I think of all the CD's I bought in the past which turned out to be garbage apart from the two singles released which are the reason for buying the CD. I think of all the DVD's I bought that I watched once. Now I don't have to waste my money. I can down load for free and buy a decent packaged copy if I deem it worthy of my money.
Thing is, I've been stitched up for years by these gits with terrible product, and I was getting back my wasted money. Now I purchase wisely because I can try it out first. I only buy what I personally feel is good product. I delete the garbage.
I suppose the media companies will require lots of their customers to be sued and jailed before any one in politics stands up to them and says, " no, you are wrong. You sales are down because your product is mostly rubbish, and sold in an inconvenient way. People are valuing your product as zero. Where they don't, they buy. "
What the media companies are concerned about is that they are losing the ability to con us with rubbish. What I think is good, is that the sales they now do have are probably better quality sales, and the people who did buy are happier with what they bought.
Said it before, but all that is happening here is that governments are for some reason trying to prop up failing business models. I dont understand why. If it were that the pace of technology threatened a clockwork clock company, then that company would be expected to either move on or go out of business. Some how, no so with the media companies. I assume that its to do with money, political funding and the usual democratic corruption.
Pah, could be wrong, but that's my current thinking.
I always wonder why do people buy that stuff.
I mean, you can figure out whether a band or artist is serious at what they do. It's your duty as a music fan.
So it is you who buys the suboptimal product, it is you who sponsors one trick ponies and rip offs, who gives them competitive advantage against the deep, real musicians.
No. The popular content is downloaded more. You can jump thru hoops and do backflips but the fact is people don't want to pay. Period. Everything else is justification.
Until we get off the distribution per unit model of retail we will have this war against consumers.
This is a false and very cheap thought. For two reasons:
1) there isn't a thing such as "[all the] people". I know many people who don't want to pay, and I know many people who want to pay. you can't really prove even that most of the people belongs to the first category.
2) even if we assumed that "people don't want to pay", this wouldn't explain the examples of mainstream products that have been (successfully) sold by donation, which shows that there is a sufficient (at the very least) people that does want to pay. a couple of examples are radiohead and a comedian whose name I forgot, but also many others.
... by units sold, say? Maybe the best-selling content is so because it's downloaded more, not vice-versa as you asserted. Or maybe there's a third factor that causes both. Correlation does not imply causation.
What of those who, as the GP said s/he does, download for free, then buy a copy if they actually like it?
If a product is of unknown quality, but known to be free to copy, it's sound economics to value it at zero. Supply is infinite and demand is indeterminate. Once you know more about it, and know how much you want it, you may want to pay for it. Or you may not, if you don't like it or are a cheapskate. C'est la vie.
It's more likely than you'd think: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...
I pay for netflix and Amazon Prime. In fact I would pay 2-3x more for netflix if they had everything. (Not even new stuff, but old stuff)
I don't buy dvd's because the value is not there for me. If I am just going to watch something once or twice, its worth ~$1 to me, not $20 like a new dvd.
I don't go down to blockbuster/Red Box because the negative utility of getting in my car and going to a store is worse than just downloading it.
(20 euros for 90 minutes of entertainment is a bit high)
The reason that the overall statistics show a drop is because of physical media being included and that has fallen a huge amount:
> Internet music growth was insufficient to offset falling sales of music on physical supports, down 11.5 percent to EUR 412 million, with the overall recorded music market falling by 3.9 percent in 2011.
If you ONLY consider the digital side:
> Download revenues grew by 18.4 percent compared to 2010. Streaming and subscriptions grew by 73 percent to EUR 39 million. Subscriptions services such as those from Spotify and Deezer grew by 89 percent to EUR 26 million.
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/french-online-music-worth-e...
So when the author says:
> So if piracy is down massively in France, one would expect that the revenues are soaring, right?
He is being deceitful. Revenues are soaring..., they're up almost 20% on 2010. If the aim of the three strike rule was to stop digital piracy and increase digital sales that is exactly what it has achieved, they've dropped piracy 50% and increased sales 20%. You can't include the physical media sales in the latter to make a point...
He uses the total revenue metric because that is what the industry has been using in its lobbying and PR efforts for many years. The industry has claimed that the decrease in total revenue it has experienced is being driven entirely (or almost entirely) by piracy. If this were true, then the piracy reduction in France would lead to higher total revenue.
Since that has not been the case, the link between piracy and total revenue seems to have been overstated by the industry.
The author then suggests that the drop in total revenue has been caused by new, less profitable formats, which is exactly what you pointed out (with evidence), rather than piracy.
I agree that the headline and some of the language are a bit sensationalist, but the point of the article is valid and in agreement with your points.
In UK digital sales grew by 27% in 2011 alone, and they have no similar laws.[1]
The truth is that the digital sales are increasing drastically all over the world, not just in France. This does not have anything to do with any reduction in piracy, but is due to a wider selection of products and more accessible market.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc [1] http://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/music%20sales%20slip%20in%...
Actually, we do, primarily under the controversial Digital Economy Act that was pushed through just before the last general election.
The laws aren't widely applied yet in the way that they apparently have been in France, but there has been some fairly high profile threatening going on all the same.
In other words, while I'm certainly not equating the situation in the two countries and the seriousness or otherwise of the threat to pirates right now, it's probably not fair to totally discount the effect of anti-piracy rules in the UK either.
Unfortunately we're going to hear two diametrically opposite views, both "based on the numbers", neither shedding light on the subject.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and...
'In 2010, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that these figures “cannot be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology,” which is polite government-speak for “these figures were made up out of thin air.”'
I find it _very_ hard to find any sympathy for the music or film industries having numbers and statistics bent or misused against them. These people have been getting laws enacted based on numbers they've just made up - with _clearly_ no possible basis in fact. So this article has turned the tables. About time, in my opinion.
See also: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110903/00070515801/mpaas-... http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/20/the-numbers-behind-the-copyri...
Plus, they are only tracking bittorrent - which means that half of the piracy could've shifted to other methods, as soon as they learned about the P2P monitoring program.
-2€ for an episode of house, SD, for 48 hours, up to 5€ for a movie for 48 hours but still they are complaining about the situation and would like to change the prices up to 8€/SDmovie for 48h http://www.journaldugeek.com/2012/03/28/vod-des-fims-plus-ch...
-Legally you need to wait 3 years after the theater release to put a movie on vod. Why it won't change ? Because canal+ a private channel who broadcast movies only 10 month after their release is also the main financial contributor of french productions. http://www.numerama.com/magazine/22024-l-effort-minimal-de-c...
They all have a MBA who are in charge these entertainment companies, they should have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_five_forces_analysis Substitute goods everywhere and you gonna have a difficult time, but blaming someone else is probably just easier.
This would probably mean you're reasonably safe if you're downloading niche stuff; private trackers would also help?
What is the point of this law?
It is anti-social to attempt to benefit from the work of others without compensating them.
When 30% of the society are criminals, your laws are wrong.
It has succeeded in doing so.
