pezus said:
Makaha said:
Mr Khan said:
Makaha said:
Mr Khan said:
More accurate to say that if pirates do become paying customers, that it becomes a wash economically. You don't generate money from nothing, and its not like these people who might be consuming certain intellectual properties are sitting on the money that they would be spending, but it is generally acknowledged in economics that a good deal of piracy comes from customers who you are priced too high to access in the first place.
|
Well in terms of music, many teenagers today have never bought any music, at all. Zero. Nada. Zip.
So you're saying that if teenagers couldn't get music illegally online, they wouldn't be listening to music at all??
That's total BS. In national polls in the US, most teenagers value their music collection the MOST--more than movies and games, and yet they don't pay for it. They expect to get it for free, like it's an entitlement. As a songwriter and producer myself, I can guarantee you that producing music is not free. My 5-string Fender bass by itself cost over $1,000. My Roland VS-1680 hard disk multitrack cost $3,500 when I bought it back in 2000. Over the years, I easily spent over $10,000 on my synth/keyboard, acoustic and electric guitars, percussion etc.
When I talk to teenagers in some online forums and I suggest to them that they can save their allowance from their parents (if they get an allowance) to buy music. That's what I did when I was a teenager, but to the young generation, most can't understand that concept.
|
1. Anecdotal evidence
2. The fallacy here is to equate every bit of pirated music as lost revenue. Sure teens wouldn't go without music, but they wouldn't necessarily consume at the same levels either
|
Anecdotal evidence??
Which part of my post??
In regards to your second point, sure, not every bit of pirated music is lost revenue, but the fact that many teenagers don't buy any music, at all, speaks for itself. If you were to shut down the internet completely (not saying that would ever happen), how else do you think teenagers would get their music?? Well, it would be old school again, which means they would have to BUY their music, like how it was before.
|
SO you think shutting off the internet would improve sales for the music industry? Okay then...
|
If that happened (and it won't), it sure would affect sales. Lamont Dozier, who is a legendary R&B songwriter, has said his royalties have been cut by 60% over the last decade because of illegal downloading. It's affected pure songwriters (pure songwriters are songwriters who don't sing their own music , like Diane Warren or Craig Wiseman, and pure songwriters are some of the best out there, Diane Warren is one of the most successful songwriters of the last 50 years, go see her catalog online--it's phenomenal). The SGA has stated staff songwriters positions in Nashville have virtually disappeared because of illegal downloading.
Besides, it's not just about the money. A copyright owner has the right to control how his music, movie, book, is distributed. By illegally downloading, that person is spitting in the face of the songwriter, film director, etc. It's uncool. Forget the money. That's just being a jerk, period.
Sure, some artists have said publicly that they want to give away a song for free, but the overwhelming majority do not. I'm in the songwriter community, and we do not want to give away our songs for free. So by illegally downloading a song, you are being disrespectful to the singer and the songwriter (if the singer didn't write the song).
