Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable Than Legal Sales

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Yes some people will never buy, but unless steps are taken to punish those who download without buying, the numbers of people who never buy might well increase.

Yes, but if you take steps to punish those who download without buying, the numbers of people who never buy will certainly increase. Please, learn from the music industry's mistakes.

You can't stop them. You can't make it even moderately inconvenient for them (even using illegal tactics, which can backfire, nastily). They can run the stats and realise how unlikely it is you'll hit them with scattergun lawsuits, and there are mechanisms (playing the victim and getting donations, for instance) to offset the cost of being hit.

What's proven to work is making paying easy and simple. By providing the product cheaply and without restrictions.

[bill_mchale]

I think that the reference to the music industry is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the numbers of downloaders increased after the music industry cracked down, it doesn't mean it wouldn't have increased more if they hadn't cracked down. I know people who stopped downloading music after the crackdown began.

Certainly I agree that some of the extreme measures that were taken did little to help the image of the music industry. But I think it is hard to argue that reasonable efforts to protect their copyrights (Like going after those who openly share files) is unreasonable or that it will in and of itself increase the number of file sharers.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

But I think it is hard to argue that reasonable efforts to protect their copyrights

I guess we'll never know, since the chances are almost zero that they'll ever decide to be reasonable with their efforts.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

it doesn't mean it wouldn't have increased more if they hadn't cracked down

You're kidding, right? They've driven, heavily, the development of the "Pirate" scene. Ask your local friendly Socilogist. More, simply because people stopped using a particular p2p network (or rather, said they did) dosn't mean they're buying new music (second hand CD shops are doing bumper business!).

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the music industry's tactics in chasing individual file sharers, via a shadowy network of companies and using shaky evidence in many cases, has put fuel on the fire their image is burning on, and it's one of the major factors which has driven the counter-culture which argues that downloading is acceptable, that argues the major labels (although, bluntly, it also splashes over almost as badly on the smaller and reasonable lables) are parasites on musicians and encourages unauthorised copying.

They haven't stopped either. They're currently trying to change national laws, hurting far larger industries (chasing civil infringements, remember) if you hadn't noticed.

This isn't about legal, it's about sales in the mid, short and long terms. And the music industry have spiked their own. Why do so many people want other industries to go there?

[ahi]

If the American publishing industry ever becomes as psychotic as the music and movie industries, with regards to filesharers, I think I'll stop reading English books altogether out of principle.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

using shaky evidence in many cases

They've started using evidence?

[drmaxx]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Yes some people will never buy, but unless steps are taken to punish those who download without buying, the numbers of people who never buy might well increase.

As a newcomer on the board I probably should keep my mouth shut - but after reading this I can not hold back:
Why do so many people believe that it is o.k. to put the burden of making legal judgments on the downloader. What facts do I have to decide if a specific download does not pay royalties or is not endorsed by the copyright holder?

This would mean that if Mobipocket put up a free ebook in error, the downloader would be responsible for the damage done. Did anybody here check the copyright status of a free book before downloading? Can anybody do that reasonably nowadays with all the changes in copyrights, especially in the US? It is simply not reasonable to put the legal responsibility on the downloader.

I do agree that we user have a moral responsibility. I for sure want to be able to read good books and therefore I am interested that authors can live from their work. But I strongly disagree that it is my legal responsibility to make sure that a download fulfills all legal requirements. This is the uploaders responsibility!

Downloading should not be illegal! It doesn't make sense. And yes, I do realize that the Internet is worldwide. But heck - then the legislators should get their act together and cooperate over national boundaries. The world is changing - so should legal procedures.

[BlackVoid]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Statistically, the death penalty, timely enforced, is a pretty good deterrent.

REALLY? Please provide the statistics. I believe in Europe - no death penalty - there are less murders than in the USA - death penalty.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

REALLY? Please provide the statistics. I believe in Europe - no death penalty - there are less murders than in the USA - death penalty.

The US only actually executes a fairly small percentage of prisoners on death row (i.e.: prisoners awaiting execution)... which means that the likelihood of dying as a result of being sentenced to death is actually smaller than the likelihood of death in some dangerous professions. Or so I read.

If that's true, as suggested by Sonist's caveat of "timely enforcement", that may well mean that the US has the death penalty without enjoying any meaningful deterrent force thereof... primarily because actually having the death penalty enforced on you, even if you are sentenced, is too unlikely.

- Ahi

[Jellby]

I read that to mean "if we kill everybody there will not be any illegal downloads"

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by ahi

The US only actually executes a fairly small percentage of prisoners on death row (i.e.: prisoners awaiting execution)... which means that the likelihood of dying as a result of being sentenced to death is actually smaller than the likelihood of death in some dangerous professions. Or so I read.

If that's true, as suggested by Sonist's caveat of "timely enforcement", that may well mean that the US has the death penalty without enjoying any meaningful deterrent force thereof... primarily because actually having the death penalty enforced on you, even if you are sentenced, is too unlikely.

Based on what I've seen from a few sources (http://www.antideathpenalty.org/statistics.html and http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year being the easiest to sort through compared to the government sites), 42 in 2007, 37 people were executed last year, and 40 this year. Overall it is a downward trend, from 98 back in 1999. To date, since executions were reinstated in the US in 1976, 1176 people have been executed. Just under 1200 people in 32 years is pretty low. Compare that to highway workers, where in 2005 alone, 336 people were killed in the US (http://www.nawic.org/images/nawic/Highvisibility.pdf). Going off last year's stats, 0.00001216% of our population was executed. Not a high number at all, especially when you start comparing to countries like China.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Based on what I've seen from a few sources (http://www.antideathpenalty.org/statistics.html and http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year being the easiest to sort through compared to the government sites), 42 in 2007, 37 people were executed last year, and 40 this year. Overall it is a downward trend, from 98 back in 1999. To date, since executions were reinstated in the US in 1976, 1176 people have been executed. Just under 1200 people in 32 years is pretty low. Compare that to highway workers, where in 2005 alone, 336 people were killed in the US (http://www.nawic.org/images/nawic/Highvisibility.pdf). Going off last year's stats, 0.00001216% of our population was executed. Not a high number at all, especially when you start comparing to countries like China.

I believe the numbers continue to look "good" even if you compare the number of executed not to the overall population but to the numer of people who received a death sentence and are awaiting its (i.e.: their) execution in prison.

But yeah... the US death penalty seems to be supremely poorly thought out... and almost certainly neither raises the quality (or even quantity) of justice nor provides a notable deterrent to any kind of crime.

- Ahi

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by drmaxx

As a newcomer on the board I probably should keep my mouth shut - but after reading this I can not hold back:
Why do so many people believe that it is o.k. to put the burden of making legal judgments on the downloader. What facts do I have to decide if a specific download does not pay royalties or is not endorsed by the copyright holder?

This would mean that if Mobipocket put up a free ebook in error, the downloader would be responsible for the damage done. Did anybody here check the copyright status of a free book before downloading? Can anybody do that reasonably nowadays with all the changes in copyrights, especially in the US? It is simply not reasonable to put the legal responsibility on the downloader.

We are not talking about a vendor putting a book up on its site as a freebie that they shouldn't have. We are talking about people going to peer to peer sites and downloading recent books.

With respect, in the United States, if you knowingly take possession of stolen property, in most areas, you have committed a crime. Further, the changes in copyright, though I abhor them, are not that hard to parse out.

As for figuring out if the Author got royalties or not... lets put it this way, if the book is free, and the author or his publisher were not the ones who posted it, it is probably safe to assume that it was done so without the author's permission.

I do agree that we user have a moral responsibility. I for sure want to be able to read good books and therefore I am interested that authors can live from their work. But I strongly disagree that it is my legal responsibility to make sure that a download fulfills all legal requirements. This is the uploaders responsibility!

No, it is the responsibility of everyone involved. To me, it sounds like you are arguing that you should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of illegal behavior.

Downloading should not be illegal! It doesn't make sense. And yes, I do realize that the Internet is worldwide. But heck - then the legislators should get their act together and cooperate over national boundaries. The world is changing - so should legal procedures.

Of course it makes sense. You are taking possession of a book (or tune or movie) that you have not paid for and have no right to use; why should that be legal.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

You're kidding, right? They've driven, heavily, the development of the "Pirate" scene. Ask your local friendly Socilogist. More, simply because people stopped using a particular p2p network (or rather, said they did) dosn't mean they're buying new music (second hand CD shops are doing bumper business!).

Well, buying second hand CDs is still buying copies for which a royalty has been paid.

As for having driven the development of the Pirate scene... I just don't see it. I have seen lots of people claim it has, but not a lot of evidence to say that it has.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the music industry's tactics in chasing individual file sharers, via a shadowy network of companies and using shaky evidence in many cases, has put fuel on the fire their image is burning on, and it's one of the major factors which has driven the counter-culture which argues that downloading is acceptable, that argues the major labels (although, bluntly, it also splashes over almost as badly on the smaller and reasonable lables) are parasites on musicians and encourages unauthorised copying.

I am not advocating that other industries adopt some of the heavy handed tactics that the music industry has. However, I see a lot of statements being made, and not a lot of evidence provided to demonstrate that the threat of legal action has promoted the file sharing culture.

Certainly the argument that Major Labels are parasites on musicians and therefore it is ok to illegally download the music is silly (after all, the major labels may be parasites, but they still pay the artist more than an illegally downloaded song).

They haven't stopped either. They're currently trying to change national laws, hurting far larger industries (chasing civil infringements, remember) if you hadn't noticed.

This isn't about legal, it's about sales in the mid, short and long terms. And the music industry have spiked their own. Why do so many people want other industries to go there?

The legal aspect and the sales go together. Thats the whole point of copyright. If people just ignore copyright, then sales will plummet.

--
Bill

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Well, buying second hand CDs is still buying copies for which a royalty has been paid.

As for having driven the development of the Pirate scene... I just don't see it. I have seen lots of people claim it has, but not a lot of evidence to say that it has.

I've seen a dozen socilolgical studies that expound on it.

And from a revenue point, someone who only buys second hand CDs is absolutely identical to someone who only downloads unauthorised copies. (and indeed, may be worse, because they exert a more direct downward pressure on the price of CD's)

if you knowingly take possession of stolen property, in most areas, you have committed a crime

What does that have to do with unauthorised copying? Theft laws in the vast majority of countries, including the US and UK, require certain elements not present in unauthorised copying, willful or not. Even unauthorised copying for-profit, a criminal offence, is not under theft.