Music sales are not affected by web piracy, study finds

The Lounge is for non-sport-related topics other than politics, war and religion. Order up your favorite beverage, kick back and enjoy the conversation! RATING: PG-13
  • Excuse me while I illegally download some John Mayer, then make a c.d. and shit on it. Does that count?
    The new Santa Clara stadium name?..........Dungaree Dump
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25043
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Yes, that is a Bacon Wrapped Turkey


  • Largent80 wrote:Excuse me while I illegally download some John Mayer, then make a c.d. and shit on it. Does that count?


    That sir, is law. If you don't do that then you will be fined!
    Zebulon Dak wrote:If any Twitter employees get assassinated I'll vote Republican from here on out.
    User avatar
    OkieHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2750
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City


  • OkieHawk wrote:
    JesterHawk wrote:So, what about listening to a song on YouTube or Vevo? I'm not paying the artist, yet I am consuming the song. Is that wrong? It's not illegal.


    Don't forget Pandora, Slacker, Spotify, etc., etc...


    I don't use slacker or spotify, but on Pandora you are "paying" for the song, either by listening to commercials or by upgrading.

    The artist is being paid a royalty/licensing fee by the "radio" station and the station gets that from advertising.
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4190
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:DTex, will you ever put some blame where it belongs; with the supply chain and those in charge of it? Look how long it took for legal sales of MP3s to come around. I pirated music for more than a decade prior to easy and widespread availability of legal music online existed. I've purchased more music legally in the last 3 years than I did in my entire life up through the late 90s, and that includes the time before you could really get MP3s online. I didn't buy very many CDs because you got 1-2 good songs and a bunch of crap otherwise from most artists. From when it was realistically and easily feasible to sell music online on a large scale, to when it actually happened, is like a 15 to 20-year span of time, with the RIAA fighting it every step of the way.

    Why are you blaming the consumers for this? A lot of music piracy was CAUSED by the RIAA in the first place, and their refusal to change with the times until absolutely forced to. The MPAA has not been as bad, but they've been bad enough; and they still charge ridiculous premiums for their virtual copies of movies to buy, considering the lack of distribution and manufacturing involved. Half the HD movies are cheaper to buy a Blu-ray version of than it is to buy it in HD online, legitimately; and the Blu-ray copy is better quality, and they profit well from that including manufacturing, distribution, and advertising costs.

    The world thrives on making as many things conveniently available to the consumer as possible. Would you be satisfied if you could only buy milk in one container size from one source in your region? Hell to the no. You expect to be able to buy several different sizes at countless local sources, be they convenience stores, grocery stores, etc. Why do you give the RIAA and MPAA a pass on this, historically? Why is it up to the consumer to drag them kicking and screaming into the online sunlight of the 21st century, and let them get away with lamenting over the change they should have done of their own accord 15 years earlier?

    Give me a friggin' break.


    Absolutely the system needs updating, but just because you don't like the way things are done doesn't allow you to take something by your own method. I don't like the way car dealers sell cars at different prices to different customers based on the customers skill at negotiating. That doesn't give me the right to take their property/vehicle.


    I don't get it when people claim that because something is priced "ridiculously high" that consumers can somehow skirt that and that makes it legitimate to take.

    I don't think your business/job/career would like it if consumers of your product/service were getting access to it either for free or by some other method that cuts you out.
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4190
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • No, it doesn't make it right to steal something, but there is a lot to be said for creating environments that foster crimes of opportunity and necessity. I use "necessity" here in the sense not that books, movies, and music are necessities per se, but rather because if someone lacks the funds to purchase something legally, the motivation becomes the same, whether they're lifting a movie or groceries for the family.

    It is not the industries' fault people are stealing artistic media, but there is some onus on them when they create an environment that produces unnecessary theft and then react negatively when it happens. Kind of like parking a brand new car with the windows rolled down and a bunch of goodies in the seat in a bad Detroit neighborhood. Are you to be held accountable for what happens to the car and goodies? Absolutely not. Should you understand you kinda brought it on yourself by your own actions? Yep.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18919
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


  • DTex, online HD distribution of films costs almost nothing compared to their physical media counterparts. You don't think that if the cost of a product is reduced by 20% or 25% that most of that reduction should not be passed on to the consumer? Let's say oil barrel prices go down by 25% and they lower gas prices by 5%. You think that's fair?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:DTex, online HD distribution of films costs almost nothing compared to their physical media counterparts. You don't think that if the cost of a product is reduced by 20% or 25% that most of that reduction should not be passed on to the consumer? Let's say oil barrel prices go down by 25% and they lower gas prices by 5%. You think that's fair?


    There is, however, a bit of a misconception about digital media as compared to physical media. I see it very clearly in the book industry, and the same holds true for other mediums of art. There are fewer costs associated with distribution, such as storage, shipping, manufacturing, and returns. There are, however, a number of costs which remain equal for both types of product, that often get overlooked or marginalized by folks making this argument. Costs such as author/artist payment, editing, quality control, and other such costs related to the actual creation of product remain identical. And costs from marketing, reviews, publicity, etc., still remain intact. This indicates less of a drop in cost than is assumed by the buying public.

    Digitalization of art also creates a sort of conundrum with value vs. cost as well. In the end, the consumer is getting the identical product - not the book, CD, DVD, etc., but the story, the music, the movie. The heart of the product is exactly the same. And in many cases, it's presented in a format which is actually better than a physical product. Now you can transport that music in bulk, anywhere you want, in your pocket. You don't have to carry around a large player and a bunch of discs. You can turn on the TV and pull up whatever movie you want, without searching through whatever library of movies you have in bookcases, storage racks, or piled into boxes under the stairs or in the garage. You can carry thousands of books with you on an airplane, and still have room for that carry-on. This implies more value for the price, and yet we expect to pay less simply because it costs less to manufacture.

    I too want lower prices for digital wares, but the simple economics of it show that supply and demand, not price of production, dictate cost. Price of production indicates profitability and ability to stay in the market as a viable business.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18919
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


  • RolandDeschain wrote:DTex, online HD distribution of films costs almost nothing compared to their physical media counterparts. You don't think that if the cost of a product is reduced by 20% or 25% that most of that reduction should not be passed on to the consumer? Let's say oil barrel prices go down by 25% and they lower gas prices by 5%. You think that's fair?



    Sailor made a few good points about the actual "reduction" in costs.

    As to your oil prices example, there are so many factors that go into the price of a gallon of gas rather than just the "barrel of oil". Taxes, distribution, storage, refining, ............. oil down 25% and gas price down 5% might be correct and fair. :stirthepot: Of course there is public transportation, or walking/cycling, or move closer to work, choices that you can make if you feel the prices are not "fair".

    Sailors point about "needs" instead of "wants" is also valid. If the price on a movie, cd, or a song are higher than you want to pay, do without. Too many options for free material is out there. Books and movies are available for "free" (taxes not withstanding) at local libraries. Last time I checked, there is free tv & radio over the airwaves. I know the selection may not be current or the widest, but if you want that, I feel you should be willing to pay for what ever the artist/musician/writer/& distribution channel asks for.

    Ultimately, we are all individuals with different opinions on right/wrong and we all draw our individual lines in different places.
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4190
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • True, Sailor; but the fact that for years, people had to rip their own music CDs into MP3s to make them portable, and the fact that people scanned books in by hand to get digital PDF versions, and the fact that people recorded and re-encoded TV shows and movies to make them portable and convenient before these industries did what they were forced to do many years after they should have done it, has created some bitterness.

    Also, while how much money you save by digital distribution versus physical distribution will vary wildly, there is no arguing that it's cheaper.

    @DTex: Yes, I realize oil prices are only part of the price of gasoline. However, the Department of Energy says that 65 cents out of every dollar you spend on gasoline goes to the purchase of crude oil. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-effi ... price1.htm

    So, one should expect a 25% price reduction in crude oil to reduce the price at the pump by approximately 2/3rds of that 25%; 16% or so. Otherwise, it's simply artificial price increases to get more profit. Price gouging, if extreme enough.

    DTexHawk wrote:Ultimately, we are all individuals with different opinions on right/wrong and we all draw our individual lines in different places.

    ...And some of us are fine with this idea, and don't push it onto others. Others, like you, try to put us in a time-out chair, pushing your perception of morals onto us. I don't tell you what you should or should not do, why do you feel the need to lecture us on your definition of stealing/pirating?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • my biggest problem with piracy is that instead of just stealing it and enjoying it, many choose to share it not just with friends but with ANYONE/EVERYONE. Why? you got what you wanted can't you just be happy with that? Are you afraid of breaking the unwritten code of piracy yet willfully break the code of society? :D
    User avatar
    m0ng0
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2785
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:55 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Wa


  • Roland, I'm right there with you on the point that the industry has been absolutely HORRIBLE about effecting change in this manner. They're absolutely causing this to happen to themselves. People want product, and if that product doesn't exist (especially because it's forced NOT to), they're going to create work-arounds, legal or otherwise. And yes, digital distribution is most definitely cheaper. That's fact. There is also price gouging in the digital marketplace. Paying $14 for a classic book, especially one that's been around since the 1930s is absolutely ridiculous, and yet that's what's happening. It's also part of the reason for the lawsuits for this very thing against publishing's "Big Six".

    There is absolutely bitterness over this, and that leads to more piracy, because hey, screw the man for forcing it on us. It's somehow seen as a viable strategy, though, which completely baffles me. Actually, no, it doesn't completely baffle me. It's a result of short-sighted business strategy to milk everyone for as much as they can, with piss-all thought to the long term health of the industry as a whole. We're currently seeing the book industry construct an almost exact replica of the horrible, predatory contract practices the music industry saw a decade ago. Here is the link to a number of posts by SFWA President John Scalzi's thoughts on that, starting with the post from March 6. They're well worth a read. A little off the subject of piracy to be sure, but they do paint a disturbing visual that indicates where big publishing may be heading. Hint: movies and music a decade ago. And that affects piracy. A lot.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18919
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


  • Sailor, remember when Radiohead said "KMA" to the industry, and released their new album on their website with a pay-what-you-think-it's-worth motto, and you could download it without paying anything if you wanted to?

    http://gizmodo.com/305566/radiohead-off ... ant-to-pay

    I wonder how that turned out...

    Oh, it looks like it was a success, and that while plenty of people still downloaded it for free, many paid; and it brought the band more money than its prior album. They accomplished that by offering it for free, merely asking people to pay what they felt it was worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbow ... t_placings

    Yeah, you can go to hell now, RIAA/MPAA.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Yep, yep. And sadly, nobody in the industry learned a damn thing. Except artists.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18919
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


  • RolandDeschain wrote:Sailor, remember when Radiohead said "KMA" to the industry, and released their new album on their website with a pay-what-you-think-it's-worth motto, and you could download it without paying anything if you wanted to?

    http://gizmodo.com/305566/radiohead-off ... ant-to-pay

    I wonder how that turned out...

    Oh, it looks like it was a success, and that while plenty of people still downloaded it for free, many paid; and it brought the band more money than its prior album. They accomplished that by offering it for free, merely asking people to pay what they felt it was worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbow ... t_placings

    Yeah, you can go to hell now, RIAA/MPAA.


    Not a fan of Radiohead, but this was genius on their part. I really thought that after their success on this that more bands would do it, sadly they haven't though.
    Zebulon Dak wrote:If any Twitter employees get assassinated I'll vote Republican from here on out.
    User avatar
    OkieHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2750
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City


  • Okie, I think a large part of the problem is that many artists are tied to their music label for ridiculously long contracts; but I don't know.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    DTexHawk wrote:Ultimately, we are all individuals with different opinions on right/wrong and we all draw our individual lines in different places.

    ...And some of us are fine with this idea, and don't push it onto others. Others, like you, try to put us in a time-out chair, pushing your perception of morals onto us. I don't tell you what you should or should not do, why do you feel the need to lecture us on your definition of stealing/pirating?


    So can I quote you whenever you reply on a thread that someone is doing something that is wrong/illegal? ;)
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4190
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14999
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


  • Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.


    So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

    Good to know!

    Love these new morals!
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4190
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • DTexHawk wrote:
    Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.


    So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

    Good to know!

    Love these new morals!


    No. It's different if someone is using it for personal gain. Just like if someone is selling bootleg movies and music from the trunk of their car.
    "Pete Carroll brings in great elves...and they make the best presents."
    User avatar
    SacHawk2.0
    .NOT a Moderator
     
    Posts: 10615
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
    Location: With a white girl


  • DTexHawk wrote:So can I quote you whenever you reply on a thread that someone is doing something that is wrong/illegal? ;)


    It's impossible for there to be different degrees, or levels of severity with things with you, isn't it? Tiniest infraction: DEATH PENALTY. Murdering 17 people in cold blood: DEATH PENALTY.

    :roll:
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • SacHawk2.0 wrote:
    DTexHawk wrote:
    Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.


    So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

    Good to know!

    Love these new morals!


    No. It's different if someone is using it for personal gain. Just like if someone is selling bootleg movies and music from the trunk of their car.


    Right. Public broadcast, advertisement, selling something that doesn't belong to you are different situations.
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14999
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


  • DTexHawk wrote:
    Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.


    So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

    Good to know!

    Love these new morals!


    This is the same guy that said Russell Wilson sucked.
    The new Santa Clara stadium name?..........Dungaree Dump
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25043
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Yes, that is a Bacon Wrapped Turkey


  • Largent80 wrote:This is the same guy that said Russell Wilson sucked.


    Did he? DTex, is this true? Did you pull a "cboom"?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:This is the same guy that said Russell Wilson sucked.


    Did he? DTex, is this true? Did you pull a "cboom"?


    To be fair, a lot of people didn't believe in RW3 till after the Pats game, some it took even longer. They're all idiots, don't get me wrong, but there were a lot of them.
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14999
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


  • My bad, it was Daytoman, but Dtex still sux.
    The new Santa Clara stadium name?..........Dungaree Dump
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25043
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Yes, that is a Bacon Wrapped Turkey


  • You confused a Texan with an Oklahoman? Oh man. DTex's gonna be pissed.
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14999
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


  • Zebulon Dak wrote:You confused a Texan with an Oklahoman? Oh man. DTex's gonna be pissed.


    Largent80 is always confused, so no prob.
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4190
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • Zebulon Dak wrote:You confused a Texan with an Oklahoman? Oh man. DTex's gonna be pissed.


    Image
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    DTexHawk wrote:So can I quote you whenever you reply on a thread that someone is doing something that is wrong/illegal? ;)


    It's impossible for there to be different degrees, or levels of severity with things with you, isn't it? Tiniest infraction: DEATH PENALTY. Murdering 17 people in cold blood: DEATH PENALTY.

    :roll:


    Not at all, I already said we all draw our lines in different places.

    And really, is me giving you sh*t for the "tiniest infraction" the same as the DEATH PENALTY. ;)

    And just for the record, I am against the death penalty for the 17 yr old killer. And I don't find any joy by wishing him harm.
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4190
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • My arms are hairy. I'm gonna shave em and send the hair to DTex. He can either bail them up into a pacifier or glue them to areas that he has none.
    The new Santa Clara stadium name?..........Dungaree Dump
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25043
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Yes, that is a Bacon Wrapped Turkey


  • Largent80 wrote:My arms are hairy. I'm gonna shave em and send the hair to DTex. He can either bail them up into a pacifier or glue them to areas that he has none.


    This will now be added to the memorable quotes thread
    "Pete Carroll brings in great elves...and they make the best presents."
    User avatar
    SacHawk2.0
    .NOT a Moderator
     
    Posts: 10615
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
    Location: With a white girl


  • DTexHawk wrote:And just for the record, I am against the death penalty for the 17 yr old killer. And I don't find any joy by wishing him harm.


    See, now I don't even believe that you're a Texan.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

    You could get a bargain on beach front to build on.

    :P
    Image
    On to week two. Week one was not a fluke!
    User avatar
    The Radish
    * NET Radish *
     
    Posts: 18655
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
    Location: Spokane, Wa.


  • The Radish wrote:Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

    You could get a bargain on beach front to build on.

    :P


    Well, you could always check out the study.

    Seriously though, the digital age changed the music industry and it did affect record sales. But you have to look at the current state of the industry and accept that it's not going to get back to the way things were. It's important that musicians and record companies stay up to date if they want to continue making money, because there's still plenty of it out there to be had. And the people who are doing it right are still making lots and lots of it.
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14999
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


  • The Radish wrote:Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

    You could get a bargain on beach front to build on.

    :P


    Of course it affects the sales and profits. The question is, does the massive extra exposure lead to even more profits than they would have had without the pirating and its huge extra exposure, or not? Serious statement/question.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26664
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Throwdown wrote:-read this while illegally downloading music-

    :)


    Dude. Never admit to a crime in writing, no matter how f'in' stupid said law might be.
    It's a federal crime, they're tenacious and essentially boundary-less.
    "We walked our (pedestrian) ass to the Super Bowl"
    Angry Doug
    "We got grit. That's it."
    Earl Thomas.
    "Check your PMs"
    Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Rocket
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1446
    Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:12 pm
    Location: The Rain Forest


  • Zebulon Dak wrote:
    The Radish wrote:Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

    You could get a bargain on beach front to build on.

    :P


    Well, you could always check out the study.

    Seriously though, the digital age changed the music industry and it did affect record sales. But you have to look at the current state of the industry and accept that it's not going to get back to the way things were. It's important that musicians and record companies stay up to date if they want to continue making money, because there's still plenty of it out there to be had. And the people who are doing it right are still making lots and lots of it.


    There are also a number of examples from authors who put their work out for free and challenged readers to "steal" their books. As I recall, they all recorded huge up-ticks in sales afterward. Like I said earlier, the number one killer of artists and authors is not piracy, but rather obscurity.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18919
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


  • release parties for albums that were leaked a week or two ahead of time are always kinda.......awkward :D
    User avatar
    m0ng0
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2785
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:55 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Wa


Next


It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:03 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NET LOUNGE ]




Information
  • Who is online