ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER
pirate <3~ take what you can, and leave nothing behind~
First sentence: not necessarily.To KittehChrisX, I think the confusion here is the belief that it has no effect on the artist when people download, they never would have gotten that money anyway. Setting aside the specifics, on a larger scale do you think that people who download a lot of music simply wouldn't listen to music any more if downloading became impossible? Or would they buy some music and just not have as much? Also I realized I cam across as really hostile towards you in the past couple of posts I made, I really didn't mean to and I'm sorry.
It would seem that this kind of study is impossible because there's nothing to test it against. Of course popular artists will sell more CDs, and of course their music will be downloaded more. That doesn't mean that downloading is beneficial to them, the only way to test this would be to study a situation when downloading is impossible against one where it is possible using the exact same CD by the exact same artist.
As to the first part, I can be sure because I know myself rather well. I only buy things I know I'll want. If I am not sure, I don't buy them. Downloading allows me to be sure about whether or not I wish to buy something. Before downloading came along, I simply didn't buy very much, because often I was unsure of whether I would later regret the purchase. Now, I don't have that problem. So, in my specific case, downloading has actually caused certain artists to get more money than they otherwise would have.
As to the second part, it is a valid question to ask, and while neither of us knows for sure the answer, I can say my own experience, as detailed above, makes me inclined to think that people would, in fact, simply not buy those albums which they don't buy now.
That's not the only way to test it. You're simply forced to take a less direct route. To put the situation in perspective, think of physics. We cannot do what would be the easiest thing, which is to simply map the entire universe on the smallest existing scale from moment to moment, and figure out all the properties of the universe from those observations. So instead, we perform many studies of many different things, and use logic to extrapolate the properties of the universe a bit at a time. In the same way, a group of studies could each gauge different things, so that the net result is a logical conclusion as to whether or not downloading affects revenue, and if so in what way.
That's a correct, legal statement.
Downloading copyrighted media for free is illegal because it violates copyright laws. However, it is NOT theft.
To KittehChrisX, I think the confusion here is the belief that it has no effect on the artist when people download, they never would have gotten that money anyway. Setting aside the specifics, on a larger scale do you think that people who download a lot of music simply wouldn't listen to music any more if downloading became impossible? Or would they buy some music and just not have as much? Also I realized I cam across as really hostile towards you in the past couple of posts I made, I really didn't mean to and I'm sorry.
There is a study you can probably find easily that showed that the biggest downloaders also bought the most digital media.
In my case, when I quit downloading music because of the RIAA lawsuits I also quit buying CDs. The reason was that I had no way of telling if a CD was worth buying.
I am willing to pay for my music and movies, and I have a huge collection of DVDs and CDs, but I can't afford to buy things I don't know anything about.
Do you delete the songs from albums you don't buy, because that would in fact eliminate the theft involved in downloading. If someone downloads music, enjoys it, and then buys the CD that's fine, the only instance in which I will download is if the CD is long out of print, but if a re-print occures I buy the album. If someone downloads the album, doesn't like it and deletes it that's OK to, it's no different then listening to it in the CD store. It's when people like the music, keep it, and still don't pay for it that it becomes theft, because then they are enjoying a service they should be paying for for free. That's really what I'm on about here.
That and art theft.
Not necessarily a significant statement.There is a study you can probably find easily that showed that the biggest downloaders also bought the most digital media.
Not necessarily a significant statement.
It's possible that the reason these people have bought the most is simply a result of the fact that they have the most interesting in such things; it's a reasonable prospect that they'd have purchased even more had they not a way to avoid needing to.
Actually, it is not theft, legally, because theft, as I have pointed out, requires an actual, not theoretical, loss on the part of the original copy's owner. It is illegal, but under copyright law. That is to say, it is (currently in the United States) copyright infringement to copy without permission a copyrighted work (outside of Fair Use, that is). It is not, however, legally considered "theft".
Whitenoise said:Also all these studies seem to require people to report in anonymously which doesn't make them very credible in my eyes.
Actually, anonymous reporting has generally been shown to be more accurate, and is the preferred method for sociological and psychological research.
But again, you (this is the plural "you) seem to be ignoring the fact that the owner does not lose anything, and thus nothing was taken from them. What happened was something they own was copied.