TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Online Music Piracy Doesn’t Hurt Sales, European Commission Finds

New research published by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre shows that online piracy doesn’t hurt digital music revenues. The researchers examined browsing habits from 16,000 Europeans and found that there’s a positive link between online piracy and visits to legal music stores, irrespective of people’s interest in music. The study concludes that the music industry should not see piracy as a growing concern.

ec-resultsResearch into online piracy comes in all shapes and sizes, often with equally mixed results. The main question often is whether piracy is hurting sales.

A new study by The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, which is part of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, tackled this question in a unique way. With data from more than 16,000 European Internet users they determined what the effect was of people’s access to pirate sites on visits to online music stores.

The results are now published in a paper titled “Digital Music Consumption on the Internet: Evidence from Clickstream Data,” and the researchers found that overall, piracy has a positive effect on music sales.

“It seems that the majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals in our sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available to them,” they write.

In addition, the researchers are also the first to find that free and legal streaming websites don’t cannibalize legal music purchases.

“The complementary effect of online streaming is found to be somewhat larger, suggesting a stimulating effect of this activity on the sales of digital music,” they comment.

Most of the effects were found by comparing people’s visits to “pirate” websites and legal music stores. After controlling for interest in music, the researchers found that visits to pirate websites are positively linked to visits to legal music stores.

“If this estimate is given a causal interpretation, it means that clicks on legal purchase websites would have been 2 percent lower in the absence of illegal downloading websites,” the researchers write.

The effect of legal streaming services on visits to music stores is even greater, and estimated at 7 percent. So more free streaming is linked to more visits to music stores. The report notes that their data doesn’t cover visits to bricks and mortar stores.

The researchers admit that there could be external factors influencing these effects, but conclude that the results provide no evidence that piracy is hurting digital music sales in Europe. On the contrary, the data suggests a positive relation between piracy and music sales.

“Taken at face value, our findings indicate that digital music piracy does not displace legal music purchases in digital format. This means that although there is trespassing of private property rights, there is unlikely to be much harm done on digital music revenues,” they write.

While the results are clear, the researchers don’t want to make any specific policy recommendations. They do, however, note that the music industry shouldn’t be all that concerned about online piracy.

“From that perspective, our findings suggest that digital music piracy should not be viewed as a growing concern for copyright holders in the digital era. In addition, our results indicate that new music consumption channels such as online streaming positively affect copyrights owners.”

The above will certainly influence the ongoing copyright enforcement debate in Europe. Those who are against increased surveillance and policing of copyrighted content will now have some strong evidence to back up their claims. The anti-piracy lobby, on the other hand, will not be happy with the new study.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • deathwalker

    hmmm wonder how long it takes the aa’s to debunk this!! how long before a paid for research version contradicts these findings!!

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Well, if one does come out AND there is a monetary thread back to the MAFIAA, I would bring that up harsh and loud that it’s a paid for corporate study and cannot be trusted.

      • JG

        What do you mean “IF one comes out”? I’m certain they’re already making up numbers so their research shows how bad piracy is, and/or figuring out how to spin the results to show it was bad research…. Like how they claimed pirates actually spend less than non-pirates because the researchers “forgot” to account for all the non-paying pirates (while omitting the non-paying non-pirates themselves)….

    • http://twitter.com/CreightFrazee Creight Frazee

      And SondnouS – he’ll be bleating about his “loss of artistic control” soon. OT, saw an ebook yesterday where every page was an image of the text – talk about fail………. http://www.youtube.com.xurl.es/m0uj2/watch?v=QZEpDqP3IrQ

    • milkmaid

      Seeing as this research bases all of it’s conclusions on… wait for it… the number of user clicks rather than actual purchases I doubt it’s even worth bothering with. Conclusion pirates click around on legal music sites…. wow.

      They are probably trying to get the correct information to fix their crap ID3 tags.

      • Violated0

        If they were not interested in purchasing lawful music then they would not be visiting those sites. This is hardly tourism and they want to see some pretty photos.

        • milkmaid

          “Buyers are defined as individuals that clicked on at least one legal downloading website during 2011″

          It’s rather foolish to define a buyer as someone who clicks onto a legal downloading website.

          There are a large number of reasons that someone may do this. One is to, as I mentioned, get info to fix bad ID3 tags. Another to find out what has just been released and yet another is to listen to a sample. This research was a waste of time and would never see the light of a peer review.

        • Danny

          I (like most ‘Pirates’) have never visited itunes to get the correct ID3 tags.

          What this data does prove, however, is that ‘piracy’ is a great tool at advertising the music.

        • wonderboy24

          i just use coveralia.com to get cover pics, and any other information i want to put in the id3 tag

        • themerryreaper

          “One is to, as I mentioned, get info to fix bad ID3 tags. Another to
          find out what has just been released and yet another is to listen to a
          sample.”
          For all those things there are far better resources:
          - If you have bad ID3 tags first of all your ‘pirate’ source sucks and second of all you visit the artist or a fan website to get the correct info.
          - If you want to know what has been released or want to sample music there is no better option than piracy at the moment.

          Oh how I miss oink :(

        • Animator606432

          Most pirates I know use MediaMonkey to correct their tags.

        • anon

          You don’t know much about tagging do you? Sigh such a simple mind. ^^

  • PUA – SVM

    COrporate WarFare !!!
    It is rival companies who leak the files!!
    Same goes for Games,movies,books. It was the best kept secret ever.

    • The_Strawbear

      Keep that tinfoil hat on.

  • sda

    i will never buy a song because i just listen to it for like 20 times and then i don’t really care about it, it’s a shame to waste money on that stuff

  • Normal

    no shit -.-’

  • Guest321

    *Cue for Bobby to report this to his corporate paymasters so that the MAFIAA can fund another anti-piracy research to convince us how many artists are dying everyday because of pirates.

  • dropin

    I can’t wait until bobby and his many alter egos read this.
    It could lead to a case of troll heart failure,but then again,who gives a shit if it does.

    • MadAsASnake

      And SondnouS – he’ll be bleating about his “loss of artistic control” soon. OT, saw an ebook yesterday where every page was an image of the text – talk about fail…

      • dropin

        “And SondnouS – he’ll be bleating about his “loss of artistic control”

        Ha Ha Yeah you got that right.

      • IDIOCRACY

        SoundnouS = failed Finnish artist, goes by the name Vittu Pelle now…. hehe

        • SoundnuoS

          Meh, at least use correct finnish if you’ll try to insult me.

          Anyway, about this paper.

          If I’m reading it right they are essentially regressing the number of clicks on legal websites on the number of clicks on illegal websites.

          Doesn’t this once again prove nothing more than that people interested in music will both download more and buy more? It doesn’t show that downloading actually increases buying. (Anyone with more insight in econometrics can feel free to correct me on the method here.)

          I’ll just quote the paper itself (page 16):

          “Indeed, since we expect our results to bias away from finding a negative effect of downloading (respectively streaming) on purchases, finding a positive result may simply reflect the fact that our estimations are still contaminated by individual unobserved characteristics.”

          In other words, it looks like they know their method will underestimate negative effects from downloading, but still choose to present it as they do. Why?

          More interesting if you look at the data in table 2 is that the number of clicks on illegal websites are significantly more than the number of clicks on legal websites. It’s also clearly negatively correlated countrywise with the amount of clicks on legal buying websites.

          And finally this little bit from page 10:

          “Finally, note that 20% of the individuals in the sample have only clicked on illegal downloading websites.”

          That’s right, 20% of people downloading buy no music at all. Definitely not a case of piracy increasing sales.

        • Danny

          What you miss is that 20% you are quoting wouldn’t buy music whether they were able to download it ‘illegally’ or not.

          I’m glad you agree though that most downloaders are the biggest spenders. The only problem with the industries approach is that they are trying to criminalise their largest consumer base, not the best business strategy!

        • SoundnuoS

          And what makes you say that with such certainty? The only thing we know for sure is that 20% tend not to buy because they can get it for free..

        • Danny

          Well people do not have an infinite supply of money. There are a lot of people who simply cannot buy, and I would guess at around 20% of the population. (Around 25% of the worlds population live in poverty)

          I for one don’t buy music, I spend my money on TV and films but already have enough music to listen too. Mind you I don’t download music either! (Most of the music these days is shit anyway so not worth buying or downloading)

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=812700143 Ley Shade

          Wait, are you that stupid that, as a failed artist because of the laws you’re advocating for, you’re blaming the people who don’t like your art?

          What???

          Also, the ”20%” is, in the same part you quoted, specifically mentioned as ”lower than the expected average”, as well as ”lower than the average of users who visit illegal sites due to artifical scarcity” – that’s right, most of those people who won’t pay for it, are refusing to pay for it because of inflated price, which they’re aware of.

          Also, your art failed (haha, Hitler) because of the same ideologies your proudly touting. The only other ”SoundnuoS” that can be found, is an Indian Music Marketing company who work for, dun dun dun, the MAFIAA…

          So you’re argument boils down to, ”My project failed due to my own ideals, and so everyone should fail because I did”, coupled with a bit of, ”anything that proves me wrong, is wrong”

          Well, sorry to annoy you, but when you’re the poster boy for a set of corporate interests who have recently sent many independent UK musicians cease and desist letters for ”invading patented areas of creativity” (actual quote), then to me it just seems you’re angry about a more level playing field with more equal rules, than anything that’s actually factual/good for the artists =)

        • MadAsASnake

          He’s so determined to fail, I don’t even know what his work is. Obscurity appears to be his overriding goal.

        • SoundnuoS

          Not from India, so I’m not that SoundnuoS.

          Where do you get the idea that any artist fails because of copyright?

          ” that’s right, most of those people who won’t pay for it, are refusing to pay for it because of inflated price, which they’re aware of.”
          And how do they get the idea that price is inflated? 0.99 for a song is less than a postcard. Way less than a completely transient cup of coffee.
          If anything, the price is too low.

    • http://twitter.com/LisaViolet3 LisaViolet

      as Carmen implied I am blown away that a student can get paid $9490 in one month on the inetwork.

      • dropin

        Lisa,
        Take your spam,dip it in olive oil,and stick it up your ARSE.
        You never know you might enjoy it.

    • http://twitter.com/LisaViolet3 LisaViolet

      ….—-goo.gl/NVHyP (Home more information)

    • bobmail

      Hi Dropin.

      It always comes to the same thing – they go looking for a result, and the “find” it. Sadly, they never both to consider the real implications, such as what those people would do WITHOUT piracy. While the usual suspects around here will say people are spending as much as they can, that just isn’t supported by the loss of recorded music sales (in dollars) over the last decade – the decade of piracy.

      The reality is much more that people have found they can get music for free, they only buy a limited amount online (thus what is in the report) and the rest of their money that use to be for music is now for other things – because the economy hasn’t shrunk.

      This report sorely lacks a comparison to 10 or 20 years ago, showing what levels of music purchase existed before, and what level exists now. If that report ever came out, this whole ass kissing about “pirates buy more music” would be lost, because they don’t buy as much as they did before piracy, and that’s a basic fact.

      • MadAsASnake

        What BS. High street music stores are dropping like flies and iTunes and amazon are doing very nicely thank you very much. The labels are loosing out to online sellers that understand the internet.

      • Anyone

        the study shows exactly what people would do without piracy: buy 2-7% less

        I said it before, please read the article before you start trolling

      • Guest

        “It always comes to the same thing – they go looking for a result, and the “find” it.”

        Why yes, that is how MAFIAA-funded studies work. I’m not sure what it has to do with this one, though…?

        “they never both to consider the real implications, such as what those people would do WITHOUT piracy”

        This study does examine what pirates would do if piracy DIDN’T exist. But I guess you didn’t notice that since you intentionally ignore facts.

        “The reality is”

        The reality is what a mountain of unbiased professional studies say. Not the weaksauce lies the MAFIAA pay you to tell.

        “the economy hasn’t shrunk.”

        !?!?!?

        “This report sorely lacks a comparison to 10 or 20 years ago, showing what levels of music purchase existed before, and what level exists now.

        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120129/17272817580/sky-is-rising-entertainment-industry-is-large-growing-not-shrinking.shtml

        Yet, what we find when looking through the research — from a variety of sources to corroborate and back up any research we found — is that the overall entertainment ecosystem is in a real renaissance period. The sky truly is rising, not falling: the industry is growing both in terms of revenue and content. We split the report up into video & film, books, music and video games — and all four segments are showing significant growth (not shrinking) over the last decade. All of them are showing tremendous opportunity. The amount of content that they’re all producing isgrowing at an astounding rate (which again, is the most important thing). But revenue, too, is growing. Equally important is that rather than consumers just wanting to get stuff for free, they have continually spent a greater portion of their income on entertainment — with the percentage increasing by 15% from 2000 to 2008.

        “pirates buy more music” would be lost”

        It’s an inescapable fact that pirates buy more than non-pirates do. Seeing you try to deny it is rather amusing, but don’t you ever feel bad for wasting your own time so much?

        “that’s a basic fact.”

        No, that’s speculative make-believe dreampt up by the MAFIAA and regurgitated by its MAFIAABots. It’s the furthest thing from a fact possible.

        • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

          +1

          Unfortunately this is lost on deaf ears.
          failmail only responds to arguments he thinks he can refute.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “failmail only responds to arguments he thinks he can refute.”

          As in when the argument he was eagerly refuting turned out to be his own?

          bobmail will be pounding the keyboard madly, mashing out some form of desperate denial as soon as a pirate claims water is wet.

          And like the point where he called people lying sacks of shit because they reminded him of what he’d previously said, he tends to escalate the clown act further for at least two tiers worth of commentary before his mind apparently catches up with him.

          At which point he does the online equivalent of hysterical foam-mouthed screaming, piling up the ad hominem and calling everyone “Mary”.

          Poor sod.

        • I’m Mary Spartacus

          Lulz. Whenever he reaches his ‘Mary’ moment there’s a snippet of Hendrix’s ‘The Wind Cries Mary’ playing inside his head!

        • Anyone

          I’m sure that would count as copyright infringement in his world

        • Guest321

          +2

          Brilliant response.

        • UraPhake

          Hamsters the world over (and myself) are in shock and awe at the magnificence of this response!

          Meanwhile, the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid Rodent-IAA (RIAA) are running for cover.

        • Sharms

          +1 Totally owned!

      • The_Strawbear

        I have to say the logic makes sense bobmail. I know if I were 20 now I’d be spending way less on music than I actually did when I was 20.

        Although when I was 20 a new CD cost around £15 rather than the £7 or £8 you can usually find them for now and the companies were milking us all dry.

        I spent a fucking fortune on CDs between the ages of 16 and 25 and it’s terribly hard to imagine me doing that if I could have downloaded stuff for free instantly.

        Does anyone these days regularly spend £100-£150 downloading new music each month? It seems unlikely.

        • MadAsASnake

          So you are objecting to kids today doing what you would have done yourself if you had the opportunity?

        • Anyone

          of course people don’t spend 100-150 on music downloads each month

          but people interested in music will spend that in concerts

          the market has shifted, those too lazy/dumb to adapt will simply vanish

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Of course not. Judging from market studies, those 100-150 per month are spent on entertainment altogether.

          Subscription costs for WoW are 15% or so of what you claim, so start from there and begin adding it up.

          And computers/consoles are expensive.

      • Plop

        “This report sorely lacks a comparison to 10 or 20 years ago, showing what levels of music purchase existed before, and what level exists now…because they don’t buy as much as they did before piracy, and that’s a basic fact.”

        So when you say that piracy didn’t exist until at most 20 years ago, what purpose did the ‘home taping is killing music’ campaign serve 30 years ago? Might it be that the same arguments were being paraded around to serve the recording industry while they attacked new technologies rather than embrace them? Same story, different decade I suppose.

        What you need, bob, is facts to back up your assertions. That, and not to speculate and extrapolate based upon those factually lacking assertions.

        Pretty much every report I’ve seen recently show the same thing. The free publicity of streaming services and the easy availability of ‘pirate’ music drives more people to buy. Obscurity is no good thing when you’re trying to sell music. Better to have 10 people pirate and 2 or 3 of them also buy than have 0 people pirate and 0 buy. Anyone with a modicum of business sense realises this.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Damn, i must be getting slow – didn’t even peg to the fact that old Baghdad Bob is talking about a time when home taping was compared to the Boston Strangler.

          In short, he doesn’t even know the music industry’s own history. A new low for him, I feel.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Sadly, they never both to consider the real implications, such as what those people would do WITHOUT piracy.

        Ah, yes. Your old argument that lack of piracy would make people spend more than they can afford.

        While the usual suspects around here will say people are spending as much as they can, that just isn’t supported by the loss of recorded music sales (in dollars) over the last decade – the decade of piracy.

        Actually it is. It’s just that the escalation of games, movies, and social media are ALSO presenting competition. Not just in purse but in available time.

        That is what is meant by budget shifting as detailed in those musty old studies.

        And “by the usual suspects” you always come around to the claim that people quoting science are heretics.

        This report sorely lacks a comparison to 10 or 20 years ago, showing what levels of music purchase existed before…

        Naturally. a comparison to 20 years ago when online gaming, hulu, netflix, and 8-bit gaming consoles were brand new has no bearing at all on today.

        Good grief.

        Any comparison to 20 years ago would have to take into account that the music industry is swimming in competition eager to spend those consumers 24 hours a day.

        The 70′s are gone. You need to realize this and move on.

      • dropin

        Hi Bob.
        How are the wife and kids,well I hope.
        I will catch up further down the thread.

      • https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/ Natanael L

        Sales have only gone down because sales is a dated model. Streaming has gone up, and so has concerts. The music industry isn’t dying, it is just the revenue sources and who gets the money that is changing – for the better!

      • Ardvaark

        Whoa, calm down. It’s clear you were very nervous writing because of the half-butchered words here and there.

        Let the debunking begin!

        Sadly, they never both to consider the real implications, such as what those people would do WITHOUT piracy.

        Did you read the article? It says very clearly that they concluded they wouldn’t buy more without piracy. And if that isn’t enough we’ve given you reasons of why this is true countless times before.

        While the usual suspects around here will say people are spending as much as they can, that just isn’t supported by the loss of recorded music sales

        Correlation is not causation. Prices are lower because, due to the internet, supply is infinite which obviously leads to the prices of music lowering (also you cut the distribution costs). That’s how the free market works. The only relation here is that piracy also thrives on digital media (mostly) but it’s not the cause for lower prices that’s just technology influencing the market.

        they only buy a limited amount online (thus what is in the report) and the rest of their money that use to be for music is now for other things

        You pulled that out of your ass clearly. People buy what they find is worth buying. If you download 50 musics and find that 10 are worth a purchase, you do. Also people should never waste all the budget just because if there other 40 musics aren’t worth my money I shouldn’t spend it just because I can, that’s insane..

        because the economy hasn’t shrunk.

        What world do you live in? As far as I’m aware US and Europe are in the middle of an economic crisis. Are you suggesting the people in Spain consider not buying a loaf of bread because they really really want that song? Normal people, unlike you, have their priorities set straight.

        This report sorely lacks a comparison to 10 or 20 years ago, showing what levels of music purchase existed before,

        So you want to prove that digital music consumption now completely overshadows physical sales by then? Because I’m sure you’re aware that the size of music libraries increased drastically which only means consumption increased!

        this whole ass kissing about “pirates buy more music”

        You mean basing claims on facts and research and not made-up stuff and opinions?

        they don’t buy as much as they did before piracy, and that’s a basic fact

        That fact remains to be proven however..

        You can’t just throw stuff out there without proper substance to validate it. Otherwise it’s the usual chunder you spew.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Correlation is not causation.”

          Correlation however implies there might be some kind of causation there. The correlation needs to be explained or shown to be irrelevant.

          “Prices are lower because, due to the internet, supply is infinite which obviously leads to the prices of music lowering (also you cut the distribution costs).”
          Please explain what the mechanism is here. How does the theoretical (in the real world an infinite amount of copies does not actually exist) infinite supply work to lower prices. Especially for new records that haven’t been copied in vast amounts.
          I agree about the distribution costs, no need to argue for that point.

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          Digital file
          1. A file made out of electronic 1s & 0s in a particular order for a corresponding program to translate & display its stored information. Doesn’t require materials and can be theoretically infinitely replicated.

          Luddite
          1. A term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general.

          2. bobmail, nejtillpirater, SoundnuoS, and the pro-copyright and pro-patent industries.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Doesn’t require materials and can be theoretically infinitely replicated.”
          Very good. This is what I said.
          Now explain the mechanisms whereby that theoretical infinity becomes real world infinity, and acts to lower prices.

        • MadAsASnake

          Aside from what you call “Piracy”?

        • SoundnuoS

          That’s the main factor that supplies the material without any limitations. Any attempt to explain pricing of digital goods needs to take that into account.

          Aardwark seems to think piracy can be completely ignored when it comes to setting prices on digital files.

        • MadAsASnake

          No he doesn’t, that is the massive failure of the music industry execs who are still trying the massive rent seeking thing.

        • SoundnuoS

          It affects everyone, including indie artists. If the mainstream music business have to lower their prices because of piracy, then indies have to follow right along or they will be pricing themselves out of the market.
          Since they sell way less in the first place, it hits them harder.

          It’s not rent seeking, it’s charging for the product you make. Is Apple rent seeking? Is a pen manufacturer rent seeking? Is everybody offering a product for sale rent seeking?

        • MadAsASnake

          Seeking a price higher than the market will bear is rent seeking. Music creators are free to set prices. Customers are free to buy or not buy. Noe in this world, people have a choice when faced with ludicrous pricing. My partner recently bought an album on iTunes (no we don’t have a problem paying) – now this was same price as a CD, even though marginal manufacturing cost was zero, and shop costs negligible. Lets forget that it was a crappy lossy format for the moment. Unfortunately, it is stuffed with DRM as well, so simply playing it on another device is pretty much a non-starter – as for the device, this had to be “registered” with iTunes in a manner that made loading other music nigh on impossible. She understands now not to buy from iTunes, and why. I sure as hell won’t buy from iTunes, not because I won’t buy, and not because I can get it free, but because the DRM and pricing (given the massive and arbitrary restrictions on what I can do with it). Any problem with the device? Oh, we have to buy it again. As I have said before make a sensible market offering, and many of us will buy… stick with this idiocy, and you lose sales.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Customers are free to buy or not buy”

          And if they do not buy they do without. That’s the basis for price setting. It doesn’t work if the customer decides to not pay and then gets it for free anyway.

          https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php
          http://www.7digital.com/
          http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Music-Download/
          There you go. Some of the very many available alternatives to iTunes.

        • MadAsASnake

          Well, that amazon link says: “We’re sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site
          “…. hdTracks never connects, and I want my own copy (so thats 7digital out), given how much damage the RIAA / MPAA is causing to them… I won’t rely on anything cloud based. – so 0 out of 4, if you include iTunes. All we are asking is a simple reliable method of getting hold of music, in a high quality format, without arbitrary restrictions on what or where we play it on, and that does not cost the earth. You have just demonstrated just how far away from that the music industry is. Thanks for making the point.

        • SoundnuoS

          7digital gives you your own copy.

          http://www.amazon.com/

          Top right corner, mp3 store should be a link at the top of the page.

          https://www.hdtracks.com/

          Loads just fine for me. You’ll find 24bit96kHz music there.
          I take it you haven’t explored legal options much these past years. It doesn’t all begin and end with iTunes, so the excuses aren’t there.

        • MadAsASnake

          Not a lot, no. OK, now how about getting rid of the DRM, None of these sites are upfront on that topic. As I’ve said, been stung before, I need to see DRM-free before I buy. pretty sure they would emblazon that across the site if it were fact. Not “well, we don’t tell you and it’s not obvious till you’ve parted with cash…” And of course, they have to drop prices.. This does not mean I’m downloading. Believe it or not, I get most of mine from other sources… second hand mostly [perfectly legal], also YouTube (usually when discussing music… quality is generally vile)… and there still isn’t a digital format that comes close to vinyl on an LP12… The opportunities are there – if you want my money you need to put in a market offering that makes sense. As I say, the music industry is nowhere near that.

        • SoundnuoS

          From what I’ve read in the FAQs, it’s all DRM free. I’m still preferring physical myself when I go for ownership instead of Spotify, so I can’t vouch for that, but that’s what they claim on their sites.
          Anything else?

        • MadAsASnake

          You mean aside from price, quality, choice…???

        • MadAsASnake

          … and this:

          “Governing Law. The laws of the State of New York, excluding its
          conflicts of law and rules, govern these Terms and your use of the
          Digital Store. Your use of the Digital Store may also be subject to
          other local, state, national, or international laws. You expressly agree
          that exclusive jurisdiction for any claim or dispute with HD or
          relating in any way to your use of the Digital Store resides in the
          courts of the State of New York.”

          Not in a million years…

        • Ardvaark

          24bit96kH that’s awful.
          You can get 32bit for years already.
          7digital is still limited in content, for example, albums launched today won’t show up on said stores until a few days / weeks later. I can assure you there’ s a version of it on the bay a couple of hours after release (even if it’s gated)

          I actually did the experiment with that recently with spotify and amazon.

          Availability and quality are still a problem.

        • MadAsASnake

          Interestingly, I have yet to hear a digital format sound better than vinyl – which is so easy to acheive that it should be a slam dunk. In the dim dark past, the RIAA helped standardise the equalisation curvesfor those – which was very helpful. Today, they do nothing except sue people. Must be easier than actually helping the industry come up with better standards and products. As I already said, price, quality and choice are all largely pitched wrong. I don’t bother with these sites because they certainly fail these three (I was looking for some classical stuff yesterday – very specialised – not a sniff on a single “legit” site) and usually others as well. For instance, I don’t live in the US – sure as hell I’m not going to agree to US statutory penalties if I don’t need to. I don’t.

        • Ardvaark

          Totally agree.

          I’m only different in my demands for quality. I’ve got a picky ear but I’d be fine with FLAC and even 320kbps mp3′s (lower bitrates I do notice a difference especially below 256). I can’t compare with vinyl since I’m too young for that.

          What amazes me is the sheer amount of stupidity pro-copyright people can show, even ignoring business advices and actual statements showing what people want. They rather ignore all that and go the suing road.. sad..

          I’ve bolded and explained again and again that piracy is a service problem only to be bombarded with more bullshit and flawed arguments just to avoid an answer…

        • MadAsASnake

          I was working in HiFi when the switch to CD happened. The first players, and CD’s (highly lauded of course) were dreadful. There are two problems with CD’s. First, they have a fq range of 20-20k hz (ostensibly the range of human hearing – but we pick up harmonics well above that..) They acually went to 22 but with a sharp cut off filter between 20 and 22k. This was, and still is a big problem. it grates – most people have a headache after a single CD mastered like this. The industry responded by putting in a more gradual filter starting around 15k. My Linn will pick 20k of vinyl cleanly and has a response 3 or 4 dB down at ~100k. After CD, vinyl is crisp and bright. But that’s not the half of it. Vinyl builds a soundstage – listen to an orchestra, you can literally place the instruments around the room. CD, at best give a vague impression of this. From a good vinyl pressing, you can pick out a individual violinists fingers moving on the strings. As I say, I tend to pick stuff up 2nd hand CD’s never really cut the mustard. Sure vinyl has its failings, but they are a natural fit with our hearing capabilities. Working in the industry pretty much spoilt me on this topic. I still enjoy the Linn. Now, a serious industry would have catered to that market, and made a killing doing so. Digital can obviously do this, but no common format today comes close. MP3 and suchlike are fine for phones and cars, but at home, I want something better… a lot better. But the industry isn’t listening.

        • SoundnuoS

          The industry tried. There was DVD-A and Super CD. Still is for some things.

          The public didn’t want it, convenience and portability won.

        • MadAsASnake

          Uh Uh. DVD-A and S-CD had a string of problems:
          - they were hobbled by DRM (DRM tends to intefere with data flow, no purist will touch it), not to mention the hacks they put in digital outputs that prevented reasonable use with external DACs.

          - There were few players released (and finding audiophile quality ones [the obvious target market!] is nigh on impossible)
          - … but by far the biggest problem was available media. There wasn’t any. Almost all those released (and that was a tiny number) were simply resampled CD quality stuff – no significant improvement on CD in other words. Take it from me, the only music you could get to play on these at any where near the format capability was the sound room samples. Even the most ardent early adopters found no reason to buy these when a Linn or top-end CD player sounded better.

          Contrast this with CD – CD came out and producers couldn’t get their back catalogs out on the new format fast enough.

          So, no, the industry hobbled these and let them die out of neglect. Interestingly, they made a lot of the same mistakes with Blu-Ray.

        • SoundnuoS

          If mainstream customers had shown an interest like they did with cds this wouldn’t have happened. Instead everyone flocked to mp3s and the hype around that.

          We get what we pay for.

        • MadAsASnake

          Why? Because digital files are so much more convenient than plastic discs. The appearance of MP3 was a huge opportunity for the music business to make a fundamental shift, and offer a set of standard formats for a variety of tastes. Did they do that? Nope. They declared war on file-based formats and insisted the world wanted plastic discs. Well, the world didn’t. The formats we have now have all emerged from enthusiasts, fans, whatever. Morons like RIAA fought these tooth and nail. Why?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Mainstream customers certainly will not “flock” to any media which contains noticeable restrictions if there are alternatives.

          “Instead everyone flocked to mp3s and the hype around that.”

          I shouldn’t be surprised to see a copyright fundamentalist miss the crucial point here…

          People didn’t “flock”, SoundnuoS. Out of the available alternatives, mp3 was the alternative which everyone could use conveniently.

          And when most free players emerged with the ability to convert audio into mp3, the format became a standard overnight.
          Meanwhile every other standard pushed for or approved by the copyright industry was hard to use, restricted, and a resource hog. No one creating media players really wanted to touch those formats with ten-foot poles and so they didn’t.

          And from your statement I must conclude that you still haven’t learned that lesson.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          The industry tried.

          To do their damndest to choke the technology. Now if you manage to cripple one set of technology to the point where the competition will win out, the competition will win out.

          The clearest example of this being napster. Had the industry chosen to embrace it, it’s dubious whether music filesharing would ever have become a staple.

          Today Spotify is trying to beat itself against a by-now far more elegant, easy and convenient approach.

        • SoundnuoS

          32 bit is really pointless when it comes to perceivable increase of quality. Due to the noise floor in recording rooms and recording equipment 24 bits are more than enough to accurately capture everything audible.

        • MadAsASnake

          Your are completely ignorant on technical matters. This statement is so wrong I don’t know where to start.

        • SoundnuoS

          Enlighten me. A 24 bit converter chip is capable of 120-122 dB dynamic range. The rest of the circuitry around the chip tends to have a selfnoise higher than that. The converters used in recording studios max out at 118-119 db dynamic range. That’s the usable range of what gets recorded.

          Even the most dynamic of music tends to stay within a max 80 dB range. That means a 24 bit converter is more than capable of recording everything that happens.
          If you’re concerned about recording atomic explosions
          with full dynamic range then 24 bit might not be enough, but for music it is.

          Likewise, Hifi systems have a lower dynamic range than 120dB.
          There’s nothing but increased filesize to be gained from delivering the end product in 32 bit.

        • MadAsASnake

          Dolby increases dynamic range, but murders the music.
          There is a lot more to it than dynamic range. We also need a good frequency response and the correct waveform shape, and this needs to go well up into the transients. Analog systems (like vinyl) handle this well, because the reduced responses tend to be failings that closely match the limits of our hearing. Digital artifacts are much more abrupt and immediately damaging. Find an original release of the first Genesis album and play it – you’ll have a screaming headache by the end. You won’t be able to pinpoint why. The Vinyl, of course, will produce a crisp soundstage that you can’t get off a CD. Now, to get that soundstage, you need compression free, drm free media so you can optimize data flow and you need bit rates between 5 and 10 times that of CD. Dynamic range was never a failing of CD – it’s about the only thing it got right.

        • SoundnuoS

          And bit rate is solely a question of dynamic range. Digital distortion appears suddenly when the dynamic range is exceeded. The 80dB dynamic range of music can be easily contained within the 120 dB range of 24 bit, leaving plenty of headroom for transients to avoid distortion.
          Frequency response is a question of sample rates. Human hearing maxes out around 22kHz so the benefit of higher sample rates is mostly that they allow the usage of gentler filter curves.

        • MadAsASnake

          And here you have it so wrong it’s laughable. Human hearing does not max out at 22k (I’ve been tested and shown a response at 24k + on primaries). The transients have real effects way above that. The wave form matters. All DAC’s interpolate the wave form – analog methods don’t. A CD lacks precision that is detectable by real people, because the DAC interpolates. There is argument about this, but I beleive this precision is precisely the area where soundstaging comes out… clearly something you have never experienced. If you don’t beleive me, find someone to play a 20k square wave at you for an hour, then a sine wave at the same frequency and pressure level and tell me you can’t tell the difference. One of those WILL give you a stinking headache – even if you can’t hear it.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Human hearing maxes out around 22kHz…”

          Bit of a misnomer, actually. sound waves somewhere just above 20 kHz and below 15 Hz simply become inaudible.

          Both infra and ultrasound can, however, be perceived by the physical effects caused as a response by them. Infrasound, for instance, has been known to generate migraine and optical illusions at certain frequencies, and as MadAsASnake tells it, ultrasound can and does frequently induce persistent headaches and a feeling of annoyance/anxiety in a similar way.

          Because sound waves are kinetic energy, absorbed by the human body. That has effects, even if the vibrations are too minute to directly trigger the neurons into firing.

          There’s a very fascinating body of knowledge written on the ability of inaudible sound to induce mood changes.

        • MadAsASnake

          20k square wave at reasonable SPL will give you a stonking headache in about 5 minutes. I use to go for frequent tests (medical issue) and the hospital device went well over 30k primaries, and output something close to square waves if they wanted (and they did…). Every test day I’d have ringing ears and substantial disorientation. Another thing I learned, is that our bones are far better sound conductors than our ears… I’ve heard tones through my fingers I can’t hear through my ears, and had 7 years of hearing sounds that don’t exist (tinnitus) @ around 20k. The other thing I found interesting was that while I could not actually hear the higher frequencies, I could actually tell what they were doing. A lot was just barely perceptible – bit of a phantom. Anyway, the doctors were always very helpful explaining what was going on and why. The point where things become inaudible is vague and where they become imperceptible is much more subtle. Audiophiles know this… it’s clearly lost on SoundnouS

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Audiphiles, biologists, historians and people trained in medicine would all know this.

          As would anyone who bothered to read up for five minutes.

          Beethoven composed most of his work while he was stone deaf and no doubt made great use of the fact that the conductivity of his bones allowed him a tactile feeling of the music.

          And this is of course one major difference between much recorded music and a live performance – in a room with good acoustics and a high-end sound system, even the tone deaf will feel the music through their body.

          And this is why most recorded music is “dead” to many audiophiles, and why many of them choose 7 speaker systems and lossless formats rather than a set of expensive headphones which on paper have the same specs.

        • SoundnuoS

          Beethoven at that point probably, after a life of composing, had a pretty good idea of what he wrote down was going to sound like.
          And everyone knows that recorded sound isn’t the same as live sound. The question is if recording at 96kHz will matter.
          Or are you trying to build an argument that everybody pirating music does it because recorded music is “dead” to them?
          There’s also the case to be made that we perceive as pleasing is a matter of conditioning.
          I stumbled on a thread (no link, sorry) where someone claimed that (some) kid’s today prefer the sound of mp3s. Sad, if true, because that would mean the quest for higher fidelity in the future is pretty much doomed.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Or are you trying to build an argument that everybody pirating music does it because recorded music is “dead” to them?”

          No, this particular argument is built around the fact that to some audiophiles, the standards foisted off on people by the “entertainment” industry is of extremely low-grade quality.

          “I stumbled on a thread (no link, sorry) where someone claimed that (some) kid’s today prefer the sound of mp3s. Sad, if true, because that
          would mean the quest for higher fidelity in the future is pretty much doomed.”

          I have no doubt. conditioning is indeed part and parcel of marketing as a psychological mechanism. Remind me sometime to lift the old adage of how many americans think high-grade swiss chocolates don’t taste “natural” – compared to what appears to be plastic paste with artificial flavoring pressed into a bar shape.

        • SoundnuoS

          Audiophiles sometimes also know that a 300$ powercable will cause a massive improvement in their Hifi system.

          As far as I know the jury is still very much out on the question if ultra high sample rates matter for the perception of music.

          There’s not very much acoustic power present in the harmonics above 20 kHz and we certainly have no instruments producing fundamentals even approaching that.

          It’s possible it might have an effect but I haven’t heard of any conclusive evidence.

          There’s also the question of how much of that ultrasonic information your average Hifi speaker can reproduce.

          Have you ever recorded the output of your speakers with a microphone capable of recording very high frequencies and analyzed the frequency range?

          That should give you an idea of whether ultrahigh frequencies can matter in your enjoyment of music.

          Geniune question. It’s probably been done, but I don’t know the results.

        • MadAsASnake

          Power cable won’t make a much of difference as long as it’s rated for sufficient current (there are dissenters on this), though current conditioners are certainly a good idea on the source and pre-amp. Speaker cables are another matter. The difference I heard when I went to 6mm Monster was mind-blowing.

          In regards to measuring this stuff, there is one really simple thing to do. Sit down with the recording, close your eyes and listen. Does the music form a precise 3 dimensional “image” (soundstage). If it does, win. I’ve only ever heard it of Vinyl and very expensive tape devices. Note – you only need two speakers for this, and a balanced room. CD, even at best creates a fuzzy one. In digital terms, it comes down to data density, which translates to roughly the area I said (I call it precision in analog). I beleive you need sampling rates in excess of 200k (which gives a frequncy of 100k). It is clear you’ve never heard this effect. I am unaware of any device, aside from our ears, that can measure it. Not everyone can hear it, apparently, though me with my damaged hearing get this clear as a bell – weird.

          No, my speakers won’t handle primaries much over 20k, but they sure as hell handle transients.

        • SoundnuoS

          The thing is vinyl has characteristics and distortions of it’s own, many of which we find pleasant. This is more likely to be the effect here, as increasing sample rates won’t actually improve the precision in digital recordings, it will just improve frequency range.

          In itself digital recording is just as exact as analog.

          In fact, it’s possible recording very high frequencies could make things worse:
          http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

        • Ardvaark

          Whaaaat? The high and mighty “more is better” guy who even suggested a high-end graphics card for sound recording computers is now changing to “X is enough”?

          I’m flabbergasted!
          But seriously now you’re actually wrong in cutting back.

          32bit won’t change much besides the buffer size in the software and the filesize of the end resulting file.

          However it increases your sound’s quality since the deferential between each quantum level is now lower, because you’re splitting the same spectrum in 2^32 levels now instead.

          It’s not that you’re capturing inaudible sounds now. It’s that the audible part loses less data when digitalized which makes it higher quality.

          The inaudible part is usually scrapped on the encoding process by most codecs. And that’s the only thing that can get perceived by some people in terms of quality.

          Since some people have better ears than others, sometimes the scraped data involves frequencies that some people can hear. And those people perceive the sound as lower quality when it doesn’t.
          That ultimately comes down to the sampling rate and bitrate.

          Logic’d

        • MadAsASnake

          Yes. It’s lost at the point of recording, it’s lost forever. This is the detail where
          you can pick out the violinists fingers out of an entire orchestra. Some of us expect to hear that sort of detail.

        • SoundnuoS

          More computing power is always useful. Increasing bit rates in recordings is pointless as the full dynamic range of music can be contained within 24 bit. You will not get “more detail” by recording at 32 bit instead of 24.
          Increasing samplerate will get you more detail, but if this will increase enjoyment of music is still debated.

        • Ardvaark

          C’mon mr artist, this should be second nature to you.

          If you record with more bits, the amount of data lost from analogue to digital is lower, hence the difference between the recorded sound and the actual sound is also lower because the difference between each quantum level is lower. This by itself makes the sound more realistic.

          Sample rate is related with the size of the spectrum availabe. That’s why mp3′s sample rate usually is 44.1 khz, because it’s thought (not 100% confirmed) that human hearing caps at 22k hz.

          The number of bits is much more related with detail than sample rate, which is more linked with quality!

          That’s incredibly intuitive and straightfoward, how you can fail at this with your current job still amazes me!

        • SoundnuoS

          Read up some on how digital audio works before posting.

          Technically I’m using the wrong term. Increasing bit rate, as in going from 128 kbps to 320 kbps will increase audio quality.

          Increasing bit depth as in going from 24 bit to 32 bit will not.

          Bit depth in digital audio is related to dynamic range. 24 bit recording places the noise floor around -120 dB (real world performance, -144 dB theoretical).

          The human threshold of pain lies at 120 dB. This means 24 bit recording can cover everything from absolute silence to pain.

          32 bits can be useful at the mixing stage for doing large gain changes without degradation, which is why the mixers in a lot of DAWs operate at 32 bit (or even 64).

          The average music material and the average recording chain does not have a dynamic range of 120 dBs however, so 24 bits is more than enough to record anything musical.

          The average Hifi system doesn’t have a dynamic range of 120 dBs, so for delivery to the end user 24 bits is more than enough.

          Some more info:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

        • Ardvaark

          Read up some on how digital audio works before posting.

          I know how digital audio works. I’ve coded apps using the protocols and specifications.

          Technically I’m using the wrong term. Increasing bit rate, as in going from 128 kbps to 320 kbps will increase audio quality.

          Funny, I didn’t even mention bitrate because that’s the obvious major influence in quality but thanks for stating the obvious.

          Increasing bit depth as in going from 24 bit to 32 bit will not.

          Wrong. Bit depth will increase the sound’s quality at a different level. Like MAAS and I said it’ll increase the sound’s detail. I’ve actually gone further and explained to you the actual logic on how this happens.

          You can also cut the technical part. I know exactly how it works like I’ve said. However, there’s a difference where you place the bottleneck in the system. There’s claims that recording with 32b and then throttling to 24b will have a lightly different result than straight to 24b.

        • SoundnuoS

          There is no way of recording with true 32 bit. The limitations of physical circuitry are pretty much hit with 24 bit.

          You can record 32 bit files for ease of processing in the DAW, but that is not the same as actually capturing 32 bits of information. Currently you’re able to capture about 20-21 bits of information, the rest is noise.

          Or are you one of those people who convert and upsample their mp3s and claim they sound better that way?

        • Ardvaark

          The limitations of physical circuitry are pretty much hit with 24 bit.

          Are you insane?

          The signal is analog until it’s processed by software! The limitation is on the output not in the input.

          You can record 32 bit files for ease of processing in the DAW, but that is not the same as actually capturing 32 bits of information. Currently you’re able to capture about 20-21 bits of information, the rest is noise.

          Absolutely wrong. The whole spectrum, even the technically inaudible parts still add quality to the music. MadAsASnake actually described it flawlessly.

          I’m happy with my 320 mp3′s however, just correcting you on the technical part of things.

        • SoundnuoS

          No, this is where your understanding of how digital audio works is wrong.

          Here’s a link that explains it quite well:
          http://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/

          Two quotes:

          In a properly implemented digital system, increasing the bit-depth doesn’t improve “resolution”, it just reduces noise.

          and

          In a properly implemented digital system, increasing the sampling frequency above the limits of our hearing doesn’t improve “resolution”, it just increases bandwidth.

          /end quotes

          With current 24 bit recording the noise floor is lower than the noise caused by the other components in the recording chain.

          In other words, this is wrong:

          “The signal is analog until it’s processed by software! The limitation is on the output not in the input.”
          The audio signal gets digitized by the A/D converter. The noise created by the converter itself is higher than the theoretical noisefloor of 24 bit. Not to mention the noise added by the other components in the recording chain.
          Currently the limits ARE on the input. We don’t (as far as I know) have components that are quiet enough to even use the limits of 24 bit recording.

        • chris

          There you go again with your blind ignorance. They are not available where I live, matey! None of them. It obviously surprises you and the likes of Bobmail that most of the people in the world do not live in the USA or Europe. Wake up to the real world, please.

        • SoundnuoS
        • MadAsASnake

          So when I want something specific, I can get it at these places? unlikely.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          It doesn’t work if the customer decides to not pay and then gets it for free anyway.

          Once again arguing against the existence of bottled water?

          Actual market studies are still very much in favor of “piracy” not being a factor up until the point where it turns into bootlegging – at which point the impact becomes telling.

        • MadAsASnake

          iTunes makes a good profit – it shouldn’t under SoundnouS’s theory… the other obvious point is that if [xxx] tech is killing music / movies, why have they failed so demonstrably to die?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          A more telling question is why the music industry has failed to die for the last 100 years despite SoundnuoS spiritual predecessors all claiming exactly the same as SoundnuoS is claiming today.

          That argument has been proven wrong in fact so many times it isn’t even funny by now.

        • SoundnuoS

          And this is the first time the music industry has experienced a 50-60% drop despite their products still being very much in demand.

          This is the first time in history that home copying gets you something that’s functionally and quality-wise 100% the same as the legit offering.

          It’s the first time home copiers effortlessly distribute copies globally to anyone interested.
          The music industry will probably survive, one way or another, but when things go down for the industry as a whole they also tend to go down for the musicians in it.

        • MadAsASnake

          No idea where yu get the 50-60% figure from, but isn’t technology wonderful. The power to distribute works so freely, as envisaged in the US constitution, is fabulous.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “And this is the first time the music industry has experienced a 50-60%
          drop despite their products still being very much in demand.”

          Ten artists where there used to be one. Thirty or forty online MMORPG’s with subscription models competing for the media budget. New games issued every year, new expensive consoles and PC’s replacing old ones.

          No, seriously, SoundnuoS. When your product competes with 50 other equal competitors in that most irreplaceable of human resources – time in which to enjoy the product – then that in itself means your product must be aggressively marketed in a way to gain ascendancy over the other ones.

          And that usually means pressing price to the point where the consumer wondering whether he wants to maintain his subscription service for his games or replace a component in his PC…and whether he has money left over to buy the latest album.

          One way or another technology renders your idea of information control impossible, and will for the foreseeable future. That being the case, learn the market rules.

          And that brings us back to the brand-and-bottled-water debate.

        • SoundnuoS

          Ten artists where there used to be one is not a reason for revenue for the industry as a whole to drop.
          Aardwark has just been arguing in several threads that demand for music is up, not down, despite all this competing entertainment, and I agree. Why is revenue falling?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          See the other half of my argument. The amount of competition facing a little snippet of music is staggering.

          Go visit a games convention if you don’t believe me. then check on how much “average” time is spent per day on gaming by a fairly large segment of the online community.

        • SoundnuoS

          What actual market studies?

          I made this reply earlier about bottled water, but apparently it was to late to catch you before your weekend break, so here it is:

          The problem with the bottled water example is that only Evian has the right to sell Evian water. Tap water and soda streamers are not Evian water. It’s all H2O, but it’s not all Evian H2O.

          In other words, tap water isn’t a 100% substitute for Evian water and Evian are the only ones with the legal right to provide that specific water.

          Filesharing otoh removes that same possibility from (for instance) Tom Waits. The music being shared is Tom Waits’ music. It is a substitute for the same music Tom Waits is trying to sell.

          With filesharing Tom Waits is no longer the only person who can decide how his music should be distributed and for what price. To return to the bottled water analogy, everyone is now giving away 100% Evian water.

        • Ardvaark

          So I’ll now use your own argument against you.

          The problem with the bottled water example is that only Evian has the right to sell Evian water. Tap water and soda streamers are not Evian water. It’s all H2O, but it’s not all Evian H2O.

          Well but tap water tastes, smells, feels and has the same minerals as Evian water! Why should people pay for Evian water when there’s an exact same “copy” of H2O for free called Tap Water?

          Remember both are exactly the same molecules! H2O (you can’t patent molecules by the way don’t… oh wait…).

          Tap water removes the possibility for Evans to sell their precious water! Those filthy Tap Water companies!

        • SoundnuoS

          No, your missing the point. Evian has every possibility to sell their water, because no one else can sell Evian water. The H20 you get from the tap is not Evian H20. Evian H20 only comes in Evian bottles. It doesn’t exist in the tap.
          They are not substitutes.

          In the case of music files what’s being shared and what’s being sold are substitutes. Tom Wait’s music on p2p networks is the same as Tom Waits music on iTunes.
          There’s no way to differentiate them like there is for Evian water. The sound is a major part of the brand.

        • Ardvaark

          The H20 you get from the tap is not Evian H20.

          Ahahahahah this is hilarious!

          Look, h2o is h2o! You can call it super H2O, Evian H2O, but when you look at it, it’s all the same 3 atoms. Same taste, same minerals, same everything. They’re very much the same, a copy if you will and very clear substitutes!

          You can’t differentiate a p2p copy from an amazon mp3 copy even if you looked at the songs byte by byte. Just like you can’t differentiate water from water.

          Also a nice techy fix. All p2p songs are different from their copies on iTunes, because of the way iTunes is made.

        • SoundnuoS

          They aren’t however substitutes in people’s minds, a point which I thought was so obvious that I wouldn’t have to spell it out. The person buying bottled water in a country where the tap water is perfectly drinkable does this because they feel the bottled water offers them something the tap water doesn’t.

          This isn’t the case with music files. Every copy is as good as another. There’s no way of having that little brand create an illusion of difference.

          That’s why giving bottled water as an example of how it’s possible to sell things that are free is fairly useless.

        • Ardvaark

          At this point you’re arguing against yourself I don’t know If you realise that. But that’s an excellent thing!
          The moment I became a “Water copyright troll” you became a “Pro water piracy guy”.

          They aren’t however substitutes in people’s minds,

          In a similar analysis, why do you think piracy is a substitute for legitimate works then? Maybe you’re right and they aren’t entirely!

          For example I buy bottled water sometimes, but I also reuse a bottled water with tap-water before I go to work. Similar to how I pirate most songs but buy those special ones I really really like (as an album, bringing along the not-so-good songs because I like the box)

          This isn’t the case with music files.

          C’mon you’re being purposely blind! Go to your previous paragraph and replace Evans with iTunes and tap water with piracy and you’ll have written a valid pirate statement!

          Water is water regardless of being bottled. It’s the same and one replaces the other. Pretty much like a copied music replaces an original song since they’re exactly the same. The difference is the legal service doesn’t know how to create value. Other services do.
          Steam managed to do this for games. Netflix somewhat attempted to do the same to series. It’s very possible to do the same with songs. Someone might be coding a solution at the moment actually!

        • SoundnuoS

          “Water is water regardless of being bottled. It’s the same and one replaces the other.”

          No it doesn’t. The bottled water has brand protection and maintains an illusion of being different. If this is true or not doesn’t matter, it works.

          If the same thing could be made to work for pirated files vs legit files, then piracy might not be the issue it is.
          Currently this doesn’t some to be the case however. A file is a file. The shared version seems to be a substitute for the legit version.

          “Steam managed to do this for games. Netflix somewhat attempted to do the same to series. It’s very possible to do the same with songs. Someone might be coding a solution at the moment actually!”
          Point is, it has been done. All over the world. I’ve presented some of the solutions in this very thread, but there’s always an excuse for not using it.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Point is, it has been done. All over the world. I’ve presented some of
          the solutions in this very thread, but there’s always an excuse for not
          using it.”

          A lot of pirates do use those methods. That doesn’t mean they’ll refrain from sharing culture with one another after they’ve spent their budget.

          Sharing information – what is interesting – is a fundamental part of human nature. You will never reach those 20% of the online community still sharing because to them, it’s a normal part of life.

          You might as well be a communist commissar screaming about how marxism would work if only those one in ten deviates would just quit it with ambition and greed. With approximately the same result.

          And this gets pretty obvious when you look at copyright history and see that copyright has never survived contact with any part of history where technology offered a convenient way to violate it.

          Same way communism effectively died as soon as the restrictions of speech and exterior contact was lifted in the Sovjet union.

        • Ardvaark

          The bottled water has brand protection

          Oh my god I’m a criminal! I’ve reused my bottled water with tap water! And then I lent it!

          Seriously. Water is water. It’s hilarious how you can so frivolously apply piracy concepts to water and ignore them to piracy when it’s interchangeable. You gave the perfect argument against yourself and now it’s too tough to admit it.

          If this is true or not doesn’t matter, it works.

          So it does to piracy.

          If you create that illusion. In fact if you create value above piracy (which is easy) you’d see how harmless piracy is.

          Currently this doesn’t some to be the case however.

          Because you aren’t trying to create value above piracy! You’re trying to fight it legally by limiting the act of sharing, something engraved in the human nature.

          A file is a file.
          The shared version seems to be a substitute for the legit version.

          Water is water. The tap version seems to be a substitute for the bottled version.

          Point is, it has been done. All over the world. I’ve presented some of
          the solutions in this very thread, but there’s always an excuse for not
          using it.

          Thats where you have to create value and also accept the fact that no matter what you do, some people won’t see value in your product and find alternatives. Those are called non-sales, because you wouldn’t win them anyways. They don’t even account for any kind of loss!

          Logic & Economics 101 by Ardvaark, Thank you! ;)

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          You did well up until the point where you stated…

          This isn’t the case with music files. Every copy is as good as another. There’s no way of having that little brand create an illusion of difference.

          There certainly is.

          What that tells me, SoundnuoS, is that you need to give up your career as an artist because, irrespective of copyright, you are completely clueless as to how the minds of your presumptive clients work.

          The most avid pirates i know and knew of had their modems on with download lists as long as you arm and their modem literally overheating from 24/7 use on a 10 Mbit connection.

          And yet they were always short on cash because every square inch of wall in their rooms were covered with shelves where bought media had been lovingly assembled by category, producer, and sequence.

          Music fans are no different than bottled water afficionados. Indeed, the average music afficionado is quite a lot easier to snare than the average consumer of bottled water. And indeed, that’s exactly what one study after another has been proving.

          In the end what you are arguing against is the business model of, for instance, steam – whose main target audience today can arguably be said to be pirates. Their DRM was cracked long ago but since they provide a service and convenience, they compete VERY WELL INDEED in a paradigm where any game is “free” anyway.

          SoundnuoS, at this point you aren’t just toting the “religious” argument. You’ve gone into history revisionism.

          And when you do that, people stop taking you seriously.

        • SoundnuoS

          The problem is that you’re describing someone who collects physical media. There a file isn’t a substitute.
          The trend is towards non physical media however. The collectors of the future are more likely to lovingly fill their harddisks. There any file is as good as another, or so it would seem atm.
          Games have the added advantage of generally having some kind of DRM that needs to be cracked. Downloading a cracked game always carries with it a certain element of paranoia as to what the cracker might have decided to add to the crack.
          No such worries with mp3s.

        • MadAsASnake

          One digital file is not as good as another. As I have already stated, and “good enough” ie better than my Linn, is virtually non-existent.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          The problem is that you’re describing someone who collects physical media. There a file isn’t a substitute.

          No, I am describing the quintessential pirate. Although you may find people filling their harddrives with anything they can download while carrying spartan shelves, you will similarly find that those people, by extension, never bought media in the first place, don’t bother to look up new bands or new music, and normally don’t spend a single cent on media. They never have.

          In pirate circles this is usually called a “dedicated leech”. They don’t bother enough to post on forums, they generally don’t take an interest in politics, and they will never be customers of the copyright industry, even if you cut their connection tomorrow.

          The collectors of the future are more likely to lovingly fill their harddisks. There any file is as good as another, or so it would seem atm.

          Like I said, you need to get out of music as a job. You don’t know your customers at all. And I find it unbelievable that you can say that with, I presume, a straight face, right after the debate you had with MadAsASnake and Aardvark about the importance of sound and quality.

          If the collectors of the future are likely to fill their harddrives, then what you do is to ensure those files come with physical promotional material. Build a trend towards holograms, posters, and other merchandize.

          Anything to simply build the awareness of belonging which fans so crave. Aside from proudly displaying logotypes and plastering their domiciles with promotional material and shelved hardcopies, it has never been hard to get collectors to spend money. That’s basic marketing.

          Even if everything you said – from A to X, in this thread was true, it’s all irrelevant as far as determining how to get people to spend money is concerned. Because identical or not, what matters is the customer perception of what “Brand” is.
          And so far that falls squarely on the artist.

          http://www.smh.com.au/money/planning/the-psychology-of-spending-20120818-24fet.html

        • MadAsASnake

          Thanks Scary… I care not just about the technical quality of the product (and more than most… it’s frightening that CD is now considered a gold standard), but also the artistic quality. I’m not interested in a room full of bland pap whether it’s on CD, HDD or any other medium. I have paid a lot over the years on both equipment and media – more than most. I’m an enthusiast – and a knowledgeable one. What hurts most is not accusations of thief from the likes of SoundnouS, but the fact that right now, at the point that we have a really free flow of this stuff, there should be a massive and growing library of stuff flowing into the public domain. This is an industry that wants, and tries incredibly hard to stop that. This is a really important piece of copyright that the maximalists are really scared of. It was the WHOLE POINT of copyright in the US constitution. You get a few years privilege, then it reverts to public domain. And more to their shame, they try to do this by trampling any other of my rights inconvenient enough to get in their way. I fight back. I take what is RIGHTFULLY mine. I am not a thief.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          This is a really important piece of copyright that the maximalists are really scared of. It was the WHOLE POINT of copyright in the US constitution. You get a few years privilege, then it reverts to public domain. And more to their shame, they try to do this by trampling any other of my rights inconvenient enough to get in their way. I fight
          back. I take what is RIGHTFULLY mine. I am not a thief.

          Correct. And because the industry spends their lives fighting tooth and claw against modern technology, one of the side effects is that it’s almost impossible to find recordings in the quality you crave which are “legal”.

          Hence when those works pass into public domain, the standard of the sound will be low. Making old vinyl recordings of ancient classics the standard go-to if you want vibrant sound.

        • SoundnuoS

          And the question I made to MadAsASnake in the last post goes to you as well.

        • SoundnuoS

          Well, according to your statements you shouldn’t be a part of the problem. None of what you want is available through filesharing in the quality you want.

          I take it you look for options here if you ever choose to get something digital:
          http://www.sa-cd.net/

          Why should it revert to the public domain after a few years of privilege instead of after the life of the artist?
          The public didn’t create it. There’s no right to be had there.

        • MadAsASnake

          I don’t think there is a problem in the first place.. but lets look at this a little deeper… I consider myself an Audiophile. I really do care about the technical qualities of media reproduction, but there is far more to it than that. I see three separate quality channels here

          1. the qualities of the source material

          2. the qualities of the musicianship

          3. the qualities of the recording and reproduction.

          For me to be interested in something actually needs there to be some value in 1 and 2 at least. Without that, technical quality is irrelevant. The best technical quality I have ever heard has been on room demo recordings. Fabulous for showing off the 3rd, but of little interest for the first two. MP3 is quite sufficient for the first and can give a good idea of the second. So I might actually listen to MP3′s… A lot of material is not and never will be available on vinyl. If I was to limit myself to formats of audiophile quality, I would miss a lot of music.

          As to public domain, I’ll tell you what. I’ll agree to lifetime copyright on material that incorporates no existing material, and makes no reference to current culture at all. In other words *totally* original. It’s a nonsense. Anything truly and entirely original will fall into one of two classes; Genius and Irrelevant. Mostly the latter. As to 5 generations copyright (thats what life + 70 years is)? That’s just nuts.

          What is the purpose of copyright (from a social perspective)? If you look at the US founding documents, it’s to encourage (maximise) the production and distribution of creative works to the population as a whole. You are right – the creators need some protection (actually not much) to acheive this and thus are given a mandated monopoly for a limited time. After that, it falls to the public domain. Note, that this material is already in the public domain – it is just the priviledge that ends. If you really want absolute control over information, don’t put it in the public domain at all. Copyright does not apply in these cases, nor should it. Business already knows this. Coke’s recipe is still secret. It’s value is not in it being known. In the business I work in, a lot of intellectual property is like this. It doesn’t matter how I do things that I can sell, but it matters that I protect that technique of creating them. Copyright is not there as a special law for a small group of businesses, it is part of the balance of laws for society as a whole and I have every right and intention of exerting my legitimate rights against those laws.

          The Internet is a fabulous enabler of the distribution of public domain material. TPB and others actually serve this part of copyright correctly (and therefore are a legitimate part of the copyright bargain). Now, faced with this situation, creators actually have to come up with some new, reasonably original stuff rather than regurgitatingthe same old stuff – we can, and do get that from the public domain.

        • SoundnuoS

          “we can, and do get that from the public domain.”

          No you don’t, and this is clearly shown by how little actual public domain stuff is being shared.

          The majority of filesharing distributes the latest material.

          This is clear evidence that that desire is not satisfied by the public domain.

          When the kids want Justin Beiber, that’s what they want. It’s clearly not the same as getting the Monkees. And the Monkees in turn weren’t even at the time the same as getting the Beatles.
          And if someone does happen to want the Beatles, why shouldn’t they be compensated today?

        • MadAsASnake

          Why should they? Patents expire – and whole new product lines come out – because they can. The copyright bargain is about incentivising the production and distribution of creative works, just like patents. The bargain is broken if one of those objectives is not met. The reason there is little openly in the public domain is that the copyright terms have been incessantly extended (a process that will no doubt be infinite) by corrupt entities to prevent distribution. This is wrong. Anything with a low return on distribution gets lost through accidents, degradation and so on. Several early Doctor Who episodes probably no longer exist, many old movie masters are literally crumbling away – a lot of them are probably already beyond rescue. This is the majority situation and quite literally serves no-ones interest. For the few exceptions (like Beatles) the best idea I have heard is for a chargeable renewal term. It needs to be chargeable to stop speculative extensions and the terms have to be intelligent. And when it’s up, it’s up. Just like patents. That is the copyright bargain. Now, MAFIAA cerated law lacks all integrity and legitimacy, and gets treated by me (and many others) with the contempt it deserves. BTW, nothing you can do today would compensate John Lennon. If you are not prepared for the protection of copyright, and a sensible expiry to that protection, don’t put it in the public domain.

        • SoundnuoS

          “The copyright bargain is about incentivising the production and distribution of creative works, just like patents. The bargain is broken if one of those objectives is not met.”

          Imo, these objectives are met. The profit motive is one of the major incentives for polishing the product to the last degree and distributing it globally.

          It’s also doubtful if p2p will work better as a preservation method instead of relying on the entities that have an actual commercial interest in the products.
          As far as I understand the majority of torrents are active for the newest stuff and older torrents tend to go dormant, leaving the material as unaccessible as ever, if it has even been preserved by anyone.

          Copyright also has implications beyond those of purely social utility. There’s the fairness aspect as well. If someone manages to produce something that is consistently popular over a long period of time it’s fair to compensate them for it.
          This. and not social utility is actually the basis for modern copyright, imo.

        • Ardvaark

          As far as I understand the majority of torrents are active for the newest stuff and older torrents tend to go dormant,

          The pirate world doesn’t end in the piratebay.
          Each community has its niche, I can easily find music from the 50′s to the 90′s as well as any recent hit.
          Same goes with games.
          Also, legalize file-sharing and you’ll see the the lifetime of torrents on TPB skyrocket.

          There’s the fairness aspect as well.

          There’s nothing fair about a monopoly.
          Copyright doesn’t give someone the right to be compensated from his creations. That already happens without copyright.

        • SoundnuoS

          What’s unfair? What have you done to deserve free access to Yesterday, for instance? Did you write it? Did you play it? Did you produce it? Did you finance it?

          There’s no way of removing copyright and making downloading legal, that doesn’t make payment optional for the individual customer. Getting access to something that isn’t freely given and against the will of the creator is hardly fair.

        • Ardvaark

          What’s unfair? What have you done to deserve free access to Yesterday,
          for instance? Did you write it? Did you play it? Did you produce it? Did
          you finance it?

          wooow by that logic, are you actually arguing against public domain?

          Knowlege and culture are public no matter how much you try to keep it to yourself.
          We’d probably still be wearing animal skin if it were as you said.

          There’s no way of removing copyright and making downloading legal, that doesn’t make payment optional for the individual customer.

          You’re absolutely right! Making downloading legal does indeed make payment optional. But guess what, payment already is optional. Copyright isn’t a right to profit!
          The idea is to adapt. Don’t be lazy and go with the times.
          Or be lazy, but that’s your problem.

          Getting access to something that isn’t freely given and against the will of the creator is hardly fair.

          The creator shouldn’t have any control over my property or my right to share. That’s limiting to my free speech.

        • SoundnuoS

          “wooow by that logic, are you actually arguing against public domain?”

          I’m arguing against the concept of an unlimited public domain that automatically gets immediate access to anything ever created.

          If you’re arguing for an unlimited public domain then you’ll actually have to accept the “all property is theft” argument.

          Why should you have any rights to the house you built on the land you own? Land is scarce, there’s not enough of it to go around. Hoarding it for yourself is taking it away from the public who need it just as much as you do.

          “The creator shouldn’t have any control over my property or my right to share. That’s limiting to my free speech.”

          No, you sharing copyrighted material is about you sharing someone else’s speech. The rights of the original creator to his speech is greater than your right to redistribute it.

          Two ECHR statements clarifying the contexts and limits of free speech vs copyrighted material already.

        • Ardvaark

          I’m arguing against the concept of an unlimited public domain that automatically gets immediate access to anything ever created.

          That’s a terrible thing to be against. You’re still the creator of your stuff, but to egotistically think like that shows the kind of person you are.

          Remember, Sharing is Caring

          If you’re arguing for an unlimited public domain then you’ll actually have to accept the “all property is theft” argument.

          WTF?

          What is this? I don’t even…
          Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

          Why should you have any rights to the house you built on the land you own?

          Because I purchased it and I own it?

          Are you confusing property rights with intellectual property? Guess which one is unnatural.

          Land is scarce,

          There are more empty houses in the world than homeless people.
          Trust me, the limiting factor in the world is not space.

          No, you sharing copyrighted material is about you sharing someone else’s speech

          The instant you say something, it’s public domain. That’s why they’re called public statements.

          If you forbade a journalist from showing an image/statement you said in public, that’d be censorship.

          Same goes with copyright, it’s censoring my free speech (the ECHR actually admitted this) and the use of my property that’s in my HDD which is also my property.

          The rights of the original creator to his speech

          You got it backwards. Piracy doesn’t limit your speech. You can still distribute and say whatever the fuck you want. You on the other hand, are limiting me on what I can say/share.

          Two ECHR statements clarifying the contexts and limits of free speech vs copyrighted material already.

          Indeed, saying that they limit free speech but they rather do it for the profit of others (unconstitutional).

        • SoundnuoS

          “You’re still the creator of your stuff, but to egotistically think like that shows the kind of person you are.”

          If you are the kind of person who never expects to be payed for their work, or get a return on their investment then that’s a valid criticism. Until then, not so much.

          “What is this? I don’t even…”

          Ok, I jumped a few steps there. Using the term public domain in the widest sense:

          1
          : land owned directly by the government
          2
          : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone.
          If we argue for un unlimited public domain then we’ll have to accept that most property becomes something the public has a right to. I.e. it’s being “taken” from the public.
          There’s no reason to restrict the concept of public domain to one particular category of property.
          “Because I purchased it and I own it?”
          So, you own it because you own it? Something about circular reasoning I believe.
          Why SHOULD you be able to own it if the songwriter can’t own the song? You didn’t create it.
          There’s nothing “natural” about any property right.
          “Indeed, saying that they limit free speech but they rather do it for the profit of others (unconstitutional).”
          No they do it for UN human rights article 27 clause 2, a basic human right.

        • Ardvaark

          If you are the kind of person who never expects to be paid for their work, or get a return on their investment then that’s a valid criticism. Until then, not so much.

          I’m the kind of person who expects to get paid according to the free market rules.
          All the services I provide are paid with no exception.
          Copyright affects me and my job as much as any other person and my only problem would be someone using my stuff for their profit without paying me back. That has never happened. So all is good.

          There’s no reason to restrict the concept of public domain to one particular category of property.

          I completely agree!
          Copyright is the only thing restricting private property and public domain!
          The only thing to be upheld is the separation from private physical property and public domain.

          So, you own it because you own it? Something about circular reasoning I believe.

          Can’t you read? I own it because I purchase it and I own the means where the purchased property is stored.

          Why SHOULD you be able to own it if the songwriter can’t own the song? You didn’t create it.

          Who said the songwriter doesn’t own the song? He does. He owns his copy (and I don’t oppose to this, except for the duration of it) and the exclusive right to make a gain off of it for some time.
          He most certainly doesn’t own my copy, or whatever I do with it, as long as I don’t make a cent.

          There’s nothing “natural” about any property right.

          There isn’t?
          But there’s a natural sense for copyright?
          Damn that’s some twisted logic. You got it so backwards.

          No they do it for UN human rights article 27 clause 2, a basic human right.

          I thought we were talking about the ECHR decision but ok…
          The UNHRC claims the right to share information as a basic human right.

          The 2nd part is in no way affected by piracy. Piracy doesn’t forbid you from profiting. You can profit all you want and you’re morally right to do so.
          If you don’t it’s not because of piracy but because of a bad business choice. Don’t use piracy as a scapegoat for your own shortcomings.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Can’t you read? I own it because I purchase it and I own the means where the purchased property is stored.”

          That is circular reasoning. Why SHOULD you be able to own it? Why shouldn’t land be considered public domain? Some of it is, why not make all of it public?

          What’s “natural” about owning it? You can’t even take it with you.

          “I thought we were talking about the ECHR decision but ok…
          The UNHRC claims the right to share information as a basic human right.

          The 2nd part is in no way affected by piracy. Piracy doesn’t forbid you from profiting. You can profit all you want and you’re morally right to do so.”
          When the author chooses to sell his work and someone bypasses paying him, then it’s encroaching on his material rights as defined in clause 2.

        • Ardvaark

          No, circular reasoning would be I own it because I own it.
          The logic goes, I purchased it therefore I own it. I own it therefore it’s private.

          What’s “natural” about owning it? You can’t even take it with you.

          Since when does property only apply to movable things?

          By that logic, do you own your own ideas? You can’t actually move them.

          The natural part about property rights is that a certain object is, limited in it’s existence and space, has a certain commercial value inferred to it.

          Pay that value you can own it and do whatever you want it said object, after all, it’s yours. Simple.

          The UNHRC claims the right to share information as a basic human right.

          But you were talking about the ECHR….

          When the author chooses to sell his work and someone bypasses paying him, then it’s encroaching on his material rights as defined in clause 2.

          By that same logic, lending, reselling and renting are also unconstitutional.
          They aren’t, however, just like with piracy.

          Because the clause says you have the right to profit from your creations and piracy doesn’t take that right away from you. You can, and in fact a lot of people do, profit despite of piracy. Your rights to profit are there despite of piracy.
          It’s very clear.

        • SoundnuoS

          “The logic goes, I purchased it therefore I own it. I own it therefore it’s private.”

          Why should it be the kind of property you can own. And as an added question, if you rent it, you’re paying for it. How come you don’t get to sell it on?

          “The natural part about property rights is that a certain object is, limited in it’s existence and space, has a certain commercial value inferred to it.”

          This doesn’t make it “natural”. And given those criteria the songwriter can clearly own his song. It’s a unique work of art and it has a certain commercial value inferred to it.

          “By that same logic, lending, reselling and renting are also unconstitutional.”
          Against UN article 27, clause 2 you mean. And strictly interpreted they are, but we make exceptions for those limited cases.
          The main reason we do this is because lending and reselling involves strictly one copy, the use of which the author has already been compensated for.
          Renting is slightly different. If someone rents it out they do need to pay an increased compensation to the author.

        • Ardvaark

          Why should it be the kind of property you can own?

          Why shouldn’t it? Are you advocating communism now?
          You’ve got some serious issues.

          And as an added question, if you rent it, you’re paying for it. How come you don’t get to sell it on?

          Have you gone completely retarded? Do you know what a rent is?

          A rent is a continuous payment (lower than the full price of ownership) throughout time to allow usage of 3rd party, private property, without shifting ownership.

          Rending already supposes private property.

          This doesn’t make it “natural”.

          It does, since it applies to tangible objects.

          Natural doesn’t mean it grows on trees you know? Thought I’d point that out since, you know, you don’t appear to be particularly intelligent.

          given those criteria the songwriter can clearly own his song. It’s a unique work of art and it has a certain commercial value inferred to it.

          And never have I said you don’t own your song. You just don’t own my, or anyone’s copy of your song. That’s pretty obvious.
          I’d rent you my server’s disk space however if you’re interested.

          Against UN article 27, clause 2 you mean.

          You’ll be amazed, when you finally discover what a synonym is.

          And strictly interpreted they are, but we make exceptions for those limited cases.

          The article doesn’t mention any exceptions. Why are you making them? Is suddenly double standards an OK thing to do?

          The main reason we do this is because lending and reselling involves strictly one copy, the use of which the author has already been compensated for.
          Renting is slightly different. If someone rents it out they do need to pay an increased compensation to the author.

          That’s ridiculous, a potential customer will use your product without without proper compensating you! That person could have bought your product!

          Or are you again advocating double standards where compensation for use has different applications? (none for lending, something for renting, and total for pirating). Or should it be called triple standards?

          In all those cases the author isn’t compensated, and no, renting doesn’t pay, in most cases, levies to the artist.

          And why should the amount of copies even be a factor in this. That’s ridiculous.

        • SoundnuoS

          So, we seem to agree that paying for something doesn’t have to mean you get full ownership of something with every right that’s associated with that ownership. Land happens to be a category of property that you can retain ownership of and still charge someone for the usage of.

          If so, what is the problem you’re having with another category of property that sells you a copy, but that copy doesn’t give you the right to redistribute?

          “It does, since it applies to tangible objects.”

          How does a property right become “natural” just because it applies to tangible objects?

          “In all those cases the author isn’t compensated, and no, renting doesn’t pay, in most cases, levies to the artist.”

          In all those cases the author has been compensated for the specific copy that is changing hands. And if you run a video rental shop, you haven’t payed normal retail price for the movies you’re renting.

          “And why should the amount of copies even be a factor in this. That’s ridiculous.”
          Because what the author sells is in the form of copies, that’s pretty obvious. If extra copies start being made, then the author is getting completely bypassed.

        • Ardvaark

          If so, what is the problem you’re having with another category of
          property that sells you a copy, but that copy doesn’t give you the right
          to redistribute?

          Wow that’s one huge leap.

          Lets see…

          Because one is renting and for songs I purchase the song? It’s a single transaction, and it’s mine right there. I don’t have to return it to you at a later time.

          How does a property right become “natural” just because it applies to tangible objects?

          Do you see any natural intangible objects?

          In all those cases the author has been compensated for the specific copy that is changing hands.

          Where do you think the riped albums I’ve shared come from?

          And if you run a video rental shop, you haven’t payed normal retail price for the movies you’re renting.

          Naive. You can bet the biggest part of the rental stores, when they were the only option, would just go to a retail store, purchase a couple of copies at retail price and bring them in as inventory.

          Because what the author sells is in the form of copies, that’s pretty obvious

          Thank you. You’ve hit the nail in the head. Any sale or service the creator provides should be compensated. Non-sales shouldn’t. That’s pretty obvious as well.

          If the creator is being bypassed he’s not making his product worthy of being bought.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Because one is renting and for songs I purchase the song? It’s a single transaction, and it’s mine right there. I don’t have to return it to you at a later time.”

          This still doesn’t explain why it’s unacceptable to define the rights concerning intellectual property in such a way that owning the original gives you the right to distribute copies while just owning a copy doesn’t give you that right.

          There’s clearly other forms of property that you can accept payment for and still retain the rights to them.

          In the US you can even separate mineral rights from the ownership of the land:
          http://geology.com/articles/mineral-rights.shtml

          Property rights are all about how you define them and why. Different categories of property get different rights, motivated by the very different nature of what we can call property. They are a social structure even if they pertain to tangible objects. There’s nothing “natural” about them.

          ” You can bet the biggest part of the rental stores, when they were the only option, would just go to a retail store, purchase a couple of copies at retail price and bring them in as inventory.”

          In which case they would be operating illegally.

          “If the creator is being bypassed he’s not making his product worthy of being bought.”
          With that logic every shopkeeper being shoplifted from just has himself to blame.

        • Ardvaark

          This still doesn’t explain why it’s unacceptable to define the rights
          concerning intellectual property in such a way that owning the original
          gives you the right to distribute copies while just owning a copy
          doesn’t give you that right.

          Because doing so restricts other people’s private property? That’s more than enough.

          There’s clearly other forms of property that you can accept payment for and still retain the rights to them.

          Other forms of property? There’s only public an private property. What other forms are there?

          You must be imagining things.

          In the US you can even separate mineral rights from the ownership of the land:

          Two wrongs don’t make a right. And we’re talking about the US, the same place where DMCA came from.

          But I’m fairly sure that if a piece of land I own had a well of oil in it it would belong to me.

          Different categories of property get different rights, motivated by the very different nature of what we can call property.

          This is true, but there’s no limitation of one’s property rights for the rights of non-owners of my property. That’s a standard.

          In which case they would be operating illegally.

          Making an economically sane decision: Illegal.

          Typical of you.

          With that logic every shopkeeper being shoplifted from just has himself to blame.

          No, because a shopkeeper being shoplifted is having his property removed from him.

          An artist doesn’t lose any property when I decide to copy my property and give it to someone else for free.

          The piracy=stealing argument has been disproven more than a decade ago when Naspter made piracy discussion something “mainstream”.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Because doing so restricts other people’s private property? That’s more than enough.”

          It’s definitely not enough. There’s loads of laws restricting what you can do with your private property.

          If you’re in Sweden there’s “allemansrätten”. That’s a restriction on the amount of control you can have over the land you own. You’re not allowed to stop people from walking over it or picking berries and mushrooms on it. Exceptions are made for the area close to your house, but other than that it’s free-for-all. That’s a restriction on the property right of the owner.

          If you own a car you’re not allowed to drive it as fast as it can go on the road. There’s also loads of restrictions as to how you can tune it and still be allowed on the road.

          If you own a gun you’re not allowed to shoot it just anywhere at anytime.

          If you own a crowbar, you’re not allowed to use it to break your neighbors door.

          That’s just a few of the many restrictions on private property based on the rights of non-owners of your property. THAT is actually fairly standard.

          “Other forms of property? There’s only public an private property. What other forms are there?”

          That’s dividing them into categories based on ownership. There’s at least three distinct categories of properties based on the nature of the property itself:
          land, tangible “moveable” property, and intellectual property
          Each of these have different laws governing them because they’re very different kinds of property.

          Even within these categories there’s different laws concerning various sub-categories, as we’ve just seen.

          “Making an economically sane decision: Illegal.

          Typical of you.”

          Illegally exploiting the work of others for economical gain: Acceptable.

          Typical of you.

          “An artist doesn’t lose any property when I decide to copy my property and give it to someone else for free.”
          He is however losing a sale if that someone would otherwise have bought the record. That’s what’s relevant here.
          The shopkeeper isn’t concerned about shoplifting because he’s bought the property and wants to keep it. In fact he want’s to be rid of the property, he’s looking to sell it.
          The reason he’s annoyed with shoplifting is because it makes him lose a sale and makes the investment he has in the property a loss.

        • Ardvaark

          If you’re in Sweden there’s “allemansrätten”. That’s a restriction on the amount of control you can have over the land you own. You’re not allowed to stop people from walking over it or picking berries and mushrooms on it.

          What is this? A law that allows people who don’t own my land, to “profit” from the thing that grows on it?
          Preposterous! They should pay levies to use my land!
          That’s the pro-copyright shill talking. Since you’re ok with that law are you by any chance changing sides?
          Or are you simply applying double standards again?

          That’s a restriction on the property right of the owner.

          It is? The owner can still do anything he wants with his land. He just can’t restrict other people’s right of going wherever the fuck they want.
          On a similar thing, you can still sell or do whatever you want with your song, and you can’t restrict whatever I want to do with my copy.

          If you own a car you’re not allowed to drive it as fast as it can go on the road. There’s also loads of restrictions as to how you can tune it and still be allowed on the road.

          Because that’s a hazard to society to the point where you can accidentally hurt and kill people
          Are you saying piracy now can cause physical damage and even death?

          If you own a gun you’re not allowed to shoot it just anywhere at any time.

          For security reasons so you don’t hurt other people.
          Are you for a second time saying that misuse of copied music files can physically hurt people?

          If you own a crowbar, you’re not allowed to use it to break your neighbours door.

          Because I’m invading another person’s property.
          Just because you created your song, should you be allowed to control what I do with my copy on my hard disk?

          That’s just a few of the many restrictions on private property based on the rights of non-owners of your property. THAT is actually fairly standard.

          Indeed there are justifiable restrictions and unjustifiable restrictions. I think it’s pretty clear which ones belong to where.

          There’s at least three distinct categories of properties based on the nature of the property itself:
          land, tangible “moveable” property, and intellectual property

          A house is also tangible property and it’s not moveable, and it’s not land either.
          Intellectual property is ok.
          Copyright isn’t.
          There’s a difference between the two. The first is a logical thing, the second is an unnatural extension and attempt of application of the first.
          Intellectual property is OK because it allows correct attribution of credit, ends plagiarism.

          Each of these have different laws governing them because they’re very different kinds of property.

          With some of the laws being terribly flawed and lobbied.

          Illegally exploiting the work of others for economical gain: Acceptable.

          Nobody in their right mind supports for-profit piracy.

          I’m just defending the right to share
          Typical of you to be terrible with comparisons and understanding trivial things.

          He is however losing a sale if that someone would otherwise have bought the record. That’s what’s relevant here.

          Most downloads don’t equate with a lost sale. Having lost a sale, however, just means your product wasn’t distributed correctly so that the free option seemed more accessible than the paid one.
          In this case, adapt to the market and find better ways to distribute your work in a profitable way.
          Piracy is a service problem, not an excuse.

          The shopkeeper isn’t concerned about shoplifting because he’s bought the property and wants to keep it. In fact he want’s to be rid of the property, he’s looking to sell it.
          The reason he’s annoyed with shoplifting is because it makes him lose a sale and makes the investment he has in the property a loss.

          He can’t sell the apple that was stolen because it’s no longer there.
          He could however sell it if it were still there. But that property was lost with the theft.
          That doesn’t happen with piracy.

          That point of yours has long been invalidated, no need to try to twist it 15 years later.
          Piracy is very different from theft.

        • SoundnuoS

          “It is? The owner can still do anything he wants with his land. He just can’t restrict other people’s right of going wherever the fuck they want.”

          That IS a restriction of the owner’s rights. If you have total rights to something that includes the right to restrict access to it.

          So, we can see that allemansrätten restricts some of the rights of the landowner and places them in the public domain.

          This as opposed to the rights you have to your wallet for instance where you have pretty much complete and exclusive rights to everything.

          This illustrates that various kinds of property have different rights.

          Intellectual property is comparable to allemansrätten in the way that some of the rights are placed in the public domain as soon as a work is published.

          You’re allowed to lend and resell a used copy. You can do a cover of a song if you want to, the songwriter can’t stop you.

          These are restrictions on the rights of the owner of the song.

          Intellectual property however has one of the greatest restrictions on property rights of the owner: the expiry into public domain.

          No other category of property has a similar restriction on ownership. If you build a house, people won’t be knocking on the door 70 years after you die telling your heirs to move out. The ownership of land you’ve bought won’t revert back to the public 70 years after you die.

          This is unique for intellectual property.

          So once again we see that different categories of property come with different rulesets.

          As the example with the crowbar shows, one of the reasons we restrict the absolute free use of property is to protect the property of others.

          The songwriter owns the SONG. You own a COPY of the song.
          You’re being restricted in your use of the copy in order to protect the rights of the owner of the song.

          “Piracy is very different from theft.”
          In the category of intellectual property infringment is as close to theft as it comes. They don’t have the same legal term because they don’t work exactly the same way, but they’re both being enforced for the same reason.
          If you shoplift something, the shopkeeper loses a sale and the money invested.
          If you globally distribute something on p2p networks the owner of the IP loses some sales and has a harder time recouping his investment.
          It doesn’t matter if it’s a 1=1 ratio or not. Sales are being displaced.

        • Ardvaark

          That IS a restriction of the owner’s rights. If you have total rights to something that includes the right to restrict access to it.

          Not really. The right to restrict other people’s rights is an obnoxious concept. Close to fascist.
          The total rights of my property means I can do whatever I want with my property, not that I can boss other people in it. That’s preposterous.

          This as opposed to the rights you have to your wallet for instance where you have pretty much complete and exclusive rights to everything.

          Even with that land law you can still do whatever you want with your land. It’s not restricted. Like with your wallet indeed.

          Intellectual property is comparable to allemansrätten in the way that some of the rights are placed in the public domain as soon as a work is published.

          Wow indeed! Spot on!
          With this I TOTALLY agree with you!
          Whenever you publish something, that something should be public the instant it hits the internet. And everyone should be free to do whatever they want with their copies of it as long as they don’t profit from it.
          That’s basically creative-commons.

          Intellectual property however has one of the greatest restrictions on property rights of the owner: the expiry into public domain.

          Are you fucking kidding me?
          That’s not a restriction.
          Not being public domain restricts others from profiting from your work.
          Once it hits the public domain there are no restrictions. You can profit from your work before and after it reaches public domain.
          The restriction is on the others, not on the owner.

          No other category of property has a similar restriction on ownership.

          Indeed no other property restricts the use of 3rd party’s property, like copyright does in restricting what people can do with their copies (aka their property!).

          If you build a house, people won’t be knocking on the door 70 years after you die telling your heirs to move out. The ownership of land you’ve bought won’t revert back to the public 70 years after you die.

          OMG.
          You’ve hit a level of retardation like I’ve never seen before.
          Do you think people will come knocking on Walt Disney’s heir’s home saying that they can’t profit off of mickey mouse any more because it’s now public domain????
          Ofcourse not!
          Retard. The restriction is on the other people, not the owner.

          As the example with the crowbar shows, one of the reasons we restrict the absolute free use of property is to protect the property of others.

          Indeed.

          The songwriter owns the SONG. You own a COPY of the song.

          No, you own a copy of the song as well as the right to profit from it. You don’t own the song because the song is intangible and you can’t own intangible things.

          I’ll give you a very simple example with coding.
          Imagine I have an idea on how to code a program that decrypts some Hash. (something, so far, impossible under right circumstances but who knows, someone might be smart and find a way to do it)

          I don’t own any rights on the idea of how to solve this problem but, when I finish coding the program, I own the rights to profit off of that program.
          The only thing I have rights on is the source code of it. Period. If you were to, somehow, modify my source code you’d be infringing on my property.
          When it comes to the binaries that you run on your computer, things are different. Those binaries are in your machine and are, therefore, your property.

          That’s exactly the same thing with music. You don’t own the song itself besides the score and any copies you have. The other copies belong to other people. You retain the right to profit off of it however, but that’s a restriction on other people’s rights not on yours like I’ve shown above.

          In the category of intellectual property infringment is as close to theft as it comes.

          Still, “as close as it gets” has an giant abyss between them.
          Theft implies a loss of property, piracy doesn’t.
          Theft implies damages, piracy doesn’t.

          If you shoplift something, the shopkeeper loses a sale and the money invested.
          If you globally distribute something on p2p networks the owner of the IP loses some sales and has a harder time recouping his investment.
          It doesn’t matter if it’s a 1=1 ratio or not. Sales are being displaced.

          Except that shoplifting involves loss of money and piracy at the very least involves non-gain of money. There’s a difference.
          Besides, piracy is mostly a service problem. Were you able to add value to your product beyond the same of a pirate copy and that lost sale wouldn’t have happened and the non-sales would most likely be converted into sales.
          Steam, once again, is a perfect example of this.
          It’s the free market in the works, go with it, not against it.

        • SoundnuoS

          “The total rights of my property means I can do whatever I want with my property, not that I can boss other people in it. That’s preposterous.”

          No, having the option to restrict the access of others is pretty much what defines private property.
          It doesn’t matter if you can do whatever you want with it. If everyone else can also do whatever they want with it, then you don’t really own it. Then it’s public property.
          For you to be the only owner of your car, you need to have the right to restrict the access of others to it. That’s a fundamental aspect of property rights.

          “Indeed no other property restricts the use of 3rd party’s property”

          Your neighbor’s ownership of his door restricts your free use of your crowbar. We already saw that.

          “Do you think people will come knocking on Walt Disney’s heir’s home saying that they can’t profit off of mickey mouse any more because it’s now public domain????”

          Nobody needs to knock on their door. Current law says that once it’s been 70 years since Walt Disney died the property will automatically revert to the public domain. They’ll lose ownership of it. That’s a clear restriction on the rights of the owner justified only by the importance we place on the public domain.

          “No, you own a copy of the song as well as the right to profit from it. You don’t own the song because the song is intangible and you can’t own intangible things.”

          No, we can own intangible things because current law allows us to, just like current law allows us to own land. The only way to have a property RIGHT is through protection by law. It’s a right given and defined by society.
          Without that protection the only property you could claim is that which you could defend by force.

          The songwriter owns the original song, which has certain rights attached to it. You own the copy, which has less rights attached to it.

          “The only thing I have rights on is the source code of it.”

          Exactly, you can’t own the idea, but you can own the specific implementations of that idea.

          When you code something you create and get ownership of the original. That gives you certain rights, among them copyright.

          If someone copies your code, they now have a copy of something you originally created. Owning that copy gives them certain other rights, but copyright is not one of them. That right stays with the you, unless you voluntarily choose to give it up.

          “You retain the right to profit off of it however,”
          And that’s why copyright exists for this category of property where distribution as copies is the primary way of profiting from it.
          If everyone else can distribute copies of your work you might still have the right to try to profit from it, but it will reduce your chances of being able to do that.

        • Ardvaark

          No, having the option to restrict the access of others is pretty much what defines private property.

          Exactly, restricting other’s use of your property. Copyright restricts other’s use of their property. That’s the difference. And it’s a very veery big difference. One so big that even when some want to make it law, most oppose to it

          It doesn’t matter if you can do whatever you want with it. If everyone else can also do whatever they want with it, then you don’t really own it. Then it’s public property.
          For you to be the only owner of your car, you need to have the right to restrict the access of others to it. That’s a fundamental aspect of property rights.

          Precisely. There’s nothing wrong with that since it’s your property. Inverting the situation is what’s not ok.

          Your neighbor’s ownership of his door restricts your free use of your crowbar. We already saw that.

          So how does this apply to piracy?
          Does piracy in any way damages your private property?
          Right I thought not either.
          Your strawmen are very very bad.

          Nobody needs to knock on their door. Current law says that once it’s been 70 years since Walt Disney died the property will automatically revert to the public domain.

          WOW dude!
          That’s the most humongous fail so far.
          Waaaaay to miss the point.
          The point is that, public domain doesn’t restrict your property like you’ve said. The knocking isn’t even the important part you blippin idiot.
          What’s important is that, on the public domain the creator’s not restricted from profiting. The only restriction is on the remaining people, before public domain, where they can’t use their private property for several situations, one of them being profit.

          They’ll lose ownership of it.

          You don’t own intangible stuff. I’ve given you an excellent example of it. You, at most own the score and your copy.
          What you have is the right to profit off of something while restricting everyone else’s rights to profit off of it (and other restrictions as well but that’s beyond this point for now).

          No, we can own intangible things because current law allows us to, just like current law allows us to own land.

          Seriously? Please do tell me what intangible things can you own.
          You don’t own the music, you own the distribution rights to it. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact nobody can’t own intangible things.
          That’s why you can’t steal an idea. You can, however, copy it.
          That’s incredibly similar to piracy now that I see it.

          The only way to have a property RIGHT is through protection by law.

          So you’re saying that law shapes the needs and not the other way around?
          How very close-minded.
          People have respected property since the dawn of mankind, way before laws.

          It’s a right given and defined by society.

          Now that’s more like it.
          However society seems to disregard copyright a lot. Guess that’s saying something.

          The songwriter owns the original song, which has certain rights attached to it. You own the copy, which has less rights attached to it.

          Would you mind telling me how can you own the song? Because it’s intangible you know? You cannot own intangible things.
          You can own a copy of the song, just like anyone else and the rights to restrict other people’s property usage (their copies). But you most certainly don’t own the song.

          Exactly, you can’t own the idea, but you can own the specific implementations of that idea.

          So, we agree you can’t own intangible things now? Good

          When you code something you create and get ownership of the original.

          My ownership is of my tangible source code I created. You own your own binaries and I own my binaries generated from the blueprint I own (the source code).
          Luckily I own the rights which restrict your usage of your binaries. But that’s a shame.
          In a similar fashion, you don’t own a song, because that’s intangible. Would you own the sound waves or would it be the sequence? What would it be?
          Unfortunately music doesn’t have a tangible thing to materialize it unlike computer code. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have the rights to do stuff with it.
          What you have to accept is that a song becoming public domain isn’t a restriction on the creator, but the end of a restrictions on 3rd parties.

          Then we can move on to how wrong it is to restrict 3rd parties’ usage of their own property beyond a certain point and with a certain justification. Even though I’ve already mentioned that before and I’v every much provided the factual reasons for that.

          If someone copies your code, they now have a copy of something you originally created. Owning that copy gives them certain other rights, but copyright is not one of them. That right stays with the you, unless you voluntarily choose to give it up.

          Wrong.
          Once you own the code you can very much do whatever you want with it. That’s why you don’t share your code. Because you don’t want your code being copied.
          In a similar fashion, if you don’t want your song to be copied, don’t publish it.

          Another example. You can indeed give your code to other people (FOSS) and let them do whatever they want with it, or you can keep it.
          But say you work for another company and in the end they keep a copy of your code. That’s it. They can use that code however they want (hire another person to improve it, improve it themselves and what not) and I’d not receive a cent.
          And in a similar fashion, if I have my copy, I can then reuse whatever parts of it I want in whatever way I want later, at a different situation. No restrictions.

          If you don’t want people copying your stuff, keep them to yourself. Simple.

          And that’s why copyright exists for this category of property where distribution as copies is the primary way of profiting from it.

          And piracy doesn’t in any way remove you the right to profit off of your works. As a matter of fact you can still do it piracy. Pirates however can’t profit off of piracy.

          If everyone else can distribute copies of your work you might still have the right to try to profit from it, but it will reduce your chances of being able to do that.

          With any other form of competition you might still have the right to profit off of your works but it will reduce the chances of being able to do that as well.
          That’s how the market works, not piracy’s fault.
          If you compete against piracy, and many have done so and succeeded, then great. If you don’t too bad but it’s not piracy’s or the competitor’s fault that your business failed to adapt or turn a profit.

        • SoundnuoS

          We’ll take it from here as this seems to be the issue:

          “You cannot own intangible things.”

          Yes you can. First of all, the obvious example: money.
          In your bank account in electronic form, or in your bitcoin wallet..
          Or your code for that matter, it’s not tangible. There’s no way for you to distribute it separate from a medium, either a file or a printout.
          Fortunately for you, you can own intangibles.

          Why? Because property rights are just that: RIGHTS. If we define a set of rights that make it possible to own intangibles, then we can. We have that for music, movies, books and code. You can sell it as copies, retaining some rights, or you can choose to sell the original, giving up all rights.

          It’s no different from other forms of property rights.

          And since it’s quite obviously possible to own intangibles in todays world, the copy carries with it slightly less rights than owning the original. This is to protect the rights of the owner of the original.

        • Ardvaark

          Yes you can. First of all, the obvious example: money.
          In your bank account in electronic form, or in your bitcoin wallet..

          What? Money is very tangible. Have you never held money in your hands?
          Bank account status/Bitcoin might be considered intangible indeed, but they’re a representation of something tangible. The money.

          To clarify, if your bank account has 1000€ then you own 1000, tangible, units of €. You obviously don’t own the number “1000€” that’s electronically stored in the bank’s database or the equivalent number in bit coins, those are just representations of what you actually own: The tangible object that money is.

          Or your code for that matter, it’s not tangible. There’s no way for you to distribute it separate from a medium, either a file or a printout.

          You might have a point there. I guess not only music but also code is intangible.
          But the source code that’s phisically in my hard-drive I most certainly do own and so the same concept of control over my copy I’ve described on the other reply still applies there.

          Fortunately for you, you can own intangibles.

          I’ll let you have a second try on giving me an intangible object that you own.

          Why? Because property rights are just that: RIGHTS.

          ehh what? You can own intangible object because property rights are rights? Well, suuure but unfortunately the primarily form of ownership pertrains to personal property.
          Therefore to this point in time, the only right that breaks this golden rule is copyright.
          Copyright is the only right that applies to intangible stuff and, even more serious, restricts property rights of 3rd parties in favor of the creator’s rights over something intangible that he “owns”.

          That’s why it’s unnatural. You’re restricting my rights of usage of my, tangible property, because you “own” something you can’t own at all because it’s intangible.
          Before copyright, you couldn’t own intangible things.

          We have that for music, movies, books and code.

          Except that when you sell it you’re selling very tangible things.

          You can sell it as copies, retaining some rights, or you can choose to sell the original, giving up all rights.

          But you cannot sell the original, because the original is intangible. All you can own and sell are copies. As a creator and as a random customer.
          So why should your copy be more special than my copy when it comes to rights? That’s a bit unfair.

          It’s no different from other forms of property rights.

          I think we’ve passed the point where I’ve proven it’s very different.

          And since it’s quite obviously possible to own intangibles in todays world,

          I’ll be waiting for that example then, since it’s so obvious you shouldn’t have a problem coming up with an example. I’ll just assume you weren’t paying much attention when thinking of your previous example.

        • SoundnuoS

          “but they’re a representation of something tangible. ”

          A distinctely intangible representation. If you’re strict about only tangible objects being property, then you lose ownership of the money as soon as it enters your bank account, something I’m sure every bank manager will be very happy to be informed about.

          Bitcoin as a currency has no tangible equivalent, so it’s intrinsically intangible.

          Even regular currency in itself isn’t based on anything tangible. Currencies aren’t tied to gold anymore. Their value is completely reliant on the promise of the government issuing them to back them up.

          What you own, when it’s tangible, is a piece of paper backed by a promise, something fairly intangible.

          And, of course, the vast majority of currency in circulation today doesn’t even exist in physical form. There’s not enough cash money in the world to represent every dollar out there, so money isn’t a representation of something physical. It’s the other way around, cash is a representation of money.

          And if we use your argument that it’s ok to own something intangible if it can be represented in physical form , then there’s no problem with music.

          As soon as it’s written down or the master recording is produced you have a physical representation of the original.

          “But you cannot sell the original, because the original is intangible.”

          Yes, you can. All forms of selling is a matter of transferring rights. In some cases those rights are tied to a physical object, in the case of songs the rights get sold without having a physical object tied to them.

          “So why should your copy be more special than my copy when it comes to rights? That’s a bit unfair.”
          Well, the songwriter wrote and financed (if indie) the song. Seems quite reasonable that he should have more rights.

        • Ardvaark

          A distinctly intangible representation. If you’re strict about only tangible objects being property, then you lose ownership of the money as soon as it enters your bank account, something I’m sure every bank manager will be very happy to be informed about.

          A representation of a tangible object is perfectly acceptable. In fact, that’s what maths is, at a very basic level.
          A representation of an intangible object, on the other hand isn’t. I thought that was pretty clear and obvious from my previous statement.
          But you don’t go very far unless I state the obvious to you I guess….

          Bitcoin as a currency has no tangible equivalent, so it’s intrinsically intangible.

          It’s still a representation of money. It’s no different than what’s in your ATM machine, instead of saying 10€ it says 10BTC

          Even regular currency in itself isn’t based on anything tangible. Currencies aren’t tied to gold any more. Their value is completely reliant on the promise of the government issuing them to back them up.

          Ahhh I see you tried to read on economics and failed at it as well.
          All currencies are compared to the value of gold.
          That didn’t change at all.
          You’re confused with the fact that the amount of money available and circulating right now is dependant on the promise of paying back. That’s called Debt as currency and it’s the reason why most western economies flourished before it eventually bit back.
          The amount of money available in the world is lower than the total debt of the world but debt can be used as currency, so to speak, that debt has the same value of money, that money has a value according to gold.
          There’s some documentaries about this all across youtube.

          What you own, when it’s tangible, is a piece of paper backed by a promise, something fairly intangible.

          You own a tangible paper that represents an amount of wealth stored in your bank. That wealth is measured in currency, which is based on gold. So you have a tangible piece of paper that represents a tangible amount of a material that’s valuable.

          And, of course, the vast majority of currency in circulation today doesn’t even exist in physical form. There’s not enough cash money in the world to represent every dollar out there, so money isn’t a representation of something physical. It’s the other way around, cash is a representation of money.

          Ok you’ve definitely watched money as debt.
          You’re just using your own misinterpretation of tangible and justifying it with something correct. That’s a subtle false flag.

          Debt still represents an amount of money that you’ll eventually have. And money is tangible. You see where this is going?
          By that logic of yours, paper money isn’t tangible because it represents the promise to give you back the bill’s value in gold or silver.
          Like I’ve said, intangible representations of tangible stuff is pretty valid.

          Just a small correction on that statement. There’s enough cash money to represent every dollar. There just isn’t enough dollars to pay all the debt.

          Also remember that profit formula? There’s actually a version of it to include debt.

          Total Value = Gains + Owage – Losses – Debts

          See? Pretty tangible.

          And if we use your argument that it’s ok to own something intangible if it can be represented in physical form , then there’s no problem with music.

          Oh absolutely, it’s ok to own the tangible thing that represents the intangible thing. That’s what I’ve said: You own your copy, your source, your music’s score, etc etc.

          As soon as it’s written down or the master recording is produced you have a physical representation of the original.

          You can’t however, own or control other people’s private property. That is, they’re completely free to do what they want with their copies. It’s their property. Copyright is the only law that tries to control other people’s private property based on someone having created, using their own private property, a representation of something completely intangible. That’s very unnatural.

          Yes, you can. All forms of selling is a matter of transferring rights.

          Yeah, but do you own my copy? Nope, it’s my private property. You can sell copies of your first copy, because you own those copies yourself. You can stop repeating the same questions over and over…

          in the case of songs the rights get sold without having a physical object tied to them.

          Wrong, you have a copy tied to it. That’s fairly obvious. The instant you sell that copy you should lose total control over it because it’s not yours. Just because you created that copy it shouldn’t make you have any rights over it once it belongs to someone else.
          That’s totally unnatural and happens nowhere else.

          Well, the songwriter wrote and financed (if indie) the song. Seems quite reasonable that he should have more rights.

          That’s not a valid excuse. The author doesn’t own your photocopies, the coder doesn’t own some random persons’ binaries the brick layer doesn’t own your house.
          In fact, it only happens with copyright. It’s a broken law. It would be understandable to limit for-profit use or at least to require compensation for that use, but that is obvious why and fairly logical.
          Restricting my use of my copy because you created it, isn’t reasonable at all.

        • SoundnuoS

          “All currencies are compared to the value of gold.”

          No they are not.
          http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp

          The value of any currency is determined by it’s relationship to other currencies and ultimately by the faith people have in the government backing that currency.

          It is not tied to gold in any way. Hence why people try to use gold as a hedge against inflation and to protect themselves against the possibility of a currency collapsing.

          There’s also an incredible amount of money that is not represented by physical money. It’s not all debt.

          You can have money without cash, but not the other way around. Nothing physical whatsoever is needed for you to have money. That’s pretty much the definition of intangible.

          Which therefore brings us back to the fact that even outside of creative works you can own the intangible.

          “That’s very unnatural.”

          Yes it is, but that pretty much goes for all property rights. What’s natural about you having the right to stop me from building a house on the land you own?

          “Restricting my use of my copy because you created it, isn’t reasonable at all.”

          It is, because of the unique properties of intellectual property and the fact that recorded songs are dependant on being copied in order to be sold.
          Especially in todays world where global distribution is so easy.

          In order to protect the material rights of the original creator and owner of the song, the ownership of the original gets precedence over ownership of the copy.
          Anything else pretty much means that as soon as one copy has been released, the creator’s work becomes freely available for all.

        • Ardvaark

          The value of any currency is determined by it’s relationship to other currencies and ultimately by the faith people have in the government backing that currency.

          Coming from the guy who I had to explain how the market worked and what the formula for profit was I’m not surprised you’d link the only site I linked to you back then.
          You see, just because money isn’t linked with gold anymore it doesn’t make it intangible. You can actually hold the paper money after all.

          The value of the object is irrelevant. Gold is extremely expensive because people have historically attributed high value to it.
          It could have happened the same to any other metal, had it held appropriate qualities. (Gold is a good conductor and easy to shape, that’s why the Egyptians were obsessed with it)
          That value attributed to a metal plays a very similar factor to this quote:

          If people lose faith in a nation’s paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value.

          That means, if people stop valuing that paper money, it will be worthless.
          Value is relative, just like people didn’t give a damn about fake, plastic jewels that the native-Americans valued so much that they sold entire towns for a handful of them.

          It is not tied to gold in any way. Hence why people try to use gold as a hedge against inflation and to protect themselves against the possibility of a currency collapsing.

          Thats actually true and I missed that. But now that your strawman’s dealt with shall we go back on topic? Oh wait, you’ve been disproven on that as well.

          You can have money without cash, but not the other way around. Nothing physical whatsoever is needed for you to have money. That’s pretty much the definition of intangible.

          Tangible means it has a physical representation. You’ve got it completely backwards.

          I can have money without cash, because that money can be converted to cash at my own will. Meaning there’s a clear relationship of money representing cash.
          If I don’t have money, however, I can’t have cash because, once again money represents cash to the point that if I don’t have money I can’t revert it back to the cash it represents.

          Money nowadays represents cash the same way cash represented gold in the 1700′s.

          It’s very tangible or, in the case of money, it’s a representation of something tangible, which makes sense as well and is acceptable and natural.

          Which therefore brings us back to the fact that even outside of creative works you can own the intangible.

          Yet you haven’t given me one single valid example of something outside of creative works where you can own an intangible thing.
          Money’s pretty much proven tangible, unless you’re going to break logic and physics.
          So I’ll eagerly wait your next terrible example.

          Yes it is, but that pretty much goes for all property rights. What’s natural about you having the right to stop me from building a house on the land you own?

          Are you advocating communism again, where all private property is abolished?
          The notion of private property is very natural. So natural in fact that it can only be applied to tangible stuff according to their intrinsic value.
          If you think that such a concept is unnatural, well, good for you but you’re a minority in the most of the world.
          You’d probably be at home in China or Russia however. Not that far from Finland.

          It is, because of the unique properties of intellectual property

          The unique properties are that they don’t exist. You can’t own an idea, and therefore ideas can’t be stoled, only copied.
          Just like what happens with media being pirated.

          and the fact that recorded songs are dependent on being copied in order to be sold.

          Ah so you finally get it!
          You can’t sell something intangible unless it’s tied to something physical.
          Good, so now we’re in the domain of private/public property because it only applies to physical stuff.

          So, now why should you, again, have any control or impose any restrictions of my use of my private property that is my HDD, CD, DVD or whatever else I own?
          Well, you the answer’s very simple. You shouldn’t. Because it breaks the most essential and basic law of society. Private property.

          Simply put, you’re free to do whatever you want with all the copies you generate. But don’t you dare touch or do anything on my copy unless I give you permission to.

          Especially in todays world where global distribution is so easy.

          This is just baffling.
          So if today’s distribution is so great I still can’t understand why you fight so violently against it.

          If pirate sites distribute your works in such an effective and convenient way and if, like the MAFIAA claims, they make heaps of money, then what the fuck is stopping the MAFIAA from doing the same?
          You know the saying, if you can’t beat them, join them.

          The problem is the democratizing effect of the internet. If they wanted to, they’d have done so already. They don’t because it’s all a matter of maintaining control.
          They’re fighting their loss of control over the artists, that’s all. Piracy is always the excuse and the scapegoat.

          In order to protect the material rights of the original creator and owner of the song, the ownership of the original gets precedence over ownership of the copy.

          What material rights? What else do you own besides a copy of your song? You can’t own the original, because there’s no original.

          Anything else pretty much means that as soon as one copy has been released, the creator’s work becomes freely available for all.

          And what’s wrong with it? You’re still the creator, you get the credits. You get the exclusive right of for-profit use of your work unless you make some sort of deal with someone wanting to use your work for-profit as well.
          That’s all it should be, and it’s still a lot more than other industries have.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Money nowadays represents cash the same way cash represented gold in the 1700′s.”

          No, it doesn’t. Governments all over the world could declare that cash is no longer legal tender and we’d still have money.
          Money isn’t dependent on cash for it’s existance in any way.

          Cash is just a physical representation of money, which in turn is based on faith. Decidedly intangible.

          “The notion of private property is very natural”

          The notion of a property RIGHT is a construct of society.

          “You can’t own an idea, and therefore ideas can’t be stoled, only copied.”

          You can however own the specific implementation of an idea. That’s what a song, literary work or movie is.

          That’s a right given by law, like all our other property rights.

          “So, now why should you, again, have any control or impose any restrictions of my use of my private property that is my HDD, CD, DVD or whatever else I own?”

          Because the protection of the creator’s right to his property overrides your right to do anything you please with what is just a copy of the original.

          The original is owned by the creator.

          “What material rights? What else do you own besides a copy of your song? You can’t own the original, because there’s no original.”

          The rights protecting the material interest that comes into existance when people desire to have access to the creative work. If people want it it’s reasonable to assume it has some value.
          And the original is what ever the creator made. It both exists and can be owned.

          “And what’s wrong with it? You’re still the creator, you get the credits.”
          Removing copyright means anyone can take the work without consequences. It makes the creator rightsless against his customers. Instead of being an entrepreneur selling something desired by his customers, he becomes a beggar asking for payment out of sympathy or pity.
          It removes the protection of the work and places creative work on an even more uneven footing against “regular” work.

        • Ardvaark

          No, it doesn’t. Governments all over the world could declare that cash is no longer legal tender and we’d still have money.

          Really? What would you pay with then?
          Money is always a representation of something tangible or of value. If cash was no longer a legal tender, something else would have to be represented by it because money is essentially a number representing a certain amount of value and value is always an attribute.
          If there’s no tangible thing to be attributed to, the it doesn’t exist. Simple as that.

          I’m still waiting for an example of something else that you can own that’s intangible. Apparently you’ve still failed to do so.

          Cash is just a physical representation of money, which in turn is based on faith. Decidedly intangible.

          Oh are you reversing the argument now? So cash is the physical representation of something intangible?
          That could make sense were it not for the fact that money is used as a measurement of value, and value is a property inherent of physical objects. Faith only plays the role of attributing the value, with no value or no object to have the value attributed to, it’s just a concept. And there’s this thing about concepts where they’re worthless unless implemented.

          The notion of a property RIGHT is a construct of society.

          False, it’s something so natural that even animals have it.
          The right to property is just a right enacted around a natural concept.

          You can however own the specific implementation of an idea. That’s what a song, literary work or movie is.

          An implementation of an idea is a tangible object, therefore further confirming what I’ve been claiming since the beginning. You can own tangible stuff and represent it with intangible or other tangible stuff.
          Pretty straightforward.
          The problem is that your concept of song, literary work or movie is flawed.
          A song, movie or literary work are intangible by themselves and therefore cannot be owned. What you can own is the physical object that acts as a medium for that intangible thing to materialize.
          But that’s bound by property laws so if I have a copy of it I’m 100% the sole owner and can do whatever I want since it’s my private, physical property. You’re free to do the same with your own physical property but never are you to restrict or use mine without my express permission.

          Weren’t you told how this worked a few times before?

          That’s a right given by law, like all our other property rights.

          A law that goes against a human right and breaks the basic premise of the property rights is a flawed law. Like any flawed law it tends to be disregarded by society at large with only the limited few who benefit directly from it lobbying for it. And right now not even all of the beneficent agree with copyright so there’s even that.

          Because the protection of the creator’s right to his property overrides your right to do anything you please with what is just a copy of the original.

          Stop imagining things, that’s preposterous.
          First, a law can’t override a human right.
          Secondly everybody has a copy of the original even the creator.
          Finally, thank you for admitting that copyright interferes with basic property rights, was waiting for you to finally give in into that.

          The original is owned by the creator.

          No matter how many times you repeat a false premisse it won’t magically become true.
          Several people have already described to you why this is false even to a physical level, including myself.
          You cannot own the original, because there is no original. It’s something intangible.

          The rights protecting the material interest that comes into existence when people desire to have access to the creative work.

          So you’re bringing your misunderstandings from discussions on other threads to here and hoping that they work?
          You still don’t seem to understand what material interest is protected.
          There is no material interest for you that comes into existence when people want your work. What’s protected is your material interest on your creation.
          You don’t gain any special protection because of other people’s interest.

          What’s protected is your right to material interest, that is, the right to profit from your creation. No one can take that away from you. But no one takes that away from you anyway.
          Those rights don’t make you the owner of the original either because you can’t own a song either.

          So my conclusion is that you, once again, misunderstood what the actual law states.

          If people want it it’s reasonable to assume it has some value.

          That doesn’t guarantee that what’s wanted has any economical value nor that the desires of someone magically grant you an extra right based on them.
          And in nowhere on the UDHC, from where you got that flawed idea of yours, does it say that you hold any right to restrict property rights of third parties or even that you can own the impossible to own.

          And the original is what ever the creator made. It both exists and can be owned.

          Dammit, did you actually repeat the same flawed statement three times?
          You know, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is one sign of insanity.

          What you call the original, is a representation of the song, not the song itself since that can’t be owned. So what you’re calling the original is actually the first copy, no different that any of the other copies and indeed can be owned because it’s tangible, like all copies. But those are not the same as the song.
          So you’re again, unintentionally confirming my point.
          Your cluelessness about the matter at hand is ever more evident by every sentence you write.

          Removing copyright means anyone can take the work without consequences. it makes the creator rightsless against his customers.

          You’re making things up again. Please don’t do that for the sake of decency.
          You still have rights that are granted by the other laws including the UDHC, like I’ve mentioned above. You’re just not invading other people’s property right and freedom of speech.

          Instead of being an entrepreneur selling something desired by his customers, he becomes a beggar asking for payment out of sympathy or pity.

          Do you not understand what copyright implies?
          It doesn’t grant you the right to sell and profit off of your work. You have that right regardless of copyright and copyright doesn’t change that.
          If your product has value and is worth the price, people will buy it, regardless of copyright.
          Your opinion on what that makes you is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The fact of the matter is that pay-what-you-want methodologies are not degrading and have proven to be advantageous to many since they cater to all potential customers, throwing personal budget limitations and personal value out of the equation.

          it removes the protection of the work and places creative work on an even more uneven footing against “regular” work.

          I told you to stop making things up.
          It doesn’t remove any protection that other types of work have. As a matter of fact it makes it exactly as protected and as equitable as any kind of regular work, no need for quotation marks.
          Both have the right to work/create, both have the right to profit off of the work.
          You’re dramatizing things in hopes of gaining some insistent credibility, that’s not going to work.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Money is always a representation of something tangible or of value.”

          That’s a misunderstanding on your part. Things are valued using money, that doesn’t mean money represents them. Money is simply a representation of value itself.

          Without money we’d have a barter economy where you pay for your iPhone with 400 kgs of potatoes or something. That would be valuing something tangible with another tangible thing.

          The basic unit of any currency has nothing physical to back it up and therefore when you value something in money you’re not valuing it in anything tangible.

          Money itself can’t be a representation of the physical cash.
          If you have a 100$ bill the physical part of it is worth practically nothing. It’s paper, some ink, and a metallic strip. Physically, it’s worth just as much as a 20$ bill.

          If money would be a physical representation of cash, a 100$ bill would be worth as much as a 10$ bill, which would be less than 1 cent.

          The physical cash is a representation of money, this really should be obvious.

          And there’s no need for tangible money in the long run. Debit and credit cards are very common and we’re obviously moving towards less and less usage of cash.

          “I’m still waiting for an example of something else that you can own that’s intangible”

          Money of course. It is intangible by nature and If you refuse to allow anything intangible to be owned, then you will lose ownership of it as soon as it’s in your bank account.

          “False, it’s something so natural that even animals have it.
          The right to property is just a right enacted around a natural concept.”

          Which is what I said. A property RIGHT is something given by society.

          In nature property is limited by what we can physically defend. In civilized society property rights are defined by law.
          That means ANYTHING that society deems ownable can be owned.

          Currently that includes intangible art.

          “An implementation of an idea is a tangible object”

          Not when it’s a song, movie or book. It needs to be stored on a tangible medium, but there’s no way that medium can be considered identical with the song.

          “A song, movie or literary work are intangible by themselves and therefore cannot be owned.”

          See above, society says they can be owned, therefore they are. That’s all it takes.

          And nothing makes tangible property more “logical” as a property right than intangible property.

          Theoretically, even in a completely anarchic society without any property rights, intellectual property could still be claimed using force, just like any tangible property would have to be.

          “Weren’t you told how this worked a few times before?”

          I could pose the same question to you.

          “There is no material interest for you that comes into existence when people want your work.”

          That’s what shows that there is any material interest there to protect in the first place. That’s what shows it has a potential financial value.

          “What’s protected is your right to material interest, that is, the right to profit from your creation. No one can take that away from you. But no one takes that away from you anyway.”

          If everyone is allowed to copy the creation for free, then that right is pretty much much destroyed. You can TRY sure, but there no longer exists any legal pressure on anyone to pay for your work. That’s the same as removing all protection.

          “If your product has value and is worth the price, people will buy it, regardless of copyright.”

          That is, sadly, very unlikely.

          “It doesn’t remove any protection that other types of work have. As a matter of fact it makes it exactly as protected and as equitable as any kind of regular work, no need for quotation marks.”
          No, it doesn’t. Removing copyright would make payment for the work inherent producing a song, book or movie completely optional.
          There’s no other line of work or business where your work or products have no legal protection.

        • Ardvaark

          That’s a misunderstanding on your part. Things are valued using money,

          And you contradict yourself in the first sentence. Goodjob.
          So, money is not a representation of value but it’s used to value something you claim….
          Incredible.

          that doesn’t mean money represents them.

          Money is the measuring of the value of something tangible.
          I still can’t see how you fail to see this.

          Without money we’d have a barter economy where you pay for your iPhone with 400 kgs of potatoes or something. That would be valuing something tangible with another tangible thing.

          Oh you finally get it?
          Money is something intangible representing the value of something tangible.
          Finally! Took you a while.

          The basic unit of any currency has nothing physical to back it up and therefore when you value something in money you’re not valuing it in anything tangible.

          Dammit, and you fail again, a paragraph later….
          Money represents cash, which then represents the value of gold.
          Simple concept. An intangible thing representing the value of something tangible.

          Money itself can’t be a representation of the physical cash.
          If you have a 100$ bill the physical part of it is worth practically nothing.

          So now you’re contradicting yourself on a constant basis?
          I might as well let you answer yourself then…

          Seriously, 100$ is worth a certain value in cash, for example a 100$ bill. What it’s worth is actually a lot, 100$ in fact. doesn’t matter if it’s paper. That paper’s worth 100$ no matter how you twist it.
          That in turn, represents a certain ammount of tangible things. One of them being gold.

          it’s worth just as much as a 20$ bill.

          Have you now lost the complete notion of how economicts work?
          Ok…

          If money would be a physical representation of cash, a 100$ bill would be worth as much as a 10$ bill, which would be less than 1 cent.

          But no one said money is a physical representation of anything. Money is intangible.
          Have you, for the nth time lost track of the thread? What a shame…
          And to make matters worse you’re now loosely mistaking concepts.

          The physical cash is a representation of money, this really should be obvious.

          “This bill’s worth 10$”
          This very sentence shows what measures what. Money is used as a measurement of the bill’s value.
          Stop trying to twist reallity to fit your argument.

          Debit and credit cards are very common and we’re obviously moving towards less and less usage of cash.

          Thank you again for confirming my point.
          Why use cash as a “middle men” of value when you can use the measurement itself. That’s very obvious and the very reason why your argument falls short right at the beginning.

          It is intangible by nature and If you refuse to allow anything intangible to be owned, then you will lose ownership of it as soon as it’s in your bank account.

          And you’ve missed the thread again. that brings the count to 3 just in that reply of yours.
          The point was, you can’t own intangible things unless they represent something tangible.
          Money is something intangible that represents a certain amount of something of value (usually gold) since money is the unit of measure of value.

          So I’m still waiting for that example of yours.
          Remember you said there were many, so far you’ve failed to provide one.

          That means ANYTHING that society deems ownable can be owned.

          Certainly true, unless you have to break the laws of physics to do so.

          Currently that includes intangible art.

          No because you cannot own intangible things, only tangible things or the representation of said tangible things.
          This is why you cannot own a song.

          Not when it’s a song, movie or book.It needs to be stored on a tangible medium, but there’s no way that medium can be considered identical with the song.

          Of course.
          Because without the medium to contain the information (whatever it may be), it has no ecconomical value because it can’t be owned.
          What you can own is the stored song, movie or book in a medium. That is , the information good.
          Thank you very much for confirming the impossibility of owning a song.

          See above, society says they can be owned, therefore they are. That’s all it takes.

          You can say you own a song all you want, but you’ll just sound ridiculous since it’s phisically impossible to do so.
          You can own a copy of it, a CD with it, a score with it written. But those are all physical, ownable representations of something intangible, the song.

          Please come back only when you’ve acknowleged basic laws of physics.

          And nothing makes tangible property more “logical” as a property right than intangible property.

          We’re not discussing the logic of it, just the impossibility.
          The logic is inherent

          Theoretically, even in a completely anarchic society without any property rights, intellectual property could still be claimed using force, just like any tangible property would have to be.

          AHAHAHAHA, awesome.
          What would you do? Beat the song out of someone? And then how would you own it?
          You’re quickly getting more and more ridiculous.

          I could pose the same question to you.

          Except I was the one (along with several others) explaining you how it worked because you didn’t understand.
          You seem to have not understood yet.

          That’s what shows that there is any material interest there to protect in the first place. That’s what shows it has a potential financial value.

          And that’s not what’s mentioned in the article.
          What it’s mentioned is your interest in the creation not the other’s interest in it.
          That’s what you failed to understand. You could have a million people interested in your creations, that is irrelevant. Only your interest in it is protected because it’s the only thing that matters.

          If everyone is allowed to copy the creation for free, then that right is pretty much much destroyed.

          Why is that? That’s just fearmongering.
          No one’s forbidding you from selling your product and for finding a proffitable business model for it.

          You can TRY sure, but there no longer exists any legal pressure on anyone to pay for your work.

          As it should be. If there’s value in it, people will purchase it or use it in a way where the creator’s compensated. Simple.
          But that statement right there’s the reason, once again, why piracy doesn’t infringe that right of yours.
          Glad you understood.

          That’s the same as removing all protection.

          Except it’s still there.

          That is, sadly, very unlikely.

          Your oppinion is irrelevant, however.

          No, it doesn’t. Removing copyright would make payment for the work inherent producing a song, book or movie completely optional.

          Exactly. Which would make it work exactly like all the remaining businesses work, on the free market. Where only services and goods can be paid, and work by itself is no guarantee for payment.
          Incredible how you’re unaware of how what you’re saying actually relates with the truth.

          There’s no other line of work or business where your work or products have no legal protection.

          Seriously?
          Blackberry worked really hard on their products yet, it was no guarantee for payment.
          And pretty much the same goes for all companies and businesses whose only profit comes from services and goods.

          You have yet to understand this besides being told about it several times before.

        • SoundnuoS

          “The point was, you can’t own intangible things unless they represent something tangible.
          Money is something intangible that represents a certain amount of something of value (usually gold) since money is the unit of measure of value”

          Flawed.

          This doesn’t make money itself tangible, which was the point.

          Money can’t be a representation of cash. In that case the 100$ bill would be worth only as much as the paper it’s printed on, and it would be equal in value to a 20$ bill.

          Money also can’t be a representation of gold. In that case the value of money would be following the value of gold and our purchasing power would increase as the value of gold increases.

          Money is a representation of pure value. It is ownable independently of any tangible asset. It’s value is also independent of any tangible asset. The only function it has is to provide a unit of comparison between various assets, both tangible and intangible.

          When you own money you own the intangible.

          “You can say you own a song all you want, but you’ll just sound ridiculous since it’s phisically impossible to do so.
          You can own a copy of it, a CD with it, a score with it written. But those are all physical, ownable representations of something intangible, the song.

          Please come back only when you’ve acknowleged basic laws of physics.”

          Please come back when you acknowledge the role society plays in granting property rights to various things.
          The ownership of a song is not restricted to the specific copy the songwriter happens to have.

          [IP in an anarchic society]
          “What would you do? Beat the song out of someone? And then how would you own it?”

          Actually, yes. In an anarchic society intellectual property would have to be protected the same as way as any physical property would have to be, by force. That would mean anyone who’d decide to claim ownership of a song would have to have the manpower necessary to collect levies from anyone performing the song under threat of violence. It would be very impractical, but not impossible. In a geographically limited way, of course.
          Basically the only thing “natural” about any property is that we have a sense of “that’s mine”. And from that pov tangible property isn’t any different from intangible property.
          The various property rights are something enacted by society in order to secure property without the need for violence.

          [There's no other line of work or business where your work or products have no legal protection.]

          “Seriously?
          Blackberry worked really hard on their products yet, it was no guarantee for payment.
          And pretty much the same goes for all companies and businesses whose only profit comes from services and goods.”
          Yes, seriously. Not one single Blackberry customer has the right to take Blackberry products for free. That protection is extended to every single provider of goods or services everywhere.
          No reason that protection shouldn’t be there for art.

        • Ardvaark

          Flawed.

          This doesn’t make money itself tangible, which was the point.

          Actually it’s not flawed at all.
          Intangibles are physically impossible to own.
          You can, however, own something tangible and represent it by something intangible giving the illusion of ownage of the representation.
          But unless you can bend the laws of physics that’s as far as it goes.

          Don’t be too quick to claim flawed without any way to back it up.
          I never said that money was tangible by the way. What I said is that money was a representation of something tangible, which is true.
          That all came because you said you can own an intangible stuff and I showed you the only case in which that’s possible and that a song isn’t one of those, then I asked for an example and you brought a flawed one: Money.

          So will you finally bring in a decent example or are you going to keep repeating something flawed hoping it sticks?

          Money can’t be a representation of cash. In that case the 100$ bill would be worth only as much as the paper it’s printed on, and it would be equal in value to a 20$ bill.

          Why do you keep repeating the same mistakes?
          Didn’t I already tell you how this was wrong?
          Money is a measurement of Value and cash is a representation of that value. That cash is worth that value and not the material costs. Obviously. Otherwise you could apply the same to pretty much any other object.
          So besides breaking the law of physics you’re now going to break basic economic concepts?

          Money also can’t be a representation of gold. In that case the value of money would be following the value of gold and our purchasing power would increase as the value of gold increases.

          You’ge getting confused in your own thoughts again…

          Money is a representation of pure value.

          Ah now you finally get it? Typical of you to play the dumb card….

          It is ownable independently of any tangible asset.

          Not true.
          What you own is something of equivalent value to that measurement. That’s the reason why money existed in the first place!
          Or are you now ok with trading items for other items despite being against that a few posts before?

          It’s value is also independent of any tangible asset.

          See? more cluelessness. The value of money?
          Money by itself is value. And value has to be applied to tangible things, otherwise it doesn’t even exist!
          That something is usually gold.

          The only function it has is to provide a unit of comparison between various assets, both tangible and intangible.

          Ah see? Now you’re using it as something inherent of physical things!
          That’s precisely what you don’t want to admit! No need to add intangible things because the second part is just not true. You can’t own intangible things, thats where all this money talk began from and you kindly avoided it when you hit a wall. Typical.

          When you own money you own the intangible.

          Repeating the same lie thrice won’t make it true.
          You don’t own the money you own something of equivalent value which can be used as an exchange. Because said exchange wouldn’t be practical, you just deduct that value from your account and add it to someone else’s effectively avoiding to bring the object of value to the trade.

          Don’t make me repeat myself again. It’s not my fault you’re dense as heck but at least keep it to yourself.

          Please come back when you acknowledge the role society plays in granting property rights to various things.

          So is society above the laws of physics?
          Because you cannot own something that’s not tangible.
          That’s why there are information goods. Because otherwise it would be impossible to own those intangible things.
          That’s what you don’t seem or want to understand. And resorting to blatant shift of burden of proof seems like your last resort to a lost argument.

          The ownership of a song is not restricted to the specific copy the songwriter happens to have.

          Ofcourse.
          The ownership of a song is restricted by the laws of physics so you can’t even have it.
          You have other stuff like a monopoly on distribution, but you most certainly don’t own the song.
          You don’t own other people’s copies either for obvious reasons. You can and do own yours however.
          That’s how it is.

          “What would you do? Beat the song out of someone? And then how would you own it?”

          Actually, yes.

          Sorry to break this to you but that would be physically impossible.
          You don’t seem to grasp basic laws of physics or even what owning means. I told you not to comment on those until you had any clue of what you were talking about.

          In an anarchic society intellectual property

          That’s beyond the point.
          But in an archaic society there wouldn’t be IP to begin with. That’s your biggest misconception.

          anyone who’d decide to claim ownership of a song would have to have the manpower necessary to collect levies

          Why the hell are you shifting the topic again?
          No one ever claimed someone was trying to own or steal ownership of a song.
          You seem to have lost track of the topic at hand another time.

          Yes, seriously. Not one single Blackberry customer has the right to take Blackberry products for free.

          Have you missed the point a fourth time?
          Damn that’s terrible of you.
          No one has claimed that you can take a blackberry for free.

        • SoundnuoS

          “I never said that money was tangible by the way.”

          Yep, which clearly means that when you own money, you own something intangible.

          “What I said is that money was a representation of something tangible, which is true.”

          Not really, money is a representation of value, we agreed on that. Value isn’t in itself tangible and the value of any base unit of currency is based on faith. Nothing tangible there.

          “Money is a measurement of Value and cash is a representation of that value.”

          Thank you, that’s what I said. Cash is a representation of money and not the other way around as you claimed.

          “So besides breaking the law of physics you’re now going to break basic economic concepts?”

          Read what I’m writing before writing silly comments like that.

          “You’ge getting confused in your own thoughts again…”

          Or then you’re getting confused by them. If money would be a representation of gold, the value of money would be increasing and decreasing based on the value of gold.

          Gold is valued in money, but for you to be able to claim that money would be a representation of any particular class of assets, the value of money has to be tied to that asset. That’s specifically not happening with fiat currencies.

          “You don’t own the money you own something of equivalent value which can be used as an exchange.”

          No, you DO own the money. If you have 1000$ in your bank account then that’s 1000$ that you own.

          “Because you cannot own something that’s not tangible.
          That’s why there are information goods. Because otherwise it would be impossible to own those intangible things.”

          The intangible has to be stored on something physical in order to be preserved for posterity. This doesn’t make it tangible. The song is not the cd. What the songwriter owns is the song.

          “The ownership of a song is restricted by the laws of physics so you can’t even have it.”

          If it’s given to you by law, then you can have it. It’s a property right like any other.

          “Why the hell are you shifting the topic again?”

          And why do you never read through a set of paragraphs to figure out which parts are there to illustrate something and which parts are the main point?

          “No one has claimed that you can take a blackberry for free.”

          Why bring Blackberries into the conversation then? I’m pointing out that no business operates under conditions where it is legal for the customers to take the offered product for free.
          Removing copyright would be like telling every potential Blackberry customer it’s now ok to take those phones for free.
          That is the relevant comparison.

        • Ardvaark

          Yep, which clearly means that when you own money, you own something intangible.

          You still seem to be confused about the laws of physics.
          You keep repeating the same mistake and ignoring the facts, you’re beyond repair…

          I’ll say it one last time. It’s physically impossible to own intangibles.
          You own something of value equal to the amount of money you have. Because that’s exactly what money’s measuring. The value of something tangible.

          If that were not the case, money wouldn’t exist in the first place.

          Not really, money is a representation of value, we agreed on that.

          Which is a property inherent of tangible things.
          Value by itself cannot exist and is therefore nothing.

          Value isn’t in itself tangible and the value of any base unit of currency is based on faith. Nothing tangible there.

          And once again you got confused in your own point.
          The value of something is a completely sepparate thing from the value of a currency.

          Thank you, that’s what I said. Cash is a representation of money and not the other way around as you claimed.

          You seem to be confused. That was my point from the start. Money was always a measurement.
          Cash however is a tangible representation the value of something.
          Money is that measurement.

          Two separate and different things.
          The measurement isn’t exactly a representation, just like a measurement of 10m isn’t a representation of an actual 10m line in any sort of way.
          If you can’t keep following your own train of thought, then refrain from writing.

          Read what I’m writing before writing silly comments like that.

          I did. You just aren’t self conscious to realize the mess you’re written.

          If money would be a representation of gold, the value of money would be increasing and decreasing based on the value of gold.

          C’mon again??
          You seem to be confusing concepts left and right now.
          I thought I already explained you several times what money is and you keep repeating the same mistakes.

          for you to be able to claim that money would be a representation of any particular class of assets,

          I never did.
          That’s you getting very confused again.
          It’s getting pointless at this point…

          No, you DO own the money. If you have 1000$ in your bank account then that’s 1000$ that you own.

          Nope, because they can’t simply give you money according to the laws of physics.
          Sorry, maybe on a different universe you might be right but in here, if you have 1000$ in your bank account, that’s 1000$ of value in something that you own.
          If you ask for that amount of money back they’ll give you something of that value, usually cash since it’s a good representation of something of equivalent value and easier to handle than a piece of gold or silver.

          The intangible has to be stored on something physical in order to be preserved for posterity. This doesn’t make it tangible.

          Finally!
          Thank you very much for finally showing you don’t understand a simple concept as tangibility.
          That finally shows how besides being proven wrong on about 6 or so points you were also arguing for the sake of arguing without having a clue of what you meant.
          Now if you have had the spine to admit it since the beginning…

          The song is not the cd. What the songwriter owns is the song.

          Of course not. The song is part of the CD which is what constitutes an information good, which is what you can own. You cannot own the song because it’s physically impossible!
          You have a sliver of sanity followed by long periods of blind ignorance… that’s the problem

          “The ownership of a song is restricted by the laws of physics so you can’t even have it.”
          If it’s given to you by law, then you can have it. It’s a property right like any other.

          Are you now claiming that the law can violate the laws of physics?
          Oh please outlaw gravity that would be awesome.
          And while you’re at it, outlaw the 3rd law of thermodynamics so we can save the universe.

          And why do you never read through a set of paragraphs to figure out which parts are there to illustrate something and which parts are the main point?

          I did. You were just doing your usual thing of “I hit a wall, gotta find a new topic” thing once again.

          Why bring Blackberries into the conversation then?

          Because you claimed that effort = compensation, to which you were told that that’s not how the free market works and given a clear, recent example, of a situation where it’s applied.
          You seem to have lost track of the topic at hand another time.

          I’m pointing out that no business operates under conditions where it is legal for the customers to take the offered product for free.

          And I’ve show you that such is not true. Some companies even give away their services/products willingly because, like in piracy, the benefits are evident.

          Removing copyright would be like telling every potential Blackberry customer it’s now ok to take those phones for free.

          No because copyright applies to something of no economical value while blackberry, not only being something of limited supply, is something unaffected by copyright.
          Blackberry sales follow the free market. Copyright functions outside of it.
          I think you’ve managed to miss the point of about 90% of your paragraphs.
          That’s probably a new record.

          That’s actually a very flawed comparison, typical from you.

        • SoundnuoS

          “It’s physically impossible to own intangibles.”

          If ownership requires being able to hold the actual thing that you own then yes. Physicality is however completely irrelevant when it comes to ownership.
          I already quoted the UK copyright law that puts it in plain text.

          “You own something of value equal to the amount of money you have”

          And what would that “something” be when it’s money that you happen to own? It’s not an iPhone, it’s not gold, it’s 1000$ in your bank account. You don’t own it any less because it’s intangible.

          “if you have 1000$ in your bank account, that’s 1000$ of value in something that you own.”

          Right. Very intangible. That you’re able to use that money to buy tangible things doesn’t change that. You still own whatever is in your bank account, not the things you might potentially at some future point buy with that money.
          You’re even able to use that money to buy intangible things, like rights to recordings or money in a different currency for that matter.
          The value of that currency can then fluctuate based on nothing but supply and demand of that currency itself, something we’ve just seen very clearly with bitcoins.
          That’s all just buying and selling the intangible.

          “Are you now claiming that the law can violate the laws of physics?”

          The law does not violate the laws of physics. The law doesn’t say you’ll be able to hold the song when you own it. The law says you don’t NEED to be able to hold the song in order to own it.
          It’s your theory of ownership that’s limited. There’s no reason to exclude intangible property.

          “I did. You were just doing your usual thing of “I hit a wall, gotta find a new topic” thing once again.”

          The idea was to illustrate that there’s nothing more “natural” and enforceable about owning physical property than there is about owning non-physical property.
          In an anarchy, if you claim it and defend it, it’s yours.
          In a civilized society we try to avoid the inconvenience and violence of that, so we have laws regulating ownership.

          “Because you claimed that effort = compensation,”

          I’ve claimed no such thing. You introduced Blackberries as a response to this statement:

          There’s no other line of work or business where your work or products have no legal protection.

          What does effort have to do with it? With the protection of work it might. If you hire someone the law even stipulates a minimum wage you’ll have to pay.
          That’s not relevant for copyrighted products however, but the protection the law gives to any other business offering products for sale certainly is.
          There exists no business offering products for sale that doesn’t have the protection of law against having their customers take those same products for free.
          If products are offered for free it’s a choice made by the producer, NOT the customer.

          “Some companies even give away their services/products willingly because, like in piracy, the benefits are evident.”

          And in that the case the real product is generally something else. Only exceptions would be the situations where something is given away as pr, or in the case of software where you pay for support or as in certain computer games by buying in-game items or added functionality.

          In the latter two cases it might again be more correct to say that the real product isn’t actually the basic software.
          Anyway, not really applicable to music, movies and books.

          “No because copyright applies to something of no economical value”

          Hundreds of years of publishing proves you wrong.

        • Ardvaark

          I already quoted the UK copyright law that puts it in plain text.

          That law is completely flawed because it’s impossible to apply from a physical point of view.
          You simply cannot own anything that is intangible unless you materialize it somehow. Then you can own that materialization.
          You cannot change that no matter how hard you with for it. Too bad.

          And what would that “something” be when it’s money that you happen to own?

          You don’t happen to own money however. You still seem to be confused.
          However usually what that money represents is a certain value in cash, like I’ve told you and like you’ve seemed to miss.
          That in it’s place is a tangible representation of something of value the bank holds. Usually gold. But for a question of comfort, people will usually hand in goods of equal value in exchange for cash.
          Do I really need to explain to you how the world works????

          Right. Very intangible.

          Still confused?
          I’m giving up on you. You’re a lost cause.
          Value is a inherent characteristic of tangible things.

          That you’re able to use that money to buy tangible things doesn’t change that.

          It changes everything!
          Stop ignoring all the facts you’re given!
          You’re able to buy tangible things exactly because money is the measurement of that exact value and you’re owed that value!

          You still own whatever is in your bank account, not the things you might potentially at some future point buy with that money.

          Never have I claimed otherwise. Don’t confuse yourself again please…

          You’re even able to use that money to buy intangible things, like rights to recordings or money in a different currency for that matter.

          Buying money is a redundant act. What you’re doing is converting from one measurement to a different one.
          You still don’t seem to understand what money is. That’s a shame

          The value of that currency can then fluctuate based on nothing but supply and demand of that currency itself,

          Which is irrelevant. The currency is still a measuring of value despite the amount of value a unit of it measures.
          Why do you keep bringing in unrelated issues to the topic just to confuse yourself?
          It’s very clear you can’t comprehend a lot of simple topics so why confuse yourself with further stuff?

          The law does not violate the laws of physics. The law doesn’t say you’ll be able to hold the song when you own it.

          Which is irrelevant, it’s still impossible to own the intangible because of the physical properties of something intangible.
          You still don’t understand this impossibility and keep basing your logic on false assumptions.

          The law says you don’t NEED to be able to hold the song in order to own it.

          It doesn’t matter what the law says, once again.
          You can clearly own a pencil. You cannot own a song however.
          It’s impossible.

          It’s your theory of ownership that’s limited.

          The only thing limited here is your comprehension abilities.

          The idea was to illustrate that there’s nothing more “natural” and enforceable about owning physical property than there is about owning non-physical property.

          Except the fact that it’s naturally impossible to own intangible stuff.
          I gave you a ridiculous example to illustrate your claims, and you took it as truth. That just shows how ignorant you are of the situation.

          In an anarchy, if you claim it and defend it, it’s yours.

          Yeah and how would you defend a song again?

          I’ve claimed no such thing.

          Have you lost track of the conversation again?
          Please remember your own claims:

          Removing copyright would make payment for the work inherent producing a song, book or movie completely option

          You very clearly claimed that work or time taken to produce something should be a guarantee for payment. That is not true at all.
          I gave you an example of why it wasn’t. Because you seem to think that copyright gives legal protection against that, and that it seems to apply to all other businesses.
          Which is another of your big misunderstandings.

          If you hire someone the law even stipulates a minimum wage you’ll have to pay.

          And now you confuse services with goods.
          Good job. The ultimate nail in your coffin. You simply don’t understand anything that’s been discussed so far.
          You’re confused about what the law protects and what copyright protects, and now this.
          There’s just no point in arguing with such amount of cluelessness

          There exists no business offering products for sale that doesn’t have the protection of law against having their customers take those same products for free.

          Depends of what you mean for taking.
          Stealing? Yes.
          Manufacturing your own equivalent? Not really.
          I don’t see IKEA hunting me down for making my own chairs.

          If products are offered for free it’s a choice made by the producer, NOT the customer.

          Except that I’m free to do whatever I want with my property. You still don’t understand that after so many times being told that.

          And in that the case the real product is generally something else.

          Why are you repeating the same mistake? I’ve given you two examples where it wasn’t.
          Repetition won’t magically fix it buddy.

          Only exceptions would be the situations where something is given away as pr

          There are a lot more exceptions than that.
          And pr is exactly the reason companies do it. Which is the same effect piracy has.

          In the latter two cases it might again be more correct to say that the real product isn’t actually the basic software.

          You still don’t understand the difference between goods and services…

          Anyway, not really applicable to music, movies and books.

          I guess it’s time to adapt then.
          Staying in the wrong side of the market and blaming others for it is not a good strategy.

          Hundreds of years of publishing proves you wrong.

          How is that so? Are you just going to say that without any substance?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “None of what you want is available through filesharing in the quality you want.”

          Actually, although I sympathize with MadAsASnake, my point is simply that i understand his problem. I don’t share it because as a general rule I don’t fileshare.

          Between my job and being politically active, I no longer have the time for much media, and so what I play tends to be the same playlist I’ve had since the year 2000, more or less.

          The reason I’m politically active is simply this: Although I realize that a “war on piracy” is completely futile, I also realize that as long as copyright is allowed to affect legislation, ordinary civil rights are endangered.

          You people literally will not stop – ever – and that means it’s time for people concerned about their ISP’s not turning into spies for 3rd parties to man the barricades now.

        • SoundnuoS

          So we’re back at touring and t-shirts as the solution?

        • MadAsASnake

          It is up to the entrepreneur to work that part of the business model out. For some people, undoubtedly. There are people that make a living as session musicians, but if you want success, it generally means getting your personality out there. Touring is a great way to do that. There are other ways. Prince built a successful business outside MAFIAA by performing and networking with a very select group of enthusiasts. He couldn’t maintain his integrity with a label, so got out. It is not up to your customers to figure out how to get them interested in your stuff.

        • SoundnuoS

          No, but it’s not unreasonable to ask your customers to not take your stuff for free.

        • MadAsASnake

          A large percentage of the population would appear not to agree with you on that. They can, make your stuff too hard to get, they will.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          What you in essence means it’s unreasonable to bake your own cookies identical to the ones being sold at wal-mart.

          Because copying is not “taking”.

          I guess we’re back at the point where we have to revisit the argument about what constitutes “property” and not.

        • SoundnuoS

          Not really, baking cookies is more like learning an instrument and playing songs on it.
          Filesharing is closer to baking cookies with someone else’s ingredients.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Like hell it is. Filesharing is what happens if you can bake those cookies in an automated process, nothing else. using your own ingredients

          Moving the goal posts is not on.

        • SoundnuoS

          That’s not moving the goal posts.
          Copyrighted material, if something, is like a premade dinner. It’s not comparable to home cooking.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          The H20 you get from the tap is not Evian H20. Evian H20 only comes in Evian bottles. It doesn’t exist in the tap.

          The only difference discernible is the label. Without that, no blind test, scientific analysis or taste test can tell them apart.

          So I guess we’re back to your argument turning into religion.

        • SoundnuoS

          As I wrote above the label is the difference. Files don’t enjoy that privilege.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Yes, they certainly do. Where the label presents a logotype, the file identifies the brand – the artist.

          The artist can certainly capitalize on this, meaning that there is a world of difference between a copy sold by the artist under a cover containing his name – his brand – and a copy made by an unknown person and shipped without a logotype.

          We’re right back to where two identical bottles of water can carry a different price as soon as one of them is identifiable as being sold directly by a brand.

          Mind you, as MadAsASnake highlighed, this is the third time you’ve switched core stance while trying to find any viewpoint which will provide the conclusion that copyright is a necessity. None will. And your argument doesn’t prosper from what appears to be a semantic juggling act.

        • SoundnuoS

          I don’t think I’ve switched core stance. I’m still saying a shop selling Evian is going to lose some sales if someone establishes a shop giving away free Evian right next door.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Yes you have, because what you are saying is in essence that an identical product sans the label would outcompete the one WITH a label.

        • SoundnuoS

          No, I’m saying that the labeled good given away as a gift will outcompete the same labeled good that’s being charged for.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          To return to the bottled water analogy, everyone is now giving away 100% Evian water.

          Except that in order for your analogy to make sense, every media file on the internet would have to be indiscernible from Tom Waits music with a six-decimal deviation. Because that is roughly how much bottled water differs from good tap water.

          Indeed, unless you’re into homeopathy, there is no objective or subjective difference at all. None. Though intriguingly some fans of bottled water brands say they can taste a difference – once they’ve seen the label.

          This is the same trap many sommeliers have fallen into in blind tests where they assigned a far higher value to the cheap piss artist vintage going for 5€ a bottle than to the 50€ one from a known district.

          Brand, as it were.

          Where music is concerned it’s why NIN fans are rabid to the point of obsession and why former metallica fans now can’t listen to their former favorites, spotting false notes even where there aren’t any.

          In short, you need to go back and read up on basic marketing.

          What actual market studies?

          The dutch studies, for one thing, and a number of others. I’m sure I provided links last time we debated this.

        • SoundnuoS

          And you need to tell me how you brand a file when customers seem singularly uninterested in such details.

          The sound IS the brand. P2p files are a 100% substitute.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “The sound IS the brand. P2p files are a 100% substitute.”

          Wrong. You can use the song to present the brand, the brand in question being the artist.

          Do you really think that “pirates” keep telling you idiots – and i use that term deliberately since everyone arguing your stance seems hell-bent on ignoring the last 50 years of verifiable market data – to come up with more convenient alternatives simply in order to look for excuses? I think you do.

          See, let me correct you on that score. It doesnt matter one whit what laws or enforcement methods you and yours try to apply on copyright. As long as the internet exists at all, there will always be one-click solutions guaranteeing that any media we want to share and partake of will be immediately available.

          From the point of piracy for just the point of piracy there never was any need to amend existing legislation since we can override it without risk and at will.

          So why do you think we even bother telling you people to fix your methodology, Hmm? Why do you think we organized into parties? Why do you even think we CARED to raise issues?

          Because the blunt point is that we could all just sit down, shut up, and quietly go about our business of ignoring copyright indefinitely and there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing at all.

          Except shutting the internet down, at which point the average joe will lynch you for taking their lolcats and facebook away.

          We already won, SoundnuoS.

          And what we are telling you now is how to survive in the new paradigm technology brought. If you don’t want to listen, fine. That’s entirely your loss.

        • SoundnuoS

          A brand is quite possible to build and maintain in the digital age. Selling digital products under that brand gets harder as the free offering is equal to the legit offering.

          If copyright is removed and personal downloading legalised it will become even harder. It’s human nature.
          Copyrighted material will be seen as something not very valuable since it’s not even worthy of protection by the law. That will further lower the point of value and the willingness to pay.
          It’s nice to share but p2p shows very clearly that it’s never as nice as when you don’t even have to give anything up while doing it.

        • MadAsASnake

          I think most people here realise that some form of market protection is required for the creators of original works. However, it needs to be appropriate for the connected digital world we find ourselves in. Current copyright maximalism is not it. It’s noxious and it’s counter productive.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          If copyright is removed and personal downloading legalised it will become even harder. It’s human nature.

          Whether it’s “harder” is debatable, but irrelevant.

          People will keep copying media files, showing one another what is interesting, no matter which laws you apply, which punishments you apply, and how you try to apply them.

          Copyrighted material will be seen as something not very valuable since it’s not even worthy of protection by the law.

          And now you return to the “bottled water can’t sell where good tap water exists”-argument.

          You had better hope I’m right and not you.

          The choices you face are these: Adapt and encourage the new technological paradigm by finding the proper ways of maximizing your profits in a free digital environment.

          Or continue the futile attempts you’ve tried so far, harming your own brands more with every step taken without ever gaining anything to compensate.

          Whether your industry as they are now are flexible enough to survive such a transition may be in doubt, and if so new ones will arise to take their place. But it’s a given that what may eventually break the music industry is the ever widening spread of ill will it generates.

          It was unthinkable to find people up in arms about copyright ten years ago. Today objections against laws such as SOPA, PIPA and ACTA are massive. By now in trying to control one subset of information, you’ve pissed off everyone who tries to pass information over the internet.

          Every now and then a scapegoat is assigned on whom utterly disproportional punishments are heaped in front of the disbelieving public. Gaining us pirates more and more political sway every time.

          Which is why we now own 7% of the EU parliament already, with more parties coming over to our side each passing day as they realize just how many votes are to be gained.

        • SoundnuoS

          Last I heard, the pirate parties weren’t doing that terribly well.

        • MadAsASnake

          No we don’t. That’s the sellers problem. Always has been.

        • Ardvaark

          Of course it affects everyone, but seriously take things in perspective.

          If you spend 2 months producing a song and it sells to 6000 people (one example you gave a while ago), that’s the equivalent of 3000€ per month for one song. Now obviously you produce more than 1 song in that time, don’t you think you’re the one overpricing your own work? Also consider indirect compensations from that work that come even after those sales.

          It’s indeed true everyone is affected and indies get hit harder, but the market itself is still overpriced to a certain extent.
          Indies however are more willing to adapt to the changes in the market than the MAFIAA and find a better way to monetize their work.

        • SoundnuoS

          ” Now obviously you produce more than 1 song in that time”
          Why is that obvious? Depends on the what kind of music it is and how prolific the composer is. Besides, art has never and never will be valued according to how much time it took to create something.
          According to that logic everyone should charge exactly the same amount for a 1h30min concert. Obviously this is not the case. Compare the ticket prices for the Rolling Stones latest vs the local band down at the pub.

        • Ardvaark

          Depends on the what kind of music it is and how prolific the composer is

          True, but even if you just produced one song the overpricing is very clear.

          Besides if you’re living off of artistry, leaving aside the drive and enjoyment of your work (assuming you’re not into it for the money), you’d keep producing at a steady rate regardless of popularity because you’re already popular enough to live off of it.

          . Besides, art has never and never will be valued according to how much time it took to create something.

          Bingo! You’re touching the subjectivity of art value. this leads to a very important question: different people value the same work differently.

          I could say my paintings of bacon are priceless, and you’d rate them em “meh”. Or you could come to me saying “Lordi is awesome” (just because you’re Finnish) and I’d go “meh, I prefer X Swedish metal band”.

          This could work very well with the “Pay what you want” model you (and the MAFIAA) oppose however.

          So artists can’t value their own works (bias) and 3rd party values is subjective. The only remaining solution is to standardize the value at say, 1€ per song.

          So now that your product is worth X you can compare it with other products. More precisely, since it’s commonly accepted that your music is worth X and took you T time to produce you can clearly see that although it’s not very popular (6k downloads is not the next hit), it’s already overpriced when compared to similar works that took the same or more T time to complete.

          If you add the durability measure to the analysis (like I did on my other reply) you’ll find that the price per hour of entertainment is way higher for music than the remaining entertainment forms which further evidences that it’s overpriced.

          In fact, music is the printer ink of entertainment.

          According to that logic everyone should charge exactly the same amount for a 1h30min concert. Obviously this is not the case. Compare the ticket prices for the Rolling Stones latest vs the local band down at the pub.

          Wrong again, that comes to branding in general.
          A ticket of popular band A is much more valuable than a ticket of not-so-popular band B.
          That value is decided by the people, not the band.
          Rolling Stones didn’t wake up one day and said “Hey let’s sell 200€ tickets for our next concert!”, they got there as more people started supporting them.
          Again, people are the ones deciding the prices and not the artists, you’re the one suggesting it should be the other way around.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Again, people are the ones deciding the prices and not the artists, you’re the one suggesting it should be the other way around.”
          No I’m not. When people buy records the value of the art gets established exactly by how desired it is. The customers are the ones setting the final price for the art.
          Something that sells more becomes more valued than something that sells less.
          You are however slightly inconsistent by claiming that songs are overpriced and ticket sales are not. In both cases the buyers determine the price.
          What I’m suggesting is that artists should have the right any seller of branded products has to set prices and have the buyers take it or leave it.
          Your durability analysis of music is flawed, since for many people the replayability of music far exceeds that of a computer game.

        • MadAsASnake

          And yet the simple fact is that, overvalue your “art” (artists are world beaters at that) and the free option beckons, irrespective of whether you think it should be there or not.

        • MadAsASnake

          except… not yours … as you won’t release anything …

        • Ardvaark

          The customers however can’t pay what they want, so if they don’t agree with the overpriced option they go for the next best thing, in this case it’s free.

          Something that sells more becomes more valued than something that sells less.

          Actually it’s quite the opposite. A 3D printer right now is very expensive because it doesn’t sell that much. However, as more people start paying for them or saying they’ll buy it once price lowers a little (increase in demand) prices start to lower.

          By your logic, a pen would now be worth a kidney, since there’s so many pens being sold every single second.

          You are however slightly inconsistent by claiming that songs are overpriced and ticket sales are not.

          The discussion was music’s price so I didn’t even go there. Ticket price, unlike music varies from artist to artist like you said so there’s some that are overpriced and some that aren’t. Simply as that.

          What I’m suggesting is that artists should have the right any seller of branded products has to set prices and have the buyers take it or leave it.

          Newsflash: You do!

          But there’s alternatives, don’t blame people for not taking your product, leaving it, and getting it on an alternative service.

          I’ve said this probably fifty times and you still don’t get it despite examples and explanations after more examples and explanations. You’re incredibly dense.

          Your durability analysis of music is flawed, since for many people the replayability of music far exceeds that of a computer game.

          Nope, your perception is flawed. Some people can replay the same game several times as well. I for one, play zelda ocarina of time every 2 years since it’s been out since it’s such an incredible game. But I also listen to musics I like more than once.

          So I took those away and for anyone with more than 2 brain cells, it’s very obvious that a game is normally played once. A song is normally played once.
          Actually, maybe once is too little, 10 plays per song is a much more normal use for a song.
          So the song isn’t 17000% overpriced, “just” 1700%.

          It’s hilarious however that I actually normalize the values so you don’t even have any doubts of the validity of the results and you still say that it’s flawed.

          Incredible.

        • SoundnuoS

          “By your logic, a pen would now be worth a kidney, since there’s so many pens being sold every single second.”

          And you misunderstood my point. The final value (in purely economically quantifiable terms) of any copyrighted work will be defined by the total amount of people paying for it. If 250000 people buy a .99 cent song from iTunes, then that song is worth 247500. If ten people buy it then it will be worth 9.90.

          This of course won’t say anything about the potential artistic qualitites in the two songs, but that’s what they’ll be worth in economic terms.

          “But there’s alternatives, don’t blame people for not taking your product, leaving it, and getting it on an alternative service.”

          Why should the alternative service have a right to use the products without compensation?

          “A song is normally played once.”
          Not if it’s a song that resonates with the listener.

          Your durability analysis is pointless, since the replayability of various things will vary according to the preference of people. For me, a good record is likely to be returned to over a long period of time, decades in some cases. Records become a bargain, games, not so much. Of the few games I’ve bought over the past ten years I don’t think I’ve even finished one.

        • Ardvaark

          And you misunderstood my point.

          Actually you mistakenly used the world value. Something more valued costs more. The world you’re looking for is profitable.

          This of course won’t say anything about the potential artistic qualitites in the two songs, but that’s what they’ll be worth in economic terms.

          The first part is true indeed. In economic terms they’re still worth the same however: .99.

          Why should the alternative service have a right to use the products without compensation

          Because they’re a separate service not even selling anything or profiting from it at all? And because the service is offering a similar but different company? (Using your own analogy here) Or do you now think Tap water companies pay levies to the Evans water company?

          Your durability analysis is pointless, since the replayability of various things will vary according to the preference of people.

          That’s not the normal usage and a very few percentage of you songs is only replayable. That’s why I normalized the usage. To make it mathematically valid. You understand that I made it so that personal preference is irrelevant!

          For me, a good record is likely to be returned to over a long period of time, decades in some cases.

          Like I said I’ve played the same game every other year for the last 15 years! The game’s play time is no less than 60-70 hours. Do the math.

          Replayability by preference happens on both sides so it can be offseted if you normalize the results. Try to keep up with simple mathematical explanations please.

          Of the few games I’ve bought over the past ten years I don’t think I’ve even finished one.

          Again, you. But as my example shown, the people who did got a better kick for their buck.

        • SoundnuoS

          “In economic terms they’re still worth the same however: .99.”

          The value of the copy is .99. The value of the original song becomes the sum of every copy sold + every other revenue stream attached to the song.
          The economic value of the song is determined by market demand. The popular song will be worth more, the crappy song will be worth less.

          “Because they’re a separate service not even selling anything or profiting from it at all?”

          Not a reason, really. And, as we debated, filesharing is profiting. It’s a source of income for people running ad-supported or subscription sites and the end user is also profiting by saving on the cost of media.

          As for the durability analysis, it’s still pointless. You’re more of a gamer, I’m more of a music listener. We’ll value things differently.
          There’s no real way of determining “objective” value when it comes to this, because it fundamentally does not exist.

        • Ardvaark

          The value of the copy is .99. The value of the original song becomes the
          sum of every copy sold + every other revenue stream attached to the
          song.

          Where do you get such ideas. Really. If you don’t know economy it’s fine, just don’t use it on your argument if you know nothing about it. I know 0 of biology and won’t use any argument of it to justify any of my arguments of any topic.

          . The popular song will be worth more, the crappy song will be worth less.

          They’re worth the exact same. Except personally. I bed you’d be much more pissed if your good song’s file got corrupted than the other one. But that’s personal, subjective value. You can’t quantize it no matter how hard you try. It’d be hilarious to answer, “I like this song 10€” when asked how much you liked that song however.

          Not a reason, really.

          Not a reason? It seems valid enough a reason to allow lending and 2nd hand selling. You can’t just dispose of the points you don’t like like that…

          And, as we debated, filesharing is profiting.

          This again? I thought I proved you saving money is an economically harmless act, otherwise taking a walk or cooking at home or using a free-meal ticked would be equally bad as an act. Actually, they are equally bad: harmless.

          It’s a source of income for people running ad-supported or subscription
          sites and the end user is also profiting by saving on the cost of media.

          I see what you did there. Circular reasoning.

          As your points get disproven one by one you circle back to the previously used (also disproven) points in an infinite cycle. Not very good from a logical point of view.

          Add supported sites are usually indexes. They are blank pages whose content is user-generated. The adds support the service, the users support the content. The end user isn’t profiting, is saving money. That’s harmless from an economic point of view. The act of saving is what keeps the market alive actually, since it drives competition.

          You’re more of a gamer, I’m more of a music listener. We’ll value things differently.

          I can actually tell you I’m both. I’m not a movie person however.
          Yet if you had a basic understanding of maths and statistics (but then again, you’d probably not be a musician if you had), you’d understand I normalized the consumption to offset the effects of personal preference completely making my analysis 100% valid. I even adjusted the music normal usage value to a more realistic number and still got my point right. A mistake you could have caught.

          I guess truth takes a while to seep in when it shatters your world view. It takes an open mind to base perception on facts instead of opinions and personal feelings.

        • SoundnuoS

          ” I thought I proved you saving money is an economically harmless act”
          And I thought I pointed out to you that it isn’t economically harmless when it’s exploiting someone else’s work.

          “you’d understand I normalized the consumption to offset the effects of personal preference completely making my analysis 100% valid.”

          It’s still pointless because you presume the time spent with an activity is worth the same to everyone for every activity. The movie person might value the 2 hours they spend watching a movie more than 10 hours spent playing a computer game. They might even find computer games boring.

          There’s no way of quantifying value that way, since you have no objective estimate of what the time value is for various activities for a given individual

        • Ardvaark

          And I thought I pointed out to you that it isn’t economically harmless when it’s exploiting someone else’s work.

          Except you just said that. No proof whatsoever.

          It’s a harmless act economically as I proved, and it’s using a part of the market’s demand that the MAFIAA refuses to work with. Their problem as far as I’m concerned.

          It’s still pointless because you presume the time spent with an activity is worth the same to everyone for every activity.

          Which is a perfectly valid assumption! Because it works precisely both ways. Because it’s normalized, personal preferences are offsetable! That’s what it actually means!

          There’s no way of quantifying value that way, since you have no objective estimate of what the time value is for various activities for a given individual

          damn you’re completely clueless. Do I need to repeat myself a 3rd time?

        • SoundnuoS

          “Except you just said that.”

          Said what where? As far as I know I’ve said that IF piracy ISN’T a substitute for legal goods, then the sampling effect might work.

          The problem is that it seems to be a substitute. Anything offered digitally can also be pirated digitally. And we’re moving more and more towards digital formats being the main form of media. Last year digital sales overtook physical sales in the UK.

          “Do I need to repeat myself a 3rd time?”

          No you need to think about what you’re saying. If a computer game is totally uninteresting to me it’s value for me doesn’t increase because your durability analysis shows that if I would play it, it would take 60 hours to finish.

          If I don’t give a f*ck about the game then 10 hours with a record will be worth more. I’m not the customer for that game and it’s not priced with me in mind.

          You CAN’T normalize it and arrive at some sort of conclusion as to what is overpriced and not. It’s a pointless exercise.

          They are two completely different products that the customers place very different expectations on. They are bought for different reasons.
          What does a durability analysis say about Munch’s “the Scream” that was recently sold for $120 million.
          Is it overvalued?

        • Ardvaark

          As far as I know I’ve said that IF piracy ISN’T a substitute for legal goods, then the sampling effect might work.

          Yeah you were using a supposition, I quoted you on it. Are you too confused about your own claims now?
          More importantly it isn’t a substitute. It’s not a matter of if, it simply isn’t. H2O example you used and refuse and then use double standards to avoid conflicts with your world view pretty much said so.

          The problem is that it seems to be a substitute.

          According to studies, and actual day-to-day examples from other pirates and myself, it isn’t.

          Last year digital sales overtook physical sales in the UK.

          And this is a problem where? This is another sign of your fear of change.

          If a computer game is totally uninteresting to me

          I give up. You’re dumb as a fucking door.

          You and me and everyone’s fucking personal preferences don’t matter! it’s not about one person’s likes against itself! Seriously, you’re dense as lead.

          You CAN’T normalize it and arrive at some sort of conclusion as to what is overpriced and not. It’s a pointless exercise.

          Oh now we’re bending math to match your worldview?

          hilarious

          They are two completely different products that the customers place very
          different expectations on. They are bought for different reasons.

          Wrong again. the expectations are the same: quality entertainment for X amount of time and the reason is also the same: be entertained.

          What does a durability analysis say about Munch’s “the Scream” that was recently sold for $120 million. Is it overvalued?

          Every single paragraph you write is another nail in the foot. Incredible.

          “Classical” art doesn’t have a normalized price. Each piece is unique and a great deal of it auctioned which is indeed a way to inflate prices.

          Now, personally I think it’s ridiculous to pay such a morbid amount for a painting but guess what, it doesn’t matter.

        • SoundnuoS

          “And this is a problem where? This is another sign of your fear of change.”
          It’s a problem when the customer no longer has any desire for the goods that can in any way, shape or form be differentiated from the pirated goods.
          You yourself have in a multitude of posts pointed out that piracy is a service providing the goods in the format the customer wants.
          It’s satisfying exactly the same need the legit stores are trying to satisfy and for free at that.
          Only way of differentiating something in the digital world is through creating various proprietary solutions and these have been given as one of the main reasons for not using legal stores.

          “Wrong again. the expectations are the same: quality entertainment for X amount of time and the reason is also the same: be entertained.”

          But do you expect to be entertained in the same way and have the same emotional response to both modes of entertainment? No.These products are not equivavalents. They don’t satisfy the same desire. Your durability analysis is still an exercise in futility.

          “”Classical” art doesn’t have a normalized price”

          Hey, guess what? No art has a normalized price.

        • Ardvaark

          It’s a problem when the customer no longer has any desire for the goods that can in any way, shape or form be differentiated from the pirated goods.

          And I stand by my saying, if piracy is tapping that desire better than the official venues, then it’s absolutely not the pirate’s fault. It’s, like I’ve said, the legal venues’ problem and they have to learn from it.

          Thing is, like bottled water, it can be differentiated from pirate goods. There’s a lot of ways to add value to your product. Steam did it for games.

          Only way of differentiating something in the digital world is through creating various proprietary solutions

          Typical mafiaa thinking. If I can’t differentiate from the others, I’ll limit the use of it.

          Well there’s, once again, various ways to value your product with such a thing. Again, GoG and IHB found this way. Only the music and movie industries seem to be stuck in the endless cycle of self-harming.

          But do you expect to be entertained in the same way and have the same emotional response to both modes of entertainment? No.

          Which is 1000% irrelevant. Entertainment is entertainment. 1 Good hour listening to music is different from 1 good hour playing a game, the experiences are different but it’s, in the end, 1 hour of entertainment.

          The desire is for entertainment and that’s what they both do, entertain you for X time. Actually one could argue music is the least entertaining one of the trio because games and movies require your undivided attention as opposed to music which you can enjoy while doing something else.

          Hey, guess what? No art has a normalized price.

          Well, except for music, movies and games. Oh damn I just mentioned the majority of the market…

        • SoundnuoS

          Steam IS a proprietary solution. You need to have steam installed. It has DRM. All things every pirate claims they don’t want for music.

          Closest equivavalent in music is iTunes or Spotify.

          “Which is 1000% irrelevant. Entertainment is entertainment”
          No, it’s 1000% relevant if they satisfy very different desires and use very different methods in entertaining you.

        • Ardvaark

          The fact that steam has DRM and yet completely nailed game pricay further proves my point thank you very much.

          Steam’s content is accessible through all of your machines. The games are installed locally (but accessed remotely) which means you still own your files and can freely mod them and do whatever you want with them. As far as DRM goes it’s incredibly low level DRM, you can play the game offline after you’ve downloaded and paid for it even.

          You don’t even notice such DRM. That’s good.

          Closest equivavalent in music is iTunes or Spotify.

          No because I still don’t own my own musics with spotify. I can’t then use the files however I want because I don’t have them unless I pay for it an extra fee after the subscription.

          But guess what, spotify is a good step in the right direction already.

          No, it’s 1000% relevant if they satisfy very different desires and use very different methods in entertaining you

          You’re beating a dead horse now. You looked completely clueless and still try to argue against the unarguable. The desire is to be entertained, there is no difference, period. You can stop trying to twist it around.

        • SoundnuoS

          So, in your opinion, proprietary systems and DRM are good for games but bad for music? Yet this is what’s needed to flourish in the presence of game piracy.

          “The desire is to be entertained, there is no difference, period.”

          There is a difference as the mode of entertainment is very different. You don’t buy a game to be entertained in the same way as you’re entertained by music. They aren’t substitutes for each other.

          You can’t get your Black Keys fix by buying Skyrim and you can’t get your Skyrim fix by buying the Black Keys’ latest record. They aren’t comparable experiences.

          Or they might be for you, but in that case I think you represent a minority.

        • Ardvaark

          So, in your opinion, proprietary systems and DRM are good for games but bad for music?

          Go read that again. DRM in steam is piratically inexistent, and non-evasive. I can do whatever I want with my files. There is nothing limited in using steam-bought games as opposed to what happens to music.

          Plus steam managed to add value to their products in order to fight piracy, something music and movies are yet failing at.

          There is a difference as the mode of entertainment is very different.
          You don’t buy a game to be entertained in the same way as you’re entertained by music. They aren’t substitutes for each other.

          Again, your comprehension skills are very, very swallow. I never said they are replacements. I just said the entertainment value is overpriced comparing one to another in terms of time. Fairly straightforward and logical comparison for someone with more than 2 braincells.

        • SoundnuoS

          “There is nothing limited in using steam-bought games as opposed to what happens to music.”

          Apart from having to install Steam, a proprietary solution that adds the value you call for.

          “Fairly straightforward and logical comparison for someone with more than 2 braincells.”
          And if you actually have 4 or more braincells you’ll realise that the comparison is pointless, because of the reasons I’ve listed.

        • Ardvaark

          Apart from having to install Steam, a proprietary solution that adds the value you call for.

          Oh like how I have to install uTorrent to torrent? That makes sense…

          I have to install steam so I can download all my games regardless of computer and then I can turn it off, how’s that different from downloading a torrent and then turning it off?

          Damn you’re clueless.

          the comparison is pointless, because of the reasons I’ve listed.

          Except I’ve shown how those reasons are invalid and you didn’t understand what I mean. Shows who has piss-for-brains in here.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Oh like how I have to install uTorrent to torrent? That makes sense…”

          Well this is what some people have been complaining about when it comes to music. “I don’t want to install iTunes” etc etc.

          “Except I’ve shown how those reasons are invalid and you didn’t understand what I mean.”

          No I understand perfectly well what you mean. You assume there’s some general “entertainment factor” that’s quantifiably similar for all these various forms of entertainment. An idea that’s somewhat ridiculous as I’ve clearly shown you that there is no way any of these can be considered substitutes for each other.
          When you want to listen to music that desire won’t be satisfied by playing a computer game and vice versa.

        • Ardvaark

          Well this is what some people have been complaining about when it comes to music.

          Oh my god you’re awesomely clueless lol.

          That’s just hilarious.

          What people complain is the lockdown on iTunes, that is, I have to install itunes and I can only use iTunes with Apple products or Apple licensed stuff.

          Steam? I can do whatever the hell I want with my games. I can even play them offline! Comparatively to mp3 which gives 100% freedom of usage, yes, iTunes is DRM. Once again terrible comparison you made.

          ” that’s quantifiably similar for all these various forms of entertainment.

          Wrong. Since they’re not similar, I normalized them to 1 gameplay ~ 10 track plays, as to normal usage.
          I’ve given up at this point, you’re beyond repair now.

          When you want to listen to music that desire won’t be satisfied by playing a computer game and vice versa.

          You still don’t get it. I’ve been saying they aren’t interchangeable since the first reply. You’re the one who keeps saying I’m wrong by saying they’re interchangeable (makes no sense right? that’s how you sound).

          What I said is the entertaining value, that is, time/€ ratio is way higher on games than music.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Steam? I can do whatever the hell I want with my games. I can even play them offline! Comparatively to mp3 which gives 100% freedom of usage, yes, iTunes is DRM.”

          Frankly, then the option to buy DRM-free mp3 that exists all over the world currently should be the ideal solution. I see lots of arguments against that as well.

          “What I said is the entertaining value, that is, time/€ ratio is way higher on games than music”

          I understand that that’s what you’re saying. What I’m saying is that it is a pointless metric, because games and music aren’t filling the same need. There’s no ONE entertainment value that’s common for both modes of entertainment that you can use as a basis for your comparison.
          Apart from that, I also disagree with your assessment of 10 plays as being some kind of upper limit of plays.
          A great record can last a lifetime.
          This just points out that there is no normalized price for art. A record that you tire of after 2 plays has less bang for the buck. The record that follows you to the grave has been an incredible bargain.

        • Ardvaark

          Frankly, then the option to buy DRM-free mp3 that exists all over the
          world currently should be the ideal solution. I see lots of arguments
          against that as well.

          If they’re 320kbps, fairly priced and readily available, that is, with no regional delays. I and most people, will see no problem with it. And most pirates will agree with me.

          because games and music aren’t filling the same need.

          The need for entertainment. A gamer and an audiophile arrive home and both say: “Damn I’m bored. Oh I know! I’ll…” and only the last word changes.

          There’s no ONE entertainment value that’s common for both modes of entertainment that you can use as a basis for your comparison.

          Except there is, both consume time and for a price. So that ratio is a very good measurement actually.

          I also disagree with your assessment of 10 plays as being some kind of upper limit of plays.
          A great record can last a lifetime.

          Hence this awesome thing called average.

          This just points out that there is no normalized price for art.

          Whaaat?? Are you out of your mind?
          Every single song on itunes and most online shops costs 1€. That’s pretty normalized to me.
          The personal value is out of the equation since it can’t even be quantified!

          Again, you can’t seem to grasp simple economic concepts. It’s hilarious.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Every single song on itunes and most online shops costs 1€.”

          That’s pretty much been established as the minimum price anyone is willing to sell just one (copy of a) song for.

          Looking at the prices of the collections of songs known as records on the first page of 7digital gives me prices between 5 and 9.99 however. This is with varying numbers of tracks on them as well.
          This in fact makes prices of songs variable.

          “Hence this awesome thing called average”
          And the average you arrive at is a completely arbitrary number based on your personal estimation of how much someone would listen to a song over a lifetime.

          “The personal value is out of the equation since it can’t even be quantified! ”

          Exactly what I’ve been trying to say. But that is what determines the price an individual is willing to pay for something and if the time/€ is money well spent or not.
          And that’s really the only thing that matters in pricing art.

        • Ardvaark

          That’s pretty much been established as the minimum price anyone is willing to sell just one (copy of a) song for.

          That’s the actual price all music is sold. Don’t mix albums and collections with single tracks that’s absolutely beyond the point and ridiculous of your part because it’s just depends on the deal, pretty much like games can be sold in packs.

          The individual price is indeed normalized no matter how you twist it, but it’s nice to see you desperately try to grab at lose ends.

          And the average you arrive at is a completely arbitrary number based on your personal estimation

          Please provide better data. My “arbitrary numbers” came from data-mining last.fm a couple of years ago.

          I don’t think music consumption habits have changed this much in a couple of years but who knows.

          And the average you arrive at is a completely arbitrary number based on your personal estimation

          Why are you trying to derail this to art when we’re talking about music / games which have pretty much very normalized prices? Could it be you hit a wall?

        • SoundnuoS

          “That’s the actual price all music is sold. Don’t mix albums and collections with single tracks that’s absolutely beyond the point and ridiculous of your part because it’s just depends on the deal, pretty much like games can be sold in packs.”

          That pretty much shows there is no normalized price, not even for games. Angry Birds costs .99, another game costs 30. Games in a pack can be had cheaper.

          The album is still considered THE unit. Few artists have made the move to releasing just single after single.
          And even singles with the way smaller price range they have aren’t completely normalized.
          Checking this website for top 40 singles gives you a range of .50-.89£.
          http://www.tunechecker.com/top-40-singles

          “Why are you trying to derail this to art”

          Music is art, computer games can also be considered art. Art is commonly used to refer to visual arts (painting etc), but strictly speaking it actually refers to all the arts.
          The fact is, your durability analysis makes no sense either way, because you are comparing completely different products that entertain people in very different ways and they aren’t, as we agree, substitutes for each other.
          You could attempt to do one within the same category of entertainment, i.e. music vs. music or computer game vs another computer game, but even then it’s meaningless outside the result it gives for a specific individual. This is because personal preference is such a fundamental part of the way we value these things.

        • Ardvaark

          That pretty much shows there is no normalized price, not even for games. Angry Birds costs .99, another game costs 30.

          Did you just compare a smartphone game with the price for console & PC games?

          But games are indeed much less normalized than music.

          AAA Games might cost 60€ while the average games cost between 30-50€. Indie games (Angry birds) go from 5-15€.
          Music on the other hand costs 1€, indie or not. Pretty normalized to me.

          The album is still considered THE unit.

          The unit is the lowest denominator you can purchase something of. The unit is now songs, no matter how you twist it. I can buy 2 songs of a 12track album so the unit is indeed the song. Some artists release in albums but the tracks are still purchased individually. But releasing in batches doesn’t change the fact that the unit did indeed change.

          Checking this website for top 40 singles gives you a range of .50-.89£.

          Changing for £ now? That’s very close to the price of individual tracks in € and, once again, pretty normalized.

          And once again, considering the way the market is evolving, still overpriced. Who in their right mind would say my music collection (which is not particularly big) would cost between 4100 to 7300€?!
          That’s absolutely insane!

          Music is art, computer games can also be considered art.

          My point exactly. And they have a pretty normalized price. Why would you, when pushed against a wall, resort to bring visual arts to the conversation?

          This is because personal preference is such a fundamental part of the way we value these things.

          You can stop trying. I get it you don’t understand. Too much for your puny head. Personal preference doesn’t have any weight in it nor it plays any effect since it’s not even restricted to a single person.
          It’s the fact that the $/hr of entertainment is higher for music than games and movies.
          Like you said they entertain in very different ways.
          And the fact that music requires part of my attention while the remaining arts require all of it, further proves my point.
          Fact: I’m listening to music while writing this, or working. But I can’t watch a movie/play a game and work or write at the same time.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Did you just compare a smartphone game with the price for console & PC games?”

          Are you trying to compare the price of music and the price of computer games?

          “Changing for £ now? That’s very close to the price of individual tracks in € and, once again, pretty normalized.”

          It’s what the website lists the prices in.
          And it’s actually a fairly large range, shifting by 44% depending on song. It seems like a small variability as the max price anyone is trying to get for their songs is so small. Percentagewise it’s a large range however.

          “It’s the fact that the $/hr of entertainment is higher for music than games and movies.”

          This is a fact, if we accept your numbers of 10 max plays for a 3min50 sec song. It means you have paid 0.99 for 35 mins of entertainment, making it 1.70 / hour.
          It’s more cost effective than movies though, assuming 2 plays for a 2 hour movie and a price of 13.99, making it 3.50/ hour.
          It becomes less cost effective than a computer game assuming a price of 30 and playtime of 60 hours, making it 0.50 / hour.
          And Angry Birds on the phone becomes insanely cost effective assuming a price of 0.99 and a playtime of 60 hours, making the average just 0.0165.

          And what do we learn from this? Pretty much nothing, as we can see by your reaction when I compared phone and pc games, and those two are at least in the same category of entertainment.

        • Ardvaark

          Are you trying to compare the price of music and the price of computer games?

          Have you ran out of arguments to the point you can’t even use my own argument against me?

          Comparing two different pieces of entertainment for their $/hr is valid. Comparing two different types of products to prove they’re not normalized on price is actually wrong.

          I compared unitary songs to prove they were normalized. You compared games of completely different types: Smartphones games vs. Console/PC.
          Songs, regardless of budget cost about 1€. The same doesn’t happen to games.
          What an astounding fail of your part. Especially when I said that games weren’t so normalised across all platforms unlike music.

          It seems like a small variability as the max price anyone is trying to get for their songs is so small.

          So is it small variability effectively meaning the prices are normalized, like I said, thank you very much. Point proven.

          This is a fact, if we accept your numbers of 10 max plays for a 3min50 sec song. It means you have paid 0.99 for 35 mins of entertainment, making it 1.70 / hour.

          Please stop, I’m dying of laughter in here.
          You’re terrible with maths.
          3min 50sec multiplied by 10 is 38m 20sec.

          No wonder you can’t understand anything number related I present to you. Hilarious!

          So music actually costs 1.55/hr

          It’s more cost effective than movies though, assuming 2 plays for a 2 hour movie and a price of 13.99, making it 3.50/ hour.

          2 Plays? The number of people who actually go watch the same movie twice is incredibly low.

          But I would also agree with you on the movies were it not for the fact that music doesn’t require my undivided attention to entertain me, unlike all the remaining media.

          Still two wrongs don’t make a right, the fact that music is overpriced doesn’t change.

          And Angry Birds on the phone becomes insanely cost effective

          That would be awesome but angry birds doesn’t take 60 hours to finish. Actually most smartphone games have a very low longevity. Also the game is free + add supported (but adds can be disabled if you’re offline) and only extra content is paid.

          And what do we learn from this?

          That music is overpriced when compared to games, especially since the cost of production of music is by far the lowest compared to games and movies, and the one with the smallest profit distribution since the “team” involved in its creation is also, normally, the lowest.

          You actually did a very good job proving my point.

          s we can see by your reaction when I compared phone and pc games, and those two are at least in the same category of entertainment.

          My reaction was because you said that games weren’t normalized in price by comparing smartphone games with PC games, where there’s a difference in budget and quality and even after I said that games weren’t as normalized in price as with music.

          Because even low budget and high-end music sells for 1€ on Itunes which shows it is very normalized.

          That’s why I reacted like that.

          What I’ve learned from here.
          That you’re an incredibly dumb person to the point of not understanding simple maths concepts such as normalization and ratios to the point of simple calculus. And also that you can’t even understand simple comparisons.
          Nothing surprises me anymore…

        • SoundnuoS

          “3min 50sec multiplied by 10 is 38m 20sec”

          Bah, late night, stupid mistake.

          “So is it small variability effectively meaning the prices are normalized, like I said, thank you very much. Point proven.”

          The percentage variation is huge however.

          This is actually beside the point as the argument is not whether the prices of songs tend to converge around the same price point or not. That’s just a natural reaction to finding out what the market will bear and no one wanting to price themselves out of that market.

          You’re arguing that you can show that music is overpriced compared to other forms of entertainment because of what you consider to be the average $/hour.

          I’m arguing that this is a pointless metric BECAUSE they are different froms of entertainment, and your reaction to the Angry Birds example shows this as well.

          “That would be awesome but angry birds doesn’t take 60 hours to finish. Actually most smartphone games have a very low longevity. Also the game is free + add supported (but adds can be disabled if you’re offline) and only extra content is paid.”

          If you pay for it (0.99 cents) you’ll get all the extra levels. If you play through them all with the objective of getting 3 stars in every level it will probably take you more than 60 hours.

          And as games go, Angry Birds has proven to be extremely addicitve for many people making it’s longevity quite high.

          If you use the free version, than the $/time is effectively infinite even if you only play it for one hour.

          So, we can clearly see that just about every existing form of entertainment is hopelessly overpriced compared to Angry Birds.

          But this is a useless comparison as you yourself have noticed. What you get from Angry Birds just isn’t the same experience that you get from an AAA list computer game. Comparing their value using the $/time metric is pointless as one can’t substitute for the other.

          Fact is, value for art (in the wide sense) is subjective.
          If people buy the AAA list game for 60$ it’s because it’s worth it to them. If the company making the AAA list game finds enough people are paying 60$, they’ll keep pricing it like that.

          “But I would also agree with you on the movies were it not for the fact that music doesn’t require my undivided attention to entertain me, unlike all the remaining media.”

          I’d argue that in that case you’re not really listening to music, you are simply existing in the presence of music. Either way, this is actually added value for music. You can use it as background, to make doing other activities more pleasant or you can give it your undivided attention and really experience it.

        • Ardvaark

          The percentage variation is huge however.

          A whole lot of nothing is still nothing.
          It’s the monetary difference that’s being analyzed. 50c and 80c shows much more normalization than 30€ and 50€.

          That’s just a natural reaction to finding out what the market will bear and no one wanting to price themselves out of that market.

          Wow now that’s pretty accurate. Glad you learnt something.
          However that means precisely that the prices are still overpriced (to the point that further increasing them would be disastrous).
          But that’s precisely the cause for price normalization, before they then lower, once again.
          But this, once again, validates my overpricing claims based on the normalized prices of entertainment.

          You’re arguing that you can show that music is overpriced compared to other forms of entertainment because of what you consider to be the average $/hour.

          Right indeed, a very valid metric considering the values it’s based on and the action associated with it.

          I’m arguing that this is a pointless metric BECAUSE they are different forms of entertainment, and your reaction to the Angry Birds example shows this as well.

          Listen. I hate repeating the same thing multiple times and getting the same answer.
          I’m not talking to a door or a parrot.

          My reaction to angry birds was related to price normalization because you used two different categories of games/entertainment to prove non-normalization when I used the same category of entertainment songs.
          To use my reaction to normalization against my argument of overpricing is completely ridiculous. It’s two completely separated aspects.
          I don’t even know where you made the connection!

          Also remember, I said music is more normalized than game prices which further validates my claim.

          If you pay for it (0.99 cents) you’ll get all the extra levels. If you play through them all with the objective of getting 3 stars in every level it will probably take you more than 60 hours.

          *opens angry birds*
          *checks playtime*
          4h 18 min

          About 60-70% levels with 3stars and most secrets unlocked.
          60 hours? yeah right…

          And as games go, Angry Birds has proven to be extremely addicitve for many people making it’s longevity quite high.

          Mistake #2.
          Remember the average usage?
          One game can be 100% completed and take 60 hours but the game is over when you beat the final level/boss and that’s about 50-60% complete. In this case the 2nd usage is the normal, average usage.
          Extras don’t come into the equation. Just like “popularity plays” don’t enter in the music replayability, thats why we use averages.
          You still don’t get the effects of averages and normalization as I suspected.

          If you use the free version, than the $/time is effectively infinite even if you only play it for one hour.

          What the flying fuck spaghetti monster!
          How on the universe is the free version’s $/time infinite? That’s mathematically impossible!
          C’mon mate, maths. if the game is free the price is zero.
          The time doesn’t even matter after that (because it’s never 0). So in my personal example lets take about 5hours.
          Since when on the universe is 0/5 infinite?? It’s 0! That’s why the game is free!

          I shouldn’t be teaching you such basic stuff at this age!
          No offense but no wonder you’re a musician…

          What you get from Angry Birds just isn’t the same experience that you get from an AAA list computer game

          Which is why we average. And if you take the smarthphone games into account, which longevity and price is vastly lower than the remaining games, then so does the price, actually making games more cost effective!
          Cluelessness, cluelessness everywhere ffs….

          Fact is, value for art (in the wide sense) is subjective.

          That was the initial argument. And because the artist always overvalues their art compared to the buyers personal value, the sale-prices were normalized.
          This happened for games, music and movies. The exception to this was the remaining visual arts (paintings etc) which have brokers who do that part instead. Or they’re simply actioned (although the auctioneer actually can be considered a broker)
          You can forget personal preferences or usages. That’s the whole point of the exercise, to normalize all that and achieve a valid comparison between to medias.

          It’s so simple and straightforward I’m flabbergasted that you can’t understand it although with your previous mistakes it’s pretty clear why. Seriously, don’t take an IQ test. You’ll feel miserable.

          I’d argue that in that case you’re not really listening to music, you are simply existing in the presence of music.

          That’s ridiculous. I listen to music while coding and I actually listen to the music. I’m just being effective and coding at the same time.
          My point is perfectly valid!

          You can use it as background, to make doing other activities more pleasant or you can give it your undivided attention and really experience it.

          There! you just admitted that music isn’t on 50% of the cases, not as entertaining as the remaining media while retaining the same price.
          One of the arguments in favor of overpricing.

          You’re pretty much against a wall in all fronts at this point.
          You don’t even understand a huge deal of what’s mentioned.
          Don’t make yourself look worse, for your own sake.

        • SoundnuoS

          “How on the universe is the free version’s $/time infinite?”

          Infinitely small, of course, making it’s cost effectiveness go through the roof and leaving everything else hopelessly overpriced.

          There’s simply no reason for anyone to pay more than nothing for anything as Angry Birds free has everything beat for cost effective use of $/time.

          Or does it mean we should all stick to playing only Angry Birds free, logically it’s the most cost effective solution there is?

          Or maybe it actually means that for most people the question of $/time is actually a somewhat irrelevant question when it comes to the value of entertainment, especially for forms of entertainment that have their $/time planted solidly under 5$/hour?

        • Ardvaark

          Infinitely small, of course, making it’s cost effectiveness go through the roof and leaving everything else hopelessly overpriced.

          It’s not infinitely small, it’s 0.
          Terrible cover up attempt.
          The effectiveness is actually zero because the ratio is zero, it’s not through the roof or infinite. For it to be infinite you’d be dividing by zero.
          Bad things happen when you divide by zero.

          That’s why free stuff is a mute point. There’s also free music, and movies. In fact, there’s free versions of everything. By your twisted logic, everything is overpriced.

          There’s simply no reason for anyone to pay more than nothing for anything as Angry Birds free has everything beat for cost effective use of $/time.

          Except that free stuff are the least cost-effective stuff ever, zero.
          Maths.

          Or maybe it actually means that for most people the question of $/time is actually a somewhat irrelevant

          Seriously? You don’t take longevity of the product you’re going to buy into consideration?
          What a well educated consumer you are.

        • SoundnuoS

          No mate, nothing is more cost effective than free. A cost of zero is less than a cost of 0.000000001. Maths.
          You will get more entertainment for less money, the less you have to pay.

          That makes the free stuff the absolutely most cost effective entertainment you can get.

          “By your twisted logic, everything is overpriced.”
          You’re trying very hard to prove it to me. If $/time is your fundamental criteria for judging the value of something and determining if it’s overpriced to you as a customer, how do you motivate paying 60$, or even 10$, for the AAA list computer game when you can in fact get entertainment for free?

        • Ardvaark

          No mate, nothing is more cost effective than free. A cost of zero is less than a cost of 0.000000001. Maths.

          Seriously, I’m dying of laughter here and you don’t get it why.

          Cost -> $
          Gain/Valuable unit -> Time
          Cost effectiveness (a ratio) -> $/Time
          if it’s free then it’s 0.

          Because that’s exactly what it means, I spend 0$ per hour.
          Maths

          That makes the free stuff the absolutely most cost effective entertainment you can get.

          Indeed. And only you see a problem with it. The problem is the conclusion you get from there. By your amazing logic, everything is overpriced.

          how do you motivate paying 60$, or even 10$, for the AAA list computer game when you can in fact get entertainment for free?

          You still don’t get it.

          My measurement was just to say that between music and games, leaving personal preference and quality aside, a song costs more per hour of entertainment than a game while requiring a lot less time to produce and a lower initial investment.

          What you’re doing there is comparing two products of the same category: games. That’s completely different.
          When comparing two games (or two songs) you use personal values for parameters like genre, longevity, quality. But, a good quality and a bad quality game might cost the same, a lot of examples come to mind right away. Exactly the same applies to music: Do you prefer genre A or B? Artist A or B etc.

          You’re mixing two completely different concepts and thinking they’re equivalent. They aren’t.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Seriously, I’m dying of laughter here and you don’t get it why.

          Because that’s exactly what it means, I spend 0$ per hour.
          Maths”

          Apparently you don’t understand why you’re laughing, it seems to be at yourself.

          Exactly, you spend 0$ / hour. That is as cost effective as it gets. Maths. Or are you saying that a higher ratio is more cost effective? That would be news.

          And apparently you understand this, based on your next quote:

          “Indeed. And only you see a problem with it. The problem is the conclusion you get from there. By your amazing logic, everything is overpriced.”

          No, that is by your logic. You claim that the main thing determining whether something is overpriced or not is $/hour

          “What you’re doing there is comparing two products of the same category: games. That’s completely different.”
          No, it is not. You’ve finally realized that personal values are what determines if something is worth it or not.
          This goes for cross category shopping as well as intra-category shopping.
          If you want a specific song by a specific band it won’t matter if the $/hour is slightly less than for some other band. It will be even more insignificant to learn that the $/hour would be 50 cents less for some computer game. That still won’t get you the specific song by that specific band.
          The only thing that matters for the pricing of music is if there’s a large enough population of people who find that 99 cents for a song is value for money. $/hour compared to computer games has very little to do with this.

        • Ardvaark

          Exactly, you spend 0$ / hour. That is as cost effective as it gets.

          And is that infinite? No.
          Maths…

          No, that is by your logic. You claim that the main thing determining whether something is overpriced or not is $/hour

          Because it’s a good estimator of effectiveness. Can you find a better value? Has anyone else done so? Then please share that formula! Just don’t be an idiot saying it’s not good enough because your personal taste influence an formula about effectiveness where there is no personal taste involved.

          Remember, I compared the average music’s ratio with the average game’s ratio.

          You’re the one who introduced free to say everything is overpriced. What you tried to achieve with that is complete mystery.

          This goes for cross category shopping as well as intra-category shopping.

          You still, after all this talk, didn’t understand the point of the conversation. How slow can you be?

          Where have I said that music being overpriced or not played an influence in someone’s choice? Oh wait, nowhere…

          Because the point was to prove that music was overpriced compared to games, especially when taking into account production cost’s, initial investment and even team size.
          That was the point!
          You, unable to go against such arguments had to, like you do with every argument you’re put against a wall, bring in the personal preference and other topics who’re unrelated with the main discussion. That’s a strawman. And for someone who complained about circular reasoning where there isn’t you sure use strawmen a lot.

          If you want a specific song by a specific band it won’t matter if the $/hour is slightly less than for some other band.

          Especially when the vast majority of songs cost .99€. To games, where the price varies from 15€ to 60€ it plays a much more important role.

          The only thing that matters for the pricing of music is if there’s a large enough population of people who find that 99 cents for a song is value for money. $/hour compared to computer games has very little to do with this.

          Because it’s a comparison between two genres to prove that one of them is way overpriced.
          But I’ve said before that there were more cleared indicators of music being overpriced. You ignored those and brought on your strawmen friends. Typical.

        • SoundnuoS

          Overpriced is a value judgement. That brings personal bias into the question.

          If you’re just saying that, for a certain pattern of usage, music might have a higher $/hour ratio than for another pattern of usage with computer games then I agree.

          The only thing I’m arguing against is whether that will tell us if it’s WORTH it. That involves subjectivity.

        • Ardvaark

          Overpriced is a value judgement. That brings personal bias into the question.

          Except when you use a ratio which is as qualitative as it gets.

          If you’re just saying that, for a certain pattern of usage,

          Yes, the most common usage, the average use.

          The only thing I’m arguing against is whether that will tell us if it’s WORTH it. That involves subjectivity.

          That wasn’t my point to begin with. I just wanted to show how music even today is overpriced as shown by several factors, then I proceeded to show you one of them.

          At least we can shelf this one.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “The final value (in purely economically quantifiable terms) of any
          copyrighted work will be defined by the total amount of people paying
          for it.”

          No, that’s just the net turnover.

          It presents a very basic logistical problem to quantify the worth based on turnover for any product where the turnover has to use a formula containing n examples sold where n stands for potential infinity.

          And that’s why every market calculation in goods has to be based on Cost of Goods and net revenue with a price at a point in which the product can still sell well. Those numbers shift.

          The main fiscal failure in the copyright industry is that they may be the ONE AND ONLY business which doesn’t recalculate their cost of goods and exterior factors when trying to set prices.

        • SoundnuoS

          It’s one way of estimating what the original song is “worth”. For an original painting value tends to be established through sales of the original. Munch’s “the Scream” sold for 120 million. Currently, that’s what it’s value is in economic terms.
          For a song, where the original is not sold, the value can be estimated by how much it’s copies have sold for.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “since for many people the replayability of music far exceeds that of a computer game.”

          Question is whether you know what you just touched on. The durability of music is determined by one single factor – the time of disillusionment from the fans.

          That is why today, any artist signed to a major label may find him/herself blacklisted by irate pirates who feel the representatives of said label’s lobby firms have trolled their way through one forum post too many.

          The same way Shell was at one time boycotted by many for their behavior in certain african countries.

          Since the replayability of music depends entirely on the mindset of the consumer, it is quite important to realize that after a certain treshold, a pain point is reached, and the replayability degrades to null overnight.

          The failure to take this into account in the desperate urge to cling to the prevailing business model hurts the industry far more than any amount of imaginary lost sales numbers ever could.

        • MadAsASnake

          Well, in your case, creating one song and releasing it would be a really good start. Once you are past that milestone, some of what Ardvaark says might ma
          ke a little more sense to you

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          And he would be correct.

          Many factors are involved in finding a pain point of a product. Strangely enough, “relative price” or even “free” doesn’t seem to enter that equation at all.

          This was explained to me when I was young and naive, asking the old fox at marketing how come we could sell one product at three times the price of the no-brand competitor and still own the market. That’s when he explained the concept of “brand”.

          To put it bluntly, selling ice to eskimos and sand to desert dwellers isn’t a problem for marketing, as long as you can set a label on it. You can even sell bottled water to people living surrounded by the cleanest drinking water found in northern europe.

          That is why the prevalence of “piracy” can be completely ignored when setting prices. See my prior post in this same subthread for what I believe to be a more reasonable explanation.

          In general the consumer will have a budget to spend on products of a certain kind. That budget is normally fixed at a certain point. After that, how the budget is actually allocated is the main target marketing has to go after.

          In this case, prices are pressed because the same budget that would be used to purchase three metallica CD’s is used to power a netflix and/or spotify subscription, purchase a few dozen tracks from various artists on iTunes, and possibly in savings to attend one concert.

          Meaning the bucket allocated to pure “metallica” is smaller and that results in poor Lars having to drop his prices in order to ensure he gets as much music on the consumer market as possible.

        • SoundnuoS

          The problem is that piracy gives away the branded product for free. If your choice is between paying 100 for a pair of branded jeans or going to the store next door that offers jeans of the exact same brand, 100% genuine and free of cost, which one do you choose?
          In the case of non-essentials value is 100% a question of perception.
          The perception of what a reasonable value for something is will be heavily influenced by what the lowest price you can get it for is.
          In the case of music the cost of the cheapest option that offers equal to legit quality is 0 if you’re doing piracy.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          The problem is that piracy gives away the branded product for free. If your choice is between paying 100 for a pair of branded jeans or going to the store next door that offers jeans of the exact same brand, 100% genuine and free of cost, which one do you choose?

          Except it doesn’t. Remove the label from a bottle of evian and you are left with – tap water.

          It’s sort of obvious you don’t realize what “brand” means. If the store next door sells an unbranded pair of jeans identical in all aspects to the high-end expensive brand pair, we already know, fact sheet in hand, what happens.

          The brand label is still the one sought after, wiping the floor with it’s competitor who must establish a brand of their own before achieving the same customer fidelity.

          That’s why the company I work for spends no effort at all going after no-brand copies – but moves heaven, earth, legal and the lab if it finds someone trying to put a copy of our logo on the bottle containing the ripoff product. That silly little label is what carries all the profit capability.

        • MadAsASnake

          The brand carries a promise of reliability.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Not even that. All the Brand really is is a cute logo. One which people want to have on their goods because it provides a specific feeling of belonging.

          That’s why Gucci isn’t threatened by cheap high-quality knockoffs until the knockoff includes the Gucci logotype.

        • MadAsASnake

          I’ll disagree with you on that one – go to China. They want the real stuff…. and they’ll pay…

        • SoundnuoS

          You missed the point. When it comes to music files the sound IS the brand. The label isn’t “removed” when Tom Wait’s music is shared. It is exactly 100% the same as the official product, brand and all.
          Which is what I wrote above, not branded vs unbranded but pay-for-it branded vs get-it-as a gift branded.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “You missed the point. When it comes to music files the sound IS the
          brand. The label isn’t “removed” when Tom Wait’s music is shared. It is
          exactly 100% the same as the official product, brand and all.”

          No, I didn’t miss any points. You, however, may have deliberately misunderstood. Because I truly hope you aren’t trying to be an artist when your understanding of “brand” is itself fundamentally flawed.

          In music, the brand would be the glossy cover presenting Tom Waits in name and face. That’s what pirates stack on their shelves.

          The same way people stack bottled water in their fridge even though the tap is all of six feet away.

          The sound itself is tap water or “logotype-less Evian water”. With the added bonus that the sound is subjectively discernible and can thus be used for advertising.

          It looks like we never left the bottled water comparison. Right now, though, you are trying to redefine word meaning in the same way you tried to redefine “property” and the UN human article 27.

          That’s not really wise.

        • SoundnuoS

          When it comes to music, the sound itself is VERY much a part of the brand. If Justin Beiber wakes up one morning and finds himself sounding like Tom Waits the Beiber brand as it existed is pretty much gone.

          And I’ve done no redefining of property, merely pointed out how it works. And there’s certainly been no redefining of UN article 27.

        • MadAsASnake

          And the war on consumers that the RIAA is waging helps that perception how?

        • Ardvaark

          Geez at least get my name right it’s not like it’s that weird of a name for a Finnish person.

          As for the reason of why prices low, you’ll find an extensive explanation up there.

          If you want to know why piracy is ignored we’d have to understand the cause for piracy and the cause for prices to lower.

          The cause of prices to lower was exactly what I said before, related with supply and demand, go read it!

          Piracy came from a market opportunity. You see, when mp3 started gaining a following, the MAFIAA fought it fiercely, they wanted to keep their old business model of the 50′s. I even remember T-shirts at the time saying “legalize mp3″ being worn massively on concerts everywhere.
          So nobody could legally tap the digital music market, because the MAFIAA didn’t let them. The MAFIAA themselves didn’t want to. But demand for it didn’t fade away, so piracy showed up en mass with Napster and Kazaa at first. There was obviously piracy before but on lower numbers, those two were the first attempts to tap into the high demand of digital music that the MAFIAA didn’t want to profit upon.

          By then, prices were already tending to lower because of higher storage capabilities and because supply was quickly becoming infinite. But piracy wasn’t the cause of it, it was the response to need the MAFIAA didn’t want to hear.

          They lost the chance, their fault, not ours.

        • themerryreaper

          I fully agree with your point: even though the scarcity is no longer purposefully created , only imaginary the price of music hasn’t dropped much over the last 20 years.

          Well spotted.

        • Ardvaark

          I’m fairly sure I’ve explained this before.
          It all comes down to supply and demand.

          First of all, infinite supply is not theory, it’s very real. It however applies to the internet only.

          Proof for that is you can never see a song on iTunes saying: sold out. But you can get things sold out outside the internet.
          That’s the direct cause of infinite supply.

          lower prices. Especially for new records that haven’t been copied in vast amounts.

          The amount of copies of a certain record doesn’t affect this at all. It’s the product: music in total and not the specific song’s number of copies. For that matter, you could artificially inflate the price of a new song (.99 to 1.50 for example) because the novelty factor would counter the lower demand because of the higher price. But that’s not only an exception but is also not 100% guaranteed a success.

          Now, why do prices lower? Because of supply and demand. With the advent of the internet, supply became infinite: I’ve already explained how you can confirm this. This infinite supply increases demand, and demand increased a lot because not only music was readily and massively accessible with the internet, but it was also accessible regardless of the location, so now 3rd world countries who wouldn’t consume, can now do so (at a lower rate due to income but still do).

          This higher demand makes prices lower, like in pretty much anything else in the market.
          Another proof that demand is exponentially higher now is also music library sizes.

          In the 90′s someone would be ok carrying a 12-track CD in a walkman, now it’s pretty standard to carry a 32GB sd-card filled with songs.
          Assuming 8MB per track that’s 4096 tracks! That’s a 17000% increase!

          So since obviously no one wants to carry an 40k € iPod library (by old values) or even a 4096€ library by more recent values, prices must lower.

          This is why piracy is a service problem. Demand doesn’t just go away like that, if there’s a better alternative, people will go there.

          Just as a matter of comparison, 4096 songs ~ 273 hours of entertainment (assuming 1 play and an average 4min length track)
          You’ll find that 3-4 games would offer the same total time of entertainment (although 1 single game could achieve that value or even surpass, I’m going purposefully under). For 30€ a game that’s 120€.

          And software production is vastly harder, more time consuming, has a bigger number of people involved and has a larger initial cost involved.

          Point is, the price of entertainment has lowered, music can still be considered overpriced compared to other forms of entertainment.

        • SoundnuoS

          “music can still be considered overpriced compared to other forms of entertainment”

          This is subjective. For someone interested in music the longevity of a record can go far beyond that of any computer game.

          Your analysis is problematic because the supply being infinite is fairly irrelevant when it comes to pricing.

          As I pointed out in our other debate, supply of copyrighted material is always theoretically infinite, this was true even before the internet and digital music You can always create one more copy, at least until the world runs out of material to make records. This is for all intents and purposes an infinite supply. The only limitations are logistical.
          In the absence of piracy digital sales on the net would function pretty much like a traditional record store with the exception that all logistical problems are removed.
          Your copy gets made when you buy it. The price is set by the store and the buyer can take it or leave it.
          There’s no infinite supply available outside the legit channels, so that factor becomes fairly irrelevant in setting prices.
          Valuation is 100% based on perception when it comes to art and copies of it.
          One of the largest factors influencing the perception of what something is worth is what the lowest price someone is offering it for is.
          Napster appeared in 1999 and offered free downloads. That had a profound effect on what the public’s perception of what fair value of digital downloads is. It’s impossible to ignore piracy as a factor in this.
          Scary_Devil below has a point that pricing can be affected by the larger number of artists and the existance of competing entertainment.
          This doesn’t say anything about what the value of music would be without easy piratability however.
          It’s not automatically given that people with an interest in music would value it less than computer games.
          The way value is determined in a market without major levels of piracy is by the seller setting a price. The buyer can then say “f*ck it, too expensive, I’ll play Angry Birds instead.” That decision can then cause the seller to re-evaluate his price.
          The buyer however has no way of getting what the seller offers without paying.
          In a system with major levels of piracy the seller does not have that leverage. The buyer’s perception af value will be affected by the knowledge that they can always get it for free if they choose and the seller has little choice but to adjust their prices according to that or they are likely to loose the customer.
          Piracy is definitely a factor in pricing when it becomes widespread enough.

        • Ardvaark

          This is subjective. For someone interested in music the longevity of a record can go far beyond that of any computer game.

          Which is why I compared 1 playthrough to 1 music play.

          Some people do all the extras and effectively double the playthrough, just like some people listen to the same record over and over again. So for good measure I compared regular use of both. Still if you’re so picky, compare it with 1 gameplay vs 10music plays, it’s still 1700% more expensive.

          Your analysis is problematic because the supply being infinite is fairly irrelevant when it comes to pricing.

          Now you’re just playing deaf ears. I’ve given you one reason why supply influences pricing, scary devil monastery gave you another reason more related with individual economies. What more proof that you’re wrong do you want? Seriously…

          As I pointed out in our other debate,

          You can stop right there, I fairly proven that supply isn’t infinite outside of the internet in both debates.

          I’ll quote myself once again:

          All the record stores in the world don’t supply the whole population in demand. There aren’t enough of them. You need to understand that supply in the real world is always limited. It’s how reality works! Why are you arguing with facts and reality?
          Without piracy, the supply on the net is infinite. With piracy, the supply on the net is also infinite.
          Piracy has no effect on the supply side of the market. I’ve stated this many times and you seem to miss this or ignore it.
          What piracy does, however, is offer the same product in infinite supply to respond to the part of the market whose demand is not met by the remaining services.

          I hope you’re enlightened now. Next, like I’ve explained the higher demand makes prices naturally lower. Since the stores refuse to follow the trend of the market by setting prices and not lowering them, people find alternatives to their demands.

          You watch apple lower their IPhone prices the instant they see their sales drop because they can’t overprice anymore and are losing sales to alternatives.

          You can’t just claim what happens if piracy is gone, because piracy is the result of people getting tired of market manipulation by the music industry.

          There’s no infinite supply available outside the legit channels,

          The infinite supply is there however, and the increased demand it causes as well. Remember, untapped demand leads to piracy!

          Valuation is 100% based on perception when it comes to art and copies of it.

          It should be, but when I suggest pay what you want design models you say it’s degrading for the artist. Which one is it then? make your mind up. Right now it’s not 100% perception based. A crappy song costs the same as the next big hit.

          It’s impossible to ignore piracy as a factor in this.

          Yes indeed, it had a democratizing factor to it. People tried to legally sell mp3 and were stalled by MAFIAA bureaucracy and limitations, so they decided to offer them for free as sharing instead of selling it as business.

          The demand was there already, this was just a response to ignoring it.

          It’s not automatically given that people with an interest in music would value it less than computer games.

          And precisely because of that I used 1 playthrough with 1 music play. So that the results are independent of someone enjoying both or just one of the media. That is totally irrelevant.

          I assume someone plays the game to the end and someone hears the music to the end. It’s a perfectly valid comparison independent of interest. You’re just finding problems where there aren’t.

          The way value is determined in a market without major levels of piracy is by the seller setting a price.

          Damn you keep repeating the same mistakes!

          The value is determined by the market’s demand! You can set your music’s price to 50€ a unit, if you’re to profit from it you can bet it’ll lower until the market’s demand is met. Unless you really don’t want to, but then people will find alternatives and it’s not their fault. Remember piracy is an alternative to a faulty service!

          The buyer however has no way of getting what the seller offers without paying.

          It does if there’s an alternative, let it be streaming, piracy or making your own stuff. An alternative is just that, an alternative. What the alternative is doesn’t matter. You just hate one of the alternatives because in your eyes you can’t compete with it. Others however don’t care and can compete with it.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Piracy has no effect on the supply side of the market. I’ve stated this many times and you seem to miss this or ignore it.”

          This is wrong. Piracy is the only supplier that does unrestricted supplying. The point isn’t that piracy increases the amount of copies that can be made. This is infinite no matter who does the supplying, but this is also irrelevant for pricing.

          Piracy is the only supplier offering the exact same product for free and unrestricted. That’s a major difference and has an immediate effect on the supply side of the market.

          Without piracy the supply isn’t unrestricted. Do you honestly think that the fact that an infinite number of copies can be distributed is the main factor that will affect pricing in that situation?

          As I said, the way piracy affects pricing is by creating the awareness that whenever you want you can choose to get the same thing for free. This will be a factor whenever someone makes up their mind as to what fair price should be.

          “You watch apple lower their IPhone prices the instant they see their sales drop because they can’t overprice anymore and are losing sales to alternatives.”

          And this is because demand drops, not because it increases.
          The price is dropped to increase demand again.

          ” A crappy song costs the same as the next big hit.”

          Yes, but it won’t be WORTH the same as the next big hit. 500 people will be buying the crappy song and 250000 will be buying the hit. It will also be placed in the bargain bin way sooner than the big hit.

          This IS market demand setting the value.

          “The value is determined by the market’s demand! You can set your music’s price to 50€ a unit, if you’re to profit from it you can bet it’ll lower until the market’s demand is met. ”

          That’s exactly what I said. Pricing is set as a dialog between buyer and seller.
          What piracy does however is lower the pricepoint at which the customer finds value in the legit offering by giving the customer the option to not buy and get the product anyway.

        • Ardvaark

          This is wrong. Piracy is the only supplier that does unrestricted supplying. The point isn’t that piracy increases the amount of copies that can be made. This is infinite no matter who does the supplying, but this is also irrelevant for pricing.

          Back to contradicting yourself in the same paragraph?

          You say I’m wrong by saying piracy doesn’t affect the supply side of things because it’s still infinite but you say that supply “is infinite no matter” what? So I AM indeed right. And we agree for once it’s irrelevant to the pricing! Good we’re getting somewhere.

          Like I said, infinite supply makes it so that demand can grow, which then influences the prices to lower. That’s caused by infinite supply but indeed supply is not the direct cause of lower prices. +1 Reading star for you ;)

          Piracy is the only supplier offering the exact same product for free and unrestricted.

          True, and ok. No problem there.

          That’s a major difference and has an immediate effect on the supply side of the market.

          Nope, supply is still infinite. You said it yourself. You’re very contradictory today…

          Do you honestly think that the fact that an infinite number of copies can be distributed is the main factor that will affect pricing in that situation?

          What makes you think I do? I’ve explained you the other half of the coin… demand…

          As I said, the way piracy affects pricing is by creating the awareness that whenever you want you can choose to get the same thing for free.
          This will be a factor whenever someone makes up their mind as to what fair price should be.

          Again with the bottled water comparison you seem to agree it’s not an issue but fail to apply the same concept to an exactly similar situation.

          And this is because demand drops, not because it increases.

          Oh please are you fucking kidding me?

          I’ve very clearly stated you that the demand is still the same, just finding alternatives (Galaxy S3, HTC etc) and you say demand is lower??

          The price is dropped to increase demand again.

          Oh and the next sentence you contradict yourself again? That’s 3 times in the same reply… consistency please…

          So which one is it after all? Do prices lower or increase with higher demand?

          By the way your answer to this will make or break your argument in economics.

          Yes, but it won’t be WORTH

          Geez they’re both worth .00€ to me. One’s more profitable than the other.

          It will also be placed in the bargain bin way sooner than the big hit.

          There is no bargain bin. All music’s still worth 1€. That’s what happens when you have a distribution and pricing monopoly.

          This IS market demand setting the value.

          As I’ve show you it isn’t. They stay the same…

          You’re not very bright at economics.

          That’s exactly what I said. Pricing is set as a dialog between buyer and seller.

          Great so now we finally agree that it’s OK to let the prices lower to adapt to alternatives or let the business die for trying to keep things the same, against the natural flow of the market.

          What piracy does however is lower the pricepoint at which the customer finds value in the legit offering

          Which is the process I described above with the market’s demand making prices lower. The process you seemed to agree.
          I guess you just don’t like competition.

        • SoundnuoS

          You should read through the whole post before you start replying instead of going through it phrase by phrase and replying to it as you go. You’re arguing against a lot of points I’m not making by not doing that.

          “Nope, supply is still infinite. You said it yourself. You’re very contradictory today…”

          No, I’m not and once you get to the end of my post you seem to have picked up on what I was saying.

          Piracy has an effect on the pricing the supply side can set, not because it increases the supply from infinite to infinite*2, but because it satisfies demand at a lower price point. Supply has suddenly become infinite AND free. It changes the perception of the value point on the demand side.

          “I’ve very clearly stated you that the demand is still the same, just finding alternatives (Galaxy S3, HTC etc) and you say demand is lower??”

          The demand for iPhones at the original pricepoint is no longer there. This means demand has gone down. Apple is now lowering prices to satisfy the remaining demand there is for iPhones at a lower price point. Should be obvious.

          Now imagine the situation that Apple phones can be copied effortlessly at home, at no cost, the copies being 100% functionally identical and impossible to distinguish in any way from the originals, and that these copies can be distributed to the whole world for free.
          Will this work to lower or raise prices Apple can set on their legit phones and will it eat into their profitability?

          “Again with the bottled water comparison you seem to agree it’s not an issue but fail to apply the same concept to an exactly similar situation.”
          And you misunderstand the bottled water comparison. The only reason anyone can sell bottled water is because they have brand protection. Their water is perceived as different.
          With musical files there is no brand differentiation, or perhaps more correctly, it IS the branded product that’s being shared.

        • Ardvaark

          You should read through the whole post before

          Oh I do, but I find it hilarious that your initial part contradicts the end. If I did it phrase by phrase I’d end up repeating myself too much because you tend to repeat yourself a lot and I just end up replying to various paragraphs alltogether.

          No, I’m not and once you get to the end of my post you seem to have picked up on what I was saying.

          Really:

          The point isn’t that piracy increases the amount of copies that can be made. This is infinite no matter who does the supplying

          Seems you pretty much said it yourself….

          Piracy has an effect on the pricing the supply side can set, not because it increases the supply from infinite to infinite*2,

          You’re too confused. Piracy doesn’t change supply or the pricing. ScaryDevilMonastery and I have shown you why and how.

          it satisfies demand at a lower price point.

          Now that’s true. But you have to remember that that untapped demand before piracy was willingly ignored. There’s nothing wrong with competition.

          It’s pretty much natural and ok for every other business. Only copyright makes a fuss about it.

          The demand for iPhones at the original pricepoint is no longer there.

          The demand is for high-end high-quality smart phones. Not specifically iPhones. That’s a subset of the market only.

          Should be obvious.

          It should, but as I suspected You’re clueless. You failed completely to answer my question.

          The fact of the matter is, it was a trick question. Prices lower as the market evolves. Higher demand leads to lower prices and lower demand indirectly forces prices to lower so that more people buy.

          The thing is the second one is indeed in control of the supplier. However, if you freeze the prices for too long, eventually you’ll end up with competition. That’s why Intel is a master in the market by the way.

          The problem is, higher demand, caused by higher storage capabilities require prices to lower or, people will buy a small amount and then get the rest elsewhere. With the scale that this has grown, it’s obvious that the 1 sale 1 song model is starting to become useless and in time will have to shift.

          Will this work to lower or raise prices Apple can set on their legit phones and will it eat into their profitability?

          No, some Chinese rip-offs of other items are perfectly comparable with the original and still the original suppliers don’t really care or are affected by them in a meaningful manner.

          Again, bottled water issue fits here like a glove.

          Their water is perceived as different.

          Really? Ask anyone on the street’s. They’ll say it’s the same as water, just convenient at times (which is why they buy it).
          The great failure of the media industries is the ability to convey convenience and brand power.
          You yourself are saying what’s needed. Do it. Say buying the original is worth more and has more advantages than the filthy pirate version!
          Value your product, don’t complain about competition. You’re answering your own questions!

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Please explain what the mechanism is here. How does the theoretical (in
          the real world an infinite amount of copies does not actually exist)
          infinite supply work to lower prices. Especially for new records that
          haven’t been copied in vast amounts.

          Even leaving noncommercial piracy by the roadside, you are getting: Every radio transmission available by podcast, Youtube, demo tracks offered on homepages…

          Add to this the phenomenon of cross-platform, ensuring that there is no necessity – in fact, it’d be bloody stupid – to buy the same track both on vinyl, cassette, and CD-rom.

          But the real clincher on supply and demand is this: There are perhaps ten artists out there being heard where there used to be one. You generally won’t find fans dedicating their time exclusively to one band with half a dozen others – people pick and choose.

          And to top that off, people buy single tracks these days, generally not whole albums – distributing their budget across many artists instead of just one or two.

          That’s where supply and demand comes into play – instead of buying a metallica album for 30€, people spend 0,5 € each on 60 tracks belonging to 12 different artists, for example.

          That means competition for the valid monthly budget of the fans. Competition means prices drop.

      • IDIOCRACY

        And there it is….. see previous post (F*cking disqus… pardon me)…hehe

      • n_mailer

        “Sadly, they never both to consider the real implications, such as what those people would do WITHOUT piracy.”

        There are no statistics to measure this.

        “people are spending as much as they can, that just isn’t supported by the loss of recorded music sales”

        So a drop in sales refutes the idea that people have less money to spend? Genius, Boob.

        “the rest of their money that use to be for music is now for other things – because the economy hasn’t shrunk”
        If 100 people are laid off and one CEO collects all their pay into his check. the “economy” of that company has not shrunk, but the unemployed still don’t have the money to spend.

        • SoundnuoS

          “There are no statistics to measure this.”
          France after Hadopi, Sweden after Ipred, South Korea moving to 11th position from 22nd in comparisons of music revenue after enacting laws against downloading.
          All show sales increases.
          Real world experiments seem to show that acting against piracy will increase sales.

        • MadAsASnake

          I’m fascinated, that you rely as set in stone gospel, any number that suits your purpose, and declare the rest as vague and meaningless. The whole lot is vague and difficult to understand, and not at all helped by industry sponsored “research” that has a predetermined outcome. All of these were measuring BitTorrent. Sure, people protected themselves by making their activities invisible to the narrow band that can be traced at all.

        • SoundnuoS

          What I find fascinating is that the correlations seem to be so clear. Large scale piracy unchecked and the sales go down, do something to curb piracy and the sales go up.
          Repeatably and across countries.
          “Correlation is not causation” is starting to sound more and more like the tobacco company defense to me, especially as the same correlations seem to exist even in the data in this latest paper here. I.e. the more clicks there are on average in a country on illegal websites the fewer clicks there will be on legal websites.
          I can’t see that work together with a “piracy increases sales” claim.

        • MadAsASnake

          Thanks for really making my point. The figures show no such thing (unless you carefully select onnly those numbers that suit you, as you have once again just done).

        • SoundnuoS

          Really? Page 24 table 2. The country numbers at the top. They should give us the big picture of how clicks on illegal websites correlate with clicks on legal websites for the whole sample in that country, right?

          Ordered according to clicks on illegal websites:

          Spain: illegal 10.38 buying 0.41
          UK: illegal 7.99 buying 1.23
          Italy: illegal 7.97 buying 0.37
          France: Illegal 6.49 buying 1.65
          Germany: Illegal 6.24 buying 1.79

          Looks pretty clear to me, countries with more clicks on illegal websites tend to have less clicks on legal websites.

        • MadAsASnake

          So what happened in Italy? It’s hardly a correlation. Anyway, if you want to trash the method, isn’t it silly to rely on the data?

        • SoundnuoS

          The data is just data. I’ll assume it’s correct.

          The trend is clear however. More clicks on illegal websites tend to lead to less clicks on legal websites.

          Another interesting correlation is that Germany, the country with most clicks on legal sites and least on illegal sites overtook the UK as the worlds third largest music market in 2010, maintaining that position in 2011.

          Might be random, might not.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Actually, the swedish figures indicate that there is at most a four month dip after whic piracy figures surge back to normal.

          And given that HADOPI is under increasing fire every time they post a statistic, their data may not be very accurate.

          However…neither HADOPI nor IPRED can be said to be anything but complete breakdowns of ordinary jurisprudence so even if they had showed a 100% decrease in piracy, they are still completely unacceptable.

        • MadAsASnake

          Haha. The HADOPI people are too scared to prosecute people – they know the rebellion they’d get. So all they can do is send out *more* pointless “first strikes”. You couldn’t make it up. French tax payers have every right to be pissed at this gratuitous waste of tax money.

        • Ardvaark

          Geez IPred is completely ignored as a law. No one is seriously afraid of it.

          Hadopi is on the other end of the spectrum as scary goes, compared to IPred and still the only effect it had was fill the pockets of proxy and vpn service providers.

      • Typhoid Mary

        Professor Bob to the rescue. Did you figure this all out on your Etch a Sketch? Or did you map it all out with your Play-Doh Fun Bucket. I’m so proud of you Bob.

        Now go clean the Peanut Butter and Jelly off your face, its time for your nappy nap. You’ve put in a good day of playing. Silly boy.

        • dropin

          Mary,
          Don’t forget to apply some cold cream
          to that bad case of nappy rash Bob has on his bottom.

      • sharms

        Are you dumb, deaf, or all 3 ?

      • ndmushroom

        Apparently they do. More music is sold now than ever before. (https://torrentfreak.com/more-music-sold-than-ever-before-despite-piracy-110110/)
        The “problem” the industry faces is that music “units” are no longer 12-track albums costing 20 dollars, but a single track costing 0.99. In other words, if I like song A by artist X I buy song A by artist X, and not album B or compilation C by artists X, Y and Z. Which a. no matter how much you try to convince me, is a good thing and not a bad one and b. no matter how much you try to convince me, has nothing to do with filesharing but has everything to do with the surge of itunes and other online music stores.

      • Johann7

        Wait, I’m confused about what you mean when you say “before piracy”. Property laws – including IP laws – are an invention of various human societies. There was a point in time when they did not exist and therefore piracy could not exist, but based on context, I don’t think you’re talking about that. If you mean “before the internet”, that’s hardly relevant, as that was half a century ago (while the World Wide Web wasn’t invented until the nineties, the Internet is a lot older) and a lot of other things have changed. Also, media piracy was alive and well back in the days when it involved shady mail-order services for cassettes posted in the classified sections of periodicals or even later when for several years burned CDs from pseudonymous eBay accounts was a major distribution channel, before widespread all-digital distribution channels became most popular (of course, concurrent with even tape piracy in the late 80s and early 90s, usenet and IRC functioned as distribution platforms for the hardcore underground).

        At any rate, there was no mythic time “before piracy” to which to compare anything; that’s just a lazy, ignorant fabrication (I’m just barely old enough to remember recording songs off the radio for playback in my tape-cassette Walkman). Asserting “a basic fact” that depends on something imaginary you just made up doesn’t do a whole lot for your general credibility.

    • The_Strawbear

      Y’all care way too much about that guy.

      • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

        Is arguments are amusing. Posting without him or his cronies here in the comment section, commenting would be boring.

      • Guest

        Translation: Y’all are making it way too hard to be a MAFIAA shill, please stop it.

  • Breezer

    I have an idea. why don’t we just cut the fucken cords in the ocean and stop the internet? then the countries can focus on their debt. yes there is piracy! fucken deal with it. not everyone has $1 for a song or $19.99 for an album. not everyone has money so just because I don’t have money im not allowed to listen to music? that’s just fucken bullshit. the artist get enough money. without piracy they can have 400 cars and 30 homes. with piracy they have 15 homes and 200 cars. they don’t lose money. if there is anything they should feel proud for is the pirates that pirate their stuff and give them publicity.

    Let the hate comments come :) im just saying what I think. no harm in that right?

  • MadAsASnake

    So Internet sharing is really the new radio. Where people used to pick up on new stuff by radio, they now download. There is a positive to this: the radio “charts” were pretty much fictions (I actually think they are frauds) driven my the music industry themselves. Downloads are a much more real representation of what people are liking. I can imagine the RIAA hating this (they just love to fix results to their own advantage), but, well tough. The other thing that I’d note is that this report is looking at the market as a whole. There will be winners and losers – as there is with all technology. In this case, the losers will be the RIAA-based dinosaurs that are trying to kill the Internet instead of listening to it. Independents (at least the smart ones) should be the biggest winners, as they no longer need to rely on the corrupt radio broadcast system. Again, this is all well and good. So the most important thing I get from this is that we need to stop the RIAA, MPAA and associated thugs from taking alternative distribution platforms (like TPB, Megaupload and so on) down. As we see once again: is it a threat to the music industry as a whole? NO! Is it a threat to RIAA affiliates who depend solely on Radio and massive promotion. Absolutely! It is important that it is perfectly possible for the RIAA and affiliates to wise up about this and use the Internet… my guess is they won’t.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=812700143 Ley Shade

      The music charts were debunked in the mid-90′s, when Top of The Pops confirmed they ”auctioned the top ten spots”, coupled with the public announcement that charts were based on how many of a track sold ”to vendors”, and not ”to consumers”. That is, ”how many copies of X single/album did shops buy to sell on”, not ”how many people brought X single/album from a shop to listen to”.

      If you actually look at sales for most major pop artists, ever since the early 90′s, you will find the ”vendor sales” and ”consumer sales” to be heavily mismatched. Hence, ”dollar bins” and ”discount racks” =)

      • MadAsASnake

        Yup, and the chances of an indie getting in there was zero, no matter how popular. The RIAA and studio’s had a little scheme going that’s called a virtuous circle – not very virtuous though. Would not stand up to any anti-trust investigation.

  • Anyone

    yay for common sense

    I’m waiting for bobmail’s rebuttal, I’m sure he is getting briefed as we speak
    I’m curious how he will twist facts this time

    • bobmail

      Yeah, my brief today was short:

      “anyone is a baiting troll asshole”.

      Job completed

      • Anyone

        takes one to know one? ;)

      • Guest

        You’re just mad that each and every time your heroes attempt copyright infringement, they end up having to break the law to do it, and they get called out on it.

        We’ll be waiting for March 29 when your heroes at Prenda Law can join Evan Stone and Andrew Crossley.

      • Guest

        “Job completed”

        Yeah, you took the bait. Good job.

        You actually have no self awareness at all about how miserably stupid you are, do you?

        • IDIOCRACY

          hehehehe need say no more hehe

      • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

        “baiting troll asshole”

        hmm who does that remind me of. >.>

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “anyone is a baiting troll troll baiting asshole”.

        Fixed that for you. You need to watch that grammar.

        That said, I’m impressed with Anyone. I thought in order to get you to emerge from under your bridge it would be necessary to show where you were lying your teeth off about what you yourself said in earlier threads.

  • placplacplac

    TorrentFreak, the first site on the net where readers are looking forward to a troll comment.

    • ErnestoTF

      Quite an achievement isn’t it?

      • placplacplac

        At least it shows that they don’t rest on laurels

        • Stand and Oli

          Yeah, they’re all Laurel and Hardy.

        • IDIOCRACY

          INDEED I Can’t wait for bobby (Bobmail) to come here and say it is all a lie and making an @ss out of himself again…hehe

      • MadAsASnake

        It’s fish in a barrel stuff though – except the fish don’t understand they’ve been shot.

        • MadAsASnake

          I take it the downvote is from one of the fish…

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Wait, bobmail is a troll? I was under the impression he was a wannabe clown, specializing in the schtick of “failed straight man”.

      That explains why he keeps insisting he isn’t getting paid.

      • Andrew Lee

        Hah! I love bobmail, he/she/it or whatever, fuck you “sorry been watching too much South Park” is very fun to pick on.

      • dropin

        “Wait, bobmail is a troll?”

        Yes it surprised me to Scary_Devil
        I did not suspect it,to be honest I was shocked

    • dropin

      TorrentFreak, the first site on the net where readers
      can keep up to date on the mafiaa,and be entertained
      by bobby.
      And his battalion of clowns and trolls.
      Torrentfreak I salute you.

    • Ardvaark

      Well it sure keeps thinks lively and entertaining.

      He might be clueless but it’s entertaining to watch him fail

    • Wallace

      Not gonna lie … I sometimes scroll down to yell at the trolls before I read the actual articles. It’s my stress relief on the job.

  • Capitol

    Next week a new report will be published giving details that piracy DOES hurt music sales blah blah blah which of course will be funded by those in Hollywood/US to debunk this EU report in response.

    • MadAsASnake

      Key here is that RIAA will pay someone for a report in which they have pre-determined the answer they want. These reports are about as useful as toilet paper.

      • Anyone

        not as soft

        • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

          Spartan Soft.

      • M B

        Hey there now don’t go badmouthing toilet paper, for without it everyone would have a very bad time -_-

  • Jan

    I don’t think the music industry cares much about this. What they really care about is control. As soon as it gets out of their hands, it is scary, “harmful“, dangerous and should be banned.

    They’re simply obsessed with controlling the things they have copyright over.

    • MadAsASnake

      … and things they don’t. The most damaging stuff looks very much like attacks on competitors, and not just the indies.

  • The_Strawbear

    The real problem of course isn’t what’s happening today, it’s what might happen in the future, which can in no way be measured or quantified.

    Labels are making money today still (mainly by taking a huge chunk of what others have earned) but they fear that pirates (who take a huge chunk of what someone else has created for free) are symptomatic of what might become the prevailing zeitgeist.

    If that happens, with people possibly assuming that ownership of music/books/movies is free,it will lead to a minimizing of quality cultural output and all we’ll be left with will be youtube videos of cats playing pianos and terribly written fan fiction about shows from 20 years ago.

    Hopefully enough people will still keep rewarding artists they like with their money so they can keep on working and making more great stuff.

    • MadAsASnake

      “Home taping is killing music”. Same drum, keep banging it. Home taping did not kill music 20+ years ago nor will the Internet today. BTW, copyright needs to end after a sensible number of years (10ish), otherwise the balance of rights on both sides is buggered up.

      • UraPhake

        I wonder who/what it was that the Wandering Minstrels of yore were killing in their time? Or would that have been themselves?

        Was there such a thing as a Pirate Wandering Minstrel?

        Where’s the Sheriff of Nottingham when you need him? Oh, wait — he was probably the equivalent of today’s MAFIAA anyway, so…nevermind.

        • Boring Phil

          Wandering minstrels are killing town criers!

        • MadAsASnake

          Town criers are killing sleep!

    • Guest

      If labels and publishers persist in treating all customers as thieves, then they will pretty much get “the prevailing zeitgeist”. Except that no one, save for Cary Sherman, will empathise with them.

    • Guest321

      If Piracy is really damaging as you and your friend Bobby seem to keep harping on, it would have killed music and movies 20 years ago. Instead Hollywood seems to keep posting record breaking profits year after year and online music stores like iTunes and Amazon continues to get richer.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        20 years ago?

        The industry have claimed music was going to die since the invention of the self-playing piano.

        Just as their fellows in the publishing industry cried out that public libraries would kill publishing and literacy.

    • Anyone

      hometaping didn’t kill music, VHS wasn’t the Boston strangler

      despite our best efforts, the “industry” will survive

    • Plop

      I guess TFA was TL;DR huh?

      Here’s a quick summary. The prevailing zeitgeist thinks that streaming (legal or infringing) or downloading (infringing) is OK and the research figures show that these activities translate into increased sales through the legal download stores.

      Ergo, an increase in what you fear leads to the opposite of what you predict. Namely, more ‘piracy’ means more sales. Pirates don’t assume ‘ownership is free’ but are discovering new music to purchase through those ‘free’ avenues.

      Additionally, your ad-hominen aimed at independent producers reveals your utter contempt for the people who make the stuff this industry actually relies on for its existence. Is it any surprise more and more of us are deciding to be indie when we’ve had the experience of dealing with this contempt first hand?

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Wasn’t that, word for word, the same old tune the music industry has been yodeling out to all and sundry since the invention of the self-playing piano?

      Unbelievable. The industry has been going on like a broken record, stating emphatically that [insert technology here] will kill music and have artists roaming in weeping hordes through the street, eating their own children in order to stay alive.

      For over 100 years now. And yet it would appear the entertainment industry has survived quite well every last one of those vicissitudes.

    • Black Belt Jones

      “The real problem of course isn’t what’s happening today, it’s what might happen in the future, which can in no way be measured or quantified.”

      Maaaan you come right out of a comic book. You’re scared because you can’t see into the future and/or control it? And you have the nerve to quip to someone else on this board about them wearing a tinfoil hat!

      +1 for ironic content.

  • anonymous

    How long does it take the music industry realize that their anti-piracy measures are just dumping cash down a drain? Not only does it not work very well, piracy also doesn’t have a sizable impact on the industry itself, yet they are still throwing money at it.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      As far as I can see all it’s accomplished is that Sony, Warner and Universal have to build shell companies exclusively in order to avoid the odious PR the mother companies have spread among their fans.

    • Violated0

      Some recorded companies have indeed come to accept that lawful music goes hand in hand with piracy where the average user’s collection has a mix of both,

      There was that iTunes put your music on the cloud deal some time ago that would scan your computer for music and convert it to copies on the cloud including converting up to like 65,000 pirated songs into their lawful music versions,

      Made me wish at the time for a 65,000 MP3 torrent but such a guide offer into legal music is indeed a good method.

  • Pierat

    its never going to matter. the industries are going to bitch and keep on bitching. its the consumers fault, piracy is responsible for the bad ecco so on and so forth. they bitched about radio, broadcast TV, VCR’s. and when all this tech got updated they raised more hell about it. no statistic is ever going to matter as all they do is pay off some government official to have there way. this is more than likely Y the copyright reform for the UK was halted in the 1st place, they new they planed to change it to allow more flexibility and the industries bitched again and paid some one to postpone it, so they could have the time to keep changes from happening or to make sure that the changes had specifics to be required, so say copying a cd’s would be ok, BUT ONLY if it falls under specific
    circumstances.

    .

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Well, what can you expect? The music industry has been built on a business model of whining and cajoling. It’s not let them down so far.

      And if the panicky reactions of Chris dodd when SOPA and PIPA were threatening to fall, like any child spoiled rotten, they have a vicious streak a mile wide when frustrated.

      In essence what the man said was “Remember who f**king OWNS you!”.

      Those people aren’t going to change until the ground has been completely cut out from under them. Though if the explosive growth of unaffiliated indies and the budget cuts in the MPAA budget offered by hollywood is any indication, that may not be long in coming.

      • Pierat

        “In essence what the man said was “Remember who f**king OWNS you!” they need to be reminded who owns them.

        the MPAA budget offered by hollywood?

        the MPAA is hollywood.

        • Pierat

          who ever thumbed me down YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood

        • UraPhake

          They may have been confused by your confusion just as you were confused by the context of how Chris Dodd relates to the MPAA when Scary_Devil said, “Remember who f**king OWNS you!” [paraphrasing a Chris Dodd reaction to the imminent failure of SOPA/PIPA]

          To clarify:
          http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-revenue-grows-chris-dodd-gets-2-4-million-130301/

          Are we clear now? (not in a Scientology way, of course)

        • Pierat

          he said “the MPAA buget offered by hollywood”

          hollywood can’t offer them selves there own budget, its impossible. that would be like Dodd handing himself the paperwork. btw Chriss Dodd is the CEO of the MPAA AKA HollyWood.

          BTW that link is in regards to filing taxes. so he meant to say that the MPAA filed under hollywood?

          and I meant who owns the MPAA……um…I know who does but a shit load of other people would disagree with me.

          nope not clear sorry.

        • UraPhake

          So…then why the context of SOPA/PIPA?
          Who pays the politicians? Who “owns” them?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Wasn’t me.

          But to clarify – “Hollywood” is not one single entity.

          “MPAA” and “RIAA” are, irrespective of what they try to represent themselves as, mainly a collective horde of lawyers latching onto every creative industry like a leech, offering “protection”.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          No, not quite.

          The MPAA (and for that matter the RIAA) are the vast rapacious horde of lawyers who keep telling artists, moviemakers, theme park owners and stars; The pirates will come and plunder your homes, rob the banks of the money you keep in it, and sell your children into sex slavery to russian brothels. They are evil wizards who can do this by magically copying your works. We can protect you though, nevermind what the papers say, just sign on the dotted line at page 4.

  • Pingback: Online Music Piracy Doesn’t Hurt Sales, European Commission Finds | Best Seedbox

  • Pingback: Online piracy still doesn't hurt digital music sales, finds new study | Need2review

  • Pingback: New Study Finds That Music Piracy Doesn’t Negatively Affect Sales | WebProNews

  • guber

    How else will government gain blanket control of the internet?

    Think about the governments, man /s

  • John Space

    Slow learner much, EC?

    • Violated0

      Sure this is only something that many of us have known for many years but look at it this way when Governments have long listen to MPAA/RIAA hype and propaganda.

      S

  • IHaveNoBalls

    Meh

  • Anon

    In other news, women will just have to get over seeing rape as a problem, 1) because no laws will ever stop it and because 2) too much privacy is lost to monitor communications in law enforcement to thwart it and 3) it is as natural for people as it is for them to share. ;-)

    • Guest

      Yes, when rape gets to the point where any random man can be convicted of rape based on accusations and claims that he has a dick, you’d see that occurring.

      What part of rape isn’t normal but sharing is do you jackasses not understand? Oh, wait. You’re the dummy who still can’t make up his mind if more or less pirates are breaking more or less law two or five or ten years ago!

    • IDIOCRACY

      I know with the rape you mean the MPAA’s behavior towards its clients (women), and that no law will ever stop it and because, too much privacy of the workers is lost to monitor communications in law enforcement..bla bla bla…
      it is as natural for people as it is to them to grab what they can hehe

      But still we fight the MPAA arrrrrgggg. hehe

    • Pierat

      you have officially hit a new low.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Not really. Apparently you missed the comment where he was fervently hoping – in great delight – that a convicted pirate would have rape by a cellmate named “Tiny” included in the sentence.

        Or the time where he admitted he was fine with being a fascist if that was the only way to deal with piracy.

        Or the one where he emphatically stated that piracy had to be dealt with by any means, right on top of where he wanted piracy to be dealt with by “lifecrushing withering punishments” extending to the close of kin.

        I think the last one appeared in that thread where he was caroling cheerfully over finnish police impounding the laptop of a 9-year old girl over one broken download.

        “Anon” – our original “Baghdad Bob” was otherwise known for standing around, pulling the “You will all be punished”-act which “bobmail” is now known for.

    • joexxx

      What does this have to do with the article?
      Next time, post a relevant comment.

      • http://twitter.com/DarkNinja45 WD

        >Anon

        Seriously, you expect relevance from him and bobmail? I’ll admit these morons are nowhere near as bad as that one jackass who kept comparing piracy to endorsing child porn on every article about TPB. What was his name again?

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      If “rape” was “jaywalking” then yes. Since it isn’t a valid comparison, no. Do you also advocate 24/7 deep penetrative surveillance on jaywalkers and people using profanity in public places?

      For most people, see, rape is an actual crime. A violent and despicable one.

      For you, given your previous comments, of course, the main beef seems to be rape isn’t used as an enforcement mechanism against filesharers. We still recall your ghoulish delight at the thought of filesharers doing jail time with some dude named “Tiny” as a cellmate.

      Now, it doesn’t exactly comes as news that the first church of copyright seems to think making a copy of media is akin to forcing a screaming woman to the floor. What mainly surprises me is that anyone of you lot would be dumb enough to reveal those views in public.

      I guess at the heart of it, your dogma doesn’t leave any room at all for humanitarianism.

    • Ardvaark

      I’m still waiting for your comparison that file sharers are worse than hitler and therefore should be chased and prosecuted.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Judging by some of “Anon”‘s choicer bits of previous commentary, I very much doubt he would want to express himself in a way to cast a slur on what, going by his arguments, must be an obviously enlightened leader.

        I still have difficulty getting over the post where he confessed himself to being fine with being a fascist.

        Normally we’d just peg Anon as freshly sprung from the murkier corners of /b/ but if that’s the case, he has unheard-of persistence for a troll.

        And it gets worse since we know that MPAA mouthpieces have actually used the same rhetoric in real life, on camera.

  • james

    Things that make go hummm ;-)

  • josh1073

    Later this week a university funded by Hollywood will find these results invalid for reasons know only to them.

  • n_mailer

    “This means that although there is trespassing of private property rights,”

    False. The only private property involved is that belonging to the sharer.

    Copyright is a right to claim an exception that restricts others’ use of THEIR private property. Usually, the exception is just and valid.

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

    buying media threatens piracy, boycott now while stocks last!!

    • joexxx

      What?

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

        it was my attempt, poking fun it the main article with my own headline. put simply as short as i could, once i begin to explain the whole thing gets kind of lost, you probably have already, but if not, forget it

  • Traveller

    Finally some common sense. The MAFIAA and those organizations that falsely say that protect the artists such as the spanish SGAE will NOT be happy.
    Bad luck for them: the sooner they understand a pirate download is NOT a lost sale, the better will be for everyone.

  • joexxx

    Amazing. Additional free and very relevant advertising doesn’t hurt sales! Do you need an MBA to figure this out?

  • sharms

    I’ve been saying it for years. Confirmed. Positive effect on sales. RIAA are a bunch of morons. Wasting their money.

  • Pingback: Le téléchargement illégal n’a aucun effet négatif sur les ventes de musique (et c’est pas moi qui le dit) | Korben

  • tigerkarp

    Stopped downloaing music 8 years ago, too much of a chore to organice. Streaming is the way to go if you’re not in a 3:rd world country or into some seriously weird shit,

  • Pingback: Le téléchargement illégal n’a aucun effet négatif sur les ventes de musique (et c’est pas moi qui le dit) | - Dépannage Informatique, Limoges et toute la haute vienne, 87, Réparateur Ordinateur, Maintenance PC à Domicile, installation box, créateur de sites internet- Dépannage Informatique, Limoges et toute la haute vienne, 87, Réparateur Ordinateur, Maintenance PC à Domicile, installation box, créateur de sites internet

  • Pingback: No, las descargas no afectan a las ventas de productos culturales » El Blog de Enrique Dans

  • Pingback: La piratería no daña las ventas de música digital

  • Pingback: La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital - Marketing digital : Marketing digital

  • Pingback: La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital

  • Pingback: DESCARGAS | Derechos de autor ¿Daña la ‘piratería’ a las ventas de música digital? Un informe de la Comisión Europea dice que no | Juan Jose Lopez Garcia

  • Pingback: INFORME: La piratería no daña las ventas de música digital | TuFronteo.com

  • Pingback: La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital | WEIT

  • Pingback: XSA – News » Blog Archive » La UE es clara: la "piratería" de música no perjudica a los propietarios de los derechos de autor

  • Pingback: XSA – News » Blog Archive » La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital

  • Pingback: La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital - eju.tv

  • Pingback: La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital « Hacked By rEd X – 3xp1r3 Cyber Army

  • Pingback: EU-Study: Pirate-Websites do not hurt the Music-Biz › Nerdcore

  • Pingback: La piratería no disminuye la venta de música, según la Comisión Europea | Blog de noticias variadas

  • K-Dawg

    I’d like to know exactly how they compiled the data of “Visits to Music Stores” with “Torrent Downloads/Illegal or Legal Streaming”
    So, basically, they spied on 16,000 people and their habits?
    Don’t get my wrong I know about tracking and what not, I’m just thinking that an educational institute of legitimate reason must have had another way of doing this study. Am I missing something?

  • Pingback: ¿Daña la ‘piratería’ la música digital? | Reverendo's Blog

  • Pingback: Piracy Boosts Music Sales! | CMO Report

  • JT

    Ernesto, I always enjoy your posts and TF in general, and I appreciate the article is focused on on digital music but to add a bit of balance the following part of the report was missing from the piece.

    “This result, however, must be interpreted in the context of a still
    evolving music industry. It is in particular important to note that
    music consumption in physical format has until recently accounted for
    the lion’s share of total music revenues. If piracy leads to substantial
    sales displacement of music in physical format, then its effect on the
    overall music industry revenues may well still be negative.”

    And before you all start shouting “paid shill” “troll” etc I’m not. I do pirate media and I’m not ashamed to admit so. I’m just trying to add a little fair balance to the debate.

    • cool_breeze

      I would like to know how often shifts to valid online purchases (iTunes for example) versus tangible purchases are left out of that equation to shade the argument against the alleged “piracy”. I imagine it happens quite often.

  • Pingback: La piratería no disminuye la venta de música, según la Comisión Europea | Bits al Dia

  • Pingback: La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital | Mini Blog de Mercadder

  • Zephyr

    How could they possibly know if piracy hurts music sales? Unless they remove access to piracy and see what happens, how could they tell.

    • MadAsASnake

      They can’t. They like blaming their customers for their own failure / refusal to move with the times.

      • Zephyr

        Sorry if that was unclear, I was asking how this commission could know that. The people who use piracy might switch to paying for content if piracy was not available. I’m not saying I support that, just asking how they could know.

    • cool_breeze

      Tracking IPs for starters. If one seen as downloading a song “illegally” later is found to be purchasing the same song from the content originator’s online storefront, then, there you go.

      • Zephyr

        But that still doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have sold more without piracy

  • Pingback: Online Music Piracy Doesn’t Hurt Sales, European Commission Finds | Aras Kazemi

  • mrKnask

    I have never before downloaded/ streamed so much series/ movies/ music; Never before have I bought so much of the same…! (Music-buy = vinyl!)

  • Pingback: No, las descargas no afectan negativamente a las ventas de productos culturales / thnxz @edans | gabriel catalano

  • adada

    They just fucking realized this?

  • Pingback: This weeks links (2012-03-18) | Visible Procrastinations

  • Pingback: Le téléchargement illégal n’a aucun effet négatif sur les ventes de musique (et c’est pas moi qui le dit)

  • Pingback: Enlaces compartidos

  • Pingback: No, las descargas no afectan negativamente a las ventas de productos culturales | Lejos del tiempo

  • Pingback: Online Music Piracy Doesn’t Hurt Sales, European Commission Finds | TorrentFreak | The Porlock

  • Pingback: No, las descargas no afectan negativamente a las ventas de productos culturales » El Blog de Enrique Dans | Algo incomprensible

  • http://loopmasters.vbfpmedia.com/ John

    Just like the old days of radio. That never hurt music sales. It rather exposed music to the masses. People who love a song or an artist will pay for their music. But what is missing in piracy is the royalties, at that is what hurts the song creator. Although it does not hurt sales it does hurt songwriters.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      ” Although it does not hurt sales it does hurt songwriters.”

      Like every other industry technological progress means some roles may have to merge. The professional metallurgist or industrial CAM operator has a lot wider field of operation than simply pounding iron and steel into set shapes which their predecessor the blacksmith had to be content with.

      Either the creator agrees to split dividends with the songwriter, pays up front, or the creator has to BE the songwriter.
      And to be honest, I was never in favor of applying the term “artist” to a person who – worst case – adds only a pretty face and choreography to the works of a songwriter/composer while being utterly unable to play, sing or compose.

      • http://loopmasters.vbfpmedia.com/ John

        Yes it is true that as technology progresses so does they way business is conducted. In regards to the artist. Music at its base is entertainment. We live is a multimedia world where dancers and pretty faces sell the song. Bacharach and David two great songwriters had great success with Dionne Warwick. Some would consider at the the time a pretty face. She was a fabulous singer in need of great songs by great songwriters.

  • Pingback: La Comisión Europea encuentra que la piratería no daña las ventas de música digital | ¡FORWARDEANDO la noticia!

  • randomperson

    of course it doesn’t
    what were they thinking?

  • Pingback: No, las descargas no afectan negativamente a las ventas de productos culturales | mairenaljarafelibre

  • Pingback: Tugaleaks - Site PdC-Links encerra devido a ameaças da ACAPOR

  • Pingback: Dica da Liga: Hora de discutir a pirataria – Superblog

  • Pingback: Dica da Liga: Hora de discutir a pirataria | Super agregador

  • Pingback: Dica da Liga: Hora de discutir a pirataria | Levianos

  • Jack Martin

    Online piracy of music, movies or even ebooks doesn’t affect the industry. It only affects the artists

  • Pingback: Why are the local artists oblivious to Creative Commons? | Walthamstow Times

  • Pingback: UE: la pirateria non fa danni | SudTv Network

  • Pingback: No, las descargas no afectan negativamente a las ventas de productos culturales | Blog Personal de Ariel Infante

  • Ivan V

    If artists weren’t getting hurt by piracy, why would anybody want to “make up” studies showing that they are? If piracy is “helping sales” (utter bullshit), why would companies be against it…?

  • http://twitter.com/TuneCitydotcom TuneCity

    Thanks for this post!

    We recently referenced it in a blog post entitled “How does Piracy Affect Artists?”, a discussion on the subject of digital piracy.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • 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...

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.