File sharing makes no difference to record sales

The Inquirer ^ | Tuesday 30 March 2004, 07:11 | INQUIRER staff

[Hodar]

A myth exploded

By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 30 March 2004, 07:11

RESEARCH APPEARS to back up what teenagers have been saying for years - file sharing is not stuffing the music industry.

A study conducted jointly by researchers from Harvard Business School and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, has found that in 2002 music sales were unaffected by the increase in file sharing, and the industry may have even benefited from it.

Researchers looked at data from file-sharing services was used and 1.75 million downloads during a 17-week period in 2002.

They said that while there were a large number of downloads during this period most people who shared files appear to be individuals who would not have bought the albums that they downloaded anyway.

In addition the Harvard/North Carolina study found that in a "worse case scenario" it would take more than 5000 downloads to reduce album sales by a single copy.

The authors said: "If this worst-case scenario were true, file sharing would have reduced CD sales by two million copies in 2002. To provide a point of reference, CD sales actually declined by 139 million copies from 2000 to 2002."

Downloads helped flog the most popular CDs - for the top 25 per cent, 150 downloads increased sales by one copy. For the least popular albums (less than 36,000 copies sold) a small negative effect was seen.

The researchers also concluded that only 45 per cent of files downloaded in the US were hosted on computers in the same country.

This suggests that a legal strategy targeting mostly the US is unlikely to have any impact.

If the statistics are correct, the music industry might have to look closer to home for the reasons. Some oldies suggest that most of the popular beat combos peddled these days aren't that good and say nothing to teenagers anyroadmap. µ

[Stu Cohen]

It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for, unless the copyright holder says you can. Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.

Morally wrong? I'm not sure. Somethings aren't as black and white.

The record companies are stealing from the artists.

Dealings with the "entertainment industry" (and I use that term loosly), are done in a moral vaccum, IMHO.

I used to tape songs off the radio when I was a kid because I could not afford to buy them. I fast-forward through commercials too. It's all "morally wrong" according to the industry.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

[KarlInOhio]

Has the RIAA looked at what effect used CD sales has had on new sales? I know I'll check Amazon, EBay, Half.com and a few other sites for used CDs and buy those. The internet has made used CDs much more widely available than just checking what the local used music store has (usually twenty copies of last year's hot album).

I know RIAA hates used sales and every once in a while raises a stink about them.

[savedbygrace]

You might have the cart and horse switched. While the technology for digital audio was still being developed for home use, the industry began to demand the law accommodate them in protection against copying (they figured out early on that they couldn't stop it from happening by more technology.) At some point, they pleaded that if filesharing were allowed, they would lose billions.

Now it seems the arguments WRT filesharing were based on false assumptions, at the least. Research like the one cited in this thread might be reason to revisit the law. I say that's a good thing.

[expat_panama]

it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for..

How about downloading mp3 copies of music you have paid for on other formats--is that format shifting?  How about downloading copies of files from a server that you've uploaded to--is that space shifting?  How about downloading files that you've saved from an earlier time--is that time shifting?

Some courts have said yes and some have said no.  A lawyer will tell the court what you pay him to say.  I don't agree that downloading music is always morally right or wrong for anyone anywhere any time.  But right here and now I'll say it's morally wrong to self-righteously strut like some kind of all knowing moral authority.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

They said that while there were a large number of downloads during this period most people who shared files appear to be individuals who would not have bought the albums that they downloaded anyway.

Wonder what they based this on.

[Paul C. Jesup]

RESEARCH APPEARS to back up what teenagers have been saying for years - file sharing is not stuffing the music industry.

Don't that mean "stiffing".

[Julliardsux]

The issue is not whether it positively affected CD sales, the issue is that each free download violates composers' rights to sell downloads.

Comparing downloads to CDs is apples to oranges, and is irrelevant.

[bored at work]

when I was a kid I used to record music off the radio. whats the big deal I ask. . .

[Hodar]

No, they mean stuffing. The editors of The Inquirer reside on both sides of the 'pond'. They said 'stuffing' and they meant 'stuffing'; in the British colloquial way.

Besides, 'stuffing' is such a more polite venacular than the American f-word.

[Hodar]

Comparing downloads to CDs is apples to oranges, and is irrelevant.

I would disagree with you. Air play directly impacts record sales. The more the radio plays a song, or the more requests that are received, the more people are exposed to a particular artist. These people will then decide whether they will consider purchasing an album, or not.

Similarly with downloading music. You may listen to an artist, or a song style; then based upon your likes/dislikes you will either buy the album, or not.

[Sloth]

A more accurate example would be someone helping themselves (without permission) to free samples by opening boxes and taking a bite -- some of them will buy, but you could hardly justify their actions.

Except, of course, that it isn't analogous AT ALL. In that case, the store loses product (what's eaten) and has to dicard more product as spoiled (what's left in the box).

With downloading, nobody loses anything, except control over what's done with the information. Downloading music w/o copyright holder's permission MAY be immoral, but if so, it's NOT because it's "stealing." Nothing is lost, therefore nothing is stolen.

[Snowy]

How about downloading mp3 copies of music you have paid for on other formats--is that format shifting?

I do that now. My dog also chewed a couple of CDs. I downloaded replacements. I also bought some cds that I don't like, but have downloaded cds by the same artist the albums/cds I do like. Can I toss the ones I bought and swap them for the cds I do like? How about if we tried to return all of the cds we don't listen to? Will the record companies give us a credit so we can buy the ones we do want?

[flashbunny]

But it's still illegal, and still wrong. A study doesn't make immoral behavior moral.

[AsYouAre]

I'll sum up my personal experience after visiting my 15 year-old niece...

"Uncle Matt, last year I bought 3 or 4 CD's a month. Now with Kazaa, I haven't had to spend any money! Isn't that great!??"

I'm in the software business and I know human nature. Please spare me the "it helps promote sales" argument. It's an arrangement that the artists/creators never approved. Whatever its problems, radio was an arrangement that was worked out. That said, I sincerely hope they work out the issues with an electronic format. It will force artists and record labels to put out better stuff if people can buy one song at a time.

[Snowy]

In college, you just walked down a few doors to your friend's room and looked at their album collection. You would then 'tape' what you wanted. Today, it would be so easy to do the same with cds (burn your own cd). I honestly don't understand why college students need to go online for music. You could even set up your own wireless network on campus and share music.

[bored at work]

Its not illegal OR immoral. . .if you dont get caught

[Jack Wilson]

Yet, when I wanted to replace the media from vinyl to CD ...I had to re-purchase my 'license' to listen to the same album again.

So, you expect someone from the record label to drop ship at your house , free of charge, copies of your entire collection in whatever new format is developed, for the rest of your life?

Would you like them autographed by the artists?

[zook]

I pretty much agree with you. I just get weary of rehashing all the arguments. So, instead, I just toss my opinion out there in order to contribute to the "critical mass."

[zook]

Imagine the first time anyone sang a song. And someone else comes along, hears it, and decides to sing it himself. I guess he was "stealing" also.

The only substantive difference now is the technology involved, not the act itself. Of course, there is a legal difference, in that we have copyright law designed to promote the production of creative works. But breaking copyright law is still not "stealing." Nor do I believe that breaking copyright law is always and invariably "immoral."

[expat_panama]

I just toss my opinion out there in order to contribute to the "critical mass."

Well put-- very few people are able to take in new ideas from individuals and then think on their own. Most people can be swayed only by a 'consensus'.