Kindle e-Book piracy accelerates - from CNET

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Much of it discusses legit services, and has a section on piracy. It includes references to multiple studies that indicate that "free" is a top reason why people go to P2P sources; that nations like Spain with lax IP enforcement have high piracy rates; that Sweden enacted a tough IP law (IPRED), and the following year music revenues rose for the first time in years.

Not exactly unbiased though is it? Unlike the independent research that was carried out and came to the completely opposite conclusion.

If those high profile piracy sites being closed down in the same year isn't responsible for the drop in digital sales, what is? It's not as if music piracy is anything new, so if piracy was to blame why would it only start to happen in that year? If piracy was affecting sales why would sales be rising every other year?

And if "free stuff" is the only motivation for piracy, why are the free music sites not doing as well as the pirate sites?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Not exactly unbiased though is it?

Considering that they were the source for an article you quoted in post #18 of this very thread, you might want to reconsider that criticism.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If those high profile piracy sites being closed down in the same year isn't responsible for the drop in digital sales, what is?

Which "high profile piracy sites" are you talking about? The only real shutdown last year was Limewire, and apparently users largely shifted over to Bittorrent. The Pirate Bay, despite losing a heavily publicized court case, is still operating in most countries.

And, as you apparently missed, there was a correlation between high profile enforcement and an increase in digital sales (e.g. IPRED in Sweden). Not the other way around.

By the way, digital sales haven't dropped or fallen. What has happened is the rate of growth is slowing. The prevailing theory is that the market for digital downloads has matured.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

And if "free stuff" is the only motivation for piracy, why are the free music sites not doing as well as the pirate sites?

Which "free music sites" are you referring to? I'm not aware of any commercial enterprise that offers unlimited downloads of any material the user wants at no cost whatsoever.

The closest you get are services like Spotify, Pandora, and Last.fm which are popular and growing. But those are streaming services, which clearly is not the same.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

You're kidding, right? I haven't read through the whole thing, but...

...you're going to jump to unjustified conclusions anyway. Nice.

If you do bother to read it, you'll see that they do rely on independent and 3rd party research, including Harris Interactive; Nielson; CCi Digital; Uppsala University; Tera Consultants and more.

And how, exactly, is recommending "proportionate steps to curb piracy" a sign of unreasoning fanaticism? Especially from an organization that represents an industry that has seen sales drop by 50% in the last 10 years, including a 77% drop in sales for new artists. Or is the mere fact that they regard piracy as a problem that needs to be addressed sufficient to "prove" that anything they say can't be trusted?

Sorry, but you seem to engage in a bit of confirmation bias here. Read first, then criticize.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

...you're going to jump to unjustified conclusions anyway. Nice.

If you do bother to read it, you'll see that they do rely on independent and 3rd party research, including Harris Interactive; Nielson; CCi Digital; Uppsala University; Tera Consultants and more.

And how, exactly, is recommending "proportionate steps to curb piracy" a sign of unreasoning fanaticism? Especially from an organization that represents an industry that has seen sales drop by 50% in the last 10 years, including a 77% drop in sales for new artists. Or is the mere fact that they regard piracy as a problem that needs to be addressed sufficient to "prove" that anything they say can't be trusted?

Sorry, but you seem to engage in a bit of confirmation bias here. Read first, then criticize.

No, you're not sorry

If currently outsized penalties are not proportionate, and a firm representing the music industry thinks we need said proportion, a reasonable assumption is that they want more outsized penalties. Hence, your words, unreasoning fanaticism.
I also don't buy your deflationary numbers, particulary wen shilled by a biased institute such as the IFPI.

I ask again for peer reviewed studies.

I assume if you could have linked to Nielsen, you would have done that instead?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Considering that they were the source for an article you quoted in post #18 of this very thread, you might want to reconsider that criticism.

The difference is that quote was about increased profits. I can't really see any reason they would have to lie about increased profits, whereas I can see lots of reasons why they would lie about the reasons for slower than wanted growth.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Which "high profile piracy sites" are you talking about? The only real shutdown last year was Limewire, and apparently users largely shifted over to Bittorrent. The Pirate Bay, despite losing a heavily publicized court case, is still operating in most countries.

Oink, Mininova, all the cases against Rapidshare and Megaupload. Others (like TPB) have been taken down temporarily but reappeared a few weeks later. For blogs, you can find them all here if you search for riaa
http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And, as you apparently missed, there was a correlation between high profile enforcement and an increase in digital sales (e.g. IPRED in Sweden). Not the other way around.

http://torrentfreak.com/swedish-inte...-scare-091113/

http://torrentfreak.com/many-swedes-...cy-law-091001/

http://torrentfreak.com/illicit-file...reases-100217/

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

No, you're not sorry

If currently outsized penalties are not proportionate, and a firm representing the music industry thinks we need said proportion, a reasonable assumption is that they want more outsized penalties. Hence, your words, unreasoning fanaticism.
I also don't buy your deflationary numbers, particulary wen shilled by a biased institute such as the IFPI.

I ask again for peer reviewed studies.

I assume if you could have linked to Nielsen, you would have done that instead?

In other words, you will simply believe what you want to believe and ignore all evidence that you think might contradict your beliefs.

Nice. Why are you even participating in the conversation?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

.an industry that has seen sales drop by 50% in the last 10 years,

You keep saying this as if it is true, even though your own IFPI links say otherwise

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

you will simply believe what you want to believe and ignore all evidence that you think might contradict your beliefs.

Nah, too easy

I refer the honourable gentleman to the only independent research ever carried out on the effects of piracy on legal downloads.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

If currently outsized penalties are not proportionate.....

Read rather than presume.

The IFPI specifically says this is a question of economics, not moral necessity. Their recommendations include a graduated response (e.g. have the ISP's warn the excessive piraters multiple times, with increasing penalties that would still be much lower than civil lawsuits); consumer education; targeting specific infringing services like Mininova and Pirate Bay; pressuring Google and other search engines to cooperate more (e.g. respond better to take-down requests, cull piracy links from searches); and target pre-release leaks.

I will agree that skepticism is definitely warranted. However there is a big difference between "critical review" and "presuming fanatical bias."

Originally Posted by MovieBird

I ask again for peer reviewed studies.

I may be missing critical details, but as far as I know, there are no "peer-reviewed" studies on the subject. If you're familiar with any, please feel free to link them.

Possibly the closest thing is the GAO study from last April (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10423.pdf). So, do you plan to blast a report by the United States Government Accounting Office (the independent non-partisan research department of Congress) as biased, before or after you read it?

As to the original Nielsen and other research reports: Most are only available on a paid basis. I'm an inquisitive person, but not that inquisitive.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I refer the honourable gentleman to the only independent research ever carried out on the effects of piracy on legal downloads.

I hardly think that 'torrentfreak' is any more of an unbiased source on the subject than the one you were objecting to.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I hardly think that 'torrentfreak' is any more of an unbiased source on the subject than the one you were objecting to.

I was typing about the one reported on the BBC and Gaurdian websites.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Read rather than presume.

The IFPI specifically says this is a question of economics, not moral necessity. Their recommendations include a graduated response (e.g. have the ISP's warn the excessive piraters multiple times, with increasing penalties that would still be much lower than civil lawsuits); consumer education; targeting specific infringing services like Mininova and Pirate Bay; pressuring Google and other search engines to cooperate more (e.g. respond better to take-down requests, cull piracy links from searches); and target pre-release leaks.

Targetting pre-release leaks from industry insiders would make the most sense. Cut those off and at least it would be in shops before it's on the internet.

Do they say anything about the standard of evidence they are going to supply to ISPs they expect to do their policing for them? Or is it still just the IP address and timestamp that was recently ruled as inadmissible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law...ght_infringers

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

I am sorry, how is that non-infringing, exactly?

It's only infringing if it is done without the permission of the copyright holder. There are many labels that now post music videos of songs from their catalog.

[NVash]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Well, last I checked they've been "aggressive" for years now. In fact, in the US they're less aggro than in the past; the peak was in 2005, when the RIAA was suing ordinary citizens. They stopped that in 2008, so by 2009 the number of copyright lawsuits was back at their 2004 levels.

Feel free to chew on these for awhile.
2010: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2010.pdf
2011: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf

Much of it discusses legit services, and has a section on piracy. It includes references to multiple studies that indicate that "free" is a top reason why people go to P2P sources; that nations like Spain with lax IP enforcement have high piracy rates; that Sweden enacted a tough IP law (IPRED), and the following year music revenues rose for the first time in years.

Say what?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html
Whats all this then? I know it happened in 2007 but shes in court now.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by NVash

Say what?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html
Whats all this then? I know it happened in 2007 but shes in court now.

Music isn't worth as much in Sweden ...
http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharer-...k-fine-110220/