[PeeWeeGee]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

prove that it's not - let's see your numbers - maybe you missed this:

even if music sales had plateaued in the last decade we could have seen an argument for net zero change and there would 50% more revenue today than there is - in the argument of :

- piracy is promotion (more exposure for artists)

- album to song conversion (selling more items at lower cost)

- limited physical retail vs unlimited digital retail (selling via massively and unprecedentedly greater distribution capabilities)

however that is not the case- the numbers are contrary due to the facts:

you are intentionally bringing intellectual dishonesty to the conversation in an attempt to subvert the facts.

these are the facts:

- music sales began a rapid decline at the introduction of file-sharing


- after ten years of unchecked filesharing music sales have reduced 50%
Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010

- 1% of torrent content is non-infringing
Survey: Only 1% of Torrents non-infringing • The Register

- 95% of all digitally distributed music is illegal
95% of music downloads are illegal | Music | guardian.co.uk

we'll see what happens when the cat comes to play with the mouse. up till now this issue has been one sided, all mouse and no cat.

I understand that people are upset that their free music and media is going away and that there will be real consequences if they are caught.

But it's happening, and all the intellectual dishonesty you can muster is not going stop the avalanche of copyright battles just getting started.

there will be set backs and false starts, no doubt - but the sleeping giants of content (music, film, software, books, publishing, tv, etc) have finally awoken to the seriousness of the threat and are now taking steps to correct the problem.

see here:

Biden's Briefing: Media, Anti-Piracy 'Big Dogs' Convene...

Verizon ends service of alleged illegal downloaders | Digital Media - CNET News

Report: Three-Strikes On ACTA Agenda

You make several good points. But you're simply ignoring some fundamental aspects of the conversation.

• You cannot address REVENUE without addressing COSTS and PROFIT. Peroid! Those are numbers that any objective businessman would ask for. The industry is certainly taking a hit. (Please stop re-stating the obvious.) The real questions are WHO is losing the most and by exactly HOW MUCH?
• Arguing that an industry is "trying" to innovate and deliver new distribution mechanisms is silly. It is not the role of the thief to stop stealing. That responsibility rests with the product owner. (There is no contest here, guys. I work in an industry which is really one of the underlying 'accomplices' to online theft. I've seen REMARKABLE advances in technologies that COMPLETELY secure digital data. The RIAA doesn't want to pay the licensing monies and the consumer WILL initially reject it. But that is the case with any protection scheme.... iLok anyone?!)
• You cannot wholly blame the consumer for their devaluation of music. The RIAA has done a pretty good job of watering down the product themselves. (This is a time to get honest and admit that there are signed acts that would have NEVER been considered if the COSTS of mass-marketing them were still the same. The forecasted return on investment (ROI) would have been too low.)

Either way, when you factor in the losses of the SAG with those of the RIAA, you're probably in the area of $2B/year due to online piracy. With numbers like those, I pretty well guarantee we'll see some very innovative protection schema be introduced in the near future. (Do a little reading about mobile "long term evolution" and you can start to see a different landscape evolving.)

My point continues to be the fact that we're see only seeing the side of the picture that they WANT us to see. (And some of us are screaming that the sky is falling because of it.) I made ~$65K profit last year as a SECONDARY income through music in a limited market. If you're not doing at least as well, there is something wrong with your approach.