Study: P2P thieves buy more music

While the music industry desperately searches for ways to stem the tide of piracy that threatens to engulf it, new data from the BI Norwegian School of Management suggests that music pirates actually buy more music than others. A lot more.

As Ars Technica reports,

When it comes to P2P, it seems that those who wave the pirate flag are the most click-happy on services like the iTunes Store and Amazon MP3. BI said that those who said they download illegal music for "free" bought 10 times as much legal music as those who never download music illegally.

How can this be explained?

I've written before that piracy is a great way to help the music industry gauge the tastes of its prospective customers and that there are a host of new adoption-based business models lurking in this rampant piracy.

But these perhaps explain solutions to the piracy problem. They don't explain why music thieves may purchase more music than others do.

One way to explain it is simply to acknowledge that piracy may precede purchase. People may be downloading songs in anticipation of buying those worth their 99 cents. In this way, most of the downloaded songs will never be followed by a click-to-purchase.

For me, the frequency of downloading songs off peer-to-peer service LimeWire has trickled to a halt over the years as Apple's iTunes library has expanded. At 99 cents, I can afford to squander money on songs that I may delete a few days later. But I'd prefer to listen to a full song before I buy it, if that were an option.

Yes, I know I can use services like Pandora and Last.fm (operated by CNET News publisher CBS Interactive), and, yes, I know that iTunes and Amazon.com offer brief preview clips, but this latter option is almost never a great way to evaluate music. It's too brief.

I doubt that many people deliberately want to steal music. They simply don't want to buy in inconvenient formats (who wants a physical CD?), or they don't want to pay for casual listening to music that they really don't like enough to buy. So the download becomes the equivalent of listening to music over the radio.

There are ways to monetize this casual interest, as I link to above. But the music industry is going to have to experiment to discover them. Ultimately, it's going to have to grapple with piracy as an opportunity, not a threat.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[ddhboy]

I usually buy my music off of Amazon or Itunes, and in the past if I couldn't buy the song off of said catalog I'd get it off of some website instead. Similarly I pirated Photoshop CS2 back in the day, which lead me to buying Illustrator CS2, a wacom tablet, Adobe CS3 Design Premium for Mac, and becoming a graphic designer, ensuring more purchases of Adobe content, plus I'm currently debating buying After Effects CS3.<br /><br />My point is, is that companies are far too reactionary about piracy, and often times piracy leads customers to pay for products and services they otherwise would not have gotten in the first place. I wasn't going to study design before I got Photoshop, but it was my interaction with the tool that allowed me to extend my relationship with adobe.

[whoperson]

Another angle to consider: Sometimes material appears on P2P that isn't available on disks or legal downloads. Hard core fans may download the P2P and buy the material when it becomes legally available.

[animalbar07]

I disagree with this stance completley. Growing up with the majority of these music-stealers, I know that they aren?t downloading a song to listen to it once and delete it from their iTunes library. They download it to keep it. If they wanted to test out a song, they could just go on YouTube and check it out. <br /> Another misunderstanding that this article contains is the fact that no one wants to buy CDs anymore. Actually, I do! There is nothing like buying an album or a record (if I can find one) and listening to it for the very first time while flipping through the lyrics that come with the CD. I love my CD collection. I do not purchase or download music online. I feel that downloading music is killing what we love ? the music itself. I don?t really know anyone who buys music these days. I actually have noticed that every time I go to best buy to pick up a new CD, there are less and less CDs available. It saddens me that some of my favorite bands have given up on selling their music because it will just be illegally downloaded. <br />I think that the freedom of the internet has somewhat handicapped certain industries. It makes many things free that should be paid for. I am a strong believer that if someone works to create a product, they should be rewarded with a profit, so long as the product is worthwhile. Another negative thing about file-sharing programs such as Limewire is that they not only share the good files, but also the bad ones. Just last year, my computer died because I intercepted a virus through illegal downloading. As you can see, it?s not a good idea technologically, ethically, or economically. I stopped stealing music a long time ago, and I hope that other people can do it to. If you like it, it?s worth your money. Kapish?

[sneaky0704]

Wow what a hypocrit: <br /> <br />"I think that the freedom of the internet has somewhat handicapped certain industries. It makes many things free that should be paid for. I am a strong believer that if someone works to create a product, they should be rewarded with a profit, so long as the product is worthwhile" <br /> <br />Followed up by: <br />"Just last year, my computer died because I intercepted a virus through illegal downloading"

[shldvebnacwby]

I can relate to this study. I've illegally downloaded music before, but 90% of the time I wound up buying it off of Zune or iTunes. The rest of the time I'd listen to the song a time or two and delete it until I found it somewhere legally.<br /><br />As for physical CD's...<br />Personally I like having a physical copy of what I buy. The only reason that I buy music online is that it is usually far cheaper than buying the CD. In addition, every song I own goes on a CD in case of computer malfunction or something similar (as iTunes won't allow second downloads of purchased songs. &lt;- [This is one of the big things that I love about the Zune Marketplace over the iTunes store.]).

[Sausagebiscuit]

Case in point: Lacuna Coil's new album leaked before it's release. I sampled this as I enjoy this band and own two of the previous released physical CDs, both bought at Best Buy. It was a terrible rip at 128k mp3 format. However, from the end of the first song I was sold. I ordered the physical cd from Amazon just minutes later via their pre-release feature and even paid for 2-day shipping. $18 later (it should be here Wednesday the 22nd of April) I will be happy. The CD will get ripped into my collection and the disc and packaging tucked away for safe keeping.<br /><br />Sure all of this is just my word (I suppose I could post the receipt from Amazon) but it shows that it does work. I have bought several CDs or downloads from Amazon/iTunes after a solid listen.<br /><br />Oh yea, and I didn't need a torrent file at any point of the way.

[roland827]

" If you like it, it?s worth your money. Kapish?" <br /> <br />And if you don't like it, you feel that you just got robbed?

[wratbatblue]

You doubt that many people deliberately want to steal music? Hello? IF it's true, and it isn't, it's only because those "many people" actually don't think, or refuse to consider, that they're stealing, or that what they're doing is wrong. I'm very tired of the back and forth on this whole theme, personally. The fact is, if you are knowingly sharing or taking possession of content, without compensating the owner of the rights to that content (unless you have the owner's explicit permission), you are stealing. Any and all arguments I've heard to the contrary are fairy dust, proving only that people who want something for nothing can be very clever in making up justifications for stealing what they want. Until/unless current laws change, those are the facts. I've done my share of illicit copying of most types of multimedia content over the years. Eventually, I decided it was wrong, and I stopped doing it. We can hate the laws, and we can feel that the people and companies profiting from the sale of the content are greedy and grasping, but if we ain't paying, we are stealing. End of story.

[teh_chrizzle]

it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, or if it's stealing or not, or even if it causes cancer. file sharing cannot be stopped. file sharing will go on forever and continue to get easier and easier to do. it will never be more difficult to copy bits than it is at this second, and with each passing second, more bits will be copied, thereby making the sharing process easier. every dollar spent on fighting piracy is a dollar wasted. every minute spent railing against it is a minute wasted.

[Sausagebiscuit]

teh_chrizzle: you make a great point about all the money that has been spent and the time I am wasting right now replying to your comment! :)<br /><br />Spend more money on anti-piracy (software type) and win a free bailout if you fail! *wink*

[jhaggard1]

This is dead-on accurate. I have a network of 4 music lovers and we share our music with each other so we can explore new artists. Much of what we share, we listen to once but keep in case we get interested in the artist later down the road. When we like an artist, our group will investigate and buy up other albums by the artist to fill in our collection. <br /> <br />My contribution has been 62 download albums from Amazon and 45 from iTunes. 80% of these purchases would have not have happened if I hadn't received the full album from an artist to get to know and enjoy them. <br /> <br />Our group takes seriously the livelihood of our artists - we love them and we want them to benefit so they are able to bring us their gifts. We support them beyond our group via word of mouth and when they are in town, we catch their gigs (thanks for coming to Seattle - Lucinda, Ziggy, Brandi, Toots, Blues Traveler, Willie, Kenny Wayne, Kelly Richey, and many others?.)

[funkraider]

The reason music thieves buy more music is because a music lover is a music lover!!! When Napster first came out all my music loving friends did was download songs they loved and artists they loved...just like we did at old record stores and just like we do now online. Its about the music!!!

[waveboy]

Correlation is not causation. You might as well say that buying music online encourages people to steal music. All I get from this is that some people like music and both buy it and steal it, and some people don't buy any music, or steal it either.

[teh_chrizzle]

&lt;i&gt;All I get from this is that some people like music and both buy it and steal it, and some people don't buy any music, or steal it either.&lt;/i&gt;<br /><br />some people always pay, some people sometimes pay, some people never pay. why doesn't the industry focus it's time and money on the people who do pay, rather than wasting time and money on those that don't?<br /><br />you can't force someone to pay you, not when your products can be duplicated and distributed effortlessly, and the DRM fiasco has demonstrated time and time again that you cannot stop the copying of digital media. so why bother with it? why waste so much time and money fighting the inevitable?

[jaypres]

I always download pirated mp3. Why pay for data? Data is free. The musician pays nothing to create the digital music. If they are selling CDs, ok I pay for the CD. Data are just electrons. Why pay for free electrons that is present everywhere??<br />These musicians are greedy suckers. Created just a few songs and want to feed for generations to come? That's plain greed. Simple and clear.

[Sausagebiscuit]

Technically you already pay for those electrons too if you pay for your electricity like most people. It's also like paying someone to put a bunch of 0s and 1s into a certain order. :P

[forensicmeteoboy]

You are so ignorant it's not even funny.<br /><br />Do you know how much work and money has to go in to creating a CD or a film? How many people work for months to put it together? <br /><br />Seriously?!

[infinitely]

This is stupid. The artist does pay, greatly, to create that data. They put in their precious time and energy writing, practicing and recording for your enjoyment. If you enjoy it, pay for it. If you don't like it, fine, but don't act like you are morally superior because you aren't willing to pay for anything.

[karpenterskids]

I have three friends who all pirate music, and in each of their cases, they like hundreds of bands, and can't afford to pay for twelve CDs a week, so they legally buy the discs (yes, the physical cds) that come from their favorite artists, or that have the highest reviews, and then pirate the rest, since the music industry's already making huge profit's off of what they've bought.<br /><br />They all agree...they don't mind paying for music, but it just doesn't make sense to pay for so much of it.

[Mr_7235]

From the recap of the study provided here, there is no way to honestly make the claim that piracy helps music sales. Correlation does not imply causation.

[Nicholas Buenk]

I think this should be obvious. People who are downloading music, are very interested in music!<br />I think the main reason for piracy, is that music is too expensive.<br />How much is an album, maybe $15 these days. A person deeply into music will want at minimum a hundred of albums and probably desire thousands. This adds up into a huge price that college students and school kids can't afford, which I think is where most piracy comes from. So piracy is the only option they can take.

[Nicholas Buenk]

PS<br />The solution would be a DRM-free subscription service. With a generous amount of songs per month to make it competitive with piracy.

[john94857]

The proposition that people who use P2P also buy the most music is interesting. Right now, iTune is somewhat of the de facto place to get digital music but Amazon has also become a major force with its MP3 stores. I was able to get several albums for good prices and not having to worry about DRM either, which is important to me. Just love the the portability of pure MP3 files.<br /><br />On the note about Amazon, I recently came across an interesting table mentioned by PC World. It details the discounts on Amazon at http://www.uberi.com<br /><br />Maybe others will find it useful too (or perhaps mildly amusing)...

[gerrrg]

There are two ways to properly monetize music; one is to allow low-fi free files to roam and the other is to charge very little (think e-music) per song to allow people to experiment without feeling bad about paying for a lousy choice.<br /><br />Flood the internet with free, lo-fi, drm-limiting (not for sale only free redistribution) files, and people will buy the hifi ones once they know which songs they really want.

[Sausagebiscuit]

problem is no one will want to bother with the low-fi drm songs.

[teh_chrizzle]

there is no way to properly monetize digital music. pirate copies are easy to find, easy to get, easy to use, and way more useful than anything with any sort of DRM, and come in any bitrate that you want. the only way legal downloads can compete with illegal ones is if each legal song came with money attached to it. unless you are willing to go house to house and shoot people, there is no way to stop downloading. downloading is widespread and the people who do it are smarter than you and outnumber you by millions.<br /><br />the industry needs to give up on the idea of selling downloads. it's never going to work. you can't get the food coloring out of the pool water now that it's been put in.<br /><br />the industry should instead give all digital media away for free and use the marketing data gathered from those free and legal downloads to sell non-digital merchandise like posters, tshirts, books, and the like. this includes events with the performers (concerts, parties, etc.). that is the stuff that dedicated fans will buy, not bits.

[infinitely]

Or they could continue to sell to people who are willing to pay and stop putting out eight million albums that no one wants to buy. Everyone has their niche, and labels are going to have to get smaller and put out less albums and when they put out an album, they need to promote it. Right now a big label puts out hundreds of CDs a year, throws most at the wall hoping they will stick and promotes stuff like Britney Spears. The problem is, people who like Britney aren't music lovers and they don't see any reason to pay.

[pentest]

Trent Reznor has shown that you can open source the music(license uder CC) and still make a ton of money.<br /><br />The RIAA are the thieves. They allow the musicians only pennies on the dollar on a CD sale AFTER they take back the recording and marketing costs. If that isn't theft, what is?<br /><br />The RIAA is obsolete.

[biffhenerson]

Let me get this straight. You mean to tell me that people who like music alot tend to buy more music?

[baconstang]

As stated, the premise sounds weak. Is the sample of people in general or of people that download music. If it's people in general, the 'study' is BS. If it's of those that download music from legal and illegal sources, then it's more meaningful.... in Norway. The people I know that pirate virtually NEVER pay for music.

[burbbrat]

Baconstang has it right. The argument is not a valid one. <br />"BI said that those who said they download illegal music for "free" bought 10 times as much legal music as those who never download music illegally." You must compare those who download on peer to peer but still purchase online music to those who do not use peer to peer but purchase on line music. Of course people who use a computer will download anything more then those of the general public. Such a waste of an article!

[dracoaffectus]

I just had an idea, I'm not sure if it's necessarily a good idea...but it's an idea.<br /><br />Why can't we have a music download service that is similar to Netflix? I mean, pay a monthly fee in order to keep a certain amount of music on your computer/mp3 player, if you want to get new songs, you have to give up old songs, so you'd always have a maximum # of songs, based on how much you pay. But this way you'd be free to download and delete songs for a reasonable price. I thought of this because I don't really bother keeping tons of music on my iPod, it usually has around 200 songs (even though my nano could hold at least 100 more). I would be willing to pay say... $5/month to have those 200 songs legally, if I were free to change the songs at will. I know there would be problems with people transferring their mp3 files to a different folder on their computer, and this would really cheat the system...but the same could be said about DVDs from Netflix and that problem doesn't seem to have effected Netflix too badly. I'm basically talking about a music rental service. <br /><br />The way I see it, I have no reason to keep thousands, or even hundreds, of songs on my computer since I'm not going to listen to most of them, there's really only 100-200 that I would actually listen to. If a service let me pay a reasonable monthly fee to keep that many songs, and gave me the ability to swap out my songs for new ones freely, I'd definitely pay up.<br /><br /><br /><br />Like I said...I don't know if it's a good idea, I'm just throwing it out there...

[drohnwerks]

emusic already does this, slightly more expensive, but you get to keep the music... I think Rhapsody does it also, but I can't get that in the UK...