In spite of this good news, I’m sure the RIAA will still feel justified in suing people out of house and home for filesharing. :rolleyes:
Put a bit more realistically: non-peer-reviewed academic paper shows no detectable correlation between file sharing and sales over a period in which file-sharing was already commonplace, and arguably constant in their sample. It seems to me that to show “file sharing doesn’t hurt music sales” they would need somehow to assess how those albums would have performed in a world without filesharing. There’s no point assessing small periods when filesharing is well-established - all you’re proving is that there are groups which utilise each distribution channel (legal and illegal), and that their effects on each other are negligible.
That argument has been used for quite awhile now, and the RIAA seems to have adopted the classic ‘la la la la la I CAN’T HEAR YOU’ defense. The problem goes further than the RIAA. See also the MPAA v. 2600 lawsuit, which was over 2600 hosting the code for DeCSS. I believe the case has since been dropped, but it shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
DeCSS is a piece of software that allows a DVD to be played under Linux or any other computer. The lawsuits were brought over the idea that DeCSS could be used to copy DVDs, which simply isn’t true: you don’t have to decrypt anything to copy a DVD, you merely copy all the bits from the DVD to your blank, which will then happily play on any old DVD player.
Afterthought: Aren’t used CD stores more of a threat to the record companies’ bottom line than file sharing? I’d be willing to bet that more people have access to used CD stores than have internet access at home (not really feasible to download MP3s at the public library, is it?). And while people might be willing to buy a CD after they’ve downloaded it (in part or in full) for free; they probably aren’t going to pay for a CD after they’ve already bought a copy.
Even if this is a good study, does it make file sharing any less of a copyright violation? Let’s be perfectly clear, the songs belong to the RIAA, it is their right to decide how to market the product. Period. End of story.
This study also sounds like crap to me. You can do all of the statistical analysis you like, it can’t tell you what sales would be if file sharing didn’t exist because file sharing is ubiquitous. Where is their sample without file sharing? There is none. How do you determine the net effect of something that is always there and never goes away?
Sales may not be affected by increasing and decreasing downloads, but unless you can see what sales would be like with no filesharing option you have no useful data.
What about the positive effect on CD sales? I buy a lot more CDs now that I can listen to some or all of it before I buy it. It’s a great thing for less known bands, the ones you hear of my word of mouth.
Regardless of the position, it’s another sample size of one. The RIAA et al can point to similar studies showing drops in music sales. Plus like the previous poster said, this doesn’t change the fact that it’s a copyright violation.
Yeah, even though the whole file sharing issue doesn’t worry me too much, i must say that the study linked by the OP doesn’t really demonstrate much of anything at all. It is easily called into question by studies showing different results, and it has no real control group against which to compare its findings.
Also, whether you agree with file sharing or not, the fact remains that one of the most important legal arguments against it is not that the RIAA is losing money, but that file sharing represents a violation of copyright law. The RIAA-losing-money aspect of the argument is really the PR branch of the debate, and is used largely in an attempt to garner popular support for the legal arguments, which tend to revolve around issues of copyright law.
Even if the RIAA came out today and said “Hey, you know what, we haven’t lost a single dime since file sharing started,” it would not, AFAIK, reduce in any way their copyright protections.
Exactly. And if they were somehow to manage to get into a magic time machine and go back before file sharing, they’d have to travel back to WELL before the computer age, as “filesharing” in the form of reel to reel, cassettes etc has been around for several decades.
I dont understand the hooplah about a single study, peer-reviewed or not. Obviously it is hurting the bottom line–The RIAA would not go to the expense otherwise. They are keeping many lawyers fed, and they aren’t dumb enough to do it on a whim. Though I think filesharing has its plusses, I for one would be much happier if everyone just went over to itunes or some other legal downloading venue. We are all sophists trying to get something for nothing. Let’s just learn that we can’t take everything in this society for granted and that it requires subsidized hard work to do a lot of things. I’m not saying the RIAA is perfect, or that its ethical to proceed as it has. There were problems with music pricing, but IMO, the problem has been solved and we can’t keep copping out with this sophistry.
I think they’ve considered that, which is why they are frantically buying up all the Mom & Pop used CD stores they can find. There was a recent thread about one of these stores here in the Pit recently, where the OP was complaining about how used CDs were only $1 off.
As for myself, I’ve definately bought more CDs since filesharing became commonplace. I like having the actual CD and the liner notes. And I wouldn’t know of half the bands I now listen to had it not been for Napster and KaZaA and blah blah blah.
The RIAA has zero jurisdiction in Canada.
<sigh>
It seems like we are having the same 5 debates on this board these days.
Hey Dead Badger, how you been? Haven’t seen you since the last iteration of this debate. Where’s Yosemite?
You need to understand that filesharing in it’s most current form has the most potential to be dangerous. Before peer to peer networks, “file sharing” did not exist, “media sharing” did. As I’ve explained before, let’s say I copy a cassette tape twice and hand out both copies to 2 of my friends. They turn around and do the same thing copying their second generation tapes, handing 2 third generation tapes to two friends each. One more time, the 4 third generation tapes are copied twice, and given to two friends.
So what do we have?
1 “master” tape
2 second generation tapes with nice sound quality
4 third generation tapes with ok sound quality
8 fourth generation tapes with fairly shitty sound quality
You want to copy the fourth gen tapes and hand out 16 5th gen tapes? Fine.
Now I don’t know if you’ve heard a fifth generation cassette tape, but believe me, it sounds like shit. In fact you can go hear for yourself by copying a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a cassette tape, a media which if I may remind you, already suffers from poor sound quality.
The distribution in this scenario is limited by 2 things. The tape needs to be physically handed to the person, and the element of geographical limitation which effectively limits copies to social circles.
I won’t even get into the temporal aspect of things, but suffice to say, copying an mp3 is a hell of a lot faster then mass producing bootleg cassette tapes.
You can’t deny the reality that file sharing is a completely different ball of wax.
For starters, the 2 limitations above are thrown right out the window. If the new Korn CD is leaked onto the internet, everyone will end up with the same exact sound quality of the original. There is no limitation of a source file only being able to generate 20 or 30 copies of copies before the sound quality degrades to the point of inaudibilty, and fresh copies need to be made from the original. Secondly, the geographic limitation is rendered moot, people are trading identical copies of songs with people they’ll never meet! People have the ability to transmit files to the furthest reaches of the planet.
Say what you want about the morality or even legality of the whole thing, but don’t even attempt to compare the old days with today.
I think that a lot of people feel the way that I do, that it’s NOT a problem with the pricing, but that the industry hasn’t caught up with technology. If they had the songs, ALL the songs, not just the crappy stuff, and not just all new stuff, then more people would buy singles off the pay for tunes sites.
Last I looked, the pay for tunes sites had the SUCKIEST selections. As I’ve mentioned before in these debates, I’ve taught dance and exercise for years, right up until I moved down to Texas (and hopefully soon again). I download music so that I can compile CDs of different tunes and different artists on groups of CDs to use for my classes.
99% fo the songs I download are singles from a CD I’ve actually purchased, but generally, I’ve purchased it at a pawn shop, a lot of the songs I use for my classes are on CDs that only have one or two good songs.
The other reason I download is to find older obscure songs. And those are NOT something you can find from pay for tunes sites.
If and when the industry FINALLY comes into the 21st century, and makes sure that the music is available by single and/or by album, and that it’s available for download at a reasonable price, then they’ll have fewer problems.
At any rate, I seriously doubt that downloading hurts them any more than the sharing of reel to reels or cassette tapes did the musicians of yesterday.
Judging from the quality of music that is available today, perhaps the music industry needs to look at its PRODUCT as the reason it’s losing money.
Not only that, but the RIAA’s Canadian equivalent just got bitch-slapped in court.
Just to clarify when I said “RIAA” I really should have said “RIAA member companies”. Canada has their own RIAA style association, and the RIAA itself does not own any songs, to my knowledge.
Second, that judge is an idiot.
Positive act by the owner, eh? How’s about the positive act of downloading and configuring a computer program that sends out copies and advertises that copies are available? This jackass acts like computers are deciding on their own to break copyright. They’re machines, they only do what their users tell them to do. :rolleyes:
Why do you need to download the songs you already have on CD? Just rip them to mp3 save yourself the time of downloading. As far as the one or two good song excuse, it’s about the lamest I’ve heard. Do you think an artist sets out to make one or two “good” songs? That’s just fucking silly. Speaking as an artist who put out a CD, I make sure that every song that goes on that thing is finished and done to my satisfaction. Every other artist in the universe generally does the same thing. Now say I experiment and have a rapper on 2 tracks on my album. Is it my problem some idiot thinks only the rap stuff is good and everything else sucks?
Yes, however you can find them in a record store!
Who determines the reasonability of the price, you? No, simple economics. The price is too high, people don’t buy. People don’t buy, the labels lower price. Lower the price and people buy more, which then raises the price. Labels raise price just enough were sales are not adversly impacted. These people are about making a profit, not about being nice and hooking the world up with music.
Do you agree with my previous post?
The “quality” of music is completely subjective, do realize how stupid it is to say that? You can’t prove that Britney Spears is any better then Bach, sad as that may seem.
The first way implied that I was sad that I can’t prove Britney is better then Bach, let’s reverse that. 
I can’t prove that Bach is any better then Britney Spears, as sad as that may seem.
I’m just tired. Tired tired tired. Besides, I’m revving up to get my book self-published (never to be in e-Book format, however, because I don’t want to see the book file being shared on P2P). I’m sick of the leeches!
Well you can go work on stuff, and I’ll just recycle some of your fine posts from the last time we went through this, m’kay?
This is wrong.
The RIAA mostly sues for damages, i.e. monetary compensation for lost income on behalf of the people it represents. So yes, in one way you’re correct in that the would still have copyright protection, but if they admit that they haven’t lost any money, then most of their suits would be pointless.
Let’s say I copy one of your posts to this message board, and I make a million bucks from it. If you could show that you owned the copyright, you could sue me for the million bucks. Alternatively, if I made no money out of it, but you claim that you would have made a million bucks, you could sue me for the million bucks.
But if you admit that I didn’t make any money out of it, and that you wouldn’t have either, then there’s not much of a basis for a claim. That’s what the RIAA is worried about.
Note that I’m not saying anything one way or the other about the merits of the particular study that the OP refers to.