Im betting most (i.e. the general populace of file sharers dl music & such like) just want a free lunch.
My interest and time for music waned completely after high school, and had it not been for the ease and zero price of these technologies, there's no way I would have found the artists who produced the hundreds of CDs I've bought in that time, or the dozens of concerts I've attended.
This is just supposition, but my guess is that so-called "pirates" consume much more music and movies (paid) than non-pirates.
This gets supposed in both directions, so I would be legitimately curious about any studies that show whether pirates or non-pirates purchase more media.
You'd have to take people and randomly allow / deny them piracy. Normal Pirates are self-selected.
For instance, if I pirate it then buy it my pirating is still measured as a lost sale. If I pirate it twice it counts as two lost sales. If I buy it because I pirated, it does not count as a gained sale from piracy.
I am certain that the majority of people on here that do pirate will probably have the consience to purchase what they took if they like it a lot.
But what about the 100's of thousands of youngsters pirating all that music. I seriously doubt many of them buy even 10% of what they download.
And what about the argument whereby if you download something to "try" it and decide it is not quite worth your money does it then get deleted? Again a doubt it... :)
As I look at it, most piracy is free publicity. Notice how movie receipts haven't gone down as piracy has ramped up?
Sure, CDs have sold less, but that's a bit different beast.
Is that an excuse to allow them to pirate stuff. How is a culture of "well just pay for what you can afford and take the rest for free" allowable?
Criminalizing a whole generation is more morally wrong, to me, than bemoaning lost profits that are not even really lost (movie receipts are way up, for instance).
That needs to be worked on too.
EDIT: according to the BBC reports last week Cinema attendance is at a record low so I think the data is not 100% cut and dried on your example. Also not convinced piracy would impact on cinema too much - based on the face that Cinema offers an extra experience that DVD's / Pirated copies dont.
It might be fairly parochial, but I only know about the US -- but you are right, per capita cinema attendance has been declining since 1930, well before BitTorrent was on the scene, to say the least.
(Reference: http://org.elon.edu/ipe/pautz2.pdf )
Why? More entertainment options as time went by. We are on the tail end of a trend that's been going on for a long, long time.
But in the US, at least, cinema attendance is way up recently, as well as box office receipts:
Spotify. Last.fm. Itunes. All legit ways to get the exact same music :) (at various cose).
Movies: well yeh still a bit laggy there. But things are improving. Though frankly I am not one to blame the industry for trying to get rid of the pirates (even if it is fruitless) before opening up their catalogues.
IMO these are different issues that quickly get confused by people :)
This is the principle of "student" edition software.
Has this been demonstrated empirically, in the case of music and video? I see this argued both ways, and I don't know which is true.
I doubt the number of youngsters who pay for music once they have the means is huge. Would you pay for the Spice Girls song you downloaded 4 or 5 years ago and havent listened to for the last 2 yrs. No, probably not - but you might have had 2-3yrs enjoyment out of it... where do you draw the line?
I dont see any justification for downloading music you cant afford when there are free sites to listen to it on.... it's not as if that lack of funds is depriving said person of the ability ot hear and enjoy the song. It perhaps does inhibit how and in what context they can listen to the song (i.e. no ipods etc.).
In any case, there is no cost to the copyright owner if someone who can't afford it pirates it. There is at least a potential benefit.
I've failed to be proven guilty of anything. Who am i depriving of something when i download stuff ?
The society is guilty for letting the record industry, in its hunger for expansion and money, assimilate downloading with stealing.
That's a very strange and illogical attitude IMO.
Having said that, I think both of us need to be aware of identity bias here. I don't necessarily support TPB but I do have strong views on liberty and on those who exploit the creative work of others. Similarly, I get the feeling that you have an emotional distate for TPB (based on their attitude) and identify yourself as belonging to the record industry so take the attacks personally.
I think I should make it clear that everyone here who opposes the "record industry" isn't talking about the people who do creative work, the engineers etc. but rather the people who previously had a monopoly on distribution and used this to exploit the creators and sound engineers. These people have lost their monopoly and can now be replaced by technology and so have taken to attacking the new competition. This doesn't just include TPB. It's like Kodak suing digital camera companies because the new medium allows reprints.
If it were up to the recording companies, would they refund me my money if I didn't like a CD I legally bought? Currently, the answer is no. That is on the same level of unfairness as pirating in my mind. Most of other retail stores allow you to return a purchased item, so why should music be any different?
As for the question of do I delete something I downloaded and didn't like, the answer would be yes. It's a yes, because that material takes up space on my hard disk that would be better served otherwise. And since I'm an unofficial tech support person for many people in my family, all of them being non-tech-savvy, I can attest that they do the same.
Is it? I have previously returned music to a store within my stautory rights period.
Besides even if you do make a fair point lets reverse the situation: is it right to nick a CD from the store if you go back later to either put it on the shelf if you dont like it or pay for it if you do?
Anyway; Im not so much talking music you dont like actually (sorry, my fault). My point was focused on music you find acceptable and still would listen to occasionally but dont think is worth £9.99 or however much an album purchase is near you. I know several people with HUGE illegal music collections that would cost them thousands of pounds to purchase - how do they choose what to pay for, what to keep and what they should delete. Answer (for all of them) is they pay nothing and delete nothing....
I do agree that there are people who keep crap around when they don't need it. But, stealing a CD is not the same as downloading music from a torrent. Stealing implies that the owner of the CD is left permanently without it. A torrent is a copy of the original content. It's a fair distinction, and the point is that music store rules do not apply to the net.
Well, if it's still got the anti-tamper strips and such on it, I guess. I've never tried to return an unopened CD, so I dunno about that (and how would I know I didn't like it, then?), but back when I bought CDs, I never had any success trying to return one that was opened. The stores have a policy against this because they assume you copied it first (to tape, originally).
To which I say: so what right do they have to download it for free? Never spend beyond your means :)
I believe I have missed your point though: the use of the word relatively threw me (the ly is confusing and changes the context of the sentence :))