Ah, despite the evidence that shows the precise opposite, you’re going to make another unsupported assertion. You are at least predictable, if nothing else.
There is no such evidence.
You offered a hypothetical (or I did, with the pencils). There was no outside evidence to discuss.
If you’re referring to the evidence elsewhere in this thread, I completely reject it as worthless. It doesn’t prove anything, and I’ve said why.
If copyright didn’t take anything from anyone, nobody would copyright anything in the first place, or at least they’d license it royalty-free. Yet they don’t. It is their right to decide whether taking something from them harms them, not you. If they think it doesn’t, they’ll give it to you for free.
Jesus, are you really this obtuse, or is it intentional? First I asked for multiple years of music sales growth, but you only gave me one. Then I posted a link and I said look at the revenue box, not the graph, but of course you looked at the graph and ignored the data about the last decade of music sales, which are NOT higher than ever, just higher than last year. Try looking again.
There, I supported his assertion with an actual cite.
If I look again, it will still show that more music was sold last year than any other year.
Do you have a cite that profits to artists are down in the music industry? I’ve seen no data on that, but I’ve seen a lot of data that shows costs are way down, revenues are somewhat down, and units sold are up. That suggests, but doesn’t prove, that profits are up.
I suspect you’re making the mistake of confusing revenue to the record industry with profits to artists. I also suspect it’s intentional, because the only people harmed by free downloading, legal or illegal, are record industry middlemen. And fuck them, basically.
First, you originally said sales, not profit. Way to change the argument. Second, if you’re hanging your hat on one year of small increase after half a decade of large decreases, you’re being intellectually dishonest. The fact is, sales are still massively down since the digital revolution.
Cite?
If sticking it to the man is your pretext for stealing, so be it. But it’s a bullshit pretext.
No. Sales are at higher that ever. Read the fucking cite. Revenue is down, but that data on it’s own doesn’t prove anything.
The question was, does piracy harm sales. My answer is that, as sales are higher than ever, they are not being harmed at all - by piracy or anything else.
I’m bringing profit into the argument because its what you should be talking about when you mention revenue. I’ve not been able to find any data about profit, and all I can do is estimate based on what I can see. Increased sales and reduced costs would suggest increased profits, unless there’s other issues.
Oh, and I’m not trying to stick it to “the man”, but it’s not a side effect I’m upset about. “The man” has no inherent right to profit from the works of others, and if technological advances make them unable to, tough shit.
I have IP and support, in general copyright. Of course, in practice I only give a shit where it concerns music – I download camcorder copies of movies all the time. Not because I think it’s right or unactionable, but because I don’t give a shit.
Even though the RIAA IMO distributes royalties inequitably, “impacting” (great word, eh?) future sales, including the willingness of labels like Blue Note and so forth to hire mastering engineers for rereleases makes it worthwhile IMO to support official non-pirated releases. Yes, in many cases the artists are dead, and in some cases their estates are not legally entitled to a share in future points, but it’s a goodum bonum to see the hard work of talented mastering engineers and the financing of new products come to light. Not so much because of the few cents an artist or her or his estate might get per item sold, but because of the way profit might be calculated for future re-masterings.
Yes, I’ve downloaded some OOP things, in a lot of cases needle drops of older jazz records – but I’m under no illusion that this does not affect negatively the calculus of the few, relative small subsidiaries concerning future rereleases. No excuse for that action, but I’m willing to live with that.
Textbooks I’ve downloaded a whole bunch – for no other reason than that I don’t give a shit if it screws over some company. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I just don’t care.
Wait - so now you’re the one questioning the relevance of data and its ability to prove something?
But sales does not indicate whether piracy harms sales. You don’t have a baseline. Sales might be even higher without piracy. You can’t know for sure. You could guesstimate by looking at the sales trend, though, to see if it is steady or if sales slowed. Even then, it’s possible that sales might be expected to have grown even faster in the Internet age, since legal downloading might boost them.
So your sales numbers don’t come close to proving much at all.
If “the man” couldnt’ profit from it, the artist couldn’t though.
“The man” is a secondary market. Artists can easily lisence their works to companies that can make lots of money for the artist along with itself.
If artists don’t want to license their work to “the man” they don’t have to. yet they do - because its in their interest, and they know it. It is not your business to tell them they shouldn’t.
You cannot steal something just because the creator sold it to someone else who makes a profit on it.
Would you steal a painting because the artist sold it to a gallery instead of letting you see it?
Voted ‘I have IP but do not support copyright’.
The poll could maybe do with some more options though because actually I think copyright, patents and the like are fine in principle.
I just think that as they’re currently implemented they’re a fucked up mess that hinders rather than helps creation / invention.
I didn’t want my vote to be perceived as “Yes I’m happy with the status quo”
You should have not voted then.
Why not? I picked the closest thing to my opinion then explained why my opinion is not exactly the same as the poll option’s wording. Why is that a problem?
You voted that you don’t support copyright, when you actually do.
Your views weren’t represented in the poll.
This isn’t an election. It’s an opinion poll. You don’t have to pick anything.
I picked the option that best represented my position IMO.
Why do you care so much, when it’s not even your poll? Do you want something to “win”?
A poll where there’s no valid option for some people, not even ‘other’ is virtually meaningless.
The purpose of a poll, for what it’s worth, is to see how many people think something. Your vote skewed that.
But it’s really not worth much. So I’ll drop it.
Correct.
That’s why I don’t steal, or support anyone stealing.
Try again.
Tell it to the judge.
Out of curiosity, lots of people say they have IP. Including me – but it’s limited to poor-man’s “copyright” of mailing some original jazz tunes to myself and not opening them and some small essays, similarly “copyrighted.” I know, that doesn’t hold up probably, but I don’t care that much about the works and better than nothing. Some tune it took a few minutes to write out in lead sheet form at the last minute for an originals-only job doesn’t seem that important to me to care about, except that I’d like if I ever decide it’s worth it to perform in another universe where I get paid, I’d like to be able to defend my right to perform such works.
So what are you other cats talking about? Written works? Musical performances? Arrangements of others’ performances? Just curious.
FYI, that’s an old scheme (that doesn’t work anyway) for patents, not copyrights.
If you create something, it’s automatically copyrighted. You don’t have to do anything at all. You can file it with the copyright office to assure some additional legal protection, but it’s not necessary.