Jump to content
🌙 COLDPLAY ANNOUNCE MOON MUSIC OUT OCTOBER 4TH 🎵

Illegal downloaders spend MORE on music than those who obey the law

mc_squared

By mc_squared
in How We See The World

 Share

Recommended Posts

mc_squared

mc_squared

Posted
Posted

Illegal downloaders spend MORE on music than those who obey the law

 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 7:47 AM on 02nd November 2009

 

 

article-0-05540BA50000044D-354_233x423.jpg Illegal music downloaders spend more on singles and albums than anyone else

 

People who illegally download music spend more on official releases than anyone else, according to a new survey.

The study, published today by think-tank Demos, found those who admit to file sharing spent an average £77 a year on singles and albums - £33 more than those who claim never to have wrongly accessed music for free.

Researcher Peter Bradwell said the findings should force companies and politicians to 'wake up to the changing nature' of the music industry as the Government plans to disconnect illegal downloaders from the internet in a 'three strikes and you're out' rule.

An estimated seven million UK users download files illegally every year, which will cost the industry £200million in 2009, according to trade association, the British Phonographic Industry.

Artists Lily Allen and James Blunt recently voiced support for the Government plans, while Latin pop star Shakira claims illegal file sharing brings her closer to her fans.

 

The survey also revealed nearly two thirds of file sharers said new and cheaper music services would encourage them to stop accessing illegal services. It found that by lowering the price of music available online to 45p per track - compared to between 59p and 99p on iTunes - providers could expect to double interest in legal sales.

Eight-three per cent of people downloading music illegally said they buy more music as a result, while 42 per cent said they did so to 'try before you buy'.

 

 

More...

 

 

 

But the Government is pressing ahead with plans for harsher punishments to act as a deterrent.

 

A Digital Economy Bill is expected to be introduced to parliament later this month, with its draft promising to create a 'robust legal and regulatory framework to combat illegal file sharing'.

Mr Bradwell said: 'This research demonstrates that cutting file sharers off may not be the best solution for the Government if they are intent on helping the music industry.

 

 

 

article-0-07004DE7000005DC-506_224x653.jpg

article-0-06E393B7000005DC-195_224x653.jpg

 

 

Divided: Lily Allen and Shakira are head-to-head over illegal file sharers

 

'Politicians and music companies need to wake up to the changing nature of music consumption and embrace the demand for new business models that offer lower prices and easier access to music.'

A 1,008 people aged between 18 and 50 were quizzed last month for the survey.

 

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: 'The scale of unlawful file-sharing poses a real threat to the long-term sustainability of our creative industries. The Government can not sit back and do nothing.

'While surveys asking people about unlawful behaviour 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.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224460/Illegal-downloaders-spend-MORE-music-obey-law.html#ixzz0VhHp3iJE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andreasw

andreasw

Posted
Posted
I'm convinced the music industry doesn't actually care about these facts. They just like having the law on their side.

 

If you get your wish of a world without governments, they won't bother with suing you, they'll just send a hit man to your house "to set an example." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saffire

Saffire

Posted
Posted

Of course they would, and they would pay for the hit man by jacking up the price of their music cds beyond their competitors prices! And customers would appreciate their use of hit-men, so they'd donate money and buy even more of their music. :rolleyes: (end sarcasm)

 

In an anarchy the music "industry" wouldn't exist. It simply wouldn't be profitable to run around trying to catch people who pirate music. You need a tax-collection agency to do this dirty work for you.

 

Besides, hit-men couldn't get near me because I would be under the umbrella of a private security firm whose reputation rests on protecting its customers.

 

Oh, but you've got roads. That's cool. Nobody in an anarchy would ever think to build roads, because we're all retarded losers who can't plan or save money. We need papa Hitler to come take a % of our income to do this shit for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andreasw

andreasw

Posted
Posted
Of course they would, and they would pay for the hit man by jacking up the price of their music cds beyond their competitors prices! And customers would appreciate their use of hit-men, so they'd donate money and buy even more of their music. :rolleyes: (end sarcasm)

 

Right. Of course the music industrie would never sue their own customers either because people wouldn't like that and stop buying music. Oh wait, they do that and people still buy music. Never mind. :rolleyes:

 

Besides, hit-men couldn't get near me because I would be under the umbrella of a private security firm whose reputation rests on protecting its customers.

 

Must be nice to be rich. Guess that means the less fortunate among us are screwed.

 

Oh, but you've got roads. That's cool. Nobody in an anarchy would ever think to build roads, because we're all retarded losers who can't plan or save money. We need papa Hitler to come take a % of our income to do this shit for us.

 

You're making the same mistake over and over again, you equate government with dictatorship. A democracy can't get away with the stuff dictatorships do to stay in power. If people don't like what they do, they'll get replaced after the next election. Don't like any of the parties? Get involved and create a new one.

 

Besides, what you're proposing isn't really anarchy, it's corporatism. You replacing a democracy were every vote counts the same with a system were the rich have all the say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saffire

Saffire

Posted
Posted

Andreasw, with all due respect, you have little to add to this discussion. You clearly don't have an understanding of economics, and you probably haven't read anything on the subject of anarchism.

 

But I'll humor you a while longer, because I'm bored and I need a statist to bat around.

 

Right. Of course the music industrie would never sue their own customers either because people wouldn't like that and stop buying music. Oh wait, they do that and people still buy music. Never mind.

 

People have stopped buying their music, and people have reacted to the lawsuits - CD sales are down drastically. It is never profitable to attack your customers.

 

And as I said before, in an anarchy, you couldn't have intellectual property, because there would be no government to enforce patents or copyrights.

 

Must be nice to be rich. Guess that means the less fortunate among us are screwed.

 

Do you know how businesses and entrepreneurs make money? By serving as many customers as possible. Wal Mart is worth hundreds of billions of dollars because they give cheap goods to the poorest Americans.

 

This nonsensical socialist claim that a free market is the enemy of the common man isn't backed up by any empirical evidence. Government is the enemy of the poor and the middle class. Not capitalism.

 

You're making the same mistake over and over again, you equate government with dictatorship. A democracy can't get away with the stuff dictatorships do to stay in power. If people don't like what they do, they'll get replaced after the next election. Don't like any of the parties? Get involved and create a new one.

 

A democracy can get away with more than dictatorship, because it has popular consent and the illusion of freedom to help it along. Hans Hoppe, a great German-born economist has written books on this fact. Also, as a German you are surely aware that Hitler was democratically-elected.

 

Besides, what you're proposing isn't really anarchy, it's corporatism. You replacing a democracy were every vote counts the same with a system were the rich have all the say.

 

I am not proposing anything. I am an anarchist. I let people live as they choose to live.

 

It is YOU who are proposing things. YOU are the one who wants to force people to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andreasw

andreasw

Posted
Posted
Andreasw, with all due respect, you have little to add to this discussion. You clearly don't have an understanding of economics, and you probably haven't read anything on the subject of anarchism.

 

With all due respect, but you obviously don't know very much about history and human nature. Trust me, the world is a lot more complicated than you think it is, and there are no simple solutions. You now think you have the answer to all the world's problems, but as you get older you'll (hopefully) realise that you're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are ;)

 

People have stopped buying their music, and people have reacted to the lawsuits - CD sales are down drastically. It is never profitable to attack your customers.

 

CD sales have been down long before the lawsuits started, simply because it's cheaper to download.

 

A democracy can get away with more than dictatorship, because it has popular consent and the illusion of freedom to help it along. Hans Hoppe, a great German-born economist has written books on this fact. Also, as a German you are surely aware that Hitler was democratically-elected.

 

Hitler wasn't directly elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg, who was already senile at the time. And the first thing he (Hitler) did afterwards was to get rid of democracy.

 

I am not proposing anything. I am an anarchist. I let people live as they choose to live.

 

Surely you're not so naive? You're only replacing government with something else, namely corporations.

 

It is YOU who are proposing things. YOU are the one who wants to force people to do things.

 

I'm not proposing anything, and I'm certainly not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just sick of social and political experiments, we had more than enough of those in the last century and millions of people have died as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ceckers

Ceckers

Posted
Posted
. You now think you have the answer to all the world's problems, but as you get older you'll (hopefully) realise that you're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are ;)

 

:rolleyes:

 

Hitler wasn't directly elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg, who was already senile at the time. And the first thing he (Hitler) did afterwards was to get rid of democracy..

 

When did Hitler come into the equation of illegal downloading?! :\

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saffire

Saffire

Posted
Posted
With all due respect, but you obviously don't know very much about history and human nature. Trust me, the world is a lot more complicated than you think it is, and there are no simple solutions. You now think you have the answer to all the world's problems, but as you get older you'll (hopefully) realise that you're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are ;)

 

A statist telling an anarchist he claims to have the "answer to all of the world's problems". Are you kidding me? I am aware of human nature, moreso than you are. I read huge books on it for fun. And you're absolutely right, there are no simple solutions to complex social problems.

 

But what does the government do? They say "Yes, we have the solution! Collect taxes and then use the Police to enforce rules!" And that's the same fucking solution they come up with for every goddamned problem that comes down the pike. Point a gun, steal, and then FORCE people to do things.

 

 

 

CD sales have been down long before the lawsuits started, simply because it's cheaper to download.

 

Correct, and in the market place, cheaper is often better. Downloading music is not theft. Taxation is.

 

 

 

Hitler wasn't directly elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg, who was already senile at the time. And the first thing he (Hitler) did afterwards was to get rid of democracy.

 

Fair enough, and Presidents in the USA are appointed by an Electoral College. So neither are direct elections. What do you think Hitler's approval rating would have been in Germany once he got rid of democracy? I'd bet it was pretty high, even while he was smashing the Jews.

 

America had a dictator as well, few remember him that way however - Abraham Lincoln. He killed 600,000 Americans in an unnecessary war of aggression on the seceding states. Now they teach little kids that it was all about freeing the slaves, you know. The same slaves Lincoln had men hunt down in his home state, and returned to their masters.

 

Then he locked up tens of thousands of Americans for speaking out against the war - mostly Northern newspaper editors and individuals who simply had a difference of opinion. No charges necessary.

 

 

 

Surely you're not so naive? You're only replacing government with something else, namely corporations.

 

A corporation is a creation of the government. It's a legal structure.

 

I'm talking about businesses, not institutionalized money-machines that can't compete without patents and other protections offered by the government.

 

 

 

I'm not proposing anything, and I'm certainly not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just sick of social and political experiments, we had more than enough of those in the last century and millions of people have died as a result.

 

How many people have died as a result of anarchy? All the millions of deaths you're talking about occurred because of governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh42

Josh42

Posted
Posted
I'm not proposing anything, and I'm certainly not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just sick of social and political experiments, we had more than enough of those in the last century and millions of people have died as a result.

 

Sorry to be blunt, but I've read a lot of things on this forum, and this could, quite possibly, be the single most unintelligent statement I've ever read. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...