When you pirate a CD, think how much the companies would actually give to the artist. Not enough. If you want to support the artist, rather go to their gig.
Say you made and released a new CD. Some people start pirating it, and selling it at a super low price to other people. You're hardly making a sale because your prices are too high, even though you're the one who made it, and you should have the right to earn the money instead. How would you feel?
This is why pirating is illegal.
Yes I know pirating is wrong in that aspect of it. But when people make the claim "piracy hurts sales" I really don't think it hurts sales generally.
Yes some people can sell things for ridiculously low prices if they pirate it, but I'm fairly certain most people don't do that.
I'm calling crap on all the people who say that piracy is anything but terrible to the industry. In most cases, the people who pirate are just low-lives who won't spent their money on the latest album. The amount of cases where piracy made a product more successful is almost zip.
Actually, it's a lot more common than it may seem. For example, when I first saw Minecraft, I pirated it, not because I didn't have enough money, but because I didn't have any way of buying it. My friends saw me playing it, and started playing it too, pirating it as well. Eventually I got a paypal account and bought the game. Showing the benefits of having a paid Minecraft account (SMP) to my friends, I encouraged them to get premium accounts. Now, they all have a premium account. I guess I kind of advertised Minecraft.
Tl;dr: It's a lot more common than you think.
Also, Rememberthese?
Damn I didnt know that notch was that awesome (second link).
I'm calling crap on all the people who say that piracy is anything but terrible to the industry. In most cases, the people who pirate are just low-lives who won't spent their money on the latest album. The amount of cases where piracy made a product more successful is almost zip.
I'm pretty sure Louie CK released an uncopyrighted comedy video or something and said that anyone can pirate it if they want or they can buy it for 5 dollars. I don't know what exactly happened but apparently it sold really well. Maybe the idea of being anti-piracy somehow causes more piracy.
I'm not saying piracy is "beneficial" in most cases (though it can be) but it's definitely not lost sales. If they didn't intend to buy it in the first place, there was no sale there to be lost.
Also, "low lifes"? That's a pretty arrogant way of reffering to people without enough money to purchase the product.
Music sales have been nose diving since 2000, about the same time Napster took off. These two things could be unrelated (I mean, aliens could be making everyone spend less on music), but it hard to not see a correlation between the rise of piracy and falling music sales.
Music sales have been nose diving since 2000, about the same time Napster took off. These two things could be unrelated (I mean, aliens could be making everyone spend less on music), but it hard to not see a correlation between the rise of piracy and falling music sales.
Well I can't deny the music industry is **** because of pirating, I guess in the case of music it does some damage. But the things I was talking about mostly was programs and games and such.
Though I think if music was sold for cheaper it would reduce piracy. Hmmm.. pay over 1 dollar for a song... or use about 1 dollar to get an app that is more worthwhile?
I really don't get why song prices are so jacked up. Sell them for a quarter or 50 cents or something and maybe people wouldn't feel so inclined to pirate it...
Music sales have been nose diving since 2000, about the same time Napster took off. These two things could be unrelated (I mean, aliens could be making everyone spend less on music), but it hard to not see a correlation between the rise of piracy and falling music sales.
It makes sense. People are now only buying one or two songs at a time, rather than a full album. People are literally paying 1/20th of what they were forced to pay during the monopoly. It will also take some time before they're capable of properly tallying the actual number of digital sales as well. Especially considering they do not take into account, donation based systems - and only actual sales to existing industry juggernauts. (Not including the mass multitude of DRM free purchase sites.)
I wonder if they're also including indirect sales, such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero sales, which I doubt.
It makes sense. People are now only buying one or two songs at a time, rather than a full album. People are literally paying 1/20th of what they were forced to pay during the monopoly. It will also take some time before they're capable of properly tallying the actual number of digital sales as well. Especially considering they do not take into account, donation based systems - and only actual sales to existing industry juggernauts. (Not including the mass multitude of DRM free purchase sites.)
I wonder if they're also including indirect sales, such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero sales, which I doubt.
You bring up some very good points that I've never even considered. I agree with you though.
It makes sense. People are now only buying one or two songs at a time, rather than a full album. People are literally paying 1/20th of what they were forced to pay during the monopoly. It will also take some time before they're capable of properly tallying the actual number of digital sales as well. Especially considering they do not take into account, donation based systems - and only actual sales to existing industry juggernauts. (Not including the mass multitude of DRM free purchase sites.)
I wonder if they're also including indirect sales, such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero sales, which I doubt.
Yes, we all read John Cheese.
Anyways, Single downloads sales started making money around 2003, when Itunes was ported to Windows. Sales started falling in 1999-2000. You do the math.
Anyways, Single downloads sales started making money around 2003, when Itunes was ported to Windows. Sales started falling in 1999-2000. You do the math.
Well I still think the music industry is becoming ****, not because of piracy but because they have horrible prices. It's what... $1.29 per song now? Most people don't even listen to a song for more than 40 plays. It really isn't worth the amount of money you're paying for it. If they actually made prices more reasonable, I'd imagine sales would go up because people who pirate music no longer become "normal" rather "pathetic" because they're not willing to cough up like 50 cents for a song.
Albums are what... 10-12 dollars? They have 10-20 songs right? That means the most an individual song should even cost is about 1 dollar. But maxing out on what it should cost is not really a good method of getting sales. That's like making a TV for 500 dollars, and the most you can sell it for is 1500... you'd make more of a profit but it's expensive as hell so less people will buy it.
My other theory as to why music sales are going down: music just isn't as good. Now I know that's opinion, but really let's look at this. My dad still listens to AC/DC and stuff he listened to as a teen. Most teens now listen to a song for a week and never listen to it again. It's just not the same anymore and I don't think companies in the music industry realize this. I bet all these horny teenage girls won't even have a Justin Beiber album in 20 years. My dad has every AC/DC album. It seems like music has lost it's "lasting effect" and that's probably a big reason for the decline in sales as well. If people only listen to music for a week, why bother buying it?
Well I still think the music industry is becoming ****, not because of piracy but because they have horrible prices. It's what... $1.29 per song now? Most people don't even listen to a song for more than 40 plays. It really isn't worth the amount of money you're paying for it. If they actually made prices more reasonable, I'd imagine sales would go up because people who pirate music no longer become "normal" rather "pathetic" because they're not willing to cough up like 50 cents for a song.
Albums are what... 10-12 dollars? They have 10-20 songs right? That means the most an individual song should even cost is about 1 dollar. But maxing out on what it should cost is not really a good method of getting sales. That's like making a TV for 500 dollars, and the most you can sell it for is 1500... you'd make more of a profit but it's expensive as hell so less people will buy it.
My other theory as to why music sales are going down: music just isn't as good. Now I know that's opinion, but really let's look at this. My dad still listens to AC/DC and stuff he listened to as a teen. Most teens now listen to a song for a week and never listen to it again. It's just not the same anymore and I don't think companies in the music industry realize this. I bet all these horny teenage girls won't even have a Justin Beiber album in 20 years. My dad has every AC/DC album. It seems like music has lost it's "lasting effect" and that's probably a big reason for the decline in sales as well. If people only listen to music for a week, why bother buying it?
Two Points:
1) Music was not better in the past. It just seems that way because all the crap was forgotten. Case in point, Do you know what was the top song on the Billboard charts for 1969 (one of the best years in music) was? Sugar Sugar by the Archies:
It's an Ok song, but compared to everything else that came out at the time, It's nothing. Pop music has always been bland.
2) If iTunes sold songs for 1 cent per song, Piracy would still be cheaper. There is no way undersell free.
Anyways, Single downloads sales started making money around 2003, when Itunes was ported to Windows. Sales started falling in 1999-2000. You do the math.
Sales also dropped in 1978 and plateaued through the 80's.
Know what they blamed it on?
Cassettes, and copying.
These aren't new arguments. The Cracked writer you spoke of is just one of many who have articulated against the RIAA's argument against digital copying. You'll also note that my argument also added multiple points that were not included in his article, primarily because it was not the source. (Although I assume the statistics chart was pulled directly from that article, rather than the official RIAA website which he got it from.)
There are many more factors involved than just copying and good music vs bad music. Many factors such as world economics, the fact that the 90's were a monopoly based bubble for the music industry just waiting to burst, the stability of the corporations involved, the information used by the RIAA (who controls what is, and is not included on that chart)
Two Points:
1) Music was not better in the past. It just seems that way because all the crap was forgotten. Case in point, Do you know what was the top song on the Billboard charts for 1969 (one of the best years in music) was? Sugar Sugar by the Archies:
It's an Ok song, but compared to everything else that came out at the time, It's nothing. Pop music has always been bland.
2) If iTunes sold songs for 1 cent per song, Piracy would still be cheaper. There is no way undersell free.
I didn't refer to it as "better" music in the sense that it's actually better quality, because that's completely opinion. But people did buy records and such and they did listen to them for longer than a week. Nowadays, music goes in and out within a month, usually. Like I said, my dad has every AC/DC album, which he listened to as a teenager and still listens to now. Teens now seem to listen to a song for a month tops and then move on to a new one. I doubt any of them would be listening to the same stuff 30 years down the road.
And I know you can't undersell free, I never said it would abolish piracy to make the prices lower. But you sure as hell can reduce the drive of people to pirate your stuff. If you reduce it to 50 cents per song or something, less people would be pirating it, they'd go "oh it's only 50 cents, might as well just pay." and pay for it. People still will pirate it because there's always the greedy bastards who aren't willing to put even a slight amount of money up, but piracy will reduce if the prices are lower and more reasonable.
Sales also dropped in 1978 and plateaued through the 80's.
Know what they blamed it on?
Cassettes, and copying.
These aren't new arguments. The Cracked writer you spoke of is just one of many who have articulated against the RIAA's argument against digital copying. You'll also note that my argument also added multiple points that were not included in his article, primarily because it was not the source. (Although I assume the statistics chart was pulled directly from that article, rather than the official RIAA website which he got it from.)
There are many more factors involved than just copying and good music vs bad music. Many factors such as world economics, the fact that the 90's were a monopoly based bubble for the music industry just waiting to burst, the stability of the corporations involved, the information used by the RIAA (who controls what is, and is not included on that chart)
So, why is the music industry making around a third of what it made in the late 90's? (Aside from iTunes, which wasn't an option for most people until 2005ish)
Ok, The RIAA didn't make the chart, Business Insider did. Minor point.....
So, why is the music industry making around a third of what it made in the late 90's? (Aside from iTunes, which wasn't an option for most people until 2005ish)
Did you ever think that maybe iTunes itself is a big reason for the drop? I mean I know it started before iTunes was around but iTunes served no help either. Rather than spending 12 bucks on a full album, people would buy 1 or 2 songs and that's it. That's 2 dollars to the musician rather than 12.
I know iTunes can't be the only reason, but it's sure as hell not helping.
Anyways, Single downloads sales started making money around 2003, when Itunes was ported to Windows. Sales started falling in 1999-2000. You do the math.
So, why is the music industry making around a third of what it made in the late 90's? (Aside from iTunes, which wasn't an option for most people until 2005ish)
I've already gone over my points carefully. Feel free to read them over and make a proper counter-argument.
2) If iTunes sold songs for 1 cent per song, Piracy would still be cheaper. There is no way undersell free.
Sure you can. Pirating is inconvenient; there's a risk of bad quality or being duped into DLing a virus; it's a hassle in general. If something is cheap enough the convenience is worth the expense.
This is one reason that Spore and certain other Ubisoft games became extremely pirated - their DRM was so restrictive that
1) People took a stand on principle to not buy the game
and
2) People thought pirating the game and thus avoiding the draconian DRM would be easier than legitimately buying the game
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cliff Racer »
If a creeper walked in to my house, I'd either be cowering in a corner or unzipping my trousers.
Sure you can. Pirating is inconvenient; there's a risk of bad quality or being duped into DLing a virus; it's a hassle in general. If something is cheap enough the convenience is worth the expense.
This is one reason that Spore and certain other Ubisoft games became extremely pirated - their DRM was so restrictive that
1) People took a stand on principle to not buy the game
and
2) People thought pirating the game and thus avoiding the draconian DRM would be easier than legitimately buying the game
I've already gone over my points carefully. Feel free to read them over and make a proper counter-argument.
You'll also note that I never once blamed iTunes.
iTunes was ported to PC in October of 2003, most people I know started using it around 2004 to 2005. You and John Cheese said that the drop in sales was more or less caused by the change to a more singles based market. This change was caused by iTunes.
Anyways, Why do you two care if piracy hurts sales? The RIAA and the industry that backs it is awful. They screw over Artists and turn music into sludge. I hate them. So, I really have no problem with piracy of music. But, piracy does cost the music industry a lot money. Which is a good thing because they suck. Hard. Good Day.
I agree.
*applause*
Very possible. But most of the time, people pirate when they can't afford it.
My example wasn't a universal generalization, just an example where piracy causes no harm.
Yes I know pirating is wrong in that aspect of it. But when people make the claim "piracy hurts sales" I really don't think it hurts sales generally.
Yes some people can sell things for ridiculously low prices if they pirate it, but I'm fairly certain most people don't do that.
Damn I didnt know that notch was that awesome (second link).
I'm pretty sure Louie CK released an uncopyrighted comedy video or something and said that anyone can pirate it if they want or they can buy it for 5 dollars. I don't know what exactly happened but apparently it sold really well. Maybe the idea of being anti-piracy somehow causes more piracy.
I'm not saying piracy is "beneficial" in most cases (though it can be) but it's definitely not lost sales. If they didn't intend to buy it in the first place, there was no sale there to be lost.
Also, "low lifes"? That's a pretty arrogant way of reffering to people without enough money to purchase the product.
Music sales have been nose diving since 2000, about the same time Napster took off. These two things could be unrelated (I mean, aliens could be making everyone spend less on music), but it hard to not see a correlation between the rise of piracy and falling music sales.
Well I can't deny the music industry is **** because of pirating, I guess in the case of music it does some damage. But the things I was talking about mostly was programs and games and such.
Though I think if music was sold for cheaper it would reduce piracy. Hmmm.. pay over 1 dollar for a song... or use about 1 dollar to get an app that is more worthwhile?
I really don't get why song prices are so jacked up. Sell them for a quarter or 50 cents or something and maybe people wouldn't feel so inclined to pirate it...
It makes sense. People are now only buying one or two songs at a time, rather than a full album. People are literally paying 1/20th of what they were forced to pay during the monopoly. It will also take some time before they're capable of properly tallying the actual number of digital sales as well. Especially considering they do not take into account, donation based systems - and only actual sales to existing industry juggernauts. (Not including the mass multitude of DRM free purchase sites.)
I wonder if they're also including indirect sales, such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero sales, which I doubt.
Moraterra Single Player Survival - Last Updated: September 16, 4:00 PM PST
You bring up some very good points that I've never even considered. I agree with you though.
Yes, we all read John Cheese.
Anyways, Single downloads sales started making money around 2003, when Itunes was ported to Windows. Sales started falling in 1999-2000. You do the math.
Well I still think the music industry is becoming ****, not because of piracy but because they have horrible prices. It's what... $1.29 per song now? Most people don't even listen to a song for more than 40 plays. It really isn't worth the amount of money you're paying for it. If they actually made prices more reasonable, I'd imagine sales would go up because people who pirate music no longer become "normal" rather "pathetic" because they're not willing to cough up like 50 cents for a song.
Albums are what... 10-12 dollars? They have 10-20 songs right? That means the most an individual song should even cost is about 1 dollar. But maxing out on what it should cost is not really a good method of getting sales. That's like making a TV for 500 dollars, and the most you can sell it for is 1500... you'd make more of a profit but it's expensive as hell so less people will buy it.
My other theory as to why music sales are going down: music just isn't as good. Now I know that's opinion, but really let's look at this. My dad still listens to AC/DC and stuff he listened to as a teen. Most teens now listen to a song for a week and never listen to it again. It's just not the same anymore and I don't think companies in the music industry realize this. I bet all these horny teenage girls won't even have a Justin Beiber album in 20 years. My dad has every AC/DC album. It seems like music has lost it's "lasting effect" and that's probably a big reason for the decline in sales as well. If people only listen to music for a week, why bother buying it?
Two Points:
1) Music was not better in the past. It just seems that way because all the crap was forgotten. Case in point, Do you know what was the top song on the Billboard charts for 1969 (one of the best years in music) was? Sugar Sugar by the Archies:
It's an Ok song, but compared to everything else that came out at the time, It's nothing. Pop music has always been bland.
2) If iTunes sold songs for 1 cent per song, Piracy would still be cheaper. There is no way undersell free.
Sales also dropped in 1978 and plateaued through the 80's.
Know what they blamed it on?
Cassettes, and copying.
These aren't new arguments. The Cracked writer you spoke of is just one of many who have articulated against the RIAA's argument against digital copying. You'll also note that my argument also added multiple points that were not included in his article, primarily because it was not the source. (Although I assume the statistics chart was pulled directly from that article, rather than the official RIAA website which he got it from.)
There are many more factors involved than just copying and good music vs bad music. Many factors such as world economics, the fact that the 90's were a monopoly based bubble for the music industry just waiting to burst, the stability of the corporations involved, the information used by the RIAA (who controls what is, and is not included on that chart)
I mean, the RIAA wouldn't omit important information that wouldn't support their arguments. Would they? Surely they aren't that evil. I mean, they only have the musicians best interest at heart, right?... right?
Moraterra Single Player Survival - Last Updated: September 16, 4:00 PM PST
I didn't refer to it as "better" music in the sense that it's actually better quality, because that's completely opinion. But people did buy records and such and they did listen to them for longer than a week. Nowadays, music goes in and out within a month, usually. Like I said, my dad has every AC/DC album, which he listened to as a teenager and still listens to now. Teens now seem to listen to a song for a month tops and then move on to a new one. I doubt any of them would be listening to the same stuff 30 years down the road.
And I know you can't undersell free, I never said it would abolish piracy to make the prices lower. But you sure as hell can reduce the drive of people to pirate your stuff. If you reduce it to 50 cents per song or something, less people would be pirating it, they'd go "oh it's only 50 cents, might as well just pay." and pay for it. People still will pirate it because there's always the greedy bastards who aren't willing to put even a slight amount of money up, but piracy will reduce if the prices are lower and more reasonable.
So, why is the music industry making around a third of what it made in the late 90's? (Aside from iTunes, which wasn't an option for most people until 2005ish)
Ok, The RIAA didn't make the chart, Business Insider did. Minor point.....
Did you ever think that maybe iTunes itself is a big reason for the drop? I mean I know it started before iTunes was around but iTunes served no help either. Rather than spending 12 bucks on a full album, people would buy 1 or 2 songs and that's it. That's 2 dollars to the musician rather than 12.
I know iTunes can't be the only reason, but it's sure as hell not helping.
I've already gone over my points carefully. Feel free to read them over and make a proper counter-argument.
You'll also note that I never once blamed iTunes.
On data provided solely by the RIAA. It's sourced right on the chart itself.
Moraterra Single Player Survival - Last Updated: September 16, 4:00 PM PST
Sure you can. Pirating is inconvenient; there's a risk of bad quality or being duped into DLing a virus; it's a hassle in general. If something is cheap enough the convenience is worth the expense.
This is one reason that Spore and certain other Ubisoft games became extremely pirated - their DRM was so restrictive that
1) People took a stand on principle to not buy the game
and
2) People thought pirating the game and thus avoiding the draconian DRM would be easier than legitimately buying the game
Beleive me. I know all about spore.
Thread One: A story about EA's technical support regarding SecuROM's 3 computer license
Thread Two: What're you guys going to do when the SecuROM licensing server shuts down?
Thread Three: My challenge to John Riccitiello.
Moraterra Single Player Survival - Last Updated: September 16, 4:00 PM PST
iTunes was ported to PC in October of 2003, most people I know started using it around 2004 to 2005. You and John Cheese said that the drop in sales was more or less caused by the change to a more singles based market. This change was caused by iTunes.
Anyways, Why do you two care if piracy hurts sales? The RIAA and the industry that backs it is awful. They screw over Artists and turn music into sludge. I hate them. So, I really have no problem with piracy of music. But, piracy does cost the music industry a lot money. Which is a good thing because they suck. Hard. Good Day.