"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
...
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Most recent RIAA figures show that there has been a significant
drop
in
retail sales of all physical formats:
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf
SACD down by 44.6%
DVD-A down by 35.1%
Vinyl down by 32.3%
CD was down by 14.3%
Note that the list of biggest losers was led by SACD, DVD-A and
then
vinyl.
Contrast this with Harry's hype about booming sales of Hi-Rez formats.
IIRC, Harry's point was concerning number of titles available.
Typical Jenn - she tries to change the subject.
No Arny, I'm not changing the subject. I'm simply recalling, to the
best of my ability, Harry's point.
Since you have that memory problem Jenn, Harry has be known to say things
like:
"SACD sales ... have been growing rapidly by all accounts. ... "
"In the first half, DVD-Audio sales were up..."
"... combined unit sales will catch up with and equal CD sales."
"...SACD takes hold, we probably ill NOT be having this debate five years in
the future. ... "
The traditional CD format, which amounted for about 99% of all
sales,
outperformed the rest.
CD sales went up when Napster and the like were free.
snip
There's no evidence that I'm aware of that any bump in sales was due
to
Napster.
Knowing about the sales pop during the Napster days was a matter of
having
one's ears open at the time.
Exactly.
Admission that you were out of the loop at the time Jenn?
Not at all Arny. I simply spend a great deal of time with the age group
who seems to do the most illegal downloading.
Since you seem to have expanded college age to be everybody from 10 to 24...
Music has been free as long as there has been radio. Recorded music
has
been
available at terrific discounts from record store prices as long as
there
have been home audio recorders.
Of course.
I remember taping radio and LPs back in the
late 50s.
As do I, but in the late 60s and early 70s.
Therefore there's nothing new about people bootlegging popular
music. All Napster did is decrease the time and effort required for
bootleggng, at the cost of having music in a format that might be
harder
to
listen to when you were away from your PC. There may have also been
SQ
issues, some pretty severe.
I think that you've understated (spelling corrected) this case. The SQ
issue is a MAJOR
difference between recording off the radio with a cassette recorder
(what most people had) and a digital download.
Again Jenn avoids relevant facts that have been presented (example home
recording from consumer media with excellent quality). After all, where
do
most of the MP3s come from from consumers transcribing recordings they
have
purchased or borrowed?
Look 5 paragraphs up, Arny. You mentioned taping from the radio.
That's what I was referring to.
And then I mentioned taping, and then I mentioned music on the PC, and
Distortion of facts by means of out-of-context quotes noted.
A lot of people learned about music that was new to them via MP3
downloads
and exchanges, and ran right out and bought the CDs so they could
enjoy
the
music bette. Guilty as charged!
As I said, there's no solid evidence that this happened in large
numbers.
Now Jenn tries to raise the ante of proof from her not-yet-admitted
ignorance of relevant facts to "solid evidence".
I said, "There's no evidence that I'm aware of that any bump in sales
was due to Napster." Do you have evidence to the contrary?
You also upped the ante to "solid evidence".
Here's some interestnig evidence:
http://www.cesifo-group.de/pls/guest...fo1_wp1122.pdf
"As a consequence, the recent legal actions and the development of technical
measures of
protection of musical CDs carried by copyright owners may be badly
motivated. Besides, there
are reasons to believe that the music industry might actually benefit from
digital distribution.
Indeed, numerous surveys (documented in Peitz and Waelbroeck 2003b)
highlight the potential
sampling role of digital copies."
What is clear is that when you talked to college aged people
(particularly before iTunes and other pay-per-song services) is that
their hard drives were full of illegal tracks, and that they almost
never bought music anymore.
Contrary to some people's apparent belief, college folks don't define
the
market for music. College students are only a minority of all people
who
buy
music.
Last I looked, the 10-24 demographic was the largest segment of the
recorded music buying population.
Now Jenn expands college age range to 10-24. Has she no shame?
Troll ignored.
Jenn dismisses questions that she doesn't want to answer in order to avoid
accountability for her actions.
They often don't have a lot of disposable income.
No kidding, but this doesn't entitle them to steal music, of course.
Is it stealing music to listen to the radio?
Nope. The recording "chain" gives it's permission to use their
recordings in this way, and they derive income from this use.
But there is evidence shown above, that they may derive income from
"sampling" of commercial LPs.
Am I stealing from the History Channel when I time-shift some of their
programs?
Nope. That's referred to as fair use.
Depends who's talking.
Is it stealing music when people make their own music videos from
commercial
audio recordings and post them on YouTube?
That's about to be debated in the courts. Stay tuned.