I thought it was news because every time someone posts about The Pirate Bay, etc, and someone says, "Piracy increases sales of most media," someone always comes back (it happened with the last major TPB thread on HN) with, "But no study has ever shown that!"
Even though there are quite a few of them, and this recent one.
I didn't say "But no study has ever shown that!" but did ask "Has any study ever shown that? I would like to know the answer (and am too lazy to Google it)."
I appreciate you posting this to Hacker News, answering the question (even if not specifically for my benefit). Thanks!
Sorry for the exaggeration, but it wasn't just aimed at your comment. The idea that piracy can in many circumstances increases sales is opposed religiously by some (and not just those in the content industry), so those type of comments pop up over and over again that I was parodying. Wasn't trying to single you out. :-) I want to know the real evidence and answers as well, at least to the best ability we humans have to gather them.
Sorry, I wasn't commenting to say your post wasn't HN material it is. More of a commentary on the repeated findings and studies that come and say the same thing.
So far as I can tell, this study shows that freely available music increases sales. There is no indication that piracy increases sales.
I have yet to see a study that takes "freely available" vs "pirated" into account, and that takes into account that there is a certain barrier to buying music online and p2p-ers have already overcome that barrier. Until such a study is made, I don't see how we can really say anything has been proven.
(edited for tone, I was being a bit argumentative)
The original article, an autotranslation, was actually more informative than this, and included the gem of a detail that the survey used deliberately avoided wording that suggested "illegal" downloading.
In other words, this survey uncovered the shocking fact that people who had downloaded music were 10x more likely to pay to download music than people who never downloaded at all.
It's not as bad as you make it sound. There is no way for your "shocking fact" to be true, since definitionally people who have never downloaded anything have never paid to download anything either (people that pay for a download and for some reason never complete it notwithstanding). The ratio, therefore, would really be undefined, rather than 10:1.
The real inference, given what you say about the original article, is that people who obtain music online, whether by means of purchase or not, are ten times more likely to obtain music by means of purchase than those who never obtain music online. Certainly not as perhaps interesting a finding as the title, but neither as vapid as your summary.
You think maybe you could track down and read the original before making inferences based on my vapid summary? I'm interested in whether you still think I'm off base here.
I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to refer to your summary as vapid; and I certainly see now how you read it that way. I would ammend my post to add "makes it to be" to the end of the last sentence. I meant that your summary represents the "finding" as completely vapid.
I do trust that the detail from the article you point out, that "the survey used deliberately avoided wording that suggested 'illegal' downloading", is true. (Though, I'd still be grateful if you wanted to provide a link to the original.) What I find to be off base is the logic of your interpretation ("In other words..."), which makes their finding out to be a mere tautology. If what you say in the first paragraph is true (which I believe it to be), I don't think what you said in the second paragraph follows from that for the reason I gave above.
I haven't bit torrented any music or movies in a long time. Last week I really wanted to see the sequel to a documentary I had just viewed on Youtube. Its not available on Youtube, so I went to find it for purchase online. Its not on iTunes or anywhere else for purchase.
Bit torrent really is often the most convenient way to get music/movies. I want to pay to download this movie, but I can't.
Torrents have become to much work. Maybe I have just been "out of the scene" or whatever for too long... In the days of suprnova, the front page would be filled with albums or movies with plenty of seeds and MODERATORS that removed torrents that contained crap or trojans. Bittorrent now is as bad as kazaa (if that is even still around).
I buy TONS of music...mostly bands that I found back in the suprnova days, actually, and I buy most of it on iTunes...
I'm at work...dealing with the idiots at the pirate bay is too much of a pain in the ass and not worth the $9 an album costs on iTunes.
As soon as somebody comes out with something better, I'll migrate to that.
You're exactly right, it is all about ease of use. Using torrents used to be easier than going to the music store. That is no longer the case.
The only place I hear private sites mentioned are on the internet. I don't hear a lot of people talking about them in real life.
But I see what you are saying. Private sites just let the admins control the quality of the torrents and site, not keep people from finding out that the site exists.
If you are looking at music sites, the minimum quality allowed is usually 192kps. So none of the $.99 songs on itunes would be allowed on. Also, since the sites are invite only, most sites force you to seed to keep your account. Checking reviews of private trackers, I see that a seeder/leecher ratio of 40:1 is common. So speed is not an issue.
And the sites make it easy to discover new music. The sites are filled with people who actually care that a song is lossless, or want to take the time to actually rip an album from vinyl instead of cd. These type of people don't usually limit themselves to bands on Top-40 lists.
No you don't want to pay. You say you do, but if you walked by a street and two guys stood there, one guy offering you a DVD for free and not saying a word, and the other guy yelling at you to buy the very same DVD from him, you'd take the free one.
You don't want to pay for the movie, and if you really think that, you're lying to yourself.
I don't think that it's fair for you to make that assumption. I believe many people have the desire to support people who make great things in order to reward them for what they have accomplished and to help inspire them to continue to do so by showing them that their passion is of value to others.
Ummm...downmodded for what? If the study doesn't claim the relationship to be causal (downloading causes buying), then its uninteresting as it doesn't support anyone's position.
There was no indication that the study controlled for an individual's interest level in music (overall amount consumed). So, if we presume the study to simply examine the correlation of two binary variables (downloaded_at_least_1x and bought_at_least_1x), the results could be explained if most of those polled did not download or buy music or did both. Am I thinking about this correctly?
I recently prepared a presentation about copyright infringement... In store music sales are at their lowest point in the last decade. The RIAA derives a huge portion of its income from paid-for downloaded music these days and not so much from record sales.
Of course your 10 times more likely to buy music, because your looking for it. But I find it hard to believe that if you pirate music you are more likely to buy the album. I understand the "try before you buy" thought. But there are easier ways to preview music than just pirating it. There is Itunes, Amazon, and a ton of other music services you could use.
Study finds
`most people who are likely to buy music want to download it quickly, too' or perhaps
`people who don't know how to download music aren't likely to do anything with the music at all'
The set of people buying music often, and people downloading are too much overlapped just because of the vast popularity of both buying and downloading to find any meaningful correlation between the sets. IMnsHO.
> Researchers found that those who downloaded "free" music – whether from lawful or seedy sources – were also 10 times more likely to pay for music.
10 times more likely to pay for music they've acquired, or 10 times more likely to buy music, period? More explicit data is needed. Example: The pirates acquire 10000 songs; pay for 100 of them (1%). The non-pirates acquire 10 songs, pay for 10 (100%). "The pirates have paid for ten times as many as the non pirates."
But the results can swing the other way: Example: The pirates acquire 100 songs, pay for 1 of them (same 1%). Non-pirates acquire 10, pay for 10 (same 100%). Suddenly: "The non-pirates have paid for ten times as many as the pirates."
So, simply by getting more pirate respondents to participate in your study, you can manipulate the result increasingly in favour of piracy.
We need to see the data to be able to determine whether they really corroborate the conclusion.
they're also 10 times more likely to say "shiver me timbers" when prompted.
actually I have downloaded music a lot in the past, from allofmp3.com and mp3sparks.com, and if I like it enough I do buy the actual CD because I want the complete package. Some music I purchased online through the Apple iTunes music store was so bad I wished I could return it. But no returns. Every CD store I know of will at least give you store credit.
> Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase.
I haven't read exactly how this study was conducted, but it might be worth noting that some pirates would feel they have something to prove, and be more likely to comply with the request for proof.
37 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadEven though there are quite a few of them, and this recent one.
I appreciate you posting this to Hacker News, answering the question (even if not specifically for my benefit). Thanks!
I have yet to see a study that takes "freely available" vs "pirated" into account, and that takes into account that there is a certain barrier to buying music online and p2p-ers have already overcome that barrier. Until such a study is made, I don't see how we can really say anything has been proven.
(edited for tone, I was being a bit argumentative)
Now that actual crime-on-the-seas piracy is a going concern, there's even more reason to stop using the term for filesharing.
So if you download the iTunes free track of the week, you're 10 times more likely to pay for music.
In other words, this survey uncovered the shocking fact that people who had downloaded music were 10x more likely to pay to download music than people who never downloaded at all.
The real inference, given what you say about the original article, is that people who obtain music online, whether by means of purchase or not, are ten times more likely to obtain music by means of purchase than those who never obtain music online. Certainly not as perhaps interesting a finding as the title, but neither as vapid as your summary.
I do trust that the detail from the article you point out, that "the survey used deliberately avoided wording that suggested 'illegal' downloading", is true. (Though, I'd still be grateful if you wanted to provide a link to the original.) What I find to be off base is the logic of your interpretation ("In other words..."), which makes their finding out to be a mere tautology. If what you say in the first paragraph is true (which I believe it to be), I don't think what you said in the second paragraph follows from that for the reason I gave above.
Bit torrent really is often the most convenient way to get music/movies. I want to pay to download this movie, but I can't.
Torrents have become to much work. Maybe I have just been "out of the scene" or whatever for too long... In the days of suprnova, the front page would be filled with albums or movies with plenty of seeds and MODERATORS that removed torrents that contained crap or trojans. Bittorrent now is as bad as kazaa (if that is even still around).
I buy TONS of music...mostly bands that I found back in the suprnova days, actually, and I buy most of it on iTunes...
I'm at work...dealing with the idiots at the pirate bay is too much of a pain in the ass and not worth the $9 an album costs on iTunes.
As soon as somebody comes out with something better, I'll migrate to that.
You're exactly right, it is all about ease of use. Using torrents used to be easier than going to the music store. That is no longer the case.
Although....there is still IRC ;-)
Quality is good, and it is easy to find new independent artists.
But I see what you are saying. Private sites just let the admins control the quality of the torrents and site, not keep people from finding out that the site exists.
If you are looking at music sites, the minimum quality allowed is usually 192kps. So none of the $.99 songs on itunes would be allowed on. Also, since the sites are invite only, most sites force you to seed to keep your account. Checking reviews of private trackers, I see that a seeder/leecher ratio of 40:1 is common. So speed is not an issue.
And the sites make it easy to discover new music. The sites are filled with people who actually care that a song is lossless, or want to take the time to actually rip an album from vinyl instead of cd. These type of people don't usually limit themselves to bands on Top-40 lists.
most vinyl is cut from CDs these days, not studio masters.
You don't want to pay for the movie, and if you really think that, you're lying to yourself.
What I don't want to do is go looking for it at the store or wait on shipping. I want to get it digitally.
There was no indication that the study controlled for an individual's interest level in music (overall amount consumed). So, if we presume the study to simply examine the correlation of two binary variables (downloaded_at_least_1x and bought_at_least_1x), the results could be explained if most of those polled did not download or buy music or did both. Am I thinking about this correctly?
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-...
The set of people buying music often, and people downloading are too much overlapped just because of the vast popularity of both buying and downloading to find any meaningful correlation between the sets. IMnsHO.
10 times more likely to pay for music they've acquired, or 10 times more likely to buy music, period? More explicit data is needed. Example: The pirates acquire 10000 songs; pay for 100 of them (1%). The non-pirates acquire 10 songs, pay for 10 (100%). "The pirates have paid for ten times as many as the non pirates."
But the results can swing the other way: Example: The pirates acquire 100 songs, pay for 1 of them (same 1%). Non-pirates acquire 10, pay for 10 (same 100%). Suddenly: "The non-pirates have paid for ten times as many as the pirates."
So, simply by getting more pirate respondents to participate in your study, you can manipulate the result increasingly in favour of piracy.
We need to see the data to be able to determine whether they really corroborate the conclusion.
actually I have downloaded music a lot in the past, from allofmp3.com and mp3sparks.com, and if I like it enough I do buy the actual CD because I want the complete package. Some music I purchased online through the Apple iTunes music store was so bad I wished I could return it. But no returns. Every CD store I know of will at least give you store credit.
I haven't read exactly how this study was conducted, but it might be worth noting that some pirates would feel they have something to prove, and be more likely to comply with the request for proof.