Arrr! I knew it!

[Watser?]

I always kinda knew that, it's nice to have your prejudice/common sense confirmed:

File-sharing sites help make popular acts more popular, finds a study.

The research, by industry body PRS for Music, showed the most pirated pop songs tend to be those at the top of the music charts.

There was little evidence that file-sharing sites helped unsigned and new bands find an audience, it found.

It suggests file-sharing sites are becoming an alternative broadcast network comparable to radio stations as a way of hearing music.

...

Mr Page and Mr Garland suggest that file-sharing sites are reinforcing divisions in the music world and only making the popular more popular.

Despite this, the report said, the fact that music was free on file-sharing networks meant people did occasionally listen to bands they had never heard of before.

By contrast, on sites where people have to pay to listen they only download the tracks they know they want.

"If the sellers sell it, it might never be bought; but if the swappers offer it, at least one person will likely take it," said the study.

Given this, said the authors, it might be worth music companies regarding file-sharing sites as comparable to radio and TV as a broadcast network.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Pirated pop keeps stars popular

[Sock Puppet]

You'll just go to any lengths to justify your illegal downloads of Miley Cyrus hits, won't you?

[Watser?]

[Dingfod]

This doesn't surprise me at all, in trials where the accused file sharer's attorneys asked the recording industry show it's books to prove they lost money to file sharing and they couldn't and/or wouldn't do it or the court didn't allow that sort of discovery by the defense. I always thought in U.S. civil courts the plaintiff was required to show actual damages before they could prevail. I guess I've been watching too much People's Court and Judge Judy.

[1Samuel8]

The trouble with proving losses in pirating is that it is impossible. Claiming financial "losses" is complete nonsense. Any concrete valuation of financial "losses" is a total canard -- an accounting trick.

Since the downloaders paid $0.00 for each "stolen" download, the total is zero. The customers demonstrated how much they are willing to pay: nothing. So, the only demonstrable valuation of financial loss is a total of nothing.

To think otherwise, you would have to make a leap of faith or you would have to prove that if you went back in time, all of those downloaders would be willing to pay more than $0.00 for the same total number of downloads. You can not do prove such a sequence of events would occur and it defies reason.

[Caligulette]

I bought Babylon 5 after seeing it on the Pirate's Bay. Yes, it's true, there you have it.

[1Samuel8]

Well, Caliguletta, maybe some of that sci-fi shit can help you go back in time and buy two copies of that video. Report back to base when you have completed your mission.

[Adam]

[ceptimus]

I've bought Audio CDs, DVDs and computer software after 'sampling' them via file sharing sites. I believe that I would never have purchased some of these if I hadn't been able to try them out for free first. Of course, I can't prove that.

When media companies take legal action against file sharing portal providers, they ought to take into account the free advertising for their products that such sites provide.

[The Lone Ranger]

If I like something, I'll buy it -- if for no other reason, to support the artist.

I've bought a number of CDs that I'd probably never have tried out otherwise because someone gave or loaned me "bootleg" copies of them, and I liked what I heard.

Cheers,

Michael

[Watser?]

Well, yeah if I like it, I'll buy it too.

And if I really like it and I have bought the cd, I might even buy the lp later as well.

But I have a limited budget and a big musical appetite. So I download stuff as well to try it out. And sometimes because it is so obscure or exotic that that is the only way to get it.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Very true, Wats. Especially if the band is completely unknown on the world stage, and you live on another continent.

[chunksmediocrites]

Next thing you know there will be a place where you can read books without paying for them and then if you really like it you might buy them for yourself later. That would destroy publishing revenue for sure!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I always thought in U.S. civil courts the plaintiff was required to show actual damages before they could prevail.

You'd think so, but copyrights are extra special super blessed by Jesus in the eyes of Congress.

As 1S8 correctly points out, the notion of actual damages is more than a little silly in this context. The driving force for the music industry (here in the U.S., at least) is the statutory damages available under federal copyright law.

Last I heard, the minimum statutory damages award was $750 per violation. No proof of actual harm necessary. The court has discretion to increase the award to $30,000 per violation. If the court determines that the violator acted "willfully," the maximum per-violation statutory damages award skyrockets to $150,000. The court can also make the loser pay the winner's attorney fees.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If I like something, I'll buy it ...

Me too, but I hate ending up paying $14.99 for a CD with only one song worth a crap on it. It's happened often enough to burn me out on buying them without sampling.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You'd think so, but copyrights are extra special super blessed by Jesus in the eyes of Congress.

As 1S8 correctly points out, the notion of actual damages is more than a little silly in this context. The driving force for the music industry (here in the U.S., at least) is the statutory damages available under federal copyright law.

Last I heard, the minimum statutory damages award was $750 per violation. No proof of actual harm necessary. The court has discretion to increase the award to $30,000 per violation. If the court determines that the violator acted "willfully," the maximum per-violation statutory damages award skyrockets to $150,000. The court can also make the loser pay the winner's attorney fees.

That's just brutal. I also happen to think it is unfair to do shit like this. Frankly, I happen to think that file sharing does more good than it does harm. I kind of see file sharing in a light similar to recording songs that air on the radio.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Me too, but I hate ending up paying $14.99 for a CD with only one song worth a crap on it. It's happened often enough to burn me out on buying them without sampling.

Well, you only have yourself to blame since you like shitty music. I mean, come on, by now you should be able to identify a one-hit wonder from a mile away -- without even listening to them!