Press Pats Itself On The Back For Parroting The Recording Industry's Spin
from the good-parrot dept
The Times Online, in the UK, has yet another article about file sharing that pretty much does everything it can to spin everything towards the recording industry's point of view, while patting itself on the back for not reacting negatively to stories that the British version of the RIAA (the BPI) was suing kids for sharing unauthorized music files. The closest the article comes to a more balanced view is asking one struggling musician whose son was one of those charged about how she would feel about people sharing her music. At first, she says she wouldn't mind so much, since it would be great for people to hear her music. The reporter then asks a leading question, asking how she would feel if she was a big success, and five million people were downloading her album, and gets her to say she'd be angry that five million people were "stealing" her album. This whole exchange is seriously problematic for a variety of reasons. First, she just admitted she'd be happy if more people were listening to her music and that she wasn't making much money from it. Then, the reporter asks her how she would feel if she were making money from the music. So, let's see... right now, she isn't making money and doesn't care if people download her music for free -- which you would think would be the point at which she should care more, since she already isn't making money. But, if she is making money from massive sales, why should care if even more people are downloading the music? She's already making a lot more money than the situation (reality) where she isn't making any money. The article also claims that all studies have shown that downloads hurt sales -- when the truth is anything but, and even the RIAA's own figures have shown an increase in sales. Finally, the article repeats many times the idea that if BPI didn't sue, the recording industry would "go out of business," when clearly that's not true. The situation in China, for example, proves the opposite is true. The music industry can thrive, even when unauthorized copying is rampant. It just takes more creative thinking -- which is apparently sorely lacking in the recording industry... and certain Times UK Online reporters.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
And they're making up some crap to protect sales of ..THIS?!
Yes, the answer is simple. Just don't buy the crap - it's not even music, it's pure shite, there are better ways to entertain yourself, like go down your local music shop and buy an instrument and a few textbooks and make your own damn' noise!
Funnily enough, I don't have that much of a dependency on hollywood movies either; the regular-cinema-going phase lasted about 3yrs or so and now I'm just too old to bother :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]