# Study shows file sharing doesn't hurt music sales **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 31, 2004, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494 "2004-03-31T08:39:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/61 "2004-04-04T16:47:16Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > If you haven’t, you have to be the only one this side of Ulaan Bator. Anyway, for reference it goes: > > heyyyy yaaa, > heyy yaa. > heyyyy yaaa, > heyy yaa. > > \doo doo doo dee doo doo doo doooo\ > > heyyyy yaaa (etc.) > > Imagine something just like that, only brilliant, and it probably helps to think that I was really well-dressed while I typed it. Does the fact that I refuse to listen to the radio help? I hate ads, so I only listen to CDs or tapes. If I do happen to get stuck where I have no CDs, and have to listen to the radio, I generally stick to “classic rock (Aerosmythe through Scorps type0” or golden oldies type stations (yup, I’m ancient :D). Does that help explain it? I do think I’ve seen the Video though (it’s the one where the guy is all dressed in weird green golf looking clothes right? And he’s playing all the instruments in the band?), but I’ve always had the sound off when MTV was on, so I’ve not actually heard it. Weird, I know, but true. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/62 "2004-04-05T01:21:43Z")
Radio stations broadcast copyrighted material all day, and my understanding is that they are issued a permit to do so. This permit entitles the station to transmit the copyrighted material to the public. There are also internet radio stations which presumably also operate under the same or similar licenses. As it stands now, a person can buy a cassette tape in a store and the price of the unit includes a royalty to the recording industry. That royalty pays for the consumer’s right to fill that tape with songs recorded off the radio. Could that whole legal scenario be format shifted to P2P? IOW, could a radio station legally operate a filesharing database (just another form of transmitting the music) provided those who download pay the recording industry a royalty for doing so? And what about the price - it could be a lot cheaper than the current 99¢/song standard set by iTunes and others. Correct me if I’m wrong but a blank tape or music CD-R doesn’t cost nearly as much as the number of CD singles or iTunes downloads it can hold. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/63 "2004-04-05T16:55:37Z")
> [@Ooner](#): > > The example of only using file-sharing to preview was an exaggeration. I didn’t mean to suggest that I ONLY preview obscure music, just saying that is what makes up the vast majority of my music (things I’ve later purchased). So every mp3 you have, you went out and bought the CD? If not, then your “preview” argument is even dumber then if you did own everything. > [@](#): > > I completely agree and understand that file-sharing is mostly used for avoiding paying for music, and that most of the people that do so have a computer full of stolen radio hits. Good, and you realize that _this_ is mostly the reason for many of the problems you bitch about. People are essentially taking _advantage_ of the labels, acquiring _their_ (not the people’s) product, and your getting pissed at them? > [@](#): > > I’m just trying to remind people that not everybody is downloading Hey Ya. Well “not everyone” out of hundreds of millions of people with Internet connections is still “quite a shitload”. > [@](#): > > (Side-note: I hadn’t heard Hey Ya until I downloaded it, months after it was a “hit”) Well then you need to pull you head out of the ground and listen to this thing called “radio”, as that song has been all over the airwaves for almost a year. Who knows, you may find that it is a nice way to sample some music. If you knew it was Outkast (if you didn’t, how did you search and download it?) you could have gone to their website, or go to [Towerrecords.com](http://Towerrecords.com) and listened to samples of the song. Most people that actually want their music floating around on the Internet have a web presence of their own with files to download, as well. Go to the Outkast website first next time, it makes all the difference between legal and illegal. > [@](#): > > I think a lot of people are using it to download music they haven’t heard before, much of which they later purchase. Let’s face it this is a crock of shit, because as you state below… > [@](#): > > But I don’t want to drive to Barnes and Noble just to listen to something I quite possibly don’t want. I download and delete a lot, it’s far more convenient than going to the store all the time, and I can get a better idea of what the product is. Who is going to drive all the way to the store to buy something they _already_ have? There are lots of people who wouldn’t even drive to the store if _they were giving them away free,_ let alone driving then paying $15 or whatever bucks for it. > [@](#): > > The argument that there are “lots of other places to hear it” doesn’t really work all that well for me. Then this is your problem, the companies are not obligated to distribute the music through every possible avenue. You don’t have a right to steal the music if they don’t offer a “service” you wish they had. The only thing you can do is withhold your business or use a company that does offer the service you want. It appears that at the moment companies are not willing to plunk down the loot to build a “sampling station” infrastructure, because it probably isn’t worth the money. For them it’s probably more worthwhile for them to herd people to a few specific mediums they can concentrate their ad budget on. At the same time I’m sure everyone would love the music to be beamed directly into their brain, it’s the most convenient after all. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the reality that market forces have settled upon. > [@](#): > > At least around here, you can hear just the new stuff at a chain record store like Tower, and just the stuff nobody wants anymore at a used record store. The best place would probably be Barnes and Noble, where you can look up and preview about 30 seconds of each song. But I don’t want to drive to Barnes and Noble just to listen to something I quite possibly don’t want. You don’t want to drive there you lazy fuck? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I download and delete a lot, it’s far more convenient than going to the store all the time, and I can get a better idea of what the product is. It’s also _illegal_. > [@](#): > > I have absolutely no doubt that file-sharing costs big radio acts money. Possibly lots of it. And yet you don’t care. you are the problem. > [@](#): > > But what do you think the effect of file sharing is for bands that don’t get radio airplay? I’m in a band that gets no radio airplay, and you know what? It’s our problem not yours. It’s up to us to get our music out into the world utilizing every available mean. These things include… A) sending to small college radio stations B) to magazines for review or possible write up c) Internet radio stations d) putting up a website, with files available for sharing e) Making files available on p2p services. Guess which one did the most poorly? That’s right E. Why you ask? Because no one fucking heard of us! Who the hell is going to search on some shit they don’t know exists? If you haven’t heard of Subtech you’re not going to look for us. If you have heard of Subtech, there are legal ways to check us out and take a listen. See how that works? > [@](#): > > I suspect that file-sharing for them is a welcome tie-in to Internet word of mouth advertising that increases their fanbase and sales. Take it straight from the horse’s mouth, it doesn’t really do anything. Radio, TV or little sound bite played on MTV = great promotion (people hear you) Magazine with interview and photos = Great promotion (people see you) Website, or websites with your files on them = Ok promotion (people who have heard you can come check you out, but they have to take the step as opposed to the other two methods above which isn’t so good) Letting you music “float” around on some P2P = Shitty promotion (if they haven’t heard of you, they won’t put you name in the search, which means only bands that people have heard of get “checked out”. This obviously means it’s a bad means of promotion for a band no one has ever heard of, right?) > [@](#): > > Using myself as an example, even with music on my computer I’ve downloaded and not purchased, I think it’s obvious that file-sharing can easily lead to higher record sales for a lot of musicians. I don’t doubt this, but here is how I look at it. People who buy band they wouldn’t have normally bought \< People who would have bought album but instead got it free. > [@](#): > > And I don’t like being called a thief when I’m about a grand lighter than 6 months ago from buying CDs. If you acquired music illegally without paying for it (unless the band gives their blessing), you are a fucking thief, it’s a pretty black and white concept, and people fall into one of two camps. > [@](#): > > Using myself as an example, even with music on my computer I’ve downloaded and not purchased… Makes it pretty clear which camp you are in. > [@](#): > > I guess the real solution to fixing the file-sharing problem is getting people who download to go out and purchase as well. Why go out, after all you’re too lazy to drive to the store anyway. How about getting people to pay, and then download it? The real problem is that there will never be a way to secure the music, so how do we proceed with that in mind? > [@](#): > > I don’t think pay-per-track downloading is it. I’d probably just listen at Barnes and Noble every now and then and purchase far less. Well Itunes is doing pretty damn well from what I hear so maybe it is “it”. > [@](#): > > I think instead of asking “how do we stop filesharing” or “how do we make downloading music a profitable business” What is the point of these companies to do something that isn’t profitable? If they can’t make a profit they might as well fold house. The world (read - YOU) doesn’t have some God given right to Outkast. If a person comes along and takes a gamble on them, invests millions in promotion, lawyers and recording fees, I’ll assume they’re in it for the money, not to hook up humanity. If these people don’t make money, what is the point of doing it? Does your business run at a loss? And some of these people with _decades_ of experience with dozens of hits who have made tens of millions are too stupid to “tap” the internet? Get the fuck out of here. > [@](#): > > we should be trying to figure out how to get people who download to eventually BUY. Ah the million dollar question. We obviously need to convince them of the ramifications of their actions. After we have a good laugh attempting that, we should figure out a way to best curb their activities. This can encompass the whole spectrum from the carrot to the stick. > [@](#): > > Filesharing could be a huge marketing tool but nobody seems to think of it that way at all. You know, this is such a stupid comment and really shows you don’t have a clue as to what the fuck you’re talking about. All these companies do is make money, that’s all they’re about. They’ve dreamed up more ways to separate you from your precious dollar then you could come up with in your wildest dreams. (Think Divx) Now I’m not saying that there is no way to make a buck off of downloading, I’m sure like most ventures, it starts off with a niche market and then someone figures out the best combination of factors to a successful enterprise and then come the other companies that do the same thing. I would say at the moment these companies have more of a _if it ain’t broke don’t fix it attitude_, and seeing that downloading at the moment _could be more risky_ then what they are currently are doing, they aren’t willing to change. There will come a point in time where their current attitudes will cost them more money then it’s worth, and when that happens they’ll switch in a heartbeat, trust me. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/64 "2004-04-05T19:53:45Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Seriously, if you manage to pull this off without me EVER catching you even once, knock yourself out. 😃 **Blalon** , that’s a really sweet sentiment. I’d like to take you out for dinner this evening, where we can discuss this issue further and admire your unsullied car. **Everyone Else** : Party at **Blalon** ’s tonight from 6:30 until about 9pm. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/65 "2004-04-06T01:11:16Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Then this is your problem, the companies are not obligated to distribute the music through every possible avenue. You don’t have a right to steal the music if they don’t offer a “service” you wish they had. The only thing you can do is withhold your business or use a company that does offer the service you want. From a legal standpoint, you’re absolutely right, and even the stupidest dipshit already knew that P2P music sharing is illegal before you repeatedly iterated that fact. So people who can’t/won’t buy a song have a choice between A.) don’t buy a song and do without, or 2.) get online and download the song. Neither choice results in any revenue for the recording industry, but one results in that person having the song to enjoy and the other does not. Naturally, some people make the obvious choice. Your argument is legally correct, but morally null. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/66 "2004-04-06T04:20:04Z")
> [@cityboy916](#): > > From a legal standpoint, you’re absolutely right, and even the stupidest dipshit already knew that P2P music sharing is illegal before you repeatedly iterated that fact. > > So people who can’t/won’t buy a song have a choice between A.) don’t buy a song and do without, or 2.) get online and download the song. Neither choice results in any revenue for the recording industry, but one results in that person having the song to enjoy and the other does not. Naturally, some people make the obvious choice. > > Your argument is legally correct, but morally null. This is an issue which I’d like to see Yosemitebabe, Worldeater, et al answer. Say I’m a 98 year old partially paralyzed and blind woman who is dirt poor, and subsist soley off of government aid. I can’t afford to buy CDs. I love lissening to music, but I don’t have the money, nor will I ever in the future have the money to pay for it. I go and download it on the internet and get a great deal of enjoyment before I go to the grave. How is that _morally_ wrong? The artists don’t see a dime either way. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/67 "2004-04-06T04:49:35Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Say I’m a 98 year old partially paralyzed and blind woman who is dirt poor, and subsist soley off of government aid. I can’t afford to buy CDs. I love lissening to music, but I don’t have the money, nor will I ever in the future have the money to pay for it. I go and download it on the internet and get a great deal of enjoyment before I go to the grave. What, there’s no Braille Institute or other resource for the blind to help her out? My sister (who is blind, as it happens), gets all sorts of help because of her visual impairment. She used to get books on tape mailed to her (this was before she got her own “reading machine,” which enlarges text so she can read regular books). She used to attend classes at the Braille Institute. And since this hypothetical woman is so poor and everything, how does she afford an Internet service and a computer? And isn’t there this thing called the _library_ that you can go to and borrow CDs? I understand that she is paralyzed, but she obviously has someone help her out (in order for her to survive her day-to-day life). So even if this hypothetical blind, paralyzed woman can’t get out to go to the libarary herself, certainly her caretaker could do it for her. I’m sorry, I just don’t see where you’re going with this. Presumably 99.99% of the MP3 leeches are not hypothetical 98-year-old paralyzed blind women. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/68 "2004-04-06T10:05:38Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > This is an issue which I’d like to see Yosemitebabe, Worldeater, et al answer. Alright, but only if I can I call you Betty. So, my opinion on your scenario? Outstanding. It’s got everything; pathos, bathos, and probably some other sort of -athos that we haven’t heard of yet. It’s got audience appeal, and you can easily see Meryl Streep getting an Oscar™ for her bold portrayal of a partially sighted tetraplegic on the lam with only an ipod to comfort her while (get this) her estranged son unwittingly tracks her down in his job as an FBI assassin. I’m seeing Jeff Bridges as the attorney who gradually wakes up to the searing injustice of it all as the old lady lies motionless in his waiting-room, downloading Prince 512 bits at a time by writing to the library where a clerk copies down the patterns on the CD. The little man (obviously) triumphs, passing a constitutional amendment whereby Napster is reinstituted as a branch of social security entitled “Musicaid”, run entirely by amputees with congenital wallet loss. In other words, it is utterly, batshit, mad-as-a-bag-of-cats insane and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. ---
**Author:** ![htns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba8739/32.png) [@htns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/htns)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/69 "2004-04-06T12:30:52Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > So, if I can find a “study” which says you would not be harmed if I borrow your car when you are not using it, does that make it okay for me to take your car even if you don’t want to lend it to me? How about having a party in your front lawn? Not addressed to me, I know, but that’s flawed. A better analogy would be having a special duplicator that would allow you to make an exact copy of my car without harming the original. In which case, I wouldn’t mind it (provided the copy has a different license plate and VIN, so you can register it and make it all legal). ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/70 "2004-04-06T12:43:12Z")
These analogies are always flawed because of the inherent differences between ‘informational’ and ‘physical’ property. Copying a CD does not deprive anyone of their own music, nor does copying a book, a picture, or a patented idea. The original owner still has all the same things he started with, however those things suddenly become less and less _valuable_ with all the copying. I think that’s really the key of copyright, now that I think about it. If you want to try and stretch the analogy, you own a one of a kind car that’s worth $1,000,000, now how do you feel about me making a few thousand exact duplicates? Sure, when I was copying your AMC Gremlin you didn’t really care too much, but now that the Deusenberg you spent a fortune on is worthless, maybe it matters. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/71 "2004-04-06T14:24:51Z")
> [@cityboy916](#): > > From a legal standpoint, you’re absolutely right, and even the stupidest dipshit already knew that P2P music sharing is illegal before you repeatedly iterated that fact. You know, I don’t think that every dipshit sees it as illegal. > [@](#): > > So people who can’t/won’t buy a song have a choice between A.) don’t buy a song and do without, or 2.) get online and download the song. Neither choice results in any revenue for the recording industry, but one results in that person having the song to enjoy and the other does not. Naturally, some people make the obvious choice. > > Your argument is legally correct, but morally null. Oh yeah I almost forgot about this stupid argument. :rolleyes: People who _can’t_ buy a song? Tough shit. If someone can’t afford something they are entitled to a freebie? There are plenty of things I can’t afford, so instead of demanding it free, which frankly is insane, I go without them. If there are a lot if things I want that I can’t afford, perhaps I should go back to school or get a better job, or figure out how to make more money. People who _won’t_ buy a song? Tough shit. If someone doesn’t feel they are getting a good deal, don’t buy the merchandise. Under no circumstances are you entitled to a free copy. The logic _and_ morality behind this should be pretty clear. As far as the obvious choice, I would think that is the one that doesn’t involve stealing. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/72 "2004-04-06T17:43:06Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > This is an issue which I’d like to see Yosemitebabe, Worldeater, et al answer. > > Say I’m a 98 year old partially paralyzed and blind woman who is dirt poor, and subsist soley off of government aid. I can’t afford to buy CDs. I love lissening to music, but I don’t have the money, nor will I ever in the future have the money to pay for it. I go and download it on the internet and get a great deal of enjoyment before I go to the grave. > > How is that _morally_ wrong? The artists don’t see a dime either way. It’s morally wrong because of the following reasons: 1. It is a violation of copyright law. When you let people pick and choose which laws to break, barring a case of a missing vital essential of life, then you have serious problems in society. 2. It is not a case where it is a “vital essential” of life. It is not food, shelter, heat, cool, water, healthcare, dental care - or even if you want to extend it to virtual essentials - electricity, communications (phone), or anything else one might dream up. It also is not a reduction in her “cultural quality of life” either, which is a frequent moan of the copyright thieves. She can also download lots of free music, she can go to the library and read the Braille journals and books, since she’s tech savvy enough to download songs she can also get a text-to-speech software to read the contents of Project Gutenberg to her. You know, somehow, someway, people were actually able to have rich, fulfilling lives before Kazaa and Napster. To hear people talk it sounds like enforcing copyright laws is akin to barcode tattoos on the scalp and concentration camps. And if a 98-year old with a PC can’t find ANYTHING else in the BILLIONS of places online to enjoy - if her life is so focused and shallow that ONLY downloading songs in violation of copyright makes it full - then she has a serious mental disorder. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/73 "2004-04-06T17:57:11Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > It’s morally wrong because of the following reasons: > > 1. It is a violation of copyright law. When you let people pick and choose which laws to break, barring a case of a missing vital essential of life, then you have serious problems in society. > 2. It is not a case where it is a “vital essential” of life. It is not food, shelter, heat, cool, water, healthcare, dental care - or even if you want to extend it to virtual essentials - electricity, communications (phone), or anything else one might dream up. > > It also is not a reduction in her “cultural quality of life” either, which is a frequent moan of the copyright thieves. She can also download lots of free music, she can go to the library and read the Braille journals and books, since she’s tech savvy enough to download songs she can also get a text-to-speech software to read the contents of Project Gutenberg to her. You know, somehow, someway, people were actually able to have rich, fulfilling lives before Kazaa and Napster. To hear people talk it sounds like enforcing copyright laws is akin to barcode tattoos on the scalp and concentration camps. > > And if a 98-year old with a PC can’t find ANYTHING else in the BILLIONS of places online to enjoy - if her life is so focused and shallow that ONLY downloading songs in violation of copyright makes it full - then she has a serious mental disorder. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/74 "2004-04-06T18:24:14Z")
**Blalron** ’s hypothetical 98-year-old might be a bit extreme, so how about a real world example. From [this site](http://www.superseventies.com/singlesbymonth.html) and others I have compiled a list of over 1,000 songs (and a dozen or so albums) I would like to have. At the current rate, it would cost me over $1,000 to buy those on iTunes (and have to deal with what from what I hear sounds like a crappy file format) and who knows how much they would cost as CD singles. So at the moment the only legal way for me to get these songs is by taping them off the radio. The tapes themselves aren’t free either (and I haven’t been pricing them lately so can’t say for sure how much they cost) but I’ll bet ya the royalty that goes to the recording industry is a hell of a lot less than $1/song. But that’s just tough shit, isn’t it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/75 "2004-04-06T18:29:00Z")
> [@cityboy916](#): > > At the current rate, it would cost me over $1,000 to buy those on iTunes Should have added that that $1000 does not currently exist in my bank account. That should make the rest of my post make more sense. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/76 "2004-04-06T21:20:36Z")
> [@cityboy916](#): > > But that’s just tough shit, isn’t it. :rolleyes: Jesus, is everything people can’t afford to be made municipal in the World of Tomorrow? Because I’d quite like a Ferrari, but I seem to be short around £300,000. Won’t someone please think of the Ferrari-loving-but-merely-moderately-well-off, for the love of God! In other words: yes, that is tough shit. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/77 "2004-04-06T22:05:07Z")
I’m still not sure why anyone is arguing the recording industry’s (RI’s) side. The RI accepts money every year from a surchage placed on all blank media and recording instruments. If the RI thinks they are losing money they should negotiate a larger surcharge or something not sue people for legal acts. From [the Audio Home Recording Act](http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm): > [@](#): > > SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, > REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION > > Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions > > No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or \*\*based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. \*\* Now IANAL but it seems to me the bolded section implies a private/non-commercial copy is completely inbounds. Could an RI defender correct my understanding? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/78 "2004-04-06T22:07:25Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Jesus, is everything people can’t afford to be made municipal in the World of Tomorrow? Because I’d quite like a Ferrari, but I seem to be short around £300,000. Won’t someone please think of the Ferrari-loving-but-merely-moderately-well-off, for the love of God! > > In other words: yes, that is tough shit. Great googly-moogly, are you on my computer right now? How did you get through ZoneAlarm AND a hardware firewall? Because I had typed up a hypothetical response involving myself and wanting a Ferrari, and being short $500,000, and then got called to a meeting and killed my browser window. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/79 "2004-04-06T22:53:49Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Jesus, is everything people can’t afford to be made municipal in the World of Tomorrow? Because I’d quite like a Ferrari, but I seem to be short around £300,000. Won’t someone please think of the Ferrari-loving-but-merely-moderately-well-off, for the love of God! Okay, we’ll go with this analogy, even though in a moment it’s going to get ridiculous. A Ferrari is indivisible so we’ll have to scale the figures up a little. Let’s say you can buy a 12 car garage for a little bit more than the price of a Ferrari, and a tax included in the price of the garage pays for the right to fill the thing with free Ferraris from the Great Big Car Broadcasting station. (I just love thinking big, don’t you?) Now what if you don’t want to bother with the damn garage and decide instead to buy the Ferraris directly. Why the hell should it cost so much more? Do you see what I’m saying here - the industry has already set a price for music, and it’s so much less than what it costs to legally download it. Now if we want to continue the analogy some more, we find that the legal iFerrari dealer is selling them in limited selection in some kind of format that is not recognized by common Ferrari players, and maybe even imposes limits on where/when the Ferraris can be used. This is why time and again I say car analogies and other material object analogies don’t work, because they fall apart. The point here is that some of us, whether we can afford it or not, don’t want to deal with the headaches of iTunes et al (e.g. making and ripping hundreds of music CDs) and don’t believe their prices are reasonable. Some of us think spending $1000+ on non-essential items is superfluous. Maybe downloaders also represent such opinions, or maybe they just say “oh cool I can get music for free”, I don’t know, but they won’t stop downloading until a convenient legal alternative exists. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494/80 "2004-04-06T23:07:07Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > Great googly-moogly, are you on my computer right now? How did you get through ZoneAlarm AND a hardware firewall? > > Because I had typed up a hypothetical response involving myself and wanting a Ferrari, and being short $500,000, and then got called to a meeting and killed my browser window. :eek: Well, I can’t afford a Ferrari, right, so I figured when you got one I’d just nick it. Owning your computer is just a first step :p. **CarnalK** , I also ANAL (as it were) but can think of two pertinent responses. Firstly, the act states that no prosecution may be brought _under that act_ with respect to non-commercial copying, not that no prosecution may be brought at all. I don’t know what the legal semantics of this are, though, so I may be mistaken. Secondly, the definition of non-commercial is not explicitly stated. While no money is changing hands on P2P networks, such sharing as does go on is performed in the expectation of receiving goods in return. This can be clearly seen in sites with upload ratios, hubs with minimum share requirements, participation ratings on Kazaa, etc. and so forth. It can therefore be very reasonably argued that the distribution is, in fact, commercial and therefore infringing. **cityboy916** , I don’t see where you’re going with this. You say you can’t afford something, or at least don’t believe it is worth the price. This is certainly a reason why cheapskates will steal it, but is not a reason why it’s okay to do so. If you don’t like the product or the price, you just don’t buy it. It is that simple. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-shows-file-sharing-doesnt-hurt-music-sales/237494.md?page=5)