dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Monday Evening Links
by Revcb 07:43PM Monday Oct 15 2012

view:
topics flat nest 

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more

FUD. Maybe if they didn't pirate they'd buy 80% more. Hey if the local theater let's me sneak in I totally promise to occasionally buy a ticket.
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more

said by 88615298:

FUD. Maybe if they didn't pirate they'd buy 80% more. Hey if the local theater let's me sneak in I totally promise to occasionally buy a ticket.

One must keep in mind a lot of these pro-piracy studies very rarely mention where they get their information and the demography of their study subjects. It would not be out of the question to assume some of their non-pirates who supposedly buy less music than pirates are people who don't download any music at all. Some may not even have the internet. They don't reveal if their studies take people of similar age, similar online and music habits, similar regions, etc. or whether the groups are totally different. I can assure everyone that any average teenage pirate that buys a single Taylor Swift song has bought more music lately than my grandmother. She hasn't bought music since the 60's. Is this really a fair comparison? Does this study properly account for situations like this, or do they take advantage of it?

I know several music pirates. They have not bought music legally in years. I have a very hard time believing the people I know are exceptions to the rule instead of the norm.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more

The anti piracy studies are exactly the same way.... in fact, the numbers showing losses to piracy, economic damage and everything else are completely made up and then exaggerated 100x for effect.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more

The economic damage claims have always been fuzzy for the simple fact that perfect protection against the desire of free acquisition does not automatically coalesce to a legal sale. It can but it's all but completely ridiculous to assume the financial capacity exists to legally acquire all or even some of that which is illegally acquired. Therefore damages cannot be claimed on sales that can never happen.

Since I'm watching Monday Night Football, it's similar to the rule where pass interference cannot be called if the receiver does not have a reasonable chance of catching the ball (i.e. as in thrown way over his head and out of bounds).

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more

That's partially it.

They don't know how many people download something so they pick a number, then scale it way up to make sure they have overestimated.

They they take retail prices plus and scale that up and multiply it, and then they raise it several powers and call it good.

The simple fact is that nobody knows but the real numbers are much lower by some huge order of magnitude.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more

Partially? Most people steal because they do not have the financial capacity to acquire the product legally. Very few thieves are of the Lindsay Lohan ilk who despite enjoying every advantage modern society offers, steal for excitement. Certainly some steal just because they can or because they go Old Testament eye-for-an-eye with the attitude of you rip me off, I'll rip you off. Thankfully these perpetrators are not prevalent. A vast majority of people with financial means do not intentionally commit crimes and the RIAA has done a great job of making sure we understand the difference between legal and illegal music acquisition.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more

No, that was partially why the numbers are so fuzzy.... because the assumption is that "every copy is a lost sale at full retail price." That's BS.... but it's only partially the reason because the other part of it is that they have no clue how many copies have actually been made, so they just make that up as well.

That was what I was trying to say.

You take the assumption of a lost sale and then multiply it by the assumption of how many copies have been made.

In other words, it's all made up out of thin air, and they make sure they massively exaggerate for political gain. (It's working too, look at the laws.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
You are right. The problem is both sides are trying to prove their point. We have yet to have a real study done on the effects of piracy by someone with no economic or personal interests in the matter with enough transparency to prove the study is being done properly. If that happened then might get somewhere.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by silbaco:

I know several music pirates. They have not bought music legally in years. I have a very hard time believing the people I know are exceptions to the rule instead of the norm.

exactly if you're getting it for free why pay for it?

I don't pirate, I also don't buy music either. These things are mutually exclusive. This "study" would like you to think they are not. I'm just not a music person to begin with. I suspect people who download a lot of music are music fans. And people into music logically would buy more music than non music fans. This study wants to equate the act of piracy with the increasing of sales. I find that conclusion to be laughable.

Now most songs are 99 cents to $1.29. Now if you compare that to a 79 cent 45 single back when I was young which is like $2.50 today it's bargain. However if the music industry would be willing to take less they'd get some of those people that download illegally to buy. Face it if one wants 100 songs they are not going to pay $99 for them. For $25 you know you can probably get a lot of people to take that deal. Heck I may even buy some music at 25 cents per song.

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
FUD. Because, 90%. Lol
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Pirates Spend More on Music

Interesting results and although the article seems to cite references as fact, I didn't glean how their references were so sure their conclusions are credible. The referenced study says:

Also: collection sizes are self-reported, so should be taken as rough estimates. Minor differences in this chart probably don't matter.



Hmmm...I like the "Minor differences... probably don't matter."

Perhaps if they specifically approached [name your favorite music service] customers and asked them if they also used P2P to freely obtain music, we could immediately derive an average P2P user's spending vs. non-P2P based on actual purchase receipts.

The cited article also mentions their findings are supported by numerous other studies but the link just spins and doesn't ever respond.

It's possible this is true but the pretty charts make this seem like fact and to me, it's numbers that aren't credible enough to be fact.

Given widely publicized RIAA lawsuits where folks are slapped with fines they can never pay, how accurate is self-reporting? Isn't this a bit like asking folks to report how much they spend at Wal-Mart and "Oh! By the way, do you also shoplift?" How many accurately guess what they spend and how many will admit that they shoplift? Although shoplifting probably has far more risk of being caught than freely downloading music from P2P, isn't there still risk saying I admitting you steal music with P2P? Of course I assume the question is do you use P2P to freely download music. If it's just generic, do you use P2P, then the numbers are even less credible since they aren't at all qualified unless they are asking us to assume that most or all P2P users obtain free music.)

There's probably one remaining assumption and that is the freely downloaded music is actually copyright. Amateur live recordings from local garage band Billy and The Armpit Hair Band performing popular songs more than likely is actually free.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

FTC Going After Google

Is consumer harm required? Microsoft thumped Netscape and wiped the floor with them but in an era where browser extensions were dreamed up on a daily basis by both Netscape and Microsoft, was the consumer harmed by the "de facto" standard that Microsoft illegally created with IE + Windows monopoly?

Microsoft was guilty but how much was the average Joe consumer really harmed?

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: FTC Going After Google

said by rradina:

Is consumer harm required? Microsoft thumped Netscape and wiped the floor with them but in an era where browser extensions were dreamed up on a daily basis by both Netscape and Microsoft, was the consumer harmed by the "de facto" standard that Microsoft illegally created with IE + Windows monopoly?

Microsoft was guilty but how much was the average Joe consumer really harmed?

The theory is that the consumer was harmed because the prices of Microsoft products were higher than if there was more competition.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: FTC Going After Google

I thought the only prices about which folks complained are the cost of the OS if you purchase a retail copy. The price paid by an OEM for the copy that came with a new PC wasn't significant enough to warrant consumer harm claims. Apple produced competitive products which were still significantly higher than equivalent Windows-based models. Therefore the hardware margin consumed by the cost of OEM Windows wasn't a factor as to why Apple charged more. Back then, it's possible that Apple had higher quality hardware (they do today) but whether a copy of the Windows OS license cost an OEM $15 or $35 didn't make a hill of beans. If you wanted Apple's vision of personal computing, it cost more than Microsoft's.

However, I think Office was horribly expensive but I don't think it was involved in the DOJ actions, was it? I thought it was all based on the tie between Windows and Internet Exploder Explorer and the predatory actions against Netscape.

Office costs are better now as home users can acquire a three-license pack for $149. I was able to swallow that and I purchased it so each of my kids could have Office 2010 on their computers.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink
I do not think it was ever about the price. It was the browser wars. It was about a browser code that worked better than IE, that most website designers preferred and used. It was about webpages and how well they displayed across the majority of monitors. It was about Braille readers that couldn't convert garbled code into words. It was about color--specifically Netscape's 256 safe color palette for browsers that still used today.

And it was about a man who couldn't stand one byte of competition. It was about a man who defied WWW3 guidelines and perverted HTML code that crashed browsers, didn't display pages, or effectively blocked Netscape and other browsers from accessing web sites created with MS HTML.

Today plain Jane HTML originally introduced in Netscape still works perfectly well across most browsers and OS, and MS is sill preventing some services such as a "submit" or "radio" buttons from working universally or cross platform. The only thing that changed in the last 12 years or so is the size of websites and how much website designers do not understand why universal access is necessary for all and particularly for handicapped visitors. .
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by rradina:

Is consumer harm required? Microsoft thumped Netscape and wiped the floor with them but in an era where browser extensions were dreamed up on a daily basis by both Netscape and Microsoft, was the consumer harmed by the "de facto" standard that Microsoft illegally created with IE + Windows monopoly?

Microsoft was guilty but how much was the average Joe consumer really harmed?

I'm sorry was there something about windows 98 or XP that prevented one from downloading Netscape?
tkdslr

join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
The FTC is treading on thin ice..

What Google doesn't do.. (and no one can..)
Is rank web sites that use dynamic content creation.

One can't link to them.. thus no referer's .. huge hit in rankings..
One can't cache the content.. another big hit..

So why rank them higher than static web sites that have both of those??

It's been that way for many years..
If the FTC goes to court on that one.. they'll loose big time..
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: FTC Going After Google

I'm not sure how your statements relate to my post. The article referenced by Karl mentions "consumer harm". I don't think Microsoft's monopolistic and predatory practice harmed consumers. It did wipe out Netscape but I'm not convinced it harmed consumers. Since the FTC still acted, I'm asking if consumer harm is required for FTC action.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink

AT&T rural access

Fitch said, "In a new special report, Fitch Ratings discusses the potential outcome of AT&T, Inc.'s (AT&T) review of its rural access line business, which is expected to be announced in November 2012. The retention or sale of these assets, in Fitch's opinion, is not expected to have an effect on AT&T's credit profile. However, until the outcome is known, event risk exists for carriers that could potentially acquire AT&T's lines such as CenturyLink, Frontier, and Windstream. In early 2012, AT&T disclosed that it was reviewing its noncore and low-performing assets over a 12-24-month period, and that at the conclusion of the review certain assets could be sold or restructured. In recent years, the company's rural access lines have underperformed, primarily due to the lack of a competitive broadband offering."

"From the mouth of babes comes pablum", Art Linkletter once said. He was right. One of the biggest deliberate broadside blockades of rural telephone competition, and of rural broadband competition for decades has been Ma Bell or one of her babies.

I lived it. I lived it before Sprint had a landline in rural America. I lived it when Southwestern Bell blocked data over Sprint Long Distance for over one year because they could. They mounted a campaign of lies and little arm twisting on the state level to kill Sprint LD and they did. They offered their own to dial up to Sprint customers while they prevented Sprint from doing the same. They have billions of dollars in stock and cash for acquisitions but AT&T does not one cent for Americans.

The big broadband providers all have the same problem. The anti-competitive, Anti-American, bad behavior puts the onus on small providers to do the heavy lifting while they reap the profits. Unfortunately a feckless FCC and grid-locked Congress have no authority and no controls over behavior that should have, and could have, been stopped years ago. These poor, pitiful beggars need another few billion dollars infusion and another tax break so they can continue thumbing their collective noses at the rest of us. Ten years from now, broadband will not be significantly any better in rural America than it is today -- unless we think outside the box. It isn't likely to happen.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside