Study: MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales 704
pkaral writes "The two distinguished gentlemen Strumpf and Oberholzer-Gee have most likely made RIAA executives choke on their lunches. Those two economists at Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill have done the research and the math on how much CD sales are actually hurt by P2P sharing. The answer: A whopping one CD per 5,000 files downloaded. Needless to say, RIAA are already trying to discredit the study."
And the bonus (Score:2, Informative)
Just like radio.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Informative)
The # 5,000 does not even appear in it, and it says they sold MORE copies, not less.
they concluded that file sharing actually increases CD sales for hot albums that sell more than 600,000 copies. For every 150 downloads of a song from those albums, sales increase by a copy, the researchers found.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the actual article, it says that the study concluded that file sharing INCREASES CD sales. On their "most pessimistic model", which is not the one they think is most likely correct, they compute a decrease in sales of 2 million CDs in 2002, which they say is statistically insignificant in comparison to the decrease of 139 million CDs sold between 2000 and 2002.
Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft (Score:3, Informative)
Downloading/distributing pirated music/software/movies/etc is not theft, it's copyright infringement. US Code Title 17 [cornell.edu]
actual paper (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is? (Score:3, Informative)
Radio Stations (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Damn lies! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:1, Informative)
If you then sell that copy that you made to a third party, you have certainly broken the law, but would you describe yourself as having "stolen" the book (or a part of it) from the library? From the author?
The law provides the definition of the words that you are seeking -- "having something that doesn't belong to you" is possibly the WORST definition I could think of for things that involve the legal liabilities associated with actual theft, or copyright infringement, for that matter (If I borrow a screwdriver from my friend, is that not also "stealing", using such a definition?).
The only way to provide meaningful definitions and terms for the activities we are discussing is to look to the legal terms. After all, in the absence of the law, the activity we are describing wouldn't even amount to a minor misdeed, but would rather be described with positively-connoted words such as "sharing", or "giving". And in the eyes of the law, the only proper way to refer to Napster-like appropriation of music or other copyrighted materials is "copyright infringement".
The use of any other term(s) (especially ones with a distinct positive or negative connotation) is an attempt by the person using it to try to influence another to see such activity in an identical manner to their own view.
Re:Makes more sense (Score:3, Informative)
The company in the article, BigChampagne, monitors P2P networks and (secretly) sells the information to the Recording Labels. The record execs then turn around and use the statistics (which are locatlity based) to pressure the radio stations to play tracks more.
"This song that only played 5 times last week had 3,000 downloads in the same area. While this song that was played 100 times only had 500 downloads"
More than Infringment (Score:2, Informative)
washingtonpost link -- read it there (Score:2, Informative)
They hate me (Score:4, Informative)
Used CD's (Score:3, Informative)
Those of you who say you have stopped buying CD's because that supports the RIAA are missing the point. Keep buying CD's, just buy them used. Once you're bored of them, or if they ended up being albums you couldn't stand, sell them back to another used store. The artists still get exposure, which will increase ticket sales, more people at concerts mean more T-Shirt sales, and since this is how artists make money today anyhow, it's a win win situation. And the RIAA never sees a cent.
I'm never going to stop buying CD's. There are just too many good ones, and having a burnt copy, or a digital playlist just doesn't compare to cover-art, liner notes, and the satisfaction of adding to your collection.
Sharing helps big releases, hurts small releases (Score:3, Informative)
So basically all this is helping the majors. I can't count the number of times when I've played a record for a friend and they've asked me, can you burn me a copy of that? I say no. They scowl and accuse me of being a zealot. Then I point out that I'm friends with the band and another friend owns the label, and I don't rip off my friends. While people claim to only be after the RIAA labels, very few people know who they're ripping off - never mind what the record contract actually says (a typical indie deal is a 50/50 split after expenses).
Re:Its still piracy (Score:3, Informative)
If the music is junk why are we downloading it? (Score:2, Informative)
I can think of several albums that I wouldn't mind getting but I'm to cheap to spend the $13-$16. The online services that offer an album for around $10 are only slightly more reasonable and the DRM handicap doesn't make them worth while. Instead of buying the music or downloading it I simply go without. Other things are more important then CDs (mortgage, food,...)
If the price of the album was closer to reality (say in the $4-$5 range) I would defiantly purchase more. Personally I think the decline in CD sales has more to do with CD-R media costs then P2P. When you can buy a 100 pack of CD-Rs for almost the same price as 2 CDs it makes you start to wonder what planet the RIAAs member companies are on since they can't seem to find the same deals. Granted there is some setup cost to creating CDs but you can't tell me they haven't found a way to lower it since CDs where invented. To me it's simple price gouging.
The RIAA needs to pull its head out of its ass and realize that we don't buy their claim that P2P is causing a decline in CD sales. Apparently all the years of raping us has made them believe that we are all morons and will believe anything their hype machine spews out. Who will they blame next? Unicorns and the Easter bunny?
It maintains a userbase (Score:2, Informative)
The RIAA's argument is that if they force people not to download MP3s then they are forced to go buy the album, which is more affordable for most people on their budget. I guess that seems pretty fair for the artist that is trying to sell the album. I think that peer2peer sharing would directly decrease cd sales if popularity and userbases would not increase for the artist. However this is not the case. Artists userbases are strengthened and a more widespread popularity for people to buy the album is created.
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:4, Informative)
In Soviet Russia [allofmp3.com], music downloads YOU!
Mods: check the link.
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:2, Informative)
THEY MAKE MONEY OFF OF TOURING AND MERCH SALES AT CONCERTS ONLY. END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION.
Go talk to a few bands, a few artists; learn the truth. I've pointed this out several times, but none of these jackasses seem to understand.
Bands have to buy their shit BACK FROM THE LABEL to even sell it at a concert.
THEYRE RIPPING US ALL OFF.
Re:I expect... (Score:2, Informative)
Once it was clear that people would accept it, they moved on to other cable channels, stores, theme parks, and lets not forget the internet. I love how AOL users pay more for their service than anyone else with a comparable connection and then they are blasted with ads on top of it! You would think its not just slashdotters that are sick of this crap, but based on society's response to it, I really wonder.