IFPI's Annual Attack On Piracy Once Again Riddled With Errors And Bogus Claims
from the midemeve dept
Every year, on the eve of the Midem music industry event in France, the IFPI puts out its report about how "piracy" is destroying the music industry. It's well-timed, because it then gets quoted repeatedly in Midem discussions, and gets lots of press and stuff. This year, is no different, though amusingly, the IFPI tries to pre-empt the usual criticism by insisting the troubles facing the recording industry have nothing to do with its unwillingness to try new business models. It's also wrong. Blatantly, incredibly, wrong. As has been detailed by many, many, many other studies, the only part of the industry that's really been suffering is the recording industry. Of course, the key point -- which is the same as it is every year -- is the IFPI begging the government to come save its business by blocking competition, criminalizing technology, and making everyone else responsible for propping up the record labels. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. Not surprisingly, the IFPI's report is also filled with all sorts of factual errors, such as relying on the debunked report whose methodology was so bad that it thought that only a few 2010 movies were the most downloaded of 2010, with much older movies dominating the list.The real problem with the report -- beyond the flat-out errors -- is the fact that it's so focused on music sales and music sales alone as the be-all, end-all of the music industry that it simply ignores everything else:
Fewer new artists are breaking through globally. Total sales by debut artists in the global top 50 album chart in 2010 were just one quarter of the level they achieved in 2003Note the implicit assumption here. Because there are fewer music sales, it means that such new music is not being created, or those artists are not successful. This is like saying that "because fewer horse carriages were sold this year, it shows the automobile is not a legitimate savior of the transportation industry." You see how that's done? If you define success based on the obsolete way of doing things, of course it's going to look bad. But if you look at the actual numbers, and the actual opportunities, you realize that the market is actually growing.
Traditionally vibrant music local industries, such as Spain and Mexico, are especially hard hit. In Spain, where music sales fell by an estimated 22 per cent in 2010, no new home-grown artist featured in the country's top 50 album chart, compared with 10 in 2003
IFPI boss Frances Moore apparently claimed that this is "a crisis affecting not just an industry - but artists, musicians, jobs, consumers, and the wider creative sector." Except that's not true. There are more people making music today than ever before. It's cheaper than ever before to make, distribute and promote music. If you're a musician, there are more ways than ever before to build a fanbase and to build a business model to make a living. It's a great time to be a musician. It's also a fantastic time to be a consumer. It's hard to see how Moore can make such a claim that is obviously false, and no one calls her on the obviously false nature of her claims. When Moore took over last year for John Kennedy, I had hoped that maybe she'd bring some sense to the IFPI. Instead, she seems to be spreading the same propaganda as her predecessor.
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
If you're a musician, there are more ways than ever before to build a fanbase and to build a business model to make a living.
Fewer new artists are breaking through globally. Total sales by debut artists in the global top 50 album chart in 2010 were just one quarter of the level they achieved in 2003
When you say "make a living" that can be making 20k a year income. That is obviously different from "breaking through globally". Your scale for success in the music business is different from what the music industry considers success.
It is hard to have a discussion when you compare apples and oranges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The funny thing is you just did the exact same thing Mike was talking about in the article. You took a term (making a living), assigned your own made up value to it, and then pretended that it invalidated the article.
Why would you use that tactic when one of the points of the article is to point out the fallacy of said tactic? Aren't you creative enough to try something different? Or has false logic piracy stymied your creativity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point isn't the absolute dollar figure, it is that one side measures success in one way, and TD measures it in a different way. It is incredibly difficult to compare the two. Calling out the report because it doesn't use your version of "success" isn't exactly debunking it or finding it riddled with errors, it is more a failure to understand their terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
News Flash: You do what you love because you love to do it. End of story. Most people work a day job, and then do what they love in their spare time. I've got zero sympathy for snivelers who cry about not making a mint from their art, or actually having to work to make money from their talent, just like everyone else does.
I'll tell you what, it takes talent and work to earn money in sales. It takes talent and work to earn money in customer service. It takes talent and work to earn money as a mechanic. It takes talent and work to earn money as a blogger. It takes talent and work to earn money in every single industry, including music and art.
You can make all the art you want without getting paid for it. A monetary exchange that benefits the artist isn't necessary for the artist to create art. Look at the countless number of artists who didn't make money from their art in their lifetimes, and only gained recognition after their deaths.
Let me be clear: The unwillingness of the public to support artists has never stopped the creation of art, and never will.
If you want to create art, create it. If you want to share your art, share it. If you want to make money, make it. You don't automatically deserve money from me just because you created art and shared it. The end. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doubtful that a person that sits around all day, and contributes nothing to society would understand that tho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has been one of the most prolific forgers American museums have encountered in years, writing, calling and presenting himself at their doors, where he tells well-concocted stories about his family�s collection and donates small, expertly faked works, sometimes in honor of nonexistent relatives.
Unlike most forgers, he does not seem to be in it for the money, but for a kind of satisfaction at seeing his works accepted as authentic. He takes nothing more in return for them than an occasional lunch or a few tchotchkes from the gift shop. He turns down tax write-off forms, and it�s unclear whether he has broken any laws. But his activities have nonetheless cost museums, which have had to pay for analysis of the works, for research to figure out if more of his fakes are hiding in their collections and for legal advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those artists don't really have a choice, filesharing will happen whether you like it or not, in one way or another and ultimately there is nothing you can do about it.
Pay attention on how Jamendo is growing and other labels like it are starting to pop up everywhere.
Illegal filesharing will stop, it will be replaced by legal filesharing, those same laws that protect those who pass them are the same ones that will be used to seal their faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jamendo is for people who know their music isn't popular enough to sell. Nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend it's something that it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can find all the music I want there, what do you offer that is different dude?
Seriously, what do you do better that I cannot find on Jamendo?
Plus I get it free, with free distribution rights and people don't call me a thief for sharing anything, they even thank me for doing so, why I would listen or pay anything to the other guy's?why?
Are they going to shudown legal filesharing?
How?
Like it or not you will have to compete with free and the free party is just becoming to attractive to not notice, I can use that content, from you I can't use nothing it has no value to me, now explain again why I would pay somebody to call me a thief, try to through me in jail and don't let me use things I bought, why?
I'm never going to pay you or your kind ever again, did you hear that? Never again.
And all the people I know think just like me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free legal alternatives are popping up, people stopped giving you money and found new legal alternatives that don't involve paying you.
So I say the situation is dire for you people LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you keep repeating to yourselves until you finally might even believe it while filesharing continues unabated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There, fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Art isn't created in a vacuum. Anyone who uses a technique that's used before is using someone else's art without their permission, and the subsequent art is disseminated without their consent. Is that piracy as well?
You forgot not just the moral aspect, but the fact that it's the law.
What's the law? That artists must be paid for their art? That's not the law anywhere I can think of and, again, it's not necessary for the creation thereof.
Doubtful that a person that sits around all day, and contributes nothing to society would understand that tho.
Someone who creates art with an expectation of being paid probably isn't an artist, and someone who raises children, designs a new engine or website, fixes a car, bandages a wound, cooks a meal, or digs a hole is arguably more of a contributor than is an artist.
Regardless, if these whiny assholes are artists, then so am I, and worthy of whatever praise and thanks for my contribution that they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't.
Disseminating art is like releasing an animal into the wild. Once released that is the end of it.
Anyone who thinks they could or should be able to control it after that is a control freak living in fantasy land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Has the amount of money produced through the music industry, as a whole, increased? Y/N?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you want to count the proliferation of recording "schools" like Full Sail? How about forums like FutureProducers? How about all those "kick off you career" scams? Maybe MySpace should be included?
I wouldn't necessarily consider all of those things part of the industry proper. We have to be more specific. When people say music industry without specifying what they wish to evaluate, it makes discussion kind of pointless, since everyone brings their own definition to the table.
And as was so brilliantly pointed out by Suzanne Lainson: a lot of the revenue in the industry right now comes from litigation. Certainly people here at TD don't want to consider that a sign that the industry is thriving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The world needs more people making a living. It does not need anyone to break through globally.
By definition only a miniscule number of people can "break through globally".
The music industry attitude to success that you quote is as obsolete as the suggestion that the UK government is better than the US because we have a Queen - and the US - by not having a Queen - must therefore be in a state of anarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They may be "making a living" by someone's standards, but they aren't even getting enough exposure to be known in their own (relatively small) home country. That is sad.
It also confirms my theory: more noise, less signal coming through, more bands and artists lost in the noise, fewer and fewer being really heard. So enough there won't be a living to be made for anyone, then it will be just a hobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You bring up a very interesting/concerning topic that I've been thinking about for a while now. More music (and other types of media that can be produced relatively cheaply) is being produced right now than ever before in history, and thanks to the internet the availability of music is also vastly greater than ever before.
And therein lies one major problem: there isn't an infinite amount of money available to spend on music. Twice the number of successful bands does not equal twice the total income; when you look at all musicians and consumers on a global scale, you eventually end up dealing with an essentially fixed total amount of money available. This means that doubling the number of successful bands means each gets half as much. If this continues, eventually the drastic increase in music production alone will get us to a point where few can make a living at all.
The biggest reason this hasn't already happened is because of the tight control of the recorded music market and distribution channels the record labels enjoyed until the last two decades. By controlling the number of bands that hit airwaves and filtering out all but the ones most likely to succeed, they were able to consolidate the income in those bands they supported. Now, the floodgates have been opened and anyone who can play an instrument can get their music out to billions of people across the entire planet (and, I might add, the resulting decrease in average quality only serves to make the problem worse, by reducing the perceived value of music in general).
Thus the billion+-dollar question: what do we do now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thus the billion+-dollar question: what do we do now?
An interesting question. However before you answer it you have to answer another question. What is it about the previous scheme of things that you wish to preserve? (and why). Is it the availability of music as a career? Is it the availability of a particular type of music career (where the key activities are performing and composing). Is it the quality of music that was produced under that system? Is it the supposed ease of finding good music under that system?
You see from where I am sitting it looks like the major demand from what used to be the music consuming public is now to participate themselves in the music. People don't want to just listen any more - they want to take part. See how popular karaoke is. See how popular X factor/Country X has got talent is. See how popular games like Guitar hero, rockband and singstar are.
When the Beatles were making their name none of that existed but looking at the faces of the screaming teenagers in old news footage it is clear that even then they really wanted to do more than just listen to the music. At that stage they hadn't quite realised that four Beatles divided by 3 million fans wouldn't go...
The only place to go is to follow what the consumer wants. The big growth areas will thus be in technology that makes it easier to produce music, in teaching and in smaller scale, higher value live events. This will certainly provide career opportunities for those who would have been composers, performers and recording engineers under the old system.
Whether it will produce new music of good quality is another question - but then you have to ask : do we need new music at all?
I'm sure that (if you asked him) Bach would have said that he lived a fulfilled musical life. Yet he never heard the Beatles or even Beethoven. The fact is that there is enough old music around to fill everyone's lives quite adequately. If new music of quality is to be produced it will happen because of the drive of technology (Bach's well tempered clavier, Beethoven's orchestral pieces and Jimi Hendrix's virtuosity were all at least partly the outcome of advancing technology). We should be looking at ways in which modern technology can enable the production of music that we couldn't even have imagined before. If we simply look for the continuation of past systems we are looking in the wrong place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The music industry defines success in nothing less than global terms because that is what is required to support the inflated middle ground where all their fees and outlays exist and generate enough of a profit margin to support such a large and in-agile organisation.
On the other hand Mike is saying that in order to be successful as an artist (i.e. make money) you don't need to do that any more.
It seems that a studio might suggest you need to sell 200,000 units for an artist to start making anything off the deal. If that's anywhere close to true I'd imagine many artists would welcome the direct �20k over a nebulous fortune in the future from the small chance of becoming mega-famous.
Looked at in that light, "Not so many bands are global" starts sounding like "Waaaa! Sod what the artists make, we can't get OUR wedge so easy anymore!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Mike Masnick's mantra.
Folks, ask yourself: why does Mike Masnick seek to protect the culture of piracy?
Why does he manipulate, obscure and often outright lie about the facts when it comes to piracy?
Go look up what he's written about Isohunt, the ICE seizures, COICA, anything to do with piracy and the music business. You'll see in the comments, amidst the usual sycophantic freetard drooling, examples of intelligent anonymous posters calling him out for twisting the details to further his agenda.
What has fueled his simmering hatred of record labels? Did a label reject him for being untalented? Tell him that his appearance was unmarketable? Or was it done to one of his IT buddies maybe?
Maybe someday he'll let us know why he has decided to protect those that rip off artists and cost thousands of people their jobs in the creative community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look back on all the posts he has written and you'll see words attributed to people who did not say anything like it. You'll see AC ignoring real facts when presented and presenting false facts to try and defend human rights violations.
Look at what Mike is doing with Techdirt and Floor64 and you'll see that not only does he practice what he preaches, he succeeds at it. How can you argue with reality again and again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The ICE seizures are another place where TD has gone way off road, ignoring the facts (plenty of copyright violating items posted in the blogs). But on this site, the sheeple don't seem to care, they just want to get mad at "the man" for whatever reason they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thinking not demonoizing piracy, and realizing it exists now, work around it and do better (and you can) is somehow a pro-piracy stance, 5 yard penalty.
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those blogs should change their focus to free legal alternatives and look for artists that won't try to entrap them later on with ridiculous claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, by agents of the music industry themselves for promotion. Dude, if you can't find a FACT that's supporting your argument it's not looking good for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, God forbid that content creators like Mike think realistically about their content. Or did you forget that Mike's a content creator as well?
To quote Cory Doctorow, another content creator:
"As a practical matter, we live in the 21st century and anything anybody wants to copy they will be able to copy. If you are building a business model that says that people can only copy things with your permission, your business is going to fail because whether or not you like it, people will be able to copy your product without your permission. The question is: what are you going to do about that? Are you going call them thieves or are you going to find a way to make money from them?"
Mike isn't discussing the ethical aspects of file-sharing. He writes about the economic reality of a world with file-sharing. Your repeated attempts to wish away reality are sad, and ultimately futile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because the pirates are not the one's ripping off the artists, the labels are. The pirates are simply underserved customers, the labels are outright crooks.....
http://steveleeds.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/riaa-accounting-why-even-major-label-music ians-rarely-make-money-from-album-sales/
http://www.musicdealers.com/blog-entry/2010/7/14/industr y-news-riaa-accounting-why-even-major-label-musicians-rarely-make-money-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So why do people rip off music on indie labels just as much?
Keep bringing up your stupid and worthless rationalizations for ripping off musicians. I'll keep destroying them every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Piracy exists, it's going to exist no matter what you do, find a way to make money in a world it exists in and if you can bring those that download your product into the fold of paying fans, even better"
...is supporting piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're sick of this asshole promoting his sick vision all over the web with no rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Lying about the enforcement finally being wielded against piracy"
Fine, let's say he is. Please, for the sake of intellegent discussion, prove him wrong. If you really are,
"sick of this asshole promoting his sick vision all over the web with no rebuttal"
then please, rebut. Saying, "No, he's wrong! And has fiendish motives." is not proof that he in fact IS wrong. The only thing you are doing is causing more hits to his page. (Which i would assume he would call the "Striesand Effect" [sp])
I really want to hear your actual arguments. I'm really interested in your viewpoint. Please, offer facts, or at least analysis, so that I may further understand your view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike Masnick supports piracy. It's clear in everything he posts on the subject.
Try reading this, posted by someone other than a piracy apologist:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/pda/2011/jan/20/ifpi-report-music-piracy?INTCMP=SRC H
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy Christ, did you even READ through the comments section? Her readers torched her and explained all the other possible explanations for the revenue numbers, including the fact that the IFPI didn't take into account the WORLD'S WORST GLOBAL RECESSION IN AT LEAST 80 OR SO YEARS. Her response?
"I don't doubt that recession has accelerated the decline, but this is a decline that started way before the global recession � more than 7 years ago."
Bwah? What planet is this woman on? The recession began in 2002....NINE years ago. That those studying it didn't declare an "official" recession (pffhhh!) until 2009 is meaningless. The decline began almost immediately after 9/11, possibly slightly before. She wasn't even CLOSE on that one.
Another user points her to an EXCELLENT slideshow he put together: http://www.slideshare.net/rob_jewitt/piracy-policy-participation
Note Slides 22-24, where you can see that when spread over a reasonable amount of years (roughly 30), you can see that record sales have remained nearly level while single sales have skyrocketed. Using the past 1-7 years as a sample size is silly. A larger sample size puts things in perspective, particularly given the ecnomoy troubles.
She even highlighted in her piece the silliness of IFPI's statistics, in which one IFPI executive pulled factoring 1 of every 10 pirated files as a lost sale directly from his Armani-suited ass. Keep in mind that NO consideration is given to those that might pirate music and then buy that or more music by that artist as a result. That right there is the end to any serious consideration of their methodology.
She then goes on to say that INSTEAD OF PIRATING, if people want to sample music before buying it, they should go on YouTube and sample it. FACEPALM!
Not to mention that her odd ramblings have been addressed and disected on Techdirt before: http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=helienne+lindvall&edition=techdirt
In other words, you need a new link....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do know that when you suggest that piracy has had no effect on sales that we just laugh and snicker at you, right?
Seriously, you people do know that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why we over here say: "Prove it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that growth coming from places where piracy suddenly disappear and are now free-piracy-zones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, except in 2004, when CD sales increased, without any reduction in piracy levels.
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lying? I haven't perceived anything Mike has posted as lies.
I will give you that perhaps piracy has hurt your business model (even though you have never show any proof of this).
What I will never, ever give you is a carte blanche license to take things away from me such as privacy, free speech, due process and the ability to do whatever I wish with things I have legally purchased, just to save your failing business model.
When your enforcement collides with my rights, I will always oppose you.
We're sick of this asshole promoting his sick vision all over the web with no rebuttal.
I don't about anyone else, but I am sick of this anonymous asshole promoting his sick vision all over this site with no real facts, citations or anything to back up his assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is also a TD tradition to link to opinion posts on other sites and use them as "almost facts" the first time around. The second time a new story on TD links to an that "almost fact" story with a link like "we have already shown that...", converting the "almost fact" into an assumed fact. The third or forth time, they become pure facts, even if they are entirely based on opinion.
There is also the stand too close / move too far method of obscuring things, standing so close to the forest that you see only a single leaf, or pulling back so far that you can't tell if they are trees or animals.
Finally, there is the "missing data" trick. 87% of those senators who signed the comcast approval letter got contributions from comcast. A nice number, except that 75% of the entire house got dontations from comcast, and basic statistics says you are very likely to get a higher (or lower) number by selecting a random subset. The reality isn't that there was corruption, just a misrepresentation of Comcast's legal use of campaign donations.
There are all sorts of ways to lie without lying. TD is a great place to learn how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick didn't do that. Can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Artists income according to the government income tax reports have grown and not shrinked.
- Their own report says digital sales have grown.
If the situation is so dire where that F.ing growth is coming from? If piracy is so destructive why is there any growth at all?
Why we don't see artists going bankrupt?
What I do see is a new crop of people making money where they couldn't before. What I do see is people angry at the industry and they stopped buying anything from the a-holes, what I do see is free legal alternatives starting to shine and take market share from the a-holes, what I do see is that I'm never spending money on the a-holes ever again, not ever, law or no law the free money from me stopped a long time ago, don't want to work for it, that is fine, you will never see a dime from me ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But 6% increase is very slow in an emerging market. Considering the speed that music players and devices capable of using online music files are sold, that should be an incredible boom market. Literally, it should have long since past the rest of the music business combined. It has not. That is the effects of piracy.
There are plenty of artists going bankrupt or at least going broke. But an individual artist going broke often is like a tree falling in the forest, unless someone is there documenting it, it never happened. They just stop being there anymore. Artists run out of money, time, and patience to try to hit the big times and just fade away. They weren't important enough that anyone even reports their "online death".
People didn't stop buying from the a-holes, they just stopped buying. They still want the product, they are more than happy to "steal" the product, but they don't have any interest in paying for it. That sums up piracy in a nutshell. You want it, you get it, you refuse to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fortunately the only thing that Masnick claims is that there are flaws in the arguments of the IFPI. Now, what you are saying is that he did not prove that the IFPI was incorrect, but he seems to do so by showing that the information shown my IFPI cites information that is known to be debunked.
He further states that he believes that the manner in which the IFPI measures the success of an artist should be reviewed and provides an interesting argument for it.
While you may not want to accept this argument as proof, you yourself make the argument that his statements are incorrect.
Instead of answering the call for you to prove your argument you decide to ask that we prove Mike's argument. Mike's argument was not in question until you questioned it. We are simply trying to find the evidence which you cite as the basis of this argument.
Once again, i'm not siding with anyone, i just want to hear the actual facts that you claim we are all ignoring. So that i may correctly pick a side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And who gives a f*ck about what you dumbtards are sick about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, they are all crooks, and TD doesn't support piracy. right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well I've never met any of them personally. If you are in a position to introduce me to one personally then I would be surprised. I know they exist only because of the labels' publicity machine. However they are just the bait to lure unsuspecting musicians into the big label Ponzi scheme. Statistically their existence is negligible.
I do however know (personally) a few musicians who currently make significant income - from the kind of activities that Mike suggests on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do we want 10 millionaire artists or do we want thousands of high-middle-class artists?
I vote for thousands of people making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Crowdsourced patronage, ftw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see you're like Masnick and so many others here: a non-creative opining on things you know nothing about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a fairly silly statement. It's not based in reality, has no source, and isn't true. Nice try, though.
I see you're like Masnick and so many others here: a non-creative ...
How do you know if I'm 'creative' or not? Or do you assume that I'm not creative because I'm not whining about being paid?
...opining on things you know nothing about.
What makes you think that I know nothing about this? Also, what are your qualifications on the topic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see you're like Masnick and so many others here: a non-creative opining on things you know nothing about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we were discussing horse racing then this comment would translate to: "non-horse opining on things you know nothing about"
See how much sense that makes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What twisting? The onyl twisting I can see is yours. OH, that's right, you're a "musician". Someone who couldn't organise a sex party in Berlusconi's office.
And Mike has no hatred of the lebels per se. Look at the case study he did about Topspin Records. He says that Sony BMG, UMG and their ilk have no place in 'lobbying' to protect their business model. The GAO has called bullshit on the numbers.
And those that rip off artists? You've seen the accounting tricks used. I've seen them second-hand. So go piss up another wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right now, I believe that the side effects of attempting to eliminate piracy would be far worse than tolerating it. Tolerating some degree of "piracy" wouldn't seem to harm anything in the general interest, such toleration only seems to harm (but may not actually harm) a very special interest.
I personally don't care about that special interest, but if you make a logical case, complete with economic analysis and some math or some field studies, I could be convinced otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point is that we decide what is culture and how we let it into our lives. This things cannot be decided by a listed company, or anyone for that matter. We are not obliged to enjoy a work just because someone releases it. It has to engage us.
Being a part of culture is a privilege, not a right. If you are lucky enough to find your work a part of culture, you can find ways to make money from your fame, future works or a physical good related to your work. You are not entitled to make money perpetually because you spent a couple days being creative.
Ownership of culture is a relatively new thing. Artist will share their creativity regardless of whether they get paid. In the days before recording, artists made their money by constantly plying their trade, much like a job. Now that technology has become cheap and convenient enough for everyone to use, the playing field has leveled again.
Unfortunately, this period of expensive recording technology has left us with some behemoth companies trying to protect the ground they previously occupied.
Because most of us have not personally experienced the time before recording technology, we don't know what normal is. The current environment is a lot closer to normal than that of the last 100 years. Get used to it, because it isn't going to change soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ain't gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copytardo, take your blinds out of your eyes and watch the internet once in a while you will see that you no longer are able to control that distribution channel and people dragged you idiots kicking and screaming to the 21th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, MIGHTY Mike. I wasn't aware he was able to do that! And by posting his thoughts to his blog nonetheless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To me breaking through globally is selling out stadiums around the globe and barely having a minute to yourself. By definition this can still leave you only making 20k per year, after expenses of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ps: Bieber and Lady Gaga both came from the internet distributing their "art" for free to stardom.
Further 20K can be enough to have a healthy life, why do we need that much money?
This family makes 20K a year and have a pretty good quality of life. A family of four divided by 20K is 5K a year for person and they all have food, a beautiful house and access to entertainment(i.e. Netflix).
Is not how much you make is how much you know that can improve your life and living standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say let "piracy" be the "somthing shiney" that distracts them from what is actually occuring around them. Business and societal evolution will take care of the rest ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check out the http://www.freemusicarchive.org for a taste of the future. It's free and ever-growing and there is some fantastic music (new and old) on there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shhhh!!! don't say that to loudly or they will have HomeSec-ICE grab up all your domain names. (say this like a cave man) uhg! Competition Bad, me squash!
"No one is getting stupid rich, but folks are making a living."
The whole dillution of the record labels from below is a cool thing. What is funny is Obama is fighting against this whole distribution of wealth thing by trying to help the content types.
"Music is alive and well just in places where the majors aren't looking."
Yeah well you can't really see what right in front of you with your head that far up your a$$.
"Today one person can write, produce, release and market an entire album for next to nothing."
And next year we will see recording studio apps for pads (iPad, android, etc) they might already exist.
"Check out the http://www.freemusicarchive.org for a taste of the future. It's free and ever-growing and there is some fantastic music (new and old) on there."
German death metal !!! LOL, I love the FMA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ugh, how long has it been around and why haven't I known about it until now?
My only wish is that along with the tracks they would list where the band is from (and a search by city function) and a big ass bold link to any touring information that might be available (preferably on a page w/i the FMA site).
I just lost the last fifteen minutes kickin' it to the garage rock band listings. Who'd have thought people were still producing REALLY good surf rock?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"My only wish is that along with the tracks they would list where the band is from (and a search by city function) and a big ass bold link to any touring information that might be available (preferably on a page w/i the FMA site)."
I was thinking the same thing. You could always put together another site that uses the FMA as a source. If they offer webservices it would be easy.
If you are a Greatful dead fan you might like this site.
http://www.archive.org/details/GratefulDead
or just
http://www.archive.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Browsing Live Music Archive by Creator - archive.org
Then try this link, which has other similar pages
http://www.archive.org/details/etree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The whole dillution of the record labels from below is a cool thing. What is funny is Obama is fighting against this whole distribution of wealth thing by trying to help the content types.
Dilution ( as opposed to dillusion, which I think is turning something into a pickle) is good to a point. The problem is that there isn't any extra money in the system (and in fact lass money overall at this point). With more people sharing less money, you quickly get to a point (once again) where the vast majority of people aren't making a living, because there is too much competition.
When there are too many players, many suffer, and few make money. Supply and demand at it's finest. When the supply of bands / artists / whatever is too high, the market price for their services drops dramtically.
So what happens? There is still a big demand for the top acts, the big guys (and girls) who are typically label acts with world wide support. People skip seeing Local Band 8472 and instead save their money for the next Britney Spears or Radiohead tour. There is some dilution, but the ones who are in a pickle (see how I did that?) are the same as always, the acts lower down the ladder who are maybe "making a living" but going nowhere fast.
With less money in the top of the system to invest, the labels and major distributors take less chances, they want more proven acts, and we end up with a system petrified to move forward. Everything is double safe. We are already most of the way there.
In the end, all the reports that show "more money to artists" fail to show how many artists make a net living. The numbers are shockingly small, considering the numbers of musical instruments sold each year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Want to see artists making a living just go to the streets there are tones of good artists making a living there and none can afford legal protection it is useless to them and so they devise new approaches to do things.
We don't really need a company to tell us what is good and what is not people can do it today just using forums where people trade songs or links to songs, the industry sees that as a threat and it want that to be criminalized, that is a pipe dream, people will leave them and go for the people who are offering legal free alternatives that are good enough to the ones they have there, big companies no longer have the money to buy artists to lock them up and claim copyrights, the creation of new works exploded and they don't have the ability to buy every single artist that is coming out, the market fractured and all that wealth that was concentrated at the top spread downhill and that is their real problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Making a living from music is so attractive that it will inevitably be oversubscribed. In the past it was understood that without a record deal you would not be able to make a living professionally and so there was a sharp divide between professionals and amateurs.
Now the internet has opened up dramatically cheaper opportunities for distribution and publicity and so more people are encouraged to have a go. The logical result of this is a large number of struggling musicians - (just like all the "resting" actors). This situation can never go away without some kind of law which limits entry into the profession (as for doctors, lawyers and accountants).
It has zero to do with piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In music, there is never any harm done if some 'amateur' who performs badly struggles. Quality and/or clever branding will succeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No - and I don't see how it would be even vaguely practical.
Laws for protecting professionalism from amateurism should be where lives are at stake.
Agreed - in fact I think that even where such laws are needed there is a danger that the resulting labour becomes somewhat overpriced.
In music, there is never any harm done if some 'amateur' who performs badly struggles. Quality and/or clever branding will succeed.
Absolutely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"'In 2003 the rumour was that the PC games market was dying and that retailers didn't have any shelf space for us anymore. Our revenue has gone up more than 1000 per cent since then, however.'"
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/01/21/paradox-pc-still-strong-hardcore-market-n ot/1
Why do the Governments listen? Maybe this can offer some insight:
"Today�s level of copyright can�t coexist with the right to communicate in private.
If I�m sending an e-mail to you, that e-mail may contain a piece of music. If we are in a video chat, I may drop a copyrighted video clip there for both of us to watch. The only way to detect this, in order to enforce today�s level of copyright, is to eliminate the right to private correspondence. That is, to eavesdrop on all ones and zeros going to and from all computers.
There is no way to allow the right to private correspondence for some type of content, but not for other types: you must break the seal and analyze the contents to sort it into allowed and disallowed. At that point, the seal is broken. Either there is a seal on everything, or on nothing."
http://torrentfreak.com/do-you-prefer-copyright-or-the-right-to-talk-in-private-110121/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
False dichotomy. Those aren't the only two choices on the table. The existance of private communication (telephone anyone?) doesn't mean that you suddenly get rid of every other law as a result. Drugs are still illegal, even if they are discussed on the phone. For that matter, Fedex is still operating, even if occassionally a package through their system might contain illegal material.
When you start trying to frame the discussion in this manner, you do it all a great disservice. The question is lawful or lawless. You get to make the choice, but make sure you are comfortable with the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In privacy, there should, ideally, be an all-or-nothing deal. In reality, this cannot be the case, due to stupidity on someone's part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got to Love This Quote
Fighting piracy is hard, tax payers should do it for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Got to Love This Quote
Dependence on copyright makes you WEAK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Got to Love This Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Every legitimate study (read: any that wasn't paid in full by copyright maximalists) has deemed that piracy isn't near as bad as you make it out to be.
Piracy is going to exist, the best you can do is work around it and not demonize those fans, and try and bring them into the fold. Change your business model, not the legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Recorded music is art, often the ultimate expression of an artist's vision.
It is theirs to do with what they want. They can monetize it themselves or have a label do it, but it is going to be monetized no matter what. There is nothing you can do to change that. Nothing. It's one of the reasons why piracy is finally being addressed by law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Also, it's apparently illegal to backup your own programs under US law. How does that possibly make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
So assuming you are speaking about the consumer, you are making a very important point, one that i am not sure you will agree with. Monetizing the art is an intregal part of making art. In which case hindering the monetization of art is a crime.
So let's take this a little further, you later claim that "It's one of the reasons why piracy is finally being addressed by law enforcement." So by connecting both of those thoughts together you are saying that "Artists must make money off of the art they work so hard to create, therefore law enforcement must address it."
I question whether someone "must" make money from the art they create.
I'm not arguing for piracy, i am simply questioning your line of reasoning. If i misinterpreted it, please elaborate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Recorded music is a higher and more coveted art than a t-shirt and that will never change either. And except for very rare instances, it requires both time and talent to be produced and presented to the fullest extent of it's potential and vision.
That will cost money, in some form, no matter what.
Also necessitating the monetization of recorded music.
Government isn't as stupid as you think. They see what happened the past ten years; the lost sales, the lost jobs, the lost tax revenue, and they know they have to make the situation manageable for other forms of IP also, lest the economy devolve into anarchy.
Anyone that thinks they were going to allow that to happen is a naive child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
My second comment is that you drive a incoherent argument. In the same paragraph you say, that you have stated a fact that recorded music= art= monetization. Then you soften your argument by saying that in fact the "attractiveness of monetizing it" is what is not going to change. Putting "Ergo" at the begining of your sentence does not mean it is a logical conclusion. Though i agree with your second statement i disagree entirely with the idea that recorded music MUST be monetized. Just because the attractiveness of monetizing it may not change, that does not mean that recorded music MUST be monetized. And finally to quote someone who is quoted all the time who's name i can't remember, "things always change".
Also, by stating that "recorded music is higher and more coveted art than a t-shirt and that will never change either", you are making a statement of values that is not empirically true. For a deaf person, the art on a t-shirt may be more moving than the most beautiful Mozart. Also, the level of "covetedness" does not drive price. I bought my favorite CD for $20 and spent $60 on a football jersey, yet i will complain more if i spill ketchup on my CD than if i spill it on the jersey. I further question why this comment is even here to begin with. Do you have some stake in the music industry by chance? This would be the only reason for your mostly emotional rants. But i digress.
Furthermore, i don't see even once when someone has argued that recording music does not cost money. Even if it would be just the money to feed the artist, there would be money spent. So that argument is moot.
On the last point you make about the government, i once again ask for proof that the government is taking this stance for THIS reason. If we are all naive children then please illuminate us with facts and don't coddle us (or beat us over the head) with emotion.
Once again i'm not arguing for pirates, i am only saying that your argument has some important flaws.
Oh, and once again, calling people names does not help to make you sound like an informed apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
And in fact, "intellectual property" as property isn't necessary for economic advances. The US, until the 20th century, was something of an intellectual property pirate, in the modern sense. That is, in the USA foreign patents weren't legally protected. During some periods, there was a reward or subsidy for bringing in foreign "intellectual property".
There's decent evidence that "intellectual property" as a legal concept, complete with taxpayer funded enforcement of such "property rights", is counter productive, economically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Anyone who thinks that they have a snowball in hell's chance of succeeding in stopping it has no contact with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Not me personally I'm just an observer - but I observe that certain types of law are unenforceable.
The war on drugs ain't going too well
As for fighting the government and winning, I have seen what you describe happen many times over the last century.
I offer as examples:
Vaclav Havel
Lech Walesa
Martin Luther King
Nelson Mandela
The Russian Orthodox Church
Cory Aquino
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
First their ultimate expression is limited on its rights granted it keeps expanding ever more but still the concept is that those are limited rights not ultimate control for anything, second reality is just not on your side, everybody can copy and make copies and distribute those copies in a variety of forms that are undetectable to governments and companies, so really what have changed?
The software industry learned that when you start pushing to hard to control something eventually a alternative will be created that could really, really hurt, music already have its free legal alternatives and they are good enough that people are starting to flock in droves to those alternatives, videos and movie may be next.
No amount of enforcement will change the simple fact that people can and will prosecute legal alternatives and they don't need to buy anything, you are not the sunshine on their universes. Maybe is not piracy hurting sales, maybe is just people stopping to pay you for being such an ass.
Want a mile long list of free legal content on the internet?
I can do that, can you show me why I should bother with your threats, foul mouth and manners, entitlement attitude and general lack of respect when I can just go elsewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
Right, because money not spend on shiny plastic discs vanishes into thin air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead of insisting on answering your question just to have you ask another i will ask you a question and we can go from there. Is it the "Indie" labels that are always complaining about copyright infringement or is it the "Major" labels?
It is easy to make an argument when you do the ol' "bait and switch". The whole of the argument and previous arguments, is that "Major" record labels are trolling governments in order to make sure that THEY make a profit. The argument stated by Mike is that there has been no proof that people have lost thier jobs or even lost money specifically because of piracy. You make the claim that Mike's argument is solely founded on his own hatered of record labels, and yet offer no counter argument. The only comment you make is that he is simply working off of his emotions, and might i say in a very emotionally charged manner (name calling has never been seen as calm and collected).
AJ, commented that the record labels are making more money off the music than the artists, and offers links. Then instead of making an argument for your side, you just lable his argument as invalid and claim that you have in fact "destroyed" it. The argument has never been that "Indie" lables rip off artists (although I do not know that they do not), and so pirating the music is okay. In fact this is not even an argument that "Major" labels rip off artists and so it is okay to pirate. The argument is that business models must change in order for businesses to continue to be profitable, that is Business 101. But the recording industry seems to not have taken that class. Is it "Right" for people to pirate music? No. Is it "Right" for record labels to require tax payers to make sure their company does not go out of business. NO.
Things need to change. On both ends of the spectrum.
And relax man. It'll be okay.
Go ahead, call me names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thousand of record label employees have lost their jobs in the past 10 years, as sales since 1999 have been cut in half, largely due to piracy.
Many freetards bring up some imaginary view of major labels all stealing money from artists to justify them stealing music. Their argument is that the musician was never going to get paid, so they're actually stealing from the label. It's bullshit, and they're slimeballs either way. But since indies generally have better deals with artists, and apparently don't steal from them, does that mean the pirates don't rip off indie music?
Of course not.
Like I said, it's all bullshit rationalizations, and the reason music parasites get upset about enforcement finally arriving is that they don't want to lose their free lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What, I'm wrong? What, I don't have any proof? Do you have proof either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Additionally, those laid off are not stacked up like cordwood in a warehouse somewhere (I hope), they've moved on to other areas of employment, or, these days, have joined the millions of others who've been let go from countless other industries who are looking for work or still underemployed.
Join the fecking club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one believes you when you say piracy isn't harmful. We know you're lying because you yourself know it isn't true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Firstly, I don't mention piracy anywhere in my post, so you can take back your accusation of lying right now. I don't pirate music, never have, and I still think EntIndustry's claims about piracy are self-serving and even irrelevant. It is their UTTER FAILURE to adapt to reality of the past decade and a half that puts them in their (imaginary?) damsel tied to the traintracks scenario.
- They say revenues are up, but they're still losing money.
- They say stricter 3-strike laws are in place but don't work so they need stricter laws.
- They FAIL to look at any of their business as usual tactics and realize that they are no longer workable.
Automation, tech advances, economics, obsolescence, competition, changed habits and tastes, new distribution channels, market glut, market fragmentation, wasteful expenditures, lack of agile response, lack of foresight, lack of vision, lack of SENSE in the face of what is actually happening...none of these factors - which would affect ANY industry - are taken into account?
These people hold ALL THE CARDS, the rights, the catalogs, the stables of artists but STILL cannot bring themselves to do what ANY OTHER INDUSTRY will do to survive and court CUSTOMERS old or new.
No, they bang on about piracy and, what really makes me angry as a non-pirating type, they want to STEAL my tax dollars to inflict more ineffective, rights-eroding law that no one can flipping comprehend because they are literally proving themselves TOO STUPID TO LIVE.
They want me to PAY for them to make me and all citizens, guilty or not, potential criminals forever and ever, amen, because we have eyes that see, ears that hear, brains that process, hands that create, voices that express.
They are not the arbiters of culture, I am. We are.
All 'piracy' really is? The great rebalancing. Copyright only exists because society permits it to exist. Society has been largely complacent about it, but the incessant pushing of copyright's boundaries, the overbearing and overreaching poison of protectionist attitudes, are wearing that complacency away. No amount of law would or will stop that tide should society turn its massive, collective head and finally say 'ehhh, no, you're done doing that.'
Public domain is the norm that has been starved, copyright is the exception that continually attempts to be the rule, and sharing is the resulting restoration of a natural order.
If you can't figure out how to monetize basic human nature, you need to step aside and let someone else do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says you, the impartial obsever. We say IF this number is corret it's more likely due to
- the competition their own industry
- the new forms of entertainment competing for limited time
- the shift from albums to singles
- the lack of resales due to no wear and no new formats
(as metioned above already).
Many freetards bring up some imaginary view of major labels all stealing money from artists to justify them stealing music.
Right, and that's why a few posts up admitted to it but tried to deflect it by saying people would steal from indies as well. Oh, that wasn't you? Well, maybe posting under a pseudonym instead of AC might fix that for you.
There's also nothing imaginary about the 45,000,000 $ the industry had to pay for ripping off the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yawn...
I miss wierd howard, these new guys are terrible trolls. Hardly worth feeding at all.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All of your posts are still being reported and will be until you comply with what I've said. If you don't address me I will continue to do this and all of your posts will continue to be reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go for it. I'll only type faster and more often. :)
All of today's posts are for you, Sparky!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I really object to that word - because it converts an obsolete term for people with learning difficulties into a term of abuse.
I don't care about being insulted - but the way you do it is really in the same boat as racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gosh, you're easily manipulated. No wonder you keep spewing the logical fallacies your bosses fed you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Example, sharing song A may not hurt anyone. But it may teach people to download other songs, which may hurt other people.
Firing a gun randomly in the air does not hurt anyone, at least that you can see. However, someone far away from you may be hit by the bullet as it comes down to earth. You may never see it, and they may never be able to attribute it to your gun. Does that make your random firing any safer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dodgy argument, because there are many many songs now that can legally be shared, it is becoming the default.
From your point of view legal sharing is as bad as piracy because it encourages sharing (arguably it encourages it more strongly.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is really too bad that the torrent community can't seem to get together and enforce some sort of "legal" torrent universe. It seems everyone slips to the dark side within minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For those that don't care and can still make money in spite all the sharing is a good thing to have their works spread wide and open.
Ask Nine Inch Nails, Paulo Coelho, Bieber, Lady Gaga and all the other that scream bloody murder! about sharing but keep using free channels to expose themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't believe you were stupid enough to take my bait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Filesharing can be helping artists make more money, by reaching to a larger audience, Paulo Coelho proved that he is making more money, little artists on YouTube are getting 6 figures, many open source projects are multi-million dollars business and they also sustain a lot of smaller ones that have a symbiotic relationship with them.
Sharing have another name it is called cooperation, which it is important.
Here is a concept that your crowd may understand "you scratch my back I scratch yours" is not that difficult to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this the world
>>"Total sales by debut artists in the global top 50 album chart in 2010 were just one quarter of the level they achieved in 2003"
I think it is!
My children (are being/will be) taught trademark is a tolerable restriction on free speech and how to use a VPN until we fix things. Your free to try and change their minds.
Trade schools are a nice option for the working adult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]