What The IFPI Report Left Out: Its Own Study Showed That File Sharers Do Buy
from the well,-look-at-that dept
We already spent a bunch of time debunking many of the claims in the IFPI's new "Piracy Bad!!!!" report. But the folks over at TorrentFreak have dug up a bit more info. Apparently the research for the report was put together by Forrester, and the underlying research showed that when it comes to the growth in digital music sales, those who partake of unauthorized file sharing are also the best customers of authorized digital music. No, this is not saying that file sharing automatically leads people to buy, or that all file sharers buy. Obviously, that's not the case. But it does suggest that demonizing those people might not be the smartest thing.But the IFPI report doesn't mention any of that. Instead, it claims that people file share for one reason and one reason alone: because it's free. If that were the case, though, then why would any of those who partake also buy? And why would they be the industry's best customers for digital sales? It seems like the IFPI should be embracing them to see how it can get them to choose to buy more -- but instead, it totally ignores what its own researchers found, insists that it's just because content is free, and then spends most of the report demonizing its best customers and asking governments of the world to kick those people offline.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: buyers, digital music, file sharing, ifpi, study
Companies: ifpi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
GRAMMER POLICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GRAMMER POLICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GRAMMER POLICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GRAMMER POLICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GRAMMER POLICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But doesn't everybody fileshare? I bet if you did a study on the youth demographic of music customers I bet you'd find that like 99% percent of them were active file sharers. I acknowledge that not pissing off your customers if a valid business strategy, but what exactly does it mean to ways that filesharers are the best customers, if in fact they are probably -all- their customers, at least in certain markets.
And if all your customers also fileshare, does that make it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Answer: No.
Assuming the word "file" means soft copy, then one could say that not everyone shares files because there are some who do not use a computer. Those who use a computer which is connected to the internet share files. That is the way the internet works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It depends on what you mean by "computer". Desktops? Laptops? Cellular phones? Portable media players?
The Internet isn't the only venue for file sharing. Haven't you ever heard of Bluetooth? What about microSDs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy Stats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy Stats
"Ninety percent of everything is crud." - Theodore Sturgeon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy Stats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy Stats
yeah so do I, my girl friend has alot of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danger, Will Robinson
http://twitter.com/Mark_Mulligan/status/8074993556
"RT @flypapertv Pirates are most valuable customers. http://vf.cx/jlB $$ Only problem with my quotes: I didn't even speak to the journalist!!"
(I've followed Mark Mulligan's twitter feed for a while. It's him.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Danger, Will Robinson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Danger, Will Robinson
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/#comment-63 5429
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Danger, Will Robinson
And just think, in a newspaper we never would have learned any of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Danger, Will Robinson
Mark did, in fact, email the TorrentFreak guy and did say what they claimed he said. I have the email in my possession. I think Mark is confused because that email conversation happened many weeks ago -- not this past week. Mark may have forgotten and not realized.
Will still try to talk to Mark tomorrow though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danger, Will Robinson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Danger, Will Robinson
http://twitter.com/Mark_Mulligan/status/8074993556
"RT @flypapertv Pirates are most valuable customers. http://vf.cx/jlB $$ Only problem with my quotes: I didn't even speak to the journalist!!"
I've seen the evidence that Mark did, in fact, talk to the journalist. He may be confused because it happened a few weeks ago, not this past week.
Either way, I'm at a conference and Mark is around (he's speaking right before me tomorrow), so I'm going to see if I can track him down to talk to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
monlyeys in aroom syndrome
think about us pirates as the monkeys we then show you whats good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: monlyeys in aroom syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: monlyeys in aroom syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Makes Sense to Download Before You Buy
I have never understood why anyone believes the rubbish published by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) or the RIAA or MPAA that calculates losses solely on the basis of the presumption that an unauthorized download is a lost sale. As someone stated earlier: 99% of everything on the Web is crap. Most downloads are of material that would not have been purchased.
All of the music I listen to I own the original CD of, but I knew what I was buying first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It Makes Sense to Download Before You Buy
The problem right now is that RIAA, the MPAA, and etc. Are alienating the people doing the downloading, The people who will buy in the end.
I think it might be a guilt thing ... "we have conned these people so long, and ripped off so many artists we cant trust anyone to do the right thing" maybe a bit of paranoia mixed in .... hmmmm
Hephaestus ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Push Harder.
And it is great that we have blogs all over the place bringing in the real news.
Who needs anyway "that kind of artist"?
Go to places where your rights are respected and give you in writing through liberal licenses what you want and not just promises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to say that this is one of those deals where if you look at the numbers in one specific way, you can find a way to support the Torrent Freak story. But the 2nd page (of the two page link near the bottom of their story) shows the real truth:
File sharers spend 1/3 less on music than the highest category, "digital music buyers". I can understand there is some confusion, as the categories are not "either or" but rather than people can appear in more than one. It is clear however that those who share music tend to buy less of it (rather than more), even though there are some who do buy music (and are part of digital music buyers).
The real key to understanding the numbers is in the very firsst graph, showing how few file sharing people actually buy physical product. As physical product is still the largest part of the pie (in income), the rest of the story writes itself.
I think the most interesting numbers here are in the Ipod owners, who are not particularly heavy music buyers, but who are typically huge music consumers. Under normal times, someone with a device with 1000+ songs on it would likely have spent thousands of dollars to have such a collection. The numbers reported here show about $150 a year (or less) spent on music, which would mean they would have to spend for about 8 years to have the 1000+ songs on their pod. You would have to think that Ipod owners are likely also some of the most aggressive music sharers out there.
So even when presented with the alternatives, file sharers don't buy anywhere near as much music overall as the general public, which sort of shuts down all the "file sharers are great customers" spiel. It just isn't supported by the numbers, unless you want to ignore 75% of the market first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope you alerted the proper authorities?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Going price for photoshop CS4 with all the extra ads ons is about 200 baht (under $7 US). A few quick questions shows that these are downloaded online and burned to disk, as the cost of an internet connection to download it can often be higher than just getting the disc. Sort of interesting outcrop of filesharing, if you ask me :)
You "ignore 75% of the market" because these people would never be buying useless plastic discs in the first place.
I can't follow your logic. That is like suggesting that if we ignore rain, we won't get wet. How odd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you find so suspicious about having thousands of songs on an iPod. One doesn't have to be a pirate at all to have that much music. Most of the iPod owners I know have burned their entire CD collection, and can carry it with them on their iPod. In some cases, their collection stretches back many years, and includes music they've burned from their vinyl records. Note that the article shows that 2/3's of iPod users don't use P2P to obtain music. More than 1/2 of iPod users buy actual plastic disks at least monthly. At just one CD per month that's going to be in the neighborhood of 130-150 songs per year. So... yes, 8 years would put you over 1000 songs, even at just one purchase per month.
So why do you find this troubling Anti-Mike? -- Could it be that you don't like fair-use and think the iPodders should have bought the music twice so they could have the second copy on their iPod.
BTW the iPod was introduced just over 8 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now there's a story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my music habits
The only time I "pay for music" is if a band I like is playing locally, I might get tickets to go see them. Or a cover charge, or a couple drinks. They've got the CwF + RtB; mass market label issued dreck just can't resolve the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]