Spend an average of £75 ($123 USD) annually versus £44 ($72 USD) for non-file-sharers, proving once again that file-sharing actually increases music consumption.
A new Digital Music Survey(.pdf) conducted by Ipsos Media Ct for Demos, a UK-based think tank whose goal it is to “search for and communicate ideas to give people more power to shape their own lives,” concludes once again that file-sharers do purchase music, and oftentimes in far greater quantities than their non-file-sharing counterparts.
The music industry always insists that a single illegal download equates a single lost sale and it couldn’t be further from the truth.
According to the survey, two-thirds of those who illegally download music spent an average of £75 ($123 USD) a year on music versus £44 ($72 USD) by those that don’t (10% buy a “lot more,” 16% a little more, and 47% “about the same).
It also says they are “active music buyers,” with 8 in 10 having purchased music, be it physical or digital, is the past 12 months.
“The people who file-share are the ones who are interested in music,” said Mark Mulligan of Forrester Research. “They use file-sharing as a discovery mechanism. We have a generation of young people who don’t have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity. You need to have it at a price point you won’t notice.”
The findings echo a number of studies that have come to the same conclusion, file-sharing actually increases legal music consumption.
The most recent was “Consumer Culture in Times of Crisis,” conducted by the the BI Norwegian School of Management, the largest business school in Norway and the second largest in all of Europe, which found that file-sharers actually buy 10 times as much music as they download for free.
Despite these findings UK Business Secretary Lord Mandelson plans to forge ahead with plans to disconnect repeat offenders, ala a “three-strikes” graduated response system, from the Internet.
In fact, a spokesman for his Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told the BBC that the survey’s report that 61% of illegal downloaders would be encouraged to stop using “unofficial services for accessing music without permission” with the threat of Internet suspension for one month proves that the plan will work.
“While surveys asking people about unlawful behavior should be treated with caution, it’s encouraging that the findings signal that the three-pronged approach set out by the Government this week – a mix of education, enforcement and attractive new commercial deals – provides the best way forward for industry and consumers,” said the spokesman.
He also alluded to the scale of the problem posing a “threat” to the “long-term sustainability” of the creative content industries, but the 7 million file-sharer myth, also oddly perpetuated by the Independent, has long since been debunked.
The estimated number of illegal file-sharers is actually 6.7 million, not 7 million (it was rounded up), and is based on a questionable proportion of the UK’s estimated online population. The actual figure is between 5.6 and 3.9 million.
“The latest approach from the Government will not help prop up an ailing music industry,” said Peter Bradwell of Demos. “Politicians and music companies need to recognize that the nature of music consumption has changed, and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access.”
The survey was conducted online and canvassed some 1,008 adults aged 16-50yo.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- Number of file-sharers in Japan rises sharply
- UK SURVEY: 54% of File-Sharers Buy Music on iTunes
- 7 Million UK File-Sharers Myth Debunked
- STUDY: 2.8 Million Swedes are File-Sharers
- IFPI: P2P Does Not Increase Music Sales
Loading ...
If all those people were actually telling the truth, and the ‘think tank’ didn’t have an obvious agenda, then the recording industry would be doing fine. It’s not. That internet poll is nonsense.
Malcolm shows how much you have followed the debate. The Canadian government did a study about a year or two back, paid a well known 3rd party firm from the U.K. to study file sharing. It found the same thing, that filesharers were also the biggest consumers of I.P. It has long been accepted in non biased circles that most heavy filesharers are ravenous for content, but can’t afford it all so they subsidies with filesharing.
For example I’m a filesharer, but i have about 30 games purchased on Steam. All in the last year or 2, well above the average. I’ll buy most of my textbooks, but download solutions manuals. All my software is either opensource or purchased except for maybe professional software that I could never afford to buy.
You may think you know it all but you reall dont. If you really have an issue with these studies than by all means, break down what part of the processes is scientifically illegitimate, not just some baseless accusation.
It''s sort of like asking high school students if they have sex or do drugs, it's inherently unreliable.
Regardless, what I object to is that this meaningless data is used to justify abrogating the rights of artists all over the world, and make a ridiculous claim that file sharing is helpful to the media business. Which is the point of gathering the data in the first place – for propaganda purposes.
So explain to me how its unreliable, what proof do you have that this data is unreliable. Have you maybe considered that its your convictions that are flawed, since they go against all unbiased studies results. But no, University studies, and studies conduct for industry Canada must be unreliable and useless.
The problem you have is that you believe that an authors rights trumps all others. When in reality this is unenforceable and goes against social norms. Even worst the ideals you have goes against social norms for no real purpose other than to satisfy your own desire for some Utopian possibility where you could use government enforcement to build back a failed business model that you crave to regain. Copyright is a restriction on the sharing of information, its people saying I hold the right to this idea, and how that idea can be transmitted, and society wants nothing of it. People have no problem with giving some rights to authors so they are encouraged to share and produce, but those rights have to be forfeited by society, not the other way around.
“… this meaningless data is used to justify abrogating the rights of artists all over the world, and make a ridiculous claim that file sharing is helpful to the media business.”
You’ve learned absolutely nothing after months of failure, let alone more than a year of disproving every single claim you have made, several times.
How typical, malgre. Attacking yet another poll that shows a truth regarding P2P, while you, an incompetent dumb-ass, haven’t done anything to show either how or why it is the source of the recording industry’s problems.
It’s a pretty straight forward propossition. The heaviest users of the content will also be the biggest purchasers of that content. File-sharers are typically the heaviest users of content. Therefore, file-sharers will typically pay for the most content.
There’s been countless studies that looked into this and verified this. The only studies that said otherwise were paid for by the recording industry which dictated the results before the researchers even started. Spin it however you want, but it’s the reality of today.
A convenieant and self serving 'reality' that illustrates the ideology of the group that carried it out.
Evem if the heaviest file sharers on average buy a little more than most (and that's not hard since most people buy very little) the conclusions people reach, such as
"file-sharing actually increases legal music consumption"
do not make any logical sense. One thing does not follow the other.
The government of Canada must of also been self serving when it found filesharers buy the most content from any other consumer group. Damn those governments trying to fight to prove the innocence of its people. Note the sarcasm.
What these studies proved as mentioned by others is that file sharing doesn't cause people to stop buying content. People will still buy lots of content, more than the average user even tho they could in theory get the content for free. If people are still willing to buy it even tho its free, there is a market that can be tapped. It also proves that not all downloads equate to a lost sale. Refute it all you want, unless you have legitimate research from someone without a vested interest in the results, your arguments will simply continue to fall to deaf ears.
You can't simply argue that the market is dead because you were in the business and it was suffering. That just means the business isn't adapting properly. Peoples entertainment budgets have not changed as a result of file sharing, they still spend the same amount they would otherwise. The industry needs to revise its price point for university and highschool targeted groups. The current price is perfect for professionals, but its not gonna be a instant purchase for those with a tighter budget. Again ignore our argument all you want, the industry is and its spelling their demise.
What price point is that? Evem the priciest CD's are fifteen $US, less than in 1987. Adjusted for inflation a CD in 1987 would be over 30 dollars now. Most CD's can be had for less than ten, and used for pennies on the dollar (plus shipping.) The argument about price points is pretty ridiculous when you consider how much food and beer costs. It's just what you choose to buy – and the students I know choose to buy beer and weed and pizza, instead of CD's, because they can get the music for free.
“What price point is that?”
You should know.
“Adjusted for inflation a CD in 1987 would be over 30 dollars now.”
What a pointless argument. People are also paid more now than before.
“The argument about price points is pretty ridiculous when you consider how much food and beer costs.”
Not at all.
“… the students I know choose to buy beer and weed and pizza, instead of CD’s, because they can get the music for free.”
Nope.
Have you ever paid tuition? Obviously food is more important than buying music if the music costs essentially more than the food. I’m not even going get into drugs.
Most of the cost associated to the development of an artist is marketing, beyond that the cost is minimal. When a business is in trouble it cuts out the fat, most of the current industry is fat, and no required for the development of an artist. With digital distribution the cost is greatly reduced, the internet offers up free advertising and exposure, and in my opinion does not reflect the price. The way you are looking at it is also flawed, people have adapted to listening to more music, music consumption has grown, but entertainment budgets can't keep up with that growth. My collection of music at 1$ a track would cost $5000, there is no way I could afford to buy that much music. But if I took the AllofMp3 model, which was selling music at 25 cents a track, it becomes viable for students. Over the years I acquired my music I could afford 1250$ for the collection. That would be about 150$ a year. You can't look at peoples buying habits in individual purchases, you have to look at it overall, and across all entertainment medium. The current music price makes no sense for students, and continuing to harp about it won't change that fact.
“do not make any logical sense.”
There is a distinction between logic and speculation.
“One thing does not follow the other.”
This a conclusion drawn from actual observations and specific data, not a speculation. The problem with you is that if you can’t speculate something, it doesn’t make sense to you.
How pathetic.
“This a conclusion drawn ”
should read
“This conclusion is drawn “