I bet they did, some, but taping an LP was a LOT harder than tagging 100 files on Kazaa and just walking away. Take it from someone who backed up all his records so they’d be portable.
ArchiveGuy, thanks for the cite that we’ve been needing here all along. I think that will manage to stop the “warez” taking people from acting as if there’s been no effect.
I’ve figured it out. Musicguy is very erudite, very carefully and well spoken. And he has that velvety voice that flows like water, even when it’s just written words.
He’s Seal. That’s it. He’s Seal. Musicguy is Seal.
Hi, Seal.
Actually I was just comparing it to things the average person wouldn’t mind doing. I certainly don’t see what is wrong with asking someone to tape some show like the simpsons and give me a copy. That is basically what anime is online only with the added effect of putting subtitles on the show. I buy anime related things because me watching the commercials doesn’t exactly do much.
As far as television commercials not being the same thing I don’t see how. Television shows make their profit by showing those commercials. If you don’t watch them you are essentially taking away their profit.
ArchiveGuy, here’s another random stat:
Earlier in this thread, somebody had brought up an article they saw on Fark about how sales haven’t necessarily declined as shifted to independent labels. Found it.
Miss, I’d like to buy a pair of your goggles…
Cardinal:
Yes, thank you for that cite which is so misleading as to be a lie.
Think about it for a moment. What is the most obvious cause of decreasing cd sales? Could it be… a decrease in releases?
For example, if the number of releases dropped from 500,000 to 12, you would certainly explect to see a decrease in sales, would you not?
In fact, if the number of releases was drastically reduced, you could actually make MORE money per release, and STILL have decreasing sales.
And, in fact, that is exactly what is happening. Oops! I wasn’t supposed to let out that little secret, was I? You aren’t supposed to know that it is a lack of quality artists, and a subsequent decrease in releases, which is causing decreasing sales. You aren’t supposed to know that the decrease in sales is LESS than the decrease in releases. You are supposed to just nod your head and swallow all the lies the RIAA feeds you.
Someone’s been STEALING anime off the Internet? So that’s why I can’t find any! :eek:
Why, if I ever catch that punk, I’ll teach him a thing or two about stealing when he could just as easily make a copy and leave the original…
Nope. Not even.
The networks already have gotten the money for the ad.
If anything, television ads will drive me FROM a product, not to it.
So, in the end, not watching TV commercials(as if I could completely avoid them), means that big business has a better chance on getting my money, not less.
Which really has no impact or import on the fact you download full anime episodes and watch them before you buy them, and then you have the nerve to cast aspersions on people who download mp3s who claim to be downloading them to test drive an album.
Hypocrite.
Ok so I find out that “up and comming artisit” is going to play their new song on “hot tv show” so I use my VCR to record “hot tv show” and then play that video tape as often as I want to hear it. The artist doesn’t get paid each time I play that tape, and thats the same as me getting an MP3 of a song. The artist was paid once and I am not taking any revenue away.
Ok so the Lakers show air their game on TV and you tape it and a friend of yours says I missed the game can I borrow your tape. They take your tape and copy it, who loses any money? You couldn’t afford to go to the game, the game is over, it was a one time event because each game is different I don’t see where anyone is out any money. I’m not taking up a seat at the game that could be sold to someone
Maybe you are thinking of someone else. I think that a system where people who are downloading mp3s to test them is a good thing. I just don’t like music in general.
YES! Just what we needed! A cite from the largest media company in the history of the world. A totally unbiased source!
What I find incredibly amusing is that they’re also PROMOTING illegal trade of MP3s on their own site! Seriously. See for yourself. Click on the “Business & Tech” sidebar of Time’s site. If you look under “More Stories,” you’ll see a link to the anti-filesharing page linked to by ArchiveGuy. But look right above it. See the lady with her eyes closed, wearing headphones, and looking like she’s about to have an auditory orgasm? Click on her. Near the top of the next page, contained in an image, is a link that says “PLUS: Get the skinny on where to download the hippest tunes.”
Naturally, I thought this would just be a link to some kind of MP3.com-like legal site. Nope. When you click on it, you’ll see the subtitle of the article is “Our bad boy web producer Paul Katcher shows you how to find music online in a snap.” In the article, he provides links to download Kazaa, in addition to several other file sharing services, and offers advice like:
Wow.
I understand that the RIAA is of course a biased source. No one here has actually said they’re wrong about this stat, just that they’re “biased”. Well, so are we all.
Thank you so much for the snide attitude. I haven’t hung around kids for a while, and I had kind of forgotten what it was like.
I’m not being a snot here, I want a real discussion, not the “Information WANTS to be free, man!!” kind of ranting. I’d like to see cites that support the fewer releases.
Real cites that carry some weight are things like sales figures, not surveys of kids who are probably afraid to say that they plan on getting all their music illegally. I notice none of the warez people here pointed out the problem with the cites provided in their favor, even though they were trashed pretty easily. Let’s all play fair. If your cites for fewer releases are solid, then they’re solid.
Fewer releases does not prove that the market is unaffected. It could easily be that the record companies know that unless there is a major buzz happening about a band, then it is much harder to make money, meaning that they are cutting back on the number of acts they’re releasing. I’m just guessing of course, but the point is that the argument above is not airtight at all.
This site shows a downturn in releases, with statistics up to 2001:
OH SNAP!
Oh please. I was sarcastic, but I didn’t make any mean remarks about anyone. Which, incidentally, is more than I can say for the other side of this debate.
I never said anything like “information wants to be free”, and I don’t think it should be. There are plenty of alternatives: lower quality mp3s, a system where people who buy a certain number of cds per year get access to mp3s, a system where the money you pay for an mp3 service can be used towards buying cds that you preview, and many more.
I am simply informing you that the information provided by the RIAA is a lie.
"After keeping the figure rather quiet for two years, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) says the industry released around 27,000 titles in 2001, down from a peak of 38,900 in 1999. "
“According to RIAA’s own figures, after constantly increasing the number of new releases through the '90s, new music releases in the US fell by 31 per cent to around 27,000 in 1999.”
“So the record industry cut their inventory (and artist investment) by 25 percent and sales only dropped 4.1 percent, even though the economy is at rock bottom. There were almost 12,000 fewer new releases for the consumer to choose from in 2001 than 1999. The record companies are making more money per release than ever.”
So let me get this straight… they release far less… they raise prices… they get caught price fixing… they release trash… they have to deal with indie labels becoming more popular and taking more sales… they do various evil things such as making artists works for hire, earning them the hatred of many of their potential consumers… and the economy goes down…
And yet they see decreasing sales which are only a fraction of the decrease in releases? I don’t know what else to tell you, if you can’t piece together what is happening from this information.
I’m not sure what you are saying here, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand. If file sharing makes it harder for the record companies to engineer a “buzz” about their little puppet band, because it is the one aspect of the music business that they don’t control, they never had that right in the first place. I am simply showing that they are lying, and that file sharing is not responsible for the decrease in sales.
Ok, good point. Now, did the overall revenues go down? I seem to remember stories of layoff in the music industry among the support staff at labels. This would be the real test of the effect.
Well, I see that it looks like I was replying to Nightime. That’s what I get for not looking before posting.
You might be right there, but the fact is that taking the files is against the law. Taking something you don’t have a right to is, what, stealing, right? I understand that there are arguments and rationalisations, and I didn’t start the flame war, but it’s stealing under the law.
I honestly don’t know what you mean here. What part is a lie? ArchiveGuy gave a cite that overall CD sales were down. I can’t find anything you’ve said that goes against that. I understand that the number of releases might be down too. I’m saying that the record companies might have found that there’s not profit margin in fringe bands anymore, becasue fringe bands necessarily are riding the edge of being money-losers anyway.
I really and truy don’t know what you’re talking about. What did they lie about? How do you KNOW that file sharing is not in ANY WAY responsible for the decrease in sales?
Yes, record companies are supporting fewer new artists. Anytime you release a CD by a new artist, you are taking a risk. You are going to make a substantial investment that, more than likely, won’t be returned. Why is it so hard to understand that a business faced with an increase in piracy is going to be less willing to take financial risks?
People bitch and moan about the price of CD’s and the lack of new artists being promoted. Well, part of the money earned from CD sales goes towards developing and promoting new artists. IF CD sales decrease, there is less money available for promoting new artists. A business is going to be less willing to take risks and is going to focus more on projects that show the most income potential, i.e. crap bought by the masses. Why take a risk on a brilliant songwriter that isn’t mainstream and has no following, when you can put together a new boy band that is going to make you millions from sales to teenage girls. A record company is going to put out what they thing the public is going to buy. It is a business.
When a record company does decide to take a chance on a new artist, his/her sales are going to be closely monitored. If enough units aren’t sold, the artist is going to be dropped. Therefore, when people decide that they deserve to have music for free (even though it was far from free to create and distribute) they are really just ensuring that they are going to see less new artists being developed. The money just isn’t going to be available. Besides, why pour a bunch of money into developing a product that people have decided that they deserve for free and are going to illegally obtain.
I hear over and over again that “I just download stuff to see if I like it and if I do, I buy it”. That sounds great. But many people take the attitude of “I just download stuff to see if I like it and if I do, I burn it to a CD”. When you do that, the artist doesn’t show a sale. If it happens enough times, they are dropped from the label, and nobody else is going to be willing to take a chance on them either, due to their track record. So pat yourself on your back, you just helped to put an artist (one that you liked enough to download) out of work.
My issue isn’t really with the people that use downloading as a method for auditioning which CD’s they want to purchase, the “If I like it, I buy it” crowd. I do have a question for you though: What if you couldn’t download any material but could hear anything you wanted on the web for free? Wouldn’t you still be able to decide if you liked it enough to purchase or is that not possible without burning it to a CD and listening to it for a month first. Isn’t that kind of like saying “Well, I want a new car but I can’t decide unless I drive one around for free for a month”. At the end of the month, do you buy the car or drive another one around free for a month? Why buy anything?
Don’t I wish 
I don’t know about anyone else, but I make copies of all my CD’s to keep them in pristine condition. I also make compilations to weed out the stuff I don’t like and just listen to the stuff I do like.