0

Images

I say groundbreaking because it’s the first time I’ve seen all these studies collected in one place.  Zero Paid takes a look at eight different academic studies of file-sharing.  These are not the usual industry sponsored drivel, but legitimate academic studies with science backing them up.  Unfortunately they haven’t gotten the publicity they deserved.  As the first article in the series says:

One question you might have right now is why are some of these studies seemingly unknown after all this time? There are a variety of possible reasons. One possible reason is that studies like this have a tendency to be locked behind pay walls, thus reducing the ability for the public to have access to them. Another possible reason is that a given study might not have had a publicity strategy that would have made it to the news. Another possible reason might be that the numbers and findings might not look favorably to organization like the RIAA, so they don’t get any sort of publicity backing by them and, thus, risk getting lost in the shuffle. Whatever the reason, we hope our little literature raiding operation will unearth some gems that haven’t been previously covered by anyone else. If they have been covered somewhere along the line, we hope it’s a nice reminder of the facts of the reality in today’s world.

The first article looks at a 2006 study that shows that litigating file-sharers is a failure, from the University of Chicago Law School.

Next, that P2P has no effect on music sales, from the Journal of Evolutionary Economics.

The RIAA supresses innovation, from the journal Technology Analysis & Strategic Management.

The MPAA is preserving its oligopoly, from the Journal of Economic Geography.

Producers lose less than $2 per album to filesharing, from The Wharton School.

Lower prices, not enforcement, is key, from the journal Economic Letters.

 
0