Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Select an Issue...
  • Music and the Law

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

CRIA's Own Study Counters P2P Claims

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Friday March 17, 2006
While CRIA regularly trumpets commissioned studies as evidence for the problems posed by P2P, this week it released a major study without any fanfare whatsoever.  Conducted by Pollara last month, the study serves as part of CRIA's submission to the CRTC's Commercial Radio Review.  What makes this particular study interesting (aside from the fact that it finally includes full details on responses and the actual questions posed), is that much of the data challenges many familiar CRIA claims.

Particularly noteworthy findings in the 144 page study report (appendix one) include:

  • The survey asked for the sources of music on people's computers.  Among those who download music from P2P services, the top source of music was ripping copies of their own CDs (36.4%), followed by P2P downloads (32.6%), paid downloads (20.1%), shared music from friends (8.8%), downloads from artist sites (5.6%), and other sources (2.9%).  In other words, even among those who download music from P2P services, the music acquired on those services account for only one-third of the music on their computers as store-bought CDs remain the single largest source of music for downloaders (page 53).
  • For all the emphasis on the teenage downloaders, it is interesting that the 35 to 44 age group had the largest spread between CDs and P2P as the source of music.  Among that demographic, 31 percent of their music comes from P2P services and 27 percent from ripping their own CDs (page 69).
  • Consistent with many other studies, people who download music from P2P services frequently buy that same music.  The study found that only 25% of respondents said they never bought music after listening to it as a P2P downloaded track.  That obviously leaves nearly 75% as future purchasers, including 21% who have bought music ten times or more.  Note that demographically, the lowest percentage of non-buyers actually belonged to the 13 to 17 year old demographic (page 70).
  • The 13 to 17 year old demographic also happens to be the largest purchasing group of music, buying an average of 11.6 music CDs or DVDs in the past six months.  Close behind are the 18 to 24 age group at 10.9 music CDs or DVDs.  By comparison, the older demographics may not download much music but they don't buy much either.  The 55 - 64 age group bought 4.2 music CDs or DVDs, while the 65 and up age group bought 2.8 music CDs or DVDs (page 92).
  • As for music buying trends, the study also asked whether purchasing patterns had increased or decreased over the previous year.  The data was inconclusive with 28% buying more, 35% buying less, and 37% saying they didn't know (page 93).  
  • More interestingly, the survey also asked why people bought less.  Only 10% of respondents cited the availability of music downloads.  Instead, people cited a long list of alternatives that have nothing to do with downloading including price (16%), nothing of interest (14%), lack of time (13%), collection is big enough (9%), don't buy (7%), listen to radio (7%), change in tastes (6%), no CD player (3%), have an MP3 player (2%), lack of opportunity to buy (2%), watch more tv (2%), age (1%), only buy what I like (1%).  Simply put, P2P simply is not a major factor behind decisions to buy less music (page 95).
In summary, CRIA's own research now concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers, that P2P users frequently try music on P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic, and that reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services.  I've argued many of these same things, but now you don't have to take my word for it; you can take it from the record labels themselves.

Update:  Howard adds to the coverage of the Pollara report by noting the enormous difference in the response to the question about Canadian copyright law and international standards.  CRIA reported that 72 percent of Canadians favoured meeting international standards in December, while two months later that number declined to 46 percent.  As Howard notes, the difference highlights the lack of reliability of public surveys about complex legal treaties since most people have not taken the time to become fully informed about the issue.  Of course, asking about copyright law and international standards increasingly means more than just WIPO as it may also include the dozens of exceptions contemplated by the Australian parliamentary committee, the mandatory DRM compatibility being considered in France, fair use provisions in the U.S., and the provisions being floated as part of an Access to Knowledge Treaty.

Update II: Pollara has responded to this posting and I've replied with a few comments.
Comments (45)add comment

Julien said:

...
10% purchased fewer CDs explicitly because of P2P. However, only 33% of respondants (p. 68) used P2P to begin with. Therefore, it could be assumed that at the very least, 33% of P2P users reduced their purchases as a direct consequence of utilization of P2P.

As for the other 66%, it would be unfair to assume that they purchased more. One would have to explicitly ask that question to the users; as many either may not know themselves, or not see any rise in purchases.

In the same theme, the following statement:
"The study found that only 25% of respondents said they never bought music after listening to it as a P2P downloaded track. That obviously leaves nearly 75% as future purchasers, including 21% who have bought music ten times or more."

Is flawed. The 75% figure is just that: unnacounted for. Whether it be because music was actually bought or not is unknown. Now the reason we don't know the answer to this has to do with the fact that the study was seeking specific answers to begin with; it was designed with a specific agenda in mind.

Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to say that that 75% represented future music purchasers. Don't get me wrong - I'm neither pro-Industry nor pro-P2P on this. I'm just pointing out the flaws in the counter-argument.
March 17, 2006

Duncan Murdoch said:

The summary is accurate
Julien says the statement that 75% represent future purchasers is flawed, "The 75% figure is just that: unnacounted for." Not so! Take a look at the full data. In fact, the exact question was "How often have you listened to a peer to peer downloaded track and then purchased the album or song..." This was only only posed to people who said they shared music via P2P, and the responses broke down as:

Never: 25%
Once or twice: 25%
More than twice but less than 10 times: 27%
10 times or more: 21%
Don't know/refused: 1%

They aren't unaccounted for at all. They are all people who claim to have purchased after listening to a P2P download. Nobody is claiming that 75% of the respondents were certain to purchase, but in the past, they have done that (up to rounding error).
March 18, 2006

Varis said:

Pushing towards a free approach?
Congrats, you have been slashdotted! :-)

I also added the link to my blog at http://icct.blogspot.com/ and drew some parallels to unrestricted content/service architectures, which I think would be strong on today's markets.

The music industry should move towards providing free content like is the norm in Internet. Instead of tapping into new markets generated online, the record industry has been just kicking and screaming about how they hurt their current business. Not that convicing in the way of business professionalism, but perhaps the record industry can gain a better assessment of its current situation as better research comes out?
March 18, 2006

knobtweakers said:

Very interesting!
I never thought I'd hear that coming from an organization that represents the major labels.
March 18, 2006

Simon80 said:

re: knobtweakers
I don't know if I'd consider this as being heard from the CRIA, because they haven't been publicising the study. I couldn't even imagine th at being played out: "Big news, everyone, this new and better documented study contradicts what we've been saying all along!".
March 18, 2006

A tired reader said:

more of the same
I don't understand the point in which you became an expert in the music business, Michael. Like any lawyer, you only bring up the points you feel support your very specific point of view. I thought you taught law, but apparently you are some sort of business expert on the music industry. This sort of smacks of a personal vendetta, and really has nothing to do with copyright law. This has grown very tired -- as has your incesant need to have your face and words in the media.
March 18, 2006

Andrew Fergusson said:

An Excellent Report
Since it is currently unknown what the new Canadian Government's approach to copyright will be due to a very successful musseling campaign by the PMO, this will report will be an excellent reference should DMCA-style ammendments are proposed.

It will also help should content producers get unrealistic in their demands for content-protection. I would like to see how this plays out, since the Liberal copyright law amendment attempts became dead in the water when they were brought down.
March 18, 2006

Karmakin said:

Careful on the numbers..
That 33% vs. 36%, means that on average, people have a few more CD ripped MP3s than P2Pd ones. It doesn't mean that 36% only buy CDs, and 33% only download.

Actually, what it reads like, is people tend to have a mix of everything, and are willing to pay for something they like *enough*. That's the keyword.
March 19, 2006

Anonymous said:

Musician - AWESOME!
Well first off, I as a musician would rather send out free MP3's to draw people into live shows. Generally musicians don't make money off of sales and usually get up front deals. Thus, downloading doesn't really hurt them, in fact the more they can get out (especially in underground music) the more people that will go to their show and potentially buy their merch! Now most if not all merch sales go directly to the bands. Also, if people like the music enough, if they can afford it they will buy it. The fact that the big bands that make millions already won't sell 1000 more albums really doesn't hurt them. It is the small independant artist that needs the distribution that most small labels can not afford to get the sales/interest.

Also to mention that Canadian law is much different then american law. Also, did you know that all writeable media has a tax built into it to help recover from these costs? How does the network administrator get compensated for the however much money spent to this for some other industry make up for it so he can back up his server? Even if people are burning CDr's and the like, money is still getting back into that industry, and generally the more music you have out there, the more people know who you are, the more people that will likely go to your show and buy some stuff.
March 19, 2006

1337 said:

P2P VS Used CD stores - FIGHT!
Either buy music from CD stores, or download it from the interweb, both ways artists are not making money. If the recording industry made available samples of the music so people could listen to a entire album before they buy it, I would almost guess that sales would go back up. I personally have picked up a album from a new artist that is getting radio play, I liked the radio version of the song and thought "Well I'll pick up the album because I liked that one song a lot" only to be disappointed by the other tracks that are on it. If I had known about it a head of time I would have saved my money and got some other CD and have picked up that individual track somewhere, or maybe even just the single. Also, maybe the RI should consult the musicians with their work being "stolen" and find out what they think about it. Don't just poll the big bands, poll the small bands that only get distributed online or small independant record stores.
March 19, 2006

An Interested Voter said:

In reply to A Tired Reader
I believe the study WAS commissioned by the music "business" and Michael's breaking it down for us has got THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of people interested in it. You, Sir/Madam, smack of a sore losing industry insider and ARE the only uninterested person (interested enough to post though) around here.
March 19, 2006

Art Hays said:

a new era....
What is undeniable is that we have entered a new era in which access to information is at all new highs. The major labels demonstrate the inability of bloated, inefficient, cumbersome, and unimaginative corporations to understand when a revolution is staring them in the face. For a great example of their lagging, visit any of the artist websites that are created and run by the label. They are among the least creative and interesting pages out there. Since the 70's, these companies have been increasingly led and staffed by non-music people. I am glad to see a shake up in this department primarily because I know that the relationship between music and commerce is a relatively new and in my opinion, bizarre one. The mere notion that the RIAA could and would actually fine citizens for sharing information is inconceivable to me. I also love to watch millionaires like Metallica get up and act as if they really stand for something other than the almighty dollar. Hilarious.
When I was young, my parents would buy records based on one single on the radio. Sometimes that was the only song they ended up liking. I feel that the current situation of p2p serves as a market correction for the years of companies duping their customers, as they still try to do now with their fraudelent "customer reviews" on iTunes. Let it go back to being a singles business. People who know and love music will find what they like for themselves in this unparalleled age of information.
March 19, 2006

Wayne said:

Dropping CD sales


P2P isn't the problem - the problem is what the recording companies offer. While Christina Aguilera looks great in tight clothing, I can't stand her music. Same with most of the new "stars". Most current music has no substance.

Where are the real artists? People like Johnny Cash, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan? Guess what - they aren't pretty enough to get a recording contact. But the music they recorded had bite.

Think of such classics as "The Sounds of Silence", "Sixteen Tons", or "One Tin Soldier". That sort of music isn't available from any of the major labels, and they are suffering because of it.

You can still here this sort of stuff - there are many folk artists producing amazing music, but from the record companies think it isn't marketable. One of the most haunting songs I ever heard is called "Voices". My wife (Heather Borean) wrote it one night - she doesn't know where the idea came from, and it scared her at the time - but it's a beautiful haunting song. Talis Kimberly's "Velvet" is another killer song. "Kerowyn's Ride" by Leslie Fish and Mercedes Lackey is another incredible song. All three have been recorded - but not by the mainstream recording companies.

And they won't be. None of the songwriters is "Hollywood" material. The recording companies are mistaking image for talent. Bob Dylan wasn't handsome. Joan Baez was average looking. Johnny Cash looked like a wreck. But man could they write (and sing). The current crop of artists looks good, but most of them don't have soul.
March 19, 2006

Eric E said:

Thanks for pointing this out
It's nice to see something offsetting the usual fear-mongering.
My post:
Big Surprise
March 19, 2006

WJM said:

Where are the real artists?
I keep finding good music by accident. It's the only way these days: the recording industry keeps trying to sell me Britney Spears' or Christina Aiguilera's breasts. I'm not buying. These days I'm really into Jim Guthrie (google him), and thanks to Brent Bambury, I'm starting to catch on to Antony and the Johnsons. Big Music won't touch the unpretty stuff with a pole. They'd rather blame the customer for being wrong.
March 19, 2006

Non reformed downloader said:

P2P vs CD\'s
I p2p download, I'm mid 30s and yes I have bought cd's after having listed to a few p2p tracks. But I would say that having been burned so many times when I was younger buying an album with 1 or 2 good songs, and the rest were junk, I'm a lot more careful now.
If I listen and like MOST of the songs I buy the album. but really most of my p2p downloads are just one hit wonders. The music industry might get my buisness if they brough back the single.
March 20, 2006

p2p guy said:

CD is dead, long live MP3
It's two things really that reduce my cd buying. Remember when walkmans came out, and you still were buying LPs, then had to record it to tape? Well the LP was basically dead, the converting is the sign that it's over. Well I don't buy cd's very much anymore, because I have to convert them, I have MP3s on the computer for music and that's what I listen to at my desk, an IPOD to take with me, and either the radio, or the IPOD plugged into the head unit in the car. So after a while I find if I don't rip my cd's I just don't listen to them. And even the disks I bought I don't like all the songs. With all the music backed up anyway I'll probably just have a garage sale for the cds
March 20, 2006

Jonathan said:

P2P
Let me first of all say that the music industries' troubles have to do with a few things. 1) Greed. Artists and companies make way too much money. 2) the music that it produces isn't all that good. Music is so formulaic and robotlike these days.

I P2P, bittorrent music, etc. Why? A few reasons. One, music is expensive. Two, music is not always made available online at high bitrates. Sorry, iTunes 128Kbps doesn't cut it. Three, and probably most importantly, I download music that I have already bought.

This has really gone unnoticed as an argument by most everyone. I treat my CDs like garbage. As a result, they get scratched up. What do I do to get them on my computer? Download new ones.

I also have CD's that have been stolen from me. Do I take the hit? No. Why would I if I can just download the music?

The ads that are on DVDs and movies that urge people not to download movies because you wouldn't steal a car (so why would you steal a movie) clearly goes against most people's reason. If car's could be replicated as easy as music...I think a lot of people would be willing to "steal" a car. Why wouldn't you? You could replace a car ad infinitum.
March 21, 2006

Trelly said:

...
For me its:
* size does matter. I can get a lot more music on a disc in MP3 format. In the car that means much less changing of discs.
* Toss out songs I don't like
* Rearrange songs, not just from one album or one artist, but into an order I like across all my music.
* Purchasing only music I like, right down to the song. No more "11 out of 12 songs stink" syndrome.
* Try before you buy; this includes quality of the recording, quality of the song, quality of the compression.
* Flexibility to play anywhere we want, and not being restricted to DRM versions, operating systems (brand and versioning), backward compatibility, nor the output devices.
* Security. No DRM on mp3's, plus we are protected from theft (only the copied mp3 disks would be stolen since the originals are locked away, and a homemade mp3 disk has little value to thieves)
* Simplicity. Mp3 just works, no fuss and no bother.

Our music in this house is all bought and paid for, about 90% of it is on CD originally but copied to mp3. The rest is online purchases, often directly from the artists site.

Until the record industry wants to cater to my needs, I don't plan to hand them a great deal of my money.

CRIA and RIAA labels are bypassed when we look for new music; we would rather support independent artists. We feel our money goes more directly to the artists, rather than to corporate corruption, obsolescent business models, large scale political lobbying, and an seemingly infinite legal fund. We just want our money to get to the artist, and we would really love to know where to buy to ensure they get their money.

Reduction of the middleman. Especially ones we simply don't respect. That would really make buying music more fun for us.
March 21, 2006

Tired of this... said:

Mr. Geist not saying much about Pollara
I notice there's no Geist post about Pollara's comments about how he selectively used research, took things out of context and creatively added some figures to support his conclusions. Why is that Michael? Don't you want an "open and honest" discourse? Of course not. That would expose you as the fraud you are.
March 21, 2006

MD said:

Why The CD Sales Fall Off
I think the study misses several things -

Many music downloaders are "packrat" collectors. I thought I was bad with 20Gb of stuff (including rips of my 500 CD's). Then I hear from a relative about his friend, a truly obsessive-compulsive, who has 250Gb of full albums he's downloaded.

I think part of the "drop off" in sales is explained the same as it is for me; I have spent 20 years replacing my vinyl, and buying the albums I wished I'd bought on vinyl. I'm done.

I refuse to pay $15 for that one song from the 60's I'd really like. I'm not buying online music because it will only play on 1 of my 3 MP3 players (yes, the iPod). I'm too lazy to 'burn and rip" to bypass DRM, and I find that DRM-stripping-from-iTunes software is not easily found. So, if I find something traded, I'll take it.

Oh,yeah - all that money I spent on CD's? It's going to DVDs now. I think I'm at 200 DVDs. Hmm, $20 for a 2-hour audiovisual treat, or $15 for a 3-minute audio treat.(Or $1 for a crippled 3-minute treat...) Some sellers have to get their price into perspective.

(Side note: what does this say for the HDTV market? I'm well satisfied with the quality of a DVD; unlike the contrast between vinyl and CD's, I have yet to be convinced the difference between DVD and HDTV discs -whichever wins - is worth the extra cost. Plus the DRM issue again - I'm told my early HDTV without digital input won't play full 1080i - so I'll be on the sidelines...)

But, I'm that demographic that has bouhgt the occasional CD the last year or so, after listening to the music on download... And part of that is a "moral imperative", a desire to use my wallet to express support for artists I like.

However, most of the crap that allegedly is "modern music"? No wonder nobody's buying it.
March 23, 2006

A bored reader said:

Whatever...
Michael's analysis all sounds great, aside from the slight flaw that CD sales have dropped consistently and heavily since 2000. Not to say it's 100% correlated to P2P of course, though it is, but can't be proven.

I just find it very naive for anyone to claim that the large drop in CD sales has little to do with the availability of P2P software.

March 28, 2006

Another bored reader said:

Whatever
I agree. This whole debate is pointless. The facts are:

- Napster was founded in 1999
- CD sales have dropped solidly since 2000.

The answer is staring you right in the face.

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1143

April 01, 2006

Bob Villa said:

Cd sales dropping because it\'s a dying
Isn't it more likely that the fall of Cd's starting around 1999 is due to the introduction of reasonably priced mp3 players, with good storage, and that by 2001 with the IPOD introduced the cd sales continue to slip because it is no longer the format of choice?
Just like the buggy whip started to loose production once the car was invented. I'm sure there were also short sighted buggy whip makers that thought the car was just a fad that would pass away, as their sales continued to slide. The RIAA can fight all they want, but they're making buggy whips and we all want cars.
April 11, 2006

Flyer said:

...
Is it not clear that the content industry has known about the above all along? - These guys aren't THAT stupid ya know?

Of course they're not opposed file sharing cause of declining sales or falling profits. At least it's not their major concern anyways. It all comes down to CONTROL! - The content industry, politicians, media are all terrified about the Internet and the FREEDOM it gives common people like you and me

Freedom of speech? - yeah right - not for you and me - god knows what ideas you might spread on the internet - accesseble to miljons of readers

Freedom of information? - no way! - god knows what you might read or see on the internet - so - restrictions are on their way - of course with a nice package - restrictions are against terrorists - or child abusers - heavy criminals - isn't this song familiar already?

Personal integrity and internet privacy - kiss it goodbye!! - Already legislation in the developed countries are working towards registration of your activiies - we'll soon have sophisticated DRM build in electronic hardware devices and software as well

Wake up . File sharing is only part of the issue - the minor part!
April 20, 2006

Joseph Laganue said:

it\'s not anymore about CD vs the rest o
i think the debate should be about what it is best for the music industry from a business and economics point of view in terms of artists and customers welfare. It is important to take into account the needs of the artists, customers and businesses when an argument is to be made. I saw an interesting interview for this young label www.beatpick.com on http://www.openbusiness.cc/200...sic-label/
They advocate a new two tier system that seems to be fairer and better from an economics point of view. They draw from economics, business and ethics.
May 17, 2006

Barabajagel said:

Mr.
Bored Reader wrote:
"This whole debate is pointless. The facts are:

- Napster was founded in 1999
- CD sales have dropped solidly since 2000.

The answer is staring you right in the face."

Yup. Obvious example of a Post Hoc logical Fallacy. Just because the first event preceded the second event, it deosn't mean the first event caused the second one.
January 16, 2007

nyx said:

Flyer your wrong
It is about money, this is capitalisim my friend it is all about money.
March 26, 2007

a guest said:

...
It would be really nice if Geist put a date on this article.
May 17, 2007

Britney said:

A Killer Comment
But don't you all think it is worthwhile to protect multi-millionaires? If you guys had your way, people would be reduced to living as though they were equals. The only value of money, and the only reason we use it, is to maintain inequality: surely your teachers taught you that in school? Anyway, I think Canadian parliament should address these issues because they offer some slapstick comedy escape from the less entertaining subject of just what is motivating Canadian taxpayers to be murdering friends they'll never meet in Afghanistan. Perhaps as an easy way into the Protect Your Local Millionaire discussion, we should first tackle the comparatively simple issue of getting rid of all our libraries, which have been shamelessly making books available to non-buyers for years.
September 30, 2007

Jimbo said:

...
The music industry isn't hurting. P2P is being witch-hunted. It simply comes down to "them" seeing music downloaded for free as "lost" income. If you look at it that way, then anything you come up with after that is wrong. It's called false logic. Have music sales dropped? Are their earnings down? This is what should be investigated. Like "nyx" said, it's about money. They simply want people downloading music to pay for it, without realizing if the people doing it for free had to pay for it, well...they wouldn't. Drive by a Burger King that has Whopper's for $1.49 and you might be tempted... drive by the same joint giving them away for free, and you're interest will rise. Duh. CORRECT logic. Most music released now is junk, with the occasional diamond in the rough. People only download most of it BECAUSE it's free. You think 50 years from now Britney Spears will be heard on Classic Radio? Get real. Top 40 should be called 40 Days, because it's how long people's interest in the songs last. People will pay for something they believe is worth it. We are not a planet of thieves.
September 30, 2007

sleazodog said:

...
according to the cria's website, major record labels make $32 billion each year. but last time i checked, when you pay $80 dollars for a ticket to a concert, the artist themselves gets less than $8 of that fee. i've talked to several bands online and not one of them are pissed about people downloading their music. so why are the executives in their high rises compaining? they make quite a bit more money just pushing paper from 9 to 5 than the aritsts who are actually out there touring, pouring their heart and souls into each performace every night?
personally, i have two reasons for downloading music (and games and movies).
1)it doesn't seem to be available in stores (about 75% of my downloads)
2)i bought it once before, why should i have to pay again?

democracy? yeah right. this goes far deeper than music. most people in the world are poor. about 10% of the people in the whole world have about 90% of the money. it doesn't seem like they'll be happy until they have all the money and all the poor people are dead.
October 06, 2007

sleazodog said:

just an afterthought
technically/scientificly speaking, music is just pretty noise. noise is everywhere, always. how can noise be stolen?
October 06, 2007

Zoxman said:

$$ & Content
There are two reasons I don't buy a lot of music.
Unfortunately mostly of the CD's I have purchased have 1 of 3 tracks worth listening to. I buy the CD then skip most of the music that is on there.
I like music styles that are less available in the suburbs (2 hours from a major city). If I find the CD they want $25+ for it.
When you combine the two it really sucks.
Get real with the prices and I will but more CDs.
What I want is a way to send the $ to the artist that produces what I like. The record companies are leeches (or lampreys) that limit what the artists can do.
All of the music I buy I download first to see if it is worthwhile. This is a test-drive.
Many people I know are downloading as one last great act of defiance against the record industry (NOT THE ARTISTS!!!).
October 07, 2007

PirateBill said:

...
Bored Reader wrote:
"This whole debate is pointless. The facts are:

- Napster was founded in 1999
- CD sales have dropped solidly since 2000.

The answer is staring you right in the face."

Yes, but people dont buy CDs, because of napster.
They don't buy them, because now they can get them and hear them, before they decide to buy them!!

Its like music/film industry making some shit, that cannot be simply returned back if "seal is broken" (if you just found that unsuitable)

So FUCK RIA,MDA,RIAA AND OTHER LOBBYING SHITS! WITH AK47 IF IT COMES TO IT!

HARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!
October 07, 2007

Jon said:

...
I use P2P nearly every day. Most of the programs i have are from P2P sites. I find it is a lot easier to install downloaded software than the legit stuff, and if i download somthing i like and the vendor is asking a price i deem reasonable, i will go out and buy it.

I cant afford to buy all the games out there, but being able to download the full game and assess the replay value is a huge help. If i buy a game, play it, and find its garbage i cant return it. Most vendors dont accept returns on music or software.

The same goes for music. I have downloaded well over 4000 songs, and those downloads have prompted me paying to go to concerts, buying the band's paraphernalia...

Sure there are those who would download everything and not give it a second thought, and many of my friends thought i was crazy to fork over $40 for a game i already had... but i see it like this: If i think the work was well done, i will support the company or artist. If i think its garbage, i will delete it and move on.

The main problem with p2p is people download whatever and try to resell it. That is robbing the creator of profits they would have made otherwise.


Downloading is part of the internet. If artists were to make websites where people could "donate" for music they have downloaded, im sure people like me would make use of them. However i dont see the point in padding label companies pockets for work i dont apprieciate.

And that is why i will continue to download.
February 09, 2008

Anonymous said:

CRIA
CRIA/MPAA/RIA Can kiss my white rear end.
P2P LIVE bit0ch! and you can\\\'t do jack.
February 17, 2008

Mike said:

Citizen

The music industry is stupid for not trying to get in on moderately priced downloading to begin with and shoulda just ALLIED with napster, instead of wasting time and resources fighting them legally.

If you can't beat em - make a profit off of em.

RIAA - poor dumb bastards.

-Mike
February 23, 2008

qqq said:

qqq
Reykjavík, Iceland and London, wow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldEngland - February 22,world of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft goldworld of warcraft gold 2008 - CCP Games, eve online iskeve iskeq2 platEverQuest 2 goldffxi gilGuild Wars goldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO goldLOTR goldAge of Conan goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldWarhammer goldthe developers of the award winning massively multiplayer online (MMO) game EVE Online,eve online iskeve iskeq2 platEverQuest 2 goldffxi gilLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO goldLOTR goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldGuild Wars Gold is proud to announce the 5th Alliance Tournament. eve online iskeve iskEverQuest 2 goldeq2 platffxi gilGuild Wars GoldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO GoldLOTR GoldAge of Conan goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldWarhammer goldSilkroad goldThe contest will take place over two consecutive weekends beginning February 29th and ending the weekend of March 7th.The bravest capsuleers have once again been called to battle for fame, eve online iskeve iskeq2 platEverQuest 2 goldffxi gilGuild Wars GoldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO GoldLOTR GoldAge of Conan goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldWarhammer goldhonour and fortune.wow goldworld of warcraft goldwow goldworld of warcraft goldwow goldworld of warcraft goldwow goldworld of warcraft goldwow goldworld of warcraft goldwow goldworld of warcraft goldwow goldworld of warcraft goldwow goldworld of warcraft gold This legendary event is sure to set ablaze the gloom of space with the explosive glory of combat. eve online iskeve iskGuild Wars goldLOTRO goldLOTR goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosEverQuest 2 goldeq2 platffxi gilExpect the same great commentary as last year's tournament, eve online iskeve iskeq2 platEverQuest 2 goldffxi gilGuild Wars goldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO goldLOTR goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldas each round of warfare is dissected by knowledgeable members of the EVE community.A specially prepared in-game arena hosts the Alliance PVP Championship, eve online iskeve iskGuild Wars GoldLOTRO GoldLOTR GoldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosEverQuest 2 goldeq2 platffxi gilwhich demonstrates the best of the high stakes ship combat that's at the core of EVE's popularity.eve online iskeve iskeq2 platEverQuest 2 goldffxi gilGuild Wars GoldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO GoldLOTR GoldAge of Conan goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldWarhammer goldSilkroad gold Ships introduced in the Trinity patch will be eligible for competition for the first time in an Alliance Tournament. eve online iskeve iskffxi gileq2 platEverQuest 2 goldGuild Wars goldLOTRO goldLOTR goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosAge of Conan goldWarhammer goldThe community response eve online iskeve iskeq2 platEverQuest 2 goldffxi gilGuild Wars GoldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO GoldLOTR GoldAge of Conan goldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldWarhammer goldSilkroad goldto the tournament signup was so enormous that a eve online iskeve iskeq2 platEverQuest 2 goldffxi gilGuild Wars GoldLineage 2 adenaMaple Story Mesosmaplestory MesosLOTRO GoldLOTR GoldHellgate London PalladiumHellgate online goldSilkroad goldtelevised draw was required to determine which Alliance teams made it into the top-40.wow goldworld of warcraft gold
March 05, 2008

hanck said:

bob
Inter phone Bluetooth motorcycle intercom review. Moto Comp phone .|
is the distributor for the Inter phone Bluetooth intercom in the UK.
June 27, 2008

MichaelRoger said:

...
While CRIA regularly trumpets commissioned studies as evidence for the problems posed by P2P, this week it released a major study without any fanfare whatsoever. Conducted by Pollara last month, the study serves as part of CRIA's submission to the CRTC's Commercial Radio Review. What makes this particular study interesting (aside from the fact that it finally includes full details on responses and the actual questions posed), is that much of the data challenges many familiar CRIA claims.

bluetooth motorcycle intercom
June 10, 2009

梁锦锋 said:

先生
about dog. www.dog-diseases.org
July 18, 2010

sharetipsinfo said:

NSE and BSE tips – Sharetipsinfo
Hi,
Seems like it’s a nice blog. So let us also add something useful in it. Trading in volatile market can be very fruitful also if we follow technical levels closely. It’s a common saying that stock market can change fortune in either way. But now the question is how to earn money from the Indian stock market.

Traders are advised to strictly follow technical analyses and investors can follow fundamental analysis. Many analysts say it’s not wise to follow technical and fundamental analysis together. But we say what the problem is if one does so? As more knowledge will add up things will not have any negative impact.

Regards
. Sharetipsinfo Team

November 25, 2010

sdre said:

cool
It is not true suffering ennobles the character; happiness does that sometimes, but suffering, for the most part, makes men petty and vindictive.http://www.deansale.com/
January 20, 2011

google said:

analysis
google
Traders are advised to strictly follow technical analyses and investors can follow fundamental analysis. Many analysts say it’s not wise to follow technical and fundamental analysis together. But we say what the problem is if one does so? As more knowledge will add up things will not have any negative impact.
October 02, 2011

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: