The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
1.2 billion illegal music downloads in 2010 a record Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 16th December 2010
  #1
1.2 billion illegal music downloads in 2010 a record

BPI: 1.2 billion illegal music downloads in 2010 a record
Old 16th December 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 

That study should be taken with a grain of salt as it was commissioned by a recording industry organization, who have a history of inflating and/or manipulating numbers to their advantage.
Old 16th December 2010
  #3
do you really think illegal downloading is decreasing or increasing?

who would you hire to find out what's going on?

BPI hired this company:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/uk/Solutions.aspx
Old 16th December 2010
  #4
Gear Maniac
 
Fuseburn's Avatar
 

Absolutely yes ! It is decreasing or increasing.
Old 16th December 2010
  #5
Gear Maniac
 
OneWerd's Avatar
 

Lol
Old 16th December 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
jomo1234's Avatar
 

Even if the numbers were grossly over-inflated, it's still a staggering amount of downloads. Keep in mind that this study was only for downloads in the UK. Just imagine the worldwide total.
Old 16th December 2010
  #7
They should inform us how the survey was conducted, what were the mechanisms etc....
Having said that, the broad conclusion matches my personal experience and the word I'm hearing from many average workers in the industry, especially in the UK.

As I said in a recent thread, I think it's time a research panel comprising a broad mix of music industry people, economists, tech industry identities and ordinary creatives was put too work on this subject. At present any survey made purely for the music industry, or purely for the tech companies is being diminished by accusations of bias.
Old 17th December 2010
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
They should inform us how the survey was conducted, what were the mechanisms etc....
Having said that, the broad conclusion matches my personal experience and the word I'm hearing from many average workers in the industry, especially in the UK.

As I said in a recent thread, I think it's time a research panel comprising a broad mix of music industry people, economists, tech industry identities and ordinary creatives was put too work on this subject. At present any survey made purely for the music industry, or purely for the tech companies is being diminished by accusations of bias.
could happen?
How Much Does File-Sharing REALLY Cost Record Companies? - THR, Esq.
Old 19th December 2010
  #9
Lives for gear
 

And as we see here, on BitTorrent, music makes up 21% of torrents, second only to movies. Audio torrents double software and are 7x more common than games torrents. Even by bandwidth, not torrent number, audio is more pirated.

It really helps you understand why the software and games industries aren't nearly so riled up about this as the movie/music industries.

Due to the more DRM-able nature of software/games, they have so far had far less to worry about. I think that's pretty well reflected in the data.
Old 19th December 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
And as we see here, on BitTorrent, music makes up 21% of torrents, second only to movies. Audio torrents double software and are 7x more common than games torrents. Even by bandwidth, not torrent number, audio is more pirated.

It really helps you understand why the software and games industries aren't nearly so riled up about this as the movie/music industries.

Due to the more DRM-able nature of software/games, they have so far had far less to worry about. I think that's pretty well reflected in the data.
Console games have the benefit of the $300 dongle and though every game is hacked/cracked if you hack your console to play them you risk not being able to play online. The only option is to not play online or buy another console to do it.
Old 21st December 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
who would you hire to find out what's going on?
As usual, you ask the wrong question.

When someone commissions a study and has a vested interest in the results, it is SMART to take the results with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean the results are immediately wrong. It means extra scrutiny is smart.

As Chris says... Methodology? It's important to be skeptical, because everyone has an agenda.

IMHO, you again ask the wrong questions. The question isn't whether one might agree with their findings, since that is an emotional argument, not a factual one. The question is HOW did they arrive at their conclusion.
Old 21st December 2010
  #12
Although I think the music industry 'agenda' is simply to highlight and halt the taking of product without paying.
No one will be forced to buy product they don't want. The industry isn't asking for government funds as compensation.
So, perhaps unlike other contentious debates where money may change hands, I do believe the industry is merely trying to highlight the problem in order to power better policing of our product.
Old 21st December 2010
  #13
Lives for gear
 

1.2 billion illegal music downloads in 2010 a record

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
Although I think the music industry 'agenda' is simply to highlight and halt the taking of product without paying.
No one will be forced to buy product they don't want. The industry isn't asking for government funds as compensation.
So, perhaps unlike other contentious debates where money may change hands, I do believe the industry is merely trying to highlight the problem in order to power better policing of our product.
That sounds fair enough, doesn't it.
Old 21st December 2010
  #14
Lives for gear
 
andreaeffe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Although I think the music industry 'agenda' is simply to highlight and halt the taking of product without paying.
No one will be forced to buy product they don't want. The industry isn't asking for government funds as compensation.
So, perhaps unlike other contentious debates where money may change hands, I do believe the industry is merely trying to highlight the problem in order to power better policing of our product.
Not only fair enough and reasonable, in my opinion & experience that sounds like the truth - and like.... 'bout time.
thumbsup

A
F
Old 21st December 2010
  #15
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
I bet there's a corresponding dip in legal music downloads. They couldn't possibly have also gone up in 2010, could they?
Old 21st December 2010
  #16
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Although I think the music industry 'agenda' is simply to highlight and halt the taking of product without paying.
Yes, and their means to that end is arguably to make the problem seem as big and dire as possible. Thus, IMHO, they would be motivated to fudge results in their favor.
Old 21st December 2010
  #17
Old 21st December 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
andreaeffe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Yes, and their means to that end is arguably to make the problem seem as big and dire as possible. Thus, IMHO, they would be motivated to fudge results in their favor.
Could be, yes.

But, despite being an advocate and "fan" of the truth (or as close as possible to it) and of clarity, and of scientifically accurate results, I must say that as far as I see & know there are many many more other forces, parties, individuals and organization making abundant use of... well, of ALL means possible, the web being the foremost, to make the problem seem as small as possible or, rather, to make their theft of music/movies/software or their "music should be free" and piracy-in-the-name-of-progress debates heard, plausible, popular and likeable.

So, the music industry may have (we don't actually know, do we? and some research & statistic companies might in fact have ethical and professional standards they answer to by their own choice, let alone the rules of their trade and the law) "fudged the results in their favour" and methaphorically speaking have thus enlarged their guns - but honestly it still is Lego guns compared to the cannons being repeatedly fired on the other side, I reason.


I frankly find it a bit unrealistic to speak of "their problem" - if U make music or record music for a living, it is by all means also "our problem", to a lesser or major extent.

But we are free to differ.

A
F
Old 22nd December 2010
  #19
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andreaeffe View Post
...I frankly find it a bit unrealistic to speak of "their problem" - if U make music or record music for a living, it is by all means also "our problem", to a lesser or major extent...
The elephant in the room is that the personal computer and internet industries would go broke if people actually had to pay somebody for "content" in order to use their latest gadgets. Tech pundits frequently project their own industry's lack of a sustainable "business model" on us.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Thus, IMHO, they would be motivated to fudge results in their favor.
You were the guy that championed the pre-2006 academic research (often over 6 years out of date), and when I went through it paper by paper highlighting the flaws, seemingly had nothing to say.
Yes, there could well be some exaggeration on the industry part, but the end is better protection of our creative work. The end is not to make people pay more, or stop people from doing anything that's legally their right to do.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #21
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andreaeffe View Post
But, despite being an advocate and "fan" of the truth (or as close as possible to it) and of clarity, and of scientifically accurate results, I must say that as far as I see & know there are many many more other forces, parties, individuals and organization making abundant use of... well, of ALL means possible, the web being the foremost, to make the problem seem as small as possible or, rather, to make their theft of music/movies/software or their "music should be free" and piracy-in-the-name-of-progress debates heard, plausible, popular and likeable.
Yes, and that, of course, doesn't make their argument correct or incorrect.

Again, take it with a grain of salt a verify. Post #2 in this thread, right? If they don't provide sources/footnotes or describe their methodology, then I usually ignore it, as it becomes impossible to verify their data or examine their scholarship. As Chris says, what is their methodology?
Old 22nd December 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You were the guy that championed the pre-2006 academic research (often over 6 years out of date), and when I went through it paper by paper highlighting the flaws
Here we go. Chris, I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. If you highlighted factual flaws, I'm sure I would agree with you. But, again, do you really want to go through all that sh*t all over again?

YOU agree it should't just be accepted without analysis, you are the one who first suggested we should examine their methodology.

Quote:
Yes, there could well be some exaggeration on the industry part, but the end is better protection of our creative work. The end is not to make people pay more, or stop people from doing anything that's legally their right to do.
I might be reading this wrong, but are you saying it's OK to exaggerate if it leads to better protection? The end justifies the means? Really? If so... I disagree with you there.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #23
Let's see - you don't accept information from people who have directly experienced piracy related problems because it can't be documented.

You don't accept documented data from 3rd party organizations that is published by the industry because you say it might be biased.

You do accept data of questionable veracity that supports a pro-filesharing position because, well, because you agree with what it says, although it's demonstrably biased.

What's wrong with this picture?
Old 22nd December 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Let's see - you don't accept information from people who have directly experienced piracy related problems because it can't be documented.
Wrong. I don't think anecdotal evidence proves cause or scope of the problem.

Quote:
You don't accept documented data from 3rd party organizations that is published by the industry because you say it might be biased.
Wrong. I accept and verify all data, because it's all biased.

Quote:
You do accept data of questionable veracity that supports a pro-filesharing position because, well, because you agree with what it says, although it's demonstrably biased.
Wrong again. I don't accept any data at face value.

Again, Terry, who is someone many of you have quoted as an expert, aggregated all the data HE could find. That data was not conclusive, but it was the best that any of us could find. He made a conclusion from that data that many of you didn't like... but it's the best data we have NOW, and it was IMHO a sound conclusion from my read of the data.

Quote:
What's wrong with this picture?
Only you and your hairdresser know for certain.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
andreaeffe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Yes, and that, of course, doesn't make their argument correct or incorrect.

Again, take it with a grain of salt a verify. Post #2 in this thread, right? If they don't provide sources/footnotes or describe their methodology, then I usually ignore it, as it becomes impossible to verify their data or examine their scholarship. As Chris says, what is their methodology?
Hmmm...
I personally do take it with a grain of salt (and I absolutely agree with U on not/never taking anything at face value - it is a principle of mine, too).

But I have to say that whenever I've come across too much finnicking and smokescreening over the "questionable methodology" when faced with a very real and quite serious & tangible issue it always reminds me of... Franz Kafka stories and situations, and the zillion times bureaucracy and so-called lawmakers do that to avoid taking action, or just to wear the citizen (or some just cause or quest) down.
I lived in a country and regime that was magistral at this, so I truly know what I'm talking about, here.


No, I do not think that the end justifies the means, and again I totally agree with U on that.

But hey, let's not be coy and let's not beat around the bush: record sales are catastrophically down, legal downloads are few, profits for artists/labels/producers (be it major or indie or local) deriving from these legal downloads are risible and frankly unsustainable for a career or a living, recording budgets are slashed, investments in new artist development are true rarity - but illegal downloads and piracy are freewheeling at an all time high (as a hypothetical random check in most of the music consuming population's mp3 players or home computer audio libraries or in car discs/players would reveal) and this is even perceived as "cool", in some odd "new era" and "tech savy" way.
All this IS real, no discussion, we all know this.
So when someone wants to take some action to stop said theft, I find the nitpicking questioning or even ignoring (as U said) of some preliminary statistic data (that is still not any "action" in itself, just a preparation - perhaps) in the name of quite arbitrary doubts on "methodology" a bit of a smoke screen, and a thin one at best.

U're also right when U quote me saying the using all possible means to advocate the opposite cause doesn't make it right or wrong...
It's the STEALING part that makes it blatantly wrong.
thumbsup

A
F
Old 22nd December 2010
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post

Again, Terry, who is someone many of you have quoted as an expert, aggregated all the data HE could find. That data was not conclusive, but it was the best that any of us could find.
An "expert"? Certainly not in my opinion.
Seems like a good guy, one of the few who are putting forward opinion and evidence (such as there is) in a calm and reasonably unbiased way.
We need more people like him.
The papers in that one particular blog of his were woefully out of date and as such worth very little - sad to say.
Of course that didn't stop you getting all hysterical on me about anecdote versus academic research.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
YOU agree it should't just be accepted without analysis, you are the one who first suggested we should examine their methodology.
Yes we are agreed.
I have to say I trust it more than anything from Torrentfreak, which you are prone to quote with no qualification.

I'm saying they should be as transparent and indisputably unbiased as possible because it's too easy for the filesharing lobby to claim industry bias, whether it's there or not.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

AF,

I think I mostly agree with you. The difference in opinion we may have... some say since piracy is up and sales are down, piracy is the main cause of the sales decrease. I say... maybe, but the evidence is not showing that right now. The best evidence I've seen shows that piracy is responsible for ~20% of the downturn.

I say it appears there are many other reasons, in addition to piracy, for the decline in sales (we've discussed them many times before so I'll spare you).

All of that said, even 20% is big... so when it comes down to it, what's the point of the battle? The percentage doesn't need to be big for the numbers to be big.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #29
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yes we are agreed.
I have to say I trust it more than anything from Torrentfreak, which you are prone to quote with no qualification.
That is very funny Chris. I have NEVER posted a link to something on their site as if it were to be taken without question. I have posted links to their site that added to the debate, that is all. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the difference.

Quote:
I'm saying they should be as transparent and indisputably unbiased as possible because it's too easy for the filesharing lobby to claim industry bias, whether it's there or not.
Exactly, and that is on both sides of the conversation.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Wrong. I don't think anecdotal evidence proves cause or scope of the problem.
You mean you don't accept original source data - observation, you only accept data that somebody else has already massaged into a form that's palatable to you and your bias.

Quote:
Wrong again. I don't accept any data at face value.
Sure you do. You've done it here repeatedly. But only when it agrees with your bias.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Serra / So much gear, so little time
4
imaginaryday / So much gear, so little time
15

Forum Jump
Forum Jump