Post by @YanK@ludosphere.fr

2025-12-23 06:21 UTC

@fstateaudio The core idea endlessly pushed by the industry was simple: 1 pirated file = 1 lost sale But empirical research does not support this equation. A large share of illegal downloads concern works that would not have been purchased anyway (price, availability, simple curiosity). Piracy often acts as sampling: people discover, test, and later buy (concert tickets, merchandise, physical editions, future releases). In short: piracy mostly competes with marketing, not with creation itself.

Replies (3)

@YanK@ludosphere.fr 2025-12-23 06:22

@fstateaudio. Several studies (Europe, Canada...) consistently show the same pattern: Piracy increases visibility for lesser-known artists. It promotes cultural diversity, whereas major-label strategies and algorithms tend to concentrate attention on a few blockbusters. It has a positive indirect effect on live performances, which remain the primary income source for most musicians. In other words: 👉 piracy functions as a parallel distribution infrastructure, where the industry locks access.

Open ##1654396
@allanon@mastodon.uno 2025-12-23 08:19

@YanK @fstateaudio I agree: that equation is false. This is the same for cloned high priced products, if someone cannot afford a Prada product and he buy a clone, it's not lost money for Prada. I'm not saying that cloning products is ok but that the equation is totally false. With digital products is the same but since prices are lower there is the possibility that someone that downloaded pirated stuff could be interested and decide to buy the original.

Open ##1654397
@darwinwoodka@mastodon.social 2025-12-23 16:55

@YanK @fstateaudio Sure because hearing a song a friend recorded would NEVER mean you might go buy the album or something, right? Like, why did they play those songs on the radio where you could hear them FOR FREE anyway?

Open ##1654403