IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) si affretta a dire che le conclusioni dello studio sono bacate (flawed), che non è vero che che il file sharing stimola le vendite.
Anche IFPI, pero’, se uno ha pazienza di leggere il testo, riconosce che IPSOS sta dicendo una cosa diversa…
vedi il testo ed il mio commento, cliccando sotto.
IFPI REJECTS DEMOS RESEARCH ON MUSIC DOWNLOADING
Demos research conclusions on music downloading are flawed
4th November 2009 – Demos, the political think-tank, has released a widely-reported survey on music downloading which infers that illegal file-sharing stimulates rather than reduces legitimate music sales.
This conclusion is substantially flawed. The research behind it, by IPSOS, shows the obvious fact that many heavy illegal downloaders are music fans who buy more music than the average consumer. It does not prove that illegal downloading promotes legitimate sales. On the contrary the net effect of file-sharing on music purchasing is overwhelmingly negative.
The flawed conclusions specifically misconstrue the significance of the behaviour of a relatively small group of illegal file-sharers, make skewed comparisons between different user groups and ignore the fact that the overall net impact of illegal file-sharing across the market is overwhelmingly negative.
The research, conducted by IPSOS, shows that a proportion (26%) of illegal file-sharers claim to purchase more music as a result of their activity. It also reflects the unsurprising fact that fans who buy music are also prepared to acquire it from other sources such as illegal services. Eight out of 10 illegal downloaders claim to have bought music in the past 12 months.
These findings do not prove that illegal file-sharing as a whole boosts music sales. They only reflect that there is a certain overlap between those people who download music illegally and those who purchase music. This is not an original finding and it is consistent with the typical profile of many music fans who today acquire music from different sources, some legitimate and some not.
IPSOS themselves acknowledge that the research results do not suggest illegal downloading encourages sales: “Ipsos MORI stress that we cannot infer from this that illegal downloading actually encourages legal sales – the illegal downloaders are likely to be more interested in music generally (and without piracy may have spent more than £77 each). However, it does show that piracy and legal purchasing are by no means mutually exclusive.”
Even allowing for this overlap, the comparison between the buying habits of file-sharers, on one hand, and all other internet users on the other is skewed. The latter group are obviously buyers of less music overall as they include a vast share of people who do not consume music online at all. A fair comparison would be between the buying habits of illegal downloaders and those who only acquire music legitimately.
The net effect of illegal file-sharing in the UK and elsewhere has been to reduce legitimate sales. This is why spending on recorded music has fallen every year since illegal file-sharing began to become widespread.
This is reflected in the decline of the average spend per buyer in the UK and in the overall decline in music sales in recent years. Average spending on music in the UK fell from £75 in 2004 to £61 in 2008 (albums, TNS Worldpanel Entertainment). In the same period, music sales fell from £1.25 billion to £1.01 billion.
The damaging impact of illegal file-sharing is borne out by nearly all other third party research. A study by Jupiter Research in 2007 found that “online music piracy is the single largest factor impacting lost music spend. Online music piracy will cost the UK music industry £1.6 billion between 2001 and 2012. By the end of 2006, online music piracy resulted in a total of £375.8 million of foregone spend. A further £1.2 billion will be foregone by 2012.”
Other similar studies producing similar findings include Norbert Michael (2006), Rob & Waldfogel (2006) and Alejandro Zenter (2003, 2005, 2006). Most studies conclude that the impact of file-sharing on music sales has been significant.
A 2006 study by Professor Stan Liebowitz, “File-Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?”, concludes “The papers that have examined the impact of file-sharing can be categorised by result and by methodology. By results the classification is quite simple. There is one study (Oberholzer and Strumpf, 2004) that claims to find a zero impact. All the other studies find some degree of negative relationship between file-sharing and sales of sound recordings.”
Further evidence of the impact of file-sharing comes in a study in five European countries by Jupiter Research in 2009. This found that, although there is an overlap, most music sharers “do not buy music and are nearly half as likely as music buyers to buy CDs in a high-street shop or from an online store.”
The Jupiter survey also finds that the net effect of illegal file-sharing is negative. “Although it is possible that file-sharing functions as some sort of discovery tool for those digital music buyers that also file-share, it is reasonable to assume that their spend would be higher if they were not file-sharing. The overall impact of file-sharing on music spending is negative.”
Allora, come direbbe il mio amico Maurizio, “dechestammoaparla’ ?”.
Possibile che, se il danno è così elevato, non si possa fare uno studio serio per capire veramente e dinamiche ? tipo che prendiamo due panel rappresentativi, uno che si impegna a non piratare nell’arco di due mesi e l’altro che fa quello che vuole, e poi si verifica la differenza del loro comportamento ? (i modi per fare l’analisi ci sarebbero…).