BPI Survey Suggests Spotify Hasn't Magically Decreased Desire For Unauthorized Music Access
from the sorry,-spotify dept
There was some buzz earlier this year concerning reports that new streaming apps, like Spotify, somehow decreased unauthorized access to music. And yet, a new study from BPI suggests unauthorized access to music continues to grow, despite the rise of authorized services like Spotify. Now, there are some caveats. BPI isn’t exactly known for being entirely accurate with data and these results are from an online survey. While you would think that fewer people would admit to unauthorized access in an online survey (people don’t like to fess up), counteracting that is the fact that BPI has incentives to suggest the issue of piracy is a big deal, as it’s pushing hard to force ISPs to kick people offline for file sharing. Still, what strikes me as interesting is that BPI still keeps insisting that this is a “problem,” without any evidence that this is true. The only real “problem” is the failure of the record labels that BPI represents to adjust their business models. If they did that, there wouldn’t be much of a problem at all. But, the labels don’t want to do that. They want the government to rescue them and to pretend they can keep doing business they way they always did.
Filed Under: music, piracy, surveys, uk, unauthorized access
Companies: bpi
Comments on “BPI Survey Suggests Spotify Hasn't Magically Decreased Desire For Unauthorized Music Access”
yes, shoplifting isn’t a problem, it’s the failure of the stores to lower their prices to zero.
Smart-dumb strikes again!
Re: Re:
Oh lawdy, lawd! Houston, we have a logic fail.
Re: Re: Re:
What logic fail? The only thing that Mike is pushing for is free music. If the price is FREE!, there will be no issue. Theft would go away if theprice was nothing, right? Why shoplift when it’s free anyway?
What I find amazing in all of this is that this survey shows 33% of people using illegal sites, and a previous survey that Mike was in love with showed only 10%. You have to think that neither of these surveys is particularly accurate.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, what makes you think that the survey isn’t accurate? It couldn’t possibly be, you know, the part of the most that talked about how it probably wasn’t accurate.
Reading is hard, I know.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Two surveys of the same types of people showing vastly different results, which makes me not want to trust either. I certainly wouldn’t be drawing the types of conclusions Mike is from weak data.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Did you read the post, genius? Mike doesn’t draw any conclusions – basically the whole post is about how it is interesting but inconclusive.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I read it.
The only real “problem” is the failure of the record labels
That is pretty darn conclusive to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ugh, “the part of the post*”
I guess typing was hard for me.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“What logic fail? The only thing that Mike is pushing for is free music. If the price is FREE!, there will be no issue. Theft would go away if theprice was nothing, right? Why shoplift when it’s free anyway?”
Actually the statement that music is free is not an aspiration that has to be “pushed for” it’s a fact. The desire that music should not be free is an aspiration, the fulfillment of which involves turning back the clock and uninventing technology.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Music isn’t free, unless you want to download it off of a P2P site and infringe. There isn’t really all that much commercial music out there for free without restrictions.
To suggest that music is free is a joke, because the only part of music that is normally free (with exceptions) is either stuff that nobody wants (unknown artists) or stuff that is being infringed.
Since the music industry continues to sell music, I would say that the “all music is free” is the wishful thought.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“There isn’t really all that much commercial music out there for free without restrictions.”
Maybe not commercial music (depending on what you count as commercial), but there’s tons of music that is comparable to or better than the commercial stuff out there for “free.” More than enough to fill my music-listening hours.
The interesting thing, I think, is how much of the free music I ended up paying for for various reasons (to support the artist, wanted something extra, wanted a CD to give as a gift, etc.). I’m guessing about 75%. That I paid for it makes it commercial — and still free.
There’s so much of this stuff around that even though I haven’t purchased (or pirated) RIAA label music in over ten years, I have never felt deprived.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Go to magnatune and jamendo please.
Both sites enforce CC commons licenses and are full of great music.
I tell everyone to go to those places and most go other just infringe but as laws get more anal, people will start looking for alternatives.
That is why I don’t worry that much about the future, people will just turn their backs to those that hurt them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The only thing that Mike is pushing for is free music. If the price is FREE!, there will be no issue. Theft would go away if theprice was nothing, right? Why shoplift when it’s free anyway?”
Wrong, copyright cannot be given away.
And when those who own the copyright want to assert their rights, free or not, downloading from an illegitimate source would still be illegal.
Re: Re:
Hello Smart-Dumb,
I assume you are dumb today. Where did smart go? Are you mad at him? What would it take to get you two together?
Re: Re:
Good job failing only two words into your point. That takes skill.
Re: Re: Re:
It also takes shill.
Re: Re:
Again What Part of ‘Physical (Real) Property’ ≠ ‘Intellectual Property’ (i.e. Digital Content) do people not understand?
Re: Re: Re:
The part that requires logic.
Re: Re:
Hmm… I didn’t really think that one through.
Sorry!
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing like someone using your name and posting for you. Gotta love it. I guess the basement kids are up early!
Huh?
Spotify pays a licensing fee, correct? So, what’s the problem? People are obviously happy to pay Spotify for discovery. So what if they then D/L the stuff they want on their iPods or whatever? Spotify pays the labels, everyone is, or should be, happy.
It’s not like kicking people off the net is going to help Spotify’s, and thus the label’s, numbers
Re: Huh?
Then they’re not paying for every use!
The horror… the horror…
How many Balls?
Kicking people (or laser printers) off the internet will not solve anything. It will most likely make matters worse.
In addition, I would like to see the list of people and corporations which are exempt from this so called solution. What’s that? A state secret? Figures.
Why should I pay for a copy,
especially if it has been broadcast to the general public? If I want a manufactured shiny disc, a material thing, I will gladly pay a reasonable price. But why should I pay for a song I’ve heard on the radio if all I want is just the data?
Definy unauthorized.
I don’t remember the last time I used any P2P to download music.
I did go to youtube till some time ago now I just use Jamendo.
And I’m not a patron of the music industry. Those artists will never see a dime of mine 🙂
There are people who just don't want to see.
[Facepalm]No, no, no he didn’t say that[/facepalm]
LoL
Yep, those damn pirates are feisty!
Tracking pirates down is like tracking radio listeners for actually listening to something LoL
The only explosion I see coming.
Is the explosion of free alternatives LoL
Artists don't really matter.
The fight is for the distribution channels so websites should start engaging in discriminatory behavior.
Do not accept music on your website that has no CC Commons.
If someone want to put music online sooner or latter they will have to do it on a CC Commons manner or don’t get exposure.
The difficult thing will be weeding out the commercial CC Commons licenses that really look just like current copyright licenses but with a different name.
The funny thing is ...
How do you track what you cant see?
These people are terrorists I tell you …
Driving people futher under ground ….
They are going to create a system where people cant be monitored. What are we going to do then? I will Just smile
Re: The funny thing is ...
Drive it far enough underground, and the average person won’t find it or won’t want to be part of it.
You guys always miss the point: None of this is ever about making every single person pay for every single piece of music, that is impossible. Stores suffer shoplifting allt he time, a small percentage of people have no problem taking something that isn’t rightfully theirs.
Average citizens are pirating because they think they can get away with it. Remove their ability to easily get away with it, and most people stop. Right now it’s a mob rules mentality, but when the mob dissipates, all of a sudden normal people don’t keep doing the wrong things, they do the right things instead.
So take it as far underground as you can. It makes the music people happy.
Re: Re: The funny thing is ...
Yeah, publicly broadcasting the names of major torrent sites is the best way to drive file sharing underground.
FWIW, since I started using Spotify, I download a lot less music. I don’t need to pirate, unless I want something to stick on my iPod. But I still pirate music occasionally – so I’d count in this survey as someone engaging in unauthorized access to music. I do think that as services like Spotify spread, piracy will drop. Why wait ten minutes to download an album when I can start streaming it immediately?