Reply #80: Don't take my word for it- read it for yourself

[depakid]

Beats name calling and foot stomping:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=652743">File-Sharing, Sampling, and Music Distribution

"The use of file-sharing technologies, so-called Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks, to copy music files has become common since the arrival of Napster. P2P networks may actually improve the matching between products and buyers - we call this the matching effect.

For a label the downside of P2P networks is that consumers receive a copy which, although it is an imperfect substitute to the original, may reduce their willingness-to-pay for the original - we call this the competition effect.

We show that the matching effect may dominate so that a label's profits are higher with P2P networks than without.

Furthermore, we show that the existence of P2P networks may alter the standard business model: sampling may replace costly marketing and promotion. This may allow labels to increase profits in spite of lower revenues."
----------

Here's another nice empirical paper:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf">The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales

"We find that file sharing has no statistically significant effect on purchases of the average album in our sample....

If we are correct in arguing that downloading has little effect on the production of music, then file sharing probably increases aggregate welfare. Shifts from sales to downloads are simply transfers between firms and consumers.

And while we have argued that file sharing imposes little dynamic cost in terms of future production, it has considerably increased the consumption of recorded music.

....We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales. OLS estimates indicate a positive effect on downloads on sales, though this estimate has a positive bias since popular albums have higher sales and downloads.
------------

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9197/hr4279.pdf">CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Cost to the taxpayers for enforcement: $435 million over the 2009-2013 period

BASIS OF ESTIMATE
For this estimate CBO assumes that the bill would be enacted by the beginning of fiscal year 2009.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $435 million over the 2009-2013 period, subject to the appropriation of the necessary amounts. Those amounts would be used to enhance activities to enforce intellectual property rights by the Executive Office of the President, PTO, and DOJ.


Yep, we as taxpayers should spend $435 million to help the RIAA and MPAA enforce draconian criminal provisions and civil damages that bear no resemblance to the damages suffered.

If there EVEN ARE DAMAGES SUFFERED- a claim that objective research findings show to be dubious AT BEST.

Typically American "cut off nose to spite face" policy brought to you by bought off Republicrats.