The report had 7 months to prepare, just before this week’s row regarding artists’ royalties. It makes use of sales data, Spotify streaming and Bittorrent traffic to try and untangle the connections. Page analyzed the Dutch music market, where Spotify has turn out to be a well-liked legal alternative to freetardery, and he inspects the illegal use of popular recordings that artists have taken out from the service. Recently names such as The Black Keys, ColdPlay and the Adele have held back from providing their new recordings by the program, discussing that they’d rather have pounds in the pocket for an in-demand recording, instead of the pennies Spotify pays out. Page also considered Italy, where licensed services are immature and piracy is widespread.

The study concludes that legal providers have a important effect on unlicensed music downloads – which has been mentioned before – but hardcore pirates remain. The Swedish record business saw a sharp decline in revenues from 2002 until 2008 when Spotify released. A third of the Swedes more than 15 had downloaded pirate material in 2008, but by 2012 it was only over one in five. They’d got out of the habit. Due to the fact unlicensed TV and film downloading elevated in this period – when there was few legal alternatives – it’s sensible to conclude that legal services reduce piracy.

Just like previous research, the numbers show a big “passive” population and a little number of hardcore, high volume pirates: 10 % of freetards download 52 per cent of the unlicensed files. Freetards also are likely to go for typically the most popular files, which helped inform the following research: the correlation among withholding and piracy.

One Direction’s album, which was on Spotify on the day of its launch, had a sales to piracy ration of 3.79 copies offered per Torrent download, although hold-out Rihanna sold 1.36 copies per Torrent. Page warns towards inferring too much, simply because some artists permit Spotify to stream singles, although withholding albums. But he proves “there is no evidence holdouts sell more”. As opposed to Holland, where music piracy is some thing done by angry blokes who don’t wash very often, fake downloads in Italy are pretty mainstream. The music industry was slow to create legal services there.

And it’s still quite dozy about replying to demand. Page also finds a distinct, short-lived spike in piracy for particular acts after music festivals, an invite for the industry to react the demand with discounts and promotions. These are regular practice in other retail sectors – but when considering selling digital music, but you’ll search for them in vain.

The conclusion is probably not surprising, as Spotify really wants to reassure nervous labels and artists that their own long-term interests take advantage of a partnership with Spotify.

Copyright infringing websites are large businesses 2/3 of piracy sites have marketing, and 1/3 also consist of credit card logons. This competition is real: consider how ad prices are distorted by those fake sites who offer more scale and no content costs.

That point it would have been helpful to study another variable the effect of copyright infringement risks. The cumbersome French equipment of Hadopi may not have stopped many freetards, but the mere threat made a large surge of subscribers for Deezer, a Spotify-like streaming program. Britain’s bureaucrats are rigidly in opposition to implementing any type of infringement penalties, regardless of how gentle, but this looks more and more hard to justify given how useful penalties are for the legitimate market.