Illegal downloaders are also biggest spenders: research

[moneoa]

A British organization has discovered that illegal music downloaders spend much more on paid music downloads than strictly legal file-sharers do.
The Leading Question, a digital music consumer research firm, says music pirates spent four-and-a-half times more for legal music downloads than average fans.
"Music fans who break piracy laws are highly valuable customers," said Paul Brindley, head of the Leading Question, which conducted a survey of 600 music fans who also own computers and mobile phones.
Brindley's research discovered those who downloaded illegally spent an average of 5.52 pounds a month doing the same thing legally compared to legal file sharers, who spent just 1.27 pounds a month on digital tracks.
Brindley says hardcore music fans are "extremely enthusiastic" about paying for services that they find "compelling."
Recent data from the International Federation of Phonographic Industries showed that the number of legal tracks downloaded worldwide tripled in the first half of 2005 compared to the same period last year.
The federation, which represents record companies and has members in 75 countries, credits the rise in legal downloads to three things:


There are now more than 300 sites available for legal downloads, three times as many as a year ago.
There's been a 13-per-cent increase in the number of broadband lines installed globally.
The industry has aggressively campaigned to prosecute illegal downloaders.

The IFPI has filed more than 14,000 lawsuits against file-sharers in 12 countries since September 2003.

Read the complete article (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/5584/Illegal+downloaders+are+also+biggest+spenders%3A+r esearch/)

[mountain_rage]

Ha take that bitch your sueing your most loyal costomers. What a bunch of nut fucks eh

[The Hunter]

Exactly what I tryed to tell the industry trolls that were showing up here. But would they listen? Nooooo, im stupid.

[mcovey]

hmm I must not be one of them. I don't download much filth anyway. So naturally I won't be one of those buying much of it.

[maquereautin]

well im not one of those people either. I paid for about 20% of my music i have.

[origin]

its funny you need a research to tell you this, coulda just asked me would have avoided extra costs ;)

l8

[whitenoise22]

I dont believe this. Illegal downloaders arent the biggest spenders, how do they get this info

[mfgbypooter]

I know I'm a big spender............On blank media!


*

[Signa]

I know I'm a big spender............On blank media!


*


i was thinking about that. what are the required necessities of a pirate? one is internet service, and the other is blank media. if the industries want to reclaim lost profits, they should host affordable and fast internet service. they also should manufacture CD/DVD-Rs so that the pirates will back their stuff up on. i think they may have burned their bridges by suing people, but that would have had a good chance of adapting to the changing consumer environment.

as for the research. i totoally agree with the results. i have about 10 or more games sitting unopened in my closet. why? becuase i beat them already, and i feel for the sake of the devolopers, that i should own their wonderful games if i like them enough. the same would be true with CDs if people had never been sued. i belive fully in giving credit to where ever it is due, and though there may be some groups out there that deserve my life's savings, i can never buy another CD untill something changes... like hell freezing over.

[mfgbypooter]

If only the industry would have taken Napster's idea, and instead just charged a monthly fee for access to the central server (much the way premium news servers for newsgroups work), then the industry wouldn't be in the position they are now. Had they done this, I'm sure they'd have far more earnings now with a lot less expense than they do from suing their customers and further alienating them from future sales.

But what do I know, I'm only an illegal (in their eyes) downloader.

*

[MrCoggy]

What's wrong with this article?

..."Music fans who break piracy laws are highly valuable customers,"

..."The federation, which represents record companies and has members in 75 countries, credits the rise in legal downloads to three things:

The industry has aggressively campaigned to prosecute illegal downloaders."

So, despite being more likely to spend money on their pap, they are still convinced that the reason they are buying their pap in the first place is because they are threatening to sue? Um! What? Just how many jobs are in the litigation department that keep the FUD going?

Just for the record, I and virtually none of my peers have bought online or offline that would provide any money to any of the big five ever since they began their questionable lawsuits. That's set to continue until they cease their war on their customers.

I wish, just once they would try and sue some rich bastard with time to kill and a grudge against bullies. That would make my year.

[the great one]

I don't buy low quality music files,period.I also won't buy a cd until they put some quality music out there,not like these lip-syncing losers they're trying to push as real artists.

I don't see things changing for a long time,but hopefully I'm wrong.

[Siskabush]

I would buy my music, but it seems the North american industry still has no interest in finding a customer who likes Scandinavian death metal and Trancecore.

Guess ill have to keep getting it for free. Stupid fucks.

[deshman]

i dont really believe this either. I have bought 1 music in the last 7 years, and that was for a birthday present. I was on Napster when there were 50 ppl.

[shawners]

This does not make any scence. Illegal downloaders does not spend more on music. The money is spent elsewhere. Occassionally a person who likes a band or heard an album on the p2p may prompt to buy it or get it later.. But in no way are they spending more money downloading tracks legally. They spend more money on hardware, broadband, cd-r,dvd-r, and everything between.

[Col. Lynch]

I agree with Shawner's statement. This premise of this article doesn't seem possible. If someone suddenly stumbled on a bag of diamonds, why would they feel it necessary to still buy them at a jewelers?

For me personally, the more I download the less inclined I am to pay for it.

[black_magiic]

Who knows how they come up with this stuff. I don't own any music. I hace never bought a cd in my life (although I almost did the other day but then the 15.99 or 16.99 price tag turned me away.) My parents own a lot of cd's though. But me none at all and they havent actually purchased any in a long time.

[Smoovious]

This does not make any scence. Illegal downloaders does not spend more on music. The money is spent elsewhere. Occassionally a person who likes a band or heard an album on the p2p may prompt to buy it or get it later.. But in no way are they spending more money downloading tracks legally. They spend more money on hardware, broadband, cd-r,dvd-r, and everything between.

Nono, you miss the point a little bit... its not strictly based on who is paying more.

Take the legal-only music crowd. They only download legally. They will end up having very small collections, and be exposed to the music they're paying for, through limited venues... radio, MTV (remember when they used to play videos?) and the like. With such a limited source of new music to listen to, they aren't finding a lot of music worth purchasing in the first place.

Take the rest of us. We download legally, and questionably. We will end up having HUGE collections, and be exposed to vast varieties of music, through unlimited channels. The industry can't control what they want to try to spoon-feed to us. With such a vast source of new music to listen to, we're finding a lot more music worth purchasing, and eventually do.

Its all a matter of access. If I only make vanilla shakes available to you, you'll buy a few, but quickly tire of them, and stop buying them as often. If I make vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, banana, mint, etc available, you'll buy more simply because there's more variety, you won't tire of them as quickly.

This same trend is happening in music.

Plus, us free-music types are more comitted to our collections than the paid-music types.

I think its the whole mindset between the two camps that make the difference in sales.

A lot of us have been saying for a long time that we still spend a lot of $ on music we like, even tho we're downloading, and that it has helped, not hurt, their sales. That study, apparently, bears that out.

[Smoovious]

I agree with Shawner's statement. This premise of this article doesn't seem possible. If someone suddenly stumbled on a bag of diamonds, why would they feel it necessary to still buy them at a jewelers?

For me personally, the more I download the less inclined I am to pay for it.

That's a bad comparison... for one, diamonds are just hard to enjoy from day to day, walking to the store, driving down the highway, and diamonds are very hard to dance to or have sex to.

A lot of people want the quality of the recording... Audiophiles like me hate 128kbps.

192kbps doesn't even cut it.

320kbps is what we prefer for the most part as mp3's go. But if we find something we like, we want to get copies of it at the best quality available.

That means getting the CD.

I've heard a lot of people's collections, all proud of how many songs they have... mostly 128kbps (and they have the nerve to call it CD quality) that sound like crap, distorted, and they can't hear the difference.

Maybe they're happy with barely-radio-quality recordings, but lots of us aren't.

>tosses his $0.02 into the coffer<

[Digital Bliss]

This is not ture in my case, I do everything in my power not to spend money that I dont have. I cannot spend money on 50 dollar games.

[Smoovious]

This is not ture in my case, I do everything in my power not to spend money that I dont have. I cannot spend money on 50 dollar games.

But we're not talking about games...

We're talking about music...

Jeez... do you guys even read the articles before you people reply?

[shawners]

If i had money, i would be glad to spend it on media since it gives me quite a bit of enjoyment. But the fact im able to get it for free doesnt expose me to media that i would buy. Its still an untrue story being made. If i buy something, its because its not accessable. Even then i can learn to do without. People who download music legally and illegaly have a different value system. I value money to high to throw it on a 40 minute recording.

Lets break this down a bit.
QUOTE "A British organization has discovered that illegal music downloaders spend much more on paid music downloads than strictly legal file-sharers do. *Illegal music downloaders spend more on paid music??Non true*
The Leading Question, a digital music consumer research firm, says music pirates spent four-and-a-half times more for legal music downloads than average fans. *Still Not true, we download more and are downloading in FLAC, APE, LOSSLESS audio.*
"Music fans who break piracy laws are highly valuable customers," said Paul Brindley, head of the Leading Question, which conducted a survey of 600 music fans who also own computers and mobile phones.*Only 600 answered the survey, and yet they may have had pressure not to tell the truth or to tell the RIAA to quite going after its customers.*
Brindley's research discovered those who downloaded illegally spent an average of 5.52 pounds a month doing the same thing legally compared to legal file sharers, who spent just 1.27 pounds a month on digital tracks. *Why would someone have ARES and iTUNES or Rhapsody installed on the same PC, one has DRM and cant be burnt on more then one disk or transfered to other devices, such as the people who answered the question had cell phones and PC, which they would like to make ring tones or put songs on the phones*
Brindley says hardcore music fans are "extremely enthusiastic" about paying for services that they find "compelling." *No compelling subscription service that gives file sharers what they want and when they want it."
Recent data from the International Federation of Phonographic Industries showed that the number of legal tracks downloaded worldwide tripled in the first half of 2005 compared to the same period last year.
The federation, which represents record companies and has members in 75 countries, credits the rise in legal downloads to three things:
" *Mentioned that Itunes is a year old, and of course it trippled as the commercials, and IPODS prompted it to sale."

[Ne007]

This does not make any scence. Illegal downloaders does not spend more on music. The money is spent elsewhere. Occassionally a person who likes a band or heard an album on the p2p may prompt to buy it or get it later.. But in no way are they spending more money downloading tracks legally. They spend more money on hardware, broadband, cd-r,dvd-r, and everything between.

I think you are right shawners....BUT only because the industry has pissed us off so much that we don't want to support them anymore. We crossed their line and they said it's war..now it's war.

[FrozenShadow23]

Makes absolutely no sense.

I don' know about you, but I don't spend jack on music downloads. I'll buy an OCCASIONAL audio cd from an indie label, but on if they're amazingly good and deserve it.

Why would anyone pay for what they could get for free?

[notbob]

at one point, i spent 1000s on music

the cost of living on my own and the availability of infinite amounts of free shit put an end to that real quick

it may look like it proves the point p2p users have been making for a long time, but for every one person who still buys stuff there are 100 who don't--just ask someone at sam goody or camelot how busy they are

the people getting sued are not customers, they are downloaders, and like it or not, 99% of downloaders are not buyers--why would they be? if you have the song right now, why drive to the store to get it again?

the p2p vs. RIAA propaganda wars are unmeasurably boring

[transduction]

These stats have to be inaccurate. It is when it comes to me. I don't buy any movies, music, or anything like that. Why do so when you can get it for free?

[Mels_Smileys45]

Its a nice spin of a story but a bit silly unless youre realy out of it. I once bought music but its been a few years since I bought a music cd and now its getting rare that I buy a DVD. The only DVD Ive bought in like 6 months is the season 2 set of "That 70's Show" which I love.

Now I spend my money on more hard drive space.

[mfgbypooter]

As a rule I never buy CD's but recently I found two long out of print vinyl albums that had never been released before on CD until just now so I bought them . Sad thing is, to make my purchase, I sure couldn't buy them at any retail box store as not one of them had them in stock. I had to order both of them online. So yeah, I bought 2 CD's that were "new" releases that are over 30 years old, but I don't think I will ever buy anything put out today.

*

[Smoovious]

As a rule I never buy CD's but recently I found two long out of print vinyl albums that had never been released before on CD until just now so I bought them. ...

Which ones did you find?

Details, man! Details! :)

I know what you mean tho... the stuff I so badly want to hold onto, are unlikely to ever be released on a CD... I just recently found a used record of Live at The Playboy Jazz Festival...

Back in the day, I bought this on casette... and managed to hold onto it for only a few weeks, before it either got lost, or got ripped off. (I believe the latter).

I spent ~20 years trying to replace it, until I saw a record of it on eBay...

The way they liked to do in the 80's, and still do today, you can't be 100% sure that the same album will have the same content on different media...

I don't have a turntable right now, so I can't be sure the entire track of 3 songs from Grover Washington, Jr is complete on it. I hope so. The record is a little vague about which songs from him are on it, while the casette was very clear with all 3 names on it.

Still, however, I'm happy I found at least one of the songs. The set of 3 was recorded unbroken.

The rest of the tape/record, I hated. That was ok though. I _LOVE_ listening to Grover... If I could find that same exact set elsewhere I would have. It was never re-released on CD. I don't expect it to ever be re-released, and I don't expect it to ever even be re-released online.

Its a shame. That set is bound to dissapear eventually. It is such a good set too. It deserves to be saved in a more reliable medium.

-- Smoovious

ps> Anyone know if they still make turntables with lasers for the 'needle'? I don't want anything touching the grooves if I can help it. :)

[mfgbypooter]

Which ones did you find?

Details, man! Details! :)Brownsville Station - Yeah!, originally released in 1973 and Brownsville Station - School Punks, originally released in 1974. I bought both lp's when they first came out and had a cassette with both albums on it back in the early 80's but they were never released on CD until recently.

*

[Class316]

I find that hard to believe. Why pay for a sub standard digital download when you can get a GOOD download for free. Doesn't sound logical.