Illegal downloads cost billions - yeah right

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter, Jun 6, 2009.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Peter, Jun 6, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter

    Peter Guest

    whoisthis wrote:

    > In article <>, Peter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>
    >> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >> false, until proven otherwise."

    >
    > So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???


    No, the article explains that the claims by recording industry of massive
    losses due to downloading are simply not based on actual evidence.
    Peter, Jun 6, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <>, whoisthis wrote:

    > In article <>, Peter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>
    >> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >> false, until proven otherwise."

    >
    > So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???


    Actually, no. The losses have in fact been less than zero
    <http://techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0117405122.shtml>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2009
    #3
  4. Peter

    Woger Guest

    On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:06:26 +1200, Peter <> wrote:

    >
    >The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >
    >"Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >false, until proven otherwise."
    >
    >




    They class every copied or dnloaded piece of software is a Lost sale..

    In my mind you can only take a say 10% of the quoted amount as a lost sale..

    Totally fake statements and figures.
    Woger, Jun 6, 2009
    #4
  5. Peter

    impossible Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > whoisthis wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Peter <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >>> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>>
    >>> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >>> false, until proven otherwise."

    >>
    >> So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???

    >
    > No, the article explains that the claims by recording industry of massive
    > losses due to downloading are simply not based on actual evidence.
    >
    >


    If you're going to believe every tale spun by bloggers, I pity you. I don't
    suppose you bothered to cross-check this tale with a more reputable source,
    did you? . Say, the BBC, for instance? Which cites the same SABIP report but
    with corrected figures of 7 million users illegally copying material worth
    £12 billion each year.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8073068.stm
    impossible, Jun 6, 2009
    #5
  6. Peter

    impossible Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:h0d7f6$3ui$...
    > In message <>, whoisthis wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Peter <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >>> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>>
    >>> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >>> false, until proven otherwise."

    >>
    >> So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???

    >
    > Actually, no. The losses have in fact been less than zero
    > <http://techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0117405122.shtml>.
    >


    Actually, no..."Now, it's worth taking the study with at least some grains
    of salt, given that it was funded by Vuze, a company trying to sell licensed
    videos via BitTorrent and has had trouble getting content companies to sign
    on."


    Just another Larry D'Loser con job exposed.
    impossible, Jun 6, 2009
    #6
  7. Peter

    impossible Guest

    "Woger" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:06:26 +1200, Peter <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>
    >>"Like I said: as far as I'm concerned, everything from this industry is
    >>false, until proven otherwise."
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > They class every copied or dnloaded piece of software is a Lost sale..
    >
    > In my mind you can only take a say 10% of the quoted amount as a lost
    > sale..
    >


    Hmmm...What if the next time you pull a number out of your arse it turns out
    to be 150%?

    > Totally fake statements and figures.
    >


    Totally.
    impossible, Jun 6, 2009
    #7
  8. Peter

    Je| Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    > http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >
    > "Like I said: as far as I'm concerned, everything from this industry is
    > false, until proven otherwise."


    This is also false "MORE than seven million Brits use illegal downloading
    sites that cost the economy billions of pounds, Government advisors said
    today."

    So they can prove the money that would have been spent has actually
    disappeared? The money is still in the economy, there is no net loss.

    J&H.
    Je|, Jun 6, 2009
    #8
  9. Peter

    David Empson Guest

    impossible <> wrote:

    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > whoisthis wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <>, Peter <>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    > >>> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    > >>>
    > >>> "Like I said: as far as I'm concerned, everything from this industry is
    > >>> false, until proven otherwise."
    > >>
    > >> So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???

    > >
    > > No, the article explains that the claims by recording industry of massive
    > > losses due to downloading are simply not based on actual evidence.

    >
    > If you're going to believe every tale spun by bloggers, I pity you. I don't
    > suppose you bothered to cross-check this tale with a more reputable source,
    > did you? . Say, the BBC, for instance? Which cites the same SABIP report but
    > with corrected figures of 7 million users illegally copying material worth
    > £12 billion each year.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8073068.stm


    There is a major technical difference between pirated material being
    "worth" a certain amount of money and claims from the industry that
    piracy is "costing" them that amount of money.

    The "cost" claims seem to be assuming that if there was no means to copy
    the material illegally, most people who are pirating it would buy it
    instead.

    This is highly doubtful. Most of them would just forgo the material
    completely.

    --
    David Empson
    David Empson, Jun 6, 2009
    #9
  10. Peter

    victor Guest

    Je|<ݬ¬ & µÝÐe wrote:
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>
    >> "Like I said: as far as I'm concerned, everything from this industry is
    >> false, until proven otherwise."

    >
    > This is also false "MORE than seven million Brits use illegal downloading
    > sites that cost the economy billions of pounds, Government advisors said
    > today."
    >
    > So they can prove the money that would have been spent has actually
    > disappeared? The money is still in the economy, there is no net loss.
    >
    > J&H.
    >
    >

    There is plenty of data that says that the downloaders are also the
    purchasers of most of the content sold and they aren't going to spend
    any more.
    And that the content that is sold only achieves its market position by
    being available on the internet.
    So cutting off the internet connections of downloaders is likely to be
    counterproductive.
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #10
  11. Peter

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <>, Peter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> whoisthis wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, Peter <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >>>> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>>>
    >>>> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >>>> false, until proven otherwise."
    >>> So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???

    >> No, the article explains that the claims by recording industry of massive
    >> losses due to downloading are simply not based on actual evidence.

    >
    > And equally some of the presumptions made to counter this were
    > unsupported by facts.


    Got any ?
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #11
  12. Peter

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <>, Peter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>
    >> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >> false, until proven otherwise."

    >
    > So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???
    > Now I'd be interested to see what the spread of pirated music was, for
    > example if the majority was top 20 stuff then the argument of just
    > wanting to listen / trial it does not hold up as I am sure they have
    > heard it many times.
    >
    > As for the pirates buying more, that too needs more information, if the
    > could NOT pirate it would they be buying even more than they do.


    No, they buy more because of their exposure to new material they download.
    They don't listen to the radio anymore, just ipods.
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #12
  13. Peter

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <1j0xcqj.zvnpsmj8v7j5N%>,
    > (David Empson) wrote:


    >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8073068.stm

    >> There is a major technical difference between pirated material being
    >> "worth" a certain amount of money and claims from the industry that
    >> piracy is "costing" them that amount of money.
    >>
    >> The "cost" claims seem to be assuming that if there was no means to copy
    >> the material illegally, most people who are pirating it would buy it
    >> instead.
    >>
    >> This is highly doubtful. Most of them would just forgo the material
    >> completely.

    >
    > So that makes it all right then ?
    > And what is most ??? 51%, perhaps 99%
    >
    > The cost of music online is cheap and simply a lame excuse. You are no
    > longer "Forced to buy whole albums for the one track I want".
    >
    > There is a lot of sophistry behind the excuses, but none actually stacks
    > up.
    >

    <irrelevant bollocks snipped>

    The kids that download heaps of music don't have credit cards. They do
    go to gigs though.
    Stop them from downloading if you can but you won't be able to make
    sales from it.
    They don't need it as the previous poster succinctly and eruditely
    informed you.
    Just because you can total up all the downloads and say that if they
    were sold in the iTunes shop that Apple would make billions doesn't
    equate to Apple losing billions.
    You need buyers.
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #13
  14. Peter

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <h0f53f$m08$>, victor <> wrote:
    >
    >> whoisthis wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Peter <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >>>> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>>>
    >>>> "Like I said: as far as Iâ¤m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >>>> false, until proven otherwise."
    >>> So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???
    >>> Now I'd be interested to see what the spread of pirated music was, for
    >>> example if the majority was top 20 stuff then the argument of just
    >>> wanting to listen / trial it does not hold up as I am sure they have
    >>> heard it many times.
    >>>
    >>> As for the pirates buying more, that too needs more information, if the
    >>> could NOT pirate it would they be buying even more than they do.

    >> No, they buy more because of their exposure to new material they download.
    >> They don't listen to the radio anymore, just ipods.

    >
    > Evidence of this being...??
    > Please show me how it is not the top10, or the big name bands that are
    > not being pirated, only then will your assertion have any credence.


    Evidence being that radio stations mostly now just play 70s and 80s
    music for building sites inbetween tire and muffler commercials.
    Evidence being when Youtube blocked a record company for their
    unreasonable fee demands they caved in a few weeks.
    Evidence being the kids with full ipods with no 99c per tune itunes
    downloads.
    Evidence that music doesn't wear out anymore and you are just as likely
    to find old jazz and funk or experimental electronica and glitch and
    grime in their collections as new releases
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #14
  15. Peter

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-06-06, David Empson <> wrote:
    > impossible <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > whoisthis wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> In article <>, Peter <>
    >> >> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >> >>> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >> >>>
    >> >>> "Like I said: as far as I'm concerned, everything from this industry is
    >> >>> false, until proven otherwise."
    >> >>
    >> >> So, you are saying that there is ZERO losses ???
    >> >
    >> > No, the article explains that the claims by recording industry of massive
    >> > losses due to downloading are simply not based on actual evidence.

    >>
    >> If you're going to believe every tale spun by bloggers, I pity you. I don't
    >> suppose you bothered to cross-check this tale with a more reputable source,
    >> did you? . Say, the BBC, for instance? Which cites the same SABIP report but
    >> with corrected figures of 7 million users illegally copying material worth
    >> £12 billion each year.
    >>
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8073068.stm

    >
    > There is a major technical difference between pirated material being
    > "worth" a certain amount of money and claims from the industry that
    > piracy is "costing" them that amount of money.
    >
    > The "cost" claims seem to be assuming that if there was no means to copy
    > the material illegally, most people who are pirating it would buy it
    > instead.
    >
    > This is highly doubtful. Most of them would just forgo the material
    > completely.
    >

    Indeed. The term disposable income must enter into the debate.

    As the price rises the consumption drops. There is only a certain amount of
    money.
    Gordon, Jun 7, 2009
    #15
  16. Peter

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <h0f753$odg$>, victor <> wrote:
    >
    >> whoisthis wrote:
    >>> In article <1j0xcqj.zvnpsmj8v7j5N%>,
    >>> (David Empson) wrote:
    >>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8073068.stm
    >>>> There is a major technical difference between pirated material being
    >>>> "worth" a certain amount of money and claims from the industry that
    >>>> piracy is "costing" them that amount of money.
    >>>>
    >>>> The "cost" claims seem to be assuming that if there was no means to copy
    >>>> the material illegally, most people who are pirating it would buy it
    >>>> instead.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is highly doubtful. Most of them would just forgo the material
    >>>> completely.
    >>> So that makes it all right then ?
    >>> And what is most ??? 51%, perhaps 99%
    >>>
    >>> The cost of music online is cheap and simply a lame excuse. You are no
    >>> longer "Forced to buy whole albums for the one track I want".
    >>>
    >>> There is a lot of sophistry behind the excuses, but none actually stacks
    >>> up.
    >>>

    >> <irrelevant bollocks snipped>
    >>
    >> The kids that download heaps of music don't have credit cards. They do
    >> go to gigs though.

    >
    > Oh... and buy their tickets online ??
    > Quite apart from the fact that their are iTunes gift cards, so they do
    > not need a credit card. Given the significant sum of money it costs to
    > go to a gig then one can only accept that the cost of the CD is NOT an
    > issue as you can often get 2-4 CDs for the price of a good ticket.


    They can't download a gig though so they might well decide to download
    the music and spend the money on the tickets or something tangible


    >
    >> Stop them from downloading if you can but you won't be able to make
    >> sales from it.
    >> They don't need it as the previous poster succinctly and eruditely
    >> informed you.
    >> Just because you can total up all the downloads and say that if they
    >> were sold in the iTunes shop that Apple would make billions doesn't
    >> equate to Apple losing billions.
    >> You need buyers.

    >
    > You assume that no one who downloads would buy, that too is false.
    >
    > So we are still back to "can get it for free so why pay".


    It's not going to change.
    It's worth marketing enhanced packages and premium access for the fans,
    but not if you cut off their internet accounts for downloading a 75Mb
    file of your CD.
    You need buyers.
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #16
  17. Peter

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:

    > Of course there is an alternative, add a piracy tax on data, get all the
    > music, video you want for free, you just get to pay a per meg fee.... it
    > wont stop it, it will simply force everyone to pay for it


    You'll get Allistar going now
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #17
  18. Peter

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <h0fijj$1bq$>, victor <> wrote:
    >
    >> whoisthis wrote:
    >>> In article <h0f753$odg$>, victor <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> whoisthis wrote:
    >>>>> In article <1j0xcqj.zvnpsmj8v7j5N%>,
    >>>>> (David Empson) wrote:
    >>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8073068.stm
    >>>>>> There is a major technical difference between pirated material being
    >>>>>> "worth" a certain amount of money and claims from the industry that
    >>>>>> piracy is "costing" them that amount of money.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The "cost" claims seem to be assuming that if there was no means to copy
    >>>>>> the material illegally, most people who are pirating it would buy it
    >>>>>> instead.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This is highly doubtful. Most of them would just forgo the material
    >>>>>> completely.
    >>>>> So that makes it all right then ?
    >>>>> And what is most ??? 51%, perhaps 99%
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The cost of music online is cheap and simply a lame excuse. You are no
    >>>>> longer "Forced to buy whole albums for the one track I want".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is a lot of sophistry behind the excuses, but none actually stacks
    >>>>> up.
    >>>>>
    >>>> <irrelevant bollocks snipped>
    >>>>
    >>>> The kids that download heaps of music don't have credit cards. They do
    >>>> go to gigs though.
    >>> Oh... and buy their tickets online ??
    >>> Quite apart from the fact that their are iTunes gift cards, so they do
    >>> not need a credit card. Given the significant sum of money it costs to
    >>> go to a gig then one can only accept that the cost of the CD is NOT an
    >>> issue as you can often get 2-4 CDs for the price of a good ticket.

    >> They can't download a gig though so they might well decide to download
    >> the music and spend the money on the tickets or something tangible

    >
    > And 99.999% of bands do not tour here, which is still irrelevant. Its a
    > simple thing, want it, pay for it. Any other stance is just a lie to try
    > and justify dishonesty.
    >


    99.999% of music fans just don't care, and never have if you believe
    these statistics.
    Copyright royalty based income from music recordings was a business
    model that was viable for the last half of the 20th century until
    computer science rendered it obsolete. The extraction of the royalty was
    never the concern of the end user, they always thought intuitively that
    they bought a record, they just don't think of files in the same way.
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #18
  19. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    > http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >
    > "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    > false, until proven otherwise."


    http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/06/downloading-keeping-billions-inside-the-
    uk/
    Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy said the report brought home the
    impact illegal downloads had on the UK economy as a whole. “If we take as
    read the music industry’s assumption that every download is a lost sale,
    then billions of pounds are freed up for ordinary people to spend on things
    of actual economic substance to keep local businesses healthy, rather than
    chasing phantom pseudo-value from things that have an inherent cost of
    production of zero. This makes the whole economy more efficient and lets
    money go where it is actually useful, rather than to Bono’s numbered account
    in the Virgin Islands.â€
    Peter, Jun 7, 2009
    #19
  20. Peter

    victor Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > Peter wrote:
    >> The wild claims of the media industry don't stand up to much scrutiny.
    >> http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/
    >>
    >> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is
    >> false, until proven otherwise."

    >
    > http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/06/downloading-keeping-billions-inside-the-
    > uk/
    > Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy said the report brought home the
    > impact illegal downloads had on the UK economy as a whole. “If we take as
    > read the music industry’s assumption that every download is a lost sale,
    > then billions of pounds are freed up for ordinary people to spend on things
    > of actual economic substance to keep local businesses healthy, rather than
    > chasing phantom pseudo-value from things that have an inherent cost of
    > production of zero. This makes the whole economy more efficient and lets
    > money go where it is actually useful, rather than to Bono’s numbered account
    > in the Virgin Islands.â€
    >
    >

    That's what I was saying, that the fans choose to buy tangible physical
    objects and services with the discretionary income that they put into
    music. That pays for local musicians, venues, sound lighting catering
    transport recording, music shops, video production. Its indirect, its
    not based on distribution of per copy copyright royalties, but it exists
    because of the interest stimulated by the content they download. Kill it
    with penalties and you don't get the copyright royalties income back,
    its lose-lose.
    The NZ music industry is small and efficient, the musicians I know don't
    need any more capital equipment to create new tracks these days than any
    other small multimedia producer.
    victor, Jun 7, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JaR
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    1,479
  2. Sue Bilstein

    Jetstream in Maraetai - yeah, right

    Sue Bilstein, Jun 21, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    577
    Geoff McCaughan
    Jul 16, 2004
  3. thing2

    IBM makes Billions on Linux

    thing2, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    844
    shannon
    Mar 24, 2006
  4. Mutlley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    354
    Mutlley
    Apr 5, 2009
  5. Me
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    330
    Your Name
    Apr 7, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page