the video version of cliff notes on sopa.... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b85kvxwMgKs]SOPA/PIPA Authors Become Lobbyists - YouTube[/ame]
plenty of that can be explained by the fact that we can now buy individual tracks instead of being forced to buy albums we do not want. nobody buys cds. younger people especially. they buy tracks or they listen to ad supported music on spotify. this is a gain for the consumer, who was wasting money on albums that had 10 terrible tracks on them when they only wanted one. this was because of limited music distribution technology that forced consumers to buy what they didnt want. i shed no tears for artists losing money on tracks we never wanted. plus the music industry is not the same as artists. the music industry is basically a marketing industry. technology changes the world. digital information distribution is maybe the best thing to happen to humans in a century. there are basically no negatives. the economy changes. and the music business is still plenty profitable. when the cotton gin was invented, we didnt say "hey this is no good is means talented cotton worker dudes wont be needed". we said, sweet, now things are more efficient. same thing with music distribution.
I would like to see an unbiased/independent company's estimates instead of one connected to the music/movie industry. Without reading all of your links, I am assuming that they are somehow tracking and then extrapolating the number of illegal shares/downloads of files, whether they be music, movies, software, or whatever. Assuming their data is correct, I wonder how much of these numbers are actually lost sales. In other words, if these perps couldn't steal it, would they buy it? I would bet that the actual lost sales would be far less. Make no mistake, I know that a LOT of 1's and 0's are stolen, I just wonder if it is anywhere close to what the biased numbers say it is.
being a mime isnt really a profitable endeavor. so what. so what if being a musician was not a profitable endeavor? would we as a society suffer? of course not. we would bendift because music would be distributed based on merit and not money. anywys, being a performance artist will always be profitable. and being a recording artist may become less profitable. so what? trapeze artists already can only make money through performance. same with lawyers or race car drivers. information production, whether it writing, or music, or whatever, those things will always be needed and there will always be jobs. but the time when the lack of ability easily transfer information has forced us to rely on limited sources for information has passed. and this is an incredibly good thing. it means information for everyone, for free. the value of that to humanity is basicaly indescribable.
This has nothing to do with the intent of your post, which I get. How drunk are you? This post has that "slurred" lilt that some of your posts get from time to time. I'm picturing you in a bar w/ your homies right now and doing this on your phone/kindle/ipad/laptop/whatever. :thumb:
my poin, poorly stated, is that it doesnt matter if the music industry or movie industry did lose revenue. who cares? they do, but F them. the world changes. you cant make any money doing lots of things that used to be profitable. and i am impressed that you have noticed my drunkenness. i have been struggling a bit with alcoholism of late but i think i have it mostly figured out.
