Harvard Business School says Filesharing has no effect on Sales

[magicclue]

According to Prof. Felix Oberholzer and Prof. Koleman Strumpf, file-sharing has no effects on record sales. They claim that losses in album sales have little or no relationship to file-sharing activities. They even go as far as to conclude that file-sharing has a positive outcome in welfare!

Have a look at their empirical analysis:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

[Joe Fenton]

Your subject line is backwards. It says the FileSharing people say that Harvard Business School has no effect on Sales. :D

What you MEANT to write was either:
"Filesharing, says Harvard Business School, has no effect on Sales"
or
"Harvard Business School says Filesharing has no effect on Sales"

[Elephant]

Sounds good to me! :)

I don't think it going to change the RIAA's mind though. ;)

[unmei]

probably not the RIAA's but hopefully some judges'

[Elephant]

Originally posted by unmei
probably not the RIAA's but hopefully some judges'
Nice thought... but I doubt it. :(

[fccHandler]

:angry: Good grief, yet another thread about piracy.

(I assume we're talking about sharing copyrighted material, since non-copyrighted material couldn't possibly affect record sales or anger the RIAA...)

IMHO it makes absolutely no difference whether MP3 filesharing affects record sales or not. It's still illegal in the U.S. and you can be charged with copyright infringement. It's as simple as that.

I've got a great idea; let's see how long we can let the "General Discussion" forum run its course without someone starting a thread about P2P, copyrights, and piracy.


Sorry for the rant. Have a nice day. :)

[Doom9]

I've got a great idea; let's see how long we can let the "General Discussion" forum run its course without someone starting a thread about P2P, copyrights, and piracy.Well, since RIAA and MPAA are using the piracy angle to push for draconic laws that not only outlaw P2P (breaking copyright law is already illegal and has been so for decades), but strip you clean of any hint of fair use, this is going to be a reappearing subject. P2P is the RIAA/MPAA's major tagline in the fight against customer rights, thus it matters of their argumentation is correct or not.

[Neo Neko]

Sharing copyrighted files over P2P is in and of itself quite legal. What is not legal is that the media distributors offer no such legal service. It is obviously a service people want. But it is obviously something the big media companies don't want. It could stand to lower profit margins while drastically increasing sales. So even if they make more money from increased sales it will not be enough since it is at less of a proffit margin than they are used to forcing us to pay. In this case more is less. [less money that is] They want the cake. All of it. And they are unwilling to compromise outside of being forced to. Plus they don't have to since they own the majority of the government and the people in it.

How many times can it be said. It is a strugle against opression. Simply put so called P2P piracy is capitalism trying to re-assert itself in the near vacume of monopoly and collusion. But they are like hey if Bill can do it..........

[Sirber]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
Your subject line is backwards. It says the FileSharing people say that Harvard Business School has no effect on Sales. :D

What you MEANT to write was either:
"Filesharing, says Harvard Business School, has no effect on Sales"
or
"Harvard Business School says Filesharing has no effect on Sales" LOL!!!! For some obscure reasons I read it like if it was right (Harvard says P2P) at the first place LOL :D