In Switzerland Downloading Copyrighted Materials for personal Use is Legal

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

As far as I'm aware (which admittedly might not be that far), all independent research on music piracy carried out to date has concluded that piracy either has no discernible effect on music sales, or does in fact have a positive effect.

[...]

A 2009 study funded by Virgin Media again found that pirates buy more music than non-pirates, echoing a similar study from the same year by the BI Norwegian School of Management which found that pirates bought up to ten times the amount of music compared to people who never used file sharing, torrent services or similar.

The fact that people who pirate also spend more than average doesn't in any way support the assertion that piracy does not have a negative effect on sales. Maybe they are only buying what they can't easily download, in which case reducing available downloads would increase sales.

[Belfaborac]

Perhaps you should read the studies. There's rather more contained in them than the single point you choose to take issue with. Your assumption is also based purely on your own gut feeling, which frankly counts for nothing without data to back it up.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Perhaps you should read the studies. There's rather more contained in them than the single point you choose to take issue with. Your assumption is also based purely on your own gut feeling, which frankly counts for nothing without data to back it up.

The idea that the availability of something for free does not in any way reduce the demand for the paid version is incredible, and requires extraordinary proof. I haven't seen that.
If the local movie theatre had an unlocked back door, with noone watching it, you don't think that the fact that people could sneak in and watch for free would have any affect on ticket sales?
Not every sneak would be a lost sale, but some would. Whether that is 5% or 50% is something about which reasonable people may differ, but to claim either 100% or 0% are equally risible.

[sabredog]

Raise the price or keep it high and no one buys the product. Drop the price, increase availability and more people buy the product.

Simple economics.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Raise the price or keep it high and no one buys the product. Drop the price, increase availability and more people buy the product.

Simple economics.

Here there are two supplies of the product. One is free, one is not.
Does the availability of the free supply reduce demand for the not free one?
Amazingly, some people seem to think the answer is no.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The idea that the availability of something for free does not in any way reduce the demand for the paid version is incredible, and requires extraordinary proof. I haven't seen that.
If the local movie theatre had an unlocked back door, with noone watching it, you don't think that the fact that people could sneak in and watch for free would have any affect on ticket sales?
Not every sneak would be a lost sale, but some would. Whether that is 5% or 50% is something about which reasonable people may differ, but to claim either 100% or 0% are equally risible.

Once again I suggest you actually read through the studies, rather than drawing simplistic conclusions based solely on what appears to be intuitively right. The world and everything in it seldom work along as straightforward lines as you seem to believe.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The idea that the availability of something for free does not in any way reduce the demand for the paid version is incredible, and requires extraordinary proof. I haven't seen that.
If the local movie theatre had an unlocked back door, with noone watching it, you don't think that the fact that people could sneak in and watch for free would have any affect on ticket sales?
Not every sneak would be a lost sale, but some would. Whether that is 5% or 50% is something about which reasonable people may differ, but to claim either 100% or 0% are equally risible.

The extraordinary proof is all around you if you care to watch. If there was a movie theater where everyone could sneak in, most people would still pay for the ticket. Some people would certainly exploit the free ride but the majority would consider it below their honor to watch the movie without paying. But the most important thing in this case is that those who had sneaked in, would spend their pocket money on sweets or other things anyway. Someone's loss is other person's gain.

The possibility of sneaking in certainly had some effect on the economics of the community, but it is not certain whether this effect is negative or positive. The freed money might provide the effect of fiscal stimulus to the local economy during the times of economic downturn. Improved economy would bring more income and ultimately more visitors to the movie theater.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by karunaji

The extraordinary proof is all around you if you care to watch. If there was a movie theater where everyone could sneak in, most people would still pay for the ticket. Some people would certainly exploit the free ride but the majority would consider it below their honor to watch the movie without paying. But the most important thing in this case is that those who had sneaked in, would spend their pocket money on sweets or other things anyway. Someone's loss is other person's gain.

And it is a loss to the movie theatre, which is all they care about.
You've just accepted that some sales were lost, which was the point I was making.
So a musician who loses money from piracy should feel happy that Bad, Bath and Beyond has sold more sheets?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So a musician who loses money from piracy should feel happy that Bad, Bath and Beyond has sold more sheets?

Home taping killed the music industry in the 70s.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Here there are two supplies of the product. One is free, one is not.
Does the availability of the free supply reduce demand for the not free one?
Amazingly, some people seem to think the answer is no.

Serious question. How did the bottled water industry come into existence in places like the urban US? Water was available, essentially, for free. Yet somehow a multibillion dollas industry sprung up, without even the advantage of a copyright monopoly.

Food for thought.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And it is a loss to the movie theatre, which is all they care about.
You've just accepted that some sales were lost, which was the point I was making.

Of course, some sales should be lost for the benefit of society.

While allowing piracy certainly is not optimal way to deal with the problem, big companies have to accept some profit limitations. Otherwise their insistence of ever increasing profits will drive companies to the ground.

[starrlamia]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Home taping killed the music industry in the 70s.

and maybe the fact that most musicians make next to nothing on music sales, they make their money with merchandise and touring.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I doubt they would phrase it that way, it would be more likely to come from a series of questions, including purchases made. It tends to be corporations with a vested interest that skew questions to get the results that they are looking for.

But you are still relying on the honesty of the participants.

Americans aren't known for their honesty.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Both.

Retail for a blu-ray movie here is between AU$35-50, a DVD will be around AU$25.

To see a movie here will set you back AU$22 for an adult or for a 3D movie, that costs around $30-35 depending on the cinema chain and screen size. The last time I took my wife and youngest daughter to a 3D movie (Last HP movie) it cost me $120 (including one large popcorn to share and 3 small drinks)

I'm sorry to hear that. It's not that way in other parts of the world.

[Belfaborac]

Then again, in many parts it's exactly like that.