The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
1.2 billion illegal music downloads in 2010 a record Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 23rd December 2010
  #121
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
AGAIN... you have the data you have. It doesn't prove anything conclusively, but a reasonable person will look at the data and say it suggests things aren't as dire as you think. A reasonable person will reevaluate that position as new data comes in.
actually a reasonable person would conclude the opposite. there are tons of reports and data that show just how large this problem is, you just happen to not agree with those reports, again - personal bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I DO CLEARLY admit to my bias and opinion. I think the problem is worse then the data shows. I thought it was more like 30%. I'm not "selectively quoting" anything, as I've repeated over and over, I didn't select the reports. Terry did. How many more times are you going to make me repeat the same thing?
I'm not asking you to repeat anything other than the fact that if you believe the reports/data are inconclusive than they are inconclusive both ways - you can continue to support your bias, but that's all it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I have NEVER dismissed a piece of data, BTW, because I didn't like the conclusion. I only dismiss it if I've seen problems with it and/or if they haven't been open about how the data was gathered.
funny how you seem to have this issue with the reports you don't agree with, but not the ones you do... the only flaws in research are in the ones you don't agree with...
Old 23rd December 2010
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
you know I love you, right? ok... here we go...
Ah, yes - and again this is where you and I disagree...

Where you and I have to agree to disagree is over the size and scale of the market potential for legal paid music sales when there is NOT 1.2 billion illegal downloads (UK Only in this case) in the marketplace that are available without consequence.

One of the arguments that consumers have made is that if music cost less it would sell more - well, that appears to be true as it can't really cost less than free...

The promise of the internet is size and scale - 500 Million+ points of sale with instant access to the largest inventory ever available at 99 cents a song... and in the USA digital music sales look to have flattened this year.

I know you put forth that the $15 CD is being replaced by only $3 in song sales - but I'll put forth that the $15 spending power is still there, it's just been transitioned into non-easily illegally obtainable goods like smartphones (and data service plans), ipods, computers, harddrives, HD TVs, gaming consoles, etc - it's amazing how much money is still out there - what's also out there is the instantly available consequence free, illegally free product. A penny saved is a penny earned, so every dollar saved from downloading songs is easily applied to the purchase of the many products listed above.

Consumer tastes have never been deeper or more diverse, and I believe that without the illegally free, consequence free supply of recorded music, that industry revenue would easily double - which I also believe is very conservative given the shear volume of illegal downloads currently happening.

Does anyone really, honestly believe that piracy is decreasing and legitimate sales are increasing (in total net revenue)?

We can go round and round, and I know how you feel, but I simply and respectfully disagree with you.
I'm sorry, but you bought a lie. People have the exact same tastes and times that they always did. In the past they have bought CDs (albums) because it was the way music was available to them. They also did not have ipods, iphones, video games, etc. In 2010 they have x amount of money and it has to be spread between several things unlike in the 4 previous decades. I don't know how much better I can explain this. Illegal downloads are not sales and they are not an indicator of sales. Sales are up they just aren't the sales you want. They are singles and there are lots of them, but they are $1 and they aren't going to increase. It's simply a money supply issue. People have way too many things competing for their money and they aren't going to buy an entire album when they just want a single, and in these cases $1 takes the place of $15. It now takes 15 sales to equal what was one sale in the 90s (or if you just compare singles 4 or 5 sales to equal 1). So, now you have the issue where while Lady Gaga has literally sold as many "albums" as say Shania Twain, it was at 1/15 the money. Well, it cost less as well, but I doubt it cost 1/15 what it did. The fact is that sales are increasing, but the revenue can never be what it was.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
I'm sorry, but you bought a lie. People have the exact same tastes and times that they always did. In the past they have bought CDs (albums) because it was the way music was available to them. They also did not have ipods, iphones, video games, etc. In 2010 they have x amount of money and it has to be spread between several things unlike in the 4 previous decades. I don't know how much better I can explain this. Illegal downloads are not sales and they are not an indicator of sales. Sales are up they just aren't the sales you want. They are singles and there are lots of them, but they are $1 and they aren't going to increase. It's simply a money supply issue. People have way too many things competing for their money and they aren't going to buy an entire album when they just want a single, and in these cases $1 takes the place of $15. It now takes 15 sales to equal what was one sale in the 90s (or if you just compare singles 4 or 5 sales to equal 1). So, now you have the issue where while Lady Gaga has literally sold as many "albums" as say Shania Twain, it was at 1/15 the money. Well, it cost less as well, but I doubt it cost 1/15 what it did. The fact is that sales are increasing, but the revenue can never be what it was.
Again, I understand your point of view - I respectfully disagree with you as we have a difference of perspective. The size and scale of the internet, coupled with instant accessibility also creates many NEW and unprecedented opportunities for revenue. This is very exciting, unfortunately all of those new opportunities for market growth are completely destroyed by the illegally free, consequence free supply of the exact same product.

Just as a factual side note, Lady Ga Ga has sold nowhere near the number of albums as Shania Twain even when adding in all the individual song downloads.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #124
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
Again, I understand your point of view - I respectfully disagree with you as we have a difference of perspective. The size and scale of the internet, coupled with instant accessibility also creates many NEW and unprecedented opportunities for revenue. This is very exciting, unfortunately all of those new opportunities for market growth are completely destroyed by the illegally free, consequence free supply of the exact same product.

Just as a factual side note, Lady Ga Ga has sold nowhere near the number of albums as Shania Twain even when adding in all the individual song downloads.
Here's the problem. I want to think like you (because it benefits me to), but the evidence says otherwise. It allows me to create a business that can make money in 2011 and beyond. Someone that thinks at some point in the future music sales are going to triple doesn't have a bright future ahead of them. The really good news for me is that I am partnered with people that see things like I do. We will make money from the current market and lots of it. If things turn out your way, we'll buy Google.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #125
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
So what you actually know doesn't contradict what I know... Right?
First, did you say you 'know' virtually nothing.
I agree with that.
What I quoted as 'knowing' were just two examples. I'm not about to spend half an hour writing all the examples I've seen on my travels, just to persuade you - which I believe is an immovable object anyway.
I think my view is simply this.......
I know specifics on this subject because I deal with all manner of people, at all levels of the industry on a daily basis, most of whom are dealing with piracy related issues.
You simply are not, so when you say things like 'reasonable people' would assume this or that, you really have no information other than stuff you've read on the internet.
As to the comment about 'ants' and accusations of bias. I just don't think it's true to claim a lack of insight and a tendency to bias when you hear such similar stories from such varied people.
I'm talking about drum makers, keyboard distributors, software producers, club/pub musicians, international touring artists, music college students.......
Old 23rd December 2010
  #126
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post

I DO CLEARLY admit to my bias and opinion. I think the problem is worse then the data shows.
Correction, your bias is you find the major labels corrupt, inept and appalling. You hated what you saw as out of touch businessmen holding the keys to a musicians career.
You are essentially happy to see the previous music scene as you experienced it when you were younger swept away, even if it is so by illegal, anarchic behavior.
These are the major biases you bring to this debate.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #127
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
It doesn't matter what people "believe." Those two items are knowable. The data exists.
They're not 'knowable', because complete data doesn't exist. I presume the data you refer to is still Terry's collection of studies.
As I say, over four years old (at least), a fact which you still haven't accepted.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
The really good news for me is that I am partnered with people that see things like I do. We will make money from the current market and lots of it.
Money, money, money.
What creative people simply want is security to carry on with their passion.
If your concept is all about money I suspect you'll go the same way as others before you.
If you truly believe the public really wanted Susan Boyle over new, young songwriting musicians, I give your business a small chance of survival.
If you truly believe Simon Cowell was not the primary driving force behind Susan Boyle, I give your business almost zero chance of survival.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
Here's the problem. I want to think like you (because it benefits me to), but the evidence says otherwise. It allows me to create a business that can make money in 2011 and beyond. Someone that thinks at some point in the future music sales are going to triple doesn't have a bright future ahead of them. The really good news for me is that I am partnered with people that see things like I do. We will make money from the current market and lots of it. If things turn out your way, we'll buy Google.
we'll buy it together, unless I get there first! lol!

we actually agree on all of this. I don't know, nor am I pretending to know what will or will not happen in the future - all I'm saying is that the market potential exists. It's not you versus me, it not instead of, it's in addition too!

piracy may or may not be managed effectively, ever. I don't know. I hope it will, and if it does I believe there is a huge upside to NOT having my product stolen en mass.

In the meantime, I'm not delusional about what actually IS reality right now, because it IS reality right now.

Like everyone else working professionally, I'm working to make the best of it, and creating the best models/opportunities within the existing reality - but that doesn't stop me for a second from recognizing what could be without piracy, or fighting to stop piracy.

20 years ago, people could not buy a song they saw in a tv show or tv commercial or heard on the radio instantly for 99 cents as an impulse buy. hell, 20 years ago most developing bands touring secondary markets couldn't get their records stocked locally in time for the show they were playing...

today they can either buy it, or get it illegally for free. the entire new model is not centered around the old record industry. new technology, new models, new opportunities. illegally free does not help ANY of that.

being against piracy is not being against technology. being against piracy is not being against new business models.

the only thing I'm rallying against is the wholesale theft of creative works without compensation and without consequence.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #130
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
First, did you say you 'know' virtually nothing.
I agree with that.
What I quoted as 'knowing' were just two examples. I'm not about to spend half an hour writing all the examples I've seen on my travels, just to persuade you - which I believe is an immovable object anyway.
I know very little for certain. *The stories you hear on your travels don't prove the percentage of damage. **

Quote:
I know specifics on this subject because I deal with all manner of people, at all levels of the industry on a daily basis, most of whom are dealing with piracy related issues.
Without a doubt! *They don't know how much of their problems are caused by piracy... And neither do we. *

Quote:
You simply are not, so when you say things like 'reasonable people' would assume this or that, you really have no information other than stuff you've read on the internet.
As to the comment about 'ants' and accusations of bias. I just don't think it's true to claim a lack of insight and a tendency to bias when you hear such similar stories from such varied people.
I'm talking about drum makers, keyboard distributors, software producers, club/pub musicians, international touring artists, music college students.......
Look chris. *This conversation has run its course. *The bottom line is you like anecdotal evidence and I like data. *Often your anecdotal evidence will be correct. *So far it contradicts for the most part the great body of scientific evidence that currently exists. *I reserve the right to agree with you when the evidence shows you are correct. *I don't really have a horse in this race, I will be happy to come over to your side if or when that day comes. *Your belief and anecdotal evidence goes against what i believe, what I've read, what the evidence shows, and what i think is logical. *

I have seen real world examples of how you and the vocal few here so easily jump to conclusions that aren't warranted or have little evidence. *That makes me much less likely trust the conclusions you make based on the inputs you have received in the industry and in your travels. *I do not find your conclusions logical, and I won't just trust your word because you think I should. *

So, again... Aren't we done? *
Old 23rd December 2010
  #131
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
They're not 'knowable', because complete data doesn't exist. I presume the data you refer to is still Terry's collection of studies.
As I say, over four years old (at least), a fact which you still haven't accepted.
Number of sales and piracy activity is certainly knowable.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #132
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
actually a reasonable person would conclude the opposite. there are tons of reports and data that show just how large this problem is, you just happen to not agree with those reports, again - personal bias.
Ok, and Terry, neenja, and many others share that same bias, if that is what you need to believe.

Quote:
I'm not asking you to repeat anything other than the fact that if you believe the reports/data are inconclusive than they are inconclusive both ways - you can continue to support your bias, but that's all it is.
Poor logic. Evidence may not be conclusive but it may certainly be leaning in a particular direction. Reasonable people will lean toward that direction.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #133
Lives for gear
 
andreaeffe's Avatar
Arrow

psalad:

thanx for the answer & insight.

Btw, the singer/songwriter stuff U do & the 4 people with loopstations should make for a quite interesting listen, I reckon.
And (how could I forget), I too bought the Arcade Fire "Suburbs" album (CD)!


Regards,

A
F
Old 23rd December 2010
  #134
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Ok, and Terry, neenja, and many others share that same bias, if that is what you need to believe.
or it's what you need to believe! so what? many others disagree with those opinions... it is what it is. if you don't believe the data is conclusive, than it's not conclusive either way, it's just bias and opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Poor logic. Evidence may not be conclusive but it may certainly be leaning in a particular direction. Reasonable people will lean toward that direction.
that's what I've been saying, it's a shame you need to be unreasonable!

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5925315-post181.html

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6104676-post387.html
Old 23rd December 2010
  #135
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
*So far it contradicts for the most part the great body of scientific evidence that currently exists.
really? there's scientific proof that is conclusive? how come it's only scientific evidence if you agree with it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Number of sales and piracy activity is certainly knowable.
define "piracy activity" and if it's absolutely knowable and conclusive then why is there even a debate?
Old 24th December 2010
  #136
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
So what you actually know doesn't contradict what I know... Right? You made no attempt in any case, probably because you know I'm right. Sounds to me that neither of us will have an answer without the work of others. It's not knowable by asking your industry friends or by reading posts here.

We are all in the same place. We won't know until others do the research. The rest we are just guessing. You think your guesses are better than mine, and frankly I think you are myopic. The research so far shows my guesses have been closer than yours.

So sounds like we are clear now.
What "research"?
Old 24th December 2010
  #137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
You first.
You were not being asked.

Furthermore, we've been through this with you before and, after Chris and I disclosed you refused to follow suit, so I think you don't have much to say about this.
Old 24th December 2010
  #138
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Bottom line:

Piracy is at epic levels... the actual number is trivial.
Piracy hurts EVERYone in the industry.. from the small indie songwriter, to the mid-level band, to the megastars.
Piracy is responsible for devaluing creative works.
Piracy is responsible for loss of income.
Piracy is UNacceptable...
Old 24th December 2010
  #139
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I think the serious studies, taken as a whole, lead you to a particular number. The nice thing is my personal bias is out of this equation, since I didn't select the studies. Terry did.



Again... I personally think Terry has taken a pretty unbiased view, and has come up with the 15% number without my influence.



That's a positively STUPID question. I don't work in the industry, and I never said piracy isn't a problem.

umm... just sayin'... or somethin'...
Heh, heh.........

That's funny.

All you did in that post was push your bias off on Terry.

You pretty much agree with Terry, so in your opinion that makes him "unbiased", so you can use him as an "unbiased authority".

Nice try, but no.

Quote:
That's a positively STUPID question. I don't work in the industry, and I never said piracy isn't a problem.
That's disingenuous. You frequently claim that you never said piracy isn't a problem, yet you consistently argue from the position of minimizing its economic impact. When asked what you think the factors are that are more important to the industry's problems you are evasive or point to phenomena that are the direct result of piracy.
Old 24th December 2010
  #140
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Bottom line:

Piracy is at epic levels... the actual number is trivial.
Piracy hurts EVERYone in the industry.. from the small indie songwriter, to the mid-level band, to the megastars.
Piracy is responsible for devaluing creative works.
Piracy is responsible for loss of income.
Piracy is UNacceptable...
I agree with this.

It's really not that difficult, is it? There are other things that are also responsible for devaluation, IMHO... but I don't know there are too many who would disagree with this.
Old 24th December 2010
  #141
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You pretty much agree with Terry, so in your opinion that makes him "unbiased", so you can use him as an "unbiased authority".
Point is, you guys loved Terry until he happened to disagree with you.

I don't think anyone is without bias.

Quote:
you consistently argue from the position of minimizing its economic impact. When asked what you think the factors are that are more important to the industry's problems you are evasive or point to phenomena that are the direct result of piracy.
John, you are very funny. I don't minimize the impact. I believe it's less then you think, and I believe it's significant even if it's 5%.
Old 24th December 2010
  #142
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
What "research"?
heh

Good lord, I handed it to you earlier in the thread.
Old 24th December 2010
  #143
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
really? there's scientific proof that is conclusive? how come it's only scientific evidence if you agree with it?
I didn't choose the studies. heh

Terry is part of my great conspiracy to misstate the impact!!

Quote:
define "piracy activity" and if it's absolutely knowable and conclusive then why is there even a debate?
Ask John whether piracy activity can be scientifically sampled and and an estimate created with reasonable enough accuracy to make an educated guess.
Old 24th December 2010
  #144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
I'm sorry, but you bought a lie. People have the exact same tastes and times that they always did. In the past they have bought CDs (albums) because it was the way music was available to them. They also did not have ipods, iphones, video games, etc. In 2010 they have x amount of money and it has to be spread between several things unlike in the 4 previous decades.
This is demonstrably untrue. There have been home video games since the 1980s (arcade video games since the mid '70s - I pumped a lot of quarters into those!) There have been commercial movies since the early 20th century. There have been professional sports teams since the 19th century. There has been cable TV since the '60, although it didn't take off until the late '70s/early '80s. There have been practical home VCRs since 1975 (Betamax) and the first home video recorder (VTR) was introduced by Sony in 1965.

Furthermore there used to be common forms of paid entertainment that are no longer popular in most areas, such as bowling, miniature golf, drive-in movies, and public dances.

People used to have hobbies that required an outlay of cash (if anything, these are what have been diminished by videogames), such as building models, furniture, and other craft type activities, collecting things like stamps, coins and weird stuff like painted plates, etc.

Quote:
I don't know how much better I can explain this. Illegal downloads are not sales and they are not an indicator of sales. Sales are up they just aren't the sales you want.
Poppycock. Sales are not up. Sales have been down since the introduction of Napster. When sales surpass the pre-Napster level then you can honestly say that sales are up. There has been a little growth recently in certain segments of the market compared to previous recent years, but not nearly enough to counteract the losses due to piracy - i.e. to restore sales to pre-Napster levels.

And illegal downloads are NOT an indicator of sales - they are an indicator of LOST SALES.

Quote:
They are singles and there are lots of them, but they are $1 and they aren't going to increase. It's simply a money supply issue. People have way too many things competing for their money and they aren't going to buy an entire album when they just want a single, and in these cases $1 takes the place of $15. It now takes 15 sales to equal what was one sale in the 90s (or if you just compare singles 4 or 5 sales to equal 1). So, now you have the issue where while Lady Gaga has literally sold as many "albums" as say Shania Twain, it was at 1/15 the money. Well, it cost less as well, but I doubt it cost 1/15 what it did. The fact is that sales are increasing, but the revenue can never be what it was.
This is bull. As I just pointed out, people have ALWAYS had other forms of entertainment competing for their dollar. This is not new. The only thing that's new is the ability of people to steal music without compunction.

You could drop the price of a download to a nickle and it wouldn't boost sales any significant amount - all it would do is hurt artists.

Music has never been cheaper, or a better deal for your entertainment dollar than it is now. If music cost the same now that it did in 1965 the adjusted cost of an album would be around $35 or more. The cost of a one song single would be around $3.50*. The cost of music to the consumer - and the rate of royalty payments to the artist) have come nowhere even remotely close to the rate of inflation. To claim that music is overpriced is nothing short of ludicrous.


* the current dollar is worth around $0.143 in 1965 money.
Old 24th December 2010
  #145
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
*The bottom line is you like anecdotal evidence and I like data. *Often your anecdotal evidence will be correct.
Let me ask you this - just what do you think your "data" is based on?

Allow me to aswer that.

Your "data" is based on anecdotal evidence.

That's all a survey is, anecdotal evidence that is formally arranged in a questionnaire. That's it.

So it all comes down to which anecdotal evidence you choose to believe - a survey taken of a few hundred college students at one institution who may or may not be motivated to answer honestly or information from a multitude of people working in and around the industry in many capacities all over the world, combined with a number of people in widely diverse locations who are directly involved with piracy in some capacity.
Old 24th December 2010
  #146
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Number of sales and piracy activity is certainly knowable.
State your sources.

It is my informed belief that the level of piracy is in fact under reported.
Old 24th December 2010
  #147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
really? there's scientific proof that is conclusive? how come it's only scientific evidence if you agree with it?



define "piracy activity" and if it's absolutely knowable and conclusive then why is there even a debate?
There is no "scientific evidence".

What he's referring to is a survey or two taken of a small sample of students at a single institution (per survey) who may or may not be motivated to answer honestly.

For example, if you were a student taking such a survey and thought that it might be possible that the results would cause the administration to crack down on internet access would you answer honestly about your P2P usage?
Old 24th December 2010
  #148
Lives for gear
Hey fellas,

While I catch up on this thread, I thought I'd share this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oar9glUCL0

It's a trailer for a documentary on a mash up artist that broaches copyright laws and what not. I watched the whole thing and the director wants it to be shared and 'remixed'. I personally think that mash ups representing some PRIMARY form of future art is shameful and sad...but anyhow...

Basically if you watch the whole thing, there's an attempt made to separate copyright and intellectual property from cultural development and the passing of art from one generation to the next. The basic argument is that this is nothing new, it's not going away, and this century is the first to lock away ideas in the name of corporate profit.

(edit: I don't know how to embed the vid. If someone knows, I'll go ahead and embed it)
Old 24th December 2010
  #149
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklion View Post
Hey fellas,

While I catch up on this thread, I thought I'd share this:


YouTube - RiP : A REMIX MANIFESTO

It's a trailer for a documentary on a mash up artist that broaches copyright laws and what not. I watched the whole thing and the director wants it to be shared and 'remixed'. I personally think that mash ups representing some PRIMARY form of future art is shameful and sad...but anyhow...

Basically if you watch the whole thing, there's an attempt made to separate copyright and intellectual property from cultural development and the passing of art from one generation to the next. The basic argument is that this is nothing new, it's not going away, and this century is the first to lock away ideas in the name of corporate profit.

(edit: I don't know how to embed the vid. If someone knows, I'll go ahead and embed it)
totally bonk. this is lessig's missguided rap.

if you steal from the beatles, add three words and make farting noises - it's now yours as much as it's theirs, and you can now let other people piss on it just like you did, and the band doesn't get to say a word about it.

just one more guy moaning about how he can't steal whatever he wants
Old 24th December 2010
  #150
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I didn't choose the studies. heh

Terry is part of my great conspiracy to misstate the impact!!

Ask John whether piracy activity can be scientifically sampled and and an estimate created with reasonable enough accuracy to make an educated guess.
twice in the past I've bent over backwards in an attempt to find a reasonable compromise with you - both times you refused.

if the low end studys/reports/surveys (almost always by universities coincidentally) report piracy as 20% and the high end studys/reports/surveys (almost always independent, respected corporate business research firms) report piracy as 95% here's what to do...

average those two numbers

(20+95=115) /2 = 57.5%

a reasonable person would agree to such a comprise if both parties believe the competing data is inconclusive.

so therefore nearly 60% of consumed music is done so illegally, manage/remove piracy, double legitimate sales. easy.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Serra / So much gear, so little time
4
imaginaryday / So much gear, so little time
15

Forum Jump
Forum Jump