Difference between revisions of "Liebowitz (2006b)"
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Authentic Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646943 | |Authentic Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646943 | ||
|Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646943 | |Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=646943 | ||
− | |Reference=Blackburn (2004); Boorstin (2004); Liebowitz (2004); Michel (2004); Oberholzer and Strumpf (2004); Peitz and Waelbroeck (2004); Rob and Waldfogel (2004); Zentner (2004); | + | |Reference=Blackburn (2004);Boorstin (2004);Liebowitz (2004);Michel (2004);Oberholzer and Strumpf (2004);Peitz and Waelbroeck (2004);Rob and Waldfogel (2004);Zentner (2004); |
− | |Plain Text Proposition=- Given the flawed setup of recent surveys, it is likely that the impact of file-sharing is larger than what has been reported. | + | |Plain Text Proposition=- Given the flawed setup of recent surveys, it is likely that the impact of file-sharing is larger than what has been reported.- The pattern of file-sharing’s birth and rapid growth followed immediately by the unusually large decline in the sound recording market supports a claim that file-sharing is responsible for the decline in sales. Add to this the predictions of economic theory that file-sharing should lead to a decline in sales and we have what appears to be a very strong case that file-sharing is the cause of the decline.- Overall, the evidence appears to be that the lawsuits had an initial negative impact on files-haring, as hoped by the RIAA, but after this initial decline the impact of the lawsuits appears to be wearing off. |
− | + | |FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media) | |
− | - The pattern of file-sharing’s birth and rapid growth followed immediately by the unusually large decline in the sound recording market supports a claim that file-sharing is responsible for the decline in sales. Add to this the predictions of economic theory that file-sharing should lead to a decline in sales and we have what appears to be a very strong case that file-sharing is the cause of the decline. | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness) |
− | |||
− | - Overall, the evidence appears to be that the lawsuits had an initial negative impact on files-haring, as hoped by the RIAA, but after this initial decline the impact of the lawsuits appears to be wearing off. | ||
− | |FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media) | ||
− | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness) | ||
|Discipline=K0: General, L0: General, L5: Regulation and Industrial Policy, L8: Industry Studies: Services | |Discipline=K0: General, L0: General, L5: Regulation and Industrial Policy, L8: Industry Studies: Services | ||
|Intervention-Response=- Economists are often merely consumers of data but particularly in markets that are new, or where data vendors have not yet created and demonstrated the value of their methodologies, we need to heed the caveat emptor warning before we accept the numbers that we are all so eager to put to use. | |Intervention-Response=- Economists are often merely consumers of data but particularly in markets that are new, or where data vendors have not yet created and demonstrated the value of their methodologies, we need to heed the caveat emptor warning before we accept the numbers that we are all so eager to put to use. | ||
Line 22: | Line 18: | ||
|Data Year=Various | |Data Year=Various | ||
|Data Type=Secondary data | |Data Type=Secondary data | ||
− | |Data Source= | + | |Data Source=NPD;comScore;BGLM;Recording Industry Association of America;PEW;Reuters;BigChampagne |
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) | ||
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association | ||
Line 34: | Line 30: | ||
|Dataset={{Dataset | |Dataset={{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=6 | |Sample Size=6 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=Survey source | + | |Level of Aggregation=Survey source |
|Data Material Year=Not stated | |Data Material Year=Not stated | ||
}}{{Dataset | }}{{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=60,000.000 | |Sample Size=60,000.000 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=User | + | |Level of Aggregation=User |
|Data Material Year=Not stated | |Data Material Year=Not stated | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 12:30, 30 March 2021
Contents
Source Details
Liebowitz (2006b) | |
Title: | File-Sharing: Creative Destruction or just Plain Destruction? |
Author(s): | Liebowitz, S. J. |
Year: | 2006 |
Citation: | Liebowitz, S. J. (2006). File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?*. Journal of Law and Economics, 49(1), 1-28. |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: | Ahn and Yooney (2008) |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | Data are taken from various reports and compared against each other to test conclusions. |
Data Type: | Secondary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | No |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | Yes |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
Abstract
The impact of copying, in the form of file-sharing, has become a stormy policy issue. Previous copying technologies have mostly failed to live up to the extravagant predictions of harm that arose with those new technologies although precise measurements of copying's impact was rarely accomplished or attempted. One impediment to measuring the impact of copying with prior technologies was the difficulty of measuring copying activity. File-sharing is the newest technology for making copies and carries with it the possibility of more precise measurement of copying than has been possible in the past. This paper examines the measurement of file-sharing activity, the theory of file-sharing's likely impact, and the impact of file-sharing. Analysis of various data sets indicate that they do not yet live up to their hoped for precision. Data limitations not withstanding, the evidence seems compelling that file-sharing is responsible for the recent large decline in CD sales for which it has been blamed.
Main Results of the Study
- Given the flawed setup of recent surveys, it is likely that the impact of file-sharing is larger than what has been reported.- The pattern of file-sharing’s birth and rapid growth followed immediately by the unusually large decline in the sound recording market supports a claim that file-sharing is responsible for the decline in sales. Add to this the predictions of economic theory that file-sharing should lead to a decline in sales and we have what appears to be a very strong case that file-sharing is the cause of the decline.- Overall, the evidence appears to be that the lawsuits had an initial negative impact on files-haring, as hoped by the RIAA, but after this initial decline the impact of the lawsuits appears to be wearing off.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
- Economists are often merely consumers of data but particularly in markets that are new, or where data vendors have not yet created and demonstrated the value of their methodologies, we need to heed the caveat emptor warning before we accept the numbers that we are all so eager to put to use.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 6 |
Level of aggregation: | Survey source |
Period of material under study: | Not stated |
Sample size: | 60,000.000 |
Level of aggregation: | User |
Period of material under study: | Not stated |