SCE release Piracy Statement

[DonFerrari]

Kasz216 said:

DonFerrari said:

Kasz216 said:

Ail said:

Kasz216 said:

Ail said:

Kasz216 said:

Ail said:

Kasz216 said:

Ail said:

Kasz216 said:

 

Ex

Music industry revenue in 1999 in the US : 14.6 billion$

Music industry revenue in 2009 in the US : 6.3 billion$

that includes digital revenue.

You call that being in the same shape ?

 You really should do some research before making things up...

Here are my sources by the way : http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/

Er, try 1989.  The 1990's were a music buisness bubble... ask basically any music historian.  It had shit to due with piracy.

You know what happened in the 1990's?  People had to rebuy their shit from Cassette to CD.

You didn't have to do that with CD to MP3, you could just rip your CD.

http://www.speec.mobi/archive/uncategorized/the-great-music-bubble-of-the-1990s/

The numbers I gave are 1999, by then CD had been out for around 15 years. You really think that by then many people were still buying their old shit ?

Er, also come to think of it.... 1999?  That was one of the big years of Napster.  You are talking about when piracy was at it's strongest... and citing it as one of the "good old days".  Piracy was stronger then.

Napster came out in June 1999. It's big year was actually 2000 ( end of 2000, beginning of 2001).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Napster_Unique_Users.svg

It didn't have much an impact in 1999...

Eh, regardless.   Music pirates have been shown consistantly to buy more music.

Meanwhile... CD prices have rapidly gone down due to them losing a price fixing lawsuit

and 15 other factors in the 1990's that caused a bubble.

In otherwords, your completely wrong.

Ah ah can't argue your way with facts so just gonna try to bully it ?

Music revenue were twice as big before pirates started appear but still you're clinging to that crazy idea that they had no effect on the decline of revenue...

You know  that it only takes 30 seconds to research your argument instead of bringing random things that turn out to be false.

In other words we're going to cut your income by 50% over the next 10 years but don't worry, you were in a bubble so no big deal........

"Before piracy appeared"... when was that exactly?   Music "piracy" has existed since blank cassettes.

Aside from which, do you know what a bubble is?

Without piracy the bubble would of shrunk income to 50% or less anyway.

You know, pricefixing lawsuit lost?  MP3's allowing people to buy singles?

Actual sales are up, revenue is down.

You may as well blame the housing bubble burst on people squatting in abandoned buildings.

People aren't buying less. 

They are buying smarter and cheaper.

 

Of course, we've gone off the topic of the government reports in which you had no answer.

Because you essentially know your wrong but don't want to admit it. 

Either publically or to yourself, I can't say which.

Personally, I'm going to stick with prevailing scientific theory. 

You can keep ignoring it at your leisure, however i'm going to start ignoring you, since your waaay to invested in this and don't want an actual resonable discussion, and instead wish to rant, cling to silly disproven arguements with questionable correlation inoring actual proven confounding variables and ignoring the statistics as provided.

Your worse than a poltician with your attempts at spin.

We are still waiting for links for these valid studies and a proof that sales were up and revenue were down (and don't count a single or mp3 sold equal a CD as the later would have 14 musics usually)...

When you prove booth with real data we can agree you are the supreme lord of truth.

I don't get your arguement here.  You are argueing that because in the past people were forced to buy a bunch of songs bundled together with the couple they wanted....

That piracy is causing a loss of sales because people can buy ONLY the songs they want on Itunes?

That's exactly what i'm talking about.  You are so focused on trying to prove something that you are missing the forrest from the trees.

People aren't forced to spend 19.99 on 14 songs anymore, or if you are a rap fan, 12 songs and like 8 really bad comedy skits.

Instead it's 4-5 bucks for the few songs you want.

I mean, have any of you been in a CD store lately  everything is 5-10 dollars cheaper then the 90s.

"Random college study" but hey, it's better then no study or a"paid for" study but...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

So why would you blame piracy?

You didn't understood what i said i see...

What i mean is when people pointed out that the market is half of what it used to be, and you said it was a bubble burst by the law not by pirates.

So as in profit or $$ sold you can't arguee so i let you prove amount sold (as the prices droped we can't be fair compairing $$ i agree)... so i will wait you to prove that the amount sold now is greater than before piracy through napster became really easy.

But to be fair you are the one that can't compare the selling of 1 song = 1 album as it have more songs. This is mostly because the market reality were different and you can't compare both.

I'll wait for the data of amount of content sold before and know for your point...

 

About the a random is study is better than a paid one, how can you know if the random isn't paid by anyone or done by people that wanted to bias it the other way?

Another thing, if this study were a Doctorate thesis, a University Study published in a renowed Journal i would take in consideration... a Study published in a newspaper??? i won't even bother.

I want to see the methods, range of data and eveything, a summary by a jornalist isn't even close of a study.

EDIT: I read the article, the study is just mencioned in that... and even tough if you read it the conclusion is dumb, so people that download free content is 10x more likely to buy downloadable content than people that don't download, genius remark... of course my mother wouldn't buy a song in Itunes as she doesn't even know how to dowload a music in the internet and buy in CD...

Also in the same article they say revenues have dropped, but digital download have risen, but not clearly enough to make the market the same as before so i still fail to see your point.