17,000 Downloads Does Not Equal 17,000 Lost Sales 398
Andrew_Rens writes "Ars Technica has a story on a ruling by a US District Judge who rejects claims by the RIAA that the number of infringing downloads amounts to proof of the same number of lost sales. The judge ruled that 'although it is true that someone who copies a digital version of a sound recording has little incentive to purchase the recording through legitimate means, it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the recording had not been available for free.' The ruling concerns the use of the criminal courts to recover alleged losses for downloading through a process known as restitution. The judgement does not directly change how damages are calculated in civil cases."
Exactly right! (Score:5, Funny)
I have like ~1,000 albums downloaded. Would I have the money to buy 1,000 albums? Hell no. Not unless I sold all my possessions.
Download != Lost Sale
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA: That'll be $7220 in "restitution", plus $750,000 minimum in statutory damages. Or you can just use the suicide booth down the hall; if you make a statement as you enter to the effect that "this is what happens to downloaders", we won't hound your family for more than half of the judgement.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd quietly disappear if RIAA issued that ruling against me. The next time you would hear from me is on CNN, as the man who killed RIAA's CEO aka Tyrant. I am not a slave to the RIAA CEO or any other man. My forefathers were slaves, but I will not be. I will kill rather than utter the phase "yes masser" again.
>>>'it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the recording had not been available for free.'
Also: Just because something is downloaded d
Re: (Score:2)
I will kill rather than utter the phase "yes masser" again.
Again? When was the list time YOU uttered that phrase?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Informative)
Oh shut up. Seriously, "wage slavery"? You've got to be trolling.
Unless you want to supply your own means to live - farming crops, building and repairing your house, getting your own water, making your own clothes - then you have to get a job for money so you can pay other people to do those things. This is not slavery, it's an almost-universally adopted alternative to self-sufficiency.
Property ownership and medical attention are not rights. We have the freedom to PURSUE life, liberty and happiness, not the right to them. You work in exchange for modern conveniences. It's a very, very complex barter system, but it most certainly not slavery. Suck it up.
Re:Exactly right! (Score:4, Interesting)
From a point of view the parent has a point. Another poster on /. recently posted that he makes less than 10k/year and supports himself, his wife and their two kids in their $40k fixer upper home that was nearly paid off.
How many times a year do you have to call a plumber or electrician, really? There is a line between working for modern convenience and working to support an economy based upon gluttonous consumption. Game consoles, fancy restaurants, Wal*Mart's shelves full of junk are way outside the realm of necessity as far as leading a healthy and fulfilling life.
In a sense we "slave away" in our day jobs for what purpose? I read a paper a while ago (I don't remember from where exactly, but it was a pretty prominent university), dated sometime in 1996 which suggested our economic output was so far beyond that of 50 years prior we could all take a way more vacation than we do without any impact to our culture (in fact I believe it said 2 years per individual). How much MORE is the globe producing ~13 years later?
Property ownership isn't a right? Fifth Amendment? And I'm pretty sure you cannot be denied medical treatment if there is immediate need and if such a denial would lead to death or lifelong suffering.
While I'm not about to throw in the towel on the world I grew up in and know, I am personally looking to shed excess and focus on a more fulfilling (to me) way of life. This includes reducing the amount I spend on "things" and increasing the amount I spend on experiences (travel, guitar lessons right now). At some point, I really do plan on growing as much of my own food as I can, working on maintaining my own house, etc.
What good is having someone else do all that for me if I have to work my life away to pay for it and not enjoy it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it interesting that you blame the CEO of a company when your justice system is handing out the verdicts. The fact that the RIAA can get away with these claims says more about your country than the RIAA's CEO. Are you Liberty-Tree-watering patriots really this blind? A penalty of $150.000 per song is a symptom, not the disease.
But hey, why listen to a bloody foreigner. What do I know?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two thoughts: (1 Most of the People's courts and judges are doing the right thing - denying RIAA's claims. Even the one verdict RIAA managed to win is about to be overturned, so I'm please with my government actions (so far).
(2) RIAA has managed to scam people out of their money with threatening letters - "give us $5000 or else". The CEO is acting like a tyrant. Or a mafioso. Either word would fit.
$150,000 per song my.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Penalizing me or my countrymen 1-to-2 dollars for every song we download is fair."
Excuse me? When is a penalty for performing an illegal act supposed to be "fair"? First, charging the same price as a legitimate download definitely isn't fair, and actually is an INCENTIVE to steal.
What if you were caught attempting to steal a CD and they only charged you the price of the disk? Everyone would try to steal. Best case, you get away with it, and worst case, you pay no more than if you had paid the legitimate price. Where I live the fine for littering and dumping trash is $1,000. Is that "fair"? Don't know, but what I do know is that you don't see many people throwing trash out the windows of their cars. The risk simply isn't worth it.
And what's with the "tree of liberty" BS? Attempting to equate stealing a purely discretionary item that's available from plenty of legitimate sources with patriotism is simply laughable from one side, and an insult to those who died fighting for our liberty on the other.
Finally, try to RTFA for content. The article does NOT say anything about "Penalizing $150,000 for every [song] song..."
FTFA: "For example, the RIAA said that 183 albums were transferred through Dove's server 17,281 times, then multiplied that by the wholesale price of a digital album in 2005 ($7.22) to conclude that its member companies were owed almost $124,769 in restitution..."
That's $124K TOTAL, and not $150K PER SONG. (And charging a "fair" price per album, BTW.) Making up your own numbers doesn't help your argument, as it makes people wonder just what else you're lying about...
Re:Exactly right! (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought I had spelled it out enough for you, but evidently not.
When you are a slave, no matter what you do, you cannot gain your freedom.
When you face potential damages for downloading copyrighted songs that you don't want to pay for, you have the choice of not downloading them.
Do you understand the difference between the two situations? Then you understand that your forefathers would be horrified at your cheapening their experience by likening it to your own position.
The straw man is yours: I never said that you said anything about your black brothers being inferior. You said that the position you would find yourself in if you downloaded music illegally (facing damages) is like slavery (i.e., unavoidable). The implication is clear: you have no choice but to download music without the permission of the copyright holder. The law says that this is stealing, so you imply that you have no choice but to steal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought they reasoned that a copy was more than one lost sale.
Like 30 songs = shared to plenty of people = possible 3000 downloads and lost sales.
So 1000 albums according to RIAA would probably mean you're stealing one million album sales from them, your thief! :D
So just pay back the 15 million dollars you own them thanks to your piracy and it's all fine! :D
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Informative)
That got shot down [cnet.com]; a judge ruled that just having the file available for download did not constitute damages unless there was proof that that file had been downloaded.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Watch the RIAA completely ignore that ruling in the next lawsuit, and hope that the judge does not know about it.
So GP is still right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't the Bar Association have strong words with the RIAA lawyers if the lawyers knowingly left out or misrepresented relevant case law?
If not, then what's the purpose of the Bar Association if it isn't to enforce the practice of law?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the Bar Association is a lobbying group on behalf of the lawyers. It clearly doesn't exercise any quality control over them.
Re:Exactly right! (Score:4, Informative)
There are some differences between what you're talking about and the actual situation in the article.
This person is actually the operator of a torrent site, not a peer. He's already received fines and prison time for the sharing others have done using his site. The RIAA/MPAA asked for restitution in addition, which is based on actual damages. (The typical sky-high figures are fines and statutory damages.)
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Informative)
This person is actually the operator of a torrent site, not a peer. He's already received fines and prison time for the sharing others have done using his site. The RIAA/MPAA asked for restitution in addition, which is based on actual damages. (The typical sky-high figures are fines and statutory damages.)
Correct. And where this ruling becomes relevant to the statutory damages civil cases is that (a) the disproportion of the statutory damages being sought to the actual damages has been decried judicially [blogspot.com] and is the basis for a constitutional attack in several of the civil cases, such as Capitol Records v. Thomas [blogspot.com], SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum [blogspot.com], and others, and (b) the theories which the RIAA lawyers have used to justify the size of the statutory damages are the identical theories whose logic was just shot down by Judge Jones.
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Informative)
Download != Lost Sale
This is especially true for me, since I always check RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com] before purchasing an album. If it's an RIAA artist, then they don't get any money.
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Insightful)
See, I think you are part of the problem in this. On one hand, you say the RIAA doesn't deserve money from you. On the other, you illegally download their creations, sending a clear message that you have some demand for what they offer. If you want the RIAA to go away, just ignore them, and everything they create. While people download their stuff, they can justifiably whine about people ripping them off (because even though 17,000 downloads != 17,000 lost sales, it's also true that 17,000 downloads != 0 lost sales).
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Interesting)
See, I think you are part of the problem in this.
That may be true, but I really don't care. You'll never get a large enough group of people to boycott, so my feeling is that the best way I can contribute to their demise is to spread their product to all who want it, for free.
While people download their stuff, they can justifiably whine about people ripping them off
I don't care if they feel or sound justified. I just want them to make less money. The fact is that I can download their stuff for free with little chance of repercussions, and I can show others how to do the same. It's already forced them to change quite a bit... DRM free music from all the major studios - wow, what a difference a few years of bloodletting makes!
Re: (Score:2)
You are justifying their actions; they do not need to justify them any other way.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to care for someone who claims to not care.
I meant that I don't care if I am perceived to be a problem. I wear my behavior as a badge of honor and only hope that my actions can hurt them enough that they go away.
Re:Exactly right! (Score:4, Insightful)
When I told you that I perceived you as part of the problem, I actually meant, a part of the problem, not just some external fuss that doesn't affect you. It's a problem for you too, and a problem for people you know. In your efforts to hurt the RIAA, you may be only hurting them temporarily, and helping them gain a stronger stranglehold on policing your communications, and invading your privacy. Your actions may leave them as an unprofitable business with significant, almost universal demand, which makes them a prime candidate for government subsidies. Your actions allow (and encourage) others to be part of the same problem, fuelling and exacerbating it.
If you were to boycott them entirely, and spread the message as far as you can, you might actually make a dent in downloads and sales. Then again, maybe people actually do want the RIAA's music, and there's not much you can do about it. Whatever it is, what you are doing isn't helping anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I told you that I perceived you as part of the problem, I actually meant, a part of the problem, not just some external fuss that doesn't affect you.
I know, and I disagree. We have different takes on what is happening. I see the record companies in decline, and I claim that piracy is a big part of that.
You might be right that it will cause unforeseen consequences... it might even make things worse. I'm not Nostradamus, so what do I know? I just think that it is hopeless to organize an effective boycott, though I would probably support such a thing if the piracy route doesn't pan out.
When a kid gets a new iPod, I can either lecture him on the evils of th
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll never get a large enough group of people to boycott
Then how do you explain their abysmal sales? Piracy? No, the years-long established boycott is working, but they're not blaming me and our boycott, they're blaming you and your piracy.
Stop downloading that crap. Download their competetion, the indies, instead. Most indies WANT you to download.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then how do you explain their abysmal sales? Piracy?
Yes. CD sales have gone down steadily, and it's thanks to pirates like me. Arrrrrr.
Download their competetion, the indies, instead.
I generally buy the Indies. Sometimes if you write them saying you want all of their albums, they'll even send you swag like t-shirts and such. I've even gotten hand-written notes!
Re:Exactly right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then how do you explain their abysmal sales? Piracy? No, the years-long established boycott is working, but they're not blaming me and our boycott, they're blaming you and your piracy.
Their sales are explained in a couple of ways. First and foremost, their sales were bouyed for a few years after the advent of CDs (the 90's) by people replacing vinyl with CDs. I gave them a lot of money to do just that. Then I stopped. Second, their current music is substandard by any measure - they are so desperate to just use a formula that there's little risk-taking nowadays.
Then there's digital downloads. They could have entered this game early and easily made the move from CDs to downloads. Instead, Steve Jobs dragged them kicking and screaming into it, and it still took him, what, 7 or 8 years to finally get them to give up on DRM? Their cluelessness has definitely hurt them.
Finally, their sales aren't off that much. They're down 10-20% from the high. No big surprise given the above.
I remember during the last recession (circa 2002) when the MPAA was trying to push through their "superdmca" bill in the states, and I sat across from their slimy lawyer Geoff Beauchamps in a meeting with our state representative. He lamented that the record industry's sales were off by 10%. I asked him how they'd kept their sales up that well in a recession, as mine were off by 50% (I wasn't kidding). Music is non-essential, people are going to buy bread before they buy a CD.
Anyway, they've spent years digging the hole that they're in, and most of what they're doing now is looking for a better shovel.
Re: (Score:2)
I do the same thing as the GP does, but I check RIAA Radar first. That's "first" as in "before downloading." If it comes up "Warning" I trash the .torrent and forget about the music altogether. Out of sight, out of mind, out of hard drive. If it comes up "Unknown" I check extensively to be sure that it's safe, and finally if it's marked "Safe" I do a very quick double-check on Amazon or the band's site and then I'll do the download (and 9 times out of 10, the purchase). This way I can give the biggest
Stop right there! (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody is illegally downloading anything!
If you have a license for the media, you are allowed to do what it states. If you offer the files for download without license, and someone takes them, then you have broken the contract (=license)! The downloader got it from you with no license (that is your implicit contract), so he can legally do with it, whatever he likes to do with it. Like offering it to others. Nothing illegal here at all. No theft (original still in the hands of the owner). Only a broken contr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Most of the music I have I have purchased as CDs in the past or bought as single tracks online. The music I have copied is music I never would've bought for myself. Those aren't lost sales. They were never going to be sales in the first place. I only have it because it cost me nothing so it didn't hurt to check it out. I still buy music that I am seriously interested in.
Their arguement is like someone discovering how to copy a Rolls Royce for free. Suddenly all the millions of Rolls Royces o
Re: (Score:2)
So perhaps it would be fairer to say that 17,000 downloads only equals 5,000 lost sales, for example. Would that be sufficient grounds for concern? It's ludicrous to take the statement that 17,000 downloads doesn't equal 17,000 lost sales (well, duh!) and then swing to the other extreme and use it as an argument to say that piracy isn't causing lost sales. I know few people these days that actually pay for music or movies, but they certainly would if they couldn't download them. They'll say so themselves q
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's ludicrous to take the statement that 17,000 downloads doesn't equal 17,000 lost sales (well, duh!) and then swing to the other extreme and use it as an argument to say that piracy isn't causing lost sales.
Without any evidence to show that the net result is lost sales, you can't say that that's the case. The error in your assertion above is that you assume that the range we're looking at starts at "zero lost sales" and goes to "X number of lost sales, where X == number of MP3's in someone's download directory". Given that all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence, and that a non-zero number of anecdotes demonstrate that some downloads result in a sale that otherwise would not have happened, we are looking at
Re:Exactly right! (Score:5, Insightful)
From Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture [sslug.dk] (I've abridged the quote drastically)
Type B (try before you buy) can do nothing but increase sales, and every study not financed by the recording industry has concluded that "pirates" spend far mor of their money on music than non-pirates.
Lessig's book is available online under a GPL license, as well as in bookstores. Oddly, being able to legally "pirate" it hasn't kept it out of the bookstores, despite the atti-pirates' bleating that if you can get it for free you won't pay for it.
Only thieves have the mindset "if I can get it for free I won't buy it". Most people have scruples. Unfortunately the people in the RIAA labels don't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So how does that make it right? That's my issue with all this. Your argument seems to boil down to "If I like them and they want money, I'll give them money and grab their work. If I don't like them and they want money, I'll still grab their work anyway."
Well now you're addressing a different level of the debate. This is where it turns to "Mickey Mouse Perpetual Copyright Laws" vs "The Right to Share the Fruits of Our Common Culture". Your angle on this is premised upon the supposition that copyright law as it stands is reasonable, fair, and proper. When the stated purpose of copyright is to promote the continued expansion of the public domain by granting a limited monopoly on reproduction of works of art, the current state of law is nearly impossible to de
Re: (Score:2)
Download == some fraction of a Lost Sale. How big a fraction exactly is only relevant for grandstanding, that both RIAA and its foes engage in.
The reality remains, that some sales are lost due to illegal downloading, and that the victims are entitled to compensation. Including punitive [wikipedia.org] monies — to not only compensate for the loss itself, but to punish the thieves (yes, thieves).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The reality remains, that some sales are lost due to illegal downloading, and that the victims are entitled to compensation.
The reality remains that some sales are gained due to illegal downloading. If those sales outweigh the sales lost, how are punitive measures justified?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By the law saying you're not allowed to share that music?
Re: (Score:2)
A law justifies nothing. Indeed, a law must be justified.
Re: (Score:2)
The law was still broken, regardless of the net benefit to the shop owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Download == some fraction of a Lost Sale.
I don't listen to music much, and what I do listen to I have had on CD for close to 20 years. I have purchased only one CD in this century. The only music I have downloaded in violation of copyright has been one song from the aforementioned CD to verify that the live version of the song listed on the back of that CD case was, in fact, the particular version I was looking for. This resulted in a single CD sale that would not have happened otherwise. I have mostly downloaded scads of freely released indy band
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a great argument...
I lost my first record collection, just shy of 1,000, when it failed to materialize along with the rest of the second crate of household belongings the U.S. military attempted to deliver from my base in England to my home in Maine, back in 1975. If you happen to know where it is, I'd go get it. Really.
My second collection, well over 1,500, I gave up when it was just not worth it to go back in that house. It just wasn't.
My current CD collection is around 3,000 and is growing very sl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothin' particularly much to add to the discussion, but I couldn't resist replying to mention of the SL-1200MKII's. I worked at a radio station in college, and those of course were the standard. I can still feel that big rectangular button and visualize the start-up time of a cued-up LP sitting on one.
In all this discussion of downloading and the RIAA, I very rarely see any mention of the kind of downloading I do - pretty much exclusively NON-commercially-released live recordings. I'm closing in on 12,00
Does not affect civil cases!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you really think every illegal download constitutes a lost sale and that the downloader would have purchased the music legally if they weren't able to get it illegally...
You're an idiot.
Lost sale != total loss (Score:4, Insightful)
If you had read the ruling, you'd have noticed that this judge seems to be smart enough to realize that, even assuming a sale was lost, the amount the victims lost is not the same as the sale price.
The price of sale is equal to cost + profit. If a CD costing $10 is shoplifted instead of sold, the seller loses $10. If a CD is downloaded illegally, the seller may claim he lost a sale, but he cannot claim he lost the CD he had to produce and deliver to the store at a price. He still has the CD to sell, at a profit, to another customer.
I wonder what the reaction would be if a judge told the RIAA this: "OK, you lost a million sales. You can get $10 million in restitution, under the condition that you manufacture and deliver one million CDs to the defendant, who is free to sell those CDs at whatever price he can get".
Re: (Score:2)
At the time the illegal download is completed it immediately counts as a lost sale.
Yes and no. The owner of the rights to the song isn't necessarily out of something. In that sense it's very different than shoplifting. Let's say I have a favorite song I really want you to hear. You aren't interested. I insist and actually email you the song (or send you a link and beg you to download it). If you download it, has the record company lost a sale from that download? I'd argue they haven't lost anything. In fact, I may have given them free advertising. If you like the song you may buy
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy doesn't steal physical items, but it is still treating the artist like a slave - he's working to entertain you, but not getting paid for his labor.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your crappy music is not worth its iTunes price (Score:4, Interesting)
Try this one instead:
"I don't want to pay the iTunes price"
These are the ones that make up most of the lost sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Um yes, yes you will.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's a pant load.
Of course we get to decide - everyone does.
The vendor gets to decide what they think the product is worth.
If we disagree, we don't buy.
Whether or not we then illegally download a copy is an entirely different matter.
DROVES of people have already made the determination that the Itunes prices are excessive and aren't buying.
In most cases, it's the drm and not the music/cost that people object to.
It's ok though. Itunes isn't the only, or remotely the best, place to purchase digital music.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not we then illegally download a copy is an entirely different matter.
It's absurdity to presume that knowledge of this option does not affect one's opinion of the song's worth.
And do they factor in (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even play my CDs (and I do have a few, legally obtained). I don't have a CD player other than my computer, and I import all my CDs to my digital audio library on that. I don't ever have to shuffle discs and I won't risk damaging the originals.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As many times as it takes before you learn to take care of your music. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually tend to like web radio services like Pandora and Last.fm better for that sort of thing, but I definitely appreciate being able to listen to an entire album before I buy it, and the record companies have zero stake in allowing that to happen.
Common sense prevails! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with the Judge on this one! Even when I first started downloading music on Napster, I often wanted to get a better perspective of a particular musician or group before purchasing CDs or going to a concert. There are a lot of artists out there whose music I enjoy that I would not have if I had not downloaded their music.
You're not with the judge, the judge thinks there's little incentive to buy a song you have downloaded for free. You and I know the opposite is true: We are most likely to buy a CD from an artist we have downloaded than one we have not.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge said that just because you downloaded it, doesn't mean you would have bought it if you hadn't downloaded it. I didn't see mentioned, but a point I think is equally valid, is that just because you downloaded it, it doesn't mean you didn't ALSO buy it! I found a bunch of MP3s in my collection awhile back from an ancient "lets rip our CDs and pool our music at work" server from the early days of MP3 ripping. I went and deleted the ones I didn't like and bought the ones I did. RIAA's claim doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
"There are a lot of artists out there whose music I enjoy that I would not have if I had not downloaded their music"
There was no *additional* cost to the manufacturers for the music they 'stole' but there was benefit arising from that in the form of the music and tickets they bought
1. perform a song (Score:5, Interesting)
2. distribute it online for free
3. make cash via ancillaries: special fan material, concerts, etc.
this is the economic model of the music industry for the future. probably for books and movies too
of course, there is always room for step 1.5: go into contract with a traditional music conglomerate to massively hype your music and reap larger windfalls of ancillary cash. this represents though a radically different business model for the traditional industry stalwarts: promoter. and nothing more. a much smaller financial footprint. oh well
but what there is NO more room for is revised step 2: charge for your music online
yes, itunes is radically successful and profitable. but mainly because it matches a low price point for a useful service: quick download, quality assurance, robust cataloging, easy searching. none of which can't eventually be beaten by competing free services as the riaa and the dead business philosophy it represents fades away
recorded music, from now on, is nothing more than advertising material
advertising material for revenue streams comprised of fan-appreciated ancillary materials and live concerts
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod point for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> probably for books and movies too
I don't think this will apply to books. How many book-related 'special fan material' do you have? To how many book concerts did you go this year?
i guess you never heard of jk rowling (Score:2)
she can, and has, made money:
1. reading from her books on stage and other special lectures and appearances
2. selling special signed copies and other unique author-tweaked material (hand drawn artwork, hand written material, etc.)
3. selling rights to hollywood to make a movie
4. selling figurines, MMORPG rights, licensed kids toys...
5. etc., etc., etc.
will jk rowling of the future make as much as jk rowling as the past?
no, not at all. probably a tenth of what jk rowling of the past has made so far. and?
and no
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cory Doctorow and Lawrence Lessig manage to sell Little Brother and Creative Commons despite the fact that you can download these books freely under a GPL license.
The RIAA should take note and do the same. They should stop lying to people and calling a music download a "sale". It's only a rental.
If I buy a thing, I own it can can do whatever I want with it (save make and sell copies, which is no different from CDs as counterfeit Rolexes). I can loan it to a friend, I can sell it to a used bookstore, I can p
Baen (Score:2)
See the Baen Free Library [baen.com].
Re: (Score:2)
> probably for books and movies too
I don't think this will apply to books. How many book-related 'special fan material' do you have? To how many book concerts did you go this year?
This is exactly the problem facing publsihing (and authors) today. While music can get by on concert revenues, what happens to the writers?
While there is some small market for ancilary material for books, is that enough to support an author? Printed works will still be made but they may either be similar to academic work (the
Re: (Score:2)
recorded music, from now on, is nothing more than advertising material
This is the saddest thing I've read on Slashdot, ever.
wait, what? (Score:2, Interesting)
"I think you're right, which is a shame. There is music out there, really GOOD music, that will not survive in this business model."
could you explain why you think this way?
you apparently believe the pre-internet business model somehow supported quality music. yes, there was plenty of quality music under the pre-internet model
and plenty of crap
i think some starry eyed folks think quality will improve in the internet music business model. no, i believe quality will simply not change. for many reasons, not le
Re: (Score:2)
It's a simple matter of cost vs benefit. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.
I mean, seriously people. I'm no economics expert, but I did take the required class in high school, and I'm pretty sure that was covered. Do these law degree holding people really think you can ignore basic economics and not expect anyone to realize it?
Re: (Score:2)
Even our economic experts are ignoring basic economics these days, do you really expect lawyers to?
Re: (Score:2)
This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.
The RIAA is using the courts to ensure that the cost of downloading a song is far greater than $0.
Yay logic! (Score:2)
Saying that there is no necessary relation is a huge step, because it throws the whole question open to interpretation. Given that there isn't a one-to-one correlation, it becomes an issue of individual cases as to how many songs are able to be cited as damages by the plaintiff, which does have a major effect on restitution and final costs (since the labels have been basing their claims on a per song basis).
I can only imagine the indignity of being forced to pay whatever obscene per song is required for som
Lost Sales > Downloads (Score:2)
Why?
If someone downloaded a song, she could make a backup and if the original song (with her email in it) was accidentally deleted, she still has the backup.
If someone bought a CD, and her dog ate it, she'll have to buy again.
You guys are kidding yourselves if you think that one pirated song equals one lost sales.
exagerated claims lead to bigger court wins $$$$$$ (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys are kidding yourselves if you think that one pirated song equals one lost sales.
I do not think they're kidding themselves; I think they're deliberately fooling others, for fun and profit.
Living proof (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one band in particular whose entire discography I downloaded. I couldn't find anyone who has the CDs and the previews on Amazon were insufficient. Within a month, I liked it so much that I wanted to have higher-quality, lossless rips and to support the band, so I bought every album the band, and have bought every one since.
I know I'm certainly in the minority in my desire to support the band for its efforts, but there are more people out there like me.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm one of 'em. Never heard of a band, downloaded an MP3 on a whim, liked it, got a few more, and long story short, I bought all of their CD's.
If I were to suddenly get sued for that, I'd smash the cd's with a hammer and tell people not to listen to them.
Economics 101... (Score:2, Insightful)
Demand at $0 < Demand at $14
And they get paid to figure this out?
Re:Economics 101... (Score:5, Informative)
Damn it, got the arrow pointing the wrong way... I was too concerned about getting it to show up at all what with the < and all.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that:
Downloads = Demand + Tasting (which _could_ turn into demand)
Re: (Score:2)
Demand at $0 < Demand at $14
And they get paid to figure this out?
Damn it, got the arrow pointing the wrong way... I was too concerned about getting it to show up at all what with the < and all.
Ah, I thought you were making some kind of psychological statement on the general population's attitudes and perception about worth. You know, the reason why your dad has no problem paying $200 for Windows Vista or a monthly bill for McAfee but scoffs when you talk about open-source software.
Re: (Score:2)
I think all the attention and lawsuits have pushed CDs out of the "commodity" range and into the "luxury" range - everyone's so pissed off at all the lawsuits that they only buy the stuff they are *really* sure about that they want for years to come.
Everything else gets downloaded, sadly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think all the attention and lawsuits have pushed CDs out of the "commodity" range and into the "luxury" range
Advancing technology does that all the time, too.
For example, when the horse-and-buggy were the common means of transportation, horses were a commodity. With the invention of the automobile, horses became a luxury.
It's true... (Score:2)
I've been saying this for years (as have most of you); the fact is that people who steal music are generally just being cheap and greedy. Cheap and greedy don't by CDs, at least not to the extent they would if they couldn't steam them.
I won't claim no money is lost or the absurdity that the companies actually do better because of copyright infringement, but certainly the damages are no where near what they claim.
I think they should just look the other way, it's probably costing them more to pursue the infr
Re: (Score:2)
Afaict thier aim is not to make money from the actual court actions. Instead it is to scare people out of filesharing. It's kinda like the lottery in reverse, filesharing probablly won't cost you anything but if they do decide to pick on you then you are screwed.
Does it work? I'm guessing it probablly does to some extent. Whether it will be enough to save them is another matter.
More judges like these plz (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not logically follow, by any stretch of the imagination, that a downloaded song is a lost sale. In fact, it may be more logical to conclude that a downloaded song is a gained sale. Maybe not in the sense that I ran to iTunes to download it for $1, but maybe if I liked the song, I went to a concert, or bought a hoodie... both of which put more money in the pocket of the actual artist than the record label.
Record labels eat ~95% of the money taken in by music sales. This means that "supporting the artist by buying their music" is simply wrong. The artist sees almost none of the money from direct music sales. People, if you want to support your favorite artists, buy a shirt or go see a show. They see almost 100% of that money back, minus the cost of the roadie to see it at a show or the venue they held the show at.
this can't be stressed enough (Score:2)
put more money in the pocket of the actual artist than the record label.
That predictable outcome is why the record labels are pooling their money for a large campaign of propaganda and litigation/intimidation.
Out of Print (Score:2)
There's a lot of major label music you just cannot buy new (which is the only time they get money on a sale).
Lots of film scores are out of print in the US. You can only get them used or as imports.
Sure Patton was an obscure movie with a forgettable soundtrack (sarcasm there folks) but that doesn't mean the only legal way to get a new copy of the original soundtrack (not the re-recording with tora tora tora) should be buying the collector's edition dvd and extracting the soundtrack from the photo-montage on
Re: (Score:2)
the only legal way to get a new copy of the original soundtrack [...] buying the collector's edition dvd and extracting the soundtrack
I'm pretty sure that the in the USA, it's illegal to do that because of the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.
And elsewhere, the US has been pushing for that to become law (it's one of the strings attached when the US gives emergency aid in case of natural disaster, IIRC).
If you (the music labels) want to cut down on illegal music downloads
They are actively campaigning to make more music downloads illegal. It's control they want, to make sure that the money you have to spend on music goes into THEIR pocket.
again, it must be said that sales != revenue (Score:3, Insightful)
my point is that even if I downloaded songs and 'liked the artist' enough to buy more, I am still more likely to buy USED cd's on amazon than new ones.
first, I control the mp3 quality and encode process (or even flac). second, I know that NONE of my money is going to the riaa or mpaa for movies.
this is the elephant in the room that no one talks about: used cd and dvd sales NEVER 'help' the artist yet they are 100% legal.
we have to get away from the whole 'if its not good for the artist, its not good for anyone' thinking. its just wrong. downloading doesn't hurt artists anymore than used cd's hurt them. or help them. the x-axis doesn't "help" the y-axis either - they are different things that have no inherent correlation.
until 'first sale doctrine' is updated, I refuse to believe the industry in ANYTHING they say about sales, right/wrong or how things 'should' be in some new model they are hoping for.
as long as I can buy used cd's - I will continue to ignore the industry and its crying about 'fairness'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
this is the elephant in the room that no one talks about: used cd and dvd sales NEVER 'help' the artist yet they are 100% legal.
You can claim the same thing about used cars. How can buying a used Ford help Ford? Well here is how: a good used market helps keep the price of new good up. New goods (cars, CDs, Houses,.. have more value when the buys knows there s potential resale value. With CD's this effect is small but I think it's real. Small with CD's because so few are re-sold, bigger with cars and bu
Re: (Score:2)
important step (Score:2)
That's an important step in legal history. Finally the courts have arrived at where we around here have been for years. But what the courts think matters, what we think matters little, in the context of immediate real-world impact.
It's a good thing, and it takes away the RIAA/MPAA's most important FUD element.
I'm certain, in another 3-4 years, the media will arrive at where the courts are now, and stop spreading the RIAA/MPAA FUD unchecked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there are lost sales.
For everyone here claiming they run out and buy the CD when they download something they like, there's going to be hundreds of people that ask themselves why they should buy it when they already have it.
Even if everyone who liked the song bought the CD (or purchased it in some other format), that still doesn't give people the right to infringe on other people's copyrights... if a music company is choking themselves of sales because they won't let you sample the content, that's
Re: (Score:2)
17,000 downloads may not equal 17,000 lost sales, but even the most fanatical people here would agree there are probably some lost sales there, right? 100 sales? 500? Maybe even 1,000?
How about zero?
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less valid than all the other numbers you are creating out of thin air.