Do pirates contribute more to the entertainment industry than non-pirates?

[Kstanki2]

There are a ton of statistics and reports being thrown around on this topic and I'm finding it very difficult to get a straight answer. I apologize if this has already been discussed here, but I couldn't find it after searching.

It started for me when I read this article:

Pirates Are The Music Industry’s Most Valuable Customers | TorrentFreak

Which states that, based on a report by the IFPI, pirates are:

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

Now this article comes from torrentfreak so obviously I wanted to take a look at the report myself to avoid slanted information. The link to the report in the article points here:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Jupiter_Research_study_on_online_piracy.pdf

After reading that report, I'm not seeing the statistics that torrentfreak got. Am I just not looking at the numbers right? The report implies that file-sharers are less likely to pay for music. Was it changed?

So I dug around some more, and I really can't find any decent studies on this. As you've probably noticed already, almost all of this information is coming from the UK/Europe, I found nothing concerning US consumers and file-sharers on this matter. Here are a couple stories I've come across:

Canadian report finds P2P might sell more CDs, CRIA sponsors objection

Study: File sharers spend more money on music | Technically Incorrect - CNET News / IFPI response: IFPI responds to new UK music downloading study

Are downloads really killing the music industry? Or is it something else? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Now that SOPA and PIPA are looming on the horizon I think it's more important than ever that we get this straight once and for all, no bullshit surveys funded by the music industry or conveniently cherry-picked statistics that demonize file-sharing, it's absurd to think that legislation like this is being pushed through without solid information like this.

It's a simple question that they always dance around: Do pirates contribute more money to the industry than non-pirates?

Would we really spend more money on music if we couldn't share files as easily as we can now? I personally don't think so, but it's difficult to have an opinion on this when there isn't any reliable information to base it on.

To this day they still insist that every download = a lost sale, which is complete bullshit but everyone just republishes their reports without question and spreads it around, building support for shit like SOPA.

If you know of any studies, surveys, or reports on this matter then please share.

Added a pole for shits and giggles just to gauge people's opinions on this.

 

[MazePro]

In my case I never was one to buy music or movies, however because of torrents I now have access to things I would have never considered and I have found my self making purchases after being introduced to new content via torrents.

I think torrent do more good then harm and corporate america needs to get with the times.

Louis CK is a good example of this

 

[danke]

If it wasn't for torrented music there are numerous bands that I never would of ended up paying to see live. There are also numerous bands who aren't even worth the MBs I spent on them, they wouldn't of seen my money either way.

 

[Shadz91]

Oddly enough it is because of torrents and free sharing that I have found artist who I like, as a result I have been more willing to buy their music when it first comes out. If I was told that I needed to pay I would of just walked away and I would of never discovered them.

It's just typical that the major companies see free sharing as a problem instead of an opportunity to gain more publicity or even to make some money off of it.

 

[papajohn56]

If it wasn't for torrented music there are numerous bands that I never would of ended up paying to see live. There are also numerous bands who aren't even worth the MBs I spent on them, they wouldn't of seen my money either way.

Live concerts don't give the label as much
Money, so the RIAA doesn't give a shit

 

[lukep]

^That's really the main point here. The RIAA member corps like BMI and Sony only make money when BMI and Sony albums move off the shelf. Otherwise it's all just money spent on publicity. (Yes even concerts, mainly a loss for them.)

So from their point of view, it's only good business sense to kill any behavior whatsoever that stops album sales... And torrents not only stop some album sales from 'theft,' but also they translate some album sales into concert or other types of sales which are all a loss to them.

Sucks to be them... The internet is simply not compatible with their business model... A biz model that worked Awesomely up until a little company called Napster showed us all that their days are severely limited.

The more they fight it, the more they'll be hated by the rest of us and people will stop buying albums just to spite them. So this grab for our government is their last chance... They won't exist much longer after they lose this fight.

 

[(O_o)]

kopimi

 

[Kstanki2]

^That's really the main point here. The RIAA member corps like BMI and Sony only make money when BMI and Sony albums move off the shelf. Otherwise it's all just money spent on publicity. (Yes even concerts, mainly a loss for them.)

So from their point of view, it's only good business sense to kill any behavior whatsoever that stops album sales... And torrents not only stop some album sales from 'theft,' but also they translate some album sales into concert or other types of sales which are all a loss to them.

Sucks to be them... The internet is simply not compatible with their business model... A biz model that worked Awesomely up until a little company called Napster showed us all that their days are severely limited.

The more they fight it, the more they'll be hated by the rest of us and people will stop buying albums just to spite them. So this grab for our government is their last chance... They won't exist much longer after they lose this fight.

Let's hope your optimism is well-placed, I'm still not so confident that this fight is ours. While SOPA is getting tons of bad press, they can always keep re-writing and drafting new legislation until something sticks that doesn't ruffle too many feathers. A lot of the big players against SOPA still support intellectual property rights, so I think it's likely that a bill that isn't as blatantly irresponsible as SOPA could make it through.

Hypothetical scenario:

Let's say they write something up that would allow them to blacklist obvious dedicated file-sharing sites like thepiratebay, demonoid, warez-bb, etc. but not sites like youtube, twitter, or blogs/forums that simply have outgoing links to such material (I am aware of how complicated this would be legally and technically, this is just hypthetical), maybe the bill even requires that each blacklist claim must go through the court system and gives site owners a chance to appeal. Even with such a toned-down approach, it's still IMO a major threat to the free information environment of the internet and I don't think it would meet enough resistance to hold it back- it seems to me that the average person still sees piracy as theft and wouldn't mind seeing it go as long as other sites aren't affected.

I could be underestimating the resistance to the entire idea of blacklisting websites, but I fear that our 'elected officials' (and most of their constituents) don't understand the internet enough to know when the line is crossed.

If SOPA doesn't go through, it's only a minor victory in an ongoing war.

 

[lukep]

Yeah, defeating SOPA would be a single battle in a war, but since their army's treasury is under attack, it's clear that each successive battle they launch will be smaller than the last.

Luckily for us, there is technically no difference between youtube, google, and thepiratebay. None. You just can't stop "link-to" sites without taking on google itself and I doubt they have the money to win such a fight right now... For the next battle they'll be a good bit weaker.

 

[Kstanki2]

Yeah, defeating SOPA would be a single battle in a war, but since their army's treasury is under attack, it's clear that each successive battle they launch will be smaller than the last.

Luckily for us, there is technically no difference between youtube, google, and thepiratebay. None. You just can't stop "link-to" sites without taking on google itself and I doubt they have the money to win such a fight right now... For the next battle they'll be a good bit weaker.

You have a point, they have lost a lot of momentum that they may not be able to get back.

Let's just hope the entire industry wises up and starts monetizing file-sharing instead of suppressing it, it's really a quite easy and effective way of marketing if you put out quality work.

If I were release some sort of indie album on my own, I'd upload the torrent myself on all the major networks and make it clear to everyone who downloads it that the artist made this available for free. I'd include links to my site on the torrent summary page and in the torrent itself. It's the same concept as building a list for email marketing, the first step is to offer something for free and build trust. By exposing yourself as much as possible you maximize your fan base, and once you do that you have a group of people just begging to buy shit from you and support you (your 'list'). The problem is the parasitic middle-man, not the curious listener.