Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Actually, its not the failed artists who are featured at file sharing sites: it's the successful artists.
The pirates don't usually bother putting up the works of Johnny Nobody on their sites: its the Stephen Kings and James Pattersons they want , so as to draw the eyeballs to the ads they sell. Putting bestsellers on their sites is key to their business model.
|
If I accept your statement at face value, then the pirate sites are barely inflicting a few pinpricks on the big-name talent, which makes the sites pretty harmless overall. Shouldn't the Johnny Nobodys stop whining?
Quote:
I'll let HarryT speak for himself, but it seems logical to me that offering his work for free at pirate sites must cost him "some sales", even if he can't determine exactly how much.
1. Just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist,
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
That's not the issue. Of course the pirate sites cost some sales, as do--again--borrowing and buying secondhand. Why get worked up only over the pirate sites but not the other means of distribution that also lower sales? To be logically consistent, it seems to me, one should be angered by borrowers and thrift store shoppers as well as pirates.