revenue stream will be minimal. This isn’t the place to consider alternative income streams, but a look through my previous posts will give some idea of the problems involved.

Funnily enough, Bruce managed to stand the whole issue on its head: the way to assure yourself a price-based competitive advantage is to eliminate illegal file-sharing. Only then can you be fairly certain that major label releases will be offered at non-zero prices (probably fairly high) and you can try to gain exposure through lower pricing (which is easier for an independent artist, who has lower overheads and probably has made less of an investment).

LINK

Try those guys on for now. There's more.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Sidebar

Oh good, I can see this thread is already on the verge of descending into the usual "copyright infringement is not stealing", "yes it is", "no it's not..." argument.

Perhaps a modest proposal is in order to avoid that messiness: Given Stonetools' comments above, instead of using the terms "stealing", "file sharing" or "copyright infringement", can we simply use "genocide" to describe the practice of downloading a file without colour of right?

Let's use "smurfing" instead of "stealing" or "sharing". The smurfs themselves tended to use it as any part of speech they wished, and it appeared to have no specific connotation.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

Let's use "smurfing" instead of "stealing" or "sharing". The smurfs themselves tended to use it as any part of speech they wished, and it appeared to have no specific connotation.

"Smurfing" has, unfortunately, already been taken; it's used to describe the practice of meth manufacturers who small quantities of pseudoephedrine from a lot of different retailers so as to avoid per transaction limits that would prohibit them from buying a large amount at one retailer.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Try those guys on for now. There's more.

I did. What I saw was two rants with no statistical, economic listing of evidence, or even research, which are the furthest possible I can imagine from "independent academic studies". If you want rants by people who have had some experience in the "music industry" then there are plenty on both sides. How about:

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink, the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide.

Just as valid, much better written and, to my mind, a firmer grasp of reality with less "head in the sand" ranting. Spotify is already heading that way.

[xg4bx]

as always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. piracy is probably neutral, any harm is balanced out by people using it to find new x to buy.

i'm really not in the mood to trot out the record profit statements of the affected entertainments yet again. the simple fact is that if piracy were indeed so harmful, profits would be falling not going up year after year after year.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by stonetools

What an extraordinarily longbow to draw.

Over the last few years I asked my kids (We have five, three daughters and two sons) why they do not buy many CD albums.

The answer almost universally was;

"Dad, because most of the CD is crap and I would rather buy the songs I like."

Yep, they buy one or two songs but NEVER the whole CD, thus a non sale of said CD.

Hello iTunes.

Teenagers these days also share the music they buy, EXACTLY the same as most, if not all of us did thirty years ago, except on different media.

Nothing really changes.

The single exception on the most part is our oldest son who DJ's and bar keeps part time (he is a fourth year law student). He buys vinyl LP's direct from the UK. Are vinyl sales included in RIAA's sales figures? Who knows.... Doubtful, as my son listens to non mainstream stuff.

File sharing has not caused the entire decline in sound recording sales. That is utter bovine excrement, sprouted by the RIAA alongside the claim that each download equals a lost sale.

A shift in buying methodology entirely related to the digital economy has impacted recording sales.

[applesauce]

What do I think of it all. I think any movie worth seeing is worth seeing on the big screen so my entire family go at least once a month, more often than not a lot more often. Have I been naughty and downloaded movies yes, but I did it for a friend who was dying and unable to leave the house for the last 18 months of his life. He was a huge movie fan. My attitude was I pay so much out for movies letting him enjoy his passion in his last days was something I would break the rules for. I did not think they lost anything, my family still paid out and went to the cinema.
as far as tv shows go I think vcrs where around for ever if I prefer to watch xvids of tv shows I miss rather than using my personal recorder it is splitting hairs. Yes I know you shouldnt but I seriouslu see it no worse than using your personal recorder.
music if I buy the CD I am so not paying for the mp3 tho it tends to be mp3s these days over cds purchased.
I was given some ebooks from friends of which I owned the paper versions, nope I do not feel bad like that. I give friends my paper books all the time. I do not see it any different. I might if they where people who reread stuff but like me they tend to read and give away.
artists need to be paid but there is always a grey line on just how hard to cut it off.

applesauce

[Ninjalawyer]

I would also point out that while recorded music may or may not be down, the music industry as a whole is seeing increased profits.

I'm going to post this even though I've posted it once or twice before:



There's a link here to the report the above is based on. It's hard to take publisher and record company complaints about piracy seriously when their studies are questionable and when they have benefited so much from an open internet.