TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Music Pirates are Cheapskates, Some of Them

New data on actual music spending in the UK shows that on average music pirates spend less than regular buyers of digital music. The figures are being touted by the UK music industry to show that file-sharers are cheapskates, but those who take a careful look at the numbers will notice that the labels forget to make an important reservation. Let’s lift the curtain of spin to see what’s really going on.

home-tapingOver the past months we’ve reported on a variety of studies which concluded that, among those who buy music, file-sharers spend the most.

These findings were confirmed this week by a report from the UK music industry group BPI, but only for those who read between the lines.

In their Digital Music Nation report the music group focuses on another comparison, the spending of all file-sharers compared to that of consumers who only buy digital music through legal channels. Their conclusion reads as follows:

“Appearing to debunk the common belief that file-sharers spend more on music than other consumers, Kantar Worldpanel found that the average spend over a 12-month period for professed file-sharers was lower than the spend of consumers who only use legal services.”

Indeed, when all file-sharers are lumped together, they spend 25% less than “legal only” consumers. In a year this comes down to £26.64 versus £33.43. However, this doesn’t mean that the earlier reports were incorrect.

Let’s give an overview of the numbers we can extrapolate from the BPI report.

- Legal only digital music buyers spend an average of £33.43 a year.
- File-sharers, in total, spend an average of £26.64 a year.
- File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of £0 a year.
- File-sharers, the 55.2% who are buying, spend an average of £48.26 a year.

The above shows that the file-sharers who also buy music spend 44% more than those who exclusively buy legal. This is in line with previous studies, which according to the RIAA indicates that these file-sharers are more engaged consumers.

TorrentFreak contacted the BPI for a comment, and the music group told us that this comparison is not fair.

“You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music ‘consumers’, and pretend they don’t exist or are not relevant. What happens if only 5% of file sharers are spending on music? Do we disregard everyone else who is freeloading?,” a BPI spokesman said.

“It’s not credible to discount the people who consume music, for free, illegally.”

The BPI absolutely has a point here. However, is it then credible to simply lump all file-sharers together when there are clearly two entirely different subgroups with different spendings?

And what about the legal music “consumers” who buy nothing? What if we added all the non-sharing and non-buying people who use YouTube to listen to music, and add them to the “legal only group”? Then the average spend there would be lower as well.

That said, the data does make clear that there’s a huge group of file-sharers who are freeloaders. Of all Brits, 4,000,000 engage in file-sharing, and 1,768,000 never pay a penny for any of the music they acquire.

In the end a safe conclusion is that about half of all music pirates are cheapskates, and the other half are the music industry’s most engaged customers. But what does that say about file-sharing?

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • guest

    It’s almost like they’re trying to push for new draconian laws over and over and over again and want to have more “Evidence” to back their claims.

    • Guest

      They want to push CISPA and NAFTA.

  • sqb

    I might be mistaken, but this report also only covers digital purchases, not physical. I don’t pay for digital downloads, but I do buy CDs/Vinyl/etc. Unless I misread the report (admittedly, only gave it a quick glance through) that could skew the spending figures too.

    • Darkhog

      I think that you’re right.

      • MAXTER

        Yeah, I don’t buy digital stuff either,
        who wants to pay for lossy files, better get a physical CD.

        • Liam JH

          lol

    • Downkiller

      And what about people such as me who download and share truckload of their shits without ever listening or watching this filthy crap, just to bother these satanic corporate criminals? Is it in their statistics? I guess not.

      • Trunkito

        “And what about people such as me who download and share truckload of their shits without ever listening or watching this filthy crap”

        Heh, that’s what I call having a lot of free time
        HDDs and bandwidth to waste.

        I only download things that I like and enjoy,
        No, they are not Hollywood stuff and US music,

        sorry TorrentFreak, me’s not interested in that,
        I enjoy some of their games though.

    • http://twitter.com/meekcritic Meek Critic

      Cheapskates? Have you all forgotten about the boycott? I haven’t bought a CD since 2003 because that’s when the RIAA started suing file sharers. They wanted to start a war on file sharing so why should they be surprised to learn that a significant amount of file sharers don’t give them a penny?

      As long as they continue to sue file sharers or lobby for draconian copyright laws I will continue to avoid giving them money by buying music from bands who are signed to major record labels.

      Since 2003 I have spent money on music but only on independent bands. The boycott will continue!

    • Guest321

      Stop buying. You aren’t helping the artists. You are just giving RIAA more money to screw all of us including yourself in future.

  • sabacat

    It’s also not credible for them to think every “freeloader” would have actually bought the music they downloaded if it hadn’t been ‘free’.

  • Ed Chavez

    The music industry spinning the truth ???? WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN ?

    • Violated0

      The problem in this is that key politicians are only likely to hear the version they put out at certain political fund raiser events. Not everyone is aware that their reports can’t be trusted.

  • Steve Smith

    its a study paid for by by the content industry so numbers will be spun to look in their favor. In this case pirates don’t buy music.

  • Whatever

    “huge group of file-sharers who are cheapskates.”
    Is this a TF conclusion ? It is not quoted.

    I can think of a lot of ways for that group to spend money than those that buy music. Maybe they

    - use all their money for charity
    - spend it on friends.
    - don’t have such money
    - buy exclusively non MAFIAA music (bet they don’t count that)

    - go to concerts.
    - buy merchandise (artist dolls or something)
    - buy only movies
    - paid for TPB AFK
    - got smart and boycott the MAFIAA

    - ….can probably go on for a while…

    • Internet_Zen_Master

      “- buy exclusively non-MAFIAA music (bet they don’t count that)
      - go to concerts.
      - buy merchandise (artist dolls or something)”

      Those three are big ones the BPI is (intentionally/unintentionally, depending on how corrupt you think they are) overlooking in their study.

      But honestly, I can say with 90% certainty that there are around at least 5% of filesharers in the world who are cheapskates and wouldn’t pay even if the music industry’s model confirmed the social views of the 90s/Millennial generation [Which is in a nutshell: "provide us with the content we want in a timely, affordable fashion, or will go out and get it ourselves!"].

      • Guest

        Where do you get your figures from?

        • Internet_Zen_Master

          Simple, unscientific speculation really (that and delayed recall from some of the other studies we’ve seen put up on TF).

          I honestly believe there are some in the file sharing world who just will not pay for music, no matter what the RIAA does. I’m just being realistic when I say that.

          I don’t really care either way. It’s not my business if someone doesn’t pay for their music or not. Doesn’t mean I can’t call those people cheapskates though…

        • Guest321

          So what if 5% will never pay for music? You can find 5% oddballs in just about any community. I can say there are 5% people who will murder despite knowing they will be put to death. Will you use that 5% to spin the truth on the rest of the human population as the RIAA is doing?

        • aozora

          We are also forgetting many CANNOT BUY “LEGALLY” even if they wanted!

          For example the lovers of japanese culture, anime, japanese games, Japanese music, may which dont eve see the light of day outside japan, I want to buy but I cannot.

          while fucking “american” cintent is release almost worldwide they can discard this but even many american content is not available in all counties legally and then theres the fucking delays of months or years to see or watch something.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ettorec Ettore Casagrande

        That seems realistic. I’d say the number about lines up with the number of kids in highschool that used to physically steal CDs; some people are just absolute wanker dicks.

      • Whatever

        I’ll add another few possibilities to lower the remaining 5%. As i mentioned there are even more possible reasons…

        - Collectors who create a big library but also share that.
        - Seeders (working in stores?) who are nice enough to share.
        - Out of principle (any religious excuse will do)

        Ok one more with example:
        - The MAFIAA scammed you.
        It is a movie example but a valid reason not to buy their stuff as any: Selling DVDs for a season with one episode less on a DVD than before AND never release the last few episodes which were aired. First 2 seasons were complete. (this was TV for kids and they like to “own” physically things).

        The point is that there are countless reasons for not paying and some further in the comments all have their own reasons.

        Besides anyone playing in a lottery can be called a cheapskate as the whole idea of it is to get the most money for free or to acquire it with the smallest possible amount of money (Now someone could say that some lotteries give to charity but in that case one could just give it directly to charity). This actually also describes the MAFIAA as cheapskates for going for maximum profit for minimal effort.

        I guess one more % to go…

    • abunchofgibberish

      The more likely conclusion is that there are just some people who are, in fact, downloading music and not paying any thing for music. If you get music for free and don’t ever pay for it, you are a cheapskate. Stealing music and paying for a movie doesn’t make you any less of a dick.

      • http://blog.ssokolow.com ssokolow

        So, am I a cheapskate because I prefer to get my music from legally-free sources like OCRemix and Jamendo?

        What if I spend most of my reading time on Fanfiction.net, spend most of my leisure time writing computer programs (also costs nothing)?

        What if I choose to boycott the RIAA, MPAA, and anyone who uses DRM (eg. Steam) and, when I do rarely spend the disposable portion of my university student budget income, I buy GOG.com games, used novels, and Arduino parts?

        So I think a song is worth 10¢ or less based on how much I spend playing it compared to other media I pay for. Sue me for my pocket lint.

      • MadAsASnake

        Hey – I downloaded a movie for free last night – TPB AFK. Does that make me a cheapskate?

        • Guest

          No, because it’s available for free with the express permission of the makers, isn’t it? When you download something for free without that permission then yes.

        • http://blog.ssokolow.com ssokolow

          Ahh. Phew.

          That means it’s not being a cheapskate if people are too principled to listen to anything where they’d have to choose between paying and pirating.

        • Pelham123

          “When you download something for free without that permission then yes.”

          You may be a cheapskate even if the maker gives you permission. Cheapskates are people who only consume stuff based on low cost.

          That said, you don’t need permission from makers to get something without paying for it. You only need permission from the current owner. People who steal commit a crime against the owner, not the manufacturer. People who copy don’t commit a crime a all.

      • Soir

        A dick? You’re joking right? Here’s how it is (for me anyway), either I-
        A. Download music for free or
        B. Don’t download music at all.

        Lets go by your line of thought and say I’m not a “Dick” and go with B. At that point I’ll never experience the music, the people who made the product will never turn a profit through me and I’ll just listen to music I already have.

        Now let’s say I’m actually a “Dick” and go with A. At that point I’ll listen to their music and get the chance to find out if I actually like them (No, 30 second clips aren’t enough nor do I want to wade through tons of 30 second clips), I might even become a fan of theirs and go and buy all of their albums (it’s happened before) so through my “Stealing” and being a “Dick” they’ve turned a profit where otherwise there was none.

        The fact of the matter is- entertainment is everywhere, so no one actually “needs” new stuff (Specifically, me. So I have no inclination to buy new things). Some things that are perceived as black can actually be white or vice versa.

      • FearMe

        And what do you make of assholes such as you who work for these corporate parasites for trolling? Oh yes I got it! A criminal and an anti-social lowlife!

      • Guest

        @abunchoffail

        Lying that copying a file is stealing makes you much, much worse than a simple dick.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ettorec Ettore Casagrande

        I am 33 now, and I have about 350 CDs at home that I purchased for at least $15 each. How much I purchase a year, assuming I started the day I was born, works out to about $160. I stopped purchasing bulk amounts of media about 10 years ago, when everything basically started sucking, but figure I’m still ahead of the curve with these averages.

        At present, I am definitely a what they’d call a freeloader, but if the music industry pissed away the profits I threw at them 15 years ago (which, now that I am less stupid, realise they didn’t deserve), that’s hardly my problem. I have purchased about 20 CDs in the last 10 years, been to about 50 concerts though.

      • lll

        but if u share back, u are giving to the global community, something mafiaa doesnt like, they want a price tag on everything(making a library of sorts for benefit of others, not sharing overall would be cheapscate right?)

      • Pelham123

        “If you get music for free and don’t ever pay for it, you are a
        cheapskate. Stealing music and paying for a movie doesn’t make you any
        less of a dick.”

        Being a cheapskate isn’t stealing. Getting something for free has nothing to do with either stealing or being a cheapskate … millionaires get things for free all the time, and so do children.

        You stepped in the troll trap.

    • Pelham123

      “”huge group of file-sharers who are cheapskates.”
      Is this a TF conclusion ? It is not quoted.”

      Ernesto is baiting the trolls for fun and eyeballs. If file-sharing were wiped out tomorrow, file-sharers would not start buying mp3s.

      Most people eat the sample crackers at the supermarket without any intention of paying. You could call them “cheapskates” for fun and troll-bait, but it’s understood that those people are not going to be converted to paying customers by eliminating the samples. Same here.

    • tolololo

      First, those speaking “American” this “American” that, stop with this dammit, this is one of the many reason your country and you as people are hated.

      Effectively ignoring the whole of America and Americans, misappropriating the term for only you USA people, those outside AMERICA probably dont care much but for those of us actually in some part of AMERICA (whole continent, yes one, the north and south is only taught in guess where? USA and Canadian schools, this then has been copied by other countries, but below USA and Canada the model is of one continent, not by regions), this has always been beyone insulting, you are the number one economy and when thy look over here probably only the USA is seen, but regardless its insulting.

      Said that…sigh….

      Agree, what many dont understand is that there are many kind of fans.

      Me, and many like me COULD CARE LESS about USELESS PIECES OF PLASTIC!!!

      Many of us NEVER EVER watch/listen again to media, and we dont want plastic crap in our shelves collecting dust or to “show of” to friends!

      In my case not at least, has never ever cared bout those pieces of plastic EVER, way before the internet to begin with.

      I on the other hand could spend some on merchandise or other stuff, but NEVER ON PLASTIC.

      Also they job is also to make money of those that effectively spend BIG FAT 0, no merchandise, no concerts, no useless plastic, NADA! How? its their jos to monetize the internet like the to tv or radio, with ads is the easiest way but they need to think beyond because the interne its not the radio or tv and ads wont work forever, not when we can easily skip them or get content ad-less.

      So either, work the neurons to reach a plausible solution, ask for help if needed from the community, sharers etc, or kindly DIE AS THE DINOSAURS that are slowing down innovation and evolution.

      • Blimpdk

        “whole continent, yes one, the north and south”

        Thats two different continents.

        Thats why its called north america and south america, its each its owns continent.
        Try a simple google search for the seven continents and see for yourself.

        And here is the reason why americans calls themselves americans: Their country is actually named America. United states of america. Yes they are also located on the continent of America, but they are in both respects americans.

        Just like ppl from Mexico are mexicans.

        Japan citizens are japanese.

        Brazilian comes from brazil.

        Twist here is, mexicans are also north americans.

        Japanese are also asians.

        Brazilians are also south americans.

        Russians have even more options, they can be russians, europeans AND asian.

        Now add on top of the South and North america, the land mass being called Americas or America, signifying both continents and to most scholars the western hemisphere. Formerly known as The New World. This version not being used because there is actually already a country named America, and thus americans. So schooled people and those of the modern ages say North or south americans, when talking about the countries in the respective areas. They do not say America, unless they intend to mean USA.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ender-Wiggin/100000885624281 Ender Wiggin

    i haven’t bothered to actually pirate music in ages, but i still don’t pay for it. i use spotify, or pandora, or a dozen other means and methods to play my music, and for the most part play it on any platform, whenever i want it. What i do spend money on is concert tickets, shwag and other means of supporting an artist i like directly.

  • Internet_Zen_Master

    Thank you BPI for telling us something that we already know.

    I didn’t need some expensive study to tell you that a large chunk of file-sharers don’t buy music period. I always figured that there was a huge percentage of the file-sharing community that simply refuses to pay for the music. But to see it as almost half is honestly, not all that surprising.

    As my statistics professor once said, “The best way to lie, is to lie with statistics.”

    And like sqb pointed out, they only seem to be covering digital music and not physical purchases (I go out to the brick-and-mortar stores and buy the CDs because I like the concept of owning a physical copy of something than just gigabytes worth of data.

    • Guest

      Dude, you are totally a dick.

      Less than an hour ago you wrote“But honestly, I can say with 90% certainty that there are around at
      least 5% of filesharers in the world who are cheapskates and wouldn’t
      pay even if the music industry’s model confirmed the social views of the
      90s/Millennial generation [Which is in a nutshell: "provide us with the
      content we want in a timely, affordable fashion, or will go out and get
      it ourselves!"]
      . and now it’s “I didn’t need some expensive study to tell you that a large chunk of
      file-sharers don’t buy music period. I always figured that there was a
      huge percentage of the file-sharing community that simply refuses to pay
      for the music.”

      Make your fucking mind up you schizo prick.

      • Internet_Zen_Master

        Re-read my post again:
        “But honestly, I can say with 90% certainty that there are around at
        least 5%”

        In other words, I think (and this is pure speculation on my part) that there’s a 90% chance that ≥ 5% of the file-sharing community will never pay for music (and this is entirely possible).

        ‘course, I might be wrong and the percentage of frugal file-sharers is lower than 5%. Ideally, I’d love to say that it’s at 0%, but a minimum of 5% is a much more realistic estimate, imo.

        • freeloaders please

          it’s more like 00000000000000000000000.1 %
          of people in the “developed world” * who don’t pay for music.
          *anywhere with performance royalty collection agencies

          You go into a shop that pays for a performance license and buy something. You pay for music.
          Me this time, with a made up number… but it’s a reasonable estimate when you think about it.

    • Guest

      “they only seem to be covering digital music and not physical purchases” The report is called Digital Music Nation. It’s only about Digital Music.

  • oliver

    probably because they decided the album was crappy and did not want to buy it

    • BPI_ARE_TWATS

      Perhaps the don’t buy or pirate crowd should have some sort of penalty a ‘non-conforming tax’ paid monthly into the bank accounts of the BPI

      • BPI_ARE_TWATS

        That was in reply to MasASASnake.

        What a shite system this is

  • Reader

    I’ve not paid for music in the last 10-15 years, however, the music that I “pirate” and listen to are not supported by any license companies in my country, paying to import physical CDs ends up tripling the price of the purchase which is not good value for money :(

  • EpicDinnerTime

    While I have not paid for almost 98% of all my music, I DO buy merchandise (shirts. posters, apps) and go to concerts. I feel this is supporting the actual singers and bands more. Same with movies, I have not actually bought a single movie in my massive collection, but I pay to go to theaters many times a month. Again, I feel this is more directly profiting those who make the movies. It’s all about WHO gets the money. Poor music labels who claim their profit is going down, while I would bet the individual singers are actually making more.

  • Kristia

    Well I got news for them at least in my case it’s not that I’m cheap it’s that I have no money. Our rent is $650 a month plus $50 for electricity and $50 for internet. My husband went to college for 9 years and works at a small food court at a mall and is a manager. He makes $350 every 2 weeks so we don’t even get enough to pay for rent, utilities and internet let alone food and “entertainment”. I don’t have a job because I have a baby to take care of all day every day, though I do try and sell my art through sites like zazzle and etsy I don’t make enough to sneeze at.

    We do get food assistance (food stamps of whatever you want to call them) at $250 a month for the 3 of us which only lasts about half the month. We are vegetarians and eat mostly veggies (until we are out of money then it’s rice and miso soup a lot)

    Now even if all that wasn’t the case I highly doubt any thing I would buy would show up in their stats at 99% of the music I like is either indie, has no label, or is foreign (kpop, jrock, German goth, Hungarian punk, ect…). I think that unless they make a deep investigation into the REAL reason people don’t buy “American Entertainment” they aren’t aloud to say anything. They want their business to get better they need to help the economy first.

    • john

      maybe you should have kept your legs closed if you cant afford things…

      • freeloaders please

        too harsh.
        Life happens.

      • Kristia

        3 1/2 years ago when we had our daughter we were fine financially

        • freeloaders please

          Don’t explain yourself. There is no need.
          Some people will never understand what they have never experienced. Some who even do experience, are conditioned to have no empathy.

          Life happens.

        • lolno

          *couch* whore *couch*

        • zarathustra2k1

          Learn to spell *cough*, you repugnant piece of crap.

        • CouchHound

          Shut it, couch whore.

        • Anonymous Monkey

          Very mature attitude you got there …. /s

        • Jesus

          Its filth like you that screws the world up. Piece of shit.

        • Saint Day

          Did you see, Kristia? That’s why your citizens need
          to change your laws. Riches are backed by laws
          to get more money, while rest must pay fees to them.

        • mouse
        • torrent freakster

          Since then, what changed that got you into this?
          Job change, moved to a new house?

          I’m curious.

          Without knowing about this comment i would have agreed with the “close your legs” comment. You do not get kids when you have an unstable economy. That is just stupid and disallows you to whine because it is self inflicted.

          Since you say you did have good economy a few years ago than what changed it all?
          ThIs is info useful for many.

          I for one learn from others mistakes.

        • http://www.facebook.com/TommyGunHarris Thomas Harris

          I too am curious, I do not understand people who have children when they are not secure with money. Back to the subject, I do not buy music and now just use youtube. With today cost of making a single very cheap (in the future close to zero) I don’t believe people should be making money selling singles/albums. Money should be made in live events where the real money is anyway.

      • http://news.mensactivism.org/ Jhon Deo

        You’re an asshole.

      • Ophelia Millais

        Why did you not say “maybe your husband should’ve kept his dick in his pants”? In your world, children are only the mother’s responsibility, eh?

      • Jesus

        Maybe you should keep your mouth shut. Off of that computer you’d get your ass kick. Loser.

      • Bill McGee

        Hey dude I think you need to go stairs your moms calling

      • joexxx

        Just like your mom!

    • john

      Even a minimum wage worker making $7.50 an hour will make more money that what you are describing, so I think you are full of shit. No manager is going to be $6.00 an hour.. even fast food. (Unless you are not in America then I apologize).

      • ShEsHy

        You are a total dumbass (unless you’re not, then I apologize).

        See what I did there?

      • Kristia

        We live in Michigan he make over $8 an hour but only works 15-20 hrs a week and hasn’t been able to find a second job

        • Rob

          Where in michigan?

        • Anonymous Monkey

          Pay’s ok … hours SUCK badly tho .. sry to hear that =/

        • Jesus

          Don’t reply to these jerks, they get off on being scumbags because its all the worth they have. When their not doing this their masturbating to porn. Not worth your time.

        • lll

          what manager only works that much, (20hrs), must be an easy job

        • Pelham123

          “what manager only works that much, (20hrs), must be an easy job”

          Not when you’re expected to handle a full-time list of tasks.

          Did you think the business hired TWO managers?

          When you get a job for the first time, you’ll see that it’s rough.

        • Bluegrazz

          I live in MI as well, my Wife is a restaurant manager also who once ran a very high end (and now closed down) County Club bar/restaurant… I too lost my job during the “economic crash” and we went from making $100 K a year to barely making 16K right now… She still manages (but like your husband its 15-20 hours a week , on call etc, etc) so I understand… There is no work here and the work there is (if you are lucky) is part time and pays next to nothing…Keep your head up and ignore the fools.

      • Guest

        Deny reality harder, john.

      • Jesus

        What does it matter to you? The only thing your proving is your a dick. Only losers spend their time trying to humiliate people down on their luck. You are filth.

      • Guest

        >Implying financial circumstances outside of America are worse

    • Jesus

      Don’t listen to the filth. Their just losers trying to make themselves fell better about their worthless lives. Good Luck.

    • ddd

      ” My husband went to college for 9 years and works at a small food
      court at a mall and is a manager. He makes $350 every 2 weeks so we
      don’t even get enough to pay for rent, utilities and internet let alone
      food and “entertainment”. I don’t have a job because I have a baby to
      take care of all day every day, though I do try and sell my art through
      sites like zazzle and etsy I don’t make enough to sneeze at.

      We do get food assistance (food stamps of whatever you want to call
      them) at $250 a month for the 3 of us which only lasts about half the
      month. We are vegetarians and eat mostly veggies (until we are out of
      money then it’s rice and miso soup a lot)”

      news: you did not do ur life right, sex and baby be4 good job and living off others and a manager @ $350 every 2 weeks gtfo, that would be either $4.38 an hr x 80 or 8.75 /40 (20 hrs a week x 2)=350.
      Maybe he should work more if situation 2 and if situation 1, thats illigal to work for those wages, not even min wage so you are fooling who?

      Also vegetarians get very sick, do ur research before u kil_l u n ur family..

      • kjdpoaos

        Oh look, it’s the village’s retard.

      • Liam JH

        You my friend are a dick.
        Kudos to Kristia and hubby. Working for any wage is better than not working. Financialy its horrible, but it is a stepping stone too a better position in the long run.
        Join a local food coop and help growing your own, its hard work but worth the effort.

    • djnforce9

      Best of luck to you! Also, in addition to what you said, there are all sorts of websites like Jamendo that offer free music and THAT wouldn’t be factored into the BPI stats either. Percentages also mean nothing without data behind it to back it up so for all we know, they could have tampered with the numbers to press their point further. I don’t trust them.

  • Ray186

    Lies from the music industry? No

    /s

  • Guest

    This is why I don’t buy anything from the big content.

    Even if you play nice and buy they will say that you are thieves.

    This is will only change if people stop buying/pirating their products. Until then nothing changes. This is the way a monetary system works.

  • Sam Castillo

    More and more artist sites include donation buttons, there is no way they will include that but there is a much higher chance that I would bung the artist a fiver if I knew they were going to get it and not the pathetic remuneration they get from ‘legal’ sales.

  • Pingback: Music Pirates are Cheapskates, Some of Them | Best Seedbox

  • Byte Master

    How about file sharers who buy CDs? They are usually a little bit more technically inclined and rip themselves, plus a CD you can give away, sell, and your heirs can inherit it from you. With digital downloads this is not as clearly defined.

  • Pingback: Music Pirates are Cheapskates, Some of Them | The Illuminati

  • ProGrasTiNation

    They don’t seem to get the fact we are done buying their shit.

    Their slave system is done for & they use this piracy bull to try control our internet….LOL

    We the unplugged people will help spread free art,music knowledge entertainment & in doing so free people from buying 11110000s with worthless money that is only used to keep you busy while they rape one country after another.
    Take your head out of just piracy & see the big picture people…..this is 1% of the system & piracy hurts their system by showing people that sharing is actually a good thing.

  • anonymous

    it doesn’t matter what the figures show, the BPI and other entertainment industries will manipulate those figures to read in exactly the way they want them to read. they wouldn’t put the figures out at all if they weren’t able to change things to their advantage. printing the truth is almost impossible for them. admitting to the truth is even harder. just wait a while longer until more is released about TAFTA and then seethe shit that comes out AGAIN, just like with ACTA, on how the industries are almost bankrupt because of ‘file sharing’. if we’re not careful, we are gonna be even worse off than we would have been with ACTA because of how de Gucht (cant understand why he hasn’t been sacked!!) is jumping into bed with the US industries, and we know what liars both of these camps are!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gear-Mentation/100003097514663 Gear Mentation

    You always hope pirates will have enough sense not to give money to the MAFIAA. Unfortunate that is not always true.

  • MadAsASnake

    Clearly then, the biggest problem group must be the “Don’t buy or pirate” one… there must me so many lost sales there.

  • JordanKratz

    Count me in as one of those who never Buys Music…………………At least NOT MAFIAA SHIT !
    I do Buy and Support Local and Non-MAFIAA Indie Art.No problem doing that at all and am very glad to not be giving a dime to any MAFIAA Industry.

  • dlovin123

    I download but I also let friends and family know if what I downloaded was worth it to buy. The word of mouth advertising file sharing creates is worth more to copyright holders than they realize.

    • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

      the ears of “them” close to such a ludicrous concept,

  • Jeff

    It also sounds like they ignored other sources of spending, such as on concerts. I don’t spend a cent on music, but in the past year alone I’ll have spent upwards of 400-500$ on concert tickets.

  • Bob65536

    My guess is that a large portion of the 44.8% wouldn’t spend much on music even if piracy wasn’t an option.

  • PelouzeTF

    “In the end a safe conclusion is that about half of all music pirates are cheapskates”

    And the other half might buy $26.64 per year of legal material – but they probably download and enjoy $20,000 worth for free.

    Just saying ;)

    • freeloaders please

      Or listen to the radio for a lifetime and pay £150py.
      Go to shop and BUY something (shop pays PRS)
      etc…..

      at £1 per pop….
      an hour listening to the radio would cost you £12 per hour
      conservative 8 hours a day for the working man..260 days a year.
      Not exactly a stretch of reality, is it ? Millions of people in the uk hear the radio for 8 hours a day.

      £24,960 worth of “freeloading” every year.
      Freeloaders could buy that music with their £26,500 average wage.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Well, i used to listen to radio a lot. Now, arguably the amount you listen to downloading does equate what you listened to on the radio.

      And according to industry logic (or at least our own little PelouzeTF), that now means I paid 20k $ on outlays just to get a radio to listen to. I beg to differ. I paid roughly 100$ sum total for my radios over the years, if that.

      But I’m not too surprised to see a sterling defender of the industry claiming the “lost sales” equate to 46 times what the world has in GNP now comes up with an idea which by extension means that listening to a number of songs equals 20k in lost sales as well.

      PelouzeTF, a hint? That example of yours? Not Very Good At All.

      All you did was repeat “Home taping is killing music” in a new spin.

      • Guest

        That’s Pelouzey for you. You don’t get a lot of nutrient for your brain when all you chug is industry white chocolate.

      • PelouzeTF

        Only cheapskates like you could equate what you used to listen to on a radio to be congruous to the digital media that you now download for free.

        Whats next, “I used to share tapes with a few friends, so sharing a torrent of copy-written music to a few million anons worldwide is exactly the same”.

        Thanks for the laughs SDM, you’re reliable in that regard at least.

  • freeloaders please

    BPI sure have a fucking nerve to call file sharers, “freeloaders”.

    OUR FUCKING CUSTOMERS / FANS BTW

    ■ What about when you buy something from a shop ?

    ■ What about when you go out for a drink ?

    ■ What about when you go to a concert ?

    ■ What about when you watch the TV ?

    ■ What about when you listen to the radio ?

    ■ What about when WE PAY FOR A TV/RADIO LICENSE ?

    …… PRS ? ? Performance royalties ??
    .
    And what about the CLEARLY EXTORTIONATE rates ?
    BBC Radio 2:
    13,903,000 listeners / 52 million reach / PRS pays £19.79 per min
    0.00003792307 pence per listener, per minute
    5min track is worth 0.00018961535 pence per listen.

    5273 listens to get your £1 worth of paying to download from iTunes.
    .

    PROUD member of PRS and MCPS here

    BPi CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES

    YOU DON’T SPEAK FOR ME !

    YOU DON’T SPEAK FOR 99% OF MUSICIANS

    Keep on sucking on the big label cock.

    We need the PRS and to an extent the MCPS.

    BPI are fading into irrelevance in today’s industry.

    Happy fuck off BPi …….. Happy fuck off

  • Himiko

    Hah I got evidence refuting the negative effects of filesharing.

  • Jesus

    Where’s bobmail? I’m waiting for the industries crafty opinion piece regurgitated through Mr. Bob. Maybe he’s waiting for it to be e-mailed to him.

    • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

      Bob’s scheduled to be back at work by 8 AM Monday. Just not sure which time zone he’s in.

    • dondilly

      I think due to RIAA cutbacks they nolonger pay him overtime so sticks to mon-fri office hours :-D

  • dondilly

    Ive not read the report yet, but from the article, there are a few flaws in their data. 1. They appear to lump all file sharers together making the false assumption that all filesharers are pirating music. 2. As pointed out elsewhere, they try to narrowly compare the digital music spend of pirates and non pirates rather than looking at the overal media spend (cinema, subscription tv,DVD, Games etc). These non music spends are still important to the music industry as their product is frequently cross licensed generating revenue streams from film,tv and games. Also, increasingly, these other media interests are owned by the same media conglomerates that constitute the BPIs membership . 3rd and finally, even assuming the legal product is DRM free. If a music pirate is going to part with money, it seems logical they are far more likely to buy a tangible product, i.e a lossless CD. This is a simple extrapolation of why someone in the 1970s/80s who recorded the top40 chart off the radio would still buy singles.

  • Anonymouse

    This report was supported by the BPI so it’s obviously biased, but they had to do something to refute the report from OFCOM (UK independent communications regulator) that showed file sharers spend more.

    • freeloaders please

      They also represent the three major labels, in the UK.

      Only three left.
      Soon there will be none……. bye bye BPi

  • Hogspace

    “File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of £0 a year”
    That’s me that is. Since the copytheft started attacking the internet 5 years ago I haven’t spent a dime on their products. A TB of music and video. All torrented or from Russia. That’s a big FUCK YOU to Sony, Universal et all.
    Before you lost the plot I spent around $50 a month on CD’s and DVD’s and going to the cinema.
    I still buy some CD’s of course, direct from bands at their gigs.
    When they accept their place as simple suppliers in a citizens’ marketplace I’ll play nicely again. If ever.

  • duckyy

    what about us that only buy music from the artist. because me my self i would rather give the money to the real artist over giving money to a corporation that only gives 2 dollars of the 20 i paid for the cd to the artist then calls me cheap

    • Clouds

      just like in the movie world only 2 companies own all the different movie companies like what Disney did they built them selfs up from stealing from the past then made a law that no one else could do the same thing. before Disney copyright laws where only lasting 14 years after the artist died after Disney its 90 years. remember where only braking rules because after the big guys made there money they changed the rules so others cant do the same thing

      • The_Strawbear

        ^ Meth, not even once.

  • Guest

    @BPI
    “Appearing to debunk the common belief that file-sharers spend more on music than other consumers”

    Hahahaha, no.

    Your own study says the majority of file-sharers spend more on music than other consumers. That’s called proving it.

    Do you even know what “debunk” means?

    You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music ‘consumers’, and pretend they don’t exist or are not relevant.”

    Since you have no idea if those people would buy music if it weren’t for piracy, you can’t claim that they’re causing lost sales and damaging the industry. Well, you could, but it’d be baseless and a borderline lie.

    ” What happens if only 5% of file sharers are spending on music?”

    OHMYGOD WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SUN TURNS INTO TAPIOCA PUDDING?!!?

    That speculation is about as salient as yours’.

    “It’s not credible to discount the people who consume music, for free, illegally.”

    It is credible when you can’t prove they’re costing you a dime in losses. In fact, what isn’t credible is screaming that they’re costing you billions in losses at the top of your lungs when you have zero evidence for it.

    Pirates: 9,284,394,384,385
    BPI: 0.

    • Guest

      The actual report “finding” was along the lines of

      Filesharers spend 30% more on music than non-P2P users” which is a bit like saying “People who eat at McDonalds are more likely to eat bacon than vegans are”,

  • Violated0

    In any system there are always freeloaders who would never pay for anything if it can be avoided where the market answer to engaging these people is to advertise to them. Then there are those rare few who hate advertising on their free viewing but then on the other end of this scale are premium services who rape their subscription paying viewers with extra advertising.

    So the missing aspect to monetize freeloaders are added adverts but of course the music industry won’t turn piracy sites into official supply channels to make money from them when that would mean loss of media control. Proof enough that even the 44.8% could be a source of income.

    TF is correct in their point that they failed to include lawful music consumers who spend nothing which does indeed prove that file sharers being more engaged are a better revenue source. The one flaw in this is that lawful services, even if free, all pay licence frees and make money through advertising.

    So the end conclusion is that lawful music consumers earn them more because they refuse to monertize file sharers with official adverts who would if enabled earn them more than the lawful consumers.

    An example of why this War is all about market control and not actually the money aspect. We will control the market that they will be allowed to sell into. An example would be Netflix being able to broadcast any media they want without needing approval first and then paying the media owners based on number of viewers.

    • Lawnstone

      “An example of why this War is all about market control and not actually the money aspect.”

      They’re actually looking forward to making market control and money closely correlated. In the report it’s mentioned a few times that their direction for the future of digital music is to move from the current ownership model to an access model.

      “… according to the YouGov SixthSense Music 2012 report, the majority of fans (54%) still want to own downloaded music with only 9% saying they prefer access over ownership.”

      “Overall, the next transition phase for the music industry will not be the move from physical to digital but rather the move from digital ownership (MP3s and other digital files) to digital access (streaming from the cloud).”

      “I think that what is important today is what will be important tomorrow – and that is the access model and the evolution of bundled subscription services within mobile operator plans.”

      And this just follows their lobbying to change copyright law into a control mechanism.

  • Who

    well of course there gona say this shit. they want there way, actual FACTS don’t matter to them. they refuse to take the true facts and consider them and work with there customers.

    just read over on ET were the RIAA said they didn’t want the consumers to loose there internet they want them to PAY.

    FUCK YOU!

  • The_Strawbear

    There’s always been freeloaders for music.

    Back in the day they’d be people with a whole stack of c-60s and not one purchased record. Some people don’t care enough about music to invest in it.

    Instead they buy other things, helping other parts of the economy.

    They’re not all hoarding it together in some giant bank account where one day they’ll have saved enough to buy the entire world.


    Did this report happen to mention what the music industry’s profit margin was last year?

    Funny how we never see any reports that mention those numbers.

    • Who

      “Funny how we never see any reports that mention those numbers”

      because they know they are full of SHIT so they hide it. they think by keeping it hidden that they can psyc every one in to thinking they are hurting.

      • guest

        Those figures are available if you’d bother looking for them.

      • Witblue

        They are making less money that a few years ago but I’m thinking it has not occurred to them that it’s because their product has decreased in quality.

        • Wormlore

          There are several reasons their income could have gone down.

          - I won’t take out “piracy”. But I really don’t believe that to be a big factor.

          - Lower “product” quality (yuck… considering music as “product” really irks me, but they started it)

          - Bad communication. Sorry, horrible communication: “you are a thief, even when you actually buy it”. I have not bought a DVD for a long time because the first thing it does is remind you that you are a “thief”. (“FBI warning”, “Don’t download” messages, etc.)

          - More entertainment options (movies, games, Internet)

          - Economic crisis

          Reasons multiply, but they only see their own little worry that “lots of people” just don’t buy their “products”. They don’t wonder why. They just whine about it all day long.

  • Ophelia Millais

    The underlying flaw in the BPI’s logic, as I see it, is the assumption that if pirates weren’t pirating, they’d be spending just as much money as the non-pirates on BPI music, or on music in general. Maybe they’d be spending a little more, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to just assume that they’ve got all the money the industry wants and are just refusing to spend it.

    The industry refuses to acknowledge that for all kinds of reasons, music just isn’t as big a part of our entertainment budget as it used to be. There’s less interest in owning music than ever before, and music has a lot of competition now, such as movies and video games, and smartphones and computers that have to be replaced every 2-3 years.

    Shaming pirates, cutting off their Internet connections, and suing and prosecuting operators of trading venues won’t put more spending money in people’s pockets, and it won’t make anyone very much more likely to reallocate their entertainment expenditures to pay for music again, at least not like they used to, in decades past.

    Also, I highly doubt that getting back the ~20% in “lost” revenue will result in any kind of benefit for any of us as consumers. Certainly the prices aren’t going to go down by 20% if file-sharing stops. I mean, so many businesses try to convince consumers to change their spending behavior in ways designed only to solve the company’s business problems, without solving the consumer’s fulfillment problems. It’s always a colossal failure.

    • Wormlore

      That’s a given for most people. Maybe, just maybe, they know it too.
      But one thing for sure, even if you could prove it, they wouldn’t acknowledge this. They don’t want proofs that people would buy more music if no “pirating” option existed. They want excuses to whine for more control and more money.

      They already got into the law-makers’ heads that they have a right to fully control an artistic creation for as long as 70 years after the creator’s death. Simple madness in any other economic domain, and even in studies on this specific subject. (I’ve read someone stating that the more “socially efficient” duration of such monopolistic rights should have been 15 years from the creation.)

      So, who cares about reality, about actual people’s ability to spend? They want money and control, and politicians allow them huge amount of both. Why would they change course now?
      The only answer to this last question is easy: because they would not be allowed to continue anymore. And that needs change in politics. Politicians that actually care about people, not rich lobbies.

  • icec0ld

    Article is misleading. They assume the researchers for BPI actually did real research and were qualified.

    We all know they made this crap up. Who the hell are they kidding?

  • broke

    I actually think that most of those that don’t buy anything is because, like me, don’t have the money. I have never bought music digitally because i think its just stupid but i still buy cds when i have the money. which is now rarely because i’m a full-time student with no job and not even a bank account.

  • freeloader

    The american music industry is only pissed, because they can’t lobby their way of doing business into every country in the world. In my country, people have to pay a “tax” to the content industry for every medium on which you can store music/videos, thus downloading is legal. They still produce and air ads whining about “pirates”. Why should I have to pay twice for content, that finds the way to my hd, which is mostly crap and I only consume once and then delete.
    I do however pay for content, that doesn’t have the “luxury” of huge conglomerate backing.
    We still get reports about those f…tards losing money, but our government hasn’t given in to them (yet).
    You should never forget, that these roadside thieves only represent a very small minority of “creatives” (mostly U.S.) and that most people who download and don’t pay a dime wouldn’t listen/ watch their content, if only “legal” sources were available.
    They try, by repeating their stories over and over and over and … to create “truth”, but people aren’t buying it.

  • joexxx

    Hmm… just because you’re a music consumer, doesn’t mean that you’re BPI’s customer. What’s BPI’s point?

  • Techanon

    I only listen to music on radio and YouTube, count me in on the list of ‘legal music consumers that spends $0 on music’.

    • joexxx

      Legal vs illegal is for the court to decide. Until then, anything is legal.

      • Techanon

        The BPI is arging that there is no cheapskates among people that get their music ONLY from “legal sources” compared to the pirates.
        My point is they totally skipped the people that get their music using only payless services like ye olde Radio, YouTube and Spotify among others.

        • Witblue

          and how many apparent ‘legal’ people lied about whether they download or not.

        • joexxx

          Is this a question, a statement, or a drunken rambling?

        • Witblue

          I’m just pointing out possible flaws in the survey. I mean how many people want to admit they are doing something illegal? The apparent ‘legal’ consumer percentage may not be what it seems. How did they confirm that these people are telling the truth? (That is a question)

  • Anon1

    I’m a cheapskate, and I don’t give a fuck.

    • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

      me too!
      i wonder how long this branch of the post is going to get?

  • Pingback: Music Pirates are Cheapskates, Some of Them | TorrentFreak - Let You Know Everything

  • Indian

    Well the cost and the crappy albums are really the cause
    Also every fuckn five mins there is a new hit or a flavour of the day
    They cause the problem by creating all these wanna be shows and everyone wants to be a star.
    Only so many people .
    Everyone wants to be a chief and their are no Indians to follow

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    file share= getting to know new stuff, sharing with others=maybe buying something that is real good, and creating other sales through others also sharing from you

    not file share= not hearing/seeing new stuff, not sharing, others don’t get to see/hear= not buying at all as nobody knows what’s what

    outcome. you wouldn’t buy a new car without a test drive, would you?

    you wouldn’t rent a house without going inside and testing it out, would you?

    you wouldn’t walk into computer shop and buy the first computer without trying it out first……..would you??

  • sson

    Stop borrowing tools from your neighbors! We suffer revenue loss if you don’t buy from us.

    - The screw driver maker

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005069441277 Chuck N Dies Last

    New music, new albums is like watching a old lady take a shower. Hit singles is like making love to a 95 year old woman who has just been degreased.

  • Logic

    Wow… A UK music industry group made a “research” to show that they are right. If a “x” cigarette compagny do a research and conclude that smoking cigarettes is good for your health, will you belive them? Or will you belive a research that’s saying exactly the opposite, that was made by someone or a group of people that have no affiliation to the product in question?

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    can we whistle tunes in safety? or do we get paid to advertise that song when we whistle it? no, so if we don’t get paid for the advertising. then they owe us! millions in lost revenue.

  • lol

    “TorrentFreak contacted the BPI for a comment, and the music group told us that this comparison is not fair.

    “You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music ‘consumers’, and pretend they don’t exist or are not relevant.”

    tf response to them should have been then:
    And what about the legal music “consumers” who buy nothing? What if we added all the non-sharing and non-buying people who use YouTube to listen to music, and add them to the “legal only group”? Then the average spend there would be lower as well.”

    “In the end a safe conclusion is that about half of all music pirates are cheapskates, and the other half are the music industry’s most engaged customers. ”

    mafiaa says “we would rather get rid of our biggest customers than listen and see what they want..

    • bobmail

      “And what about the legal music “consumers” who buy nothing?”

      Legal music consumers by definition are paying for their music in different ways. Legal consumption, say radio, legal streaming sites, music in bars, clubs, whatever… that is all licensed and paid for. They may or may not buy anything specifically, but they are contributing overall to the income of the artists and music companies.

      Actually, it’s a safe conclusion looking at the numbers that (a) file sharers as a whole spend less than the general music consumer, (b) slightly more than half of file sharers also spend more than the average, and (c) slight less than half of all file sharers are freeloaders.

      Those are the only available conclusions from the data.

      Oh yeah, remember this: A pirate who never pays is still a “consumer”, just one that doesn’t pay for it. Someone who doesn’t buy music and doesn’t specifically consume it (ie, they don’t have an MP3 player full of music, don’t really listen to the radio much, and perhaps they don’t waste their lives on YouTube) are not really important here. You cannot consider them as consumers, so you can’t just toss them all in the pile and say “look!”. The discussion is consumers, paying or not, not non-consumers.

      • joexxx

        Bob…again, don’t post about things you have no idea about. You look stupid.
        Looking at the numbers you can’t conclude anything because not enough information is given.

      • icec0ld

        “Actually, it’s a safe conclusion looking at the numbers that (a) file sharers as a whole spend less than the general music consumer, (b) slightly more than half of file sharers also spend more than the average, and (c) slight less than half of all file sharers are freeloaders.”

        And what of the people who do consume and purchase music as well as share? The report conveniently leaves out that other studies have found convulsively that sharers are the most engaged and largest spending customers.

        “Those are the only available conclusions from the data”

        There is no such thing as a conclusive report. By limiting yourself to 2 or 3 conculsions you inherrently bias your interpretation. Any good research points out the pit falls and bias and addresses it. The report you’ll find left out all that though. Says far more what they don’t say then what they do say.

        “Oh yeah, remember this: A pirate who never pays is still a “consumer”, just one that doesn’t pay for it. Someone who doesn’t buy music and doesn’t specifically consume it (ie, they don’t have an MP3 player full of music, don’t really listen to the radio much, and perhaps they don’t waste their lives on YouTube) are not really important here. You cannot consider them as consumers, so you can’t just toss them all in the pile and say “look!”. The discussion is consumers, paying or not, not non-consumers.”

        Read this drivel 3 times. It makes absolutely no sense.

      • Indiagrt

        music in bars clubs Mr. bob do you think all bar or club owners buy music legally so customer can listen… i dont think so……. As in india i have seen so many bars and clubs playing pirated music..

      • Liam JH

        Anyone who consumes music should be included in the study bob, you cant discount an entire group just because it does not suit YOUR logic.
        and Fuck off Bob (tradition dictates)

      • themerryreaper

        I don’t want to be a consumer Geppetto, I want to be a real boy.

      • statistician

        “file sharers as a whole spend less than the general music consumer”

        Only if you exclude all of the music consumers who do not directly pay for their music (i.e., radio listeners).

        “Someone who doesn’t buy music and doesn’t specifically consume it … are not really important here”

        But people who consume music while not directly paying for it (like radio listeners) are very important.

        Your point about radio listeners paying for their music indirectly doesn’t change the fact that their inclusion would greatly decrease the average, since the indirect funds provided by these consumers is small in comparison to those who buy songs and albums.

      • Zumzum

        Not all music is charged for. Nothing on Jamendo costs anything to the private/personal downloader, only for the ‘pro’ accounts who want to licence the music for broadcast and performance. So legal music consumers aren’t necessarily paying anything at all for the music.

        The only conclusion you can reach from the data provided is that there isn’t enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

  • Buglord

    it would be more interesting to see WHAT the money is spent on, if all the money is spent on indie music and they only download the industry crap then it’d be more than enough sign that they’re just not making anything worth buying.

  • ndmushroom

    Dear TF, why did you take BPI’s bait and shift the focus where they want it to be? It took me a while to find out what I was looking for, since the BPI tried to blur the lines the best they could, but it’s there. The numbers given by the BPI concern “music purchases”. They do NOT concern any other music-related expense (including the main source of income for the artists, i.e. concert tickets). Add those, and you’ll have a very different picture, as research after research has shown.

    Of course, the labels (and the BPI which represents them) don’t care about concert tickets. They care about the stuff they control, about selling other people’s labour and keeping 95% (at least) of the revenues. But why are you playing along?

  • dirigibledave

    In fact, these figures are all but useless to the BPI. No account is taken of the largest demographic the entertainmen industry should be looking at most intently – the non-buying public.

    Instead of blaming piracy for everything, they should be looking at why aren’t people buying like they used to and how to address that. There’s the vast untapped market – spending fortunes trying to stop piracy is wasted money in comparison.

    In general, I’m sure people who buy buy, those who don’t buy won’t buy just because pirate downloads aren’t available (not that that will ever happen). So they’re better off not chasing a fantasy solution and concentrate on what businesses do to survive – create a market and products for it.

    Simples.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “No account is taken of the largest demographic the entertainmen industry should be looking at most intently – the non-buying public.”

      Yep. You can certainly tell the BPI and the copyright industry aren’t used to the market. In any other company the main focus is on two things:

      1) Existing customers – how to keep them and keep them both happy and paying as much as they can.

      2) Non-customers: How to obtain them.

      The BPI is consistently focused on driving away or alienating the part of their market segment where their biggest customer base exists. While treating their non-customers like air.

      That’s a failing model.

  • Martin Nilsson

    Well, the problem lies in getting “good” data. The most accurate would be along these lines. Check percentage of population who bought music pre and post Internet. This answers the question ;”has Internet increased music consumtion”. Second would be to compare revenue pre and post Internet, to answer the question; “has Internet increased revenue”. These are sort of the black and white questions. The third question is the hard one, “does piracy hurt the industry”. It’s simply a question without answer. Even if data shows that consumption is up as well as revenue, piracy can still have caused harm. In the end they will always be able to claim they could have made more money.

  • Martin

    If file sharers are cheap skates then the music industry are old style monopolists. An album selling millions costs the same as one selling thousands. Did it cost 3000 times as much to produce, or was profits just 1000 times bigger??
    They claim paying inflated monopoly prices for entertainment is “in society’s best interest”. Suuure just like inflated prices on oil or any other goods are really the best for society as a whole…
    Like all monopolists music industry is begging the State to use violence against those who would break the monopoly: banning, fines leading to financial ruin even prison as in the case from TPB

  • BPI_ARE_TWATS

    None of my nephews or nieces own an album, CD or digital files. They listen to all of their music of YouTube. When I spoke to one of my nephews about owning CD’s he just laughed at me and really couldn’t get his head around it. He does not even know how to use UseNet or P2P.

    I own in excess of 600 albums, 700 CD’s and 500 DVD’s. I have 2 seedboxs and run a private UseNet indexer.

    I wonder where we would fit into their little report?

  • Boring Phil

    When I was a lad, back when it was all fields round here, I’d tape any of my records that anybody wanted. They’d do the same for me. This was just the ordinary way of things. We shared what we had, and we loved music.
    As it turned out, home taping didn’t kill music. Music stubbornly continues to be made.
    That the same thing a couple of decades on is such a fraught issue baffles me, as I gaze at the hundreds of CDs on my shelves that I bought, as I utorrent an album by someone whose weird stuff I heard on the radio last week. Maybe I’ll buy it. Maybe not. We’ll see.
    However: anyone who refers to music as ‘content’ has no business working with music at all. It’s like calling little lumps of unidentified protein ‘beef’.

  • Emil Kirkegaard

    “In the end a safe conclusion is that about half of all music pirates
    are cheapskates, and the other half are the music industry’s most
    engaged customers. But what does that say about file-sharing?”

    No it doesn’t. If these people are spending money on music, but not recorded music, they aren’t cheapskates.

    • Witblue

      Perhaps they are just plain old ordinarily poor and can’t afford to eat and buy music at the same time.

  • fukfgywqkuy23vg

    I pad 250,000 sterling pounds to have lunch with David Cameron.

    Feargal Sharkey was there, licking his ears and caressing his wallet.

    So I downloaded an automatic

  • ZenkTink

    lol,, ok you have to admit thats pretty funny dude.

    AnonTools.da.bz

  • askbillmitchell

    Conveniently obscure from their finding is how many “file sharers” decided to support only indie labels and bands. Assuming that those labels are not tied into the RIAA and other such rackets, they are not going to know how much money I’ve spent procuring music because they don’t have access (at least not easily) to those sales figures. So the message I am getting is “If your are not buying from us you are a cheapskate”…

  • dwpbike

    there is music from this century that is worth the download?

  • Jesse

    Don’t forget the ‘legal’ freeloaders who listen to the radio (or Pandora, free Spotify, etc., etc.,) and don’t buy digital music. They should be added in. If your sample group is ‘people who buy digital music’ any statistician will tell you it’s bullshit to include people who do NOT buy digital music.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Gass/100001039740161 Christopher Gass

    why spend $$$ on digital music when its accessible for free online? i buy vinyl records as a means to support the artist.

  • Witblue

    and is it not true that many of those ‘apparent’ freeloaders wouldn’t spend money on music anyways even if pirating never existed?
    This study would be much fairer if we knew exactly how many people really buy music legally only and compare that to an equal random number of pirateers. The whole study is incomplete no matter how you look at it, too many variables are unknown that can alter things.
    All I know for sure is that so long as the music industry continues to pump out ‘albums’ with one good song if that, they will not get any money from me. The music industry is full of people who are manufactured stars who spend more time selling perfume and clothing lines these days then producing anything worth listening too. The music industry is solely about money not artists or music and until it goes back to the way it use to be, or they get on board with the modern world and the needs of the consumer, it will continue the way it is.

  • Zumzum

    There seems to be some data missing from the figures. The BPI are claiming that of all filesharers the average spend on music is less than that of people who only download MUSIC from legit sources. What it doesn’t show is the average spend of only filesharers who download MUSIC. If you focus on filesharers as a whole you’ll likely get large numbers of people who never download any music at all, just movies or videogames or software. Those sharers most likely have no interest in music and are never likely to buy any whether they’re sharing or not.

  • Bitemyshinymetalass

    I spend all my money on hookers and cocaine so I have nothing left to spend on music, but then I am a music exec!

  • Pelham123

    If I were a music industry executive, I’d be very happy about these results.

    If file-sharers are only the industry’s best customers, then file-sharing is not doing much for me. We already know it’s not hurting me, but it probably isn’t helping me much either.

    On the other hand,if file-sharing attracts, educates and involves people who don’t buy music, I can market ancillary products to that new group.

    File-sharing has taken the place of radio by appealing to people who like music but not enough to buy it. Even if they only buy T-shirts and concert tickets, that’s a win given that my cost to promote is zero.

    Back in the Napster days, there was a worry that file-sharing would replace purchased music, and we can now see this didn’t happen.

  • NotACheapskate

    ‘Cheapskate’ here: Not purchasing music or spending just little on legal routes does not make one a cheapskate. Over the past few years I’ve learned about the ways of the great powers of the world, that of governments, the media industry, and alike. Whether legal or not, I disagree to such a great extent with the way things are in the world with regards to the music industry, which made me decide not purchasing via the common legal rounds is actually better for the artist. I do not support the ways of the media industry, so not a single cent of mine (well,.. movies in the cinema aside, but that’s due to social factors) will be spend on music that goes through intermediary parties. Either the artists provides a single money route available for my bank account type, or I do not purchase it at all. In such case, I promote their works by pirating them and then the mouth-to-mouth principle applies, also on the web.

    Tl;dr: Not a cheapskate cause I don’t pay, just someone who says fuck you to the current system.

  • dqdfx

    well this means they’re officially condoning file sharing, because they’re not saying that we “take money away”. they’re just acknowledging they make less money.

    took em what, 13 years?

    fuck that industry entirely. Never buy anything MPAA/RIAA again.

  • Guest

    Or maybe it’s because the music is shit?

  • Foff

    So what is the point of these stupid Riaa fuckers anyway? The data seems to indicate without filesharing revenues are likely to go down. So are they in business to make money or just be assholes?

    I am certain that if all the onerous licensing bullshit was removed and any tom dick and harry site could sell digital music for whatever they wanted sales would skyrocket and even if the amount per track were small if just a small percentage went directly to the copyright holders. The creators would make vastly more money. Tracks would cost pennies and consumers for the most part would not bother with piracy except to perhaps find rare stuff.

    May be this is what they are afraid of. Technology is about to whack the penis off of the middle man as they are no longer needed in the chain. So the Riaa is not fighting copyright but are fighting not to become irrelevant.

  • DocGerbil100

    Hmm… very interesting. :)

    Just so everyone has at least some idea of what they’re talking about, the report is a fluffy piece of annual propaganda designed to promote the music recording industry. It’s data on file-sharing comes exclusively from a marketing survey – with all the biases and potential abuses this implies – and shouldn’t be regarded as authoritative.

    It’s well worth noting that the report goes out of it’s way to give detailed breakdowns of things that reflect favourably on the recording industry, but gives only vague headline data when it comes to things that they don’t want publicised – the figure for the 55% of file-sharers who spend more has to be derived from the report’s data, as it is carefully avoided by the report itself.

    Detailed demographics of their file-sharing respondents are conspicuously absent, despite the data being both (a) just as available as a great deal of other information they’ve already given and (b) hugely illuminating, since it would almost certainly show that the biggest percentage of non-purchasing file-sharers are people under the age of 18, who are far more restricted in their access to legal online purchasing services. I can think of no other compelling reason to avoid giving this data.

    There’s a final point I think is worth making. The report says 14.5% of UK music consumers consume through some mix of file-sharing and legal methods – and 27.7% through exclusively legal channels.

    That 27.7% clearly have no fear of paying for content – and in this day and age, there’s little doubt that they’re aware that it’s perfectly possible to obtain the same music for free, at zero real risk, if they wish to do so.

    If they – like most file-sharers according to the BPI – don’t mind freely giving their money to the worthy cause of their favourite bands, why would becoming file-sharers change that for the worse, if that were to happen?

    If the UK’s recording industry were to publicly abandon it’s anti-piracy efforts, embrace file-sharing and convert the generous 27.7% into engaged and enthusiastic file-sharers, wouldn’t music spending simply increase?

    And if it were possible to convert the 57.8% who don’t fall into either category into engaged and enthusiastic file-sharers, whatever percentage of them were willing and able to buy music, wouldn’t spending go through the roof?

    Just this once, I think I can actually look past the BPI’s pathological dishonesty and thank them for confirming what we already know:

    File-sharing is good for music. :)

  • Guest

    Well this is silly.
    It all comes down to the oldest principle: A shared copy does not equal a lost sale.

    I myself have never payed for a single song in all my lif eand I have no intentions of every doing it, I just don’t give a shit about music.
    But yeah I have downloaded a lot of music, simply because it’s free so why not.
    Still even if I couldn’t download it from thepiratebay, I wouldn’t buy it, I would be perfectly happy just with the free music from the radio or the music channels on my TV.

    However, I do buy stuff, a lot, but stuff I care about like games or books.
    I have bought tons of those.
    My steam library is ridiculously huge.

    • joexxx

      There is no such thing as lost sale. Nobody is entitled to any sales that should have been.
      There is only failure to sell where the market doesn’t see enough value in your product to pay money for it.

  • commenter8

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/15563721940/lies-damn-lies-statistics-how-bpi-cherry-picks-its-averages-to-pretend-file-sharers-spend-less.shtml

    [...] BPI’s own numbers “wave away” all of the people who consume music legally for free, but don’t spend anything on music. That is, there is a very large percentage of people who don’t pay for music, but who also do not infringe. These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works. And if the BPI was being intellectually honest they would have to average all of those £0s into the average for “legal only” if they want to require all the £0s to be added into the infringing side as well. Basically, BPI is picking and choosing who it includes and excludes to make their argument look better. When it hand waves away all the zeroes on its side of the argument, while including all the ones on the other side of the argument, of course it’ll make the numbers look better for its argument. However, if you’re going to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have only two choices. Either you include all the people who don’t buy on both sides or on neither. BPI didn’t do that. They only chose the ones who don’t buy on the file sharing side.

    It’s important to note that an analysis of the UK market by economist Will Page, back when he was with PRS for Music, noted that only 40% of the UK adult population actually bought any music at all. So you’ve got 60% non-buyers, some of whom are file sharing and some of whom are not. The BPI report chose to only include those who file shared, and ignore those who didn’t. That’s a clear methodological problem with their data. If they’re going to include the non-buyers on the file sharing side, they need to include the non-buyers on the “legal” side, or they’re simply lying with statistics.

  • Pingback: Sorpresa: La discográficas dicen que si bajas música gastas menos dinero | MiMonteria

  • Pingback: In the News.. | TorGuard.net Blog - Anonymous VPN Services

  • Somedudes

    Most of the music in the charts now is absolute excrement so no wonder people don’t buy it, the only people who do now are mainly chavs who are too dumb to figure out they don’t have to pay for it (like apple users) , the music industry has had over a decade to put in place a model that would encourage people to pay but has consistently failed so screw em

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.