Ultimate Chart (a/o June 17th):
What happens when massive legal action is taken against a massively-infringing app? The answer is that a massive number of users are immediately scared away, even if the application itself is still usable. That was the case with Limewire, a shutdown that took years for the major labels to complete and never killed the application itself. But according to the results of one study, it did succeed in scaring millions of casual swappers away - not just from Limewire itself but file-swapping entirely.
The Limewire case study was presented on Tuesday by Nielsen, at the NARM industry gathering in Los Angeles. But this wasn't another flawed P2P survey involving questions like, 'so, do you illegally file-share?' Rather, Nielsen actually installed 'meter' software trackers on the PCs of about 100,000 panel participants and closely monitored their behavior before and after the legal shakedown.
Here's one slide that stood out - it shows a rather pronounced drop in users immediately following the RIAA's injunction against Limewire in October of 2010. But previously-installed apps remained intact, meaning that if you simply opened the app and skipped the news the day of the decision, you'd have no idea anything had occurred.
"The number of people using Limewire dropped precipitously following the October 2010 injunction, even though nothing changed in their ability to use the application," noted Nielsen senior vice president of Analytics and Client Relations David Bakula. "A lot of this had to do with the publicity surrounding it, the fact that the illegality was staring them right in the face."
Here's where it gets really interesting. The study resumed the following summer (of 2011), when Nielsen found nearly 75 percent (of 13 million tracked users) had abandoned Limewire, with roughly half of those ditching file-swapping entirely (about 5 million). The other half simply went to another file-swapping service, while 1.2 million new Limewire users actually entered the fold. Which means that 'net-net,' the RIAA's smackdown killed off about a few million swappers, for good.
But there's a big problem with all of this: over time, the amount of swapping volume (of total files) never really decreased, simply because the heaviest users just went somewhere else. And the heaviest users account for a very large percentage of total files traded. "About 20 percent of users account for 60 percent of the volume of downloads," Bakula relayed. "So you can see this is almost the 80/20 rule here."
Which means that crushing Limewire was a great way to scare swappers away, but not a great way to lower file-swapping volumes overall. Which could be counted as a victory, if those casual users ultimately develop habits around buying.
This sort of research may have informed the overwhelming level of force employed against MegaUpload - a plan that caused a quick-and-widespread chill across the entire locker space. "Pursuing service providers one-at-a-time is probably not an effective tactic if the intended goal is to reduce the number of illegal music downloads," Bakula told the pro-content crowd. "But a broader goal of going after these en masse or 'go big or go home' is really how we should be pursuing this."
@steelhanf13 Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Fear = best tactic that can be used to fight online piracy
yeah Wednesday, May 09, 2012
fear = best way to drive people to pirate by other means
dan Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Just because someone does not pirate an album, does NOT mean they go out and buy the album. Those who stopped using limwire either went to another site, or just didn't listen to the music. SO which is better: a) Allowing people to discover you via pirating sites or b) not letting anyone download your music therefore not creating new fans....therefore this post is irrelavent and pointless.
rodney Wednesday, May 09, 2012
If those were the only two options, your post would have some relevance.
Discover music through mediums that compensate artists and charge fans a fair price. It's a crazy idea, but companies have been doing it for years. I suggest Rdio.
dan Wednesday, May 09, 2012
I love streaming services, but the reality is, they don't pay artists nearly enough to make them a subsitute for album sales. Maybe someday streaming rates will be settled to benefit the artist...but right now they don't.
rodney Wednesday, May 09, 2012
When people agree that artists should be compensated for their work, there's still always the question of how much. This will always be the underlying question. If you think your art is worth more than the rates a subscription service is offering, then you should either pull your material and choose another route, or sign with a distributor that can get you a better rate. The market will decide what's fair. Artists after all are always free to give their stuff away, but music fans/services are not free to benefit/profit off the work of others without a mutual agreement with the artist.
Versus Thursday, May 10, 2012
False dichotomy.
- V
Crumbling Economy Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Limewire became riddled with trojans and other viruses around the same time these lawsuits occurred. I think it was a combination of those two things that pushed users more towards torrent files and browser-based sharing.
Versus Thursday, May 10, 2012
Fear can work. The point is that the abusers of intellectual property are not afraid enough. Strong, consistent enforcement and penalties against infringers would increase that fear.
A more enlightened approach would be to simply apply moral argument to change behavior. However, that will only influence a small minority of people, namely those with a conscience.
- Versus
wallow-T Thursday, May 10, 2012
There is no moral argument against copying. If there was, there would not be widespread home-based copying, going back to the rise of the tape recorder. There is a moral bias in favor of sharing. The most pain-free way to share is to copy, especially when digital has made copying cost-free and instantaneous.
"Thou shalt not copy thy neighbor's scrolls" is not one of the Commandments.
There is an abstruse philosophical argument to be made involving exchange of value, but good luck getting anyone to accept it if they did not study philosophy in college... :-)
B Thursday, May 10, 2012
"Rather, Nielsen actually installed 'meter' software trackers on the PCs of about 100,000 panel participants and closely monitored their behavior before and after the legal shakedown."
Does anyone really think that people who are being monitored and know it will behave the same as people who think they are anonymous? Fail.
© 2013 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us