Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More Evidence That Piracy Can Increase Sales

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the arrr-me-hearties dept.

Piracy 196

Socguy writes "The London School of Economics has published a new study (PDF) which shows that the claims about digital downloading killing music and movies are overblown. In fact, there is new evidence to indicate that it actually generates more income in certain cases. 'While it acknowledges that sales have stagnated in recent years, the report points out that the overall revenue of the music industry in 2011 was almost $60 billion US, and in 2012, worldwide sales of recorded music increased for the first time since 1999, with 34 per cent of revenues for that year coming from digital channels such as streaming and downloads. "The music industry may be stagnating, but the drastic decline in revenues warned of by the lobby associations of record labels is not in evidence," the report says. ... The growing use of streaming, cloud computing, so-called digital lockers that facilitate the sharing of content and sites that offer a mix of free and paid methods of getting content will, the study predicts, spur the entertainment industries to shift their focus from pursuing illegal downloading to creating more legal avenues for getting content online.'"

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put out (-1, Flamebait)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45035317)

...but that doesn't mean it's right.

Look, I'm all for piracy. But whether it increases sales is irrelevant.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035361)

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison you are trying to make.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035391)

How is physically and emotionally harming someone a comparison to copying music?

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (2, Interesting)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year ago | (#45035445)

hes saying that whether or not it actually increases revenue is irrelevant, it is illegal. until the government updates the laws to a more modern set of laws, it will always be illegal, regardless of everything else.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#45035703)

Sure, but while it may be irrelevant to whether piracy is illegal or not, profits are extremely relevant to the question of whether it is immoral or not and whether or not it should be illegal. Therefore, the fact it increases sales is quite relevant to any discussion of piracy and the OPs analogy is, well, simply wrong (rape itself is inherently immoral, while copying is not).

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45036711)

profits are extremely relevant to the question of whether it is immoral

what

rape itself is inherently immoral, while copying is not

inherently immoral

what

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035737)

It is illegal because the law says so. The law could be changed if it was generally considered to have a negative instead of positive net effect. The music industry's main argument about keeping it illegal (and even strengthen the laws against it) is loss of revenue. Therefore if it is shown that the main reason against changing it doesn't hold, it is an argument for changing the law.

There are different issues: First, if something is legal or illegal, that is, permitted by current law. Second, whether something should be legal or illegal.

Rape is illegal, and I think few would argue that this should change. Moreover, most would argue that you shouldn't rape even if there was no law forbidding it (and even if there were a law requiring you to do it).

Unauthorized copying is illegal, but there is not as much consensus that it should be illegal as there is with rape. The music's industry claims it should be illegal (and the laws even be made more strict) because of the losses they face through privacy. Any study that piracy increases revenue instead of decreasing it, weakens that argument.

That doesn't automatically make it legal to copy stuff without authorization. But it does make an argument for making it legal. Which can only be done by changing the law, of course. But the point is, the law is not god-given, the law is man-made. It can be changed if it is found that in the current form it is bad. And therefore it is of utmost importance that you don't just accept the law as is ("it's the law, therefore it is right"), but rather question it. Because if you find the law is bad it should be changed, and anyone who thinks it is wrong has the moral obligation to work towards its change.

And in certain cases, it may even be the right thing to break the law (I'm not going to cite the obvious example in order not to Godwin this thread, and to avoid someone incorrectly claiming I'd equate that one with unauthorized copying, which of course I would never do).

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (-1)

graphius (907855) | about a year ago | (#45035987)

this comment needs to be modded up

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036007)

Don't forget that rape isn't illegal everywhere.

In some places, BEING raped is illegal. Because it's sex outside marriage.

http://trueslant.com/nealungerleider/2010/01/21/saudi-arabia-to-lash-filipino-rape-victim-100-times/ [trueslant.com]

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/14/rape-in-saudi-arabia-reporter-has-eye-opening-conversation-with-young-saudi-males/ [jonathanturley.org]

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (3, Interesting)

master_kaos (1027308) | about a year ago | (#45036447)

I only pirate games I am unsure about (especially since most games no longer come with a demo, but even if they do I usually still will pirate). I will play the pirated copy for ~1 hour or so and uninstall. If I enjoyed the 1 hour it and think it is worth my money, I will buy it. If I am still iffy, I will perhaps wait a couple months until Steam has a 50 or 75% off sale and buy it then if I still care.

Have they lost any sales on me? Perhaps, because maybe a game that I thought originally looked cool from gameplay videos but after played for an hour I found stupid I may have bought it without playing it. (Deadpool comes to mind as the last one that fell into this category). However there have also been quite a few games where I originally would have given a pass, but pirated, enjoyed it, and ended up buying it (Dishonored, Dark Souls).

Before I used this system I was getting burned on buying too many games that were shit, but also passing up on a lot of games that ended up being good (sure perhaps I later bought on steam sale, but they would have made more money at release). I don't give a shit that it is "illegal", I have no moral issues using my above system. I am almost willing to bet that if I asked the publishers if they had a problem with me using my system that they would say no (except for publishers that constantly churn out shit games)

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036731)

I pirate everything I can to make up for all the saps paying for this shit.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (4, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45036329)

Legality has nothing to do with morality.

Rape is a violent sex crime. Copying something is not.

If you are trying to morally equate those two then you are a sociopath and a jackass.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45035475)

You know those "A is to B as C is to D" quizzes you had/have to take at school? Do you notice how they're not saying that A is C and B is D?

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035533)

I understand what you were trying to say but in this case, it could be relevant.The industry itself or lawmakers may make a change based on increased profits. I do not see how your rape analogy applies here and seems a bit extreme to make your point.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45036035)

You're right. I was poking the, "Piracy is okay because it actually increases profits!" camp rather than the, "Perhaps the industry would think about..." camp. And lawmakers ought not to legislate based on what is more profitable!

And yeah, it is extreme - for some reason people are more worked up by rape than even e.g. murder, and that intrigues me, so I was being a bit flamebaitish.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#45036475)

Piracy should be discouraged the same as being wasteful should be discouraged, but at the end of the day, both increase revenue.

The anti-piracy campaign by Big Entertainment is akin to an anti-recycling campaign by Big Oil.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#45036505)

I completely had a brain-fart and messed up that analogy. I need to stop multi-tasking.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#45035511)

How is physically and emotionally harming someone a comparison to copying music?

Well, you have someone deprive others of dignity and basic rights (such as free speech and culture), harming them forever, for a fleeting pleasure/gain.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (2)

drakaan (688386) | about a year ago | (#45035727)

Yeah, just like the other corollary where people often purchase music they first obtain illicitly and rapists often marry the victim. It's very similar in many ways.~

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#45036103)

... and your comment hit it spot on, for both interpretation. Bravo!

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45036181)

Only the ones who've read the bible.

It's actually in there, OT stuff: Rapists were directed to marry their victims and pay a hefty bride price. It was the ancient version of 'you break it, you bought it.'

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035731)

It makes perfect sense when you're a shill.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45035971)

It can be argued, however, that copying copyrighted content without permission *is* harmful.... just in a very subtle way that people who may not see past their immediate desires and notion of immediate gain are liable to notice.

Disrespecting copyright is harmful probably not necessarily to anyone explicitly, but is probably most directly harmful to copyright itself. Specifically, it depreciates the trust that content makers would place in copyright to protect their interests on works that they publish. Society, supposedly, is enriched by a steady stream of new published content. While copyright is supposed to give content makers some incentive to actually publish it in the first place. Harming copyright, therefore, may arguably pose some long-term harm to society as a whole, where if or when content makers no longer rely on copyright to protect their interests, they could resort to other means that ultimately only end up limiting their audience... although this is, in a sense, harming themselves... by virtue of how newly published content can culturally enrich a society, it can pose a much larger threat to society as a whole.

Of course, one might argue... if copyright were completely dissolved, there'd still be people who want to self-publish or would make works that could culturally enrich the society they live in without the protections of copyright. This is certainly true, but the logistical reality is that such people are not llikely to be the status quo for works of appreciable quality. If they were, in an age where people can pretty much self-publish already anyways, we would certainly see a very large amount of works being released where the author has actually explicitly surrendered all copyright claims, and the work is public domain. The fact that even in the realm of entirely freely available content, the fact that content makers still choose to want to protect their interests by keeping copyright on them suggests that, at least in the normal case, most content makers would not be as amenable to publishing without copyright as they are with it.

Because, in the end... people are greedy.

Now I'll agree that greed isn't exactly a virtue, but it's not something that's going to go away... even if you try to change society's structure so that it seems like it is no longer particularly beneficial to continue to be greedy. In fact, such a structural change is liable to only worsen the condition with many people.

So while you might argue that copyright only services that sense of greed... this argument isn't entirely valid... because it does, as pointed out above, benefit society in the end by providing some incentive for content makers to publish. Without it, we're just left with a bunch of greedy people who will resort to other means to get what they want, and a culture-starved society who must swim through an endless sea of self-published content rich with advertisements, spam, and cat-videos to find the works of quality that are out there.

In the end... people are gonna do whatever it is they want to do, and I doubt what I've said above is really going to change many people's minds who think piracy is okay, but if it makes even one person think or pause or go "hmmm.... maybe", then hey.... I'd be happy with that.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#45036381)

You start by insulting people who disagree with you by claiming that they can't see past their immediate desires, so I should probably just ignore you.

Instead I'll point out that copyright isn't being undermined by the people who violate it, it was already undermined by the people who extended copyrights for insane lengths of time that rather than promote the general welfare, protect the profits of those who would set up toll booths to access our own culture. This is what destroyed respect for copyrights.

It's fair to say that violating copyright on new works is wrong, but respecting copyrights that are more than 7 years old is for chumps who want to pay for things that belong in the public domain.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year ago | (#45036477)

Disrespecting copyright is harmful probably not necessarily to anyone explicitly, but is probably most directly harmful to copyright itself. Specifically, it depreciates the trust that content makers would place in copyright to protect their interests on works that they publish.

I agree, although I think that we ought not to treat copyright as a monolithic entity. We could amend copyright to allow at least some of what is currently seen by most people as non-objectionable piracy, such as natural persons, engaging in non-commercial infringement, while still preserving copyright in other respects, e.g. as to commercial infringement, which is less kindly looked upon by ordinary people. By tailoring what is and isn't protected according to our shared norms about copyright, we could preserve respect for it generally, while still allowing other behavior that if prohibited, would engender disrespect.

Of course, one might argue... if copyright were completely dissolved, there'd still be people who want to self-publish or would make works that could culturally enrich the society they live in without the protections of copyright. This is certainly true, but the logistical reality is that such people are not llikely to be the status quo for works of appreciable quality.

Shakespeare had no copyrights. Homer had no copyrights. Michaelangelo had no copyrights. Copyright cares about quantity not quality. The more works there are, the more quality works there are. But you can't just incentivize only quality works. If for no other reason than because it is subjective, and no one really wants the government making those sorts of decisions. God knows there's plenty of shit now. But we can ignore it.

If they were, in an age where people can pretty much self-publish already anyways, we would certainly see a very large amount of works being released where the author has actually explicitly surrendered all copyright claims, and the work is public domain.

No; that takes effort. No one is going to do that unless they really care about that.

Better to make copyright opt-in. Then only authors who really cared about having one would make the minimal but material effort to get one. The rest wouldn't bother and we would profit from their laziness. Since it would be their own decision (or lack thereof) it's totally unobjectionable.

So when you say:

The fact that even in the realm of entirely freely available content, the fact that content makers still choose to want to protect their interests

That's wrong. Most authors don't choose a damn thing, and they automatically get copyrights anyway.

a culture-starved society who must swim through an endless sea of self-published content rich with advertisements, spam, and cat-videos to find the works of quality that are out there.

We have that anyway. And culling slush piles into published works is the opposite of what copyright seeks. If anything, publishing everything indiscriminately is more in line with ideal copyright policy. (Think of all the time wasted by works that turn out to be good but which get rejected by publisher after publisher for years and only ever become known due to the doggedness of the author; we could skip all that!) Plus, plenty of bad works get published anyway. And there's not much agreement as to what's good and what's bad.

If curation is what you want, go pay a critic. But that has nothing to do with copyright.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

AlphaWoIf_HK (3042365) | about a year ago | (#45036751)

It can be argued, however, that copying copyrighted content without permission *is* harmful

Any number of things can be argued, but many arguments are ridiculous; that one included.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#45036451)

Copying NickleBack and playing it for your friends is emotionally harming. /s

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035461)

5 out of 6 ppl love gang rape.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#45035465)

fair price, and offer your product/service in convenient ways, people will buy rather than steal, for the most part.

I will openly admit to downloading and streaming new music for free. If it worth anything, I will then go pay for it. Otherwise I am not going to continue to listen, and it is undeserving of my hard earned money.

There are those that will steal regardless, but that will always be the case. However, iTunes, Amazon, et. al. are proving that an easy to use and accessible digital distribution method can work.

And then you have the networks, cable companies, and Hollywood, who still seem to want to lock you into agreements and systems that make you pay for things you do not want, and force you to use them in ways that are inconvenient. As an example, just about the only things I want to watch on cable are Game of Thrones and NASCAR (sue me). I refuse to pay for all the shit I do not want to see. I am fine with local OTA channels (I hardly even watch them except for maybe news and PBS). The majority of the content on cable is not compelling, and I do not want to pay for, subsidize, or promote them. If I was given the option, I could stream the programs I enjoy, for a lower amount, and watch them in places I could not as easily do with cable, for instance on my tablet while riding the bus/train to work. As a result, HBO, who I would be willing to pay a fair amount to (even through a third party like netflix), refuses to provide what I desire and take my willingly offered money. And then they bemoan the fact that people steal from them. Boo fucking hoo.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (5, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#45035471)

> But whether it increases sales is irrelevant.

Sticking your head in the sand over facts is not "irrelevant." There are 5 categories of fans:

1) Will pay for it, will never pirate it
2) Will pay for it, but might ALSO pirate it so they don't have to transcode it
3) Might pay for it, might pirate it
4) Will never pay for it, and pirate it
5) Will never pay for it, and go without

The goal is to _understand_ how those in (3) move to the other categories.

In this day and age consumers are EXTREMELY sensitive to pricing. I don't need to remind you that Valve saw over 2000% (yes, 2000%) increase in Steam sales when they lowered the prices of L4D.

However even if the the product is FREE it doesn't mean people want it such as group (1). Conversely, there ARE some countries where downloading isn't a crime, so stop with your rhetoric that piracy == stealing.

At the end of the day its all bits. Claiming pseudo-ownership over a certain order/representation of them is insane but it is the current system we have, for better, or worse.

Understanding the value of something AND its relationship to money is extremely important as we move towards free energy.

Also see this excellent related TED talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html [ted.com]

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

cogeek (2425448) | about a year ago | (#45035725)

To say that digital information is just bits and copyrighting the ordering of them shouldn't be allowed is just naive. By that reasoning, any novel is just letters, arranged in a certain way and shouldn't be copyrightable. Any item produced is just atoms, arranged in a certain way and shouldn't be copyrightable. People have to work to create these WORKS of music, art, programming, whatever the item may be. They deserve fair compensation for that work, as they have families, bills, things they have to pay to survive. What OP is trying to get across is that stealing intellectual property is no different than any other crime, it's not victimless. While his example may be a bit extreme, I'd be more likely to use "maybe stealing money from the banks would make them more likely to just give it away, but that doesn't make it right."

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036315)

Any item produced is just atoms, arranged in a certain way and shouldn't be copyrightable.

Items produced are not copyrightable. They may be trademarked or patented, but they are not copyrighted. Well, except that they may contain copyrighted information (such as the sequence of letters in a book).

I totally agree on the "order of bits" part, though. That's exactly what copyright is about.

People have to work to create these WORKS of music, art, programming, whatever the item may be. They deserve fair compensation for that work, as they have families, bills, things they have to pay to survive.

The question of course is whether (a) the current copyright model actually gives fair compensation, and (b) whether there's not another model which gives fair compensation without limiting the users as much as the current system does.

And the study this story is about claims that artists get more compensation when their works are pirated.

What OP is trying to get across is that stealing intellectual property is no different than any other crime, it's not victimless.

First, it's not "stealing intellectual property". Not only because the term "intellectual property" by itself is very wrong (especially because it throws very different things together, see your confusion about produced items above for a concrete example of the confusion that arises, but also because it is not "property" but a government-granted temporary monopoly), but also because it is not "stealing" (the main point with stealing is that the original owner hasn't it any more; if I steal a box of corn flakes from the shop, the shop cannot any more sell that box to someone else; "stealing" copyright would mean that the thief, by whatever means, deprives you from the ability (physically or legally) to make copies yourself). Note that the question if it is stealing is independent from the question if it is victimless, or if it is moral. Murder clearly isn't stealing either, and yet it is clearly not victimless, and most people would agree that it is more immoral than stealing.

Whether it is victimless is not as easy as you make it. If someone who would never have paid for it anyway illegally downloads it, there's no victim. The copyright owner has no lost income (because he would not have gotten the money anyway) and no extra cost (because the copying happened not on his equipment). On the other hand, if the downloading person would have paid for it otherwise, is no longer victimless. The problem is, of course, that we have no way to distinguish both possibilities in any individual case. One side typically exclusively argues with the first case, the other exclusively with the second.

And your analogy isn't right either: Stealing money from the bank isn't like copyright violation, because you deprive the bank of that money.

If you want to make a meaningful money analogy, the closest one I can think of is counterfeiting money. Which still isn't completely equivalent because to make any use of counterfeit money you have to defraud people (if you tell the people that the money you give them is counterfeit, they'll not accept it); the music analogy to that would be to sell illegally copied music claiming that you sell legal copies. Therefore to make the analogy perfect, you'd have to take the case of counterfeiting money, but never giving it to anyone, but only looking at it and enjoying your "richness".

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (3, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year ago | (#45036323)

People have to work to create these WORKS of music, art, programming, whatever the item may be. They deserve fair compensation for that work, as they have families, bills, things they have to pay to survive.

Well, that's not how copyright works now.

The idea that people deserve copyrights based solely on the fact that they put in effort into creating something is the sweat of the brow theory; it's unconstitutional in the US.

Further, copyrights don't guarantee fair compensation. In fact, even if everyone respected copyrights completely, most authors would still not be fairly compensated for their effort, because most works don't sell very well. The vast majority of them have no copyright related economic value. Of the few that do, the vast majority have relatively little. Of the few that have more than a little, the vast majority are just middling, and so on.

There's a reason why there's a stereotype about starving artists.

All copyright does is concentrate some of the revenue derived from the work toward the copyright holder. How much the work is worth depends on the public. The recent Lone Ranger movie was a flop. Disney made a crappy movie and doesn't deserve fair compensation for the hundreds of millions of dollars of effort they put into making it. They deserve to lose big time, and so they have.

Copyright is all about increasing the number of works which are created and published, and then limiting the public use of those works as little as possible, as briefly as possible. If a degree of protection which you feel is less than fair nevertheless produces the greatest public benefit, then that's what we ought to have. Helping authors is merely a side effect because they are, so far, unavoidably involved. But they're not a priority.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45035809)

In this day and age consumers are EXTREMELY sensitive to pricing. I don't need to remind you that Valve saw over 2000% (yes, 2000%) increase in Steam sales when they lowered the prices of L4D.

Gabe also told in some interview that when some game's price is cranked back up, it still continues to get significantly more customers than before the price was lowered. Interesting stuff.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#45036411)

>Gabe also told in some interview that when some game's price is cranked back up, it still continues to get significantly more
>customers than before the price was lowered. Interesting stuff.

This seems obvious in regard to multiplayer games. If you get a good game into people's hands, they'll sell their friends on it so they can play together.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035879)

In this day and age consumers are EXTREMELY sensitive to pricing.

Not just pricing, availability is very important too.

If something isn't broadcast in e.g. Europe, some will download the TV-rips just to be able to see it now.
Whether they will later buy the DVDs or not depends a lot on how long they will have to wait. If they'll have to wait too long, they might not be interested in that show anymore.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#45036005)

Agreed!

Especially for long-tail content. I can't even BUY certain old TV shows / movies so if you want them you are forced to pirate them.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year ago | (#45036263)

Just as a small note: I largely agree with you, but the reductionist argument that they're all just bits in a certain order is fallacious and undermines your claims. By that token, a person is just a specific arrangement of atoms and we're all just a sac of chemicals. If you were to randomly generate the amount of bits of a certain song, the probability of generating that song (or even imperceptible variations with a different number of bits) are so astronomically low that you need to agree that there's more to it than that.

In this debate, you are fighting the recording labels and movie studios and the organizations like the RIAA. The worst you can do is insult the artists, who largely want the same thing as you do, by claiming that all their hard work is just a bunch of bits.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

brit74 (831798) | about a year ago | (#45036433)

The goal is to _understand_ how those in (3) move to the other categories.

No, it goes a lot deeper than that. I know people who changed from #1 (because they didn't know about piracy and didn't know how to pirate) to category #4 (because "why pay for something you can get for free [via piracy]"?) The very existence of easy access to piracy helps shift those people into piracy. If there's any doubt that he would've paid for it if piracy wasn't an option -- he *USED* to spend plenty of money on digital media.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036469)

Logic Nazi here. When you have 2 variables, and 3 choices, you HAVE to have 9 choices, since 3^2 = 9. buy/pirate; will/won't/might. You are missing #6. might pay, will not pirate. #7. might pay, will pirate. #8. will pay, will pirate, #9. won't pay, might pirate.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

brit74 (831798) | about a year ago | (#45036515)

Conversely, there ARE some countries where downloading isn't a crime, so stop with your rhetoric that piracy == stealing.

Oh, well, if the individual laws of each country are going to be our standard for what's stealing, then I have to ask you whether or not it's possible for a government to steal money from its people. Afterall, if the government makes laws that allows it to confiscate property from it's people -- it "isn't stealing". Therefore, it's impossible for a country to "steal" from it's people (either by seizing property, or taking a cut of AID payments that were designed to go to it's people) so that it can enrich the local dictator, king, or anybody else who has seized power. Dictators and despots everywhere love the philosophical rhetoric you've constructed around "stealing".

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

brit74 (831798) | about a year ago | (#45036603)

In this day and age consumers are EXTREMELY sensitive to pricing. I don't need to remind you that Valve saw over 2000% (yes, 2000%) increase in Steam sales when they lowered the prices of L4D.

Gee, do you think that the massive amount of press and promotion they get from the price drop might be a favor (rather that just the price drop)?

At the end of the day its all bits. Claiming pseudo-ownership over a certain order/representation of them is insane but it is the current system we have, for better, or worse.

So, you're arguing that everything digital should be free, that anybody can sell other people's copyrighted works (like Walmart or Amazon printing up their own copies of books without paying anybody), and plagarism doesn't actually exist (afterall, why should you have to cite the original author when it's just an arrangement of bits?). Good luck with that. Even most of the anti-copyright activists oppose the idea of being able to *sell* other people's copyrighted works.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035529)

A better comparison would be shoplifting at high end stores, where the garments have relatively high gross margins like software. If women see others wearing the Donna Karan dress and wearing it well, maybe they'll think about buying one for themselves. But if they try to get a five finger discount and get caught, they'll end up getting their mug shot taken at the police station.

Look, anybody can make one of these studies, and arrange the methodology and interpret the data to confirm whatever their agenda is. I'm sure you'll find studies by hired Ph.Ds on both sides of gun control, immigration reform, ObamaCare, offshoring tech jobs, etc. Means nothing.

Re: and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035681)

Actually, that isn't a better comparison because in your example the store is out the dress and the money for the dress if the theft is successful. However in a copywrite infringement situation it's more like saying the user saw someone with the dress, looked at the store and thought the price was way above the value, made a dress at home, and then gets charged with a crime... It's pretty interesting that you chose clothing/fashion because it's similar to media IP but as far as I was aware doesn't fall under copywrite rules.

Re: and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year ago | (#45036601)

Best of all, you can wear the home-made one, without having to remember a bunch of arbitrary bullshit, or having to worry about events beyond your control.

The dress from the store has "malfunctions" if you wear it on Tuesdays or with a different manufacturer's shoes, and disintegrates if the dressmaker goes out of business, or may even disintegrate if they later (a year after you bought the dress) have a contractual dispute with their thread vendor.

Money issues aside, the dress from the store simply sucks, in ways that home dressmakers would never begin to imagine.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036097)

A better comparison would be shoplifting at high end stores, where the garments have relatively high gross margins like software.

I don't know anything about software piracy, but for media (specifically video) piracy, that comparison is just totally wrong.

In shoplifting, the stolen product and the paid product are the same thing. The only differ in cost to the consumer/thief.

With video piracy, the stolen product works and the paid product is defective, broken, unreliable, short-lasting. They aren't much alike. The thing that people "steal," isn't for sale and doesn't effect the market of the thing that is for sale, which raises the whole question as to whether or not anything was really "stolen" in the first place.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036463)

The thing that people "steal," isn't for sale and doesn't effect the market of the thing that is for sale,

Are you serious? What happened to the market for recorded music after Napster and its successors (BitTorrent etc) hit the scene?

And of course, *none* of those users would admit that they would EVER have paid to get ANY of the music otherwise.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#45035569)

The bottom line is that claiming piracy hurts sales of licensed media through endorsed channels. Did you know grey market imports are often called piracy? Since the excuse of diminished sales is used to justify taking away peoples rights it needs to be examined for validity.

It's very relevant when piracy is used to justify an assault on peoples rights online and off. The list of examples and problems from DRM, all in the name of fighting piracy could easily fill a book. However if I were to take said book as an ebook and loan it to someone I would be accused of piracy, meanwhile for centuries society has thrived in no small part because of a concept we call the library.

For example I like Top Gear, however for many years there was no authorized means why which I could watch it the US. When it was released for some strange reason the first 5 seasons weren't released on iTunes. I have no legal way to watch those episodes without a flight overseas. Even then the authorized episodes released to the US are not the same as the originals.

To simply imply that piracy is wrong is to be willfully ignorant of reality. I'm not talking about counterfeiters, the people that profit off of others work, those are a wholly different set of people.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year ago | (#45035605)

It's also rather duplicitous. This study shows a graph that clearly indicates a bloodbath in recorded music sales, and then says "the drastic decline of revenues warned of by the lobby associations of record labels is not in evidence". The reason for this conclusion is that concert revenues went up. But perhaps those revenues would have gone up even in the absence of widespread music piracy. Regardless, it is irrelevant - the record labels (which are remember fairly small companies whose clients are actual artists) predicted a drastic decline in the thing that suddenly became easy to steal, which is exactly what happened. It does not change the brutal fact that income from recorded music halved once mass piracy became easy thanks to fast internet and MP3.

Does anyone believe the world consumes half the amount of recorded music as it did in 1999? No.

The debate on piracy is important because although music felt the sharp edge of the sword first, ultimately all creative industries have to suffer from it. OK, so parts of the music business that happen to put on good concerts might have been able to replace losses from piracy by travelling more. But TV shows don't put on concerts. Movies don't put on concerts. Video games certainly don't.

Trying to make an argument about piracy and copyright based purely on the fact that (parts of!) the music business found ways to replace lost revenue is pointless - it ignores all the other industries that rely on working copyright.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45036423)

> Does anyone believe the world consumes half the amount of recorded music as it did in 1999? No

Given that the music industry was on a physical format churn gravy train prior to 1999, I would say that it is VERY plausible that the world consumes "half the amount" of recorded music as it did in 1999.

People simply don't have to buy stuff over anymore. Digital is a terminal format. Computers as media appliances mean that your music collection will never wear out or become obsolete EVER.

I never have to buy another copy of Master of Puppets ever again. That's money that the publishers are missing out on and money that's a total waste.

That was not the only thing artificially inflating music sales numbers in 1999. The industry was actively trying to kill off the single and force everyone to buy only complete albums at increased cost. Both piracy and iTunes put an end to that nonsense.

It's easy to think the world is ending when your mark gets wise to your con.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year ago | (#45036631)

But TV shows don't put on concerts. Movies don't put on concerts. Video games certainly don't.

But we don't have to have those things. And we don't have to have those things at the level we have them at now.

If my art were sculpting the moon, but this was only economically feasible for me to do if everyone in the world owed me hefty royalties forever, people would probably tell me to go do something else. Even if my work was really good.

If we tire of having copyright to the extent we have it now, or even at all, that's a valid choice. If it reduces the number of works created and published, then that may nevertheless be the best option, if those works would otherwise come at too high a price.

And big budgets and high production values are not mandatory. Shakespeare did his best stuff on a stage with a handful of actors doubling up on parts, costumes that were hand-me-down clothing, minimal props, and no sets.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (2)

ibwolf (126465) | about a year ago | (#45035991)

and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put out ...but that doesn't mean it's right.

Look, I'm all for piracy. But whether it increases sales is irrelevant.

This is a false equivalency.

The laws against rape are most assuredly not because rape makes women "less likely to put out" (as you put it). The laws against rape are in place because the act of rape causes the victim to experience extreme emotional (and potentially also physical) pain. It is a very primal violation of the victims person. That is why it is illegal. The effects of rape on "women putting out" is entirely irrelevant.

The laws against copyright infringement are, on the other hand, explicitly in place to ensure that copyright holders can make a profit on their works. The only possible harm of copyright infringement is loss of income. If it can be demonstrated that non-profit driven piracy, engaged in on an individual basis, does not harm, but actually boosts profits of the works, then it is clear that the law needs to be tailored so as to not criminalize behavior that is non-detrimental.

Re:and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put o (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#45036375)

Also, rape is a criminal offence, copyright infringement is a civil offence. Big difference.

what about the musicians? (5, Insightful)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#45035329)

I'm more interested in how well the artists are getting paid, any study on that?

Re:what about the musicians? (0)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45035349)

The people actually doing the work are always paid the least. That's what the "capital" in "capitalism" intends.

(And it works surprisingly well, but it's so far short of ideal.)

Re:what about the musicians? (4, Insightful)

paulpach (798828) | about a year ago | (#45035577)

The people actually doing the work are always paid the least. That's what the "capital" in "capitalism" intends.

(And it works surprisingly well, but it's so far short of ideal.)

What you fail to take into account is that getting the capital in the first place took a lot of work for someone to produce. It is not like the capitalist is not working; when he invests, he is putting the fruit of his _previous work_ at risk. He can lose it all, and he is accepting that he won't enjoy the leisure he could be getting right now, with the hope that one day in the future he will enjoy more. Meanwhile, the person doing the job (i.e. the employee), will get paid whether the investment is good or bad.

The system works because the capitalist takes the risk (therefore he has an incentive to take on successful projects and avoid bad ones) and the employee minimizes risk while providing services he is good at and getting access to the tools that help him. The system works because this is a win win relationship, that allows both to work together and produce value.

Re:what about the musicians? (2)

cogeek (2425448) | about a year ago | (#45035767)

Couldn't agree more. All those "evil capitalists" are the ones that have already put in the work, hours, resources and risk to make their business successful. So many new businesses fail in their first year, meaning those "evil capitalists" lost everything they put into it with no reward whatsoever. To demonize the few that do become successful will wind up being the downfall of our civilization. Between government meddling with regulations, oversight and taxation, and the whole "occupy" crowd making villains of those who have sacrificed for years to become successful, it's a wonder any entrepreneurs still exist. The risk and the demonization just isn't worth it anymore.

Re:what about the musicians? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036493)

How often do you meet someone who started a business who actually is rich?

It is far more common to encounter someone who is rich because his parents are rich. Most landowners didn't claim their land themselves, someone did it for them many generations ago.

Capitalism doesn't work as intended as long as it is possible to be born rich.
Or to put it on its edge, capitalism can never be fair as long as parents are allowed to care for their children.

Re:what about the musicians? (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45036589)

The 'evil capitalists' aren't the small businessman made good. They are the massive international conglomerates that buy laws that prevent others from competing against them - and end up paying nothing in taxes on top of it.

Re:what about the musicians? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#45036607)

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Those folks just borrowed money from their parents. Look at Romney, his idea of being poor is having to sell off some stock.

Capital from luck (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#45035863)

when he invests, he is putting the fruit of his _previous work_ at risk.

Someone who happens to inherits wealth, happens to be born in the correct country, happens to be discovered by the right publisher, or otherwise happens upon a lucky break doesn't have proportionate "previous work".

Re:what about the musicians? (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45036159)

when he invests, he is putting the fruit of his _previous work_ at risk.

No, that isn't working. That's putting "the fruit of his previous work at risk". (Although for most businesspeople, it's not nearly as simple as earning money by hard work then investing - it's usually inherited wealth/loans/who-ya-know/etc.)

He can lose it all,

No, that's precisely what a limited liability company is designed to prevent.

Meanwhile, the person doing the job (i.e. the employee), will get paid whether the investment is good or bad.

No. If the investment is bad, there is no means of production (since that is privately held), therefore the employee cannot get paid. Indeed, the employer can wind up a company even without paying wages due.

Oh, and I say this as someone who did start up a successful business by working in an office and saving up money.

The system works because the capitalist takes the risk (therefore he has an incentive to take on successful projects and avoid bad ones) and the employee minimizes risk while providing services he is good at and getting access to the tools that help him.

That's the crude initial hypothesis, yes.

Re:what about the musicians? (4, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#45036487)

Total bullshit. Having been a musician for decades and having dealt with music label reps... you get ripped off, at ALL levels. The labels throw you scraps to keep you on the hook but they're taking all the real money. It's only when musicians have the financial savvy and balls to start their own label that they start making any money. But then they drop off the map because the big name labels control what gets on the radio and MTV. The Metal Screen is a great example. Metal is doing great, with almost no radio play at all. You don't see them anywhere and Music awards are given to shit bands like Metallica every year while the real interesting stuff is being recorded in sophisticated home studios and released on Japanese, eastern Europe or even self owned labels. They're touring, making money, doing well... but you'll never hear a damned thing about it because the labels don't want them to steal market share.

You've got bands like Symphony X, Opeth, even Iron Maiden filling soccer stadiums, yet you never hear about it. Iron Maidens last album in 2012 sold more copies than all of their other albums combined, yet you hear nothing about it.

This isn't just happening in metal either, it's every genre. There's been an explosion in music in the past 10 years. The labels don't like it because it's fracturing the industry. They want maybe 5 kinds of music so it's easy to control. What it's turning into is art... and they don't like that.

Re:what about the musicians? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#45035995)

Artistic talent and, more importantly looks, are both very very common. You get paid minimum wage to flip burgers.
the ability to be a modern musician is not much more rare, and it is altogether a more desired job. There have to be [hundreds of] millions of potential Justin Beibers, and every one of them would accept less than the current one to take his place.

In my opinion, they are lucky that they are paid at all.

Re:what about the musicians? (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45036051)

I see you mention musicians then Justin Bieber.

Re:what about the musicians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035363)

Sure, they just come to a conclusion that contradicts the groupthink. So they will be dismissed out-of-hand.

Re:what about the musicians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035409)

ask spotify, they throw a few pennies to the artists

the artists have rarely got more than 10% or so of the money they bring in which is average for any business
only a few naive idiots think artists should keep almost 100% of the revenue they bring in

Re:what about the musicians? (5, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about a year ago | (#45035521)

only a few naive idiots think artists should keep almost 100% of the revenue they bring in

Absolutely right, because there are no numbers between 10 and 100!

Re:what about the musicians? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036633)

only a few naive idiots think artists should keep almost 100% of the revenue they bring in

Absolutely right, because there are no numbers between 10 and 100!

Well, there's 11. But other than that, there's indeed no number (at least no integer) between 10 and 100. Everyone who understands binary knows that.

Re:what about the musicians? (2)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year ago | (#45035469)

artists are starting to get paid more now that they can produce and put stuff on the internet for sale directly, without the record label. this is why the record labels dont like the digital age, they are being cut out from all the profit because they are unnecessary atm

Re:what about the musicians? (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#45035705)

Artists are always the last to be paid. It says so in their contract.

The Definition of Piracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035357)

I purchased probably about $400 in Wii games over the last few months. The only reason I bought them was because of Wii modding so I can play Japanese and American games on the same system. I have both the English and Japanese versions of a lot of these games. (I also copied them to the hard drive, which in the game publisher's eyes, that make me a PIRATE.)

So this story is a no duh. I have no intention of getting any of the new systems coming out or that have come out.

Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035359)

Completely irrelevant study. It is not about short term profits, it is about controlling the market.

Re:Irrelevant (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45035455)

Artificial scarcity. One of the oldest games ever invented by man.

Re:Irrelevant (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45035543)

I got that for Christmas once, but there were never enough pieces for everyone to play.

The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (2, Informative)

dryriver (1010635) | about a year ago | (#45035473)

... which means that they can provide the "straight dope" on piracy, without trying to please rightwing conservatives who constantly scream that "piracy is theft". This report tells us what many of us already knew/suspected. Still, kudos to the LSE for making the effort! +1

Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035803)

It is a nice try, but we can see the before/after results:

Before rampant piracy, we had plenty of mainstream bands that were decent.

Now afterwards, we have Bieber, and only corporate pop stuff. You might see the record labels put out an album from an older, more established band, but do you see them putting out anything new that isn't predigested stuff with the voices fully processed by Autotune? Nope.

Before piracy, you could make money from CD sales as a band. Now, you have to gig and fight other musicians for every single spot in any venue possible. Piracy closed off the music industry for any way to have a career at all unless you are lucky to be selected by a big label for them to tell you what to sing, what to create, what words to write, and what your persona will be for the next five years, down to the twerking moves you will make at the next show event.

So, yes, the pirates won, but it has been a Pyrrhic victory at best -- the music industry is a shell of what it once was, with the only thing coming from the big labels are older bands, remixes from older bands, and boy bands. No record label will do anything other than the cookie cutter because there just isn't any money in it for them.

Thank you pirates. Thanks to you, we will never see a new Trent Reznor, Ice-T, or any other decent act again unless it was built from scratch on a template worked out by marketers.

Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036095)

It's too bad no one recently has shown it's possible to be successful without the backing of a huge record company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macklemore

Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036431)

Yes, because the works of Shakespeare and Mozart are considered crap.

Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45036687)

The golden age of recorded music just prior to 1999 gave us such classics as "Cherry Pie" and a high level of base pandering forced upon musicians by label management.

I also still recall this rather funny ad for a radio station that ran on TV. It's premise was basically that all of the other radio stations were all playing the same Bon Jovi song.

Yes. It was truly a golden age.

Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036619)

I'm sorry; don't blame the pirates, it's my fault. I don't know how I did it, but ever since I turned twelve, mainstream music has just sucked hardcore. Also TV, movies, and books. I can't live with this terrible power any more than I can comprehend it, so I'm killing myself for the good of the world. I'm sorry, ./. Try to remember the good times, before I was twelve.

Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (1)

brit74 (831798) | about a year ago | (#45036689)

The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution...... which means that they can provide the "straight dope" on piracy,

Why should I trust a "very LEFT-leaning institution"? Personally, I'd write them off as being idiots and anti-establishment. Being anti-establishment is going to give them a bias TOWARDS piracy. Communism is also a "very left-leaning" idea. It's still a stupid idea, even if "they aren't polluted by corporate interests, therefore their pro-communism stance is unbiased" or some nonsense.

Quality vs quantity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035513)

I wonder if they take the overall shittiness of a lot of the music out there into account when complaining about stagnated sales.
Raise the quality of the music and the rest takes care of itself, piracy or otherwise. I can't listen to a pop radio station because a lot of it just sounds like utter noises, whistles, beeps and boops. And.. ooh the autooOOOoootuUUUuuuUUne...

Re:Quality vs quantity (1)

doas777 (1138627) | about a year ago | (#45035911)

Quite true. additionally our economy can only support so many super-profitable acts. There could only be one Elvis, and at the time there were only a handful of popular/profitable musical groups. Now they try to manufacture a thousand Elvis's, but don't want to subdivide the pie. You can have one king, or you can have dozens of dukes, but you can't have both, and you certainly can't have thousands of different acts and still expect any of them to make decent money.

Re:Quality vs quantity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036017)

And.. ooh the autooOOOoootuUUUuuuUUne...

Try watching some "behind the scenes" documentary about a band and you will notice that the singing before applying autotune sounds absolutely terrible. Would you really want to listen to that? A lot of rock and pop singers do not have the discipline to learn to sing pitch-perfect, and it would probably not provide them enough value to be worth it anyway.

I'll say this again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45035519)

The definition of piracy is the very definition of Hollywood accounting. It is used to rape the people you and I wouldn't consider pirates. Backing up the media you bought does make you a pirate under most modern laws. Would someone like to tell me how this is not true with rational reasoning? Not downmodding and running away?

Zakkudo

It's about telling you what to buy, not how much. (3, Interesting)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45035819)

It's the sales of what they want to sell you. The Media/Content industry doesn't get the same power to tell you what to buy when you're free to choose it for yourself. They'd rather sell ten million copies of the latest ... crap, who are they trying to push these days? Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus or something? Anyway, they'd rather sell ten million of just one or two of those than twenty million albums spread across 200 different albums of varying genres.

This is about the power to tell you what to buy, not to tell you to buy from them.

Of course the headline is misleading. (4, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#45035895)

The headline and the summary is a little misleading. The study doesn't actually show that piracy increases sales.

The submitter conflated three issues addressed in the study.

1) Making it easier to obtain authorized copies of digital music offset losses due to piracy. "Revenue from online sources including recorded music sales, streaming, online radio, subscriptions and other is increasing, both absolutely and as a percentage of overall revenue." The music industry remains healthy despite claims of huge losses due to piracy. The industry is learning to adapt by offering something other than the traditional buy-to-own model.

2) Independent artists are able to make money inside a inclusive collaborate digital culture. This challenges the assumptions that someone must have exclusive rights to music in order to make money. The authors talk about CreativeCommons and how SoundCloud is used to collaborate.

3) Prosecuting individuals for copyright enforcement isn't effective. "Targeting individual internet users is not likely to reverse the trend toward an online sharing culture, and there is an urgent need for independent verification of claims of harm to the creative industries as a result of individual copyright."

The authors make the following conclusion for responsible copyright enforcement:

"Broader ‘fair use/fair dealing’ provisions, proposals for private copying exceptions and aiming copyright enforcement and prosecution at infringing businesses instead of at citizens who share online is likely to have the desired effect of balancing the interests of the creative industries and citizens. When both can exploit the full potential of the internet, this will maximise innovative content creation for the benefit of all stakeholders."

I wonder how many people will argue that piracy is good based only on the misleading headline and not the actual contents of the study?

Personally I don't care anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036025)

Is piracy helping or hurting the music industry? I could not care less. That industry is getting no more of my money. Never again.

Piracy is competition (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45036069)

Belief is more powerful than fact. So delivering 100 studies that consistently show that pirates are also customers. They believe it's bad and wrong and that's that.

What's more, piracy is competition. It doesn't matter if people would rather buy than pirate, the price point at which people would begin to decide otherwise is lowered when downloading for free is available somewhere.

Re:Piracy is competition (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45036727)

You also know what's competition? The back catalog.

Every band, every label, every directory, every studio has to compete in an environment where creative media of all kinds is cheap and plentiful. I simply don't have to be stuck as a member of a captive audience being forcibly subjected to today's dreck. I can choose from all of the classics of the last 100 years and they are for the most part dirt cheap.

We are awash in a glut of media. Supply and demand dictates that prices will fall even without piracy.

A watched a new movie and a 50 year old TV show last night. Most of my music was acquired before the turn of the century.

Gray area (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#45036171)

I don't buy the "piracy is good for business" BS; what I do agree with is that being a full-on pissrag and advocating zillion dollar fines *cough*metallica*cough* on people for downloading a 3 minutes song is so abrasive to your customers that they will make a bigger effort to pirate your crap OFF the net. just in spite. Some will simply drop you from their playlists for good as soon as an alternative comes around with the same genre of sound.

Yeah, you'll scare a lot of people with fines but what happens is the independent musicians not tied into a label slap something up on youtube and people like it. And hey the guys not a dick, he's giving his stuff away for free. People like that and want to support that and sales go up.

So yeah, in some cases, piracy drives music sales but it's sure not the way MPAA/RIAA would like it to be. Besides, they have a lot of people with deep pockets who get nervous when they hear things aren't going so well, so they spin stuff like this to give the moneybags' warm fuzzies.

Even Good Things Can Be Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036277)

Doesn't really matter if piracy isn't hurting sales. Hell, even if you prove it helps sales it doesn't make it LEGAL.

Stupidty reins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036391)

Come all you anti-capitalists lets roll. This is total crap that everyone on here will go rah rah yes I knew it all along.

piracy = radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036479)

Music piracy is today what radio used to be - a way to sample new things and see what was out there. The rise in piracy is almost a mirror inverse of the decline in radio. Not many stations play music, and the ones which do don't play a variety. People still want to sample stuff. I never bought most of what I heard on the radio in the 80s, either, but no one thought to call me a music thief (who listened but never bought) or count what I did not buy as lost sales.

Where's the evidence ? (3, Interesting)

tmark (230091) | about a year ago | (#45036591)

I didn't see any evidence presented that "piracy can increase sales". All I saw were claims that box-office, gaming, and music revenues are increasing. But these increases are due to acknowledged growth areas (e.g. streaming, in-game buying, etc) and improved distribution methods (e.g., iTunes) and these claims say nothing about what revenues would have been in the absence of piracy. In other words, there is nothing to support the causality implied in the Slashdot story title

Frankly, I don't see how it is at all arguable that piracy can increase revenues. If I can download a band's entire catalog, which I have done, once I have done so the likelihood that I am going to go and pay for the band's music is drastically - in my case, completely - reduced. Same goes for downloading movies. It is, as one poster commented, just bits now. The visceral pleasure of owning a record with its cover art, sliding open the sleeves and smelling that wonderful vinyl smell is gone. A legally purchased copy of music or a movie is no better than a pirated download of same.

Re:Where's the evidence ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036757)

Not to mention, they acknowledged stagnant growth since 1999, which "just happens" to be the same year that Napster was released. As you said, one year of improvement simply reflects population growth and improved distribution methods. In particular, being locked into different online streaming options forces users of multiple devices to pay more than they otherwise might.

I am no fan of the RIAA or MPAA, and I hope that they fail as organizations (they are after all cartels, and leaches on what the industry would otherwise be), but to suggest that piracy may actually benefit them in a meaningful percentage goes against logic. Without evidence, I will never believe that even 25% of people that illegally download content regularly turn around to actually purchase the content.

WELL FUCK THEN EVERYBODY PIRATE LINUX !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45036617)

It needs a HELL OF A LOT of pirating !!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>