Matthew David of Brunel University takes an erudite look at Peer to Peer and the Music Industry - the history of the distribution monopoly and the legal, technical, cultural and economic options going forward - both for artists and the recording industry.
From March 2010
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform
Showing posts with label piracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label piracy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Seeing what you want to see. The ICC Digital Economy report.
Thirty two billion euros and six hundred thousand jobs by 2015. Those are the losses due to piracy projected by the ICC report "Building a Digital Economy". Scary stuff...
The report is interesting reading but not totally convincing. If it were a climate report it's the type of publication that would have climate sceptics baying for blood. I'll give some comment here and if you want more analysis read on at Technollamna, Tumbled Logic, and Open.... Overall the authors I think have done a good job of setting out what they have done, and importantly what they have assumed - and in that sense it's a valuable input to the debate that bears study.
My first and biggest problem with the report is that it sets out to evaluate the damage done by piracy - and as such finds the result it is looking for. It isn't a holistic view of the economy and doesn't consider balancing factors - like increased bandwidth usage from non-commercial sharing stimulating the telecoms sector.
The basic premise of the report is that the creative industries and supporting sectors are a major part of the economy and are at serious risk from piracy. They then present figures that show that piracy as they evaluate it amounts to around a 2% of creative industry value. Noticeable but not at a level that supports the premise that piracy is killing creativity. Moreover, they include in their assessments non core industry sectors like paper production (and production of physical recording media) which are much more at risk from the rise of the digital economy than they are from piracy.
They then evaluate piracy losses based on two scenarios - one based on forecast growth of file sharing traffic (+18% p.a) - and the other based on overall growth of consumer IP traffic (+24% p.a). This second scenario, professionally speaking, I consider pure fantasy as consumer IP traffic is likely to be driven by legitimate online and IP-TV rather than an explosive growth in piracy.
Both scenarios miss an important element in a holistic view - which is the consumer's ability to pay. Predictions of traffic growth are based on significant reductions in cost per bit. There is no assumption that consumers are prepared to pay 18-24% per year more for bandwidth - and there clearly is no rationale to think that the value of pirated content conversion to legitimate sales would rise at those rates either.
Put another way - the study assumes a constant percentage of pirated content is lost revenues. Households don't have limitless pockets though, so realistically if content piracy increases the hypothetical conversion is likely to fall. Without some validation of what consumer spending trends are for entertainment content the numbers given are just wishful thinking.
In fact, Tumbled Logic suggests why current trends on Torrent downloading could mean conversion of downloads to sales could be as low as 0,5% - which would cut the estimates in this study by a huge 95%. Assumptions are crucial in reaching a trustworthy result.....
Next we hear how piracy is having huge impacts on the music industry and that reductions in physícal disc sales have collapsed and that piracy must be to blame. This is supposition not supported by the evidence... There is clear evidence that revenues from live performances have substantially increased and that the total music industry revenues including these are stable - and further evidence that shows that there is a switch in buying behaviour from music and other passive media to games - a sector that shows significant growth. Less piracy may have inhibited that shift to live performance and games, but where's the evidence that less piracy would grow the overall available market?
Again, unless a study can substantiate a growth in consumer spending on media over and above existing levels (with for instance cinema attendances at record levels) how can you project huge losses? Here in lies the rub.... as a consumer if I spend more on music, or TV or video, then I spend less on something else. So just where is the economy going to be hit if consumers are buying all their content instead of taking a share online?
Lastly, in this whistlestop critique, is the figures for lost jobs quoted... the hypothesis is that if we increase sales on video 'X' we have more money to employ more people and to create more content. But is that a realistic view? Media companies want to maximise their profits, not maximise their output - and at the end of the day consumers have a finite budget and a finite amount of time to consume content. Is it a given that higher sales will generate employment? Better sales per production could even have the opposite effect... we don't need to create as many films/songs to generate our sales (and profit) targets - so why dilute the market by creating more content?
Seek.. and you shall find. But don't believe everything you read!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
The report is interesting reading but not totally convincing. If it were a climate report it's the type of publication that would have climate sceptics baying for blood. I'll give some comment here and if you want more analysis read on at Technollamna, Tumbled Logic, and Open.... Overall the authors I think have done a good job of setting out what they have done, and importantly what they have assumed - and in that sense it's a valuable input to the debate that bears study.
My first and biggest problem with the report is that it sets out to evaluate the damage done by piracy - and as such finds the result it is looking for. It isn't a holistic view of the economy and doesn't consider balancing factors - like increased bandwidth usage from non-commercial sharing stimulating the telecoms sector.
The basic premise of the report is that the creative industries and supporting sectors are a major part of the economy and are at serious risk from piracy. They then present figures that show that piracy as they evaluate it amounts to around a 2% of creative industry value. Noticeable but not at a level that supports the premise that piracy is killing creativity. Moreover, they include in their assessments non core industry sectors like paper production (and production of physical recording media) which are much more at risk from the rise of the digital economy than they are from piracy.
They then evaluate piracy losses based on two scenarios - one based on forecast growth of file sharing traffic (+18% p.a) - and the other based on overall growth of consumer IP traffic (+24% p.a). This second scenario, professionally speaking, I consider pure fantasy as consumer IP traffic is likely to be driven by legitimate online and IP-TV rather than an explosive growth in piracy.
Both scenarios miss an important element in a holistic view - which is the consumer's ability to pay. Predictions of traffic growth are based on significant reductions in cost per bit. There is no assumption that consumers are prepared to pay 18-24% per year more for bandwidth - and there clearly is no rationale to think that the value of pirated content conversion to legitimate sales would rise at those rates either.
Put another way - the study assumes a constant percentage of pirated content is lost revenues. Households don't have limitless pockets though, so realistically if content piracy increases the hypothetical conversion is likely to fall. Without some validation of what consumer spending trends are for entertainment content the numbers given are just wishful thinking.
In fact, Tumbled Logic suggests why current trends on Torrent downloading could mean conversion of downloads to sales could be as low as 0,5% - which would cut the estimates in this study by a huge 95%. Assumptions are crucial in reaching a trustworthy result.....
Next we hear how piracy is having huge impacts on the music industry and that reductions in physícal disc sales have collapsed and that piracy must be to blame. This is supposition not supported by the evidence... There is clear evidence that revenues from live performances have substantially increased and that the total music industry revenues including these are stable - and further evidence that shows that there is a switch in buying behaviour from music and other passive media to games - a sector that shows significant growth. Less piracy may have inhibited that shift to live performance and games, but where's the evidence that less piracy would grow the overall available market?
Again, unless a study can substantiate a growth in consumer spending on media over and above existing levels (with for instance cinema attendances at record levels) how can you project huge losses? Here in lies the rub.... as a consumer if I spend more on music, or TV or video, then I spend less on something else. So just where is the economy going to be hit if consumers are buying all their content instead of taking a share online?
Lastly, in this whistlestop critique, is the figures for lost jobs quoted... the hypothesis is that if we increase sales on video 'X' we have more money to employ more people and to create more content. But is that a realistic view? Media companies want to maximise their profits, not maximise their output - and at the end of the day consumers have a finite budget and a finite amount of time to consume content. Is it a given that higher sales will generate employment? Better sales per production could even have the opposite effect... we don't need to create as many films/songs to generate our sales (and profit) targets - so why dilute the market by creating more content?
Seek.. and you shall find. But don't believe everything you read!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
ACTA under fire at the EU Parliament
There have been rumblings for some time at the EU Parliament about the negotiations on the ACTA counterfeiting and trade negotiations. Parliament doesn't like being told they are not allowed to see what the negotiators are agreeing on their behalf and for the benefit or otherwise of Europe's citizens.
Now the decks are cleared and the cannons rolled out and the parliamentarians are taking action. Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP is one of the movers behind a motion that in fine words tells the Commission to stop fannying around and put all their cards on the table. Pointing out among other things that
"the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations"
But it's not just an armlock to get visibility of what the negotiators are up to - the motion goes further, and places concrete limitations on what the negotiators can sign up for.
"..no to three-strikes Hadopi-type legislation, and no to searches of laptops, cell phones and other digital devices at the borders by customs officers".
Representation in parliament. Isn't it wonderful. Voting on the motion is today... though it sounds like it has broad cross party support which sounds promising.
All quotes from Christian's blog.
(PS: life's kind of busy right now... so blogging is on a bit of a low tide.)
Now the decks are cleared and the cannons rolled out and the parliamentarians are taking action. Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP is one of the movers behind a motion that in fine words tells the Commission to stop fannying around and put all their cards on the table. Pointing out among other things that
"the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations"
But it's not just an armlock to get visibility of what the negotiators are up to - the motion goes further, and places concrete limitations on what the negotiators can sign up for.
"..no to three-strikes Hadopi-type legislation, and no to searches of laptops, cell phones and other digital devices at the borders by customs officers".
Representation in parliament. Isn't it wonderful. Voting on the motion is today... though it sounds like it has broad cross party support which sounds promising.
All quotes from Christian's blog.
(PS: life's kind of busy right now... so blogging is on a bit of a low tide.)
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Legalise filesharing: Wise words from that William Bloke
Billy Bragg.. a leading figure in the Featured Artist Coalition .. has made a press release in conjunction with a concert in Ottawa urging Canadian legislators to legalise filesharing.
"Mr. Bragg.. joined NDP MP Charlie Angus Friday to press Ottawa to avoid criminalizing music downloading when it updates copyright protection law.
The British singer and the New Democrats are calling on Ottawa to let artists find a way to make music file swapping a legitimate part of promotion and sales.
Mr. Bragg and other artists want to see new ways to pay performers for music available online while protecting downloaders. He said record labels will often sell entire catalogues to websites without giving the artists a cut."
Billy is also one of the founders of a2f2a - a blog site aiming to provide a forum for debate between fans and artists.
A2F2A blogging about the press conference quotes Billy as saying:
“The internet brings fans and artists closer together than ever before and brings great benefits to both. Let’s not allow the record industry to keep us apart in order to protect their old broken business model.”
I can't argue with that...
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
"Mr. Bragg.. joined NDP MP Charlie Angus Friday to press Ottawa to avoid criminalizing music downloading when it updates copyright protection law.
The British singer and the New Democrats are calling on Ottawa to let artists find a way to make music file swapping a legitimate part of promotion and sales.
Mr. Bragg and other artists want to see new ways to pay performers for music available online while protecting downloaders. He said record labels will often sell entire catalogues to websites without giving the artists a cut."
Billy is also one of the founders of a2f2a - a blog site aiming to provide a forum for debate between fans and artists.
A2F2A blogging about the press conference quotes Billy as saying:
“The internet brings fans and artists closer together than ever before and brings great benefits to both. Let’s not allow the record industry to keep us apart in order to protect their old broken business model.”
I can't argue with that...
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Bad habits, bad government - Fudging the figures
You may remember the fuss about government statistics on piracy being based on adjusted, interpolated figures sourced from industry lobbyists.
Heresy Corner has a super piece on 'Abusing the evidence' (about amongst other things, sex trafficking) that shows that the use of selective statistics to support UK government policy making is endemic. As the Heresiarch puts it..
"The government has loudly proclaimed its commitment to "evidence-based policy-making" while instead pursuing policy-based evidence making."
Statistics is only evidence if it is honestly presented - and scientifically valid. Fudging the figures will just lead to bad policy - and bad government.
Do I mean will - or has?
Heresy Corner has a super piece on 'Abusing the evidence' (about amongst other things, sex trafficking) that shows that the use of selective statistics to support UK government policy making is endemic. As the Heresiarch puts it..
"The government has loudly proclaimed its commitment to "evidence-based policy-making" while instead pursuing policy-based evidence making."
Statistics is only evidence if it is honestly presented - and scientifically valid. Fudging the figures will just lead to bad policy - and bad government.
Do I mean will - or has?
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Pubs in decline. Music is small beer...
The British Beer & Pub Association published this week a report on the decline of British pubs. An average of 52 pubs closed every week in 2008 with an estimated 24 000 jobs lost.... By historical standards it's a very high level and a true cause for concern to see this British institution in such decline.
The BBPA are quick to point the finger at increased regulation and taxation as the cause for the decline - althought without actually researching why people are not going to the pub it is a bit bold to come to a conclusion. Other reports - you can find it in the Times, Financial Times and The Telegraph for instance - raise other factors into the equation.
City pubs are faring much better than country pubs, and pubs focussing on food are doing better than those that are out and out drinkers pubs. One report suggested that tied* pubs are particularly hard hit, suggesting that it is monopolistic practices in the brewing trade that are at least as much to blame as government tax policy, and the high level of rents are a long standing issue of concern for landlords.
But.. go back to the beginning and read again... 24 000 jobs lost in the pub industry. Real jobs. People that worked last year that don't have the same job this year. Now compare that with the estimated cost to the economy of free downloads in the UK. A postulated four thousand jobs lost in 2004.
So... the crisis at your local is hurting the economy six times more than any potential loss of sales to file sharing. Remember that the next time someone down the pub starts rattling on about the costs of piracy.
Music is small beer... go have another pint!
*A tied pub is independantly run, but under obligation to buy beer from a particular supplier - often above the market rate.
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet are working for copyright reform. Can't you add cheap beer to the manifesto guys?
The BBPA are quick to point the finger at increased regulation and taxation as the cause for the decline - althought without actually researching why people are not going to the pub it is a bit bold to come to a conclusion. Other reports - you can find it in the Times, Financial Times and The Telegraph for instance - raise other factors into the equation.
City pubs are faring much better than country pubs, and pubs focussing on food are doing better than those that are out and out drinkers pubs. One report suggested that tied* pubs are particularly hard hit, suggesting that it is monopolistic practices in the brewing trade that are at least as much to blame as government tax policy, and the high level of rents are a long standing issue of concern for landlords.
But.. go back to the beginning and read again... 24 000 jobs lost in the pub industry. Real jobs. People that worked last year that don't have the same job this year. Now compare that with the estimated cost to the economy of free downloads in the UK. A postulated four thousand jobs lost in 2004.
So... the crisis at your local is hurting the economy six times more than any potential loss of sales to file sharing. Remember that the next time someone down the pub starts rattling on about the costs of piracy.
Music is small beer... go have another pint!
*A tied pub is independantly run, but under obligation to buy beer from a particular supplier - often above the market rate.
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet are working for copyright reform. Can't you add cheap beer to the manifesto guys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
