Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
That is correct. But the correlation is in the case itself. Fact is, music sales dropped dramatically in the last years. Fact is also, music consumption has gone up. Both facts are backed by research.
|
Let's start with looking at the two sets of research that support what you are calling "facts." Is the music that is being consumed in greater quantities the same music that is selling less? Or is it independent music? How is the consumption being measured? Estimates of downloads don't count, because a) they're estimates and b) people actually download content for other reasons than to use it themselves -- there's a large "hoarding" mentality out there.
It may well be that less music is being sold through the larger commercial recording labels but more is being sold through independents, for example. This would account for your first "fact" but would not provide for causation by your second "fact."
Honestly, it's possible to convince me of something, but it takes actual evidence, cited from reputable sources. I prefer peer-reviewed journals, but at this point I'd be interested in seeing anything beyond industry flack claims. I'm not trying to "shout down" anyone, I just want to see some actual studies to back up these claims. There's a fairly well-known Harvard study supporting the claim that the darknet/"piracy"
has not impacted the health of the music industry. There are studies convincingly supporting the claim that those who are the heaviest downloaders of darknet music are also the biggest purchasers of legal music. This is even acknowledged in the Chicago University study cited by Sparrow. However, that study also includes statements like "Based on my estimates, back of the envelope calculations indicate that online music piracy may explain a drop in music sales of 7.8% to 14.5%." I have to say, I don't find that wording particularly compelling. But to be fair, I read through the rest of the article. I have the statistics to appreciate what the author is doing in his analysis, and I'm not convinced. He seems to me to be struggling to find an interpretation of his data that will support his hypotheses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
OK, but YOUR consumption does not leave a permanent copy on your hard drive or mp3 player. You listen to a modern form of radio. And please don't tell me people grab the analog signal of their line out and re-code it to mp3. That would be the legal way to do - just like in old days as we put an audio cassette into a radio player and recorded music from our favorite radio station.
|
I think you're arguing against yourself here. 1) Not all streaming sites are any more legal than eMule and its ilk, and 2) recording off the radio was never especially legal (at least in the US), but it was tolerated, probably in part due to the difficulty of enforcement, and possibly in part because most people wouldn't bother to filter out the advertisements from off-radio recordings, so the advertisers probably didn't care that much. And most of all because analog copies tended to be fairly poor qualities and copies of copies would degrade rapidly, limiting black market distribution.