Independent File Sharing studies

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by plib

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.

I read through the articles he linked to as well and was left scratching my head at why exactly they were supposed to be so convincing.

Saying there's academic consensus in the realm of piracy/filesharing/genocide/smurfing is more than a bit of a reach.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by plib

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.

The independentstudies were listed in my first reference. It already established that there was a scholarly consensus that piracy causes harm. You apoparently disagreed with that consrensus, citing the indentity of the person posting the studies( as if that had any nearing), so I cited two musicians, one of whch was an economuist, whob supported the scholarly consensus.
So far yopu have cited ONE non scholarly source in favor of your "piracycauses nio harm" position.

[stonetools]

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:

Do us all a favor and stop posting it.
Dealt with here:

Totally misleading fake studies. Like the Computer and Communications Industry Association’s ”The Sky is Rising” Report. First off this was passed around as independent research when it was actually industry lobby generated propaganda. Among the most outrageous obfuscations and bizarre metrics: Including gaming revenue to help disguise recorded music revenue decline, Not mentioning the drop in live music revenues in North America, and creating the bizarre metric of “number of recorded music transactions” instead of using recorded music revenues. Recorded music transactions are up because people buy individual tracks now instead of 1 album of 10 songs. Get it?

There are 14 academic peer reviewed studies that paint quite a different picture. Yet you rarely see these quoted by the digerati.

Just because its propoganda you like doesn't mean you have to keep posting it. Its interasting you never mention the source of the " study" when you post it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The independentstudies were listed in my first reference. It already established that there was a scholarly consensus that piracy causes harm. You apoparently disagreed with that consrensus, citing the indentity of the person posting the studies( as if that had any nearing), so I cited two musicians, one of whch was an economuist, whob supported the scholarly consensus.
So far yopu have cited ONE non scholarly source in favor of your "piracycauses nio harm" position.

The Astronauts haven't suffered in any way, shape or form from widespread piracy of their records. There isn't anything they released that you can't get for free if you want it, but the new ones still sell out within a few months, the old ones are still rising in price on Ebay, and they get bigger audiences now than they did pre-internet.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, I'm glad we have moved to independent academic studies about whether piracy causes harm . ( File sharing is a euphemism, similar to "ehnic cleansing" as a euphemism for "genocide") . But there are a lot of academic independent studies now. Whats the consensus?



link

The first reference is to an article written in 2004 which hasn't been published yet, and that should be a good sign that it isn't good enough to get published.

Then you have not an article, but an essay which concludes, based on the earnings of a single quarter that RIAA’s litigation efforts that there was an initial decrease in file-sharing, but we don't actually see an effect for the whole year:

The essay also makes a strange statement:

However, eliminating piracy altogether was never the RIAA’s goal.

The second reference concludes that the industry benefits from taking legal action because investors like this solution. It doesn't talk about increased sales as a result of taking legal action.

Did you even bother to look at the references that are used?

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're not giving "a newspaper"; you're making an unlimited number of copies of your newspaper and giving them ALL away.

So your problem is not with the action, but with the numbers? From the point of view of the numbers, there is no difference if 100 people give their newspapers to 100 other people, or if 1 person gives 100 copies away.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So your problem is not with the action, but with the numbers? From the point of view of the numbers, there is no difference if 100 people give their newspapers to 100 other people, or if 1 person gives 100 copies away.

There is if your selling newspapers.
100 people giving away their newspaper to another person means you have sold 100 newspapers.
1 person giving away their newspaper to 100 people means you have sold 1 newspaper.

[lambdadork]

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So your problem is not with the action, but with the numbers? From the point of view of the numbers, there is no difference if 100 people give their newspapers to 100 other people, or if 1 person gives 100 copies away.

No, my "problem" is that I'm seeing thieving bastards steal my software from me. This may be some intellectual exercise for you; for me it's not a game - it's "real life".

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, my "problem" is that I'm seeing thieving bastards steal my software from me. This may be some intellectual exercise for you; for me it's not a game - it's "real life".

I always liked getting support requests from somebody that I knew hadn't bought it, and they usually got mad at me when I told them they were not going to get free support. This was for a product that had less than 10 paid customers, so I knew every one of them.

Greg Weeks

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

There is if your selling newspapers.
100 people giving away their newspaper to another person means you have sold 100 newspapers.
1 person giving away their newspaper to 100 people means you have sold 1 newspaper.

Not when 99 out of 100 don't share their newspapers.

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, my "problem" is that I'm seeing thieving bastards steal my software from me. This may be some intellectual exercise for you; for me it's not a game - it's "real life".

I don't buy or read newspapers, but on the street where I live people share them. I'm not sure how they workout the details, but a bunch of newspapers are passed from one person to another.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Not when 99 out of 100 don't share their newspapers.


I don't buy or read newspapers, but on the street where I live people share them. I'm not sure how they workout the details, but a bunch of newspapers are passed from one person to another.

Now, is it just me, or are these 2 statements mutually exclusive.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Do us all a favor and stop posting it.
Dealt with here:


Just because its propoganda you like doesn't mean you have to keep posting it. Its interasting you never mention the source of the " study" when you post it.

I didn't realize that the Consumer and Communications Industry Association was a less reputable source than the essays you posted, or something that would set off warning bells. I did post the report that the chart was based on though, so it's not as if I'm trying to deceive anyone.

Can you provide a link to the bit you quoted? You seem to have left that out of your post.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by lambdadork

There's an interview Jello Biafra did recently for a German radio show where he talks about internet piracy. (You can probably still download it if you want to, it's on the most famous ROIO site). What he said might surprise you

[Keroberos]

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I didn't realize that the Consumer and Communications Industry Association was a less reputable source than the essays you posted, or something that would set off warning bells. I did post the report that the chart was based on though, so it's not as if I'm trying to deceive anyone.

Can you provide a link to the bit you quoted? You seem to have left that out of your post.

Its in the linked article I posted you said that you had read. Reposting:


LINK

Wikipedia entry for Computer & Communication Industry Association:

Computer & Communication Industry Association (or CCIA) is an advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. which represents a diverse member base in the computer, Internet, information technology, and telecommunications industries. According to their site, CCIA "promotes open markets, open systems, open networks, and full, fair, and open competition."[1] Established nearly four decades ago, CCIA has been active in anti-trust cases involving IBM, AT&T and Microsoft, and has fought for net neutrality and real patent reform.


CCIA members include corporations such as Google, Microsoft, LightSquared, Yahoo, eBay, nVidia, Sprint Nextel, dish Network, AMD and Facebook.

[edit] References