RIAA Keeps Trying To Spin Hadopi's Clear Failure Into A Success Story
from the how-sad dept
It's one thing to make bad predictions or be focused on the wrong thing -- but to totally spin the data to pretend you were right all along when it's pretty clear you were wrong... well, that's just delusional. And that appears to be the situation the RIAA is in. You may recall the fact that despite Hadopi trying to declare success because unauthorized file sharing appeared to have dropped off considerably, it was pretty clear the program was a failure because music sales continued to drop. And if the point of this kind of crackdown is to help the industry, then it seems like a pretty big failure. But, in the RIAA, apparently "failure is not an option" -- so they just take a clear story of failure and pretend it's a giant success , because there was a boost in digital sales and subscriptions -- even if overall revenue is down.But this argument makes no sense. You can't just ignore the part of the market you don't like when it's inconvenient. The RIAA tries to get around this solely by focusing on growth within digital (and ignoring the continued free fall in analog sales). But if we're talking about the overall music market, shouldn't that be seen in how the impact is measured? Besides, as Saskia Walzel rightly points out, it appears that the growth in digital services that the RIAA trumpets as proof that Hadopi worked were seen in other countries as well -- including countries without such a draconian three strikes policy. So, while there may be a correlation between three strikes and people paying, the evidence of any sort of causal relationship is totally missing. The RIAA can't just pretend that the changes in France were due to Hadopi when the evidence suggests otherwise. At least someone should call them out for the claim.
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
Filed Under: file sharing, france, hadopi, piracy
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That is your own strawman. I don't think anyone in the industry expects a sudden, shocking change in the sales rates right off the bat. That is your measurement, and a failed one at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's Strawman
Imagine that! A mess of kids got new music players and iTunes gift cards for Christmas, digital music sales went up, so Hadopi was a success. Yeah, that is perfect logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
It isn't that the drop is a strawman (it is real), but rather that there is plenty to look at the consider as to WHY, rather than any specific failure or success for HADOPI.
Example would be the built up libraries that people already have. Even when they stop pirating, people may still have months of even years of unwatched content to get through. They may have huge music libraries. Those people aren't going to suddenly start buying - they are upset by the process and aren't going to switch overnight to buyers.
It's a strawman to assume some sort of direct cause and effect in a VERY short period of time. It took a decade for piracy to decimate the music industry, why would a few months in France suddenly reverse the trend so dramatically?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
Glad we agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
lies - music industry is thriving. Recording industry decimated itself. There is a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
So, which is it? Is there proof that HADOPI has worked? Or, is it too early to find out? Pick one side, stop flip-flopping. You can't claim both things at the same time.
I only hope that you realise that the music industry's problems are caused by a wide range of factors before you destroy yourself completely in these doomed attempts to address just one, minor, factor involved.
"Example would be the built up libraries that people already have."
Example would be the hundreds of legal DVDs I own and thousands of vinvyls, tapes, CDs, legally bought MP3s that I own. Why would I buy more, when your anti-piracy obsession has left them more expensive, less convenient, less usable and less available than what I already have on top of the creative bankruptcy you also push?
I'll do without, thanks. Just try not killing every other industry on your way down into your self-dug grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
Paul, you are at it again. You are trying to create a black and white answer out of a situation that has a lot of grey in it.
Has P2P traffic dropped? Yup. Has encrypted traffic picked up? Yup. Is that a gain or a loss in the fight against piracy? Hello GREY!
Has overt piracy dropped? Based on the P2P drop, the answer would appear to be yes. Has record sales gone up yet? The answer would be no. Is that a gain or a loss in the fight against piracy? Hello GREY!
Your quick move to try to pin this down as a flip flop only goes to show how incredibly tone deaf you are in looking at this nuanced situation.
"I'll do without, thanks." - this from the man who admits freely to piracy because he can't get all his favorite content in English in the country he is living in by choice. Flip flop much? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
Christ, he finally admits it!!! Now, are you going to stop the personal attacks and lies about people who are trying to discuss the grey areas in every claim made by the **AAs?
The problem is, you were trying to assert a black-and-white claim (Hadopi has definitely stopped piracy). You then claimed it's too early to tell what its real effects are. These are mutually exclusive statements. Either it has helped and you have evidence for it, or it's not yet possible to tell. It can't be both at the same time. If you want to agree that it's too early to tell, stop making personal attacks on those who point this out and take part in the discussion being had.
"Has P2P traffic dropped? Yup. Has encrypted traffic picked up? Yup."
So, erm, P2P traffic hasn't dropped then, has it? Unless you want to play word games and pretend that encrypted and unencrypted traffic are somehow totally different things. We're talking infringing traffic - P2P is not by itself infringing, no matter how much you pretend. All we can see from this is that people have moved to less public ways of sharing, which implies that Hadopi has failed to increase sales or reduce overall file sharing traffic. We will see how this all turns out, but it's not looking particularly promising.
Plus, we have the other grey areas you usually refuse to discuss - the collateral damage, the lack of due process, that fact that these threats seem to be simply driving people to other media or infringement methods rather than leading to more sales, the fact that all of these could be addressed without draconian laws by addressing market realities, the fact that pirates often buy more than non-pirates, the fact that pirates are often just filling in the gaps left unserviced by legal methods... Are you willing to discuss these grey areas, or do you just cherry pick again?
"this from the man who admits freely to piracy because he can't get all his favorite content in English in the country he is living in by choice. "
Yet, again, you haven't been listening to a word I actually say, have you? I can get all the English content I want. I just don't buy it from Spain. It's available, but too damn expensive. Because I'm already importing, I regularly come across regional issues (e.g. when the UK version is far inferior to the US version, but the latter is region coded so I buy neither). But, I never go without content just because I happen to be on the wrong patch of soil, no matter how much the industry tries to stop me from buying.
People like you then pretend that this equals "lost sales" in Spain, and refuse to offer a better service to bother Spanish and English speakers here. That's the problem. I jump through hoops to get legal content, and you idiots still pretend my legal purchases are losing you money. I try to point out how availability problems and inconvenient distribution methods can be overcome and make you more money (e.g. this country desperation needs a Netflix equivalent), and I get abused. I try to tell you how to make more money from me and the other 60 million people in this country (yes, including Spanish people), and all I get is personal attacks and lies about me.
Try addressing the actual claims being made, it will help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
Hmm, I can't remember ever claiming Hadopi has 'definitely' stopped piracy.
You are aware that 'Anonymous Coward' posters can be many different people?
Here's my position in black & white. The aim of any anti-piracy measure is to REDUCE piracy, to deter the majority of ordinary people from casually pirating. You will never 'definitely stop' piracy, just as you will never 'definitely stop' shoplifting. Is that too nuanced for you?
Secondly, the hypocrisy of claiming I/We cherry pick!
Sure, I'm open to discussing all the grey areas. Are you open to discussing the 'lack of due process' when anti-copyright believers pirate INSTEAD of getting copyright amended/dismantled through democratic means?
Are you open to discussing the 'collateral damage' when even self releasing artists (I know a few) have their music pirated instead of paid for and the excuse given is about hitting back at the RIAA and the gatekeepers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's Strawman
If you take exception to being confused with other ACs, you are aware there are ways to differentiate your opinions from those of others, right? I have to go with the information I have in front of me, which is that from the tone and style of writing you appear to be the same person who was claiming that. I apologise if I'm wrong, but only you can make the change required to enable your opinions to be differentiated, I'm afraid.
The AC comments here could be a hundred different people, or one person posting everything, changing his IP every so often to fool the "snowflake" system. I have no way of telling.
"The aim of any anti-piracy measure is to REDUCE piracy, to deter the majority of ordinary people from casually pirating."
What's the point if it doesn't increase sales? In fact, if piracy is drastically reduced but sales don't increase as a result, doesn't that just prove the point that piracy isn't the industry's overriding problem and you're addressing the wrong thing? In fact, many "anti-piracy" measures actually INCREASE piracy because they make life so much more difficult for legitimate customers. Isn't that worth criticising, no matter how noble the original aim was?
"Are you open to discussing the 'lack of due process' when anti-copyright believers pirate INSTEAD of getting copyright amended/dismantled through democratic means?"
As long as you don't accuse me of being a pirate or mock me when I suggest the thousands of ways in which this can be achieved without crushing free speech, unacceptable levels of collateral damage and draconian restrictions, sure.
"Are you open to discussing the 'collateral damage' when even self releasing artists (I know a few) have their music pirated instead of paid for and the excuse given is about hitting back at the RIAA and the gatekeepers?"
I don't understand the point you're making here. I think that someone who just pirates and never gives back to the artist is a fool, and I think that people who attack true independents when they're targeting the RIAA are idiots. That doesn't excuse the behaviour we've seen in response, though, especially when we've seen many examples of indies leveraging "piracy" to make even more money without attacking customers.
I agree with you on a number of points. What I object to is the response in return, which damages legitimate customers like me far more than they affect the pirates. Don't you think this is a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All fish live in water, so all water is found in fish?
It's not valid because it is a misleading way to represent the "goal" of any anti-piracy move. I don't think anyone expect an overnight change - except perhaps Mike. That is what makes it a strawman, it really is Mike setting up something that "misrepresent your opponents position", and then knocking it down to make them look bad.
Mike's just butt hurt because HADOPI is a pretty good model for a three strikes system, with nothing in the way of the evil unfounded disconnections going on, which is something he rallied against here. Instead, it's a balanced system, the 3 strike people are getting judicial review, and basically the law appears to be functional.
Since he can't fault it's function, he is now stuck having to create massive strawmen to knock over, to try to make it look like it's not doing what they intended. He is the only one I can see in a hurry for it to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wasn't the data collected over the course of a year?
That's significant time for the market to change if so many people stopped pirating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we are only just barely getting to the point where this may start to have an effect on the way people work. Some will go with encryption and try to hide out (and in doing so, make themselves an even more clear violator), or they may stop downloading AND only enjoy their catalog, or they may resort to other means to get their entertainment. The shift to streaming is significant here, it is perhaps the start of a fundamental change as to how people get their entertainment online - one that actually might have a valid business model to work with.
It's early days for HADOPI. Check back in a decade, when it's had the same chance that piracy has had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So how come anyone can already claim Hadopi is working?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some can claim that it's working, but it's still early days IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
because fuck pirates, that's why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It matters not - the French public delivered their verdict on Sunday - Many who you would expected to vote for Sarcozy voted for the National Front instead. I wonder why??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps not, but since Mike didn't say they were, and simply reporting on a study posted on the RIAA's own website, that would mean that you are the one making straw man arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Music sales didn't "continue to drop"
Is that really what sillycon valley's favorite piracy mouthpiece is espousing?
too funny.
still tilting at windmills all day long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, I'm addicted to the Amazon MP3 store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...a service which, amusingly enough, is not available in France.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was an untranslatable image with a warning message telling me that because I'm a peasant who happens to be sitting at a place next door to France that I'm not allowed to buy music digitally (though I can order a CD from the same site quite happily).
I jumped to conclusions, my apologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heh... I wonder what will happen if "Failure is the only option" comes in your damn fuking soul?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked! SHOCKED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please Boycott The MAFIAA
Buy & Support INDIE Material
Do not go to Theater
Do not Buy New MAFIAA
Buy only Used MAFIAA
My personal crusade will only grow as more people learn the facts behind the lies of the Big Content Industry.And a lot of people will learn this.And a lot of people will be extremely angry to start getting emails from their ISP's this summer as many innocent people are accused of P2P and find out there is no real way to dispute it.Pay them money and have your case arbitrated I believe.Think how many folks are going to start getting pissed off over stuff like that one.
I have nothing against folks making a dollar but I do have a lot against the Big Content Industry.It is filled with Greedy people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please Boycott The MAFIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
err...
We implemented Hadopi to boost online sales of music!
err...
We implemented Hadopi to fight the evils of piracy!
err...
We implemented Hadopi to protect the freedom of artists everywhere!
err...
We implemented Hadopi so we could think up of reasons why we implemented it later... yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We implemented Hadopi to save the children!
We implemented Hadopi for the LOLz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shocking
no shit sherlock! i wonder what the napster figures are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shocking
also
14 out of 10 people agree that lobbyists don't understand math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
strawman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't undeniable. I deny it!
You do not know that it is down - it might simply be hidden by encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I lost my 'Noir' soundtracks. I wanted the music the other day. My options are to import the discs again (inflated costs due to rarity and foreign music) or...well, I can't go to the amazon MP3 store and get them. They're not on Google Play.
Obviously, the problem is the sites that actually have the music I wanted. So if you kill those sites that actually have the music I want, I will definitely buy that same music from sites that don't have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With no positive net effect for the industries concerned. Seriously, boil this down for me: what the fuck is the point of piracy legislation that won't result in an increase in money for the "pirated"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It isn't necessary for that - you see paying gives you a say in what is produced in future. Those who don't pay get no say - it's perfectly fair without the pointless (and costly) enforcement.
Only a fool savours a pyrrhic victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat. At a purely technical level someone who wins a "Pyrrhic victory" has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy cost involved in winning and/or the unpleasant consequences which follow completely destroy any sense of achievement or profit. There is therefore no reason for celebration." wikipedia quote ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'd love to think so obviously, because Techdirt hates musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps until we start getting hit with the tax increases to subsidize the enforcement. After that are we going to feel like chumps or be pissed and start voting the politicians on the take out of office and demand criminal investigations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do both of those things, and pirates can get hold of shitloads of content that I'm literally not allowed to buy legally.
Hmmm... if only there were a way to address this issue without destroyed freedoms based on mere accusations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And then, bang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And then, bang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And then, bang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And then, bang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And then, bang!
Top country downloading anonymous encrypted P2P software?
France LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's the thing, it's the pirates and their supporters who are obsessed with money.
The point of anti-piracy measures like Hadopi for musicians is to eliminate the unfair market.
It may have escaped your notice that most of Europe, including France, is on the brink financially. Also, the young have been hit hardest, with almost 40% unemployment in Spain.
Music artists are happy to compete honestly for your entertainment dollars. Sales go up in good times, and down in bad, but at least we aren't competing in a false and damaging market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pirates don't care about the money that is why they do it for free stupid.
They do care about privacy, civil rights and democracy though.
And a granted monopoly is not compatible with those values.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uugh, I can see I have to literally spell it out.
Of course it's about money for pirates. The money you save by pirating music you can spend on the latest iPad, or Smart Phone. Ya know.. the stuff you can't steal without being caught?
They do care about privacy, civil rights and democracy though.
Here we go again. Where are my civil rights as a musician?
And if you don't like Hadopi, get it repealed DEMOCRATICALLY.
All you seem to be doing is moaning about Hadopi. The more you moan, the more I think it must be working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most people don't pirate because it's free. Money is not the primary driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you want them to be greater. WAY greater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean not paying for infinitely reproducible goods so you can pay for finite goods, just like the laws of economics says it should be.
"Where are my civil rights as a musician?"
Copyright is not a "civil" right. In fact copyright is fundamentally in conflict with many civil rights, and civil rights should always trump copyright.
"And if you don't like Hadopi, get it repealed DEMOCRATICALLY."
You mean the same way it was introduced democratically? Driven by legacy industries and pushed through by bought politicians despite strong vocal public objection? What fantasy land do you live in?
"The more you moan, the more I think it must be working."
That's ironic given the topic of the post. You share the RIAA's delusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, so you don't pay for paper made from sustainably harvested trees? If your power company switches to solar you don't have to pay for it?
Copyright is not a "civil" right. In fact copyright is fundamentally in conflict with many civil rights
Nice slight of hand.
Hadopi is about stopping piracy, which hinders my ability to sell my product in one instance. It has nothing to do with repeat payments. It's about paying for the product, in the first instance.
You mean the same way it was introduced democratically? Driven by legacy industries and pushed through by bought politicians despite strong vocal public objection?
Do turkeys vote for Christmas? Of course consumers oppose any action to make them pay for a product they've been enjoying taking illegally free.
And again, don't shout about freedom and democracy then whine about it if things don't go your way. The majority of the public don't understand or care about copyright. They understand they can access music and movies free without getting caught. That's as far as it goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
I don't pay it when I make my own paper do you?
Do you pay the manufacturer of paper when you copy their paper? I even doubt they can sue you.
Quote:
How it hinders exactly? Because open source allows piracy to be the norm and it doesn't affect them, in fact open source is thriving and growing how is that possible when they allow everything to be copied, distributed, modified and even sold by others without paying it?
Quote:
What majority? the majority that is ripping you off and you are claiming hinders your ability to sell anything, because if you truly have a majority why do you need laws to keep people in line? don't people respect you anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More stupid AC analogies. Can you reproduce a piece of paper instantly and with zero cost. No, you can't. Fail. Can solar produce more power all the time for zero extra cost. No, it can't. Fail again.
"Nice slight of hand."
No sleight of hand, I simply corrected your incorrect definition of civil rights.
"Hadopi is about stopping piracy..."
Except that it doesn't.
"Of course consumers oppose any action to make them pay for a product they've been enjoying taking illegally free."
Of course consumers oppose any action that constantly chips away at fundamental rights we've enjoyed for thousands of years, all because disruptive digital technology is upsetting the gravy train for a very small percentage of the world's population.
"The majority of the public don't understand or care about copyright."
Right, so why is it important again? Laws are supposed to reflect the will of "the majority of the public" so if most people don't care about copyright and openly disrespect it, why should copyright supporters be allowed to drive expansion of laws in their favour to the detriment of far more important things like civil rights and the growth and sharing of culture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really think people want to pay for bread and milk? If you offered it free of charge you'd be trampled in the stampede.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about the lack of industry that brings movies to Sundance without a Hollywood chokehold, and just because you can;t get your collectively conservative head out of your ass, I am referring to Kickstarter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or, Nirvana, The Beatles, Steve Reich, Kraftwerk, George Clinton, Jeff Buckley, Captain Beefhart, Joy Division, Public Enemy.
But go ahead, trivialize the professional music community if it makes you feel better wwhile you rip us off.
How about the lack of industry that brings movies to Sundance without a Hollywood chokehold
Err, you wouldn't be about to claim NO indie film that's been to Sundance has ever been pirated against the film makers wishes would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, if memory serves me correctly, these "Beatles" you speak of were written off because "bands that played guitars would never sell".
But yes, go ahead and point out bands who were quite obviously trivialized by the "professional music community" (or better said the gatekeepers to said community), especially if it makes you feel comfy up there on your cross.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The acts you list, the individual artists are not the scummy, corrupt studios execs with politicians in their back pockets. In fact, plenty of artists suffer at the hands of those people. Things like kickstarter, and other projects allow artists creative freedom without having to sell the rights of their work to a greedy ass corporation.
I don't condone piracy, but I see why it happens, and frankly "free" is only half of it. The other half is the lack of quality in music and movies today. So don;t be so naive to think that this industry is what is good for the artist or the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More shit I don't care about. You might has well have just typed Jack and Jill nine times.
[ 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:
People already found scarcities to sell on farms
You might wanna keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only industry that's even close to being "decimated" is the shiny plastic disc industry. Ain't technology wonderful?
"You really think people want to pay for bread and milk? If you offered it free of charge you'd be trampled in the stampede."
And then we'd run out of bread and milk, at least until more was produced. Do you see us running out of music and movies any time soon? All the independent, non-industry studies say no, quite the opposite actually.
Yay for yet another AC analogy fail.
[ 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:
But you got paid in the first instance - someone bought your product and shared it online. You got paid for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your "one download = one lost sale" logic is as stupid and unfounded as your claim above that infringement is theft. Try harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you comparing consumers to turkeys, now?
I think I get it - your comparison of consumers to turkeys is an admission that you only see consumers as mindless variables to exploit for your own end.
If you're concerned that this site is "anti-artist" I'm not surprised when you treat your own customers as cattle for the slaughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why didn't they go back to buying music if they can't pirate anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
there are no guarunteed rights as a musician just as there are no such rights in any field of employment.
your statement right there is the entire mess in a very neat and tidy nutshell: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO EARN MONEY IN ANY SPECIFIC FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT. if your particular field has become unprofitable, find another one you can make money in...
....burger king looks like they are always hiring....
was that clear enough for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
there are no guarunteed rights as a musician just as there are no such rights in any field of employment.
Huh, that's utter nonsense.
Of course workers have rights. Never heard of employment legislation?
Pirates have no right infringing on my copyright either. There's two facts to chew on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to you, I can turn round and sue the NHS because they have 'infringed' on my right to be paid at previous salary levels (a higher-banded job) and every month they are 'stealing' money from me paying me a lower-band salary! Oh noes! The horrors!
Go get a real day job. Then whine about how much money you're not getting. Somehow I think the rest of us will live without *your* 'art' - and sense of entitlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Truth be told. Even if the AC wasn't lying and was an actual musician, he wouldn't have the testicular fortitude to state who he is or tell us the name of anything he's done. Why? Because then we'd all laugh at having never heard of him at all. Piracy is his scapegoat for obscurity and failure on his own part. But it's not the cause of his problems. What I just said is, well that and an entitled and dickish attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People have a finite budget to spend on entertainment, taking away their access to free entertainment does not increase that budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, they have a finite budget. So they save money by pirating when they can get away with, and pay for stuff when they're too scared they'll get caught - like Apple products and Nike trainers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you say no, I know you are a liar because if I can do it, anybody can and I have been doing it for more than 30 years now.
Your bigger problem is that today I don't want to give you money in any fashion and I am going out of my way just to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So spending money preventing piracy and trampling human rights to stifle it is all a waste of time and a useless attack on our way of life if it brings no positive benefits to the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yah right.
Keep believing in that buddy one day will be true(not likely).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Allow me to demonstrate.
Free MP3 downloads upload by users yay! This one you have a good chance of stopping it, just close SoundCloud.
Oh but remember most of the sounds there are self made.
http://www.freewaregenius.com/2012/04/22/download-mp3s-from-soundcloud-with-soundcloud-downlo ader/
MP3 Hunter, find free radios and MP3 on the internet, unfortunately it doesn't show the licenses those MP3 are distributed under but hey it is the search engine for MP3's, who cares about Google.
http://www.freewaregenius.com/2012/04/19/download-mp3s-and-find-radio-stations-with-z33k/
And those don't even being to show you how to find things on the internet but most importantly none of those "protections" you speak off even do anything about the huge offline piracy that goes on and that is know to every man, woman and child in the planet.
So the way I see it pirates already won, they are just waiting for the copyright body to drop so they can walk all over it, until that they, piracy will go on strong and anyone can prove it, just by recording something and not going to jail for it, even you can do it and I am absolutely sure you are the type of guy who doesn't even know how to turn on the computer.
If you want go for a stroll on the four pages of articles about how to get shit for free legally and some bordering on the illegal.
http://www.freewaregenius.com/category/social-media/music-sharing/
As for you I have LoL, you are so clueless and desperate that you don't even took the time to look around to see how things have changed.
At the pace you people are going, trying to plug one hole at a time, you may get some success in a 100 years or so or be completely obliterated by the pace of innovation.
Google is yesterdays news, Megaupload is yesterdays news, P2P is yesterdays news, todays news are free legal alternatives in every corner of the earth for music and TV shows, movies are starting to sprung up from nothing all over the place, search apps tied to databases all over the world are todays news, anonymous distributed systems are the current news, offline piracy that is done in the F2F way is the news and it is undetectable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Direct downloading is not seen by Hadopi.
Yes torrent downloads are down but direct download is up.
Basically Hadopi has only made people shift from one way of downloading to another.
Great success indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another classic closing sentence
I know they stutter and backtrack when they speak, but they really need to either hire or fire an editor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick Perry was a failure, I think people stopped talking about him a couple of days after he dropped out of the primaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless people speak up and point out the huge logic fail they seem to be trumping, politicians, who tend to be rather clueless(if past and current actions are anything to go by) are likely to believe them when they try and claim a victory here, and if they can get politicians to believe it worked once, they are much more likely to be willing to pass even more insane laws in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Insane troll logic strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ahh, I think I see the problem. You actually believe that this site is advocating piracy and that the objections to these alws are that they might reduce it.
That's not so. These laws can (and, I submit, will) utterly and completely fail to stem piracy and yet still have all of the adverse effects that cause us so much concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hadopi is still in place, with all the negative consequences, and absolutely zero evidence of it achieving it's stated goals. So explain again why we'd stop discussing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why waste so much energy discussing something that is a complete failure (according to Techdirt) and affects pirates not one jot?
And why get so angry about it if you have overwhelmingly proved it's lame duck status?
I mean if it's still important lets have a heated debate about 'cash for clunkers'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know for a fact that piracy goes on unabashed, I know I can still copy anything I want, I know you can't stop me or anybody and I know I have been doing it for more than 40 years now and you dingbat crazy person was never able to do anything about it and will not be able to.
So I just have fun teasing you about it, because I want something in return, I want you to go out there and enact all the silly laws you are able to, don't let me down.
HADOPI clearly is a failure you need more laws, legislate don't innovate stupid, go and do more laws, you need them or else you won't be able to stop me from ripping you off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course as with any group fighting a law "designed to stop a crime" anyone who speaks against it is accused of doing whatever it is the law is "designed for."
"We, as a society, would be better off legalizing pot." "Pothead!"
"Women should have the right to choose."
"Fetus killer!"
"We should stop passing vague laws that have tons of collateral effects and rely on corporate reporting instead of judicial review."
"Filthy Pirate!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hadopi is still in place, with all the negative consequences, and absolutely zero evidence of it achieving it's stated goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
HADOPI is in place, the first three strikes people have only recently be referred to the judicial branch, and there are few negative consequences to speak of. While the jury is still out on reaching it's "stated goals", you clearly don't judge something intended to change public morals on a subject in a very short amount of time.
It took a decade for Piracy to severely damage the music industry. Why the heck do you think it would reverse in only a couple of months?
Don't fall for Mike's line of crap on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because if it took that long for the damage to get there, you've had more than enough time to wipe it out. Or are you claiming that Mitch Bainwol didn't deserve that $150 million dollar bonus and the industry isn't damaaged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because after this short time the industry already claims it's working. Don't fall for their line of crap on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It took a decade for Weather to severely damage the main road.
Weather is EVIL! Actually weather means theft. So... lovely theft we're having today!
/arrogance is worse than stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idea for a business
Step 2. Run a media campaign that calls people who like my product criminals.
Step 3. Spend profits on politicians and court cases against potential customers, scaring them and generally making their lives worse.
Step 4. Spy on my potential customers and send them notices so they definitely know they are being spied on.
Step 5. Wonder why people don't like me and would prefer not to buy my products.
Step 6. ????
Step 7. PROFIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idea for a business
Obviously! Du-uh! Fancy not knowing that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idea for a business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 things the movie strudios don't want you to know
http://www.filmschoolrejects.c...
The section dealing with Return of the Jedi was very interesting!
The less things change the more they stay the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 6 things the movie strudios don't want you to know
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-things-the-film-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-a bout.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact is, you are the one doing the trampling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also choose for you to bend over so I can choose to kick your boys while they dangle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right now, I think there's a lot more of us who are concerned about the abuses of the law than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The course of their actions?
They can do whatever they want, if people want to fallow them that is their prerogative, but if you are talking about some mythical power to legislate respect you be surely sad at the end of the day.
You can't force people to do what they don't want to do, even more so when you are the minority, forcing others to do something only works when you got the majority of people on your side and only have a small percentage of the population against it, trying to force a big honking majority to do anything is futile, even more so when you don't even have the power to do so, you can pass laws, now lets see if you can enforce them without the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QtFh7bEVNUEC&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=studios+ reducing+royalties&source=bl&ots=UilVYKts_I&sig=JYmOlNw6FxKagnjQqAuddaLdMc8&hl=en&am p;sa=X&ei=O2qXT4vzKaOj2QWP4cjtDQ&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=studios%20reducing%20royalt ies&f=false
I like the excerpt - "The studios will insist on reducing your royalty if you produce and then have another prducer rework your cuts."
The studios really look out for the little guys, don't they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fact is, you are the one who doens't know which poster is infringing. And yes, assuming everyone does just because they reject Hadopi makes you look like a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://sourceforge.net/projects/alliancep2p/?source=recommended
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but that's what you do everyday!
funny thing is that is exactly what the CCIA did with the sky is rising and yet you endorsed that faulty logic when you wanted to spin things for yourself, so I'd say, their just pulling a page from your book!
see, they are learning to adapt and evolve by using your own twisted logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you're joining him. darryl, isn't it time to get over Australia vindicating iiNet and how most people in Australia aren't like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1989240
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
travesti
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im missing something
Ok RIAA, you have your proof. Please show me the increase in jobs now. The death of piracy was supposed to immediately impact the job sector positively. France should have experienced a spike in its economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
It was "LE FAILURE" !
or if you want to use proper french :
UN ECHEC ! :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HADOPI is a success because it has yet to be a similarly notorious resounding failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
arguing with blinders on
But it is the same on this site. The article and several comments have mentioned the academic article (by the Wellesley and Carnegie Mellon economists) and yet then made comments that fly in the face of the data.
For example, several people have said that although digital sales are up in France, they are also up in other countries despite the lack of Hadopi, citing this as proof that Hadopi is ineffective. The academic study showed that France's digital sales moved the same as a set of 5 other European countries before Hadopi. After Hadopi, yes, the other European countries' sales were up, but France's were up by a lot more.
A few people keep pointing to the argument (from Le Monde) that new iphone models released in France may have caused this. Again, the academic study *specifically* addresses this in an appendix and shows with very clear data that it is unlikely to be the explanation.
I'm not arguing that that one study by itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hadopi is effective. But I find Mike and his clones on this site to be just as blind to the other side as they claim the RIAA and MPAA are, and often more flagrantly so. If you're going to discredit a study by some respected academic researchers, at least understand what the study says so that you can point out true chinks in the arguments and not simply make up fallacies for your readers to swallow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: arguing with blinders on
Hmmm... you almost sounded reasonable and unbiased yourself until that last paragraph. Perhaps if someone in support of these kinds of actions could actually explain why they are the best actions to take and provide reasonable proof that it doesn't people wouldn't agree with each other in opposition to them?
"After Hadopi, yes, the other European countries' sales were up, but France's were up by a lot more. "
That's a correlation, nothing more. Yes, Hadopi may have cause the rise in sales, but there are many other possible explanations. I can't make a specific claim myself, since I don't have all the data. But, for example, were there some popular French language products that were big hit during the time of the study (these would explain high French sales, but they often don't travel well outside of France)? Were their other retail efforts that coincided with the iPhone data already addressed? Was it the growing acceptance of legal MP3 services like Amazon (only in France since June 10th 2009) or Spotify (only available without invitation since 2010)?
To pretend that this difference has to be *just* due to Hadopi is one of the major problems I have with the supporters of the bill and those like it. To my mind, there are a huge number of problems with the bill, not least that it certainly won't stop piracy. Pirates who wish to keep doing so can find ways to do it, including by implicating innocent people, and the penalties for not obeying that law are disproportionate to its likely and intended effects.
Sorry, but I need proof over and above "sales in France appear to have gone up more quickly than in other countries, although sales rose there as well". Perhaps is people who agree with this bill can stop the name-calling, misdirection, demonisation of their opponents and provide both proof and a willingness to debate said proof, you will get more support here. But someone has to provide this data and attitude first...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: arguing with blinders on
Noting a rise in sales in France would be a correlation. Noting that France trended the same as the other countries for 52 weeks and then in the very week that awareness of Hadopi peaked, French sales rose by a greater amount than the other countries (after not having done so for 52 weeks) is still a correlation but makes a stronger argument for causality. Noting that the increase in france above the other countries (which is timed just as Hadopi peaked in awareness and no other time) was largest for high piracy genres and smallest for low piracy genres again points even more strongly at causality.
All data show correlations and few studies *ever* can definitively show causation, but clearly the paper has informative evidence. Whether you believe Hadopi is the most logical explanation for what is observed (or not) is up to you. The question is how reasonable are the alternative explanations? Since the increase in French sales above the other countries seems to occur *right* at peak awareness of hadopi and then simply persists (with no other increases), your alternative explanation would have to be something that increased sales in France more than other countries but ONLY during that exact month of peak awareness. Not impossible, but very coincidental. And that something would have to increase sales of high piracy genres more and low piracy genres less. And that something can't be iphones, according to the data in the appendix of the study.
I read the entire academic study and the authors do note that there are possible alternative (and highly coincidental) explanations for the increase, but they argue that the most reasonable interpretation for all of their findings is that Hadopi converted some pirates into iTunes consumers.
Is this 100% convincing? No (but how often is a study 100% definitive?). Is it very informative? Yes. Does this tell us if Hadopi is worth it? Nope.
I appreciate the type of discussion you bring to this board PaulT. Quite different from the way that Mike (or the RIAA) writes. I guess my point is that I just see Mike and the RIAA as opposite sides of the same coin, and I prefer to see reasoned discourse like your last comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]