Survey Indicates Music Pirates Are Biggest Music Buyers

[Karloff]

Survey Indicates Music Pirates Are Biggest Music Buyers

US peer-to-peer downloaders buy 30% more digital music legally than their non-downloading friends.

The American Assembly at Columbia University has been looking into music piracy, and its effect on the music market. Asking the question "where do music collections come from" led Joe Karaganis to some interesting results: among them, that people who download buy more music than people who don't.

Karaganis compared high-piracy groups, aka peer-to-peer downloaders, to low-piracy groups, who didn't indulge in peer-to-peer file sharing. Those who downloaded tended to get their music from friends, family, and free downloads; but they also were the ones buying more music. US P2P users tended to buy 30% more digital music legally than did their non-P2P counterparts, and as a rule consumed significantly more music overall.

"Our data is quite clear on this point and lines up with numerous other studies," Karaganis said. "The biggest music pirates are also the biggest spenders on recorded music." This was only one conclusion of a wide-ranging study, which can be found here. [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/where-do-music-collections-come-from/#more-1917]

Karaganis went on to warn that the problem posed by a "copy culture" could not be solved without ultimately declaring war on general purpose computing. "We should be careful and understand the real stakes," Karaganis said, "This isn't a debate about who pays for recorded music, but about how much they pay."

The American Assembly, which hosts Karaganis' work, is an agency dedicated to illuminating "issues of public policy by commissioning and issuing research," according to copyright infringement and enforcement [http://americanassembly.org/about], written in 2011 when SOPA was being debated.

Source: American Assembly [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/where-do-music-collections-come-from/#more-1917]


Permalink

 

[Kargathia]

Oh dear, a highly interpretable piece of research - this should be fun.

It might be good to consider that one might argue this proves nothing more than that the ones who care more about music are also more likely to install a P2P client, and start downloading.
Or that there generally is a budget ceiling to be spent on music, and in general people start downloading when they feel they've already spent enough on legal music.
Or that the old anecdotal evidence of "I buy stuff because I liked what I heard from the torrented version" actually holds statistical significance.

Everyone with any interest in this debate is going to assign causality to these numbers whenever they feel like it, even if they show nothing more than a correlation.

 

[JPArbiter]

Oh dear this old argument.

For me it boils down to this. Piracy is theft, plain and simple, and any attempts to rationalize it are rationalizing criminal behavior.

Theft of entertainment, a luxury good is intrinsically different then theft of food so you don't starve, so don't pull that one out of your butts either.

 

[GiantRaven]

I wonder how subscription services such as Spotify are factored into this. I don't download music illegally, don't spend a lot on music but what I listen to is a large amount.

 

[Raesvelg]

Yet more proof that you can submit a survey, compile your results, and find a way to present them that supports your agenda.

So the 18-29 age bracket, who acquire the most music of any age bracket by a healthy margin, are also the biggest pirates. And who may or may not be truthful if you ask them how much music they buy. It also doesn't address who they're buying the music from, of course; a second-hand sale, while the right of every consumer, doesn't exactly fill the coffers of the people who worked to create the record in the first place.

So what are we left with? A study with a very small sample size, conducted by survey (an unreliable method to begin with), and then massaged to support an agenda, while apparently forgetting that even at the best of times, correlation does not imply causation.

And yet, I wager there will be people in this thread pointing to it as proof that piracy is a good thing.

 

[cidbahamut]

Oh dear this old argument.

For me it boils down to this. Piracy is theft, plain and simple, and any attempts to rationalize it are rationalizing criminal behavior.

Theft of entertainment, a luxury good is intrinsically different then theft of food so you don't starve, so don't pull that one out of your butts either.

What about when I pirate stuff because I am unable to find a way to acquire the music legally?

It actually happened to me a few weeks back. I picked up a free to play game and loved the soundtrack to death. I tried to find a place I could purchase it, but there was nothing to be had so I ended up just downloading the soundtrack off some file upload site because there was no way for me to purchase the product.

Please, tell me how I'm a terrible person for trying to throw money at a product I enjoyed.

 

[Jumwa]

For me it boils down to this. Piracy is theft, plain and simple, and any attempts to rationalize it are rationalizing criminal behavior.

Theft of entertainment, a luxury good is intrinsically different then theft of food so you don't starve, so don't pull that one out of your butts either.

You seem to feel rather strongly on this, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings of how this works.

It is neither a criminal offense nor theft.

Even the massive cases of copyright infringement where people downloaded thousands of pieces of works are not criminal in nature. They are not considered crimes by the courts or government, but are handled in civic court.

And theft (or stealing), which is indeed a crime, is defined as:

Theft - (criminal law) the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession

Don't let me dissuade you from arguing that it's immoral or wrong, but be aware it's neither of the things you accused it of being. It's more than just semantics, it's a majour and very real difference.

 

[incal11]

Or that the old anecdotal evidence of "I buy stuff because I liked what I heard from the torrented version" actually holds statistical significance.

Hm, the point of this study is how it shows that this *isn't* anecdotal. So yes, according to this study it does hold statistical significance.

But you're going to tell me how that's not the case, right?

So what are we left with? A study with a very small sample size, conducted by survey (an unreliable method to begin with), and then massaged to support an agenda, while apparently forgetting that even at the best of times, correlation does not imply causation.

Most surveys are done with even fewer persons, but anyway a survey is still better than "I just know it's wrong". However I agree it doesn't prove illegal downloads to be good, though it does show with a decent certainty how downloading does not make you a worse consumer.

 

[Kargathia]

Or that the old anecdotal evidence of "I buy stuff because I liked what I heard from the torrented version" actually holds statistical significance.

Hm, the point of this study is how it shows that this *isn't* anecdotal. So yes, according to this study it does hold statistical significance.

But you're going to tell me how that's not the case, right?

That's exactly what I'm going to tell you, as nothing in that study tells us there is anything more than correlation. "Buying things because you liked the downloaded version" undoubtedly will be part of the reason, but nothing in here gives us any hint as to how big a slice of the pie that particular reason has.

So what are we left with? A study with a very small sample size, conducted by survey (an unreliable method to begin with), and then massaged to support an agenda, while apparently forgetting that even at the best of times, correlation does not imply causation.

Most surveys are done with even fewer persons, but anyway a survey is still better than "I just know it's wrong". However I agree it doesn't prove illegal downloads to be good, though it does show with a decent certainty how downloading does not make you a worse consumer.

We've got more data to put towards us understanding how it all works out. Which is a good thing, even if this particular set of data is nowhere near enough to give us the full answer.

 

[getoffmycloud]

Oh dear, a highly interpretable piece of research - this should be fun.

It might be good to consider that one might argue this proves nothing more than that the ones who care more about music are also more likely to install a P2P client, and start downloading.
Or that there generally is a budget ceiling to be spent on music, and in general people start downloading when they feel they've already spent enough on legal music.
Or that the old anecdotal evidence of "I buy stuff because I liked what I heard from the torrented version" actually holds statistical significance.

Everyone with any interest in this debate is going to assign causality to these numbers whenever they feel like it, even if they show nothing more than a correlation.

I am still going to call bullshit on the I bought it cause I liked what I heard on the torrented version cause if there is a torrent of it then it's highly likely to be on youtube so why wouldn't you just listen to it there.

 

[GAunderrated]

Oh dear this old argument.

For me it boils down to this. Piracy is theft, plain and simple, and any attempts to rationalize it are rationalizing criminal behavior.

Theft of entertainment, a luxury good is intrinsically different then theft of food so you don't starve, so don't pull that one out of your butts either.

Wow we have someone with the good old black and white thinking here. No need to discuss the topic in a rational sense or you are just supporting terror....I mean condoning illegal activities (couldn't help make that joke).

No offense to you sir but I find that most people who live the black and white thinking culture usually have factually wrong evidence about said topics (as another poster above me has pointed out about copyright infringement).

 

[flarty]

So it boils down to people who buy the most music, are also the same age to be tech savvy enough to use a torrent, and also be the people who like to have legitimate copies of what ever they have pirated? Sound like me and my gaming habit, i might download a game and complete it but im not happy till its some where in my library be it steam or on my shelf.

 

[Kargathia]

Oh dear, a highly interpretable piece of research - this should be fun.

It might be good to consider that one might argue this proves nothing more than that the ones who care more about music are also more likely to install a P2P client, and start downloading.
Or that there generally is a budget ceiling to be spent on music, and in general people start downloading when they feel they've already spent enough on legal music.
Or that the old anecdotal evidence of "I buy stuff because I liked what I heard from the torrented version" actually holds statistical significance.

Everyone with any interest in this debate is going to assign causality to these numbers whenever they feel like it, even if they show nothing more than a correlation.

I am still going to call bullshit on the I bought it cause I liked what I heard on the torrented version cause if there is a torrent of it then it's highly likely to be on youtube so why wouldn't you just listen to it there.

I'm afraid your counter-argument is as valid as the one you're countering: not at all. Both statements are probably true, but there isn't a scrap of evidence that either of them is statistically significant, or even relevant.

 

[uncanny474]

Oh dear this old argument.

For me it boils down to this. Piracy is theft, plain and simple, and any attempts to rationalize it are rationalizing criminal behavior.

Theft of entertainment, a luxury good is intrinsically different then theft of food so you don't starve, so don't pull that one out of your butts either.

It doesn't have much relevance to MUSIC piracy, but I am curious to hear what you think of piracy of things that aren't attainable in such a way that the creators can get money from your purchase? Like out-of-print books, or movies that haven't been released on DVD?

 

[JPArbiter]

Oh dear this old argument.

For me it boils down to this. Piracy is theft, plain and simple, and any attempts to rationalize it are rationalizing criminal behavior.

Theft of entertainment, a luxury good is intrinsically different then theft of food so you don't starve, so don't pull that one out of your butts either.

It doesn't have much relevance to MUSIC piracy, but I am curious to hear what you think of piracy of things that aren't attainable in such a way that the creators can get money from your purchase? Like out-of-print books, or movies that haven't been released on DVD?

the one (well someone else asked this too but I can cover it in one post) person with an intelligent counter.

That is perhaps the only way to rationalize Piracy, is when something you want can not be obtained legally by any other means, I call it the Extra Credits defense. we can still mention that show here right?