Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzpunk  Interesting post DM but that is the exact type of 'example' that pisses me off to no end!
Spin it anyway you want but there is no good argument as to why P2P's should be allowed as conduits for obtaining copywritten material that is intended for purchase. P2P services that feature bands who willfully allow their material to be distibuted? I'm all for it. |
I want to make clear that I am citing these
not as a justification for illegal downloading, but to illustrate the idea that there is a business model that can use P2P (or neutralize it as a threat) and
legal downloads. The success of iTunes shows part of the way, the success of indie bands also shows part of the way. I just think these can't be ignored, as technology progresses.
Indeed, I state that if the RIAA wanted to actually stop downloading, it is strange that they do not go after the P2Ps. I'm not defending the P2Ps as all, nor the downloaders. But the hue and cry about downloading is blown out of proportion, and
the labels are misusing the data. This is clear, and is what I wanted to represent with that selection of articles.
My argument is that the RIAA and labels would be
better served to find a way to maximize revenue in a way that
included P2P or downloading, rather than to go after college kids at $3k a pop. I'm not justifying the downloaders, nor the P2P as everyone seems to think (and I keep repeating). I'm just saying that there are paradigms within the blanket of "illegal downloaders" that can be turned into an advantage, rather than this quixotic crusade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no ssl yet This is bullshit. If I download an album and decide I like it, I have no reason to buy it. I have it already!  It hasnt effected the movie industry yet because their content takes up more space and more download time. As technology becomes faster, it will effect them more. |
That may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone. In the 80's, tape sharing was a major factor in the success of bands like Metallica, Mega
, Exodus and even the NWOBHM bands like Diamondhead and Motorhead. There are people who download songs by artists and then in turn decide to support said artist. People like to own stuff, and hold stuff, and labels have gotten good about finding ways to entice people to get the real deal - bonus DVDs, website codes, etc. I would agree that with movies it's a little different because music is a more repeateable experience (how many times can you watch "Harold and Kumar"?), but the point of the article is financial in nature. Again, my point is NOT to defend illegal downloading, but to add the caveat that the loss in revenue is NOT the "sky is falling" scenario that these companies present. I think that the view that "all downloaders are stealing and will never purchase anything or contribute to the income cycle" is not true, and I present these articles really just to illustrate that I am not alone in thinking that. It's not that I'm screaming that I'm right, it's that I'm taking a lot of heat for opinions I'm not stating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmiguel er, um, "research"? These are second rate reporters with little if any inside knowledge of the industry. Even if they did, they need a spin that sells and they need to do it everyday. You should be careful who you listen to and who is writing what you read and why you should believe them or not. Have you ever read an article in a major newspaper where you were a core insider and see how utterly wrong they got it? I have more than a couple times.
These people are at *best* fishing and suscepitble to people telling them what is in their best interest to have printed. Many, if not most, get it wrong and most of the time they need a better angle anyways because the truth isn't interesting and won't sell. At *worst* the are lazy and just want to spin convenient facts out of context into some kind of story.
But these are things your father should have taught you, i'm not gonna preach anymore.
I dunno what the last one is about movies, they are more physically insualted on fileshare networks due to their size, amongst a million other different dynamics going on.
Anyway, i'm cloging this thread so i'll step aside. |
You called into question my opinion as being worthless, I just wanted to show that there is material out there that at least validates my HAVING this opinion, even if you disagree. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I've actually got reasons for believing what I do. Really not arguing anything other than that there is a disconnect between the label's claim of "CD sales are down" and Wall Street's claim that "music revenue is up", and that somewhere in between the RIAA and labels can use this knowledge to their advantage rather than clinging to the old paradigm and fighting a fruitless, pointless battle against kids.
So feel free to tell me why you disagree, instead of trying to demean my argument by demeaning me.