[DMCA_Discuss] Media should be quoting this stuff?

[Anatoly Volynets]

Congressmen should consider this stuff.

And I would remind two more points:
1. Even in those cases when people download or copy for free music and other 
files in order to save and keep them, this does not mean they would pay for 
that stuff.
2. The mentioned price of $18 per CD emerged on monopolized market and may 
not be considered in argument.

Anatoly

On Thursday 18 April 2002 11:45 am, tom poe wrote:
> Hi:  Here's a quote from NARM's response to "a request by House Judiciary
> Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner for information on digital music
> issues, NARM President Pam Horovitz outlined NARM's positions, . . .  "
> http://www.narm.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Affairs/sensenbrenner/sen
>senbrenner.htm 4/15/02
> "NARM retailers are cautious about characterizing all copying -- lawful and
> pirate -- as cannibalizing sales of CDs. Recently the assertion was made
> that 3.6 billion tracks get downloaded for free every month off the
> Internet. At an average of 15 cuts per CD, this translates to 240 million
> CD's per month or 2.88 billion CDs per year. At an average of $18 listprice
> per CD, this means that the calculated loss to the industry is $51.8
> billion per year, or almost five times the entire retail market. A broader
> examination of the facts suggests this is unlikely."
>
> "First, only about 7% of all U.S. households have a broadband connection.
> Without a broadband connection, a download can take up to 15 minutes per
> track, which means that this group would have to spend about 18 hours
> downloading the 72 songs a month that represent their share of the
> file-sharing pie. Logic confirms that a disproportionate number of
> downloads are happening where broadband is available (i.e. colleges).
> Therefore, the average number of downloads on college campuses would have
> to be
> significantly higher than the 864-track average. In contrast, two studies
> show the average number of songs downloaded per month is between 30 to 34,
> or 408 files per year -- significantly less than what has been reported by
> the recording industry. The discrepancy in figures may result from the
> inclusion of incomplete downloads in the total figure reported. It is
> unclear whether the recording industry's figures include attempts or only
> completed downloads of songs."
>
> "Second, there is some data that support regarding at least a percentage of
> downloads as sampling rather than cannibalized sales. Several studies
> indicate that the main reason people download is to check out new music
> (Ipsos, Mercer, Jupiter) and that downloaders don't save files of music
> that they find they don't like (Webnoize). In that regard, file-sharing may
> function like radio play as well as like CD purchasing. Millions of
> listeners hear songs repeatedly on the radio but may never buy them.
> Nevertheless the industry recognizes that radio airplay stimulates sales.
> Similarly, several studies indicate that sales activity is stimulated by
> file-sharing."
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Poe
> Reno, NV
> http://www.studioforrecording.org/
> http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/
> http://renotahoe.pm.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------
> http://www.anti-dmca.org
> ------------------------
>
> DMCA_Discuss mailing list
> DMCA_Discuss at lists.microshaft.org
> http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss