What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
140 Comments
- c010rb1indusa, on 11/01/2009, -4/+212The reason Adobe doesn't care about people pirating photoshop is because they know that those teenagers who pirate their software and learn to use the program well will also use it in the future as opposed to other photo editing software, probably at their job where legitimate copies are bought. They know that no teenager is going to fork over $1000 for advance photo editing software unless they really need it, so pirating doesn't rally account for lost revenue.
The same could be said for the music industry. Most people pirating hundreds, or thousands of songs weren't going to buy all the music in the first place. What pirating does is it makes it easier for people to discover new music they wouldn't have known about otherwise because they wouldn't want to risk spending money on something that could be *****. They end up spending money on their favorite artists, and buying more concert tickets when all is said and done.
Think about how diverse the music industry is today compared to ten years ago...this is a direct result of free music. - alanocu, on 11/01/2009, -4/+133This is the truth. And I'm stating the obvious here, but the more I download, the more I buy. The more music I discover through downloading drives my purchases.
- steve9924, on 11/01/2009, -3/+56I think that there is another way to interpret it. People who don't care much about music don't buy it. They also can't be bothered to download it.
Try reading it like this:
"People who buy lots of music also download lots of music."
Basically, the people who are most into music are buying it and downloading it. The people who are not, don't.
The cause and effect is not explicit in this headline, nor should it be assumed.
If the study was going to be VALID, it would have to compare people who are equally 'into' music, not people who downlaod vs people who don't.
While I really like the idea of this article, I still think it falls far from the mark of actual, useful information. - Krakerjax, on 11/01/2009, -0/+44There are a couple 18th century businessmen who would beg to differ.
- Ghostalker, on 11/01/2009, -0/+35Not only does it generate more money for Adobe, by having businesses buying licenses, but it also ensures that Abode keeps their market share. Same reason why MS doesn't go after people for using pirated copies; they'd rather have them using a windows copy they didn't pay for, then learning *nix and converting their friends.
- AngryDeuce, on 11/01/2009, -3/+35Most file sharer's already know this, obviously...but the sad thing is that the RIAA/MPAA doesn't care. They see every downloaded songs as lost revenue because they just can't fathom that someone that STOLE a song or album probably wouldn't have bought it anyway had a free alternative not existed.
You'd think, a decade after Napster and the file sharing revolution, that they would realize that people aren't gonna just throw money at them like they used to when there was no other alternative, but I guess that really is asking too much. Hell, I was trading copies of CD's on cassette a decade BEFORE Napster came out, as were a lot of other people. You'd think they'd resign themselves to the ways of the world by now... - rocknog, on 11/01/2009, -1/+28Why would anyone buy music without first having a chance to preview it? And since radio has been gutted by corporate conglomerates and so only plays top 40 crap, the only way to discover new, good music anymore is to pirate.
- elmuerte17, on 11/01/2009, -1/+26I could name a dozen albums I've bought that I never would have without pirating their music first. I'll consider stopping my music downloading when retailers start accepting returns on CDs.
- Twenty, on 11/01/2009, -8/+33You're just killing the music you like
- hddigger, on 11/01/2009, -11/+30I keep hearing this, but I haven't spent once cent on music since like 1998. I'm sure I'm not alone.
- Travelsonic, on 11/01/2009, -1/+19Holy bad analogies Batman!
- Travelsonic, on 11/01/2009, -2/+20***** the RIAA
- trolleyfan, on 11/01/2009, -5/+22Well, duh! If you can't even be bothered to download *free* music, how likely is it that you'll take the time to go *buy* it?
- jeriqo, on 11/01/2009, -0/+17Oh really, people who like music spend more than people who don't?
No *****. - theonlywizdum, on 11/02/2009, -0/+17I have been using this pirated copy of Microsoft office for a while now and it ran an auto-update one day. Now every time I go to launch one of the office programs I get this nice little pop-up informing me that I am using a pirated copy of MS Office, but it doesn't do anything to stop me, it just wanted to let me know I guess.
- hddigger, on 11/01/2009, -0/+15Yeah, I think Kanye and Eminem will be ok.
- gobbleplex, on 11/01/2009, -1/+16There are at least three levels on which your question is flawed. It's probably easier to start from the end since the first part of your question really has nothing to do with the second.
"so why is it a crime if I go steal the CD from the store compared to downloading it?"
A physical item, which was purchased by a store owner, is an actual quantifiable loss. That item, being physical, cannot be restored or re-sold. Even if the person who stole the item simply wanted to sample it and then pay later, they are not able to do this. If they purchase a copy on top of the one stolen, it doesn't restore the loss from the theft. If they wish to simply pay for the stolen item, they risk jail. None of these things apply to copied digital media. In fact, the closest analogy is NOT stealing from a store, it's asking a friend of yours to make you a bootleg copy of a tape or CD for no profit, as no physical good is stolen at any point and nobody in the transaction is paying any money. Further, the copied media may fact may actually drive the person recieving the copied material to pay for a legitimate copy. It can also spur the recipient into attending live shows, which are the real money makers for the artists. It certainly does not constitute a loss in any case.
The first part of your question is both spurious and wrong. It's wrong because you haven't included the cost of labor from the musicians, the producers, and the artists. 50 cents might be the cost of a blank CD, but to say that a recording should be worth no more than the price of materials completely overlooks the fact that far more labor goes into the product than the materials. It's spurious because it has absolutely nothing to do with the question of what the difference is between shoplifting and bootlegging. - EnergyEinstein, on 11/01/2009, -2/+16Cute.
- GrammerPants, on 11/01/2009, -0/+13I always find this surprising. P2P has prevented me from buying music for almost a decade.
- alpha88, on 11/02/2009, -0/+12Would you say you're a music fan though? Or do you just download music because you can?
The more I download, the more I buy, the more merch I get, and the more concerts I go to. I can honestly say if it weren't for music downloading, I probably wouldn't own a single CD, since the only thing that gets put in the spotlight by record labels are ***** pop/r&b. - Borstal, on 11/01/2009, -2/+13You're an idiot everyone downloads music today.
- bagelmaster, on 11/02/2009, -0/+11"You wouldn't download a car."
***** you, I would if I could! - RlAA, on 11/01/2009, -4/+14:(
- roxgod666, on 11/01/2009, -3/+12Ain't that the truth. The whole "try before you buy" thing is cute, but lets be real, the vast majority of us would think spending hundreds of dollars a year for music is unreal.
- junaeroplane, on 11/01/2009, -3/+12except me.
- Ghostwo, on 11/02/2009, -0/+8***** the RI....oh wait, they've been ***** themselves.
- DeathRay2K, on 11/01/2009, -1/+9You really don't give the RIAA & MPAA enough credit. They make a lot more money from suing filesharers than they would if those people bought their music.
- Sewermutt, on 11/01/2009, -2/+9Same, since about 1998. Hell I've had a $50 Blockbuster gift card for 2 years now and haven't touched it yet. I download movies for free anyways :P
- DeathRay2K, on 11/01/2009, -0/+7Most people pay up without it ever going to court, and the MPAA/RIAA don't even have to do the legwork:
http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloads-150x-mor ... - ryrocker, on 11/02/2009, -1/+7im gonna have to agree
obtaining pirated versions of photoshop and illustrator, as a young teenager, persuaded me pursue a career in graphic arts... - killdashnine, on 11/01/2009, -1/+7In the recession I found myself buying absolutely no music (for obvious reasons). Interestingly enough; I didn't download it either.
- MAGZine, on 11/01/2009, -0/+6It's win-win from RIAA.
They sue filesharers, make money from them while the same filesharers purchase more content and purchase more concert tickets than the people who don't fileshare. - Gizza, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6I've spent barely any on CDs. I have however spent several hundred dollars on concert tickets and merchandise which is more important to the artists. In every case I first heard the band via piracy or friends (who heard them through piracy).
- rheaume, on 11/02/2009, -1/+7RIAA Official Statement:
LALALALA CANT HEAR YOU - dsmx, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5What do you expect it's in the daily mail.
- SpectreFire, on 11/01/2009, -1/+6Tell that to the man who made World of Goo.
- Laminarcissus, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5On the other hand, I haven't bought a single album or track since I learned how to use Bittorrent. Not a penny. I download everything.
I'm not saying it's right, and believe me I cry myself to sleep every night, only that maybe we balance each other out. - forevernomad, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5I think I would believe them more than people who break the law and deny it.
- thebreach, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5RIAA doesn't give a *****
- spoon088, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5Could it be that people that download music in general have a much higher interest in music?
- ryrocker, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4also, i want to sleep with her
- KevinRowz, on 11/01/2009, -4/+8You are mistaken, they do care. That is why they have product activation and make it worse with every version, to the point it now authenticates every single time you launch the application.
For people in the position you are describing, companies offer education discounts. But no company out there condones their software being *pirated*. - TheVexedSoul, on 11/01/2009, -2/+6We are supposed to believe people who willingly admit to breaking the law?
- TheMagician2007, on 11/01/2009, -2/+6Your argument doesn't apply here. Theft removes the original, Piracy makes a copy. I would never steal a car, but I would download a car.
- Travelsonic, on 11/01/2009, -5/+9That's like saying theft of physical goods is comparable to cloning digital goods. Horrible logic.
Buried. - DeathRay2K, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3Sure, they lose money on the cases that go to court, no one's arguing that. The point is that they're making a lot of money from people that don't go to court, without spending a penny on tracking them, paying for lawyers, etc.
- Nevasleep88, on 11/01/2009, -1/+4I disagree, this survey doesn't include those who pirate, but don't admit to it.
The 'average' of £77 just seems too high for me, from my personal experience.
Also there is no accurate way of finding out the true number of music pirates, and the amount of potential sales lost.
That said, I don't support the RIAA! - EssexTrain, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3The group that wrote this must have a lot of balls, they will probably be fired by Gordon Brown for this . . .
- Laminarcissus, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3If he's putting pics on Something Awful he can damn well use Gimp.
- Ravatar, on 11/02/2009, -1/+4"This is in line with a previous estimate by russell carroll (director of marketing at reflexive) for the game ricochet infinity. russell estimated a 92% piracy rate and i found his analysis quite interesting (check it out here if you’re curious). one thing that really jumped out at me was his estimate that preventing 1000 piracy attempts results in only a single additional sale. this supports our intuitive assessment that people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying.
In our case, we might have even converted more than 1 in a 1000 pirates into legit purchases. either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes. we can’t draw any conclusions based on two data points, but i’m hoping that others will release information about piracy rates so that everyone could see if DRM is the waste of time and money that we think it is."
Straight from 2DBoy, who made World of Goo: http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is