[Renolds]

Quote

People who download music illegally also spend an average of £77 a year buying it legitimately, a survey has found.

Those who claimed not to use peer-to-peer filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay spent a yearly average of just £44.

Almost one in 10 of those questioned aged between 16 and 50 said they downloaded music illegally.

However, eight out of 10 of that group also bought CDs, vinyl and as MP3s.

A total of 1008 people in the UK took part in the online poll commissioned by researchers Demos.

Half the group (50%) accessed music officially via YouTube, and 22% listened to internet radio.

Napster, once a pioneer of music filesharing, was used by just 4%, with 21% saying they had not heard of it.

Music streaming service Spotify was used by 9% of the group, most of whom had not signed up for the paid-for premium service.

However, it was rated highly for being easy to use, convenient and providing access to a wide variety of music.

Right price

75% of 16-24 year olds said they were prepared to pay for MP3s. The optimum price for the survey group as a whole was 45 pence for an individual track, with just 2% saying they would pay more than £1.

Current chart topper Fight for this Love by Cheryl Cole is priced at 99 pence on iTunes in the UK, and 79 pence on Amazon.

"Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access to music," said Demos researcher Peter Bradwell.

It also raises questions about the draft Digital Economy bill, which is due to be submitted to parliament later this month and proposes disconnecting file-sharers who repeatedly break the law.

"The scale of unlawful file-sharing poses a real threat to the long-term sustainability of our creative industries," said a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

"While surveys asking people about unlawful behaviour should be treated with caution, it's encouraging that the findings signal that the three-pronged approach set out by the Government this week - a mix of education, enforcement and attractive new commercial deals - provides the best way forward for industry and consumers."

http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/8337887.stm

A bit of an "in your face" study for the music industry lawyers

[Lamuella]

let's remember this is correlation rather than causation. All you can definitively show from it is that the group that downloads music illegally tends to like music more than the group who doesn't.

[Asriel Belacqua]

Or simply buys more.

[Sal Paradise]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they buy it when they know they can get it for free?

[Lamuella]

Sal Paradise, on Nov 2 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they buy it when they know they can get it for free?

Because they like it and want to support the artist?

I do the same. I use file sharing to discover things I like in various media, but I still buy the ones I really like.

I could get all my comics online for free from scanners, but I still buy them. I could get all the TV shows I like for free, but I still have cable.

[xoindotnler]

Sal Paradise, on Nov 2 2009, 10:56 PM, said:

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they buy it when they know they can get it for free?

How do you get it to share it for free ?

[ty345]

Lamuella, on Nov 2 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

Because they like it and want to support the artist?

This. As it turns out, people who free-share are still people, and have a sense of consideration for something they really like.

[Lamuella]

something else that very much seems to be the case, at least in my experience, is that people are much more likely to want to support the artist than the artist's label. Radiohead offered In Rainbows as a variable-price download on their website (you paid whatever you wanted, including nothing, and you got to download it), and made more money off people downloading the album than they did off the sales of their previous album, because they had cut out the middleman. More and more artists are working this way, or getting the record label to work for them rather than the other way round.

[Sal Paradise]

Lamuella, on Nov 2 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

Because they like it and want to support the artist?

Psh, saps.

xoindotnler, on Nov 2 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

How do you get it to share it for free ?

The internet, obv.

[Kenadian_2006]

Lamuella, on Nov 2 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

let's remember this is correlation rather than causation. All you can definitively show from it is that the group that downloads music illegally tends to like music more than the group who doesn't.

Either way, it flies in the face of the prevailing argument against piracy.

[Lamuella]

Kenadian_2006, on Nov 2 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

Either way, it flies in the face of the prevailing argument against piracy.

only if we assume that the people downloading music are buying as much or more music as they would be without the illegal downloads. Which we can't really prove one way or the other.

[KainIIIC]

yup, I'd agree. I'd DL the music or view it on youtube, and if I like it then I go out and buy it. There've been a countless number of times that I've DLed an album only to buy it later, and even more when I have discovered a band from a few songs online to later buying their CD.

Then again, I like listening to Music a lot more than most

[Kenadian_2006]

Lamuella, on Nov 2 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

only if we assume that the people downloading music are buying as much or more music as they would be without the illegal downloads. Which we can't really prove one way or the other.

I think the fact that they buy more than the average person is what's indicative here, and ironic. They like music more, is what we can draw from this I think. They may and probably do download more than they buy but they buy more than the average person. Thus, even then they still support the artists more. And the main argument against downloading is that it is stealing from the artists and hurting their business. Lo and behold, the opposite holds true for the downloaders.

[Charles VI]

Quote

Almost one in 10 of those questioned aged between 16 and 50 said they downloaded music illegally.

Really? Just one in ten?

I refer to this thread just to show that CN users are quite a bit more honest about their filesharing activities.

[Lord GVChamp]

Charles VI, on Nov 2 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

Really? Just one in ten?

I refer to this thread just to show that CN users are quite a bit more honest about their filesharing activities.

16 and 50. 50 is pretty up there.

Also, anything else I would've said objecting to wide interpretation of this was already said by other people

[Delta1212]

Kenadian_2006, on Nov 2 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

I think the fact that they buy more than the average person is what's indicative here, and ironic. They like music more, is what we can draw from this I think. They may and probably do download more than they buy but they buy more than the average person. Thus, even then they still support the artists more. And the main argument against downloading is that it is stealing from the artists and hurting their business. Lo and behold, the opposite holds true for the downloaders.

You're missing the point. It's not "Do file-sharers contribute money to the music industry" but "do file sharers contribute as much money to the music industry as they would if they weren't engaged in illegally downloading music?" Lamuella was pointing out that people who are downloading music are the ones who like music and would then already predisposed to purchase music. If they are purchasing more than average but less than they would have if file-sharing didn't exist, then it is still costing the music industry money.

Let's use this hypothetical example:

Free condoms are made available from vending machines on street corners. The industry complains that this is cutting into their profits as people begin using the free condoms, though many (even most) people still stick to purchasing brands they trust. A study comes out that says people who make use of the free condoms actually spend twice as much on store-bought condoms as the average person who doesn't make use of the free condoms.

From this study which of these conclusions can we draw?
A: The free condoms have actually increased the number of traditional condom sales.
or
B: The people making use of the free condoms are the ones who are just using the most condoms anyway.


There is an argument to be made that file-sharing can help advertise music and aid the industry that way, but just because the people who are downloading free music also buy more music than average doesn't mean that the music industry isn't losing money to filesharing.

[Sargun]

Delta1212, on Nov 2 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

There is an argument to be made that file-sharing can help advertise music and aid the industry that way, but just because the people who are downloading free music also buy more music than average doesn't mean that the music industry isn't losing money to filesharing.

It also doesn't mean that the music industry is. The real question that should have been asked should have been along the lines of "If you download music illegally, why do you still purchase music legally" and then see what the most common responses were.

[Tiwaz]

Im not suprised by this. I have bought quite alot that i never would have bought had I not downloaded it illegally first. For me it has opened my eyes to alot of music that i otherwise would not be aware of

[Delta1212]

Sargun, on Nov 2 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

It also doesn't mean that the music industry is. The real question that should have been asked should have been along the lines of "If you download music illegally, why do you still purchase music legally" and then see what the most common responses were.

Yes, but I wasn't making a positive claim. I was pointing out that this study doesn't actually say what a lot of people are trying to claim it does.

[Sargun]

Delta1212, on Nov 2 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Yes, but I wasn't making a positive claim. I was pointing out that this study doesn't actually say what a lot of people are trying to claim it does.

No, it doesn't. It does make an interesting point that is rather old and widely known, but interesting still.