Quote from: Pierce InverarityFile sharing will hurt . . . mid-sized labels with a great A&R dept that takes care to discover and then feed valuable bands--is going to suffer. . . . Those labels are bound to get hurt on the profitable part of their catalogue, and they're going to be tempted to take it out on the unprofitable one. Simply by taking less risks. By not hiring this band but rather that one, because that one sounds a tad more like what we already know.

This may or may not turn out to be the case.  If we assume that listening habits and tastes remain constant, then it's reasonable to expect that file sharing will have negative effects across the industry.  Even then, those effects are likely to vary:  music with mass appeal is likely to suffer from higher rates of sharing (due to network effects);  on the other hand, the impact on smaller outfits is likely to be more keenly felt (due to slimmer margins).

But I think it's highly unlikely that listening habits will remain the same.  I have heard anecdotally (and I believe research backs this up) that kids who engage in filesharing have much broader tastes in music (I don't know, as I neither fileshare nor listen to music much at all - that's how screwed up I find the industry to be).  Research has also found that those who engage in filesharing listen to more music.  Whether this is a causal relationship I don't know - but if it is, I can imagine a scenario in which filesharing is good for smaller and mid-size labels.

The easy availability of hit music on filesharing networks might increase its cultural relevance - or it might devalue it.  Broader tastes could result in a shift away from mass market music towards niches;  this could be combined with increased loyalty and a corresponding lower rate of filesharing (I believe we can see this effect here, with people less likely to pirate RPGs than music).  So filesharing could be (economically) good for one segment of the industry, while being bad for others.

I don't know whether we can look at filesharing today and make a prediction, as the culture and isdustry are in flux:  early predictions about users of technology are famously wrong (e.g. early characterizations of the Internet as a place where people go to experiment with other identities).  Perhaps the decisions we (as a society) make now could produce the outcome I describe.  Though businesses don't like risk, and powerful players don't like change, so I would hardly expect them to support such change even if they had strong evidence that it would be in their interests.

All of this may or may not be applicable to RPGs, as the structure of that industry is very different.

Quote from: pspahnA lot of people use DRM, though, so it must be doing something right.

If your goal is to alienate customers, I'd say DRM does plenty right!

Quote from: dansebieIf your goal is to alienate customers, I'd say DRM does plenty right!

Quote from: GeofBut I think it's highly unlikely that listening habits will remain the same.  I have heard anecdotally (and I believe research backs this up) that kids who engage in filesharing have much broader tastes in music (I don't know, as I neither fileshare nor listen to music much at all - that's how screwed up I find the industry to be).  Research has also found that those who engage in filesharing listen to more music.  Whether this is a causal relationship I don't know - but if it is, I can imagine a scenario in which filesharing is good for smaller and mid-size labels.

There's also some research out there showing that file sharers buy something like 3 times more music online than the average music listener. Of course, this doesn't take sales of physical media into account, but it's still interesting.
The idea that file sharers aren't customers is deeply, deeply flawed.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWil, there's one thing to bear in mind, beyond all the legalese and the idiocy of corporate suits.

Let's divide the music industry into three parts: a) labels who only produce mass-appeal shit, b) indie labels broadly conceived, c) the in-between.

File sharing will hurt a) a lot (so what), and b), not so much if at all (good). But c)--mid-sized labels with a great A&R dept that takes care to discover and then feed valuable bands--is going to suffer. I don't know the scene any more, but there must be contemporary equivalents of what Factory or Creation Records used to be. Even early Virgin or Geffen would somewhat qualify.

Those labels are bound to get hurt on the profitable part of their catalogue, and they're going to be tempted to take it out on the unprofitable one. Simply by taking less risks. By not hiring this band but rather that one, because that one sounds a tad more like what we already know. By kicking out the other one, after their first CD, while promising, kinda flopped.

That sucks.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9735

Quote from: dansebieThe idea that file sharers aren't customers is deeply, deeply flawed.

I agree with that 100%.  What I'd like to know is what makes these customers decide to buy a product rather than download it for free (because I'm well aware that no one will ever convince the people who think there is nothing wrong with piracy to buy something they can get for free).  Is it a personal decision or is something marketable that can be capitalized on and expanded (extra content, etc.)?

Pete

Quote from: Pseudoephedrinehttp://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9735

Music again.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe real question would probably be how many of the last 5 or 10 RPGs that people purchased did they also pirate beforehand, or how many of the last 10 rpgs they pirated did they end up purchasing?

The last 5 RPGs my friend bought were FtA, D&D3.5, Spycraft 2.0 (PDF), All Flesh Must be Eaten (PDF) and Iron Heroes Revised (PDF).

Before buying these, he had downloaded and skimmed the first edition of Spycraft, All Flesh Must be Eaten along with a few of the sourcebooks and Iron Heroes. He bought D&D3.5 on the basis of the SRD.

He also pirated the Conan RPG and might buy it when the next edition comes out.

Quote from: pspahnMusic again.

Pierce is talking about music, you dope.

Quote from: pspahnI agree with that 100%.  What I'd like to know is what makes these customers decide to buy a product rather than download it for free (because I'm well aware that no one will ever convince the people who think there is nothing wrong with piracy to buy something they can get for free).  Is it a personal decision or is something marketable that can be capitalized on and expanded (extra content, etc.)?

A few years back, when downloading for personal use was (more or less) legal in this country, I still bought a lot of what I downloaded. Basically, what it all came down to was availability and quality. If I liked something and I found a way to pay for it, I would. Extra content never really mattered.

Many of my file sharing friends do things the same way. If they like something enough to keep using/listening to/reading it, they pay for it if they find a way.

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePierce is talking about music, you dope.

*sigh*  Yes, you're actually correct.  That's what I get for reading posts in a line.  

Pete

Oh, I suppose I should say something about my vote on the poll, too.

I voted yes, and I'm finding it difficult to explain why. For me, morality just doesn't enter into it. It's like asking me if I think jaywalking is morally acceptable. I will say, however, that I think rewarding someone for creating a cultural artifact you appreciate is morally commendable.

Quote from: dansebieThe last 5 RPGs my friend bought were FtA, D&D3.5, Spycraft 2.0 (PDF), All Flesh Must be Eaten (PDF) and Iron Heroes Revised (PDF).

Before buying these, he had downloaded and skimmed the first edition of Spycraft, All Flesh Must be Eaten along with a few of the sourcebooks and Iron Heroes. He bought D&D3.5 on the basis of the SRD.

He also pirated the Conan RPG and might buy it when the next edition comes out.

Well, that's damned honest of him.  I wish more people would follow that procedure, but you know as well as I do that that's not how it usually happens.  Did he delete the AFMBE sourcebooks or did he keep them?  

Pete

Quote from: dansebieA few years back, when downloading for personal use was (more or less) legal in this country, I still bought a lot of what I downloaded. Basically, what it all came down to was availability and quality. If I liked something and I found a way to pay for it, I would. Extra content never really mattered.

Many of my file sharing friends do things the same way. If they like something enough to keep using/listening to/reading it, they pay for it if they find a way.

So paying for it all comes down to whether or not you like the product once you've seen it.  That's what a lot of people are saying, but I think you're the first one to give actual (credible) examples.  Thanks.

Pete

Quote from: dansebieOh, I suppose I should say something about my vote on the poll, too.

I voted yes, and I'm finding it difficult to explain why. For me, morality just doesn't enter into it. It's like asking me if I think jaywalking is morally acceptable. I will say, however, that I think rewarding someone for creating a cultural artifact you appreciate is morally commendable.

Indeed. I think paying artists and creators for the labour they did, and rewarding them for having interesting ideas is a good thing. I just don't think the latter part is a duty we have unless we explicitly agree to have one by say, signing a contract with them or something.