NEWS: File-Sharing Doesn’t Hamper CD Sales – Surprise!

GEEK: File-Sharing Doesn’t Hamper CD Sales – Surprise!

Researchers at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina conducted a survey over 17 weeks in 2002, tracking music downloads over peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as Kazaa, and compared their results to CD sales market performance. Turns out, despite heavy music downloads over the 17 week period, there was an effect "statistically indistinguishable from zero” on CD sales, according to the researchers.

The survey itself, in its 52-page entirety, can be found here.

"Aural support from Massive Attack, Sigur Ros and The Mountain Goats is gratefully acknowledged."

Hahaha. Cool.

Is this the same group that linked teen age drinking with teen age sex? You know, the "Society of Duh!" ?

corrolation does not EQUAL CAUSALITY folks. end of discussion

I don't suppose you oh, say looked at the report or anything. This is not a post hoc fallacy because the conclusion is the phenomena does not exist.

If I say:
A) people are downloading free music
B) Music sales have declined
Therefore
C) Downloading hurts music sales

I may have a post hoc problem if I cant prove causation.

This however says:
A) People are downloading free music
and
B) There is no demonstrable fall off of that music's sales

There is no causative fallacy.

you know, call me a geek, but i don't download free music. however, it's not because it's "illegal", it's because the quality's spotty at best. you never know where it's coming from.. i prefer tp buy used cds and then just import them onto my ipod.

More often than not, piracy ends with me buying a CD or going to a show I otherwise wouldn't have. But I hate the sound of mp3's...

I can't believe I've never seen anyone make this point before! I guarantee I would've just as happily gone without Kung Fu Fighting.

This is hardly surprising. There's good evidence that CD sales, and that services such as iTunes, and fee-based Napster are rapidly gaining popularity.

Meaning, in a nutshell, if that, given consumers have the option, they will actually pay realistic prices for the music that they want to listen too.

Not only that, if a band/group/singer etc. is actually interested in putting out a more interesting, possibly more talented record, 99 cents a song should not matter. People will buy an entire record, if that record is worth buying.

Unfortunately, in my experience, most records nowadays are more geared towards one song, one market, one marketable video/single etc. Why the hell would I pay for an entire record when one song is the focus, of talent, marketing etc. when the rest of the record is hell.

Why is it that, the one area that America (read: record companies) must support via copyright laws/legislation, is the one that is the last to adopt the fundemental tenants of competition?

If it's a bigger, better service, and you're losing money because of it, it's called adaptation. Hardly revolutionary, however, maybe a bit much for the more consertative business pundits of America.

[Edited on Mar 29, 2004 7:54PM]

A) During July Ice Cream sales increase.
B) During July drowings increase.

C) People are not drowning in Icre Cream you twits, just more people swim during the summer and more people eat during the summer so both of those would increase. Correlation, not causality.

Regardless of how sales are affected, intellectual property is being stolen(aka, taken w/o permission).

Now I don't feel so guilty about downloading almost half of the music on my ipod. Aww, I still feel guilty. Damn it!

Interesting tie-in to B is the blatant misrepresentation of falling sales.

Record shipments declined in 2003, but at a substantially slower rate than the steep slide seen in 2002, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said Thursday. The value of music shipped to U.S. retail outlets fell by 4.3 percent in 2003, compared with a 6.8 percent drop the previous year. The number of units shipped dropped just 2.7 percent, compared with 7.8 percent in 2002, the group said.

RIAA, on purpose shipped fewer units in 2003 than 2002 to give the appearance that music sales were diminishing. There is also a false base assumption that RIAA produces consistent product with mass appeal. The value of music is hard to judge in light of RIAA members participating in price fixing practices (got my class action settlement for CD sales last month).

I doubt that the RIAA would be putting as much effort as it is into prosecuting file sharers if their sales weren't hurt, if in doubt chase the money.

The study indicated is kind of silly anyway, the trend to look at is how drastically sales dropped as file sharing networks gained popularity, not during a 17 week period in a time when file sharing was around it's peak. How much or little of an impact file sharing made on CD sales, it would have made most of it before 2002.

I wouldn't doubt anything about RIAA/MPAA. Jack Valenti (the man you can thank for R rated movies, or any rating for that matter) haulted the progress of home vcr systems for 12 years because he claimed they would "hurt the movie industry". Never happened.

The RIAA also effectively shut down DAT recorders because they could make 'perfect digital copies', d'oh. It's a shame they went to all that trouble since every CDR drive made now can read/rip redbook standard.

Now they are halting the exchange of dvd recorded 'screeners' sent for Accademy Awards ( ) consideration; which will do all of nothing to halt movie trading. So along comes digital projectors and telecine copying. Pointless.

I'm not claiming any moralistic grounds for copying or not, I'm talking about the dominion of business over individuals, scare tactics, and the fact that no means of copy protection will ever be unbroken.

Any scientists who attempted, and suceeded in cracking digital water-mark systems stated basically that if the protected media at some point needed to be de-coded that it would always be breakable.

One case was even bullied into retracting his journals on how the failed 'secure digital music initiative' could be broken, when the 'challenge' was made to do so.

What's the point, the industry only gives society what it thinks it wants, and society still buys it. If there were not profitable revenue streams than someone somewhere in the chain would upset the entire apple cart.

Just Buy Nothing.

[Edited on Mar 29, 2004 by psychickyouth]

They weren't talking about filesharing in general, they tracked specific songs and sales of their respective albums/singles and found that downloading of that song didn't hurt sales of that album/single. I think it was a fairly novel way of looking at it.

I was originally going to mention something about the sillyness of posting absolute conclusions based on a 17 week study. Kinda like taking the 1960s and writing an essay on the 20th Century with it, wouldn't you think?

But, instead, I'll fall back on the same old stand-by. No downloader has ever been able to tell me why it's not stealing. The only reason people do it (wrapped in some bullshit 'political stand against the music industry') is they can't get caught.

People start getting busted, and what do you know? The "sharing" rates go down. Some politcal protest.

At least a couple of you have just ponied up and said 'Yes, I'm stealing. Sometime I shoplift, too.' I have a teensy bit more respect for that, at least.

Gosh, I thought that would be the last thing said, but people people seem to keep discussing this for some reason.

Has it legally been equated with stealing, say, a CD? I wasn't aware of that.

Maybe the music industry should offer a competitive product instead of wasting their money trying to sue their way out of the "problem."

And no one has ever been able to explain to me how it's property or why it has monetary worth. Especially when the market is so saturated with product and a similar technology (dvd) appears to have so much more value.

The damage to their sales would have been heavy as file sharing grew popular, and then stabilize. If it did work out that way and the RIAA has been lying/manipulating to make it look like it was continually worsening their sales then I can better unsderstand the purpose of this study (I don't have a great deal of information on the subject).

How music is property? It's certainly difficult property to protect, but just like something physically manufactured has had effort put into its construction, so does a song require effort to construct. I won't say that if no one made money for making music, no one would produce it--that is just plain incorrect--but the quality would be lower because people wouldn't be able to devote their lives to it. I think it's worth spendingmoney on, albeit not $20 for a new CD...

I think the music industry has been abusing it's customers with over inflated prices, and had this coming, but I don't think that that justifies theft on an individual level.


[Edited on Mar 29, 2004 9:57PM]

If I create a work of music, and you have a copy of that work, you have something that is mine.(it is mine because I created it) (Regardless if its on a cd, record or hd, the music is mine.) If you do not have my permission to have my music you are stealing.

Well, no offense, but that's just silly.

How does market saturation or your perceived value factor into taking something that's normally sold for currency; and instead of paying for it, finding a way to get it for free, without the seller's permission?

It doesn't matter what it is. Property isn't just something you can hold in your hand or touch. People go to jail for Industrial Espionage, which is the theft of Intellectual Property, all the time. Ideas are property.

People are trying to sell something and other people are finding a way to take it without buying it. And making excuses for it.

A) You want to protest in a way that matters? Don't buy things. Record companies only care about the same thing most business care about; money.

B) Right now, they have the ability to sue or eventually prosecute downloaders. They have an excuse. Want to matter? Don't give them that power. Don't steal.

Result? Sales drop, music industry has no one to blame or pass the buck to. Prices fall, music comes available on the internet legally.

Capitolism at it's best (and it probably would have worked a lot faster than this year after year crapola).


[Edited on Mar 29, 2004 by Mqx]

First off, Peart, there is no such word as "causality," it's "causation." And reprobate made the PERFECTLY VALID AND COMPLETELY CORRECT point that THERE IS NO CAUSATION HERE, so the post hoc fallacy argument is irrelevant. The study actually shows that NOTHING HAS BEEN CAUSED. There is no decrease in CD sales. END OF STORY.

Invest in an unabridged dictionary.

First of all I don't buy new music very often other than stuff I really really like. I don't just consume it. But honestly, there's not much coming out now that I do. I'm old, I record music for a living already and I play it. Call me jaded.

Second, in response to the idea of creativity, often it's not just one person's music and in the majority of major label cases, the artist or performer doesn't even own the music. Some sleazy guy with a pony tail wearing a silk shirt does. Just ask the Rolling Stones about their early catalog. Or the Beatles about half of theirs. So the argument that downloading steals form the artists is, in many cases, not correct. They've been robbed already.

Third, it was my understanding that a product will be sold at whatever the market will support. Especially a luxury or unneeded product. And if there are so many choices, as well as availability on the internet, the perceived value goes down. Ergo, the market dictates the worth of the product, not the other way around. The music industry was too drunk to see this coming.

What we've witnessed in the last few years is the market correcting itself as it realizes that 1) DVD's pack a lot more content onto the same type of medium so why are CD's so expensive? and 2) the music industry hasn't been participating in open capitalism because, lo and behold, they fixed their pirces! Weren't CD's, when introduced in the early 80's, supposed to eventually go down in price? Oh my, they never did...

It's also hard to say how many records will or won't sell and so what these RIAA people are complaining about is that they've gambled a lot of money and the table is no longer fixed in their favor. I was at an AES convention last year and Joe Asshole from Big Ass Records was complaining that downloading is the biggest fucking threat to music since the Jitterbug and that they spend 10 grand recording an album and a million on marketing (those are the real numbers this guy used) including radio time, placement in chain stores, videos, etc, and they weren't making that money back now nor a profit. Boo fucking hoo. You gamble big, you lose big. They don't like capitalism. They like fixed odds. Their whole business model over the past 60 years has shifted from a slow steady return on a large and diverse catalog to blockbuster hits. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as they say.

Fourthly the players, producers, engineers and marketing people all got paid for their hourly work. Performance, composition and arrangement takes energy, talent and time, to be sure, and they were compensated for it. Ask the American Federation Of Musians. That's why these big acts perform. It's the only money a lot of them make, and even then they're often paying back credit owed to the label.

I have a hard time agreeing that their songs are intellectual property subject as such due to my personal feelings on music and the reasons for doing it. I won't convince anyone to see my view, nor will I see the other side. Money isn't real, property isn't real and that's a discussion for another thread...