Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alex_d
Without napster, a hard drive mp3 player would have had no reason to exist. Zero.
Without thousands of songs from napster, no one would even want to listen to music for hours each day!
Anyone who's bought an iPod now and gets all their songs from itunes/ripped cds is a poser (bought it just cuz everyone else did) and is not enjoying their iPod.
...
If ebook readers become popular now, it will similarly be because of file sharing. If ebooks have not become popular it is not because 'drm strangled them,' it's because people don't know where to get bountiful, free content.
...
If you look at the arstechnica article, all the plotpoints are "estimates." The one that isn't, for 2005, actually shows a RISE in revenue. The industry has an incentive to make its outlook look grim and pitiful so that it could have an excuse to press measures that would get it more money....
|
I'm sorry alex_d, but I'm confused. I'm not trying to argue with you, but you seem to be saying that nobody pays for music (except, presumably, for those who pay for a single copy and post it on the web for everyone else to not pay for,),
and that the music industry is making more money than they were before all this not paying for music started happening....
It seems to me that if nobody much pays for music, that the music industry wouldn't make
more money from that scenario, and if the music industry
is, making more money, then someone
must be paying for what they're selling....
Like I said, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but that just doesn't make sense to me.
Personally, I think it's more likely that a lot (okay, a
lotta lots) of folks are sampling the dubiously free content, but then subsequently paying for content from artists they like (both from honesty, and from a desire to see
more offerings from those artists). That would seem to better explain both the widespread file 'sharing' phenomenon and the rise in music revenues.