Those words are not my own, that is the reason pirates have given to justify why they download music.
so now you're saying they are doing it to punishing record labels, but in another post you're saying there's no proof it's hurting anyone?
which lie is it you want to tell? that people are trying to hurt labels by depriving them income from recorded music sales, or that piracy isn't actually hurting record labels income? hmmmmm....
the paradox of the apologist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Same thing about me making beats and pitching them to artists. Didn't get picked because the artists have their choice of thousands of producers to choose from and my beats weren't hot enough. How is that any different than the Music Industry pitching an artist's songs to a market in hopes of finding paying customers? If people listen to that artists music, but doesn't ever listen to the artist again how is that a pirates fault?
not sure what point you are making... is the "music sucks" argument, or the "hobbyists rule" argument?
funny thing is, the most pirated music is the most popular music, why do you think that is? is it because people don't like the music they're stealing? seriously? c'mon...
I don't think Jay-Z has the same issues you do, LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
If I said anything of importance or produced anything of importance that caught the attention of someone that could put me a position to make money with them they could easily send me a private message and I would be glad to give out my contact information.
of course you would... but that probably hasn't happened, and probably isn't going to either. you might do well to take that chip off your shoulder, you might actually learn something and have a better go of it. maybe ask for advice from people who DO have some professional experience...
I mean, you're the guy who has quit making beats, given up on being on being a writer, and is selling off your gear, right? this is your post, right? Cuz I don't want to be accused of making any assumptions...
so again, there's an old saying... sour grapes make for bitter wine...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Personally, I like having a non official screen name because it allows me to feel like I'm not having to represent my company or myself with every post.
but your email is publicly available in your GS contact info V-Card which is the same as the studio name and soundcloud account...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
It might be important to you all to be known as the shit of Gearslutz, but for me it's a place for me to cut loose, shoot the shit, and learn some new shit I didn't know before, and give back a little knowledge that I have acquired along my journey.
It's a fluff piece on how the old business model works. Which 50 percent of the earnings go right out the door to the distributors and Promo people. It also says how the artist gets $23 and some change to every $1000 dollars an album makes.
So you skimmed the article and didn't bother reading the thread.
Thought so.
Go back and read it - ALL OF IT. That means the thread, too.
Quote:
Yea.... saying the artist is getting the short end of the stick is being nice about it. Especially in 2011 with bandwidth being as cheap as it is. There is no reason to be spending 25% on distribution. I doubt there was reason to even give 25% to the distribution company to begin with. Well unless a major label owns the distribution company too...
And your experience with distributing and promoting a record is....?
Quote:
I'm not anti-musician or anti-industry.
You certainly act like you are.
Quote:
It's just I've come to accept the reality of the situation. When an industry shrinks so do the employees of the industry. That is an economic law that will never change that is not industry dependent.
You're suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
So I guess really what your saying is because I refuse to answer questions about my personal life I'm anti-musician and anti-industry?
No, because you defend and promote anti-industry, anti-musician views you are anti industry and anti-musicians.
Quote:
I have looked
No, you have not. We point you at evidence and you refuse to look at it. You tell us you don't need it.Then you claim you've looked? How stupid do you think we are?
Quote:
and all the independent studies have all concluded the same thing.
But why am I bothering? You won't read the threads, anyway.....
Quote:
How am I promoting a position by simply asking for hard evidence to back up your claims that piracy is hurting record sales?
Your persisting in spouting pro-pirate propaganda while refusing to consider - or even view - any evidence to the contrary is pretty stongt evidence4 of the position you promote.
Quote:
Really?? I'm just a propagandist now? I fail to see where I have posted propaganda supporting the position of the pirate. It seems to me some people are just having trouble with the facts.
That's because you've got your head so far up the pro-pirate contingent's rear end that you can't see anything else AS DEMONSTRATED BY YOUR REPEATED REFUSAL TO VIEW ANY OF THE MATERIAL WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU, or read anything in the forum that you're not a featured participant in.
Quote:
I haven't ever once said, in this thread, supporting either side.
Your arguments and position speak for you. Do you have to pin a big sign that says "HORSE" on a horse to know it's a horse?
Quote:
It's good to know asking hard questions along with providing data to back it up is considered propaganda now.
You haven't done that.
NOT A SINGLE THING you've posted hasn't been said here before and examined at great depth.
All you've done is regurgitate propaganda that has been thoroughly discredited to the point that even our resident piracy apologists don't want to touch it anymore.
YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ WHAT WE'VE REFERRED YOU TO, or even bothered to read even a small percentage of the forum.
Quote:
(huge amount of nonsense and insulting garbage redacted)
What have any of you guys done that deserves the respect from me to give you my real name?
Well, you can start with the fact that Chris and I (and some of the others in the forum - of various viewpoints - such as Don Hills, Bob Ohlsson, and Terry Hart) post under our real names. We don't have anything to hide or be ashamed of.
Oh, and my avatar is my real picture. If you don't believe me, ask Jules.
So tell me, sonny boy, who are YOU?
__________________
All opinions expressed in my posts are solely my own: I do not represent any other forums (of which I may or may not be a member), groups, or individuals although at times my views may resemble those of other entities.
******************************************
Inside every old man is a young man wondering WTF happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
Or maybe people don't have the time to illegally download music and movies because they are working and taking care of the kids? Maybe because finding that song or movie that the kids have been screaming in there parents ear for isn't so easy to find by downloading illegally? I don't know just more questions that need answeres.
So they go out and spend the time and effort to track down an illegal bootleg when they can simply buy a legit copy in a store?
Quote:
This is what you don't get. I have looked at all of it and neither side of it makes sense. You got one side bitching about how album sales have plummeted yet millions of singles are being sold and in some cases millions of albums are being sold too.
Case and point Lady Gaga.
It doesn't make sense to you because you have never been in a position to understand anything about it.
I've heard the stuff you posted, "10stackz" and I can asses pretty well what your position is in all this. You're a young guy and you bought into the much publicized notion that now in this "modern era" anybody can be a music star if they just buy a few hundred bucks worth of recording gear from Banjo Center and obtain copies of a few well known software packages. You come up with a few "beatz" and do some "rapz" and that's all there is to it. Anyone can be a star. Right? Then you actually tried it, you got some stuff you thought was OK, but nobody was buying. You tried real hard for a year or so but it wasn't working so you thought you'd try "ghost writing" and "selling beatz". You tried that for a year and went nowhere, fast. So you gave up. You turned your back on the whole idea and started hating on the industry and anybody with an established career because you couldn't get it - WITH NO SERIOUS EFFORT EXPENDED. You think it's easy if you just buy the right toys? Sorry, junior, that ain't where it's at. YOU DON'T GET ANYWHERE WITHOUT PAYING YOUR DUES, in any business. That's not the way life works. You're jealous of Gaga because she's a bit "overnight" success? You think she had it easy? Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta started working on her career WHEN SHE WAS SIX YEARS OLD! She started working on her imaging in junior high school. She's had her eye on the ball practically her entire life.
I've been in music for about 45 years now, from the time I started my first band (of course I had been playing for a few years before that). During that time I've done a variety of things on both the artistic and technical sides. Nothing comes easy. The reason that it looks so easy is because the people doing it have done it so long and so intensively that they can do it in their sleep.
I listened to the songs you posted and I have something to say to you. after which I will suggest that you think about three options. I hope that you will take it in the spirit in which it is meant, which is simply honesty. I have no desire to be gratuitously hurtful or mean here. You can believe that or not as you choose.
The reason you did not succeed in your brief attempt at the biz was that you had nothing to offer. It wasn't bad mixing or bad gear. It's just that you had nothing out of the ordinary to recommend yourself. It wasn't even notably bad. It just wasn't noteworthy. This is not surprising considering the rather small amount of time and effort you put into it.
The option I would have you consider are as follows -
A) You can continue just as you are, resenting what you don't understand, acting like a troll, aqnd generally being just another disgruntled wannabe making excuses for his bad behavior and taking pokes at those whith more talent and dedication than himself. This is the easy way.
B) Just walk away - you can write it off as an interesting life experiment that didn't work for you or demanded more than you were willing to give and walk away. You're still young enough to find something suited to you that you enjoy - it may not be as "glamorous" (Let me give you a tip - glamour ain't what it looks like from the inside), but you can have a good life and be happy. This is the sensible way and what most sensible people would recommend that you do. This is a far more honorable path than (A).
C) Or if you're pigheaded crazy (like me and most of my friends) you can say "What the F*CK DOES THIS CRAZY OLD MAN KNOW ABOUT ME - I'LL SHOW HIM!!!!" and quitchur bitchin' and get your ass back to work. Quit sniping at the industry because that's cutting your own throat. If you want to be an artist, the industry is your friend*. The tech companies just want to steal our work and use it as a loss leader to sell services. That's the agenda of your buddies at WIRED magazine. If you do that and you work obsessively hard and don't give up no matter what maybe you'll make something of yourself. I hope so. And at that point you'll understand what we've been trying to tell you. BUT IT WON'T BE EASY - Music is the hardest profession to be in of any in the world, harder even than professional sports because there are no benefits packages. But if you really want it you won't let anything get in your way except possibly death itself. And if you don't want it that bad you'd be well advised to take a long, hard look at option (B).
Quote:
Because there is no evidence, all you have done is produced your opinion on a subject that you think you are an expert in and because you THINK your an expert we should all just take your word for it and call it a day and change the whole fabric of the internet based upon it.
My, aren't we arrogant. You talk about "the internet" as if it's set in stone or something when in reality it's been in a constant state of flux since its inception. I'm going to post this again, perhaps you'll watch it this time although at 45 minutes it's rather long for your attention span. (That's a challenge kid, can you man up?) FYI, the speaker, Jaron Lanier has been one of the guiding lights of the internet and the cyber revolution for at least 2 decades and is recognized as one of the inventors of virtual reality, among other things. He was one of the founders of many of the concepts you seem to favor (and has been a featured writer in WIRED numerous times) before relizing that many of the ideas that had appeared so promising at first were not working at all as planned.
You really owe it to yourself to watch this. Afterwards you may also want to read his excellent bestselling book, also entitled "You Are Not A Gadget" in which he examines these concepts in greater depth.
* - That's not to say that everyone you'll meet in the industry will be your friend, obviously. There are sharks in every business - which is why you need people in the biz you can trust to tell you the truth and a good, reputable, music lawyer.
Also there is a big difference between someone downloading your song and someone lifting a riff or melody from one of your songs and it selling a million + copies. There are millions of people that have copyright that don't have the means to enforce their copyright.
That's not actually piracy, it's plagiarism, which is a different issue, although also copyright related.
Generally riffs are not covered under copyright. Unique melodies are. What exactly the distinction is (and what "unique" means) can be nebulous and is generally decided on a case by case basis in the courts.
If you're really interested in the subject, here's a great place to start.
Can you point out where the article is wrong? Other than just calling it a propaganda piece?
Wrong? Not exactly. Biased. Written cleverly in a way to support a given agenda.
OMITTING KEY FACTS. Actually, omitting nearly all the facts, then sprucing things up a bit with propaganda quotations that have essentially nothing to do with what the article purports to be about. Doing this in a way so as to make the reality of the situation appear to be other than what it actually is in support of an agenda. Specifically, phrasing the article in such a way as to make it seem as if one lone pro-piracy senator had been able to kill the bill when in reality all he's done is force one additional vote of hearing it before the Senate, hardly a difficult or even particularly noteworthy hurdle. Certainly nothing that's going to block passage.
This is not news reporting. This is propagandizing.
Answer this question yes or no : Have you stopped beating your wife?
Sometimes it's not what you say that's important, it's what you don't say.
I can't personally count the number of times I've seen you and rack and eppstein do the same thing...
Bickering.
Quote:
You and your "discredited" studies (aka ones you don't like, discredited by you), your "facts" that aren't...
The last time we had this conversation I believe you had to change your tune after Terry chimed in.
Yeah, these are the same research papers being used to back up the GAO report Doc Vigilanti linked to. The studies we've been over dozens of times and you finally admitted were probably not that up to date or reflective of the true situation. But now you're saying it's only me that finds them dubious?
There's been a handful of studies looking at far more restricted data sets since then, with the consensus being that piracy has a significant negative effect on sales. The exceptions, like the Olberholzer-Gee study (since recanted by the author) have used questionable methods.
Oh I forgot, you recently said Terry had 'an angle'.
I quoted it directly above.
One of the studies used questionable methods according to Terry and the authors have even recanted it.
But then I'm just being biased, merely not 'liking' certain studies, whereas Terry is 'doing his best to be objective' (according to you).
The same opinion of the survey. Which is biased? Which is wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart
There's been a handful of studies looking at far more restricted data sets since then, with the consensus being that piracy has a significant negative effect on sales. The exceptions, like the Olberholzer-Gee study (since recanted by the author) have used questionable methods.
Same thing about me making beats and pitching them to artists. Didn't get picked because the artists have their choice of thousands of producers to choose from and my beats weren't hot enough. How is that any different than the Music Industry pitching an artist's songs to a market in hopes of finding paying customers? If people listen to that artists music, but doesn't ever listen to the artist again how is that a pirates fault?
AHEM! Please excuse the digression, guys, but let's get something straight here.
[rant]
You are NOT a producer, never have been and they way you're headed never will be.
George Martin, Tony Visconti, Sandy Pearlman and DR Dre are producers.
You are a guy who spent a year or two sitting in his bedroom "making beatz". Even by the degraded standards of the hip-hop genre the difference between you and an actual producer is like the difference between a rowboat and the Queen Mary.
And the simple fact that you don't understand this is just another indication of how utterly clueless you are about the music industry.
Dude.
I listed two, both of which are repeated. So that's four of the six studies quoted!
And you've patently dodged the fact you strongly criticised me for being biased, then praised Terry for being objective, without presumably realising we said exactly the same thing about the same survey.
Desperate to paint me negatively or what?????
Here's direct links Terry posted to discredited research..... that would interest you if you were genuine.
Dismiss the one you call "questionable" and it doesn't change the conclusion.
Four of six, but then you'd know that if you were reading my posts and looking at the evidence objectively instead of blindly posting negatives about me.
Quote:
Oberholzer-Gee/Strumpf have a newer paper (I refer to the May 15, 2009 Working Paper titled “File-sharing and Copyright”) that is basically an overview of the literature on file-sharing. This paper has one of the same attributes of their earlier paper: the use of misleading factual allegations unsupported by any references. Additionally, this paper mischaracterizations of the work of other researchers with the mischaracterizations being used to support the conclusions that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf would like to be true.
The most important error by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf, however, is in their survey of the literature.......
Quote:
This week, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council released a report on The True Price of Peer to Peer File-Sharing. The report re-examined Don’t blame the P2P file-sharers: the impact of free music downloads on the purchase of music CDs in Canada, a 2007 report that cast doubts on the link between online piracy and music sales.
Using the same data from the 2007 report, analyst Dr. George Barker found the original conclusions to be incorrect.
While it’s significant that a closer analysis of the original data reveals entirely different conclusions, this isn’t the first time the conclusions of the original report have been challenged. Noted economist Stan Liebowitz examined the original report’s conclusions when it first came out and found them “not only implausible” but actually “impossible to be true.”
Other studies independently confirm that reducing online piracy leads to increased sales.1 Taking a broader perspective, one economic study of stock prices found that “current and past efforts by the media industry to check illegal file-sharing over P2P networks through stricter copyright laws and lawsuits against violators have a significant positive impact on expected long-term profitability and economic viability of major media firms.2
The conclusions of the CIPC report — “people buy things they like unless they can get them for free — seem obvious enough not to need studying in the first place. But despite study after study and piles of evidence that show the harmful effects of online piracy, there are those who continue to insist that piracy is not a problem.
LOL... poor Chris, with the persecution complex. Cute.
Just pointing out your way of posting.
I'm biased and dislike certain studies. Terry is trying hard to be objective and agrees with me that the studies in question are dubious.
Whichever way you look at it you seem to be making a lot of embarrassing contradictions, seemingly based on a dislike for me alone.
Read my quotes from the research above.
Yes, because someone else has an opinion that you agree with. You are looking for evidence that supports your assumption, and it is certainly out there.
So I can quote you word for word back at Terry then?
Who is supposedly objective in your own words.
The Oberholzer-Strumpf study was recanted by the authors, which has absolutely nothing to do with my bias, or my wishing to agree with one opinion over another.
keep digging.
Your knee already jerked before you even knew anything about the studies. You had already "disproven" them because you said they were done by academics and academics were not to be trusted.
Sorry mate, that's absolute BS and you know it.
I took a whole afternoon to go through each survey. I posted specifics on the forum here and listed many different flaws, including the very old, out of date nature of the research, and the small sample sizes. You disputed my opinion every step of the way. Then about a month later Terry came along with a blog on Copyhype also pointing out the many flaws.
You have a veeeery short memory.
But that still doesn't explain why today I'm wrong to criticize the same study Terry criticizes when he is 'trying hard to be objective'.
Is it because I'm basically wrong by just being?
?? Terry didn't issue a retraction that I've seen. Let me know if I've missed it.
Mark, don't be disingenuous. Again. You know EXACTLY what he's talking about. Or perhaps you have early-onset Alzheimer's? (which would explain a lot......)
The point I am making over and over... same point in the year plus I've been hanging out here.. you don't know jack about the breakdown. I don't either. We all really want to know, but the numbers are not at all conclusive.
We know certain research is questionable at best, the study in question was even retracted by it's authors.
When I point that out, it's because I'm 'on my own' in disliking the data. I don't like the 'facts' as you put it. When Terry Hart points out the very same studies are questionable, he's 'trying very hard to be objective' according to you. The only difference between what I've said and what Terry has blogged is ...... me.
uhm... thanks but no thanks... google? seriously? one of the biggest offenders... how about letting the fox guard the henhouse! let me guess that little self serving propaganda piece was cooked up during, oh say, I don't know, the YouTube V Viacom Suit?
You brought it into the debate, presumably because you agree with it, why else?
It's not like we haven't heard all the claims why pirates do what they do.
Again, you could explain your own version, without checking with others.
I didn't ever say I agreed with it. I brought it into the debate because that is what the pirates are saying. I would think if you wanted to know why people are pirating music and movies you'd want to know what they think and why they download movies so you guys can better understand the problem and fix it.
Quote:
So far politicians haven't proven to be the most knowledgeable or well informed on music piracy. At least two of the handful of studies linked to in
the reportage you linked to have been comprehensively debunked. Simple as that.
Okay then how about a report from the Japanese government and their conclusion on Anime piracy. Are you going to "debunk" that too.
Errr, I think you are confused. A more accurate analogy would be pitching 'beats' to artists after which they said "very nice" and used them without paying me. Angry yet?
Seems like standard practice in the Industry. Seems like Standard practice in the real world too. Like you know when the Radio plays a song for the first time or maybe the they see and hear the song for the first time on video on TV. Angry at what?
Quote:
Funny ha, ha, how you turned that around to make it seem like people who used their own name were on an ego trip.
Of course, you answered my question for me, you want to cut loose without anyone knowing exactly who is cutting loose. That's totally fine, just don't expect to be taken more seriously than a dude 'shooting shit'.
You want to know who I am outside of the computer so you can attempt to attack me and not my arguments because your arguments are nothing more than opinion on what you think is the cause of piracy and those opinions don't hold up under intense scrutiny.
Simple, it's an opinion piece. It's someone's opinion, from the perspective of their gig in the tech scene, not the music scene. It isn't completely 'wrong' in black and white terms, it's just slanted to reflect their own bias. It certainly isn't 'news' as you claimed.
Really??
Care to point out where opinion is stated in the whole article??? Here I'll post the whole thing that way everyone can read it without clicking on the link.
Updated: May 26, 2011, 3:04 EDT after Senator Ron Wyden invoked a rarely used Senate hold that bars action on the Protect IP Act.
Antipiracy legislation that would dramatically increase the government’s legal power to disrupt and shutter websites “dedicated to infringing activities” cleared a major legislative hurdle Thursday.
Two weeks after being introduced, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the package to the Senate floor.
But by the late afternoon, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) placed a hold on the Protect IP Act that will keep it from landing on the Senate floor.
“The internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century,” Wyden said in a statement. “It is increasingly in America’s economic interest to ensure that the internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives,” he said.
The Protect IP Act, (.pdf) introduced by 11 senators of all stripes, would grant the government the authority to bring lawsuits against these websites, and obtain court orders requiring search engines like Google to stop displaying links to them.
The proposal, whose main sponsor is Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), is an offshoot to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act introduced last year, which was also held up by Wyden. It was scrapped by its authors in exchange for the Protect IP Act in an attempted bid to win Senate passage.
Under the old COICA draft, the government was authorized to obtain court orders to seize so-called generic top-level domains ending in .com, .org and .net. The new legislation, with the same sponsors, narrows that somewhat.
Instead of allowing for the seizure of domains, it allows the Justice Department to obtain court orders demanding American ISPs stop rendering the DNS for a particular website — meaning the sites would still be accessible outside the United States.
Either way, though, the legislation amounts to the holy grail of intellectual-property enforcement that the recording industry, movie studios and their union and guild workforces have been clamoring for since the George W. Bush administration.
The new bill also gives content owners more rights than the old bill. It would allow rights holders to seek court orders instructing online ad services and credit card companies from partnering with the infringing sites — a power the government is granted in either legislative version.
Only the government gets the DNS-blocking powers. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already grants rights holders the ability to demand search engines to stop displaying search results linking to infringing sites.
Despite the new bill watering down the United States’ reach, the government has been invoking an asset-forfeiture law to seize generic top-level domains of infringing websites under a program called “Operation in Our Sites.” It began last year, and the Department of Homeland Security has targeted 128 sites.
No, it's because you people don't like the source. A source that has already been said by you guys that takes a "pro pirate position". Meaning, "we don't agree with what this media outlets articles because they don't support our position no matter how true or not true the articles they post are.
I didn't ever say I agreed with it. I brought it into the debate because that is what the pirates are saying. I would think if you wanted to know why people are pirating music and movies you'd want to know what they think and why they download movies so you guys can better understand the problem and fix it.
do we ask other thieves why they are stealing? no we don't.
we understand the problem, illegally free WITHOUT consequence.
Add consequences, and the behavior changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Okay then how about a report from the Japanese government and their conclusion on Anime piracy. Are you going to "debunk" that too.
most likely, but unlike you, I'll actually read it and then debunk it, instead of just coming in here with talking points and NOT responding to the opposing point of view - that makes you a Troll and not a participant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Seems like standard practice in the Industry. Seems like Standard practice in the real world too. Like you know when the Radio plays a song for the first time or maybe the they see and hear the song for the first time on video on TV. Angry at what?
can you be more specific, I really have no idea what it is you are saying or what point you are trying to make about Radio and TV in this context. Are you talking about having your beatz stolen? Copyright infringement? I'm sincerely confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
You want to know who I am outside of the computer so you can attempt to attack me and not my arguments because your arguments are nothing more than opinion on what you think is the cause of piracy and those opinions don't hold up under intense scrutiny.
No, 10Stackz it's that opinions are based on perspective. If your perspective is that of a failed beat maker who has closed his studio and is selling his gear you may have a chip on your shoulder about how the evil cruel industry did you wrong cuz you couldn't break in... It also speaks to the perspective that you actually have NO actual real professional record industry experience to inform your opinion... and that's OK, how could you possibly know what real professionals in the record industry experience if you are not one?
Again, it's OK, it just is what it is, and I'm just sorry you gave up. An open mind and a willingness to learn may be more beneficial to you than a bad attitude as an industry hater. It's psychologically difficult to become part of something you loathe...
Care to point out where opinion is stated in the whole article??? Here I'll post the whole thing that way everyone can read it without clicking on the link.
No, it's because you people don't like the source. A source that has already been said by you guys that takes a "pro pirate position". Meaning, "we don't agree with what this media outlets articles because they don't support our position no matter how true or not true the articles they post are.
again - whole thing is OP ED not fact. if you believe every OP ED as fact no wonder you are frustrated and confused. maybe I missed the part where they can predict the future.
only to you. have you ever worked professionally in the recording industry?
Again does working in the Recording Industry make you an expert on Economics, Psychology of the consumer, and Piracy?
Quote:
can't help you there. before rampant online piracy there's three decades of steady growth, after rampant online piracy, the industry is less than HALF it's size in a decade...
Again you have only your opinion to back this up. You have no hard evidence to prove that piracy is the cause of decreased sales. Especially when I have listed two reports by independent Government agencies that show that if anything piracy helps sales.
Quote:
you absolutely have no historical sense of the business at all do you? sure, as a new format many single songs are being sold, but even at that it's a fraction of what would be selling due to the illegally free, consequence free supply as easy to access as a google search. maybe you want to read the other threads on this subject.
You have no proof to backup your arguments do you?
Quote:
how would you know? even with the amazon stunt of 99 cent albums she just topped 1 million albums in her first week, and she will NEVER get close to the kind of numbers artists of her stature achieved in the 90s before rampant online piracy... she will NEVER get close to Alanis Morressette numbers... You simply just do not know what you are talking about, at all. sorry.
Actually this comment right here proves my point. Where is the proof that Lady Gaga should have sold x-amount of albums? This question is rhetorical and I will answer it for you... There is no proof only assumptions based upon what people "think" it should have done. This isn't the 90's and Lady Gaga and Alanis Morressette are two completely different styles of music.
I think you have it the other way around. By your logic every artist that puts an album out should be guaranteed to sell a predetermined amount of albums.
Quote:
you could say the same about running stop signs but it would be foolish and irrational. the data is very clear and very few people would argue that piracy is not the primary cause of declining paid music sales for all the reasons already explained, this is also why there is mounting new legislation. it's coming, bet on it.
although interestingly just earlier in the thread you weren't even arguing this, you were just arguing the cause... now you're moving the goal posts.
sorry you're just being intellectually dishonest and you know it.
What data? And again more assumptions. I'm not moving the goal posts the goal posts are where they have always been. I'm just asking you guys to back up your arguments with facts and figures. It is not my fault that the real world issues don't reflect your preconceived notion that piracy is hurting album sales.
How am I being intellectually dishonest? Because I'm admitting to the fact that I don't know what the cause of declining record sales are and by asking you guys to post where you are getting your information from to back up your arguments because I won't take your word for it.
Yep and all the legislation will be defeated too, unless they append it to another bill that has to pass. I guess the RIAA and MPAA are really lining those politicians coffers for a bill to be brought to the floor twice and have it go nowhere.
Whether or not illegal copies circulating on the internet reduce the sales of legal products has been a hot issue in the entertainment industries. Though much empirical research has been conducted on the music industry, research on the movie industry has been very limited. This paper examines the effects of the movie sharing site Youtube and file sharing program Winny on DVD sales and rentals of Japanese TV animation programs. Estimated equations of 105 anime episodes show that (1) Youtube viewing does not negatively affect DVD rentals, and it appears to help raise DVD sales; and (2) although Winny file sharing negatively affects DVD rentals, it does not affect DVD sales. Youtube’s effect of boosting DVD sales can be seen after the TV's broadcasting of the series has concluded, which suggests that not just a few people learned about the program via a Youtube viewing. In other words YouTube can be interpreted as a promotion tool for DVD sales.
It actually states the file sharing reduces revenue from rentals...
and this is about people posting youtube clips of broadcast TV which is very different from music in that it is long form content and YouTube is only capable of short form content, and further more, it's also no longer possible (or should not be) through content ID and new fingerprinting - this is exactly the situation that got YouTube/Google into a $1 Billion Lawsuit with Viacom.
[QUOTE=rack gear;6714286]do we ask other thieves why they are stealing? no we don't.
we understand the problem, illegally free WITHOUT consequence.
Add consequences, and the behavior changes. [/qutoe]
And again, more assumptions. No matter what you say this problem is completely different than someone lifting a CD from a record store.
There are consequences, but first you have to understand that downloading an Mp3 is hardly means to put someone in jail.
Quote:
most likely, but unlike you, I'll actually read it and then debunk it, instead of just coming in here with talking points and NOT responding to the opposing point of view - that makes you a Troll and not a participant.
Okay, so how can you debunk something that has come to the conclusion that the effects of piracy on an industry cannot be determined?
I'm patiently awaiting your answer to this one.
Quote:
can you be more specific, I really have no idea what it is you are saying or what point you are trying to make about Radio and TV in this context. Are you talking about having your beatz stolen? Copyright infringement? I'm sincerely confused.
Record company releases song to Radio stations and makes a video for it. People listen to the song and say, "eh good song, but not worth buying... next!" How is that any different an artist listening to a beat and saying "next!"?
By your logic and arguments that artist should pay for the beat the he listened too.
Quote:
No, 10Stackz it's that opinions are based on perspective. If your perspective is that of a failed beat maker who has closed his studio and is selling his gear you may have a chip on your shoulder about how the evil cruel industry did you wrong cuz you couldn't break in... It also speaks to the perspective that you actually have NO actual real professional record industry experience to inform your opinion... and that's OK, how could you possibly know what real professionals in the record industry experience if you are not one?
Again, it's OK, it just is what it is, and I'm just sorry you gave up. An open mind and a willingness to learn may be more beneficial to you than a bad attitude as an industry hater. It's psychologically difficult to become part of something you loathe...
And just Like I said you want to know who I am so you can attack my character because your arguments have no merit.
You have failed to post anything of value that backs up your position. You have failed to post anything other than your opinion to refute what I have posted and listed as more sources.
The only issue here is that your arguments have no merit and are unable to be prove your position with facts.
It actually states the file sharing reduces revenue from rentals...
and this is about people posting youtube clips of broadcast TV which is very different from music in that it is long form content and YouTube is only capable of short form content, and further more, it's also no longer possible (or should not be) through content ID and new fingerprinting - this is exactly the situation that got YouTube/Google into a $1 Billion Lawsuit with Viacom.
sorry.
How about posting the whole abstract?? and bolding the part that comes after the comma that you so happened to stop quoting at.
Quote:
Whether or not illegal copies circulating on the internet reduce the sales of legal products has been a hot issue in the entertainment industries. Though much empirical research has been conducted on the music industry, research on the movie industry has been very limited. This paper examines the effects of the movie sharing site Youtube and file sharing program Winny on DVD sales and rentals of Japanese TV animation programs. Estimated equations of 105 anime episodes show that (1) Youtube viewing does not negatively affect DVD rentals, and it appears to help raise DVD sales; and (2) although Winny file sharing negatively affects DVD rentals, it does not affect DVD sales. Youtube’s effect of boosting DVD sales can be seen after the TV's broadcasting of the series has concluded, which suggests that not just a few people learned about the program via a Youtube viewing. In other words YouTube can be interpreted as a promotion tool for DVD sales.
After all, the whole argument is about how sales are losing right? Well the very next line after what you quoted blows your whole argument out the water.
Again does working in the Recording Industry make you an expert on Economics, Psychology of the consumer, and Piracy?
In that industry, yes, it make you knowledgeable about the dynamics of that industry and it's consumers - especially after 25 years of experience.
so now you are arguing against experience? how's that work with lawyers, doctors, pilots and car mechanics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Again you have only your opinion to back this up. You have no hard evidence to prove that piracy is the cause of decreased sales. Especially when I have listed two reports by independent Government agencies that show that if anything piracy helps sales.
if piracy was helping sales we wouldn't be having this conversation. but you tell me, what is the cause if not piracy? I want you to tell me what YOU think it is... let's see what YOU really think. Let's have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
You have no proof to backup your arguments do you?
try that in court... it hasn't worked for thomas or tennebaum... court is where proof is tested, right?
so uh.... have you heard of napster, limewire and grockster...? are they still in business? seems to me the US Government and the Legal System have shut those sites down... is that because they were HELPING sales?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Actually this comment right here proves my point. Where is the proof that Lady Gaga should have sold x-amount of albums? This question is rhetorical and I will answer it for you... There is no proof only assumptions based upon what people "think" it should have done. This isn't the 90's and Lady Gaga and Alanis Morressette are two completely different styles of music.
again I can understand how someone with no professional experience would think that, but the truth is, this year has seen the lowest charting #1 album in the history of billboard since records started being kept.
all sales are down, even of the largest most successful artists across all styles and genres... free is powerful, especially when as easy to access as a google search and there are no consequences...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
I think you have it the other way around. By your logic every artist that puts an album out should be guaranteed to sell a predetermined amount of albums.
see above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
What data? And again more assumptions. I'm not moving the goal posts the goal posts are where they have always been. I'm just asking you guys to back up your arguments with facts and figures. It is not my fault that the real world issues don't reflect your preconceived notion that piracy is hurting album sales.
uhm... you're saying that they don't, it's your argument - prove it. what is hurting sales then if not piracy, please, tell us, argue with us, debate with us...
you have two competing points of view...
1) stealing from labels via piracy is an act of consumer rebellion against the evil record industry
2) piracy is not responsible for the decline in recorded music revenues
why don't you explain both of those to me in ONE post... go ahead...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
How am I being intellectually dishonest? Because I'm admitting to the fact that I don't know what the cause of declining record sales are and by asking you guys to post where you are getting your information from to back up your arguments because I won't take your word for it.
Interesting how it is that you don't know what the cause of decline record industry revenues are, but yet you DO KNOW that it's not piracy?
so do you know, or not know? which one is it? because if you do know, please share that with us, and if you don't know, well.. then... You Don't Know and leave it at that...
arguing against what you don't know is intellectually dishonest, you answered your own question, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Yep and all the legislation will be defeated too, unless they append it to another bill that has to pass. I guess the RIAA and MPAA are really lining those politicians coffers for a bill to be brought to the floor twice and have it go nowhere.
keep saying that to yourself, but this is not going away, new legislation is coming now it's only a question of when...
if you think that piracy and theft works as a societal norm, go spend some time in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Somalia and let me know how that's working out.
there's too much money at stake for the internet to become a third world free-for-all. the tech industry are the 21st century robber barrons following in the footsteps of history not unlike at the turn of the previous century, you'd do well to get your head out of the sand, you are on the wrong side of this conversation. period.
go back and read the OP... should I really have to send out 10,000 DMCA takedown notices in less than a year? Do you even understand the topic of this thread, or are you just here to vent you anti-industry, anti-artist sour grapes?
How about posting the whole abstract?? and bolding the part that comes after the comma that you so happened to stop quoting at.
I did and it shows it negatively effects rentals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
After all, the whole argument is about how sales are losing right? Well the very next line after what you quoted blows your whole argument out the water.
not really, see above - and again - I responded to this in my previous post go back and read it.
hmmm... maybe you can prove my assumptions wrong then... please post here on gearsluts in this thread a link to cracked software, please do it. prove my assumption wrong... I'm waiting... go ahead... do it... please.
every post from here on out, that you don't post a link to cracked software you make my point for me, every single post following this one is an open admission of the fallacy of your argument.
have fun with that, I know I will...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
No matter what you say this problem is completely different than someone lifting a CD from a record store.
it's not any different but explain to me how you think it's different...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
There are consequences, but first you have to understand that downloading an Mp3 is hardly means to put someone in jail.
uh yes, there are consequence... you're new around here... I have always proposed "speeding/parking ticket" type fines. $300 per song download, with the threat of having your "internet license" revoked if you continue to abuse your privilege. internet access is not a right any more than a drivers license is and it comes with personal responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Okay, so how can you debunk something that has come to the conclusion that the effects of piracy on an industry cannot be determined?
because the effects of piracy can be determined the only thing that really can't be determined is the specific amount of the damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
I'm patiently awaiting your answer to this one.
and I'm patiently waiting for you to post links to cracked warez here in this thread... go ahead.. I mean, there will be no consequence right? It doesn't hurt anyone right? You're just gonna be helping Waves sell more software, right?
C'mon man... help us out here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
Record company releases song to Radio stations and makes a video for it. People listen to the song and say, "eh good song, but not worth buying... next!" How is that any different an artist listening to a beat and saying "next!"?
I don't understand the point you are trying to make? Can you be more specific? People like and don't like stuff? Ok? They can choose to buy it, or not buy it, but they don't have the right to steal it... and why would they steal something they don't like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
By your logic and arguments that artist should pay for the beat the he listened too.
I think you are very confused - can you explain to me your logic? How is listening to a beat and NOT liking the same as illegally downloading a song/album they do like? Not following you here man... sorry...
do you actually have any idea of the scale of piracy and illegal music consumption compared to paid sales? do you think piracy has gone up or down since 1999? just curious to get your baseline thoughts on some basics...
why would people steal something they don't like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
And just Like I said you want to know who I am so you can attack my character because your arguments have no merit.
the arguments stand on their own, and your experience informs your opinion, such as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
You have failed to post anything of value that backs up your position. You have failed to post anything other than your opinion to refute what I have posted and listed as more sources.
prove me wrong then, please start posting those links to software here, let's see how that goes... let me guess... YOU WONT DO IT because of one reason only... there will be CONSEQUENCES for your actions.
When there are consequences for piracy, it will become manageable. those consequences are coming no matter how deep you stick your head into the sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti
The only issue here is that your arguments have no merit and are unable to be prove your position with facts.
LOL... keep repeating that it doesn't make it any more true the 100th time than it did the first...
how about you answer some of the actual questions asked of you?
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
