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 24th December 2010
  #151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
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.
This jibes pretty well with what I've been saying - that slightly more than half of potential real sales are being lost to piracy. It also agrees pretty much with the sales differential between the pre-Napster era and the present.
Old 24th December 2010
  #152
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
This jibes pretty well with what I've been saying - that slightly more than half of potential real sales are being lost to piracy. It also agrees pretty much with the sales differential between the pre-Napster era and the present.
yup, exactly what I thought.
Old 24th December 2010
  #153
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
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
I'm with you on this. I will say that the point by the end is to ask the question of whether locking up intellectual property is a natural inclination or it's a byproduct of the modern capitalist ethos. That's an interesting question to me though I wish the example used wasn't one of blatant theft and profit off of that theft.

Girl Talk apparently played Coachella??? How much has he earned from taking things that were someone else's creation and pissing on them till he called it his own 'art'?

At the same time, isn't creation a communal thing? I know this thread is dealing with straight ripping of music and it's effect, but there's a connection here, I believe.
Old 24th December 2010
  #154
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklion View Post
I'm with you on this. I will say that the point by the end is to ask the question of whether locking up intellectual property is a natural inclination or it's a byproduct of the modern capitalist ethos. That's an interesting question to me though I wish the example used wasn't one of blatant theft and profit off of that theft.

Girl Talk apparently played Coachella??? How much has he earned from taking things that were someone else's creation and pissing on them till he called it his own 'art'?

At the same time, isn't creation a communal thing? I know this thread is dealing with straight ripping of music and it's effect, but there's a connection here, I believe.
there are laws that address this, they are called Fair Use.

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
17 U.S.C. § 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]
Old 24th December 2010
  #155
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I know very little for certain. *The stories you hear on your travels don't prove the percentage of damage. **
I've never argued with you about the percentage of the damage.
My point on that is the 20% figure arose out of surveys that were in the least, extremely out of date, and in my opinion, flawed anyway (due to the limited polling, the limited location of the research, and the heavy bias towards economics faculties, with no relation to musicians or music business personalities.
My other point is that I'm seeing, and in part experiencing, great damage to the musical community. It doesn't really matter to me if a guy on a forum can put a percentage on it. I don't think you can measure this kind of thing in percentages. All I know is that research is too old/flawed, and it seems you need to hang on to that research because you really have no other evidence to talk about because you have no experience with regards to anything else in this debate.
As I say, it's like me telling photographers what's wrong with the picture snapping trade, and how they could make more money by selling pictures in a different way. I'm not going to do it, because I know they know more about their business than me (a hobbyist).


Quote:
*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.
Err, there is no scientific evidence. There are a few studies undertaken a while ago by economics professors, largely polling people who were handy - like other students on campus.
If you really put that much store by that... and call it scientific you're more lost on this topic than I thought.

OK, yes, our conversation may well have run it's course.
But when I see you chip in to applaud others who are hobbyists, and armchair pundits.... and when I see you post in a way to run down the people here who have years and years of quality experience in the sphere of music, which you have not..... I'll keep replying to your posts. And I guess you'll keep replying back.
Old 24th December 2010
  #156
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!!
OK, OK.

Firstly, Terry wasn't expressing an opinion (I believe) which is something you could agree with and then try and use to win an argument with us.
All he did was collate all the studies he could find, organise them and link to them on his blog, and then he remarked the average impact appeared to be about 15 to 20%, based on those studies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never attached his endorsement to any study, he never said he agreed with the conclusions (or not).
he was just putting the information out there. Informing us - which is a good thing. thumbsup

OK.....
You've repeatedly championed these studies on this page of the thread. Ignored my previous leg work going through them, and pretty much ignored my comments on them again today (on this page).
So, let me ask you this......
With the survey's being mostly dated around 2005-06, and with the lack of music industry involvement, or musician's involvement, even in a vague advisory role, and with the limited scope of much of the research, often polling young people, often students in the same University.
With all that, you still regard it as 'scientific' and quality data, more powerful than anything anyone here (who has work stolen, and who is actually working in commercial music) can present to you?
Old 24th December 2010
  #157
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
OK, OK.

Firstly, Terry wasn't expressing an opinion (I believe) which is something you could agree with and then try and use to win an argument with us.
All he did was collate all the studies he could find, organise them and link to them on his blog, and then he remarked the average impact appeared to be about 15 to 20%, based on those studies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never attached his endorsement to any study, he never said he agreed with the conclusions (or not).
he was just putting the information out there. Informing us - which is a good thing. thumbsup

OK.....
You've repeatedly championed these studies on this page of the thread. Ignored my previous leg work going through them, and pretty much ignored my comments on them again today (on this page).
So, let me ask you this......
With the survey's being mostly dated around 2005-06, and with the lack of music industry involvement, or musician's involvement, even in a vague advisory role, and with the limited scope of much of the research, often polling young people, often students in the same University.
With all that, you still regard it as 'scientific' and quality data, more powerful than anything anyone here (who has work stolen, and who is actually working in commercial music) can present to you?
As I've pointed out, "studies" that are solely university based are inherently biased in various ways and can't be taken seriously, at least without corroborating evidence from non-university areas, which does not appear to exist.

"Unbiased"?

No.

"Scientific"?

No.

You might as well poll the Spanish Inquisition on the theories of Gallileo.
Old 24th December 2010
  #158
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
yup, exactly what I thought.
Except that they Pre-Napster era didn't have $1 singles and $3 albums. Even if sales doubled in the US it would be 12 billion figure in continued drops in CD sales and that becomes 9 or 10 and that is perfect storm. We are never going to see the revenue amounts that were seen in the 90s because unlike the movie industry we've replaced CDs with a cheaper alternative. The industry was asleep at the wheel and this is what we are left with.
Old 24th December 2010
  #159
Lives for gear
 

1.2 billion illegal music downloads in 2010 a record

$3 Albums!? Where?
Old 24th December 2010
  #160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
Except that they Pre-Napster era didn't have $1 singles and $3 albums. Even if sales doubled in the US it would be 12 billion figure in continued drops in CD sales and that becomes 9 or 10 and that is perfect storm. We are never going to see the revenue amounts that were seen in the 90s because unlike the movie industry we've replaced CDs with a cheaper alternative. The industry was asleep at the wheel and this is what we are left with.
You don't get it - we're selling content, not a delivery medium.

The delivery medium has ALREADY been devalued. It it hadn't been albums would cost $35.
Old 25th December 2010
  #161
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
As I've pointed out, "studies" that are solely university based are inherently biased in various ways and can't be taken seriously, at least without corroborating evidence from non-university areas, which does not appear to exist
So we therefore shouldn't place any more credence on the results of such surveys than we should place on the results of surveys such as this one:

Quote:
A three year old poll with a sample of a few hundred people is less valid than my "anecdotal" informal polls of a few hundred people conducted over several months this year.
There's also this:

Quote:
You don't ask the thieves to estimate how badly they hurt their victims.
Equally, you don't ask the victims to estimate how badly they were hurt.
You're going to get two totally different answers and neither will be correct.

See also posts 145, 146 and 147.

How can I take your opinion as being more authoritative than "the other guy's" when your methodology is no better than his?
Old 25th December 2010
  #162
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
As you said, it's like a buffet. Most of the people at the buffet will eat until they're comfortably full. A few (a very small percentage statistically) will compulsively eat themselves sick. However the total amount of food consumed by the normal eaters will still be many, many times greater than that consumed by the gluttons.
I work in the IT industry, building the networks. From this side, the best description I have seen of the situation is this:

Quote:
"The problem with the current ISP model is it is like an all you can eat buffet, where one in 10 customers eats all the food, one in 100 takes his chair home too, and one in 1,000 unscrews all the fixtures and fittings and loads them into a van as well." - Telco 2.0, an IT analysis company.
On the thread topic, one question I have not seen a good answer to is:
If illegal downloading were reduced to a low level, by how much would legal downloads increase? If, for example, someone had come up with a method to prevent the estimated 1.2 billion downloads stated in the thread title, how many legal downloads would there have been instead? (I suspect I'm going to get a wildly inaccurate figure from one side, and untrue accustations about my agenda from the other.)
Old 25th December 2010
  #163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Equally, you don't ask the victims to estimate how badly they were hurt.
You're going to get two totally different answers and neither will be correct.
Wrong. Utterly, absolutely wrong.

Victim: He punched me, knocked me down, broke my arm, and stole my wallet.

Mugger: Bull****! It wasn't me!

Who has more credibility?

Who has an obvious reason to lie?

When a criminal is caught red-handed, does his excuse carry as much weight as that of his victim or that of impartial witnesses?

When a "witness" has a direct relationship with a perpetrator can his word be taken as impartial?

Contrary to what some people would have you believe, both sides of an argument do not always have equal validity. I could give some really obvious examples, but they would violate Jules' rules against political and religious discussion, so I won't.
Old 25th December 2010
  #164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
On the thread topic, one question I have not seen a good answer to is:
If illegal downloading were reduced to a low level, by how much would legal downloads increase? If, for example, someone had come up with a method to prevent the estimated 1.2 billion downloads stated in the thread title, how many legal downloads* would there have been instead? (I suspect I'm going to get a wildly inaccurate figure from one side, and untrue accustations about my agenda from the other.)
First, please note that that's 1.2 billion downloads in the UK market alone. The number in the combined market for the UK, US, and Europe is much, much higher. In fact the number for the USA alone is much greater than for the UK.

My estimate is that if piracy was reduced to 1990 levels then total music sales would increase by a minimum of 100% to 150%. We're currently losing between 1/2 and 2/3 of potential real sales to piracy. That's an extremely conservative estimate. The figure might actually be more, but that's speculation. It certainly is not less.

I'd also like to point out that those are UNIT SALES. I do not believe that retail price has any real effect on the number of units being sold and that in the absence of widespread piracy prices could actually be increased by 50% or more without an adverse effect on sales. I also do not believe that lowering retail prices would effectively increase unit sales, with or without widespread piracy.



*- I'm not going to speculate on what percentage of sales would be in the form of downloads and what would be hard copy. I'm inclined to suspect that we'd see a marked rise in the sales of hard copy as well as an increase in downloads. A lot of people like the aesthetics of hard copy.
Old 25th December 2010
  #165
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Wrong. Utterly, absolutely wrong.
I see. there has never been a case where a victim exagerrated their injury or falsely claimed something was stolen. Your justice system actually encourages such behaviour. "Whiplash! I'll sue!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Contrary to what some people would have you believe, both sides of an argument do not always have equal validity. I could give some really obvious examples, but they would violate Jules' rules against political and religious discussion, so I won't.
Tough choice, then. You'll understand, then, why I tend to believe the one who proves more able to back up their arguments with reliable information from impartial sources. If neither side can do that, I tend to be skeptical of both sides.
Old 25th December 2010
  #166
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
First, please note that that's 1.2 billion downloads in the UK market alone.
True, but not relevant at this point.

You may be right on the percentages, too. I would be surprised if no-one has done any current research into what the real numbers are. But since no-one has publicised such results, either there really has been no research, or there has been but the results did not support their agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I'm not going to speculate on what percentage of sales would be in the form of downloads and what would be hard copy. I'm inclined to suspect that we'd see a marked rise in the sales of hard copy as well as an increase in downloads. A lot of people like the aesthetics of hard copy.
I'm on record as preferring hard copy, especially if the artist has gone to the trouble of "enhancing" the package. Tool's releases are an excellent example of this practice. Piracy is affecting CD sales, so piracy affects me directly. (I make that point to emphasis that I am not a piracy apologist.)

Which brings us back to how to reduce piracy. My thoughts on this are already on record in more than one place here.

One new thought: Assume for a moment that illegal uploading in its current form can be reduced to a reasonable level. Assume also that this is done "by force", rather than re-educating the consumers to consider downloading as socially undesirable. How soon will it be before some form of truly decentralised "p2p" distribution method becomes common?

It may not even use the Internet. Music playing devices are rapidly becoming wireless enabled. Friends already share earphones to listen to a track together. They'll buy players that let them share the actual track. There are Bluetooth earphones, and WiFi enabled players connect wirelessly to your home speaker system. How long will it be before you can walk down the street, pick up the broadcast from someone else's player, decide you like the track and suck it across to your own player?
Old 25th December 2010
  #167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
How can I take your opinion as being more authoritative than "the other guy's" when your methodology is no better than his?
Because we are working in the industry being affected.

Is it so hard to grasp?

As professionals it's our work and duty to inform ourselves on business conditions.
I don't think any of us who have successfully navigated professional music for years could have done so by lying to ourselves about where the money to survive was going to come from, or where we should concentrate our resources in order to earn a crust.

And yet you guys who aren't in music professionally think we don't know the environment we're operating in?
And that a few studies that had limited scope and are over four ears old are more relevant than the views of people who's job it is to keep up to date on a monthly basis, or they wouldn't be able to work in the business.
Old 25th December 2010
  #168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Tough choice, then. You'll understand, then, why I tend to believe the one who proves more able to back up their arguments with reliable information from impartial sources.
And who would that be? I have yet to see ANY information from impartial sources here from anybody.

At least some of us admit our bias.

Quote:
If neither side can do that, I tend to be skeptical of both sides.
In that case all you need to do is look at the FACTS, which in this case are that since Napster touched off an epidemic of unprecedented piracy music sales have taken a dump like never before, to the point of destroying the organized industry and the livelihood of innumerable musicians and support personnel. This is reliable information that is available from numerous incontrovertible sources. Just ask all the people who dont have jobs anymore.

There is on ONE factor in the equation that was not present before - piracy.

All other factors had applied in previous times and had not materially affected the viability of the music industry.

All you need do is open your eyes. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
Old 25th December 2010
  #169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein
First, please note that that's 1.2 billion downloads in the UK market alone.
True, but not relevant at this point.
Mind explaning to me how that isn't relevant?

It seems extremely relevant to me.

If the UK market is what? 1/10th the US market? that would extrapolate to 12 billion illegal downloads in the US.
Old 25th December 2010
  #170
first things first, MERRY CHRISTMAS or whatever else it is you all celebrate as an excuse to eat too much!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
Except that they Pre-Napster era didn't have $1 singles and $3 albums. Even if sales doubled in the US it would be 12 billion figure in continued drops in CD sales and that becomes 9 or 10 and that is perfect storm. We are never going to see the revenue amounts that were seen in the 90s because unlike the movie industry we've replaced CDs with a cheaper alternative. The industry was asleep at the wheel and this is what we are left with.
Again, I respect your point of view, but disagree with your perspective. Here's why...

Whether or not CDs are the primary delivery media for pre-recorded music is not an issue for me in this discussion. I don't see the death of the CD as the determining factor in the reduction of revenue. I'm also not seeing $3 albums as a standard of practice. If we are talking about Itunes with $1 songs, then we're also talking about $10 albums - not $3 albums. And let's face it - despite whatever desperate attempts are happening at Amazon Mp3, 95%+ of download music sales are coming from Itunes.

The money is out there, and there is more of it now than ever before because the size and scale of the internet, coupled with instant accessibility creates many new and unprecedented opportunities.

Pre-recorded music purchases have always been driven by the impulse buy. Inventory management was probably the #1 challenge to increased sales in the previous era. All of those supply side inventory problems have been solved boasting well over 500+ Million active points of sale (as of 2007).

All of this is very exciting, but unfortunately all of those new opportunities for market growth are completely destroyed by the illegally free, consequence free supply, of the exact same product.

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... those are just two examples off the top of my head.

Today people can either buy it, or get it illegally for free (and as easy as a google search). The entire new model is not centered around the old record industry. There is new technology, new models and new opportunities, but 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.

Again - the only thing I'm rallying against is the wholesale theft of creative works without compensation and without consequence, and I firmly believe the money and the data are out there to support a major increase in sales of at least 100% from where we are now with the appropriate management of piracy (and I'm probably being conservative).

I don't know if it will happen or not - But I firmly believe we don't really know how big the market is for legitimate music because we've never been able to measure it without rampant piracy at the same time - and with each year for the last decade or so, all we've seen is piracy increase and revenue from legitimate sales decrease.

Eventually, it's going to benefit someone financially to sort this out, and when they do - there's going to a major windfall for those still in the game. Well, that's my opinion at least.
Old 26th December 2010
  #171
Yeah. I'm not against new business models either, as long as those models don't require the artist to give up ownership of his work in return for a corporate wage.

I just wish that somebody would propose one that isn't bull**** or only applies to a few special cases.

When my album is finished it will be available for download in the usual compressed formats although I detest compressed audio and I do have plans for YouTube videos. I'll also be shopping the songs for Movie and TV placement.

So far it's taken at least 6-8 times as long to get it recorded as it should have under the old industry model and it's only about half done. My estimate is that by the time it's finished it will have taken 10-12 times as long as it should and possibly even longer. And then I'll have to pay for mastering and pressing hard copy, probably an initial run of 500 CDs and 500 vinyl. Having to self finance doesn't help, either, and having to do my own studio maintainance is a real impediment, especially when working with tape.

I wish somebody could suggest a "new business model" that could give some relief from these problems. In the old days the record company would just rent a studio for a month or two and it would be done and I wouldn't need to put up all the cash up front. In the old days I wouldn't have to schedule everything around all the musicians' day jobs.

So I'm really ready for a "new business model". As long as it's one that actually works.
Old 26th December 2010
  #172
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
first things first, MERRY CHRISTMAS or whatever else it is you all celebrate as an excuse to eat too much!



Again, I respect your point of view, but disagree with your perspective. Here's why...
Here's your revenue problem.

Amazon.com: The Social Network: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross: MP3 Downloads

This was number one of Amazon for a couple of weeks and it was $3 for at least 2 of them. I knew how many it had sold at one point, but I can't remember now.
Old 26th December 2010
  #173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
Here's your revenue problem.

Amazon.com: The Social Network: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross: MP3 Downloads

This was number one of Amazon for a couple of weeks and it was $3 for at least 2 of them. I knew how many it had sold at one point, but I can't remember now.
ahhh... that one... it was a special promotion with Amazon and an exclusive prior to being available at Itunes.

The masters were owned by Sony Pictures because Trent was hired to score the film for them - which meant that he didn't own the masters so he had to cut a deal with Sony Pictures for how the record was released.

Apparently, he wanted to give it away, but Sony wouldn't allow it so this was a compromise. He also got them to allow him to give away 5 songs as a sampler for free before the album was released for $3.

Quote:
nin.com news 9.17.10: The Social Network score: Free sampler EP + album preorders

Regarding the purchase options, sorry about the “clunkiness” of not offering the full record digital download pre-sale (and having to visit Amazon). My agenda was to be able to offer this for the lowest possible price and this was the best way to achieve that. Amazon has been a great partner with past projects and I appreciate your understanding.
- Trent Reznor, 9.16.10
it looks like it sold 24k week one, 4k week two and trailed off quickly from there - release to date looks like about 56k total - so about half of all sales so far are from the first two week promo on Amazon. Currently it's $5.00 on Amazon and $7.99 on Itunes - but this really looks like an isolated Trent thing more than a standard business practice.

Amazon.com: The Social Network: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross: MP3 Downloads

The Social Network (Soundtrack from the Motion Picture) by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross - Download The Social Network (Soundtrack from the Motion Picture) on iTunes

Amazon is selling music considerably cheaper than Itunes... and I don't think it's getting them any additional market share as best I can see. Also the labels are desperate to break Itunes virtual monopoly... and shooting themselves in the foot - we agree on that.
Old 26th December 2010
  #174
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
So I'm really ready for a "new business model". As long as it's one that actually works.
you and me [email protected]
Old 26th December 2010
  #175
FVCK TRENT REZNOR!

He is using his stature as a major artist who made it thanks to the traditional industry to screw everybody who is not already famous.

He can shove it up his kazootie!

If he is reading this I challenge him to meet me face to face.
Old 26th December 2010
  #176
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
ahhh... that one... it was a special promotion with Amazon and an exclusive prior to being available at Itunes.

The masters were owned by Sony Pictures because Trent was hired to score the film for them - which meant that he didn't own the masters so he had to cut a deal with Sony Pictures for how the record was released.

Apparently, he wanted to give it away, but Sony wouldn't allow it so this was a compromise. He also got them to allow him to give away 5 songs as a sampler for free before the album was released for $3.

it looks like it sold 24k week one, 4k week two and trailed off quickly from there - release to date looks like about 56k total - so about half of all sales so far are from the first two week promo on Amazon. Currently it's $5.00 on Amazon and $7.99 on Itunes - but this really looks like an isolated Trent thing more than a standard business practice.

Amazon.com: The Social Network: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross: MP3 Downloads

The Social Network (Soundtrack from the Motion Picture) by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross - Download The Social Network (Soundtrack from the Motion Picture) on iTunes

Amazon is selling music considerably cheaper than Itunes... and I don't think it's getting them any additional market share as best I can see. Also the labels are desperate to break Itunes virtual monopoly... and shooting themselves in the foot - we agree on that.
I am a big fan of having Trent disappeared.dfegad
Old 26th December 2010
  #177
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
OK, OK.

Firstly, Terry wasn't expressing an opinion (I believe) which is something you could agree with and then try and use to win an argument with us.
All he did was collate all the studies he could find, organise them and link to them on his blog, and then he remarked the average impact appeared to be about 15 to 20%, based on those studies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never attached his endorsement to any study, he never said he agreed with the conclusions (or not).
he was just putting the information out there. Informing us - which is a good thing. thumbsup
Ask him. It's pretty clear to me he just was pulling all the relevant studies he could find.

Quote:
With all that, you still regard it as 'scientific' and quality data, more powerful than anything anyone here (who has work stolen, and who is actually working in commercial music) can present to you?
It's more powerful because it is at least attempting to use scientific methodology to answer the question rather than relying on the ant's eye view. When trying to understand why someone is sick, you would probably rely on a doctor over the opinion of a patient.
Old 26th December 2010
  #178
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
twice in the past I've bent over backwards in an attempt to find a reasonable compromise with you - both times you refused.
It's an absurd idea. There are theories of the world's origin incorporating evolution and creation. You don't just split the difference between the two and ignore the evidence, giving them equal weighting. That would be completely absurd.

Bring any independent research you have into the conversation. Terry attempted to bring in the best available research. From there, it was very reasonable to try and determine a consensus. But to give something that is effectively made up the same weighting as something that was using the best scientific data that exists is just plain insane. It's not even worthy of discussion, its so absurd.
Old 26th December 2010
  #179
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post

Contrary to what some people would have you believe, both sides of an argument do not always have equal validity. I could give some really obvious examples, but they would violate Jules' rules against political and religious discussion, so I won't.
Bingo.
Old 26th December 2010
  #180
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
It's an absurd idea. There are theories of the world's origin incorporating evolution and creation. You don't just split the difference between the two and ignore the evidence, giving them equal weighting. That would be completely absurd.

Bring any independent research you have into the conversation. Terry attempted to bring in the best available research. From there, it was very reasonable to try and determine a consensus. But to give something that is effectively made up the same weighting as something that was using the best scientific data that exists is just plain insane. It's not even worthy of discussion, its so absurd.
I knew I wouldn't be the one being unreasonable, again... nice go at the double standards when it suits your bias.

RESOURCES - IFPI publishes Digital Music Report 2009

Quote:
Despite these developments, the music sector is still overshadowed by the huge amount of unlicensed music distributed online. Collating separate studies in 16 countries over a three-year period, IFPI estimates over 40 billion files were illegally file-shared in 2008, giving a piracy rate of around 95 per cent.
Only 0.3% of BitTorrent files legal

and...
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...aa7d0f818f0a7a

and...
File sharing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
In 2004, an estimated 70 million people participated in online file sharing.[89] According to a CBS News poll, nearly 70 percent of 18 to 29 year olds thought file sharing was acceptable in some circumstances and 58 percent of all Americans who followed the file sharing issue considered it acceptable in at least some circumstances.[90]
In January 2006, 32 million Americans over the age of 12 had downloaded at least one feature length movie from the Internet, 80 percent of whom had done so exclusively over P2P. Of the population sampled, 40 percent felt that downloading copyrighted movies off the Internet constituted a very serious offense, however 78 percent believed taking a DVD from a store without paying for it constituted a very serious offense.[91]
In February 2008, the LA Times Blog published results of a US campus attitude survey which showed that 64 percent of respondents downloaded music regularly through file-sharing networks and other unauthorized sources. The respondents were also asked to rate on a 1 to 7 scale "how nervous they were about being punished for illegal downloading" (with 1 being "not concerned" and 7 being "extremely concerned"). Two-thirds answered 1 (43 percent) or 2 (24 percent) but only 4 percent answered 5 or 6, and none answered 7, "extremely concerned".[92][93]
In July 2008, 20 percent of Europeans used file sharing networks to obtain music, while 10 percent used paid-for digital music services such as iTunes.[94]

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