French ‘Three Strikes’ Law Slashes Piracy, But Fails to Boost Sales

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

Has anyone considered that the music got so awful people stopped buying it and couldn't even be bothered to pirate it.

Just a theory

My music buying went way down after about the mid 90s for pretty much that reason. The industry would much rather blame piracy, than their own overall decline in quality.

Pretty much the same reason I borrow most books rather than buying. A person can only tell the same story so many ways, and I am highly picky about where I put my money.

[plib]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I can't agree with you here. The guy who is selling bootleg DVD's off the back of his truck for a buck a piece is a "true pirate", but a big website like The Pirate Bay which probably collects 100,000s of dollars in monthly ad revenue by providing an exchange for the warez is not?

Possibly. But I find it difficult to believe that even a "casual" pirate doesn't install AdBlockPlus, and even more difficult to believe that any pirate is going to waste time clicking on ads.

I don't recall ever seeing any proof that pirate websites make 100,000s of dollars in monthly ad revenue. If they do then I think they've really suckered some ad company somewhere, and I can't feel a lot of sympathy for any ad company, particularly one that silly.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

My music buying went way down after about the mid 90s for pretty much that reason. The industry would much rather blame piracy, than their own overall decline in quality.

i've hit the point where i have a stereotypical 'old person's' music collection i.e. not keeping up with any new bands and my taste hasn't evolved since a certain year lol. i think the most recent band i enjoy has been around for 20 years.

when they started taking the iron maiden and judas priest t-shirts off the walls in hot topic, i knew current music wasn't for me anymore . i don't know who these bands are these days....and i'm only 34.


there's really no way to track it but i'd bet my arm the secondary market is seeing increased sales. maybe instead of buying it new or pirating people are just buying their entertainments used. i've had decent success selling my own goods through amazon lately, i'm sure i'm not alone. i buy all my books from the publisher Pyr used. i don't have the $10-$15 to take a chance on first time authors and their books are only available in ebook and trade. if i can get a book for $1 in 'like new' condition as opposed to $15, i'm going for it.

[kartu]

Well, just an anecdotal evidence of me trying to buy music recently (for quite a while already just listening to car radio, used to buy a CD or two every 3 month earlier):

Moody's Bodyrock - could only be bought as an album (no thanks)
Kara Remembers from BSG OST - only available in US or on iTunes (no thanks)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing that strikes most in the whole "oh, piracy" hysteria is the fact that despite most share of the profit would end in a couple of pockets (like that of Tom Hanks, getting 50'000'000 for a single movie) they would still claim it somehow affects "little guys". Well no, it won't. They'll outsource if they can. Some directors, like that of Transformers, would say no to a small part of their income, to keep old teams of little guys. Others would not.

Huge margins, unevenly split profits - greedy and ugly. Don't feel for ya!

[Ninjalawyer]

It's easy to say "piracy went down, so that alone is a good thing," but that ignores the cost of laws like this. Increased regulatory burdens, burdens on citizenry that need to defend against false positives, etc. If the law results in no benefit, only burdens, it should be reconsidered.

That said though, I think there are other economic factors at play here that muddy the water a bit. Also, it's not clear what they mean when they say "piracy" was reduced; is it obvious that all forms of piracy went down, or did people just shift to encrypting their torrent traffic, using proxies or using digital lockers? The data needs more analysis to really draw any interesting conclusions.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i've hit the point where i have a stereotypical 'old person's' music collection i.e. not keeping up with any new bands and my taste hasn't evolved since a certain year lol. i think the most recent band i enjoy has been around for 20 years.

when they started taking the iron maiden and judas priest t-shirts off the walls in hot topic, i knew current music wasn't for me anymore . i don't know who these bands are these days....and i'm only 34.

I think getting older and being kind of "set" in my ways does have a lot to do with it. I'm 44, and while I have an appreciation for many musical styles, my own personal music collection that means a lot to me has pretty much been established.

Also, music has been one of those things for which I've never needed to dedicate lots of money. The radio, youtube, and buskers and so many various places to hear music. Also my own time for the instruments I play. I enjoy listening to myself and practicing.

My husband and I have recently enjoyed discovering new (to us) musicians via the NPR tinydesk concerts we view too.

I think where I have spent the most money is for my oldest daughter who loves J-pop, and various flavours of Asian music. So over the years, YesAsia has gotten a lot of money from me to build her collection. The other children like to listen to mostly things they hear on the radio or borrow from the library.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by plib

Possibly. But I find it difficult to believe that even a "casual" pirate doesn't install AdBlockPlus, and even more difficult to believe that any pirate is going to waste time clicking on ads.

I don't recall ever seeing any proof that pirate websites make 100,000s of dollars in monthly ad revenue. If they do then I think they've really suckered some ad company somewhere, and I can't feel a lot of sympathy for any ad company, particularly one that silly.

Obviously I don't claim accuracy for the above figure. But we do have some guidelines from the money Megaupload had made for that guy arrest in NZ (13 million USD or so in his bank account). Of course there also many legitimate uses for such sites. Anyway, somehow these sites are making good money (however you slice it, a lot more than the guy actually selling the DVDs on the fleemarket) and I am not saying I feel for the advertisers but I feel sorry for the money they make due to the illegal file exchanges and think we shouldn't support people making money of piracy -- in whatever form.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by kartu

The thing that strikes most in the whole "oh, piracy" hysteria is the fact that despite most share of the profit would end in a couple of pockets (like that of Tom Hanks, getting 50'000'000 for a single movie) they would still claim it somehow affects "little guys". Well no, it won't.

It is easy to be upset about such big payouts. However, we shouldn't forget that Tom Hanks can earn back what they pay him many times over. A movie may be a big success with him and a total flop without him. For any job the important thing is how much money you generate for your boss. If you bring in the big bucks, then you should be paid big bucks. Now those big shots that make a company lose millions or even billions and are still being paid the big bucks -- they definitely don't deserve a single penny. That is a big abuse of the system.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

For any job the important thing is how much money you generate for your boss.

Cameraman can not ask for more money. He's easy to replace. The same goes for all "little guys". There is a market for them, you can replace them. But that's not the case with superstars.

Think about what would happen if the: "if not piracy, we would be making much much more money" were true and someone could actually defeat the piracy. Where would the money go? Into the pockets of Tom Hanks' and the likes. But I don't think they need to earn even more money.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If you bring in the big bucks, then you should be paid big bucks.

Shaquille O'Neal might bring more money to Nike, by filming in a 10 minute advertisment. But how could it be fair that he gets more money for that than all Nike factory workers combined in a year?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by kartu

Shaquille O'Neal might bring more money to Nike, by filming in a 10 minute advertisment. But how could it be fair that he gets more money for that than all Nike factory workers combined in a year?

Actually he doesn't bring in more money than all the workers combined, I know (mostly because there are a whole lot more workers than you could imagine and because wages at the factories have been skyrocketing in recent years). And yes, on the face of it it does seem incredibly unfair how much more Shaq makes. But now imagine you were running a company. You hire Shaq and if he gets 5 million for 10 minutes of work and generates 50 million in additional sales and 20 million in profits (an example, not real figures, of course) how was Shaq NOT worth it? If you pay someone an obscene amount of money but he makes it all back and a whole lot more --- then I call that a great deal. That is reality. You pay someone minimum wage and his labor does not generate enough income to cover what you pay him --- what would you do if you were the boss?

And while we are at it -- those workers at the Nike factories make a whole lot more money than the average worker in those countries does. Companies like Nike have done a lot to lift living standards and working conditions in Asia. People in China would still live like they did during Mao's time without them. And you will have a tough time finding anyone in China who wants to go back to those "good old days". But we have already had a number of discussions on this subject.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by plib

Possibly. But I find it difficult to believe that even a "casual" pirate doesn't install AdBlockPlus, and even more difficult to believe that any pirate is going to waste time clicking on ads.

I don't recall ever seeing any proof that pirate websites make 100,000s of dollars in monthly ad revenue. If they do then I think they've really suckered some ad company somewhere, and I can't feel a lot of sympathy for any ad company, particularly one that silly.

Who'd want to advertise on pirate sites anyway? Maybe porn sites? But then, porn get pirated too, right?

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Barty

Who'd want to advertise on pirate sites anyway? Maybe porn sites? But then, porn get pirated too, right?

the funny thing is that there are so many free, youtube-style porn sites out there that one doesn't need to ever pay for porn. so much of it is free that i doubt its even worth one's time to pirate it.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Barty

Who'd want to advertise on pirate sites anyway? Maybe porn sites? But then, porn get pirated too, right?

The ad on the front page of the 'Bay is for a musical group hoping to gain attention. What's that old saw about an artist's worst enemy being obscurity?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I can't agree with you here. The guy who is selling bootleg DVD's off the back of his truck for a buck a piece is a "true pirate", but a big website like The Pirate Bay which probably collects 100,000s of dollars in monthly ad revenue by providing an exchange for the warez is not?

Not to mention the fact that very few of those that upload material to websites would be willing to physically distribute DVDs on the street, even if they could make money doing so.

The people who upload them and the people who profit from them have a completely different mindset. I frequent a site that trades ROIO content and everyone there monitors Ebay for people selling them and has their listings taken down when they come across them. They have the opinion that such things should be freely available, not charged for. You do sometimes see people selling original content on Ebay, but they soon get liberated and then the listings get pulled.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Obviously I don't claim accuracy for the above figure. But we do have some guidelines from the money Megaupload had made for that guy arrest in NZ (13 million USD or so in his bank account). Of course there also many legitimate uses for such sites.

They had lots of other revenue streams too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload

Just before they were taken down, they also had plans for a legal music distribution system for independent musicians, a bit like Bandcamp.