To Buy Or To Pirate? Get A Clue RIAA!

Is the RIAA’s strategy to stop music piracy working? According to a recent study, interesting data has been collected from college students that holds both good and bad news for the RIAA. Where does this leave the future of downloading?


To Buy Or To Pirate204 undergraduates from a large Midwestern University were promised anonymity and were recently sampled in a piracy study since students download more often than non-students. Researchers believed college students were the best representatives of digital music consumers and studied an equal number of males and females in regards to software piracy, movie piracy, and music piracy. The Elsevier findings blew away previous research and statistics about digital pirates.

Researchers set out to test these business students for the decision factors of obtaining online music, such as how important the ethical, legal and social consequences are in of music piracy. Motivations and theoretical research found that among 24 kinds of questionable Internet behaviors, downloading copyright-protected music and movies is considered the least wrong. An acquisition-mode framework for musical piracy was developed and was based upon previous research.

Although the RIAA suggests outrageous losses due to digital pirates, other research has pointed out that piracy has an insignificant effect on CD sales. From the musicians perspective, it takes the sale of about 500,000 CD’s for most artists to break even. By making their music available for free, some musicians believe it is beneficial. Once a listener has heard and appreciated the artist’s music, he may be more willing to buy future work. However, consumers who consider music piracy to negatively affect musicians and music companies in terms of profit will be less likely to engage in music piracy.

Many of the 204 college students surveyed admitted to downloading music as a way to sample what music they might later purchase. All the students downloaded music that they couldn’t find on the radio, while 2/3 of those listeners ended up making a music purchase. 40% of them downloaded music to sample what they would never consider purchasing; they didn’t like it after hearing it. Consumers who consider the Internet as an important medium to discover new music are more likely to engage in piracy.

Researchers combined results of other studies with new perspectives for studying pirates and what influences their decisions. They set out to discover the ethical, legal and economic decision-making reasons behind digital piracy. Then they broke down the study into eight factors: Networking effects, legal/ethical , comparisons to other pirates, type of music pirated, economics, overcharging, no risk, and situational pirating.

While the RIAA research reported a ridiculous music industry loss of about $45 billion and that digital pirates are an angry group of people who feel “ripped off” and are “out to get” the music industry, this study showed piracy intentions boil down to what type of music, network effects, and no risk to the pirate. In many cases, what has previously been “proven” as the motives behind piracy has declined. Younger males with low income seem to be the most prone to pirating. Once a person has pirated, they are more likely to continue doing so.

Given below is a table, which shows the results of the principal components factors analysis. Note that items in the red cells indicate a negative loading factor as compared to the positive loading factors in the green cells.

Factor Loadings Item description
1. Network effects .64 Record companies are benefited by piracy because more people will be exposed to new music and will want to purchase new music
.57 Record stores are benefited by piracy because more people will be exposed to new music and will want to purchase new music
.75 A good reason to pirate music is so you can listen to it and then decide if you want to purchase it
.78 If I pirated a certain CD and I liked it, I would recommend it to my friends
.79 If I pirated a certain song and I liked it, I would recommend it to my friends
.76 Downloading pirated music helps consumers discover new musicians and bands
.72 Musicians are benefited by piracy because more people will be exposed to new music and will want to purchase new music
.76 Pirating music is a good way to discover new artists
2. Legal/ethical .65 Pirating just a couple of songs is not so bad
− .64 It is fair to prosecute music pirates
− .69 I consider piracy of music to be unethical
− .78 I consider music piracy to be the same as stealing
− .75 People who pirate music should feel guilty
− .71 People who pirate music should be punished
− .73 I consider music piracy to be a crime
3. Comparisons to other piracies .83 Pirating music is not as bad as pirating books
.87 Pirating music is not as bad as pirating movies
.86 Pirating music is not as bad as pirating software
.87 Pirating music is not as bad as pirating photographs
4. Depends on type of music piracy .71 It is okay to pirate music as long as you don’t share it with anyone else
.55 Keeping pirated music on a computer’s hard drive is not as bad as burning pirated music onto a CD
.61 It is okay to pirate music from well-known artists, but less appropriate to pirate music from unknown artists
5. Economics .71 Music piracy contributes to an increase in prices of recorded music
.62 Music companies incur a loss due to piracy
6. Overcharging .80 Music is too expensive to purchase
.74 Record companies could charge lower prices and still be profitable
7. No risk .72 It is easy to pirate music without getting caught
8. Situational .58 If you don’t have enough money for music and you really like it, it is okay to pirate it
.55 It is okay to purchase music legally and then make copies for friends
9. Consider penalties .55 If people get caught pirating, it will not affect their future very much
.68 I think the legal penalties for music piracy are minor

Pirates’ music purchases may be declining, but legally downloading music is an important part of the music industry’s future. The RIAA needs to wake up! If the pirate likes the artist, he is more prone to digitally purchase one or two really great songs off a CD. When the RIAA rants about losses, it may only anger the consumers who will then pirate more music. In regards to software, most software pirates do not consider it especially harmful to the manufacturers due to the inflated fixed costs of software. Network effects strongly figure into piracy, while some other network motivations, such as gift-giving and receiving, uploaders and downloaders, has not been fully researched.

Sadly, this same research group believes there should be a study to determine the percent of piracy based upon rebelliousness, a state in which one feels compelled to behave contradictory to standards or established rule, and upon if the pirate enjoys defiant rock music. Anyone who pirates can tell you that those are not the driving factors in deciding to buy or to pirate. Perhaps when a person was really young, the feeling of rebellion played a part, perhaps way back when sharing music via P2P was new, then something such as Metallica raising a stink over downloading their music might have caused a desire to go and specifically pirate their tunes. Perhaps back in the beginning of peer-to-peer sharing, that might have been how some pirates discovered groups such as Metallica. In fact, that might have been their first song ever pirated. But pirates are developing and ever-changing, growing older and wiser. Digital pirates are a fact of life and no study, RIAA, MPAA can shut them down.

Journal Reference: doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.002

Image Credit: Flickr

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts

  • To RIAA, From the Gulf, Legal Options Perform Worst Here
    What would work best against digital piracy, in a country which is cultural...
    Read More
  • Bad News RIAA, Research Shows That It Ain’t Working
    RIAA and anti-p2p companies have constantly engaged in various methods to t...
    Read More
  • Margot
    TO ALL MAJOR LABELS ABOUT THE DECLINE OF MUSIC SALES IN THE US AND AROUND THE WORLD… HAVE YOU EVER ONCE CONSIDERED THAT MAYBE THE MUSIC YOU ARE PUSHING ON THE MASSES IS JUST UTTER CRAP THAT PEOPLE JUST DON’T WANT TO SPEND THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY


    -Then why do you need to obtain it for free? The issue i have with people illegally downloading is that they feel it is their right to own anything they want anytime they want.

    If you don't want to buy it fine. Do without. If you think CD's cost too much, don't buy it. That seems fair. But deciding that it's not worth your money but it is worth your time and effort to steal it, anything you don't want to pay for you feel you have some sort of right to own? (as far as the argument about not owning anything, we're talking about sound recordings not physical CD's..when artist or label copyright's a song, the basic copyright is a sound recording..which an mp3 is)

    Just admit you're a thief and call a spade a spade, instead of rationalizing all the different ways what you're doing is morally correct and justified because the people that are making it available to you are charging more than you prefer to pay.

    The world isn't about your preferences. Just admit you're a thief and you don't care about the consequences to anybody but yourself.
  • So I run a small record label just so you know where I'm coming from. I make a free EP available of either remixes or live recordings or alternate mixes available for free as well as at least one album track for pretty much every releases. I feel this negates a bit of the "but I don't know what it sounds like" argument. To promote a release to any degree several hundred physical units need to be mailed out to radio station & magazines/websites (very few of these accept digital downloads for review as of yet). So just pressing up 1000 & mailing out the promos very easily reaches the $2000 threshold. On a recent release (by Northern Valentine if you must know) I found it had been made available on a file sharing site & had according to the site been downloaded 723 times & sales were around 200 units (meaning it had not broken even & still hasn't as far as that goes)(& yes, it does have physical distribution. While not available in stock at a box store, you can quite easily order it at any mom & pop record shop). I don't think there are too many folks who discern "this is a CD by an indie band on an indie label who does profit sharing with the bands & so I should pay for this." If you want to say that if I'm not making money, I should close the label down... you're right & I may have to, I run it because I'm a fan of post rock & electro-acoustic music that gets larger exposure with my name & logo on it & unfortunately this is no longer leading to the sales it was a few years ago. & as far as making up the money from music sales at live gigs, at least in the genre I deal with attendance has been in a steady decline for five years, not to mention that a lot of labels now get money from live shows & t-shirts. My main thing is it should be the artists (or label if an artist has decided to work with one) decision on how the music is distributed, not the fan. The eventual result (which is clearly where we seem to be headed) is a lack of a professional artist class (as musicians, film makers, authors, or graphic artists) which will presumably lower the quality of music. What I feel people should do if they download something they like is not forget to support the band by buying a t-shirt or a pin they put on their bag or a sticker they put on their car to spread the word & get a little cash in the bands' hands. Even at Taco Bell lunch still costs $2.

    Given all that what I have a really HUGE problem about is sites ILLEGALLY SELLING music on my label. All of those Russian & Eastern European sites who sell albums for $1 are not paying anyone. I would much rather you "steal" the music than buy anything from these folks. According to my contacts with them trying to take down music associated with me, they do not "believe in copyright" & believe music is "fundamentally free" & so they don't owe the artists anything. When Pirate Bay says this there is a bit of legitimacy to the claim, but these folks are not cool.

    I think part of the problem also is that people who are downloading the music aren't even listening to it. I know tons of people who have downloaded the entire Bob Dylan or Led Zeppelin or Jandek or Lycia catalogs & very few who have listened to them much less listen to them on a regular basis. If people want to say that digital downloads are not a physical ownership (which I think is what people are generally saying) then why is it so important that they have physical access on their machine instead of just having the ability to stream it as they so easily can on MySpace or LastFm or Napster or so many other sites where their listening to it at least theoretically puts pennies back into the artist's pocket? I feel this is the eventual future, because who wants to lose all their music (whether paid for or not) when their hard drive crashes anyway?

    I find it very interesting that it's seen as more okay to pirate music than software. I'm quite sure that Adobe & Apple & Microsoft have a higher profit margin than the exclusive music arms of any of the major labels.
  • CopyrightLawSucks
    "Pirating occurs because people don’t see it as stealing, (according to the data above), '

    Downloading is not stealing. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 set the precedent. This law was passed primarily to define making copies of music on cassettes for PERSONAL USE. It is not "pirating", it is "COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT". The AHRA of 1992 defined it so, and said the copyright holder (RIAA record label) could not collect money as damages. So where's the crime in downloading? There isn't one. Ryan is so misinformed, he should take his head out of his butt and see the REAL world.
  • Sarah Lish
    Tony... thank you for pointing out one of the main reasons I download music.

    Most of the people commenting are not old enough to realize that most older artists had more than 2 cds worth of material available before they started reissuing and creating greatest hits packages (or box sets).

    Now as far as artists go... if an artist's back catalog is not available or has not been available recently, then the artist more than likely does not own these rights... the record company does. This means that the artist will not get paid anyway (if they do get paid it will be for only a few dollars (no exaggeration)).

    The music industry is the only business model that requires an artist to hand over all publishing rights (that is where the money is made) to their creation and then go into debt while you wait for the record label to decide if they can or even want to market and distribute it to the masses. All decisions are made by the record label... not the artist. Who has all creative & marketing control... the record label. Who suffers if the album doesn't do well because of the record labels decisions... NOT THE RECORD LABEL.

    Now that's been said...

    TO ALL MAJOR LABELS ABOUT THE DECLINE OF MUSIC SALES IN THE US AND AROUND THE WORLD... HAVE YOU EVER ONCE CONSIDERED THAT MAYBE THE MUSIC YOU ARE PUSHING ON THE MASSES IS JUST UTTER CRAP THAT PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO SPEND THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY ON...?

    Just something to think about...
  • Tony Nicholas
    Q: How does someone copying or sharing a music file, that is no longer available, and will not be made available, hurt the artists, and the RIAA profits?

    Q: How does someone sharing their copy of a book, movie, or music, hurt profits or the artist, if it is not longer available?
  • Brent
    Ryan Said "But there is a hell of a lot of work that goes into each and every song or movie that you download."
    Ummm - Bullshit? Ya Hollywood movies are expensive to make, but music? There are thousands of indie recordings done every day that cost almost nothing to produce. The days of the multi million dollar studio are done. Anyone with a computer, some decent mikes, and a little skill can make a CD. So your argument is pretty much crap. Sure you can spend thousands on a slick disney-esque recording but that's your descision - don't expect to cover your costs unless you sell a ton of them. That's the market, that's today's reality.
    It's funny how market based principals go out the window in this discussion. Its simple supply & demand. As supply increases, the price goes down. Well supply is infinite, so the price should be very close to free.
  • aN0n
    Looks like the RIAA trolls have noticed this article.
  • Robert
    @Ryan:
    "A whole lot of unsubstantiated opinion here. Where is the proof that pirating music has increased sales in comparison to previous purchasing habits."

    The proof is referenced in both the main article and in several studies. Those studies are produced by people who are far less biased than the trade groups, who's studies have been debunked so many times it is not funny.

    You sound like a shill. If these companies are losing so much money, over the last decade, why have their profits been steadily increasing and record high? Don't just take Cary Sherman's opinion as fact, he's been proven wrong countless times!

    The industry is run by accountants and lawyers, not music enthusiasts. Like Goldman Sacs or Fannie Mae, these guys would sell their souls, and the souls of their artists, if it could net them another dollar.

    Don't think so? Why are so many artists backing up all the "unsubstantiated" opinions here?

    Sorry man, you really sound like a trade group shill.
  • D
    This is the age of information, the age of the internets, the age of the web and most definitely the age of sharing.

    Think about it, right now this very second millions of links/urls are being shared across the web, this very sec millions of thoughts and opinions are being shared on blogs, in youtube videos, and status updates the more connected we are as a society the more we are going to SHARE period that is the basic idea of communication to SHARE thoughts, feelings, and expressions that is what we do every sec of everyday we SHARE intellectual property between our family, friends, and co workers, which leads me to wonder why media such as T.V shows, music and movies should not be shared as well.....

    The answer is because it is illegal to share copyrighted IP simply because everyone is bound by LAW to pay for the right to experience this IP which means no one is supposed to share this or ANY copyrighted IP simply because that would mean someone gained copyrighted material without paying for it and due to the inherent design of the monetary system all services, products, jobs, careers, education, healthcare, ect could simply not exist in our economy unless it is making a profit which i turn means you have to pay for everything you need nothing can ever be free in such a system.

    you want to know why I share?

    I share because that is what we do, it is who we are it is basic human behavior its not my fault the powers that be cling to an outdated monetary system that was designed back in the early/late 1900s and that these companies/corporations/orginizations have the audacity to punish us for simply behaving like normal human beings....

    wheres the logic in that?
  • Nikita Hengbok
    Hey admin, I'm not complaining. I'm just joking. See my BIG smile? =D

    Cheers!
  • admin
    @Nikita, The article includes due credit to you as a link at the bottom of the article. This credit has existed ever since this article got published. Thanks!
  • Nikita Hengbok
    Hey! Someone used my pic! That's my pic as a pirate girl from my Flickr album!

    Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hengbok-nikita/900...

    Is this consider as piracy?!? LOL! xD
  • Jayho
    The reality of the music industry these days is that 99% of real artists (those not making money from pepsi commercials) make barely any money off of record sales. From that $23.99 that you spent on the latest CD the artist may get a few pennies. Artists make money through concert tickets, t-shirts, etc. I am a musician myself, and I expect that people will find my music through the internet. I hope that they will download my stuff, like it, and then decide to come and see a show because that is where you make the real money. Album sales just pad the bank accounts of labels, and it's the labels that are causing a stink about "piracy". record labels may not survive the advent of file sharing, but artists will probably do better than ever now that the distribution (the hardest part!) is now free and easy.
  • Ryan
    A whole lot of unsubstantiated opinion here. Where is the proof that pirating music has increased sales in comparison to previous purchasing habits.

    Pirating occurs because people don't see it as stealing, (according to the data above), it is easy to get, and they do not think they will get caught, the web making them somewhat anonymous. It gets justified by dehumanizing the profiteers as large wealthy corporations, not individuals that would be hurt by these actions.

    By not paying, you willfully choose not to pay the artist, the recording studio, the song writer, the supporting artists, etc. Let's face it...music is too expensive, but stealing is still stealing and you know it.
  • Joe McDonald
    I pirate because the MPAA/RIAA exist. They treat people the way the mafia did. The idea of DRM and the restrictions on the devices I want to listen to the music on us upsetting. But when they sue people and they claim ~$150,000 is needed to make up for the loss is just rediculous.
  • Ryan
    My God, how clueless are you all?

    @bob johnson
    Media is priced where it is because there are people willing to pay that much for it. Simple economics, regardless of what you or I believe is the "right price." Music and movies are not "free" over radio/TV, that medium only exists as free to listen/view because of commercials: advertisers who spend money on ads that try to get you to spend spend spend. Nothing, repeat nothing is free (especially if a profit might be made).

    @Tony and @Johnny Masonite
    Sure, you can get content for free over the internet through any number of torrents or direct downloads or other P2P technology. But there is a hell of a lot of work that goes into each and every song or movie that you download. Have you ever watched the credits after a feature-length movie? Those credits last longer than any youtube clip I've ever seen. Movie stars and music artists might be over paid, but there a lot of people who work on those projects who aren't.

    Oh, and most movies and albums loose money. If I remember right, only 1/10 are profitable. The production houses use money from successful movies/albums to make up for the unsuccessful ones and to finance the next round. Personally, I don't believe they can be making much money if production budgets are always rising and it's financed by the last big hit...

    @jess
    Wow. You went to "A website dedicated to innovations & research in the fields of science & technology" to oogle a thumbnail...

    @Richard Cranium
    Thank you! Wish more people were as concerned as you are about social responsibility.
  • Given the RIAA/MPAA's attitude on to sue grandma's IP address and anyone that breathes, I simply refuse to buy cd's. I go to my local library. I do buy movies at Wal-Mart's $5 - $10 bin. I also use Hulu. Never used a torrent, but I loved reading Pirate Bay rants and reply's to the idiot's at RIAA.
  • I saw Hillary Rosen (former head of RIAA) on the news the other day, supporting the extreme right. I think she said she eats babies.
  • bob johnson
    Music is free on the radio

    Movies are free on tv

    If you subscribe to netflix or hbo they will get there eventually. Why wait.

    All media .. movies, music, books, software ... are WAY overpriced to begin with ... Like 2000%!
  • jess
    So, where can you find a larger version of that thumbnail picture? She looks great.
blog comments powered by Disqus