Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Piracy

Survey Suggests P2P Users Buy More Music 186

Posted by samzenpus
from the those-who-listen-also-buy dept.
elashish14 writes "A new survey commissioned by Google suggests that music listeners who utilize P2P filesharing services buy 30% more music than non-sharers. The survey also probed users' opinions on enforcement practices. Users were strongly against either throttling or disconnecting users' internet services, but the majority suggested also that search engines should block access. 52% of Americans also said that downloading infringing content should be a punishable offense."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Survey Suggests P2P Users Buy More Music

Comments Filter:
  • Big Shock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UltraZelda64 (2309504) on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:00AM (#42644009)

    Not all people are dumbasses, and some actually prefer to make sure that what they end up blowing their money is not complete garbage. Is that a crime?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:07AM (#42644031)

      Not all people are dumbasses,

      [citation needed]

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:17AM (#42644093)

        You are not a dumbass, therefore not all people are dumbasses.

        QED

        Feel free to disagree with my premise.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21, 2013 @01:17AM (#42644375)

          What is this fallacy called? Proof by seduction?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TrekkieGod (627867)

          You are not a dumbass, therefore not all people are dumbasses.

          QED

          Feel free to disagree with my premise.

          I will gladly do so.

          Hey, if you tell me you've never done anything in your life that caused you to think, "man, I'm such a dumbass," then I'll know you're both a dumbass and a liar :)

          • by shentino (1139071)

            Surprisingly that doesn't prove anything.

            At best it's a case of *inductive* reasoning that assumes among other things that everyone has done dumbass things.

        • You've made an unfounded assumption that Anonymous Coward is a person, you'll need a citation for that as we all know that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog [wikipedia.org].
    • Re:Big Shock (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday January 21, 2013 @01:09AM (#42644335)

      "Is that a crime?"

      It would seem so, since I saw similar survey results clear back in 2000... that is, 13 years ago.

      The music industry has known about this. Their campaigns and lawsuits are not about fairness. They are about screwing as many people over for $$$ as possible.

      • Re:Big Shock (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Genda (560240) <mariet@@@got...net> on Monday January 21, 2013 @01:41AM (#42644451) Journal

        I don't think so. I think its way bigger. I think they want to have the right to control all media. They want to own "The Absolute Right" to control the traffic of all IP. This means draconian punishment for listening to/viewing owned media today, but in the future means that they will need to be paid every time you hear, or watch, or use, or make physical items from, or create Intellectual property (including the future IP involved in producing 3D printable goods.)

        This is just one of the many corporate wars on what will be possible in the future. We will either build a robust free (as in liberty) system of trading IP not produced by the bankers, or our heads will be fitted with meters from birth and we'll never escape our indebted servitude. We'll either be exalted to the stars or die in the dust of our own greed and petty avarice. So while most people (52%) just regurgitate the stupid they're spoon fed at the theaters while they watch that 10 minute COKE commercials that they paid $15 to see, people with a measurable brain wave and an interest in something other than Jersey Shores, will mourn the loss of Aaron Swartz, and work diligently to preserve a future in which life is worth living.

        • "I don't think so. I think its way bigger. I think they want to have the right to control all media."

          That's not bigger. It's actually a subset of what I was saying. Why would they want to control all media? One reason only: to screw as many people out of as much $$$ as possible.

          • I think there's more to it than $ or even control. The entertainment moguls are a bunch of dumb cowardly dinosaurs, trying to turn back the clock, hang on to a lost world or perhaps a world that never was, which they believe they like and think they understand. Never mind whether it makes sense, or is fair. Or that it would lead to stagnation and decline, and threaten our children. That takes more than any amount of money and power can accomplish, but this detail doesn't seem to have dissuaded them from

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          So while most people (52%) just regurgitate the stupid they're spoon fed

          The problem is, this happens for 100% of people, just in different categories of stupid.

          Show me the man who understands why the *AA are wrong and copyright law needs reform, and I'll find you something else he's merely parroting about.

          • by yotto (590067)

            So what you're saying is that no person on Earth has formed a 100% informed opinion about every single issue, idea, or viewpoint known to man?

            I agree.

      • by Bert64 (520050)

        The problem from the greedy and arrogant perspective of the movie industry, is that p2p users tend to be far more discerning as they will often try before they buy... That is, while they may well buy more music overall they are far less likely to purchase the drivel that is cheaper (and thus more profitable) for the industry to produce.

      • "Is that a crime?"

        It would seem so, since I saw similar survey results clear back in 2000... that is, 13 years ago. The music industry has known about this. Their campaigns and lawsuits are not about fairness. They are about screwing as many people over for $$$ as possible.

        I don't think they're necessarily out to screw people. I think they want to get as much $$$ as possible, and they don't care if it screws people in the process (or not). All the screwing is just a side effect. That's how business is done these days, and is a fundamental flaw in large entities such as MPAA/RIAA. Now that ethics aren't a factor in business, the only motivator is money. The only rare exception would be if you had a privately held company and the owner(s) believed that making money at all c

      • Similarly, the guy down the corner shop strategically places lollies at child eye height and so on. The only reason is to screw as many people over for $$$s as possible. Or possibly that's just business and we all know it? Fairness doesn't enter into it, or it wouldn't be capitalism, although we may expect regulators/government to moderate somewhat.

        Labels currently have a right over their IP and it's the long view of protecting this that drives their behaviour, not short-term litigation profits. The most

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      People who put forth the effort to download music are more likly to have an interested in music.

      • by fa2k (881632)

        People who put forth the effort to download music are more likly to have an interested in music.

        This is a more plausible argument. There are plenty of ways to sample (big label) music legally for free, and easier than Bittorrent.

    • Re:Big Shock (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shentino (1139071) on Monday January 21, 2013 @03:48AM (#42644881)

      Nobody will listen to studies like this, because the producers with a deathgrip on the market don't care about profits. They care about control of the market.

      Which is why they get all whiny and bitchy at TWO things:

      1. piracy
      2. artists bypassing them and going directly to customers

      As far as they are concerned, it doesn't matter if money is dodging their own pockets by fair means or foul.

      They don't just want to succeed. They also want everyone else to fail.

      • You make the mistake of splitting your argument into 2 points. They are one and the same thing. Piracy IS the method by which artists can bypass them and go directly to customers.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      52% of Americans also said that downloading infringing content should be a punishable offense.

      Most Americans when asked would like to see more healthy food choices at McDonalds.

      Would they actually buy them? Nope, they'd just like to see them before ordering their bucket of mechanically recovered chicken chunks.

      • I think the only "punishment" that should be done is a police officer taking the "criminal" to the store and forcing them to buy whatever album they downloaded. If they downloaded Britney Spears, then embarrassment may obviously be a part of the punishment. Once bought, the person should be forced to open it so they can't just take it back for a full refund, and the receipt should be confiscated.

        Simple, and amusing. Why insist upon millions of dollars worth of damage when you could just fuck with them in

  • Far cry 3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:01AM (#42644015)

    I hated Far Cry 2, thought it was a terrible game and regretted buying it. A few weeks back I saw a stream of Far cry 3 and thought it looked fun so torrented it. This lead to be really enjoying the game and completing the pirated version, which lead me to buy it for Co Op, with another friend who bought it on my recommendation and a 3rd who grabbed it after.

    I pirated 1 copy of the game (-£0)
    I sold 3 copies (+75)

    Ubisoft can thank me later.

    • Re:Far cry 3 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Genda (560240) <mariet@@@got...net> on Monday January 21, 2013 @01:53AM (#42644517) Journal

      You missed something, what part of they still want the $25 for the pirated copy plus damages for circumventing their business model is unclear. In the eyes of purveyors in this society today... you are an end-looser. A guy in China ate a bowl of spicy soup that burned a hole though his stomach because the restaurant was able to shave a few pennies off of the more expensive chili paste by buying a cheap chemical substitute, that just turned out to be lethal. To the modern corporation you are simply a resource to be bled dry and discarded (at both ends of the buy and sell equation.) Your labor is bought wholesale, and sold to users by the corporation at retail. You buy other services and products from corporations at retail prices for which they buy or manufacture for wholesale or less. Labor is a commodity, they buy life insurance policies on you hoping you'll die and make them a windfall. When profit supersedes humanity, the final use of human beings is predictably inhumane.

      • Re:Far cry 3 (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo @ w orld3.net> on Monday January 21, 2013 @08:39AM (#42645903) Homepage

        I'm glad we have avoided going down that road in Europe. We have strong employment laws that prevent us being treated like cattle, for example, and strong consumer protection laws that prevent companies leeching off us. It isn't perfect but it does for the most part work quite well.

        That's why I feel bad for Americans when they talk about such laws taking away their freedom to made deals. The employee and the consumer are almost always the weaker party, easy for the corporation they are trying to strike a bargain with to crush. Sure enough American workers have few rights and few holidays, and often no sick leave*, and consumers get boned all the time.

        * Did you know that in Europe if you take holiday time off work and get sick, you can get the holiday time back? Holiday time necessary for a human being's mental wellbeing, employers have to pick up the cost of people being sick (within reason).

      • by Jawnn (445279)

        A guy in China ate a bowl of spicy soup that burned a hole though his stomach because the restaurant was able to shave a few pennies off of the more expensive chili paste by buying a cheap chemical substitute, that just turned out to be lethal.

        That's the free market at work, pal. All the Rand fan-boys here on /. will thank you to stop suggesting that the real world doesn't really work the way that their messiah envisioned it, you insensitive clod.

    • Re:Far cry 3 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rjr162 (69736) on Monday January 21, 2013 @07:38AM (#42645705)

      And if the co-op had worked with the pirated version? Would you had still purchased the legit copy?

    • by Ash Vince (602485) *

      Ubisoft can thank me later.

      They will, the subpoena for the illegal copy you downloaded is in the post :)

  • I wonder how many of those 52% actually download infringing content on a regular basis.

    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      More to the point, we can translate the headline into:

      "Survey suggests that people that show an active interest in media buy more media"
    • by torkus (1133985)

      I wonder where that 52% came from. In my experience a large percentage of people engage in piracy openly and without remorse. Plenty more are indifferent.

      52% of politicians on the MAFIAA dole said piracy should be punishable?

      52% of 65+ upper class?

      Or did they present punishment as a monetary fine equal to the value of what was downloaded instead of the 250000x that it is today

      I *loathe* misused statistics like this. 4 our of 5 doctors agree. The 5th one we fired.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Might as well posit that people who steal cigarettes buy more tobacco products.

    • Does not compute. Theft of a physical, tangible asset != making a duplicate of that asset. The so-called "theft" of digital goods = making a duplicate of that good, which in no way detracts from anyone's inventory, assets, or ability to continue selling those goods.

      • by Genda (560240) <mariet@@@got...net> on Monday January 21, 2013 @01:59AM (#42644549) Journal

        You have to understand the mentality... they've been raping and robbing artists for a hundred years. So when you're dealing with cheats and criminals, all they can see is when they aren't getting paid its a crime and you must be cheating them. Its called projecting and its as common as sunrise. Problem only exists when these scum bags buy laws codifying and ultimately imposing their criminality on society.

      • Does not compute. Theft of a physical, tangible asset != making a duplicate of that asset. The so-called "theft" of digital goods = making a duplicate of that good, which in no way detracts from anyone's inventory, assets, or ability to continue selling those goods.

        By that argument, should Steam online game downloads then be free too (or just cover the bandwidth costs)?

        They can send unlimited copies of the product too without running out of inventory.

        • Ahhh, but you're no longer talking about a published game, so much as a "service". But, I don't much like that distinction, because companies like Steam are purposely moving away from published content, toward services. I'm not real sure how to deal with that - except that I don't subscribe. I have only one subscription, it's pretty cheap, and if something happens to it, I'll be a bit pissed, but I'll get over it quickly.

          People who have several hundreds, or even thousands of dollars "invested" in Steam d

      • by tverbeek (457094) on Monday January 21, 2013 @09:58AM (#42646357) Homepage
        In your knee-jerk parroting of the "filesharing isn't theft" semantic argument, you missed the AC's point: to be meaningful the survey would need to control for the users' level of interest.

        This is a classic example of the correlation-equals-causation fallacy. While it's being trumpeted by filesharers as proof that it results in people paying for more music and movies, it can just as easily be interpreted as indicating that people who are sufficiently into commercial media that they spend 30% more money on it, also fileshare it. Which would be totally unsurprising, and also a lot less of a challenge to the MAFIAA's argument, because it's possible that these people would've spent 40% more if they didn't have access to stuff without paying. Or maybe not. This survey doesn't tell us.

        Don't be like a Creationist, looking for and latching onto any dubious study that seems to support the belief you already hold. Demand – as AC suggested – better studies that control for interest, to show whether or not your religious beliefs are sound or not.
  • This goes to show that more than half of the USian population believes in the tyranny produced by the power elite and believe in punishing people for non-crimes. That the population of the US is so badly educated and brainwashed that they believe these things. It goes to show that the US is not a civilized nation with rational, reasonable laws that make sense in any sense of the word.

    • by mooingyak (720677) on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:18AM (#42644101)

      This goes to show that more than half of the USian population believes in the tyranny produced by the power elite and believe in punishing people for non-crimes. That the population of the US is so badly educated and brainwashed that they believe these things. It goes to show that the US is not a civilized nation with rational, reasonable laws that make sense in any sense of the word.

      Waves hand.

      I believe downloading infringing material should be punishable.

      I also believe that the current penalties are absurd and way out of proportion with the offense.

      And, just for the hell of it, I also think current RIAA anti-piracy efforts are counter productive and they should instead focus on delivering their content in ways that make infringement less appealing, rather than ramping up DRM and suing people.

      But hey that's just me supporting the tyranny of the power elite.

      • But hey that's just me supporting the tyranny of the power elite.

        Unfortunately yes, it still is. Although I should commend you for doing it in a sensible way.

      • by poity (465672)

        Hear hear. If they they would make low res/low bit rate streams of their content freely available, even with ads, they'd get many more people on their side, and those who pirate films/music would have no more legit excuses to hide behind.

        • Ohh, good idea. Give away shit copies of your work, then no one will want to steal your real work.

          That's just batfuck crazy. Let's go back to "entertainment". If/when you entertain the people, the people will reward you. When you stop being entertaining, the people will stop rewarding you. Sing and dance, then at the end of the day, you can count the coins in your money bowl. If the money isn't adequate to your needs, then you need to learn how to sing and dance in an entertaining way. The world does

      • by Genda (560240) <mariet@@@got...net> on Monday January 21, 2013 @02:11AM (#42644595) Journal

        This is STUPID... I can go over to Spotify for free this very second and listen to nearly anything my heart desires. Then when I hear something I just love, I listen to the whole album, and I find damn that's wonderful and I BUY IT because I want it in high fidelity. Or its a piece of rancid wombat feces and I flush it. I buy tremendously more music this way, try things I would never consider buying then go wow, that's not bad and a sale is made that wasn't ever gonna happen.

        So the media moguls don't give a flying fsck about selling content. They care about controlling access and creating artificial scarcity so they can bleed the public. That is all, there is no sane argument to the contrary, no meaningful defense, no "But, what about..." There are only two futures, the Spotifys will inherit the earth or the current Media Moguls will legislate free (as in liberty) access into oblivion.

      • by shentino (1139071) on Monday January 21, 2013 @04:05AM (#42644949)

        You don't have a choice.

        The 99 percent police crackdown proved that the elite are willing and able to use force to silence their critics. Said elite also hold a collective monopoly on the mass media that wanna-be politicians need to get elected.

        Finally, the elite use their money to support whichever candidate will kiss their ass, and they threaten to support the opposition if they don't. You either kiss their ass or get sold out to someone who will.

        The only way you will get into a federal office is with the backing of the power elite. If they don't like you, they will:

        a) Bankroll your opponent's campaign
        b) Refuse you air time entirely
        c) Violently suppress your wanna-be constituents

        The power elite already have the country by the balls and they know it.

      • by Bert64 (520050)

        Ramping up DRM and suing people is only happening in the west, where infringement rates are relatively low anyway and the laws are easily bought and heavily stacked against end customers...

        Over in asia and eastern europe where copying is far more common, they are actually competing by making content more easily and cheaply available.

    • by poity (465672)

      Interestingly, if you look at the comparisons on the latter half of the report, German internet users are more likely to support blocking copyright infringement, and support heavier fines, than their US counterparts.

  • by checkitout (546879) on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:14AM (#42644081)
    Survey suggests P2P Users lie through their teeth. Who is going to answer a survey about illicit activity honestly?
    • And the RIAA apparently knows [techdirt.com] that online P2P is not the major source of privacy.
      • by shentino (1139071)

        Darn straight it's not a source of privacy.

        Dratted IP addresses gaping like goatse out in the open.

        That is why everyone should torrent via Tor.

    • by poity (465672)

      I can imagine if they started with questions about piracy habits first, that people would likely try to cover their asses later on when they got to asking about purchasing habits. Took a glance at the PDF and saw only 4 or 5 of the survey questions, but they didn't mention how, or in what order, they were asked.

    • by rtb61 (674572)

      I don't P2P and I buy zero music. I started to hear the greed, the narcissism, crappy lyrics and, repetitive rhythms. I started to get really put of by drunken, drugged up minstrels thinking and carrying on like they are the most special people in the world. It got all so boring, seriously 'BORING', that listening to car noise, the sounds of nature, the background hum of the metropolitan environment became preferable.

      You want lying through their teeth, the MTV and the whole industry basically bullshits a

      • by Genda (560240)

        There are so many fine indie groups now, and their music has variation, its clever, slick and honestly grittier and more intelligent than the homogenized, pasteurized, sanitized for your convenience white bread musical sewage they crap out of the radio these days through the roboplayers that are 99% of the stations airing today. I have a large network of friends of diverse age and culture. So I can find some sweet new grass band, get a msg to check out some nuevo flamenco, then listen to a classical rock b

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          Seriously why waste all that time and effort trying to find it. Too me the best music has always been that shared with good company and that in reality is regardless of the quality of the music. So pfft, fuck it all, it's just background, the activity and the people in the foreground is what counts.

    • Well, a survey wasn't necessary to determine that RIAA and MPAA lie through their teeth. If we were to believe THEIR lies, they and all their member corporations would have been bankrupted with the advent of the internet. They've already lost more money from the year 2000 to the year 2005 than they've made between the years 1990 and 2010. WTF?

      • by Xeno man (1614779)
        Fuck, the internet? It's been the same song and dance since any recording device has been available. When the cassette tape recorders was released there was lawsuits claiming the same thing. They lost that but didn't die. VHS recorders released, same thing. DVD burners, computers, Napster, the internet. It's been the same song and dance because if they ever get their way, they can make more money.
      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        Music sales have been decreasing for quite some time now, but not due to piracy. People listen to music on streaming services like Spotify and Pandora, or on YouTube, instead of buying it. When they do buy they can now get just the tracks they want, instead of having to buy the whole album or a crappy CD single with five terrible remixes on it.

        I bet the amount of music people listen to now is about the same or has even gone up, it is just the amount sold that is going down. I expect that if you look at the

  • This article was as much about the differences between the populations surveyed in germany and USA. from TFA, Germans that responded to the survey were almost twice as likely to obtain free music. it also pointed out Germany still bought lots of physical media (82% sales were CD), while the trend in USA was in favour of online downloads (more than 50%).

    Additionally, while 52% US citizens believe that downloading free music is some sort of crime, 59% of Germans surveyed believe this too. By leaving thi
    • If the summary presented the whole story, there'd be no point in reading TFA.
      • by beckett (27524)
        the summary presents a slanted view of the article; it doesn't summarize the more balanced point of view in the article.
    • 52% US citizens believe that downloading free music is some sort of crime, 59% of Germans surveyed believe this too.

      Probably a larger portion of Germans think that "crime" is too broadly defined as to take it very seriously. Putting things in the same category may or may not make them "the same". (According to the Bible, gay sex is an abomination but then again, so is eating shellfish.)

      • by beckett (27524)
        right; this would have put some of the other discussions (e.g. 52% americans believe in thought crime) in perspective. the article does define what 'crime' is ambiguously.
    • Additionally, while 52% US citizens believe that downloading free music is some sort of crime, 59% of Germans surveyed believe this too. By leaving this point off the summary, /. does not present the whole story in TFA.

      These numbers would firstly depend an awful lot on the exact wording of the question asked. Obviously downloading free music is not a crime at all. I've downloaded plenty of free music, directly from the musicians, some from iTunes, all completely legally. Downloading music that isn't free without paying may be a crime, but what answer you get depends on the question asked.

      And translating a term like "some sort of crime" accurately is very, very difficult. A word like "crime" is one on a long chain of wo

  • by buddyglass (925859) on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:41AM (#42644211)
    People who want music will get what they can online and buy the rest. People who don't care to own their own music just listen the radio or stream Pandora. It's no surprise that people who listen to music and want to own some of their own are both more likely to purchase music *and* more likely to acquire it illegally. The $64,000 question is how much music this group of folks would be purchasing if file-sharing were somehow no longer an option.
    • The $64,000 question is how much music this group of folks would be purchasing if file-sharing were somehow no longer an option.

      I think I can answer this question in an authoritative manner: None

      I really like several genres of music. Wild ass number: 90% of all music is crap. Without file sharing (tape recording), I would have never bought any music at all. As it is, since I do not do file sharing any more, I have no idea what is good or not and no way to find out. If anyone thinks that I am going to pay $20 a cd to find good music ($200 via that wild ass number to find one good cd), they are insane. I just do without nowadays.

      In ot

      • My personal experience is the opposite. I highly suspect there's some music I would have purchased had it not been available for free in digital form at little effort and with negligible legal risk. (i.e. borrowing a friend's CD and ripping it.) It's entirely possible I'm not representative of most people, but I suspect I'm not the only one like this either.
  • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:44AM (#42644225)

    Based on the article's writeup of the survey, the survey seems to suggest that everyone is "pirating", with the only difference being where they get their music from. As we'd expect, P2P users had larger libraries with a larger proportion of their library being made up of illicitly acquired music, but in raw numbers, they still purchased more than non-P2P users. Meanwhile, non-P2P users had smaller libraries and were found to be acquiring music through shady means nearly as much, with the distinction being that they were getting it from friends and family as opposed to from the Internet.

    Long story short, P2P or not, people are pirating these days, but the P2P folks have a larger appetite for music, and that includes purchasing it in larger quantities. Nothing really earth-shattering for most of us, though hopefully it'll be a wakeup call to the RIAA and their kind.

    Well, we can hope, at least.

    • by Cassini2 (956052)

      Everyone is pirating. Today's copyright laws can't be followed, even by people actively trying to follow them. Someone put a nice essay together to detail how incredibly absurd we are right now. If you walk around in public, singing along to your iPod, you are violating copyright. Current copyright law is so nebulous, that average person will violate it somehow, every day. The only good news is that no one cares about most peoples infractions.

      The real problem with copyright law, and increasingly all I

    • Long story short, P2P or not, people are pirating these days, but the P2P folks have a larger appetite for music, and that includes purchasing it in larger quantities. Nothing really earth-shattering for most of us, though hopefully it'll be a wakeup call to the RIAA and their kind.

      Well, we can hope, at least.

      This resonates with something I've come to realise over the past week or so with regards to my own purchasing habits. And it's not just down to "I buy what I download", although you can easily oversimplify it out to that.

      If I'm listening to a lot of music, I want to buy music. If I watch a lot of Anime, I want to buy Anime. If I'm watching a lot of genre TV, I want to buy genre DVDs. This includes if listened via radio or Spotify, or watch stuff on TV or on DVDs I already own. Consuming a certain type of me

      • I definitely agree. I don't think that we can reasonably use such a defense as justification for pirating (morally or legally), but I do believe that the RIAA would be well-advised to approach the situation with that sort of thinking and awareness. Rather than viewing these people as customers that have been saturated with advertising and the culture of music (as Neil Young [theverge.com] put it, "piracy is the new radio"), they're treating them as opponents. Jobs had it right when he went to the music industry with the i

  • by dtjohnson (102237) on Monday January 21, 2013 @01:59AM (#42644547)

    I recently obtained an old-fashioned turntable at a garage sale. Playing LP records on that thing makes the music come ALIVE. I am listening to The Band's "The Weight" cut from the Bob Dylan 'Before the Flood' live vinyl LP album and, comparing it with the either the CD or MP3 version is like comparing HDTV with pre-hdtv. The music is so much richer and fills the room. I never realized before what was lost when the switch to CDs was made. So...those downloaded tracks from a P2P source are only offering a fraction of the audio experience that used to be available decades ago...and the music companies are to blame because they must have known at the time what they were doing...selling less for more. Yeah, you couldn't get those LPs for free but then they were actually worth a lot more because they provided a much richer audio experience. The record companies should have worked a lot harder on an analog format rather than the CDA format they ended up with on music cds. Why? Because music is analog and the conversion to a digital format loses something. Hey record companies...here's some free advice. Give the digital files away for free...that's all they are worth...and sell us a new analog format on an optical disc.

    • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday January 21, 2013 @03:37AM (#42644851)

      Converting to digital at CD standard loses nothing you can hear. The frequency range covers all of human hearing, and the quantitisation noise is too small to notice on a properly normalised track. What you hear isn't anything inherent to the CD medium: It's just that the preferred style of mixing has changed in the intervening years, something commonly referred to as the 'loudness wars,' as labels seek to make the music stand out more in a public setting by increasing the average volume at the expense of dynamic range.

      With MP3s, you get as good as you allocate bits for. 64kbit music is going to sound like rubbish, but you'd need superhuman hearing to notice anything changed at 384kbit. Better, newer codecs can easily match that quality at a lower bitrate - MP3 is quite dated now, technologically. It achieved such dominance while it was the best around that when better codecs came along it was too entrenched to displace.

      • Mod parent up.
      • by dtjohnson (102237)

        Converting to digital at CD standard loses nothing you can hear.

        You are theoretically right, of course, and I would have agreed in an instant before I had my own listening experience. It all starts with our ears and our brain, though. Those are analog devices. When we take digital data and attempt to simulate analog music you can hear the difference and it is not subtle. Put it on a scope and no doubt the waveform would look right. It should be right. It IS right...but it does not sound the same...

        • Honestly just being curious here... is it possibly because you were just used to the imperfections and the nuances of records before? It seems similar to the 24fps argument (true movies have flicker and motion blur so 48fps without the same motion blur seems amateur and soap opera-like). I had to readjust my perceptions when I thought of it that way. Your brain can trick you in to feeling that the better quality looks unprofessional.
        • You're wrong, but if you want to indulge your wrongness there is a solution for your vinyl maintainance problem. You could get a laser turntable. No needle, and thus no wear on the record at all. They do cost a fortune though.

      • by Fruit (31966)
        You may find this paper [physiology.org] interesting.
  • As someone who has TBs of pirated games, I have a pretty decent steam account ($1300 last I checked). I have a huge vinyl collection and a massive download folder from Beatport.com (Due to who I DJ for, I have to own all tracks that I use in sets), yet I have a huge download folder. Why do I pirate so much and yet buy a ton of stuff? I pirate games because I get sick of being burned by shitty games, and the clips on Beatport are not nearly long enough to get the gist of the track. Youtube, you say? Goo
  • by jsepeta (412566) on Monday January 21, 2013 @04:43AM (#42645087) Homepage
    when napster was first out (before they were sued and sold and reorged), music sales were up in college towns where p2p was popular. the more exposure young people have to new music, the greater the likelihood that they will buy new music. duh.
  • But the real question is are they spending as much as they would have if they weren't pirating at all. Of course this is impossible to determine. But just as one side can through surveys like this at you, the other can throw out things like the decline in record store sales (which may or may not be offset by increases in downloaded sales), etc. Both sides of this issue can come up with valid arguments when you cherry pick the stats you want to.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...