Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians 485
Licensed2Hack writes "Janis Ian, who provided this slashdot interview last September, has written this editorial in the Los Angeles Times. Janis says, "After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%. They're still double what they were before the MP3s went online." And the RIAA's stated goal in preventing this type of activity with their lawsuit against Verizon is to increase sales..."
I agree completely. (Score:5, Informative)
Legacy of Greed (Score:4, Informative)
The entertainment industries are controlled by people so blinded by greed that they are completely incapable of comprehending any business model that does not revolve around iron-fisted totalitarian control of their product. The list is lengthy and has been repeated many times:
Jack Valenti wanted to outlaw VCRs, saying they would destroy the movie industry. Instead, they have produced billions in profits.
The MPAA claims that they are currently suffering enormous harm from the trading of movies on the Interent. In reality, box office receipts in 2002 were up 11% from the previous year and the number of movie tickets sold was the highest in 50 years.
In 1981 the RIAA was making the same claims that they are today about lost profits due to "piracy". Back in those days, CDs, Personal Computers and the Internet didn't exist. The villian, according to the RIAA, was cassette tape recorders. People were allegedly taping their friends records instead of buying them. But studies showed that people who owned sophisticated home recording requipment spend 75% MORE money buying records than people who didn't.
The list goes on.......
The greed and stupidity of the enterntainment industry goes on....
The irony here is that time and time again the entertainment industry has had to be saved from itself.
Re:repeat after me - The RIAA doesn't represent Me (Score:1, Informative)
I recall seeing a set of equipment at WBAA at Purdue (around 1976) that was old enough to have been designed at a time when things like equalization were unstandard, so the preamp had something like a couple of dozen settings to account for any disc the radio station could have had come in at the time.
RIAA unified all that.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The RIAA acts in the interests if its constitua (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:4, Informative)
That's not hard evidence, it's a quote from a Web site. It's far less valid as a reason for believing something than even anecdotal evidence. Actually, the general success of shareware is support for my argument.
The argument doesn't hold water, not because the exposure is ineffective for the artists, but because it's still not an excuse for theft.
Well, to me, the definition of stealing involves depriving somebody of something. If I walk into your home and steal your TV, it's stealing because now you no longer have a TV. You paid for that TV, so now you're out a certain amount of money because of what I did.
Let's analyze the different uses of music piracy, and the extent to which I've stolen from the musician in each case:
a) I wasn't going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm not going to buy the album.
I haven't deprived the artist or label of anything, whether I continue to listen to the music or not. If I enjoy the music and listen to it, I've gained, making my actions at least a little questionable, but nobody else lost by my gain, so labelling my actions "theft" is unreasonable.
b) I wasn't going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm going to buy the album.
I've actually benefited the artist by my actions in this case. There is no way this can be considered theft.
c) I was going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm going to buy the album.
Obviously I haven't deprived the artist or label of anything in this case. My motives may be a little questionable, but if I ultimately bought the album I can't be considered to have stolen it.
d) I was going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm not going to buy the album.
This is the only case where I'm depriving the artist and label of something. If I proceed to listen to and enjoy the music regularly, and keep the recordings, obviously I have thoroughly cheated someone out of some money they deserve. If I proceed to delete the music because it turns out I didn't like it as much as I expected, the ethics of the situation are less obvious but it's still pretty clear I've done something wrong.
This is something of a simplification, since what is done with the music afterwards makes a difference as well, as far as morality is concerned, but for the most part 3/4 of the possible ways to "pirate" music involve no detriment to...anyone. In the face of a complete lack of any research into this, there is no reason to believe that one or another of these possibilities is more likely than the others in practice, so until such research is done the only logical assumptions are:
a) The probabilities are equal, so that 3/4 of all music piracy causes no harm, while the amount that causes harm is exactly balanced by the amount that causes benefit to the same people; or
b) Anecdotal evidence gives an accurate view of the situation, and people buy more CDs if they download music than if they don't, so the RIAA's position is indefensible.
These are the only defensible positions; the RIAA's statement that music piracy is eating into their profits is sheer speculation until some market research shows one way or another. I suspect that if research into this is ever conducted, the RIAA's position will go from being speculation to being wrong...unless the research is funded by the RIAA, in which case they have the option of only publishing results that favor them.
Frankly, I'm surprised no real research has been done into the effects of music piracy on CD sales, considering the amount of press the subject has received.