How the RIAA Hoodwinks the Courts, Legislature and Public
July 30th, 2007 by Kavan Wolfe(or, “Why the RIAA is full of BS”)
The Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) wants you to believe that unauthorized music downloads are responsible for the music industry’s recent decrease in sales and profits. It has two primary arguments (and since they made The War on Bullshit Blog, you can probably guess what I think of them…)
Individual Downloads
Its first argument runs as follows:
- “The U.S. music industry loses more than $300 million per year to street piracy alone” (http://www.riaa.com/faq.php)
- Peer-to-peer (P2P) downloading is way bigger than street piracy (http://www.riaa.com/faq.php)
- Therefore, the U.S. music industry loses way more than $300 million per year to peer-to-peer downloading.
Whether this makes sense depends on how you calculate a loss. If, every time someone downloads a song, you write that up as a $1 loss, then the RIAA has a point… wait… something smells like bullshit!
A peer-to-peer download only represents a loss to the music industry if, were that download unavailable, the downloader would have made a music purchase. Furthermore, even if the downloader were to buy the song on iTunes for, say, $1, that doesn’t imply $1 profit for the music industry. Profit = Revenue - Expenses. A peer-to-peer download does not create any expenses for the music industry. Recording, manufacturing and marketing a CD does.
The RIAA is trying to hoodwink the public and lawmakers into thinking that it’s being victimized by downloading - that downloaders are stealing millions upon millions of dollars from the music industry each year. But it’s all bullshit. They can’t establish that P2P file sharing is causing their decrease in profits. This causal relationship constitutes a theory, one that can be studied scientifically. And guess what?
There is no scientifically defensible evidence that an individual P2P download affects the profits of the music industry.
At this point, individual downloaders are off the hook as far as tort law is concerned. If the RIAA cannot establish that the individual accused had the accused effect, and they can’t, there is no basis for a lawsuit. End of story. (I sure hope a few judges read this…)
File Sharing as a Social Phenomenon
However, it could be argued that while an individual downloader is not responsible for the music industry’s losses, the social phenomenon of P2P file sharing is. This could still form a basis to outlaw this fine pastime.
The argument the RIAA can draw on goes as follows:
- Before P2P file sharing caught on, CD sales (or profits, or revenues, or whatever) were rising
- After P2P file sharing caught on, CD sales (or profits, or revenues, or whatever) have been falling.
- Therefore, P2P file sharing caused the fall of CD sales.
This isn’t really bullshit, it’s just false. More specifically, this is a classical logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc, a Latin phrase meaning, “after this, therefore because of this.” This is akin to saying, ‘I drank green tea before that big earthquake, therefore, drinking green tea causes earthquakes.’
There is no scientifically defensible evidence that P2P downloading as a social phenomena affects the profits of the music industry.
In fact, there is significant evidence to the contrary.
Economic study on the effect of music downloads
According to this new study: “the estimated effect of file sharing on sales is not statistically distinguishable from zero,” (p. 3). This is a formal way of saying that the authors found no causal link between P2P file sharing and industry losses.
To make this claim, the authors construct a variety of mathematical models to estimate the effect of downloading on music sales. They conclude: “Using detailed records of transfers of digital music files, we find that file sharing has had no statistically significant effect on purchases of the average album in our sample,” (p. 38) If you read the full paper, you will find that the authors cannot wholly reject a relationship between downloading and sales. This is a limitation of statistical reasoning - statistically, you can fail to find evidence of a relationship, but it’s much harder (potentially impossible) to show definitively that two variables are completely unrelated. Thus, conservatively speaking, this study indicates that, if there is an effect at all, it must be very small.
Thus, in the absence of scientifically defensible evidence to the contrary, the RIAA’s claim that music downloading is diminishing the music industry’s profits are bullshit.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
And even if such a correlation could be demonstrated, it still would not justify bullying and threatening teenagers, as well as attacking the rights of internet radio people and music stores.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I agree one hundred percent.
It’s music. That’s all it is, and people need to just press the play button and not give a shit about such petty losses.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
[…] Read up on this awesome blog. […]
August 1st, 2007 at 12:46 am
Excellent post. I have often thought about this argument myself. The fact is, is that P2P technology has completely re-written the rules. The record companies are becoming redundant. Artists will now have to gain revenue from playing live and music is now free, just like turning on TV. You pay for the service not the content. Prince knows the score.
http://goldfusion.wordpress.com/
August 1st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I always feel for those bastards who lost a few million.
Never mind who they hurt or how they hurt in thier endevour to make millions of dollars.
They think they know whats good for or at least what our children want don’t they?
Should children always get what they want and should we allow others to tell us what our kids want?
I don’t feel bad for a corp. losing a few million or even a few hundred million.If they went under others would just take it’s place.
Maybe if they didn’t have to have all thier dirty little fingers not only invested in everything but controlling everything thier bottom lines could be a little closer to reality.
Or maybe they are paying thier CEO way too much.
Don’t you worry though somehow and with the right politician or even EX politician,otherwise known as lobbyist,it will become even more profitable for them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 am
I have mixed feelings on the issue. On the one hand, I would be pretty disappointed/angry if as a band I was seeing my album all over online while the actual sales were horrid.
That said, this is a permanent and unstoppable factor. P2P will never disappear, no matter how many people they sue or take to court. I would bet the farm that more people start pirating every day than they take out of the game in a year.
How would I approach this problem as the RIAA/MPAA? Attack those who are “overdoing” it. I’ve seen some of their cases where they are going after middle-aged/elderly people who probably had 30 “stolen” songs on their PC. At the same time, I personally know people who are into the 70-80 gig range of just music that they have downloaded and are seeding 24/7.
Trading a song here or there isn’t any different than taping it off the radio or from a CD and giving it to a friend. If anything, it will encourage people to listen to music more, which (assuming they have a decent business model) increase sales. I’d think they would have more issue with those who are acting like virtual bootleg factories.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 am
Just an addendum to my comment. While I am 100% in support of P2P, I was addressing the articles main point of monetary loss due to P2P. Moderate trading of songs probably has absolutely no affect, but I could see the argument that relatively massive (as in the example) giving away of music COULD possibly have some negative affects.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
“How would I approach this problem as the RIAA/MPAA? Attack those who are “overdoing” it. I’ve seen some of their cases where they are going after middle-aged/elderly people who probably had 30 “stolen” songs on their PC. At the same time, I personally know people who are into the 70-80 gig range of just music that they have downloaded and are seeding 24/7.”
Great idea. Attack teenagers, students, who need money! Blackmail them! That’s what the RIAA is ALREADY doing, you insensitive twit.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Here’s the thing. We all know that P2P is technically illegal. That in mind, most of us still do it because we consider it a victimless crime, which is largely is. When someone steals MASSIVE amounts of music and seeds it 24/7, they’ve crossed the line from being a simple file sharer to a full-fledged pirate.
What exactly do you propose? Letting them do it simply because they are largely teens and students?
August 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
He has not made an “insightful point,” unless you believe that the current RIAA strategy of blackmailing teenage students is “insightful.” I think it’s mafia-like.
August 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
The logic here is ridiculous. Saying that it’s not a loss if the person wouldn’t buy it if it weren’t available for free is like saying it’s not stealing for me to take a Ferrari without paying for it, because I wouldn’t buy it otherwise.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
The mark thats missed by your bullshit post is not the effect file sharing is having on the music industry but the diluting effect file sharing is having on the value of the musician song library.
File sharing is felt as a double theft by these musicians; first by the recording industry and then by all the little people stealing a few songs.
By the way I think your analysis is as faulty as the RIAA’s
Poetman
August 5th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I personally have used P2P sites… a lot. However, usually it ended up getting me to buy the album the songs were on. I used it to find new bands, where perhaps I may never had listened to their music. I don’t listen to the radio, and this was before AOL and Yahoo started allowing you to listen for free. So many artists have made money off of me solely because of P2P downloads.
Also you have to consider another important point. AOL and Yahoo along with other various sites also now offer free XM radio stations to listen to while you are on-line. You could make the point that since it is offered free… I’m not paying for an XM radio subscription… that it is causing me to not have to buy the albums and therefore is causing loss to the artists. Especially now that you can create your own “custom” stations by telling them what artists you want music from and such. So what do you do about that? Who’s to blame?
Newspapers complain that bloggers are stealing readers away, record companies complain about file sharing and film studios can’t figure out why people don’t want to have to take out a small loan to see a film in a theater when they can rent from Netflix and get entertained by Youtube.
The bottom line is that companies have a hard time adapting to change. They fear it. They refuse to embrace new chances to make themselves available to new customers, and then they blame their inability to change on us. They complain because making change would take creativity and acceptance. Big corps. are too scared to do it and their customers pay the price for their inability to adapt. What ever happened to “the customer is always right”?
Big corporations throwing hissy fits… now that really is some bullshit I’m tired of dealing with!
August 6th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Dan B’s point is interested but there are several basic flaws in the logic there:
“Here’s the thing. We all know that P2P is technically illegal. That in mind, most of us still do it because we consider it a victimless crime, which is largely is. When someone steals MASSIVE amounts of music and seeds it 24/7, they’ve crossed the line from being a simple file sharer to a full-fledged pirate.”
Now, that being said, a crime is either victimless or not; it can’t be a victimless crime if there is a little bit of a victim present. That’s like saying that a burger is “largely vegetarian” or that a meal is “largely kosher”. I would assert that, if we must call it a crime, which I believe is a misnomer, that it is wholly victimless. Personal opinions aside, however, we must all agree that it cannot be both OK because there is no victim *and* bad, since there is victimization going on.
Once we have solved that semantic dilemma, we can move on to the more pressing matter at hand. There is no line. Not a little bit of a line, not a fine line, not a thin, red line. I repeat this point one more time to make sure that everyone has grasped it. There is exactly 0% chance of line in today’s P2P forecast. A person who downloads and shares music is a person who downloads and shares music. Whether we see that person as doing something illegal or being a bad person, that is a completely separate issue; what we are talking about here is where to categorize the music-sharer. And there is only one place that this person can be placed, not many, not two sides of a line.
There are many reasons for this but the most obvious is that P2P file sharing works on the premise of many-source/many-destination. So it matters exactly none, from whence cometh the original file, since it is downloaded from various and sundry sources to make up a complete file at the destination. The same goes for the destination, since there are many of these, all sourced from the same original file. So whether these files are stored on one massive array of hard disks in some over-zealous collector’s basement or scattered, one file apiece, throughout a whole series of campus networks, the result is exactly the same. The other side of this coin is the argument of ears. (I invite any bad corn jokes to please remain at home in future.)
The ear argument is even simpler. I have two. So do you, most likely. And if you have one, or even zero, then this argument changes exactly none. (As an aside, if you have three, I’d assume that the result is the same but I shan’t comment, since I have never met an entity containing more than a gross sum of two and cannot speculate with any degree of certainty on the result.) Like I said, two ears. I can listen to one song at a time. There are twenty-four hours in a day (give or take a few moments, for the space geeks out there, like me) and I can listen to exactly no more than that in music, be it downloaded or purchased, regardless of how much I may or may not have stored on the hard drive next to my stereo. As a result, it makes absolutely zero difference how much music that I may or may not download; the quantity is irrelevant because my total *use* of the material is limited in very real terms to only a certain number of hours in a day.
While there are other meaningful points in the essay to discuss, I believe that this is the most commonly misunderstood argument in favor of the RIAA and against the downloading masses. Thank-you for your time (and your ears, of course).
August 6th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
[…] versus Loss in Music Piracy Several interesting points came up in the discussion of my last post, which addressed how the RIAA deceives the public regarding its imaginary losses due to music […]
August 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Just a small response to the response to my posts.
I think that your rebuttal was due more to my lack of clarity than any disagreement in principle. I agree that there is no such thing a crime that is “partly victimless”. What I was getting at is the fact that these things have to be taken on a case by case basis. Just like there are many legal ways to approach someone killing another person, based upon circumstances, there should be more than one way to approach the P2P situation.
Equal punishment for equal crimes, but someone downloading an album every month or so isn’t committing the same crime as someone download/seeding thousands of albums daily.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
You are off your rockers if you believe that downloading a song is a crime. At best you could say that the first reproduction of the song, the one that occurs BEFORE the sharing, is illegal, but not downloading the song after it’s been reproduced.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
[…] the RIAA Should Hang Robin Hood Previously in this segment, I discussed how the RIAA fabricates a link between unauthorized music downloading and shrinking musi…. After some insightful discussion, I also differentiated the treatment of piracy in criminal and […]
August 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
[…] Thus, in the absence of scientifically defensible evidence to the contrary, the RIAA’s claim that music downloading is diminishing the music industry’s profits are bullshit. Source (article continues on the blog I only copied the first page) […]
January 11th, 2008 at 8:15 am
If I lend a book to my neighbor, am I responsible for the publisher’s loss?
February 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Everyone says that P2P caused all this. The truth of the matter is:
1) This is nothing new (Magnetic Cassette Tapes and VHS).
and the last time I checked…
2) I’m pretty sure the Personal Computer predated large-scale P2P. Without the PC, you don’t have networks to connect, you don’t have software to encode and hardware to rip with. We’ve all seen their level of success when they’ve attempted to cow big money industries such as PC makers and Electronics manufacturers.
The nature of data is such that most of what is what I call ‘Not Real’, such as video, audio, image, is infinitely malleable. When your customer (audience) knows more about the data than you, the producer, this is what you have to expect is going to happen.
Maybe media isn’t the instabank it has been for many complacent producers, anymore. Maybe the message is work harder, write, produce and present smarter and then consumers will be interested again. We have a LOT of choices out there, why SHOULD I watch yours? Why should I even darken my iPod’s HDD with your artist? Anyone who has looked for anything (especially music) knows that there’s no free lunch. Time is spent, bandwidth squandered. If it was any good to begin with, even a crappy mp3 lets me know I gotta have a better copy of it. My preference is to find the physical CD so as to rip it to my preference, as I am a engineer (audio) myself and I have standards. If I never hear a new artist, I am not likely to buy a disc I don’t know exists. People like me, who abhor the schticky windup and greasy sales pitch, across the board, don’t feel marketed to when browsing torrent sites, or P2P libraries. If something MUST be owned, it will be purchased. But to say that each P2P download has the same value as any other P2P download is erroneous. Or eve that a download is comparable to a physical object is erroneous when directly compared.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Did the paint Industry complain when vinyl siding came along? Probably. Did anybody care? Maybe painters. Do I have vinyl siding on the very building I type this in? Yup. Should the paint companies have sued builders or homeowners preferring it to painting? Hells, no!
******************************************************************************************************
Licensing music for a mixed CD or a compilation or a soundtrack is harder than simply paying for the rights of the music involved. You can’t discount the egos, fiefdoms or the image problems with doing something different or uber-high quality. So, in the example of a mixed CD, filler gets added because two or more competing labels can’t work together. I often think that music should be sold by the artist to the distributor/label on a song by song basis. If it costs them in the sense that a band or an artist has only three saleable singles, that’s all the label should buy off the artist. The digital age practically implores the labels to consider this idea seriously. They’d lose less money if an artist were average and really only had a couple singles in ‘em and that’s all they had to produce as a commodity. That also seems to two-tier the playing field a bit too. And why not? If you’re quality, you get physical media produced in your name. If you’re mediocre, welcome the farm team, iTunes Superstar.
Look at the club music scene. For years vinyl was the only medium and it was ok to concentrate on making a single rock out. Remixes also changed the way a lot of people think about music. And who were some of the first to embrace the changing tide of physical media to data-based media, first with the move to mixing with CDs and then to mp3s.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
[…] have dealt with the stupidity of prosecuting file sharers before. In summary, downloading music or movies is no more stealing from the music/movie industry […]
April 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Me, personally, I enjoy downloading music. But being young, and a performer myself, I imagine I’d be pretty offended if I were to come out with a CD (not gonna happen, btw) and it flopped because everybody downloaded the songs. (That wouldn’t happen either - the amount of online downloads correlates with the amount of CDs sold, or so I’ve heard). But I do limit myself; I typically download a song or two to check out a band, and then I go buy their album.
Loved the line about the green tea and the earthquake, btw.