Silk Posted September 15, 2003 Report Posted September 15, 2003 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/ do you not know how to scroll up or remember a site you posted?
madhaha Posted September 15, 2003 Report Posted September 15, 2003 Sorry, its just that your reply made no sense at all in the context of that site. The link was provided for general interest, not to support a particular argument.
Silk Posted September 16, 2003 Report Posted September 16, 2003 Prove it. Sales figures says that it does When you said that then posted that site http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/ , i thought you were trying to relate the two topics you wrote down.
madhaha Posted September 16, 2003 Report Posted September 16, 2003 Seperate posts and a complete lack of sales figures of any description say otherwise. Common sense really.
Silk Posted September 16, 2003 Report Posted September 16, 2003 Prove to me that P2P improves sales for the music industry.
madhaha Posted September 16, 2003 Report Posted September 16, 2003 Sorry I'm too tired/lazy to go digging for you... http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,...7,35848,00.html Here is a starting point. You have a date and the kind of figures given. Go look it up for yourself.
Bargeld Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 Prove to me that P2P improves sales for the music industry.unfortunately madhaha, your article makes no !@#$%^&*ertion that P2P improved sales. It never created any supply/demand relationship between sales and P2P file sharing. The article actually argues against your theory. Alex Walsh, the vice president of market research for the RIAA said that just because sales are up doesn't mean that its time to declare that digital piracy hasn't hurt the music business. "If we grew 3 percent as an industry, maybe we could have grown twice as much," she said. "There is just no way to tell how much we could have lost. There is no scientific or empirical way to determine how much more music we could have sold." National !@#$%^&*ociation of Retail Merchants (NARM) president Pam Horowitz said the Soundscan numbers do a lot to back up what retailers have known for some time -- that people are still going out to the store to buy the music that they like. "We've learned that brick and mortar retailers are still very formidable," she said. "What we are seeing is that a whole lot of these little girls who are online might not be downloading music. Instead, they are talking about N'Sync in chat rooms." Still, she said, the early anecdotal evidence NARM has been gathering has shown that MP3 files have been in a big factor in the college market this year. But not enough of a factor to drive down sales. What is being pointed out is a well known misinterpretation of success, which is easily described using the stock market as a model: The rate of inflation is 3%. An index fund represents the overall growth of any stock market (there are index funds for the NYSE, NASDAQ etc.) and this growth is typically 13% a year. If an investor sees a net growth in their fund of 8% during a year, then essentially they have made 5% growth on their investment (you must maintain at least 3% growth or your investment is actually losing value due to inflation.) So the investor says "woohoo, I made 5% above inflation!" While the knowledgable investment agents know that the stock market, as a whole, has increased by 13% and therefore the given investment has actually lost 5% of its value, due to the fact that the market, as a whole, grow by a total of 13% (10% growth after inflation, compared to 5% of the example fund.) This is the same thinking that this article points out. Just because sales continued to increase during the prevalence of file sharing, that doesn't mean that sales weren't hurt by them, and it definately doesn't infer that file sharing helped those sales.
Silk Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 mp3.com is a web site that simply lets you stream songs, and the site is right a site like that will benefit the music industry because mp3.com lets you also download songs for money. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/filesh...2/01626615.html heres a site saying p2p is hurting sales.
Yupa Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 The article actually argues against your theory. nah, the article is rather unbiased, as news articles should be
Aileron Posted September 18, 2003 Report Posted September 18, 2003 mp3.com is a web site that simply lets you stream songs, and the site is right a site like that will benefit the music industry because mp3.com lets you also download songs for money. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/filesh...2/01626615.html heres a site saying p2p is hurting sales. Well, it will kill the recording industry, although it is the future of the music industry as a whole. The recording industry is dying. They did not consider online file sharing to be compe!@#$%^&*ion because it was illegal. That was a mistake because illegal actions still exist. Because of that mistake, their industry will fall. All it takes is for a site like mp3.com to offer music downloading in a legal fashion. However, the music EXECUTIVES are making the right decision. They are suing consumers for short term profit at the expense of the long term good of their company. Then, they can leave the company just before it collapses. -*BAD WORD*-o again Enron.
madhaha Posted September 18, 2003 Report Posted September 18, 2003 Yeah, I should have done my homework. I'll find time to dig up the figures some time. I believe that a similar article was slashdotted not too far back but half of the stuff on /. is horribly wrong... iTunes, MP3.com and soon napster. The recording industry won't fall but it'll need to seriously rethink their marketting strategy and policies. Which reminds me, I just popped down the record store today. Not your usual highstreet HMV or Virgin rubbish but a proper recordstore selling vinyl. Buisness was going great even though the other stores in the area were being hit hard by slowly reducing foot traffic (local council upped the parking prices). There will always be a market for recordings, just not as the m!@#$%^&* market consummables that the industry wants...
Bargeld Posted September 18, 2003 Report Posted September 18, 2003 The recording industry is dying. Maybe the "brick and mortar" stores are getting hurt, but the recording industry, as a whole, will remain strong (the recording industry includes the producers, engineers, editors, agents, etc. all of whom remain essential ingredients to a well produced album. I would even go so far as to say that record stores wont entirely be forced out of the market. There are basically 2 types of stores:Chains (Sam Goody, etc.) that are found in the malls across america, and who offer teenagers (the big spenders) things like posters, CD inserts, and promotions. These kids probably listen to songs on walkmans that their parents bought them, rather than on $200-$400 mp3 players. (I know that burnt CDs are still an issue, but that is limited by a number of factors as well.) With all of these things combined, it's easy to see how the chains can survive.Independant stores sell specific types of music, typically non-mainstream. There is a large amount of consumers who still buy vinyl and many who prefer to buy used CDs (like myself... I rarely buy any music when it's brand new.) Both types of shops provide additional products such as apparel, stickers, posters, and other promotional items... none of which have a comparable "downloadable" equivalent. Loss in album sales will be recouped in the cost of other merchandise, and the consumers will ultimately pay the price ($17-$20 T-shirts, $4 stickers...these things used to be available for much less.) Over the years, I've spoken to many people on both sides of the fence regarding downloadable movies. DVD's sales aren't in much trouble due to the amount of effort needed to make one viewable on a TV, the low quality of the video and sound, lack of extra features such as deleted scenes and director commentaries, and the entry requirements needed to gain pirated video (high speed/bandwidth connections.) Since the cost of TV's, DVD players, and an acceptable 5.1 digital audio setup has dropped by quite a bit over the past few years, as well as the price of DVD's and the availablility of used DVD's, this market isn't in much peril at all. One last thing I do want to point out though... Used CDs, DVDs, Video Games, and other Media generate NO profit for the original producers/distributors. This type of product can also lead to a decrease in sales of "New" (still in the plastic) products. These sales are pure income for the shops which sell used media, with a low cost of overhead (go to your local blockbuster or electronics boutique and trade some stuff in and see how much they offer you for it.) I would again wager that this type of sales contributes to a lot of the loss of sales being claimed through mp3/video/media pirating.
Aileron Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 The recording industry is dying. Maybe the "brick and mortar" stores are getting hurt, but the recording industry, as a whole, will remain strong (the recording industry includes the producers, engineers, editors, agents, etc. all of whom remain essential ingredients to a well produced album. I meant more along the lines of the "brick and mortar" stores. A poor use of words on my part. Sorry. Over the years, I've spoken to many people on both sides of the fence regarding downloadable movies. DVD's sales aren't in much trouble due to the amount of effort needed to make one viewable on a TV, the low quality of the video and sound, lack of extra features such as deleted scenes and director commentaries, and the entry requirements needed to gain pirated video (high speed/bandwidth connections.) Since the cost of TV's, DVD players, and an acceptable 5.1 digital audio setup has dropped by quite a bit over the past few years, as well as the price of DVD's and the availablility of used DVD's, this market isn't in much peril at all. You know, that shows the exact problem with CDs. From all of the examples above, it is clear that those who sell DVDs made a clear effort to COMPETE with downloadables. Thus, they don't have a problem. CDs, however, do not have things like that. They could have put special features into the CDs, but they didn't. They could have made the quality of manufactured CDs far exceed that of downloaded copies. Yes, it is not a direct comparison, but there is plenty they could have done to make a bought CD a better value than a homemade copy downloaded online. Thus, I really don't pity those who make CDs.
madhaha Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 Much like eBooks which are also being distributed by P2P (and IRC). They Could have had it synced up with an audio book. They could have included animations and illustrations but most of them are just text with a !@#$%^&*le image, locked up in some horrible proprietry format with all the so called copy protection features turned on. So people scanned everything straight out the books (copy protect that!) or saved the talking books as MP3s.
Silk Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 CDs, however, do not have things like that. They could have put special features into the CDs, but they didn't. Alot of CDs on the market do have special features put on them, simply put them into your CD Rom drive and explore the CD. They dont really tell anyone of them mostly because its an easter egg you have to find for yourself.
Aileron Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Yes, well the BIG problem with CDs is how they are marketed. In a typical album, there is one maybe two good songs and around ten or so mediocre songs. They would be a much better value if all of the songs were hit ones. That sounds a lot harder than it is. In actuality, all they would have to do have the lesser songs played on MTV and the radio more.
Silk Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 In a typical album, there is one maybe two good songs and around ten or so mediocre songs. They would be a much better value if all of the songs were hit ones. I can see wher your getting at but its all depends on the listener. People have different opinions on what are the good songs and the bad songs are. It also depends on how much the listener likes that genre of music, some people may just buy the cd for 1 song, but there are always the hit single cd of that band that can be bought. It would be better if all the songs were hits, but, its pretty much impossible. All cds have good and bad songs on it, and its usually because the artists have a deadline to reach, so they get rushed.
madhaha Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 No its definately because they're padding it out. They throw in random instrumental jam sessions and songs that don't make the charts at all because they just weren't good enough.
Silk Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Random instrumental jams? Not necessarily, im sure they arent just something random, it takes alot of time to make a cd and im sure the artist doesnt want -*BAD WORD*- on it, they want what they think is good stuff.
Guest Sharkie Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 According to what I've seen, getting your music off a P2P program and burning in on a CD gives you the "I'm-poor-and-I--*BAD WORD*--music-companies" image, and the people who think will that buy the actual Albums of the artist. Also, most people will find that on ALL albums, there are a few good tracks they like, but the rest are hardly listened to. Personally, i don't burn my music onto a CD, I just keep the music on my computer so I can listen to it at my disposal. The artist who have their tracks downloaded via P2P are often the most sucessful and rich, and I don't see that one little track off and entire album of 20 or so would really make a big dent in their wallets. I think they should be pleased that people are listening to what they make. The RIAA should really crawl back into that hole they came out of. I'm sure someone else has already made this point, but look at websites. each site you visit is copied to your harddrive, and according to what the RIAA and EULA says, that is copyright infringment. I'd like to see them try to shut down the entire WWW. They are suing people who use P2P, which is putting money in their pockets, so as soon as they catch wind that someone is even viewing a P2P oriented site, they march down to the offender and take his/her money. about 5% of which goes to the artists. Enough of my rantings
madhaha Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 Smokescreen and stubborness. We'll won't know what RIAA are really up to for several decades to come.
Silk Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 The artist who have their tracks downloaded via P2P are often the most sucessful and rich, and I don't see that one little track off and entire album of 20 or so would really make a big dent in their wallets. I think they should be pleased that people are listening to what they make. How many artists have been out long enough for 20 CD's? And people just dont put one track onto the network, they put the whole CD onto the network for everyone. Even for some reason it is just one track multiply that by thousands and thousands of users and the hundreds of downloads a day.
madhaha Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 People tend not to download albums by p2p because they find they could wait days to get the full list. This is especially true with soundtracks. RIAA is also targetting people downloading singles...
Swift Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 Silk - here are a few people close enough to 20 Albums/CD's Metallica, Iced Earth, Blind Guardian, Testament, Slipknot (various imports im including in this) etc. etc.. you'd be suprised how many CD's some bands have.. -*BAD WORD*- PM5K had like one or two albums prior to their album with their hit single: When Worlds Collide.
Recommended Posts