Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Loss Report Contradicts Nielsen Sales Record
DerekAtLC writes "In a not-so-surprising twist of the tables, RIAA reporting of 'losses' is a little bit off. An interesting blurb at Ars Technica referencing a Kensei News article points out that Nielsen's Soundscan (Which tracks retail point-of-sale numbers for the music industry) shows a 10% increase in sales from Q1 2003 to Q1 2004. The RIAA has recently reported drops in revenue from last year, citing online piracy as the main problem. The crux of the issue? The RIAA hasn't been talking about sales or revenue in terms of sales to consumers or money generated via those sales. The RIAA talks about losses in terms of number of units shipped to retail outlets. The article points out plenty of problems with this (and reasons why we are seeing the trend), but it is fairly obvious that the RIAA is not reporting the most 'useful' numbers to the public."
I don't download music, I like the shiny CDs I buy from a multitude of places. And no, copyright infringement isn't theft, ass face.
XML causes global warming.
If a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated by ethics? Excuse me?
If someone can't afford their own yacht, so they build a replica of mine from pictures taken with a zoom lense, they aren't just copyright infringers, they're thieves. If nanotechnology ever comes of age, and they can't afford to license my bread recipe, they shouldn't hack some nanobots to make some anyway, even if they're starving.
So a homeless man who can't afford to pay a cab driver can just go ahead and...
Walk home? Hell no, that's stealing from the cabbie. If he had taken the cab home, he would have had to pay, so by not paying, he is stealing. Cabbies have (or at least should) have the state-granted monopoly of moving people, and to try and cheat the system is immoral.
Don't they deserve to make money from their efforts?
Yes, I find it not only sad, but unfair that they're all 100% bankrupt. Those A list actors I saw pandhandling drove it all home, but when I heard that Snoop Dog was having to sell his kidney just so his kid would have food on the table, I broke down in tears. Won't someone please think of poor old Geffen, living in a cardboard box, and wearing that burlap rag? Please, think of the starving millionaires.
Neverminding that it's JUST ENTERTAINMENT
Yes, of course. It has long been proven fact, that human beings are truly only robots, having no pschology to speak of. Like you, I've heard all the myths regarding the idea that a human being in emotional isolation, with no entertainment at all would slowly go mad. No TV, no books, no music or art, and the stress and boredom build up, until they lose all touch with reality, going stark raving bonkers. But science has proven that prison inmates in "the hole" find the monotony peaceful and even enjoyable. Which brings me back to entertainment, what is it good for? Why, making money of course. And when you steal entertainment, it makes no money, which is sinful. Soon enough though, people will have withholdings taken out of their paychecks, to be directly given to the RIAA/MPAA. Then, we will be able to do away with the inefficient entertainment part of "making money". Won't that be a glorious day?
END SARCASM
Your attitude wouldn't be nearly so obnoxious, if the subhumans you were apologizing for didn't try so hard to murder every single bit of free entertainment there used to be. How long til they actively start lobbying against it? With software, we already see the "free/open software threatens the livelyhood's of programmers!" bullshit, and that being true (god, that was hard to type, even as a "for the sake of the argument"), does not the guy that puts up a free novel on the web not steal from those trying to sell theirs? If I play the guitar on my front lawn, am I not robbing poor little Britney Spears?
You arguments are old and tired, and have nothing to do with logic. If they want to be artists, fine, you'd think they'd be flattered so many want their "art". But no one said that they had a god-given right to make a job of it, or that they have any say in how I arrange bits on my hard drive. That they could make a living out of it, for a few decades, that doesn't make it any more profound or righteous. You will never understand why things are the way they are though. I might as well be mashing the keys for all the sense this will make to you. For now, that is sad. But your attitude is ultimately dangerous, so don't be suprised when someday someone deals with that attitude in an extreme way.
The sarcasm was fine. The rest wasn't.
Competition is not theft. Nothing guarantees income to those who make their services available. However, we do have laws in place to make sure that you won't get for free what the rightful owners don't want to give you for free.
An artist starving because nobody likes the music? Tough. An artist starving because some other artist is more popular and fills all the demand? Darn. An artist startving because people like the stuff, take it, but don't pay to have it?
Copyright violation isn't healthy competition between free market agents. Your analogy is flawed.
The supposed victims of copyright law shouldn't be able to ask for taxes on CD's and internet connections, because they have no guarantee of income. You shouldn't get to copy their stuff without permission, because our laws say you don't have the right to. Copyright violation is akin to rape: you take a service without permission, leaving the service more or less intact for others to take with or without permission. It's not theft (as is taking unduplicatable physical items), but it's still not right. It's a violation of established consent. (I apologize to rape victims or their relatives if this comes across as simplistic.)