Re: Pirates are the biggest spenders: US P2P users buy 30% more
said by 88615298: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?
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.
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.
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.
Re: FTC Going After Google
said by rradina:The theory is that the consumer was harmed because the prices of Microsoft products were higher than if there was more competition.
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?
| |linicxCaveat EmptorPremiumReviews:
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