Study: P2P effect on legal music sales "not statistically distinguishable from zero"

[0roo0roo]

..

 

[txrandom]

I got into a lot different band from downloading their albums. Although I still probably won't buy their cds, I can't wait to go to a concert of any of my favorite bands.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: txrandom
I got into a lot different band from downloading their albums. Although I still probably won't buy their cds

You sir are exactly the kind of person that encourages DRM. Hang your head in shame.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: txrandom
I got into a lot different band from downloading their albums. Although I still probably won't buy their cds, I can't wait to go to a concert of any of my favorite bands.

The bands that tour are the bands that make money for themselves. Look the the Grateful Dead. They rarely released albums but were always the top grossing performers before Jerry Garcia died. They were always on tour and encouraged people to record thier concerts.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: txrandom
I got into a lot different band from downloading their albums. Although I still probably won't buy their cds

You sir are exactly the kind of person that encourages DRM. Hang your head in shame.

DRM basically only punishes those who are already buying their music.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
DRM basically only punishes those who are already buying their music.

As do the vast majority of extra security measures.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: txrandom
I got into a lot different band from downloading their albums. Although I still probably won't buy their cds

You sir are exactly the kind of person that encourages DRM. Hang your head in shame.

DRM basically only punishes those who are already buying their music.

which is why it is as retarded as the assault weapons ban.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://donnysblog.com/cost-of-piracy.jpg
http://donnysblog.com/first-fanmail-email-from-a-concerned-economist.php

 

[mugs]

The study then took a surprising twist. Popular music will often have both high downloads and high sales figures

This was surprising to them? 😕

Correct me if I'm wrong here. They're basically saying that during time periods when P2P activity is relatively high (compared to surrounding time periods), i.e. when German students are on holiday, they don't see a corresponding drop in music sales. Therefore P2P music downloads don't affect music sales?

I don't agree that they can make that claim from the evidence that they've collected. I think a good percentage of music downloaders rarely or never purchase music legally. You don't have to look to far to find someone who will admit they haven't legally purchased music in years. Likewise, a good percentage of music purchasers rarely or never download music. And then there's the third group - those who do both, presumably because they want to try before they buy? When the downloaders download more music, I wouldn't expect it to have an effect on album sales, because those people aren't purchasing music to begin with. So the results of the study are pretty much what you'd expect.

To make the claim that P2P doesn't affect music sales, you'd have to show that in the absence of readily-available illegal music sales, those people who download rather than buying music would continue to choose not to buy music. I don't think they've done that.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: mugs

I don't agree that they can make that claim from the evidence that they've collected. I think a good percentage of music downloaders rarely or never purchase music legally.

You might want to read this article: Text

Also this (from here: Text):

Along with the accusations that Napster was hurting the sales of the record industry, there were those who felt just the opposite, that file trading on Napster actually stimulated, rather than hurt, sales. Proof may have come in July 2000 when tracks from English rock band Radiohead's album Kid A found their way to Napster three months before the CD's release. Unlike Madonna, Dr. Dre or Metallica, Radiohead had never hit the top 20 in the US. Furthermore, Kid A was an experimental album without any singles, and received almost no radio airplay. By the time of the record's release, the album was estimated to have been downloaded for free by millions of people worldwide, yet in October 2000 Kid A captured the number one spot on the Billboard 200 sales chart in its debut week. According to Richard Menta of MP3 Newswire,[4] the effect of Napster in this instance was isolated from other elements that could be credited for driving sales, and the album's unexpected success was proof that Napster was a good promotional tool for music.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://donnysblog.com/cost-of-piracy.jpg
http://donnysblog.com/first-fanmail-email-from-a-concerned-economist.php

That is assuming that those downloaded albums or songs would have actually been purchased had they not been downloaded.

This shows more the value of what has been downloaded not what has actually been lost.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

You might want to read this article: Text

"That two-thirds tends to include people who were the heaviest buyers which is why we need to continue our carrot and stick approach to the problem of illegal file-sharing," he said.

i've seen the stick, what is this carrot they're talking about?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://donnysblog.com/cost-of-piracy.jpg
http://donnysblog.com/first-fanmail-email-from-a-concerned-economist.php

That guy is very confused. I love the way he makes an absolutely ludicrous claim (piracy costs the music industry $11 trillion per month) and denounces it as ludicrous as if the RIAA made that claim. It's a straw man argument.

He has all of the information needed to reach a logical conclusion right here:

The Copyright Act permits a copyright owner to claim $150,000 per infringement, and the RIAA has been using that figure when they've sued individuals. However, they claim that they only lose 300 million per year due to piracy, which would equate to only 2000 songs downloaded per year.

Obviously the RIAA is not claiming that each infringement costs them $150,000. Not even close. Looks to me like the RIAA is claiming that each infringement costs them a fraction of what the song would cost if you bought it legally. That's pretty reasonable - they recognize that not every downloaded song would have been a purchased song.

However they sue for the amount the law allows. That has nothing to do with what it actually cost them, any reasonably intelligent person would recognize that. The high penalty for copyright infringement is intended to be a deterrent.

Where do you find this crap?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: mugs

I don't agree that they can make that claim from the evidence that they've collected. I think a good percentage of music downloaders rarely or never purchase music legally.

You might want to read this article: Text

Also this (from here: Text):

Along with the accusations that Napster was hurting the sales of the record industry, there were those who felt just the opposite, that file trading on Napster actually stimulated, rather than hurt, sales. Proof may have come in July 2000 when tracks from English rock band Radiohead's album Kid A found their way to Napster three months before the CD's release. Unlike Madonna, Dr. Dre or Metallica, Radiohead had never hit the top 20 in the US. Furthermore, Kid A was an experimental album without any singles, and received almost no radio airplay. By the time of the record's release, the album was estimated to have been downloaded for free by millions of people worldwide, yet in October 2000 Kid A captured the number one spot on the Billboard 200 sales chart in its debut week. According to Richard Menta of MP3 Newswire,[4] the effect of Napster in this instance was isolated from other elements that could be credited for driving sales, and the album's unexpected success was proof that Napster was a good promotional tool for music.

I don't feel like researching how they are making the claims that they are making, so I will accept it at face value and say that I stand corrected on that point.

However I still don't believe that the people who did the study in the Ars Technica article can make the claim that they're making with the evidence they have to support it. I gave but one possible explanation for why a spike in P2P activity would not necessarily be accompanied by a corresponding drop in music purchases.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: mugs

The study then took a surprising twist. Popular music will often have both high downloads and high sales figures

This was surprising to them? 😕

Correct me if I'm wrong here. They're basically saying that during time periods when P2P activity is relatively high (compared to surrounding time periods), i.e. when German students are on holiday, they don't see a corresponding drop in music sales. Therefore P2P music downloads don't affect music sales?

I don't agree that they can make that claim from the evidence that they've collected. I think a good percentage of music downloaders rarely or never purchase music legally. You don't have to look to far to find someone who will admit they haven't legally purchased music in years. Likewise, a good percentage of music purchasers rarely or never download music. And then there's the third group - those who do both, presumably because they want to try before they buy? When the downloaders download more music, I wouldn't expect it to have an effect on album sales, because those people aren't purchasing music to begin with. So the results of the study are pretty much what you'd expect.

To make the claim that P2P doesn't affect music sales, you'd have to show that in the absence of readily-available illegal music sales, those people who download rather than buying music would continue to choose not to buy music. I don't think they've done that.

I believe the statistical equivalent to "no negative impact" is that sales increased with higher p2p activity.

Edit: I'm going to make this a little bit clearer

They recognized that when German students go on holiday, sales should increase. If sales remained constant, then that would in fact be a negative impact on music sales; sales were lower than expected. That's how statistical models work. Instead, sales increased as predicted by their sales model that was probably produced from previous years of economic data.

This was not a guy in his basement looking at numbers and writing a conclusion. It was a statistical analysis of economic data from previous years and comparing it to a more current year to see if sales were lower or higher with increased P2P usage. Apparently sales increased with higher P2P usage, implying that there was no negative change from the expected trend.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html

If your net worth is greater than $4000, you sending me $20 is not statistically distinguishable from zero (e.g. rounds to zero percent)

Paypal address is in my profile. Thanks 🙂

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://donnysblog.com/cost-of-piracy.jpg
http://donnysblog.com/first-fanmail-email-from-a-concerned-economist.php

That guy is very confused. I love the way he makes an absolutely ludicrous claim (piracy costs the music industry $11 trillion per month) and denounces it as ludicrous as if the RIAA made that claim. It's a straw man argument.

He has all of the information needed to reach a logical conclusion right here:

The Copyright Act permits a copyright owner to claim $150,000 per infringement, and the RIAA has been using that figure when they've sued individuals. However, they claim that they only lose 300 million per year due to piracy, which would equate to only 2000 songs downloaded per year.

Obviously the RIAA is not claiming that each infringement costs them $150,000. Not even close. Looks to me like the RIAA is claiming that each infringement costs them a fraction of what the song would cost if you bought it legally. That's pretty reasonable - they recognize that not every downloaded song would have been a purchased song.

However they sue for the amount the law allows. That has nothing to do with what it actually cost them, any reasonably intelligent person would recognize that. The high penalty for copyright infringement is intended to be a deterrent.

Where do you find this crap?

Get some sleep mugs, your sarcasam meter must be broken (either that or mine is way off on your sacrasam)

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: mugs

The study then took a surprising twist. Popular music will often have both high downloads and high sales figures

This was surprising to them? 😕

Correct me if I'm wrong here. They're basically saying that during time periods when P2P activity is relatively high (compared to surrounding time periods), i.e. when German students are on holiday, they don't see a corresponding drop in music sales. Therefore P2P music downloads don't affect music sales?

I don't agree that they can make that claim from the evidence that they've collected. I think a good percentage of music downloaders rarely or never purchase music legally. You don't have to look to far to find someone who will admit they haven't legally purchased music in years. Likewise, a good percentage of music purchasers rarely or never download music. And then there's the third group - those who do both, presumably because they want to try before they buy? When the downloaders download more music, I wouldn't expect it to have an effect on album sales, because those people aren't purchasing music to begin with. So the results of the study are pretty much what you'd expect.

To make the claim that P2P doesn't affect music sales, you'd have to show that in the absence of readily-available illegal music sales, those people who download rather than buying music would continue to choose not to buy music. I don't think they've done that.

I believe the statistical equivalent to "no negative impact" is that sales increased with higher p2p activity.

I don't see where you're getting that from the article. They do say that albums with high downloads also have high sales, but that is because downloads and sales are both a functionality of the popularity and appeal of the album. It does not mean that an increase in downloads would result in an increase in sales, and I don't see them asserting that anywhere.

Edit: I'm going to make this a little bit clearer

They recognized that when German students go on holiday, sales should increase. If sales remained constant, then that would in fact be a negative impact on music sales; sales were lower than expected. That's how statistical models work. Instead, sales increased as predicted by their sales model that was probably produced from previous years of economic data.

This was not a guy in his basement looking at numbers and writing a conclusion. It was a statistical analysis of economic data from previous years and comparing it to a more current year to see if sales were lower or higher with increased P2P usage. Apparently sales increased with higher P2P usage, implying that there was no negative change from the expected trend.

You could say the same thing about any statistic. i.e. The people who come up with the RIAA's statistics that say they are losing money from downloads aren't just some guy in his basement looking at numbers and writing a conclusion, and so on and so forth. Everyone has their biases, and some people will allow their biases to affect their work. When you set out to prove something, you want to prove yourself right, not wrong.

All I'm saying is, from what the article says I don't see how they can make the claim that they're making. That could be because the article left out important information.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mwmorph


Get some sleep mugs, your sarcasam meter must be broken (either that or mine is way off on your sacrasam)

I understand he was exaggerating, but there really was no point to anything he said.

Edit: The guy's sarcastic statements are what made up the straw man I was referring to. That is to say, I know he didn't believe what he was saying, but he wanted you to think the RIAA does.

I decided to investigate the cost of piracy, using the perfectly reasonable figures given by the RIAA: $150,000 per infringement.

 

[SirStev0]

Man, you know for a little bit there when I was downloading music and videos illegal I was like ohhh man some incredible rich person is losing a very small amount of money... I am such a bad person. But now ... FUUUUUUUUUUUUCCK THEM!

 

[Smartazz]

I used to download music on Limewire a while back and in fact that's how I discovered many bands who I will see in live concert and buy their music legally now.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Smartazz
I used to download music on Limewire a while back and in fact that's how I discovered many bands who I will see in live concert and buy their music legally now.

I haven't paid for music since 1997.

Prior to that, I bought 2 or 3 CDs a month.

 

[Black88GTA]

EDIT: Ugh, I missed the point. It's too late for me, I'm getting slow and need sleep 😛 Post rescinded.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: txrandom
I got into a lot different band from downloading their albums. Although I still probably won't buy their cds

You sir are exactly the kind of person that encourages DRM. Hang your head in shame.

Oh shut up, he said he'd go to a concert which costs 5 times as much as a cd.

 

[imported_Ned Flanders]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://donnysblog.com/cost-of-piracy.jpg
http://donnysblog.com/first-fanmail-email-from-a-concerned-economist.php

That guy is very confused. I love the way he makes an absolutely ludicrous claim (piracy costs the music industry $11 trillion per month) and denounces it as ludicrous as if the RIAA made that claim. It's a straw man argument.

He has all of the information needed to reach a logical conclusion right here:

The Copyright Act permits a copyright owner to claim $150,000 per infringement, and the RIAA has been using that figure when they've sued individuals. However, they claim that they only lose 300 million per year due to piracy, which would equate to only 2000 songs downloaded per year.

Obviously the RIAA is not claiming that each infringement costs them $150,000. Not even close. Looks to me like the RIAA is claiming that each infringement costs them a fraction of what the song would cost if you bought it legally. That's pretty reasonable - they recognize that not every downloaded song would have been a purchased song.

However they sue for the amount the law allows. That has nothing to do with what it actually cost them, any reasonably intelligent person would recognize that. The high penalty for copyright infringement is intended to be a deterrent.

Where do you find this crap?

Get some sleep mugs, your sarcasam meter must be broken (either that or mine is way off on your sacrasam)

My thinking too. Retards.