Well yeah they lie. They want you to feel sorry for them so you’ll stop stealing their precious life’s work, and their children’s meals, and their $50,000 cars. They can’t very well whine about the evils of pirating and then say “Sales are up, btw,” now can they?
Yeah, Nessa has a point. If they just contradict themselves like that and give out the correct figures, they’d be the laughing stock of everyone.
Arse Technica? Anyway, yeah, whatever
Gotta love that one. Does that mean I can re-install Kazaa?
HA! They’re already the laughingstock of ME! … damn, that sounded as bad as something Strong Bad’d say …
What a relief, I don’t feel like a criminal anymore ^_^;
Bah! I don’t care what system you use, sales would be up if people would stop downoading music.
Booby traps XCG’s comp to explode if Kazzaa is installed
Go buy an iPod!
[whisper] Good thing he didn’t set it to explode if XCG installed Kazaa on it, instead of Kazzaa …
Wow you’re an idiot BX. The RIAA isnt losing money, nor are the artists, nor the record labels. People are BUYING MORE MUSIC, probably because they can listen to more than 2 songs on an album before deciding to drop $15 on a cd that they KNOW is mostly good, instead of like before Napster where people payed $15 for 1 or 2 good songs. So get a clue before spouting stupid bullshit.
Quicky Edit: Oh and since sales are up since people started dling music, how do you figure they’d be even higher if there was no dling?
[QUOTE=BahamutXero]Bah! I don’t care what system you use, sales would be up if people would stop downoading music.[QUOTE]
Except sales ARE up- didn’t you read the article? People are buying more music than before because of this illegal downloading system- it helps them. If it wasn’t for my library of mp3s, I would have never discovered many artists, mainstream and otherwise (I have some CDs from independent record labels, which don’t overcharge you =p).
But if the RIAA wants me to buy more CDs, they should really reduce their prices to a reasonable level. If sales are up, there is no reason for a price jack.
I’m not sure, SD, but I think the RIAA might still be losing money. Just hear me out.
It’s been my understanding that it makes its money through the amount of CDs sold to stores. Now, stores are cutting back on inventory. This should mean that the RIAA is making less money since it’s selling less. Now, stores are selling more CDs. So, the gross money made from CD sales should be up while costs are down, resulting in even higher profit. I guess that means local retailers benefit, as should, hypothetically, local workers.
But then the article mentions the RIAA possibly making more money off of the cost per CD, but that should only hold true as long as the RIAA produces fewer CDs in accordance with the drop in shipments.
I did mention iPod didn’t I?
I know I didn’t make it clear but my point is that there are inexpensive LEGAL ways to get digital music. Hell, I think we should get rid of CD’s and just have digital music, do you can’t complain about high CD prices and get only the songs you want. The artist’s however, not the RIAA, do deserve some form of credit for their work, financial credit.
Hmm I didnt even think about it that way. I think I’m gonna look into this a bit more and try and come back with a definite answer on if the people are losing money are not.
Edit: Wait wait wait, BX you said blahblah stop dling, then you mentioned the iPod? How does that work in this feeble attempt at intelligence? Then you come back and say YAY FOR DIGITAL OMGWTFBBW YAY. Seriously, what the hell are you on to contradict yourself like 12 times in 2 posts?
Inexpensive still means there is an expense to it, and if the artists were losing money it might be bad, but the record companies I don’t really care that much about. And btw, Ipods are NOT inexpensive.
I’ve known that for well over a year, and 20/20 I believe recently ran an article talking about how music piracy benefits the RIAA and alternative reason that sales are down. One good example was that people were replacing old cassets and LPs with CDs before digital music was popular, but now they have finished reploacement and sales have fallen. Also the econmic recessison has been a major hit to them because less money in the hands of parents means less money in their kids hands and 15-25 year olds are the prime music buyers I believe is what was said. People really need to research before saying what is good and bad and frankly downloads tend to do more good than bad.
So wait, you’re telling me you don’t care about paying for things, just steal them? That’s pretty low…
If this is all true (the article I mean), then it’s become a victimless crime. If music sales are up, and artists are still getting paid their royalites, then whose getting hurt? You say the artists because you’re still depriving them of funds, yet if people (and I believe this to be true) download music then buy the album, where is the crime?
If artists whose works are endorsing their albums being shared on the Internet, there is no crime. However, I know that is not the case. People who are downloading copyrighted works without consent of the owners are committing a crime, theft. I’m not talking dollars or cents, I’m just talking about the basic description of theft, legally the specific crime is called copyright infringement.