Last week BBC writer Bill Thompson attacked the deal Virgin Media made to send out letters on bealf of the UK's equivalent of the RIAA, the British Phonographic Industry. It's part of the BPI's campaign to "educate" broadband internet users about illegal downloading. Now Geoff Taylor, head of the BPI, has published a response on the organization's website, and not surprisingly it reads a lot like a creative writing assignment.
Taylor says "Independent research has shown time after time that people who download illegally generally spend less on music than people that don’t, which undermines investment in new music."
Conveniently he doesn't provide any sources for his claim. Fortunately we have Google to help out, and wouldn't you know it, Taylor apparently has it exactly wrong. Every study done on the subject seems to reach the same conclusion, just not the one Taylor does.
They show that people who share music on P2P networks also buy music, and more of it than non-file sharers. Now it's entirely possible file sharers are buying less than they would without P2P, but that doesn't make it any less short sighted for the recording industry to go after their most loyal customers.
After all, how else would you describe people who clearly know how to get your product for free but continue to pay you for it anyway?
Conveniently he doesn't provide any sources for his claim. Fortunately we have Google to help out, and wouldn't you know it, Taylor apparently has it exactly wrong. Every study done on the subject seems to reach the same conclusion, just not the one Taylor does.
They show that people who share music on P2P networks also buy music, and more of it than non-file sharers. Now it's entirely possible file sharers are buying less than they would without P2P, but that doesn't make it any less short sighted for the recording industry to go after their most loyal customers.
After all, how else would you describe people who clearly know how to get your product for free but continue to pay you for it anyway?
