New Study Shows Legal Music Services -- Not Fear Of Harsh Copyright Laws -- Reduce Illegal File Sharing
from the how-many-times-do-we-need-to-say-it? dept
The copyright industries seem to have only one tool in their tool box for addressing unauthorized file sharing: a legal hammer. But no matter how harsh the measure, the file sharing goes on, and so the maximalists call for even more disproportionate laws, which will doubtless be ignored in their turn. This is particularly frustrating, because we already know how to stop people downloading stuff: just offer good services at fair prices. When you do so, illegal file sharing drops dramatically, as Techdirt has noted time and again. Here's yet more research confirming that fact, from a group at Lund University in Sweden:
Survey responses from around 4,000 individuals suggest that the number of active file-sharers has dropped in the past two years. Those who share files daily or almost daily has decreased from 32.8 percent in 2012 to 29 percent in 2014.
According to the head of the research group, this is why the numbers are dropping, as reported by TorrentFreak:
"If you listen to what young people themselves are saying, it is new and better legal services that have caused the decrease in file-sharing, rather than respect for the law. There has been a trend where alternative legal solutions such as Spotify and Netflix are changing consumption patterns among young people."
Particularly striking is the following statistic:
Interestingly, in that same four-year period, the percentage of young people who said they believe that people should not share files because it is illegal dropped from 24 percent to 16.9 percent. So, even while young people are sharing files less often, their acceptance of the standards presented by the law appears to be dropping too.
In other words, we need not only more good-quality services, but also copyright reform to bring the law into line with today's views.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody 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: authorized services, file sharing, survey, sweden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Accountants can't really figure out the value of art, so it must be pricy.
Lawyers on the other hand are like someone holding the hammer and looking for a nail. All solutions are found in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A. Ask what two plus two is. The mathematicians says 4. The statistician say depending on circumstances about 4. The accountant asks what do you want it to be.
(As told to me by an accountant).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is not true at all. Many attorneys are perfectly happy to help you avoid court by paying them a settlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Better fit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
That's the dumbest thing we've ever heard.
/signed,
Content Owners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fingers in ears, close our eyes...
we hear nothing, we see nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Had the record industry granted iTunes and Spotify permission to operate a decade earlier, there's no question that Napster, Kazaa, and Limewire would never have been born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The economic viability of selling on the internet at that time was very questionable. Ironically it hasn't improved much today since the "all you can eat"-model was the main enemy at the time! The cost of music online is artificially set since the advertisement costs are impossible to pinpoint geographically.
Then again: The cost of a CD is a historical artifact with the building of a long chain of more or less low-value links soaking up the increased profit as the CDs physical production costs went down to almost nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd add a third category - because the label is too backward to licencing it there.
Now, I don't pirate but if I want to listen to, say, Tool or AC/DC, that's not an option available to me on Spotify due to their licencing. Some of those albums are both famous and decades old.
The labels' fantasy is that this will make me go out and buy a copy. In reality, I already own the albums, so if I'm out and about and I don't have that album synced to my iPhone, it just means they don't get the revenue from my plays. That revenue goes to their competitors.
While it's never going to make anyone rich, they're turning down a revenue stream because they believe in a fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not, and never has been, the goal though.
'Stopping piracy' has always been a boogieman, the scare-tactic and excuse they pull out to get laws passed and changed in their favor, all aimed at their actual goal, that of stomping out any potential competition and maintaining their power over the customer and artists.
If the artists can only be successful by signing over the rights to their creations, if fans can only purchase music, or movies, or other forms of entertainment from them, then it follows that they hold all the cards. They can dictate the terms, and control the entire process, from creation to 'sale'.
Control, and the power and profits it brings, is and always will be their true goal, so in the end it doesn't matter how many times studies come out showing how they could decimate piracy by simply offering their wares on reasonable platforms, for reasonable rates, and without dozens of strings attached, because when you get down to it, they do not want to stop piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We'll there is quite an abundance of legal services in the US aren't there?
Yes, there are. Yet...
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/06/04/p2p-still-bigger-spotify-soundcloud-twitt er-instagram-pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to mention that the number of legal services is irrelevant - if a band or studio outright refuses to licence content and leave no legal download option, people still can't download legally.
Erm, thanks, I guess?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
X-Files Bluray
WHY can't I buy or get the X-Files series in HD? And please don't give me any shit about "they didn't make it in HD" because HD copies do, in fact, exist. But you can't buy them anywhere or obtain them in any legal manner. (Likewise dont give me any shit about streaming. That is not OWNING.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia
There, cards on the table. Someone please tell me that what I did was wrong and I should be locked up for the rest of my life because, if anything, stamping out piracy would have LOST them a sale, and piracy itself MADE a sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Australia
Also, everyone knows that everyone has endless disposable income to spend on entertainment, and that people are quite willing to drop ridiculous amounts on DVD/Blu-Ray sets of tv series/movies/music that they've never watched/heard before, so piracy obviously had nothing to do with your purchase, since clearly you would have purchased the seasons even had if you'd had no idea of the quality or lack thereof of the show!
(Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go find some aspirin, the concussion I had to give myself to think like a tv/music exec is really starting to smart.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]