HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
from the better-late-than-never dept
One of the most important aspects of the UK's Hargreaves Report was that it called for copyright policy to be based on evidence. It also noted that so far that simply hadn't been the case, and that practically all of the so-called "studies" used to justify laws in this area came from the copyright industries, with missing or dubious methodologies.
The French three-strikes scheme known as HADOPI (actually the name of the government agency that oversees its implementation) is a perfect example of such dogma-based legislation: no research was done into how files were being shared or even whether they did any harm (there's a fair amount of evidence that file sharing increases sales).
So it's interesting to see HADOPI putting out a call for some research into streaming sites (original in French):
The commissioned study focuses on an economic analysis of streaming sites and direct download where illegal practices are the most common, offering cultural property in the areas of music and video.
This new interest in streaming sites is presumably a consequence of Nicolas Sarkozy's announcement at the recent Forum d'Avignon that "we have to tackle the streaming web sites." It's certainly welcome that HADOPI is doing some research before it draws up its proposals in this area; but shouldn't it have done the same with the original three-strikes scheme?
There's an interesting parallel with SOPA here. In the section with the splendid title "Denying U.S. Capital To Notorious Foreign Infringers", we read the following:
Report to Congress- The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report that includes the following:
Again, it's good that some research into that "significant harm" will be carried out, but shouldn't that come before the legislation is drawn up and enacted, not after it?
(1) An analysis of notorious foreign infringers and a discussion of how these infringers violate industry norms regarding the protection of intellectual property.
(2) An analysis of the significant harm inflicted by notorious foreign infringers on consumers, businesses, and intellectual property industries in the United States and abroad.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: evidence, france, hadopi, hargreaves report, impact, pipa, piracy, post hoc, protect ip, research, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dude!
/tinfoil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/doh
Clueless troll bashing Mike over a non-point completely unrelated to the article in 3, 2, 1....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
Once again, you push out this lame "Piracy? What Piracy? -- And IF there IS any, it's good!" theme. Way to go Techdirt, pro-piracy right down the line.
How about a report on how well HADOPI is actually doing? -- Oh, wait. That's what this you're complaining about should do...
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And he talks about how successful HADOPI is but I don't see evidence on that other than the possibility (some1 pls get me sources) of French have turned to VPNs and the fact that they tracked hundreds of thousands of infringements and disconnected only 1 after an year (I gotta dig the article from TF that had the sources).
I mean, ok, go ahead and criminalize the entire country. Maybe when we are all behind bars we'll be free from all this Governmental idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
The point that these kinds of studies SHOULD be done prior to ANY law being considered, regardless of what the law is about. Drugs are not introduced and THEN studies done into how safe and effective they are.
You could argue that my analogy doesn't work because sometimes drugs are given the OK and then they find problems later. Well I'd argue that in many of those cases the drug was fast tracked through with biased studies.
Hey lookie there, that's just what the entertainment industry is doing!
If the studies backup the claims, then fine, but as of right now, the evidence isn't there. It's all anecdotal and in some cases, completely fabricated.
Calling for a study to see if piracy is really the problem that the entertainment companies of the world claim it is, isn't pro-piracy, it's just intelligent policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
Too bad everyone is already dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
The flood has already happened and they are only now wondering what they can do to stop the water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
As for your analogy, sure some of the music industry may 'die' from this shift in technology and business models, but to suggest it's all on piracy is taking a very narrow view of the situation. It's like saying it's all the fault of Army Corp of Engineer's fault that they levy broke. Sure they might have done a better job of maintaining it, but it was the hurricane that caused the flooding. The fact that you live below sea level is on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
Everyone is dead... LOL, hyperbole!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
How well is HADOPI actually doing? Tons of stuff has been filed... and yet, after all this time, only about three people have been actually brought to litigation.
If HADOPI is supposed to be working at stopping rampant piracy, either it's a massive failure, or maybe piracy isn't that rampant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
They don't send out the second letters, because it is too many people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
People getting TV for free or listening the radio for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
Heck, by that definition you could buy a radio, not listen to it, and they could charge you with not receiving advertisements by leaving it turned off. (They've already covered the possibility of leaving it turned on where other people can hear the music. We'll all be fucked regardless of whether the radio/television/device is on OR off.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're reading it wrong...
They have already written what the reports are supposed to find, that copyright infringing violates "industry norms", and does "significant harm". It's like when the UN ordered Sweden to do an analysis of our anti-sex-buying-law, and they ordered the investigator to see if they needed to up the punishment, and nothing else.
And in regards to HADOPI; they aren't supposed to investigate what damage, if any, this sort of infringement does. They already know the answer to that (hint: it's "whatever the industry tells us"), they are going to investigate how best to crush it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the way, how has Hadopi been doing? If the industry's analysis of the situation was correct, then French media sales should be booming compared to other European countries like Switzerland that have more lenient piracy laws. The industry got everything that it asked for in the legislation. If the industry was correct in its analysis then there should be some clear indication by this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Significant Harm
Well, yes - but since the "research" is almost certainly going to involve going to the entertainment industry and asking "how much do you think you've been harmed" - it probably doesn't matter whether it is done before or after the legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False premise. Congress makes findings about the need for legislation before creating it. That the legislation itself calls for FURTHER analysis doesn't mean the legislation was baseless to begin with. Nice try, but this is just standard copyright-hater nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point that the article is trying to bring up is that its kind of silly to make legislation without doing the proper research first.
If you had to do an assignment on the types of pianos you wouldn't research 5 pianos then say you have researched it all. Same principle here if you ask me, do your ground work as best you can before you come up with crappy legislation that has to be fixed over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What does that have to do with France?
"False premise."
a.k.a. Every post by you, ootb, darryl and the anonymous idiot. I'd ask why you people don't have anyone reasonable to discuss this issue for you, but that would involve facts, which are woefully lacking on your side of the discussion. Nope, lies and strawmen are the order of the day for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
What findings? That file sharing is killing the industry? Will I really have to repeat for the millionth time with numbers from your own bosses that the entertainment sector is doing great?
Mike criticizes exactly that, the fact that the Govt creates legislation based on its findings but that these findings are either extremely biased or unproven.
There's this law in some countries where you aren't allowed to use your cell phone near a gas station on explosion risk grounds. Mythbusters did a pretty didactic job proving this is bullshit (I'd rather see a more academic study but not every1 understands chemistry as the Chemistry graduates do). I wonder how many gas stations blew up due to cell phones. Probably tens of thousands since the arrival of mobile communications. Oh wait.... While this specific piece of law is rather harmless, idiocies like HADOPI/SOPA have a huge impact on the ordinary ppl lives. Hence the need of proper evidence and not biased crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
It's another Techdirt special: We will throw every blockage possible in the way of anyone trying to fight piracy, but we will support blindly anything that appears to be a law but will certainly do nothing - and we won't question it.
It smells in here from all the bullshit Mike is pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Serious studies has been conducted and almost all of them find that there is no substancial harm in piracy that at is basic is like radio and TV, not a substitute for other forms of consumption.
Also the call for "further" analysis with wording directing what it should find is just dishonest, that is the type of behavior that undermines the trust that people have in authority if there is any left after the first decade of this century.
Now calling copyright haters just because they are awakening for its purpose and the true harms it causes is just childish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The rogue site problem is a fabricated one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
AJ, Blind faith based on a cursory glance of some site isn't enough to trample Constructional rights. You should know that.
Yes, I am aware there may be these so called "bad actors" out there. What is needed is proof that these so call bad actors are actually damaging anyone, is that so much to ask for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Constructional = Constitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
After all anyone who believes in fabricated numbers, false premises and make wild baseless accusations that he can't find any shred of evidence to back it up can't be serious.
You are all mouth and no action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Posting links to links to infringing files should result in due process free seizure of your post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Findings about record years in the movie industry perhaps? Imagine the harm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what they're doing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In law words do matter, the fact that any report should be about "harm" and not "effects" just show that congress is not interested in sound law making, but in making excuses for such extreme positions.
The reports probably will all be done by the industry and just handover to the IP protection office, I believe it is also in the law that the holder of that position must speak against always and never say anything good about it or was that the law forbidding law enforcement agencies to come out in favor of legalization of drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a nice bullshit trick from the pirate supporters here. Legislation should take "real time", while they zip along at internet time and enjoy the pirated content. Basically, such a review could take years to come to a conclusion, especially if you have public hearings and all sorts of other things.
To the naked eye, you can see the substantial harm being caused (check out recorded music sales, even as recorded music consumption is at an all time high). You have to be wilfully blind or intending to profit from piracy to deny what appears on the surface to be true.
Which one are you, Glynn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Proof needed here for your first sentence.
You also can't pigeon hole people into one of two choices like that. All the article is trying to point out is that research needs to be done before laws get implemented. I agree it is not a speedy process but then why is the process so long in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if that was true(but is not), I still ain't giving up freedom so you can try sell some more trinkets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a nice bullshit trick from the copyright maximalists here. Legislation should zip along at "internet time", when useful research and study takes real time, and years worth of data to come to any meaningful conclusion.
To the naked eye, you can see the enormous benefit the music industry as a whole is receiving (the enormous amount of legitimate indie music that is free, as well as official labeled music that is free as well,). You have to be willfully blind, or intending to demand rent from your customers to deny what is obviously true.
Which one are you, AC #2?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why don't the entertainment companies open their books from over the last 20 years where proper correlations can be made to economic changes, technology changes and real numbers used. I bet you'd find that the most popular P2P sites out there would be happy to provide their download numbers. Open cooperation would certainly expedite this study. And surely you'd want to expedite it if there really is 'significant harm'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Care to add digital sales, live concerts and other merchandise to your naked eye evidence? I guess you can't because you can't see beyond the big labels (even though those are doing marvelously from their own figures).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course he wouldn't - they interfere with his predisposed assumptions. Nor would he like to consider the effects of unbundling, legal streaming services, competition from other entertainment options and the effects of a worldwide recession, among many other factors. He probably won't even consider figures that cover the entire recording industry, as opposed to just those released by RIAA members. Nor will he consider the negative impact that the industry's actions, from price fixing to anti-artist practices to lawsuits, have had on the industry.
No, it has to be "piracy" and everyone who disagrees with his sheltered world view just has to be a pirate! The world is literally that black and white to these idiots - grey just confuses them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even with concerts, merch, and all that, things are at best break even to 10 years ago. This is with concert tickets that are mutliple times more expensive than before, etc.
It doesn't leave much except piracy - people still want the product, people still consume the product, they have just found a way not to pay for it.
Denying that basic and obvious thing pretty much paints you into the piracy supporter corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still no citations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you go and look a the UK BMI numbers. When you combine recorded music sales and live concerts, the effect is "flat". In fact, the only reason there is any increase is because of the dreaded licensing fees.
Then go and look at concert ticket prices. Even a few years ago, ticket prices were in the $40-$60 range in most of the US. Now it's not unusual to see top ticket prices well over $200, and the low end close to $100 (for horrible, obstructed view seats). Even your local 300 place "soft seater" has more than doubled ticket prices in a very short period of time.
Net result? Just like the movie industry, the actual number of customers drops, even if the sales are flat, because the ticket price is so much higher.
The numbers are all out there Paul. I am not going to keep repeating myself over and over again because you conveniently forget about them in each discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lern 2 reed
I didn't say the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, everything is more expensive, that's called inflation. Concerts are not the only thing that went up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice I see how that works.
See, piracy create jobs in developing countries like China, Brazil, India, Russia they are all economies that are growing and all due to piracy since it is rampant end they are having a very strong growth.
Also pirates are shown to combat global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg
See there in the graphic, when pirates numbers where great temperatures where lower as they diminished the temperature started to rise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So China double digit growth is because of piracy too?
In every developing country piracy is rampant and they are having the times of their lifes over there so piracy is equal to progress right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good. Two questions then, one serious and one flippant. Do those numbers include all music, or only major label music? Second, are you going to show us the numbers that prove this lack of increase in revenue is due to piracy? Because I don't remember seeing those (other than ridiculous RIAA studies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please point out where I said they didn't.
"Yet, consumption of recorded music is at an all time high. Sort of says something, doesn't it?"
Yes, it says that there's a disconnect between what's being sold and how people listen to music. For example: unbundling. 15 years ago, people had to buy the 12 track album or two 4 song CD "singles" to get the 2 tracks they wanted. Now, they just buy the 2 tracks - for money, with no laws broken or infringed upon. Of course, the amount of money exchanged is lower, because there's less product being sold.
No laws are being broken in that example, and no infringement is taking place. The same amount of music is being "consumed", but there's significantly less music being sold, for significantly lower prices.
It's perfectly possible to consume more music than ever before in the modern world, without infringing any copyrights or paying more money than you used to. You're a fool if you don't even consider this possibility, and your conclusions *will* be wrong.
"Denying that basic and obvious thing pretty much paints you into the piracy supporter corner."
Yes, you discuss your personal fantasy world as usual. Much better than debating actual facts and the real opinions of those you oppose.
Also, "corner"? It's telling that people like you who don't understand their "opposition" seem to regard this as some kind of boxing match.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, that makes 2 posts you're misattributed in the space of this discussion thus far. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a fair debate, but if you are going to use this argument you need to define the variables or it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
63,7% of all percentages are taken from someone's arse with no base whatsoever.
The best argument I've seen and that MIGHT get close to the reality is that the increase in revenues did not follow inflationary pressure meaning there was no real increase in total revenues in the last 10 years if you level both values to a determined point in time.
Even if that is true (and I never tested this to be honest) you still saw an INCREASE in revenue, something that's not bad at all. But you see, this result only included the big labels. All results you show only include big labels and mind boggling numbers. But you see, there's life in the $0,10 market. I just bought Minecraft pocket endition for $0,10 on the Android Market. Are you counting the small musicians that can actually get something (in contrast to nothing 10-15 years back before the digital 'revolution')? Or are you one of those idiots that consider $500 made of a track to be unworthy of adding to the statistics?
But you see, it's weird, despite all your whining your industry is making more and more movies, games, songs, books than ever before. It just doesn't sum. If you really were in trouble I believe you wouldn't produce more. I mean, if some gadget isn't selling ppl pull out of the market (HP tablet, any1?) and yet we got (blatantly copied yet again from https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/311/why-i-pirate-an-open-letter-to-content-creators):
If you were selling hotdogs and you started losing money, would you continue selling hotdogs at a loss for 10 straight years? The reason I ask is because I looked at some of the industries own numbers and it baffles me. If online file-sharing is killing these industries, why would they keep producing more content? And I'm sure someone is going to pull out a study showing trends in per-capita spending adjusted for inflation versus discretionary income per single-family residence that shows the entertainment industry is in a bleak position, but that's not what I'm after. If nobody is buying buggy-whips, you don't increase production year after year. Yet over the last 10 years:
The number of movies released is up 23% - [1]
The number of books published is up 47% - [2]
The number of albums released is up 25% - [3]
The video games industry is up 23% - [4]
When I look at those numbers, I have a hard time believing what Chris Dodd, Hilary Rosen and Stanislas Mettra have to say. Didn't Warner Bros. just set a company record for quarterly profits? I'm confused. My guess is that these industries really aren't losing money, but they are losing control. And maybe to them, control is more valuable than profits? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
References:
[1] - http://bit.ly/rj5mRT
MPAA industry report page 13.
454 movies released in 2001.
560 movies released in 2010.
[2] - http://bit.ly/uRb4KC
R.R Bowker output report, 2002 thru 2010.
215,138 books published in 2002.
316,480 books published in 2010.
[3] - http://bit.ly/tneVtC
90,324 music items for 2001.
113,080 music items for 2010.
Unfortunately, I could not find any release statistics on the RIAA website. Instead, I used Discogs browse by year feature and noted the number of items listed at the bottom of the page. This wasn't ideal so I'm hoping someone out there can dig up a relevant report.
[4] - http://bit.ly/kLHJ2Q
ESA industry report page 10.
208.7 million units sold 2001.
257.2 million units sold 2010.
I was unable to find any information regarding the number of releases per year. I used the number of units sold per year instead. Admittedly, the last two years have shown decreases of 7% and 8% but it should be noted that the chart in question is for "sales of new physical content at retail exclusively." So if you didn't buy at a retail chain or if you legally downloaded your purchase, it's not included in this chart. Page 11 of the same report states 24% of content was digital in 2010. I know it's not a perfect methodology but if we increase 2010's units sold by 24% we would get 318.9 million units which would be a 52% increase over 2001. I believe the 23% increase stated above is lower than the actual number, but I also thought it was important to use the numbers supplied by the industry.
Please AC, enlighten me with the logic, I sincerely don't get it. Wherever you go check the entertainment industry as a whole is simply thriving and even the big players that are supposedly the most affected by the technology and all the "rampant piracy" are doing good. There was some brilliant post a few weeks back where the guy proved that the amount of money spent with entertainment actually went way up. It's just that the big players have a smaller piece of the pie/cake. I'm not in the mood to look for further data and honestly TD, TorrentFreak, Rick, Michael Geist and many others have already provided us with enough sources that prove that file sharing isn't an issue. If you are really willing to provide serious numbers and get your head out of the arses of MAFIAA members and see the whole picture we can keep discussing, other than that please go back to your cave and keep smoking your weed and believing entertainment can only be found with the big players. Begone, troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happens is companies come up short on sales, so they release more material trying to back into their budget number. But whatever increase in sales they get for more releases is (a) a loss from someone else, because there is no net sales increase, and (b) often cannibalizing their own sales, and not really solving a problem. It also (c) tends to flood the market, making it less efficient and less productive for everyone involved.
Consumers, when faced with too many choices, often make none.
Since sales are NOT going up, the increase in releases in each category is very bad news indeed. Perhaps you want to look not only at widgets moved, but what price those widgets are getting. Hint: It's dropping faster than sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How would you know that?
When faced with to many choices I generally find a trusted source(i.e. friends) to see what is good and what is not.
So maybe your problem is that you are not a trusted source for information.
That is not what the RIAA said about digital sales, they keep increasing.
It also means a more even distribution in the general market, not to mention possible increase in total sales by market and not company.
Why individual companies matter?
They don't the overall market is the thing to look for not the individual parts of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I there is no need to change laws if the incentives to keep creating more are already there.
This is not about the companies, is about work done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a bad thing, unless your entire business model depends on volume sales of that specific item with an optimised per unit price. If you have a more diversified business model, or you use the increase volume to leverage higher margin items, there's no problem.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems here that you're finally admitting that there's other problems other than "piracy" that are affecting the industry. Glad you can join us in the real world, now could you maybe consider that your above assertion that the lower profits don't "leave much except piracy" to consider was a lie, or at least a gross exaggeration? That, as everybody you attack has been saying for years, there's business consideration to make that have nothing to do with piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tough shit! Who said they would have to stay at an all-time high forever?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either way, what it suggests is that the recorded music industry needs to make some changes to its business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, again, that's just your bias showing. You seem to forget that music is freely and legally available in a few places. Spotify and Pandora being the big two. Both of those have had substantially huge surges in customers all over the world since their introduction. Which is a possible (and more likely) factor for why people aren't buying music. They can get it freely through such a service.
But let's not let something like that get in the way of vilifying piracy and everyone on this site.
Denying that basic and obvious thing pretty much paints you into the dumbass and biased copyright maximalist corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No you can't, unless you made your mind up before you even started looking. Unless you ignore thousands of other potential factors "just because", it's impossible to derive causation from this correlation without at least serious study into those factors.
"You have to be wilfully blind or intending to profit from piracy to deny what appears on the surface to be true."
You're a poor scientist if you think that glancing at the surface is sufficient. Forgive me if I don't wish legally binding legislation to be based on assumptions by poor scientists and surface appearances looked at by the wilfully ingorant.
It's just sad that people like you have ignored any serious study and attacked people with differing options as "pirates" instead of listening to their last decade of suggestions and solutions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good law hard, need law now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Recorded music sales during the "boom"- $15 billion
So, of the $8 billion in sales, do you honestly believe that all of that money is lost thanks to piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all you pirates that website there collects data on what IP's have download something, when you get there it automatically shows you if anybody using that IP address download something, great fun, I bet if we got the IP addresses from the anti-pirate people we could just call them thieves too since their IP's would be there.
[ 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 ]