Is p2p killing CD sales?
p2pnet.net News:- A Japanese paper published just before Christmas says there`s, not sufficient evidence that file sharing systems are responsible for the recent decline in CD sales.
This is interesting in and of itself but what makes it doubly compelling is the fact it was prepared from micro data gleaned from Winny, the p2p system which got its creator, Isamu Kaneko, a 33-year-old Tokyo University assistant researcher, arrested.
Winny has gone on to become the most popular p2p application in Japan and now Dr Tatsuo Tanaka of Keio University says, in his research results:
- Increased file exchange via P2P app Winny has no relationship in the recent decline of CD sales
- p2p usage helps in the promotion of music by allowing users to experience it before purchase
- p2p usage helps in the discovery of new music by users.
Tanaka also says his work suggests copyright laws should be relaxed rather than tightened to allow for more positive effects of broadband internet file sharing.
Go here for a copy and just in case, we also have a .pdf here.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
<—–Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue—–>
March 28th, 2005 at 5:55 am
This just agree’s with other studies that have been on a independant level
March 28th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Now if only RIAA BPI and all those other big ass companies start accepting this instead of sueing everyone around them
March 28th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Last year, I went to the local nursery and bought 5 grape vines. This spring, I have taken clippings from the best 2 and have rooted them. I intend to give these new plants to 2 of my friends.
Do you consider this stealing? Most people do not. Yet when it comes to music, computer programs and other like items, people are conditioned to say that copying and redistributing them is stealing. If someone goes to the local music store and buys a cd, he or she is doing the same thing as if he or she is buying a vine from a local breeder.
When a person takes a grapevine or a piece of music and reproduces it, it is the same act – reproduction. Just as it costs money for rooting compound and potting medium, it costs money for a writable cd. Now, if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal. However, if i do the same with the music that I bought, it is considered piracy.
What makes music different? Is it the varying sounds? If that is the case, then what about the specific traits of the grapevine? Just as each track is different, so is each grapevine. Yet governemnt and cartel policy forbid the reproduction of specific sounds and not the reproduction of specific traits (at least not yet). I don’t listen to cartel music, but if I did, I would freely rip and copy a cd or DVD for any person who wishes to have a copy and do so with a clear conscience. The same goes with movies.
I believe in the 10 Commandments, and I do not steal. I do not consider reproduction and redistribution stealing no matter what the cartels say. However, if I said that it was I that wrote the song I bought, I would consider that a crime (of lying, and or fraud) just the same as it is if I stated that I originally bought the grapevine from Gallo vineyards when I actually bought it from the local plant nursery.
If I copied and sold a piece of work and mistated the origin of the work (by claming I wrote it or claim it came from Gallo winery), then I would be committing theft by deception (fraud). The buyer would not be getting something that he or she was expecting. Music or movies are just like the grapevine. I can choose to get a clipping from a friend or neighbor or I can buy it from a plant breeder. Once the music or movie is mine, I can copy it and give it away or sell it just like I can with my grapevine cutting. What is the differences besides government, court, or cartel policy? THERE IS NONE!!! Whether it is the uniqueness of a song, or the uniqueness of a plant, they both are reproduceable and transfereable as far as right or wrong is conscerned.
March 29th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
> if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal.
Monsanto may beg to differ with you:
http://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+abuse
(google search for “monsanto abuse”, I can’t get working link, sorry)
January 27th, 2006 at 8:33 am
I agree wholeheartedly, except that you shouldn’t be able to sell the reproduced sounds for profit, or even your cost, if any. Sharing is sharing.