Latest study - file sharing has no impact on CD sales

[SUBMAN1]

Surprise surprise! Well not really since files that I have listened have always made me go out and buy the CD so that i can have the source, but maybe I am a rare apple?

Anyway, the point is, this study shows that file sharing has absolutely no effect on CD sales. Something i already knew, and my friends already know, but the RIAA doesn't or is not willing to admit. The RIAA also has two big issues - one is they are control freaks, and the other is they need an excuse for declining CD sales instead of blaming the crappy managed music they keep releasing. What happened to real artists anyway? I think the control freaks stamped them out.

Here is the abstract:

The music downloading phenomenon presents a unique opportunity to examine normative
influences on media consumption behavior. Downloaders face moral, legal, and ethical
quandaries that can be conceptualized as normative influences within the self-regulatory
mechanism of social cognitive theory. The music industry hopes to eliminate illegal file sharing
and to divert illegal downloaders to pay services by asserting normative influence
through selective prosecutions and public information campaigns. However the deficient
self-regulation of downloaders counters these efforts maintaining file sharing as a persistent
habit that defies attempts to establish normative control. The present research tests and
extends the social cognitive theory of downloading on a sample of college students. The expected
outcomes of downloading behavior and deficient self-regulation of that behavior
were found to be important determinantes of intentions to continue downloading. Consistent
with social cognitive theory but in contrast to the theory of planned behavior, it was
found that descriptive and prescriptive norms influenced deficient self-regulation but had
no direct impact on behavioral intentions. Downloading intentions also had no direct relationship
to either compact disc purchases or to subscription to online pay music services.

To read the full study, go here:
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf...59?cookieSet=1

-S

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

...The RIAA also has two big issues - one is they are control freaks, and the other is they need an excuse for declining CD sales instead of blaming the crappy managed music they keep releasing. What happened to real artists anyway? I think the control freaks stamped them out....

Couldn't have put it better.

[NefariousKoel]

Indeed. Well said.

[Chock]

I only ever download stuff that I've already purchased (invariably several times i.e bought it on vinyl, cassette, CD, video, ad naseum), this is simply to save me the trouble of making an MP3 by digging the thing out.

But to be honest, even if the music 'industry' - note I said industry not artistry - was being damaged by downloading, then it would bloody well serve them right for taking the p*ss for years on pricing and the constant peddling of dross, while making very little effort to nurture real talent.

These days you get manufactured acts appearing out of nowhere - which their marketing departments instantly hail as 'geniuses' - only to find that they've run out of steam by the time they get to their 'difficult' second album. And if you go and see such acts live, you invariably find that they couldn't hold a tune even if it had handles welded to it.

[CCIP]

And I again wish to plug Professor Lessig's work for those really interested in these issues

http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

[Heibges]

The Rolling Stones were manufactured to be the Anti-Beatles.

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Anyway, the point is, this study shows that file sharing has absolutely no effect on CD sales.

I feel somewhat vindicated.

[Godalmighty83]

it comes down to the riaa thinking people actually want too buy the 'music' they download when in reality people download just becuase its there.

a guy i work with has about 3gigs of tracks, he barely even listens to music and certainly wouldnt have bouight even a couple of tracks hes got.

its like going into a supermarket to get some beer and having a bite on some free cheese samples, you werent going to buy cheese anyway so your actions have had no impact on the sales of stilton.

if like the band (muse, system of a down etc.) i buy the cd.

[kiwi_2005]

Small bands starting up it would, from over here bands just a yr or two into their singing career are always on the radio putting up annoucements to kiwis that pirating their music is not helping them. NZ got a bad rating for pirating music. Recently on a talkback radio they put up a no holds barred tell all whether you pirate music or not. out of the 44000 that rang up over the week, 94% said they do it without a second thought.

And thats just NZ! Their must be millions around the globe doing it.

I watched on this vid about the Police Raid of torrents - Piratebay site, i think was in sweden, every day or week can't remeber but wouldn't be surprised if its a day, there are something like 12million users who hit that site. The guys brought a house and practically had the whole place setup with servers. :rotfl:

[TteFAboB]

It works the other way with me. Because I'm too lazy to go buy a CD and because I don't want to pay to have it shipped to me I feel tempted to download songs if I already have at least one CD from the artist/band.

Piracy isn't new though. Back in the day people couldn't download music, nope, they recorded it off the radio in cassette tapes. It was just more expensive and much more difficult to distribute it that way.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I think the music industry really doesn't like that people can sample music. Before they used to have to buy it to find out it was crap. I mean, I'm sure it does hurt sales... But come on, it's like that South Park episode where because of music piracy Metallica can't afford their golden shark tank.

PD

[Prof]

Why does it matter that filesharing has no impact on CD sales? It's still illegal, so don't do it.

None of the arguments about record companies over-charging or producing bad music is an excuse for breaking the law. Like an album? Buy it. Don't like an album? Don't buy it.

The very idea of taking some sort of moral stand against the big, bad record companies by refusing to buy their products but then going and downloading them illegally seems ludicrous to me.

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by Prof

.........Like an album? Buy it. Don't like an album? Don't buy it.

I personally always try before I buy. I'm not going to buy an album on the basis of one decent track which is currently getting airplay. I rarely keep a shared/downloaded album if I don't like it.

If it is not good enough to buy, it's not good enough to be on my HDD.

FYI the same goes for games/software & books.

[Prof]

Originally Posted by danlisa

I personally always try before I buy. I'm not going to buy an album on the basis of one decent track which is currently getting airplay. I rarely keep a shared/downloaded album if I don't like it.

If it is not good enough to buy, it's not good enough to be on my HDD.

FYI the same goes for games/software & books.

The point you raise there is an interesting one. I don't think it justifies the illegal downloading of music but there is something to be said for music companies providing some form of try-before-you-buy system. For example, the big music shops in my city have points where you can scan the barcode of the CD and listen to the tracks in the shop. One of the independent music shops will let you return a CD if you don't like it.

I should probably confess at this point that I was heavily into music downloading during my first two or three years at university. I wasn't really into music when I arrived but the exposure to what was available online meant that I discovered new music I didn't know existed before. In my case, if it hadn't been for filesharing, I would probably still have just the 5 or 6 CDs I had while I was at college. Eventually I reasoned that even though filesharing increased my music buying, it wasn't justification enough for breaking the law, so I deleted it all.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Laws are not a priori good.

No, but they are laws, good or bad.

Law, at the best of times, are mere words on paper that attempt to crudely analog the contemporary ethics of society. At worst, they are words on paper put in by the rich and powerful to suit their own needs. Current copyright laws with their near-infinite expiry dates, IMO, are really more about the latter.

As a follower of utilitarian ethics, I believe copyright laws should be the absolute minimum that will satisfy the utilitatarian purpose of securing a reasonable (not blatant) profit for creators so they will be motivated to create for the greater good of society, and it should be balanced against the free flow of information.

Why does it matter why laws are in existence? Unless they require the abandoning of fundamental moral principles there is no reason for them to be disobeyed. I can understand your beliefs about copyright laws but that's just not the way things work at the moment. I don't really see any justification for breaking laws just because you disagree with them.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Prof

Why does it matter that filesharing has no impact on CD sales? It's still illegal, so don't do it.

Laws are not a priori good.

Law, at the best of times, are mere words on paper that attempt to crudely analog the contemporary ethics of society. At worst, they are words on paper put in by the rich and powerful to suit their own needs. Current copyright laws with their near-infinite expiry dates, IMO, are really more about the latter.

If, as many suspect, file sharing does little harm, or even is a net benefit to the big companies, then the ethical justification of the law disappears.

Every company believes that people will buy their products if only they couldn't just download it for free. This is hardly the case. That's as unreasonable as a one-way lover who believes if only she got her target's girlfriend out of the way, she can get her target.

As a follower of utilitarian ethics, I believe copyright laws should be the absolute minimum that will satisfy the utilitatarian purpose of securing a reasonable (not blatant) profit for creators so they will be motivated to create for the greater good of society, and it should be balanced against the free flow of information.

For example, instead of lasting 50 years after the creator dies, a copyright might last for only 1-2 years after release. There will still be plenty of people who would want the latest thing and thus the creators should still get a healthy profit, but after that, it is up for free distribution.