Yet Another Study Says Enforcement Won't Bring Back Consumer Spending On Music; But Will Strangle New Biz Models
from the stop-focusing-on-enforcement dept
Just a couple weeks after the SSRC research report that goes into great detail about how the attempts to ramp up copyright enforcement won't actually help the entertainment industry came out, Boing Boing points us to another report, this one coming from the London School of Economics, which basically says the same thing.- The DEA gets the balance between copyright enforcement and innovation wrong. The use of peer-to-peer technology should be encouraged to promote innovative applications. Focusing on efforts to suppress the use of technological advances and to protect out-of-date business models will stifle innovation in this industry.
- Providing user-friendly, hassle-free solutions to enable users to download music legally at a reasonable price, is a much more effective strategy for enforcing copyright than a heavy-handed legislative and regulatory regime.
- Decline in the sales of physical copies of recorded music cannot be attributed solely to file-sharing, but should be explained by a combination of factors such as changing patterns in music consumption, decreasing disposable household incomes for leisure products and increasing sales of digital content through online platforms.
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: business models, enforcement, file sharing, predictions, studies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They have that already. Label reps send out advance mp3s to websites for promotion. Websites discuss, promote, and provide links to said mp3s. Label lawyers sue website owners.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll being troll
Tdub says: Try this failed idea. Result: Fail.
Tdub says: Wait, try it again. Result: Fail.
Tdub says: OK, now try it. Result: Fail.
Start Tdub hissy fit: What a bunch of freetards!! Why do you insist on distributing more FUD? Those new business models only work for the one or two specific people you ALWAYS point out. It won't work for everyone. You're all just a bunch of thieves. Piracy=theft=1:1 lost sale! You all owe the industry TRILLIONS of dollars!
Poor Tdub, the thunderous sound of all those freetards crossing your bridge and heading for the future while you are content to beg and plead for how things used to be from beneath the bridge. Stay Troll! Stay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh... These groups aren't throwing wads of Cash at the Policy Makers....
For the policy makers determining which reports are 'factual' is easy for them, they line them up based on the amount of money they received along with them, then select the one that came with the biggest bribe (lobby?)....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh... These groups aren't throwing wads of Cash at the Policy Makers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think we know the answer to this one...
Because enforcement brings in lobbyist contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do they act like declining sales is necessarily a bad thing that the government needs to do something about? Why are corporate profits something important enough to warrant governmental intervention?
Perhaps declining sales is due to people finding alternative entertainment venues, like Facebook, Techdirt, and other sites. Perhaps declining sales is due to increased competition by people who release their content under a CC license or by independents who sell their content at more reasonable prices. Why are declining corporate sales such a bad thing if it's because people can now get reasonably priced entertainment elsewhere instead? Shouldn't it be celebrated that the economy is now more efficient and people don't have to spend a ton of money on entertainment because the economy is able to provide it more efficiently. The whole purpose of having an economy is to give us goods, services, entertainment, etc... not to ensure corporate sales, and if those things are now being delivered more efficiently, that's something to be celebrated by politicians and governments, not something to be resisted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's because they are the only ones who matter. All that perfect competition, innovation, and fair market value are just socialist ideals that need to be stomped out with the same fervor applied to the war on terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Skipping the whole "they are corrupt" argument (which is probably mostly true too), declining sales due to criminal activity is something that the government is supposed to look into. If someone is strong arming your customers into not going into your store until you pay them off, the government should be responding to your problem.
The problem with what is happening with copyright is that the government is getting involved in civil infringement. This is where it is none of their business. What is happening now is the lobbyists are arguing the same thing the banking and auto industries did - "we are too important to the economy to fail". They need the inflated numbers to illustrate why the government needs to step in with another "bail out" to prevent the collapse of our entire economy.
Our government is supposed to be here to protect us. That can mean by stepping in when something they should have nothing to do with is going to cause a lot of people a problem. I think what they are doing is short-sighted and ultimately the wrong move, but that does not mean it is entirely ill-intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet this is just arbitrary criminal activity
We wrote a law and made this stuff illegal. It isn't in the ten commandments that we shouldn't copy stuff. The Buddha didn't teach about copying or not copying. Mohammad didn't convey any laws from Allah about copyrights. Jesus never mentioned copyright issues in the Sermon on the Mount. No Saints died for copyright.
The only basis for being concerned about copyright is right there in the Constitution. It is about promoting progress in the Sciences and Useful Arts.
Government has the responsibility to evaluate if progress is being made. As long as progress is being made, its mandate is being met. Government has no responsibility (and some would say government has no authority) to write and enforce laws that do not advance progress, and actually (as these studies show) limit progress.
Sorry, that just seems to be as clear as it gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It might seem as if I am arguing with you in my previous post. Mostly I am not. I personally don't care if government is ramping up copyright enforcement because they are corrupt, or because they are misguided. I am concerned that they are doing this despite the fact that they have no constitutional basis for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because of Capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? If it were left up to capitalism, we would get the new, innovate business models. Instead, it is left up to a corrupt government and lobbyist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually monopolies have been show to be one of the least profitable in recent times. If you take the bail outs, QE1 and 2, the interest, and inflation into account. The government just transfered a couple trillion dollars of losses and interest from the corporations to the US population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY....
There's a little more 'accurate' statement about monopolies, they may not be the most profitable for the shareholders/corporation, but those in charge are making out like robber barons from the middle ages.... Pillaging neighboring villages, raping the women, killing the men and children, and then burning everything to the ground (scorched earth campaign anyone?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What form of economy would you prefer? It appears that capitalism has given us most of the advances we have today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No because of Capitalists
Capitalists don't like capitalism - they prefer to create a cozy monopoly for themselves - capitalism is too hard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes folks, piracy has absolutely no negative effect whatsoever. Move along now. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the publisher's panic that hurts the industry, not the sharing of content. Now it's even spilling onto the people as they try to create more laws and bolster enforcement just to protect something that can't be protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wanna place a bet that sales show any significant improvement?
The RIAA won a fantastic victory against piracy, millions stop pirating, did they bought more?
ROFLMAO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, businesses that continue to rely solely on copright law will face significant challenges in the future unless they are able to adapt as new technologies come to the fore.
At the same time, however, those who embrace the opportunities enabled by new technologies, and do so in a manner that does not implicate the rights held by copyright owners, should be able to proceed without any significant legal impediments. To put it another way, what good is a copyright to its owner is there is no one to sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one argues that litigation always lurks in the background. My point is simply to minimize risk by doing one's best to stay away from such issues. The are, quite frankly, many ways to do this without undue concern about becoming "chilled".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That will teach EVERYONE a lesson they'll not soon forget.
(That lesson is an old one: "Damned if you do and damned if you don't.")
After all, you can't forget "nothing", as there is "nothing" to remember in the first place.
/sarc (or prophecy? Only the future will decide.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mimimizing the risk by staying away
That is, despite the constant exhortations to consult a lawyer, said lawyer really truly can't tell you that a particular use infringes. Whole-article-copying has been ruled fair use, and less-than-10-word quotes have been ruled infringing, with respect to copyrights.
As far as patents go, you really can't tell when an idea is patented or not: google "submarine patents" for one problem, and look at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 for about the only study on whether things judged "infringing" were actually independent inventions or not.
The usual viewpoint is that you *can't* minimize risk when actually producing things. This is a problem with a lot of laws now a days, not just in "Intellectual Property". See http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556 for a good explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mimimizing the risk by staying away
One used to be able, and for perfectly valid, non-nefarious reasons, to repeatedly refile an application. The amendment effectively truncated this.
Minimizing risk with respect to patents (the subject of Lemley's article) is not as difficult as some would have people believe. The publication of filed applications, a relatively new phenomena, is proving helpful as it places others on notice that something is in the works. Moreover, it has been SOP for many, many years to publish on a weekly basis in the USPTO's Official Gazette all patents that issued during that week.
While it is obviously possible that something might fall through the cracks and not be brought to the attention of the public at large, the system as currently implemented does provide a wealth of information useful to minimize risk if only one takes the time to look over the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mimimizing the risk by staying away
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mimimizing the risk by staying away
It is not uncommon for a plaintiff to throw into a complaint a plea for special damages, and it is extremely uncommon for that plea to gain any traction before the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who made that assertion? Seriously, I'm not sure where that came from. As far as I have seen the report suggests crafting stronger copyright laws will stymie innovation and the production of new art. I have not ready all of it, so I may have missed something.
"those who embrace the opportunities enabled by new technologies, and do so in a manner that does not implicate the rights held by copyright owners, should be able to proceed without any significant legal impediments"
Sure, but if the laws are being strengthened, who's to say that I am not currently doing something that is legal but will soon become illegal. Part of the problem is that we are often talking about music and art - cultural things that people throughout history have always shared. In our digital age, it has become much easier to share these things. Lots of this sharing is on the edge of infringement (fair use, for example). Strengthening the laws is likely to further criminalize what has become normal, daily activity.
Now, you can ask (I would) "if everyone commits a crime, does that make it ok?". My response is "yes" in a democracy, that really ends up the case (prohibition anyone?). Even if you believe something should be done, this is something that should be approached with a great deal of caution and examined by legislators and the courts - not something that the executive branch of our government simply starts taking on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are there exceptions to the above? Yes, but it is a very unique case associated with the restoration of rights of foreign authors where some of their works fell into the public domain as the result of the formalities that used to exist under prior US copyright law. Merely FYI, this amendment to US law will be reviewed later this year by the Supreme Court in the matter of Golan v. Holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are absolutely right!! I don't actually care if I get any credit for my work, I just want to be able to sue the pants off of anyone else who uses it!!
No. That is just foolish. For starters, you assume all the players will have no problem staying inside the crudely drawn boundary lines between legal use and illegal use. When in reality, the players on each side of the line are constantly trying to push those boundaries. That's why you have lawsuits, because each side wants more of the power, and they're trying to get the courts to tell them where that line really is. Essentially, rights holders will never feel that others are embracing new tech. in a manner that doesn't offend them, unless they aren't successful on their own anyway. Anything successful, and you'll always have the rights holders screaming "the money they're making should be ours!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is impossible, unless you live alone on an island that is not subject to the jurisdiction of any nation, to completely eliminate risk. The best one can ever hope to do is manage the risk by keeping it at a minimum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Essentially, what you are saying is that the only acceptable innovation is into fields where there are no existing players. No one should try to compete with a company who is already doing something, because you may infringe on their rights, and that is a no no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's simple. It's easier to look good in politics when you're "fighting" something and even better if you're "fighting" something that can't effectively be defeated, because that makes you look like a humanitarian and a martyr. The push for more enforcement creates a perpetual need for the people who initiated more enforcement, providing campaign opportunities for the next election. Furthermore, it provides profit to those that make money in enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely, just take a gander at the industries spawned from the United States failed "War on Drugs".
Makes me wonder if some of those who have profited nicely on the drug war are shifting gears to jump into the infringement wars to keep their gravy trains rolling. As the drug legalization becomes a more and more popular notion, maybe they realize they need a new "enemy" to combat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost?
Lets say, Full production of an album is $100,000.
Just to make the FIRST ORIGINAL.
Lets add to that..
Marketing, shipping, Making more copies, profit margins.
Lets make 1,000,000 CD's at $0.25 each..$250,000
Lets install a few adverts in some FAN Mags..$100,000
Lets ship Equal amounts around the country..$10,000
$460,000/1,000,000= about $0.50 per CD.
Profit margin?? lets add $2(fair markup) CD cost $2.50
Distributor gets his $2.50, CD=$5.00
Store sells markup $5(GOOD PROFIT) makes the CD=$10
So, tell me WHY the CD costs me $20 at the store.
The store, needs a Good markup, so the price can go Up/Down.. The distributor Only adds what is Needed..
Lets add LAWYERS
LETS add TRACKERS to trace illegal copies
Lets add DRM at a $1 per CD(yes it costs about that much)
So how do the Lawyers and trackers PROVE THEIR WORTH?? An extra $5 per CD..
$5 per CD, times 1,000,000..PER ALBUM.
I need you to understand 1 thing. The above numbers are WHAT I COULD DO AT HOME to produce an album. IF the recording industry is paying HIGHER prices they are IGNORANT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost?
I am responding to my own comment.
Then lets CUT the costs so we can make MORE money..
WHY NOT..
OK,
lets create our OWN web site and SALES.
Lets kill:
Shipping..
CD/DVD creation..no more burning disks..
Advertising?... we can do our own, on the WEB.
we've killed 2/3 of the cost to make and ship CD's. WOW,
MORE profits.(???) OR should we SAVE customers money?
Lets see what would happen if we CUT the Lawyers and DRM..
That $20 CD went to $15 without lawyers and DRM.
CUT distribution and manufacturing costs?? (about 2/3) we are back to $5 per CD..
With a cost of $0.50 and a Markup to $5 per CD??
no retailers, no Distribution locations, and it can be SOLD AROUND THE WORLD!!
Amazon, Newwegg, and many others have done it..
They could have 1 MASTER and convert to ANY FORMAT for sale ONSITE, and have EVERY recording they EVER MADE..
you wont be restricted by "What is available at the STORE".
The FIRST company/corp to set it up, can Gather the OTHER corps/companies...and SELL at a Profit for something they DIDNT make..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]