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."

Comments

Out of business stores dont keep inventory.

[LostCluster]

Another interesting thing has happened over the last few years. The growth of mega-chains such as Best Buy plus the .com's joining into the marketplace have knocked mom and pop record stores out of existance.

Less stores selling music means not only are stores keeping smaller inventories, but some store inventories fell to zero as they left the business. There's just plain less "unsold" disks sitting in the system.

Re:Out of business stores dont keep inventory.

[AhBeeDoi]

Less stores selling music means not only are stores keeping smaller inventories, but some store inventories fell to zero as they left the business. There's just plain less "unsold" disks sitting in the system.

This seems like a highly debateable point as to causes of lower inventory levels. Traditionally, inventory levels have been an indirect measure of confidence in the economy. However, utilization of JIT methods aided by technology enables businesses to run at lower levels than previously thought acceptable. In fact, there really isn't any contradiction to the principles of economic order quantity because both ordering costs and turn around times are much lower. This is truly a new paradign.

Re:Out of business stores dont keep inventory.

[fimbulvetr]

Isn't this the opposite of capitalism?

For years, I had to go to run down stores with poor customer service and no inventory. Now, I can order online.

Why would we want to go backwards? Aren't we supposed to evolve? If you want your mom and pop store to succeed, shouldn't you be searching for a niche/market in which you excel? Do you think the world really owes your mom and pop store a favor?

I don't think so. I hate *most* mom and pop stores. Too many salesmen, too many commissions. Too little inventory, too poor customer service. Too high prices, too many just grunge music fans.

When I buy online, I hear reviews from people that listen to MY music. Not yours, I'm not limited to some little twat that only listens to such and such music.

Note to moderators - This post is objective.

Re:Out of business stores dont keep inventory.

[lidocaineus]

Too many salesmen, too many commissions. Too little inventory, too poor customer service. Too high prices, too many just grunge music fans.

Uh, isn't that most huge chains? And what customer service are you referring to from any online store? Customer service to them is tracking your order. Let's take music stores for example.

Killer mom-and-pop stores still exist ESPECIALLY in record sales; in big cities (like Chicago) where the music scene is all about a well stocked record store, it's MUCH preferred over a chain. You walk into the store, hum a few lines, and it can be pretty damn impressive when the guy behind the counter a) knows who you are and b) can name the tune immediately. Not to mention the fact that they know what you like and drop you tidbits about what's coming out, and if you like certain bands, that you'll like certain OTHER bands, on top of which, special ordering is sooo painless most of the time. They also more often than not have a pulse on what's going on locally. And where do you get this limited selection bs?? I find MORE stuff at my local record store (and not even the obscure and/or local stuff) down the street, along with a whole slew of imports. Half the time I can't find the exact stuff I want online, like a very specific concerto recording (almost always easily found by my fave classical music place) or that Jawbreaker import that has been out of print forever.

Now don't get me wrong; I also love places like amazon when I know exactly what I want... but no internet store is going to take the place of stopping in at Reckless and chatting (or arguing!) with the music geeks on both sides of the counter about the newest album releases, etc etc.

Re:Out of business stores dont keep inventory.

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"This is truly a new paradign." ??
I think this is a very old (political) paradign, "Lie and lie (and bribe and bribe) until you get what you want."
I would be extremely refreshing to see a statement from a congressman saying something like "I originally found the data from the RIAA to very persuasive and announced support for House bill xyz. In light of this additional data, I believe we should allow more time to pass before considering legislation and I am therefore withdrawing my support of xyz." What do you think are the chances that this will occur?

Re:Out of business stores dont keep inventory.

[Kiryat Malachi]

You're cute. You're actually claiming that BestBuy and Walmart and similar mega-stores, or Amazon, have better customer service, than a decent record store?

Chicago record stores (Hard Boiled, Reckless, Gramaphone, etc.) are generally a lot better than online. Why? They don't have shitty clerks. They have people who work there because they like music, because they sure as hell aren't there for the money they're getting paid. If you need to ask an employee about something, they're right there; no navigating a touchtone jail.

The people in the record store know about music. If they don't know about exactly what you're interested in, they probably know exactly which one of their coworkers does. They probably have some idea of when the band whose CD you just bought is going to be in town, or when their new record is coming out.

Amazon and such online are good if I know exactly what I want, it isn't a local musician, and I don't mind waiting for it to show up. For some styles of music, Amazon isn't acceptable at all; they'll never replace my once per year trip to Other Music in NYC for noise records. If I just want to flip through records, no online store will ever take the place of walking into the stacks and doing just that - flipping through records until something catches my eye. And let's not forget that I can listen to it as soon as I walk out of the store (or when I get home and rip it to MP3).

And Google doesn't know a damn thing about what's going on locally; generally the best way to find out about local shows is through the Reader (or local equivalent in other cities) and through knowing people who are putting those shows on.

Pulling content only works if you know what you want; and most people would prefer real personal contact to listening to some Belle and Sebastian-listening tool rant on a chatboard. Even if I have to listen to the music store clerk rant about Belle and Sebastian, at least I can punch him in the mouth.

Re:Out of business stores dont keep inventory.

[geoskd]

This seems like a highly debateable point as to causes of lower inventory levels. Traditionally, inventory levels have been an indirect measure of confidence in the economy. However, utilization of JIT methods aided by technology enables businesses to run at lower levels than previously thought acceptable. In fact, there really isn't any contradiction to the principles of economic order quantity because both ordering costs and turn around times are much lower. This is truly a new paradign.

Just in time delivery is a Huge contributor to improvements in profitability. If you look at the cost of storing a single CD in on-site inventory for 3 months, you'll find that it amounts to almost $5 per unit over that time period. That means that by only having the inventory on site an average of a week or less reduces the retailers costs dramitacally. Haven't you ever wondered why wallmart can beat the musc chains prices every time? its not because of a volume discount... The record labels don't give *anyone* discounts. Its because of Just in time delivery services. Walmart gets their JIT services from UPS. The typical CD or Movie arrives at a given walmart store less than one week before it is sold. This is worlds better than HMV, FYE, Strawberries who traditionally sat on inventory as much as a year before either returning or selling it. If you look at the result, walmart ends up hardly returning any inventory to the manufacturer, because they never have enough left over to justify paying the return shipment fee. Remember, as with almost any product based industry shipping and storing costs account for the largest chunk of the pie. You have to be talking something the size of a washing machine before that is no longer true. walmart stores all of their inventory *on the shelves* making it all active inventory, but they never seem to run out... Its because the JIT computer systems automatically reorder when the on shelf levels reach a threshold. Then every morning, the employees take whatever shows up on the UPS truck and stock it on the shelves. No more doing a daily inventory to find out what needs to be restocked. The basic result is that all the waste is gone from the system. That means that walmart (and many of the other large retailers) are no longer ordering stock simply to throw it away in 6 months. It allows them to save money by not buying stuff from the labels that they can't sell. That is the real reason that the labels aren't selling as much: The retailers aren't buying and wasting as much of the material.

-=Geoskd

No surprise there

[jbellis]

So the RIAA won't stop at bending the facts a little -- okay, a lot -- on their way to ripping fair use out of America. Nothing we didn't know.

What will be interesting will be to see how much play this gets in the mainstream media. Probably no more than any of the other facts that aren't convenient for the "hackers steal $billions on teh intarweb" headlines they like to run. :-|

Re:No surprise there

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right.... why would CNN (a division of time warner or whoever) go hard on warner music and its trade group?

don't worry, the only place we'll be hearing about this kind of news is in the little news outlets and blogs.

Dont forget

[Datasage]

They also tend to count every single pirated copy as a loss. Even though, if forced to buy, most of it would not be purchased.

Re:Dont forget

[Anonymous Coward]

> There are 2 ways to get music, buy and and steal it

No, there are 3 ways: Buy it, Steal It or Copy It

Copyright Infringement is not theft. It is kinda "like" theft, except nobody is left without the stolen item.

Until online music stores allowed you to buy music on demand for a single track, the only way to get music on demand for a single track was to commit copyright infringement.

Many students download music. They don't have music to spend on the music. How this can be termed a "lost sale" is beyond me. More like "free music for students might lead to future purchases when they have money" ... this works for Microsoft and software. Let's not get onto percieved value of music either - I buy most of my music at between 3 and 7 a CD from a store called FOPP in the UK, or online at play.com. This is what I consider a reasonable price for a CD. Not 14 to 18 that most new music comes out at - especially if I've only heard one or two tracks from the CD. Singles are overpriced as well ... 1.99 including video would be acceptable ... not the 3.99 or more that many of them are.

I'm sorry, but steal is the wrong word.

Re:Dont forget

[SlimFastForYou]

I am somewhat reminded of a post regarding the appraisal of the Asian software market, and some of the ways the BSA calculates losses. From what I remember, it went something like this:

If Autocad Super Deluxe Enterprise Edition costs $10,000, and 100 Chinese children install it on their home PC, it obviously cost the industry One Million Dollars!

Same difference. If the RIAA stopped being a bunch of whiners and offered a P2P service for $10/mo, they would make SO much money. $120/year is MUCH MUCH more than I spend on CDs in a year. Unfortunately, some organizations are too set in their ways such that they wouldn't know opportunity if it threw a suitcase of money at them.

Re:Dont forget

[Asetilean]

Obviously either way you want the music. So if you stole it, it should be considered a lost sale, as you obviously wanted the music but chose to steal it instead of buying it.

Not true. Hypothetical example: I'll grab a copy of the latest Creed album (insert favorite over-hyped band here) if it's free and yeah, maybe I'll listen to it once or twice, but it's not worth it to me to pay $17.99, $15.99 or even $12.99 to be able to listen to it. So no, not every download is a lost sale. It's just basic economics:

• 10 people will buy it at $20
• 15 will buy it at $17
• 30 will buy it at $12
• 90 people will buy it at $1
• and millions will "buy" it for free.

Re:Dont forget

[Joey7F]

Wait hold the phone, you are saying there are ten people that listen to creed?

--Joey

Re:Dont forget

[Qzukk]

There are 2 ways to get music

Congratulations! You have fallen into their trap. The RIAA desperately wants you to believe that you have to buy music from them, and heck I bet they'd even settle for you stealing music for them (hey, if all that unchecked windows piracy got MS where it is now...)

But they don't want you to know about the other way to get music:

Make it

Yeah. Independent music will be the death of the RIAA yet. When you've had enough of britney spears strutting around on stage and crooning the same old same old, turn to the indie scene and see what people are making. Nobody good enough? Pick up an instrument and see if you can do better.

Don't expect to get a giant audience. Once the RIAA has convinced everyone that its illegal to share music online, they'll steal the copyrights of all the music and have the government declare themselves the sole recipient of any money for distribution of music, like they have for webcasting. Once that happens, you'll be hard pressed to find anything to let you record and distribute your songs for free, even if you wanted to.

So, just sit back, enjoy the canned music, and don't mind the RIAA as they wheedle and lie into the monopoly position.

Re:Dont forget

[evought]

The alternative is to account for the loss, like everyone else does, rather than attempting to mock up some elusive misdirected profit figure. For example:

I make a product; let's say it's a limited edition Newt Gingrich action figure. It costs me $2 worth of materials and I pay various employees about $1 worth of labor per item. Figure another buck in there for distribution costs. I sell these items for $28.50.

Now someone steals one of these little items. What have I lost? By normal accounting, approximately four bucks. By the RIAAs accounting, $28.50. Sure, $28.50 is what they list for, but does that mean that if I decide to list them for $285 each that my loss per item is now ten times as much, even though no one is buying them at that price? This is like those adds which throw in several free items and claim "A four hundred dollar value, only $19.95.". The only legitimate way to account for loss is by demonstrating what the item cost, not what you are asking for it. In fact, such accounting is circular, since the list price of a product invariably includes a markup to account for losses due to shoplifting.

Now, let's take this one step further. Someone sees one of my action figures in the store and, since they cannot afford one, goes home, looks at one the neighbor just bought and makes one which looks just like it. (My grandmother did this with Cabbage Patch Kids while I was growing up. She would make them for the kids whose parents could not buy them.) Now how much has the manufacturer lost? By any normal accounting, absolutely nothing: no materials, no labor, no distribution costs.

If this is done on a massive scale, then some loss of market can be alleged. On the other hand, most of the loss is not caused by the "theft", but by the fact that the manufacturer priced themselves out of a market. If those action figures where sold for $6 (a healthy 50% margin), someone would probably not waste time trying to duplicate it. My grandmother would not be making cottage industry Cabbage Patch Kids if they had sold for $10 apiece instead of $150+. This scenario only occurs when the price of an item is totally out of line with what it really costs to make the item.

Now, the unfortunate part of this, is that people should respond by supporting local, independent artists instead of copying RIAA distributed music. That may be, but you should recall that the RIAA has worked very hard to squash the distribution of anything they don't control. I happen to know a bunch of small-time musicians and performers and personally, I would rather support them then copy the crap that the RIAA publishes and, personally, I do. But, just like kids getting tormented in school for not having a Cabbage Patch Kid (and kids can be vicious, it is hard, even as adults, to not be mainstream and listen to mainstream things. The various cartels have made mainstream music and movies a requirement for participating in modern culture. If you don't have it, you aren't with it, you can wait outside.

Re:Dont forget

[Daniel]

This actually is a bad analogy: you might not have bought the car, but *someone* probably would have. Since only one person can be in possession of a particular car, your (hopefully hypothetical) theft IS a lost sale: not only does the owner lose the potential sale to you, they also lose the potential sale to every other customer on the planet.

This is analogous to walking into a CD store, taking a CD off the shelf, and walking out without paying. The difference between shoplifting and making an extra copy of a CD is left as an exercise for the reader.

Daniel

Re:Dont forget

[Roydd McWilson]

There is one severe problem with your reasoning here: you only account for variable costs, i.e. the marginal amount spent per item produced; you completely ignore fixed costs, which must be amortized over all items sold. For your examples, most of the cost is variable cost, so the impact of a small number of thefts on fixed cost can essentially be ignored. In the case of music or video recordings or software, variable costs are miniscule, but up-front fixed costs are huge. So the marginal cost to the producer of a CD in a box or a pirated copy is almost the same, but the former can act as a vehicle to amortize fixed costs, while the latter cannot. How does your model take this into account?

Re:Dont forget

[Ateryx]

Wait hold the phone, you are saying there are ten people that listen to creed?

No. It was a hypothetical example, because no one listens to Creed.

Re:Dont forget

[hankdmoose]

If I go to an art museum and take a picture of a painting or a sculpture, that is not theft. If I then post that photograph on my website, I am not trafficking in stolen goods.

Theft requires that there a tangible object involved. Data is not a tangible object. That's all music is. As long as I don't physically remove a CD from a store without paying for it, I am not stealing anything.

Yes, you can argue till you're blue in the face that I'm depriving lots of people of their money if I download 2 songs rather than shelling out the $15 to get those 2 songs plus 8 to 10 crap filler tracks legally, plus a bunch of bonus Enhanced CD material that I don't want, anyway. But I'm not taking it from them. They never had it in their hands to begin with. Thus: not theft.

That doesn't make it right, but it's not theft.

Re:Dont forget

[snooo53]

$10 a month for unlimited downloads sounds great... although I don't think people would go for it for one simple reason... the P2P part. If they're paying $10 a month I can't see many people being willing to share their upload bandwidth, especially people on dial up and those with picky broadband providers. Maybe the solution to this though is treat bandwidth like a $$ credit. For every 100mb uploaded we take a dollar off your monthly fee. (of course then you're probably opening yourself up to some sort of scheme where a group of friends just downloads everything from each other)

The solution I see is the magic $5 price point for cds. Then you're getting into the range where it's harder to justify piracy or going to the trouble of burning your own, for the simple fact that you get a shiny new pressed cd with artwork for a low price. Plus $5 is like the magic number in the U.S. since you can get a value meal at most fast food places for that. I think a lot of people would go for that because it's easy to justify $5 since a cd is more permanent than a meal and americans are good at rationalizing away things like that. Oh I skipped breakfast=$5 so I'm breaking even for the day.

Re:Dont forget

[PMuse]

> There are 2 ways to get music, buy and and steal it

No, there are 3 ways: Buy it, Steal It or Copy It

Where along the line did we forget Make It?

It's not something we can ever get hard numbers on

[stev3]

I'm sure you know ever really getting hard numbers on piracy is impossible just because the nature of the industry and who would really buy something if they couldn't get it for free.

Honestly the responce to it? I think they should embrace and encourage, maybe give a biz model similar to what Napster was pushing for. A distributed model (sign the music so you know it isn't tampered with) that will is a premium up and above the free realm stuff like kazaa. That way people still get their free stuff, the music companies get a shit load of revenue without much effort on their part and everyone is a little happy.

Of course they want to have absolute power over their product, think of the profit that could be made if they could control it no matter what. Or if they could do a pay to play model(pay per view), or if they could figure out a way to pull a microsoft in that they have a limited seat license that only one or 2, etc people could watch that copy of the movie at one time. That is a gold mine in their eyes and will be what they go for. Is it right...? No, but do they want it? Yes.

Piracy, P2P, and etc are just the latest buzz words for them to try and get what they can. Remember a couple of years ago how piracy was akin to supporting terroism, it is just getting more attention from you and I because it is now in a field that is affecting us more as techies.

1900s called, they want your business model back..

[LostCluster]

Sales are down for the RIAA... they're considering a CD sold at the point when they get paid for it, the point that it lands in the warehouse of a store chain, not the point at which it lands in a consumer's hands which is where Soundscan sets up its counting points.

The fact that store shelves are holding less in inventory is bad for them, but isn't exactly a sign of piracy, just a sign that the RIAA's business model is becoming dated.

I'm pretty sure that the major chains such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy would love to have a small CD factory in the back of each store in which they could print the discs and surrounding paperwork on a just-in-time basis. Afterall, both the music and liner notes could be available to the store over a digital network. Why ship physical packages that might not sell when you can just ship blank disks and figure out what to put on them later?

Bottom line, it's going to get worse for the RIAA. They profit from the wastes in the system, and the system just keeps getting better at not buying things that can't be sold to consumers...

I don't think it matters

[Frizzle Fry]

If they have the moral and legal right to seek action against people who pirate music in the case where piracy is costing them lots of sales, then they have that same right in the case where it doesn't hurt them much or at all (or even helps them). Whether you have the right to copy music should not be decided based on how it affects the profits of the companies who make it. Either it belongs to them and these restrictions are permissible, or they are not.

Re:I don't think it matters

[MBCook]

That's true. The problem is that using their numbers, they are lobbying congress to take consumers rights away and make the penalties for "casual piracy" (a few songs, as opposed to running a pirating ring where you copy and sell 1000s of discs) rediculous. They are also trying to do things like extend copyrights and such, which can easily negativly effect consumers.

They have the right to fight piracy. They DON'T have the right to use wildly missleading numbers to convince the government to help them prop up their failing business model.

Re:I don't think it matters

[pavon]

They have the right to fight piracy. They DON'T have the right to use wildly missleading numbers to convince the government to help them prop up their failing business model.

Exactly. They have been using these numbers to scare government officials into thinking that if they don't take away our rights, the music and movie industries will collapse. The results of this include:

The DCMA
This law makes it illegal to decrypt copywritten files, possibly even illegal to create and discuss decryption methods, if they can be used for piracy. It is dangerous because it is written in a way that says all decryption is illegal except these few vague exceptions, rather than the tradional method of stating everything is legal except these exact items. One effect of this is that many things which were once considered fair-use are now illegal. Another effect is that many industries have attempted to use the law to create proprietary lock-in to thier product, hurting competitive markets.

The Broadcast bit.
The FCC has regulated that all televisions produced after a certain date, have digital recievers which respect a broadcast bit preventing one from copying that data. Again, many types of copying that were once considered fair use, will now be illegal to to the DCMA and enforced by your equipment. This will raise the cost of consumer devices, take away your rights, and make it more difficult to produce your own content (ie camcorder).

Excessive internet radio fees.
Which make it economically impossible for anyone but big business to broadcast radio over the internet legaly. Even if you are not broadcasting any RIAA music, it is your resposibility to provide complete documentation of this - ie guilty until proven innocent, so even that is impractical.

All of these hurt citizens of this country, do not benefit the artists, and create an unfair advantage for the existing large media companies.

Re:I don't think it matters

[RedWizzard]

Well they have the right to use whatever misleading numbers they want.

Um, no they don't. It's called fraud.

Funny numbers?!?!

[magarity]

the RIAA is not reporting the most 'useful' numbers to the public."

OMG! Someone is using statistics to slant an issue their way! OMG!

Re:Funny numbers?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

All statistics are made up anyways, 3 out of 4 people know that.

Brownie points to the person who can identify that quote.

Well it makes since if you factor in....

[3seas]

... they have to hide the money they are keeping (stealing) from the artists somehow...

How Exactly is That Different

[Greyfox]

From all those companies lying about their revenue during the height of the stock market bubble/scam? Are the numbers the RIAA is reporting to us any better than the numbers Enron or Tyco reported to us?

Re:How Exactly is That Different

[LostCluster]

From all those companies lying about their revenue during the height of the stock market bubble/scam? Are the numbers the RIAA is reporting to us any better than the numbers Enron or Tyco reported to us?

The RIAA's numbers are at least correct counts of what they're supposed to be representing. However, consumers are paying less for music doesn't ring too when it's the wholesale transactions going down but not the number of retail transations. That just says there's less CDs sitting unsold on shelves these days...

We don't care about your stat...

[LostCluster]

Soundscan would also count an "unsigned artist's" CD just the same as any other because it went through the cash register... but the RIAA's stat doesn't include CDs sold by companies that aren't members of their group.

The RIAA represents most of the recording industry, but not all of it. Sales going down for the RIAA members does not always equate to sales going down for the industry...

You've got to make sure you know what a stat was really counting before you make conclusions based on it.

Re:We don't care about your stat...

[phalse phace]

"The RIAA represents most of the recording industry, but not all of it. Sales going down for the RIAA members does not always equate to sales going down for the industry..."

I agree. The way the RIAA calculates sales, by the "number of units shipped to retail outlets," is very flawed. I'm sure all those purchases I've made through emusic, the iTunes Music Store, DMusic, and CD Baby haven't been included into their [RIAA] numbers.

This leads me to believe that music sales are actually up worldwide. Until *all* music sales are calculated (from digital downloads and independent/non-RIAA CDs to RIAA member CDs), I don't think we'll really know for sure what the sales numbers are like.

Re:We don't care about your stat...

[Tired and Emotional]

That's the crux of the matter.

The fact is that the RIAA members had a near monopoly on the means of distribution until the last few (perhaps as few as 2) years. What is really going on is musicians are taking back control of distribution. Just about every established band in my town has a cd. You can buy them at shows, or from web sites like CD BABY, or even from independent record stores run by people who care about music and musicians rather than just shoveling product.

This is good for musicians but more importantly its important for listeners because as a result a lot of styles, both historical and regional, can once again be heard.

But the RIAA is in trouble because their business model is no longer valid - that business model was to extract monopoly rents (to use the economists jargon) from the distribution system.

Given that their technology based initiatives will be useless against organized piracy who already operate outside the law one can only assume their real objective is to regain monopoly control of the distribution channel. To do that they would have to mandate equipment that could only play media licensed by their members, and I don't think anything passed so far is that draconian.

Reminds me..

[fiannaFailMan]

..of the people who are complaining to Congress about the cost of 'frivolous' lawsuits whilst buttering up their shareholders in their annual reports about how the cost of litigation 'will not have a significant impact on the bottom line.'

The bottom line is that anything big businessmen have to say should be taken with a pinch of salt.

It's called "Just in Time" Inventory

[Newer Guy]

in the past, the RIAA always shipped considerably more units than were sold. Why the change? Retails stores simply want less inventory, so they order less, even though they are selling more.

This trend is commonplace everywhere. Retail outlets don't want things sitting on their shelves for two reasons: First, because they have to PAY for them and second if they don't sell, they have to PAY to ship them back.

What the record stores are doing has been done for years in most other retail outlets. It's called "Just in Time" inventory. For example, a grocery store tries to predict how much lettuce they'll sell and only buys that much, lest they get stuck with rotting produce. McDonald's made a science of this back in the '90's.

Now, the RIAA wants to use this new inventory trend to SPREAD THEIR LIES! It shows just how dirty rotten to the core they are! They KNOW what's going on; they're cherry picking stastics to LIE!!

In related news...

[k4_pacific]

The US census is now counting every possible sperm-egg combination as a "potential" citizen.

Re:In related news...

[ThatsNotFunny]

In that case, my left hand is guilty of mass murder...

Re:In related news...

[machine of god]

Fine so long as I can claim the dependants.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Hi-Five for another lefty, uh, hi-five with the right hand...

Re:In related news...

[sik0fewl]

... not to mention mass turbation.

Re:In related news...

[luke923]

Well, if we learned anything from Monty Python, it's that: There are Jews in the world. There are Buddhists. There are Hindus and Mormons, and then There are those that follow Mohammed, but I've never been one of them. I'm a Roman Catholic, And have been since before I was born, And the one thing they say about Catholics is: They'll take you as soon as you're warm. You don't have to be a six-footer. You don't have to have a great brain. You don't have to have any clothes on. You're A Catholic the moment Dad came, Because... ...Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Let the heathen spill theirs On the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for Each sperm that can't be found. Every sperm is wanted. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood. Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, Spill theirs just anywhere, But God loves those who treat their Semen with more care. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted,... ...God gets quite irate. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed... ...In your neighbourhood! Every sperm is useful. Every sperm is fine. God needs everybody's. Mine! And mine! And mine! Let the Pagan spill theirs O'er mountain, hill, and plain. God shall strike them down for Each sperm that's spilt in vain. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite iraaaaate! Actually, I'm more Protestant, and - as a member "of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue." "...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, (someone) would not be impregnated." After all, "...That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want....French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress....I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'" But, I digress. Monty Python is great.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the term is spermicide.

Re:In related news...

[__aamkky7574]

To quote Bill Hicks:

You know what that means? That means I have wiped entire civilizations off my chest with a gray gym sock. I've tossed universes in my underpants. While napping. That is special.

P.

using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[jbellis]

just don't use it to justify theft... if the RIAA charges more than you want to pay, that doesn't mean you get to take it anyway. Check out emusic or other sources of indie music instead.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[dsanfte]

if the RIAA charges more than you want to pay, that doesn't mean you get to take it anyway.

First, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

Second, if a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated to thrash themselves with the spiked whip of capitalist ethics. They hurt no one by doing so.

Strict adherance to law is simply strict adherance to politicians. They're the ones who make it.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[lawpoop]

Once again.

Copyright infringement is not theft.

If you believe it is, fine. However, you disagree with the American justice system, and a long tradition of anglo-saxon jurisprudence. Theft is depriving someone of something. If you copy someone's song when you have no right to do so, they still have their song. What you've done is infringe on their rights to copies of that song.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[Roydd McWilson]

If you can't afford to buy a copy of some (probably pretty bad) music, I think you are morally obligated to respect the creators' wish not to obtain it via other means. In this case, it has nothing to do with obeying politicians; basic copyright law just happens to be the most reasonable idea. After all, it's not like you need this music to save your life (this issue with patented medications is a bit trickier; some countries, like India, choose to simply ignore those patents). Anyway, the main reason so many people illegally download music is convenience -- not because they can't afford it.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

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.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[GileadGreene]

...if a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated to thrash themselves with the spiked whip of capitalist ethics...

Much like if a closed source software company wants your software, but can't "afford" to abide by the rules of the GPL, they're not morally obligated to thrash themselves with the spiked whip of GNU ethics.

If, like many of us, you object to the scenario I have outlined above, you will want to vigorously support copyright law. That is the root of your moral obligation - not capitalist ethics, but your own ethics. This is very much like supporting free speech: I may object to the uses that the RIAA and MPAA make of copyright law, but I will support their right to do so.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[DragonMagic]

[snipping sarcastic rebuttal]

Sorry, but you completely changed the point just to fit something unfunny. I'll bypass it for the points you attempt to make:

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's this? I'm not apologizing for anyone, nor supporting the actions of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm against anyone who thinks that if they can't afford something, then they're perfectly allowed to steal it. Steal, as in, not pay for something which can only legally be obtained by paying.

You can't afford Windows XP Pro, but hate Windows XP Home, so you should be allowed to pirate it because it's too high a price. Same with Photoshop and Acrobat Writer.

No one's being hurt, after all, since you couldn't afford them anyways.

Except, well, you're gaining something from their use and taking away a profit from those who created it. There are free alternatives to nearly every software package out there, so why not use them? If they don't meet your needs, lower your needs or raise your disposable income.

For music and movies, there are free alternatives. Nick Park released one of his ten mini-films for free on his website. Many big bands have free music on their websites. There are concerts you should be able to find in your area which have little to no charge to attend.

So, again, how on earth are the RIAA/MPAA killing free entertainment? Oh, yeah, they're trying to retain their monopolies and losing. So what? Help them die off by NOT listening to/watching their productions, even if you could do it for free, and support those who meet your price range or code of ethics.

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?

So? Educate the opposite. Pass out free copies of software you legally can. Offer to train a person or two in how to use it so that perhaps they can show off to others, and pass along the knowledge.

But playing the "Someone else put this up for free, so we must stop it" bit is boring already. There are free novels available, and free stories, free music, free movies, free everything. As much as people hate competition and will try what they can to limit the damage competition does, supporting free alternatives helps them to grow. So please stop using this as an argument that free alternatives are dying; they won't if people like you help them out.

If I play the guitar on my front lawn, am I not robbing poor little Britney Spears?

No, and I have no idea why you bothered with this logic. It's not based on anything in my post.

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".

How does it have nothing to do with logic? The parent poster suggested that if people cannot afford a service, they are not morally obligated to pay for it, but can still receive it. Where's the logic in that? And I provided examples of how stupid it really sounds when it does not involve a geek trying to get free entertainment.

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.

Nor did I even imply it. However, no one has a god-given right to get services for free that are otherwise only obtainable through paying channels. Whether or not you could afford it makes no difference. You want that welfare, contact the gove

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[RoofPig]

"...and taking away a profit from those who created it"

Sorry. Wrong answer. You established in your cute little scenerio that the guy wouldn't buy it anyways, so the possible outcomes are as follows:

a) Guy doesn't buy or use software. Software company doesn't get money.

b) Guy doesn't buy but uses software. Software company doesn't get money.

Where's the missing profit? Answer: nowheresville. The simple truth is we don't need record companies anymore. They used to distribute music because no one else could really make records or tapes with any reasonable amount of quality. That's not a service anyone needs anymore. People can obtain a copy on their own. Sure you need a source and the source worked hard to create their art and everything, but so the ass what? You don't have a god given right to be a rich rock star. At most you have the government telling people they ought to not make a copy of a song because of some misguided notion that no one will want to record new and interesting songs if they don't get compensated.

The fact that the MPAA and RIAA lobby to have copyright terms extended nigh indefinitely tells you all you need to know about the purpose of modern copyright law's existence. I'll give you a clue if you still aren't sure, though. It has to do with shareholders and government officials liking money a lot. That these corporations have effectively removed the part where works are supposed to go into the public domain for society's benefit as a whole pretty much nullifies any moral ground copyright laws once had. In my eyes (and I'm sure hundreds of you will disagree) downloading songs or what have you is pretty much the only effective form of civil disobedience against these fuckholes.

Incidentally, since I began using peer to peer programs a number of years ago, I've bought around three times as many cds as I had been prior to that. Take that for what it's worth.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[dsanfte]

You must be very desperate and sick to compare downloading an mp3 to an act of sexual assault that will torment them for the rest of their lives, possibly resulting in a pregnancy that has to be aborted.

That's so rediculous that I really don't know what to say, besides that, if you're reaching for these kinds of pathetic comparisons, you may be on the losing side of the argument.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The supposed victims of copyright law shouldn't be able to ask for taxes on CD's and internet connections

You mean like in Canada and most of Europe, where this happens?

You shouldn't get to copy their stuff without permission, because our laws say you don't have the right to.

You mean except after 28 years, or for that matter, any reasonable delay, when it becomes public domain? Oh, I mean lifetime of author (~60-80) + 75 years.

Laws don't have to say what's right. The beauty of the US Constitution is that I have many rights, that there wasn't any need to explicitly put into writing. That "our" laws, and by this, I'm using your words, not mine, say otherwise, is sad. But "our" isn't so accurate anyway, is it. Some corporate lobbyists sent a Lear jet to DC, to pick up a few congressional friends for a game of golf at a resort. You see, senators like that, because there's not that great a chance that Air Force 1 will ever be theirs. Then, the lobbyist tell them how horrible it is, that Mickey Mouse will be public domain, and they'll lose something they deserve to keep! Oh no! But the senators, high on complimentary nose candy, they're too stupid to realize, hey, only a 2 minute clip, Steamboat Willy is actually going to become public domain, because Mickey is trademarked.

And then, the really fun stuff starts. Millions of apologists like you stand up, and say "Thank god we protected Micke!" even if it means you're being stolen from. As if some korean knockoff could be any worse than the tripe Disney tosses to the public.

There exist many systems far more efficient and fair for compensating creative people. But we're not getting close to those systems, we're moving away from them. So forgive me if I roll my eyes when I see you cheerleading.

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[kaiidth]

Give up on the stupid rape analogy already. It's not only simplistic, it also makes you sound monumentally tactless/stupid.

"Take a service without permission, leaving the service more or less intact for others to take with or without permission" - if you think this is in any way an adequate description of rape, you are really in trouble. Do you consider sex 'a service'?! Did you grow up with Windows NT? Do you think you can start sex with the Win32 CreateService API function? Are you implying that you regularly see bills of the 'Hand Job, Qty. 1, $#' variety? Religious enough to go for the 'God-ordained master/servant relationship to man'? Misogynous enough to speak of sex as though between animals? Or are you merely somewhat cynically suggesting that all forms of physical affection are work done as a form of employment, and that rape is a crime merely because the attacker witholds the cash/barter?

Aside from the above, rape is a close-contact crime. If it were the case that the process of copyright violation required one to tie up the artist(s), rip their clothes off and shove CDs where the sun does not shine, then perhaps you might have a point that the two were analogous. Both would then involve pain, humiliation, helplessness, violation and potentially serious physical and psychological ramifications. Since this is manifestly not the case, I suggest to you that you should either update your choice of analogy (to, perhaps, having your paycheck unfairly docked because somebody stole your paperclips) or simply leave the sensationalism out entirely. You clearly knew that it was a dodgy analogy before you made it - so why bother?

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[mdwh2]

Aside from the fact that rape is a little more than "taking a service without permission", I wouldn't call copying to be taking a service - that implies that the authors are still having to do some extra work in order to serve you.

If you want your analogies, it's analogous to fantasising about someone without their permission. You're gaining benefit as a result of someone else, but they aren't having to do any service as a result of that. At the very least, this should be allowed for personal use only!

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[DragonMagic]

Sorry. Wrong answer. You established in your cute little scenerio that the guy wouldn't buy it anyways, so the possible outcomes are as follows:

a) Guy doesn't buy or use software. Software company doesn't get money.

b) Guy doesn't buy but uses software. Software company doesn't get money.

Where's the missing profit? Answer: nowheresville.

And like the parent to my reply, you simply make up what I don't say. I never said there was a missing profit; I said someone takes a profit away.

However, no one should be allowed to insist that there is money missing because someone is using that software, unless that software is being resold to someone else illegally. Just a little logic I have with that.

The simple truth is we don't need record companies anymore. They used to distribute music because no one else could really make records or tapes with any reasonable amount of quality. That's not a service anyone needs anymore.

And yet, later on, you admit to buying CDs. Do you buy any from RIAA members, from those P2P services?

People can obtain a copy on their own. Sure you need a source and the source worked hard to create their art and everything, but so the ass what? You don't have a god given right to be a rich rock star. At most you have the government telling people they ought to not make a copy of a song because of some misguided notion that no one will want to record new and interesting songs if they don't get compensated.

Yeah, the people who created Unreal Tournament 2004 worked their asses off, as did the people who are working on Doom III. But hey, what right do they have to make money off their hard work? They should license those engines for free and give away free copies, because no one deserves to profit from their "art".

But wait, if we impose a limited government monopoly on distribution, these people can pay salaries of the employees who shape and beautify these games. They'd want to come back to work at a software company, rather than go find work at a textile plant.

Funny, I don't see any free versions of games that are nearly as good as Q3A or UT2K4 have been. So it seems to me that copyright helps produce really quality first-person shooters.

Same with music. People choose whether they want to release it for free or charge for distribution of their songs. This model does work. And if you don't feel that artists should be compensated, then choose the people who agree with you. If you don't seem to enjoy their music, lower your standards or suck up the fact that what you want costs money.

Justifying piracy because no one deserves to make money from an idea is moronic.

The fact that the MPAA and RIAA lobby to have copyright terms extended nigh indefinitely tells you all you need to know about the purpose of modern copyright law's existence. I'll give you a clue if you still aren't sure, though. It has to do with shareholders and government officials liking money a lot.

How many people on Slashdot get out the pitchforks and torches the moment someone allegedly breaks a GPL? Or those who claim parts or all of Linux belong to them? After all, without current copyright laws, these would perfectly be permissable.

Seems to me that copyright laws today have also made LAMP one of the best packageable software bundles around. Would Linux be how it was today without copyright? I highly doubt it.

That these corporations have effectively removed the part where works are supposed to go into the public domain for society's benefit as a whole pretty much nullifies any moral ground copyright laws once had. In my eyes (and I'm sure hundreds of you will disagree) downloading songs or what have you is pretty much the only effective form of civil disobedience against these fuckholes.

This is too funny. Show me where in copyright law it says that no one may place their work into the public domain until it woul

Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine

[RoofPig]

I was going to go through and make a half assed attempt at nitpicking every sentence you write in an effort to make your entire argument appear thoroughly debunked, but I decided to just take issue with a couple things that caught my eye first. I was also going to mention logic a lot in an effort to make my points seem somehow more factual when they really arent. Then I remembered I'm not an idiot basement dwelling Spock worshipper.

"And like the parent to my reply, you simply make up what I don't say. I never said there was a missing profit; I said someone takes a profit away."

Um, ok. Where's the "taken away" profit? All better now? Christ.

"Yeah, the people who created Unreal Tournament 2004 worked their asses off, as did the people who are working on Doom III. But hey, what right do they have to make money off their hard work?"

I could work my ass off doing a lot of things. It doesn't automatically mean anybody who benefits from my work "owes" me anything. I took a risk working on something that anyone could get for free with ease once I was done.

"This is too funny. Show me where in copyright law it says that no one may place their work into the public domain until it would naturally do so? Oh, you can place your copyrighted work into public domain whenever you wish? Defeats that logic."

Ok, I guess I'm going to have to spell this out for you. Copyright law allows corporations to control the rights to works indefinately instead of like before, when after a reasonable amount of time they would go to the public domain. So essentially if you wanted to keep making money for your art you had to make something else.

Court of public opinion

[Deitheres]

Of course the RIAA is going to fudge the numbers. If word got out that they were *GASP* not losing money, or at least not as much as they lead people to believe, it would make it oh-so-harder to justify their legal pursuit of grannies and pre-teens to the general public. As it is, it's a game of "oh look at us, we're the poor RIAA, we are making so much more money in a week than you poor consumers will ever make in our lives, but it's not as much as it used to be... we used to make more in a DAY than you would make in your entire life! Take pity on us, and understand why we are fucking the artists, and giving them pennies for every CD sold, so that we can afford limousines and caviar for our poor underfed kitties!". And the consumers eat it up, as evidenced by the ill-informed dolts saying things like "duh, anybody who downloads music off the internet is a thief". The RIAA makes it so that even if you download music that you're ALLOWED to (like Indy) it has a stigma associated with it. It's not about protecting "the artists", or the IP, it's about ensuring their lifestyle. They're thieves too, but in a way that is so much worse than average Joe Public who jumps on Kazaa or SoulSeek to download the new Creed/Eminem/[insert shitty pop band here] song-- Joe Public downloads the song because he likes or loves music, the RIAA and MPAA'ers of the world do what they do because they are money hungry fucks who will do anything they can to maintain their dominance.

I'm not a religious person, and I normally don't resort to Biblical citations, but I think this one applies:

"The love of money is the root of all evil." (also one of the most misquoted passages in the Bible just for the record).

On the reverse side, piracy is not the ideal situation either. I am a musician, and I hope someday to make a living off my music, but I know it won't be with a record deal-- and I sure as hell know it probably won't be from selling records. Hopefully by the time I am ready to try my music as a full time career we'll have something a bit more established that will allow truly independent music distribution, with a vehicle that guarantees the artist will at least see some money for their hard work.

Dan

honesty, not usefulness

[SuperBanana]

but it is fairly obvious that the RIAA is not reporting the most 'useful' numbers to the public

I believe the word you were searching for was "honest", not "useful".

Then again, this is peanuts compared to Hollywood which manages to make it look like every single movie looses (or makes very little) money so they don't have to pay taxes or pay people who are supposed to get a cut of the profits.

Of course, most of corporate america does exactly the same thing, which is why they've gone from a 52% tax share (versus individuals) to under 5% in 50 years.

Easy..

[CashCarSTAR]

Like other people have mentioned, record stores have been getting out of the business left and right. Either they've been closing, or switching over to more mixed media stores. The big boxes don't order huge inventories, especially of back catalog items, and smaller stores have been switching to other media types (DVDs and games mostly, very lucrative and growing markets)

So is this due to piracy?

Err..no.

Sales of the hit new music has remained pretty constant (which is expectable in a mostly stable marketplace), which are often the most easy to download, so it makes it obvious that something else is at play here...

Maybe it could be the MASSIVE growth of used media stores that have been popping up all over the place?

So what can be done about that? It's obviously legal, and easy to say that it's ethical to do, after all, we do have the right to sell what we have paid for...

My suggestion for the RIAA is to actually lay off the worrying about piracy, and instead, run an information and advertising campaign informing consumers about how when they buy a used CD, they are in fact ripping off their favorite artist. By changing the focus, and acting through education and not litigation they can regain some respectability, especially if they make a good argument for it.

Re:Easy..

[corrosive_nf]

uhh you are really wrong, Amoeba record store sells ALOT in the bay area, anytime you go in, tons of people are buying cd's and yes even records.

ahhh statistics

[jonnystiph]

You know what they say 97.89% statistics are made up on the spot....

This was obviously a farce from the get go. Mp3's open people up to music they would have never bought, same can be said with libraries and books.

Re:What else is new?

[stev3]

The short answer to there's two different measurement formats used. Decimal (GB) and binary (GiB) formats. Binary is used by Windows and decimal is used by the manufacturers. Both the manufacturer and Windows are giving you the "correct" number.

Binary numbers are numbers that are a power of 2. Decimal numbers are numbers that are a power of 10.

2^10 is 1,024 the closest Decimal number is 10^3 or 1,000 2^20 is 1,048,576 The closest Decimal number is 10^6 or 1,000,000 2^30 is 1,073,741,824 The closest Decimal number is 10^9 or 1,000,000,000

Now lets look at common terms: Kilo means 1 thousand Mega means 1 million Giga means 1 billion Tera means 1 Trillion

1000/1024 = .9765625 1,000,000/1,048,576 = .9536743 1,000,000,000/1,073,741,824 = .93132257

Noticing a trend yet?

At the Kilobyte size the difference is about 2.34% While at the Gigabyte stage the difference is 6.86% Since we're living in the day where it's relatively easy to put a full terrabyte of storage in your computer that "close enough" is becoming further and further from "close enough" At the Terrabyte level the difference is getting very close to 10%

Would you want to buy a hard drive that is labeled as 2^35 byte hard drive? Or would you rather see a 500Gb drive? I don't want anybody ever having to pull out a calculator to figure out how big their hard drive is!

Windows is the one reporting things wrong! Not your manufacturer. Windows does the binary calculations and then displays GB next to it. When GB is technically wrong due to it's definition. What it is actually displaying is the GiB size.

Since the GB number will always be so much higher than the GiB number it's a safe bet to assume that the hard drive manufacturers won't convert to using the GiB format. Memory manufacturers on the other hand are doing things right. You don't see then selling 1Gb of RAM as 1,073Mb do ya? It gets VERY confusing in the hardware world due to some people using 1 standard while they other group using the other one.

Statistics

[darkitecture]

Ahh, statistics are wonderful things, aren't they?

Reminds me of a couple of classic quotes about statistics:

Aaron Levenstein once said "Statistics are like bikinis; What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."

and Thomas Carlyle once said, "A witty statesman said, you might prove anything by figures."

The thing is, I dislike the RIAA quite vocally, but I'd still probably believe them if they said their revenue is down. But the first thing they teach you about statistics in math is that "Correlation does not equal causation."

Re:It's not something we can ever get hard numbers

[miu]

That way people still get their free stuff, the music companies get a shit load of revenue without much effort on their part and everyone is a little happy.

Oh I get it, they take a loss with every sale, but then make it up on volume.

The Coalition of Independent Music Stores

[corrosive_nf]

This is why I support The Coalition of Independent Music Stores.

Boycott the RIAA the Week of July 4th

[rben]

This is another example of the kind of deceptive practices that the RIAA is using to convince congress to pass laws that turn our kids into criminals. The RIAA will continue to pursue this path until they learn that consumers will actually take a stand against it.

I would like to urge people to declare their independence from the RIAA on the week of July 4th, 2004. Boycott them. Do not purchase music or listen to the radio during that time. Instead, why not check out the independent artists that distribute their music for free? Show the RIAA that you know how to hit them back where it hurts... in the wallet.

In other words

[Junior J. Junior III]

In other words, the geek boycott of RIAA labels is failing. I don't really see this as good news.

Re:1900s called, they want your business model bac

[ThogScully]

Things change. Typically, no, commercial CDs aren't burned by a Plextor drive at the factory, but the market is changing and that's directing the industry to change too.

If burned discs aren't a solution, then they have to come up with a different solution. If they find a way to press one-off CDs because of the prodding, great for everybody. But maybe, just maybe, that's the hint that CDs themselves aren't the solution.

Don't consider it a problem that it can't be done now - it's an opportunity for a new product to be invented, a new mechanism to be introduced. Could be a digital distribution medium that will actually be researched rather than the crap they've been hacking together lately.
-N

lets setup a shell to 'stuff the channel'

[sPaKr]

This shipping product to your retailer/resailers just to have it round trip and come back to you later is called 'stuffing the channel' its an old trick. Sales Scum (tm) use it all the time to inflate numbers at the end of a quarter. If they (RIAA) is going to count numbers by the overly simple math then lets beat them at their own game. I say we setup a "Retailer" that never sells anything but just orders shipments like crazy. This "Retailer" Hoovers up as many units as they can ship. Then it just turns around and ships them back as unsold stock. We might even be able to work out a deal with the delivery companies to not even deliver the units just move them from the shipping dock to the recieveing dock at the distribution points.

This is nothing new

[PimpbotChris]

ARIA tried to hide their record CD sales from the Australian public Music industry way off track with song and dance about falling sales

Profit Model of the New Millenium

[SlimFastForYou]

1.) Announce a wholesale price hike, causing retailers to stock up on inventory, and purchase less the following year
2.) Attribute "fewer sales" to P2P
3.) Sue the butts off of "pirates"
4.) Appeal to the public as being truly hurt by these individuals, while extorting money from defenseless individuals who couldn't afford music in the first place
5.) ???
6.) Profit!!!

Note: By "pirates", I am referring to individuals who share music they MAY indeed own yet are "breaking the law" by doing so.

I don't say piracy is right or wrong. For those who can afford licensed media yet pirate, shame on them! For those who are concerned with the cost of living - I can't blame them. The RIAA isn't any better than the "pirates" they sue, as long as they employ dubious tactics.

RIAA is Dying

[Lost Penguin]

Netcraft reports, .., RIAA,..., Red ink, ;)

It would make a great troll!

Re:What else is new?

[jonastullus]

It's a very common practice in many industries to "tilt" the facts to their favor. Look at the hard drive industry and tell me why my 80GB drive ends up being a 74.5GB drive when I format it.

i do actually hope that the above was a rhetoric question... but just for the heck of it:

Giga is defined (in almost all of science) as 10^9; therefore 80GB = 80 * 10^9 Byte.
Computer Scientists have calculated most data sizes in exponents of "2"; therefore it is common to write KB as 2^10 Byte, MB as 2^20 Byte and GB as 2^30 Byte; this is also how your operating system will output your HDD capacity.

Recently it has been tried to introduce the units Mebibyte (MiB) and Gibibyte (GiB) for the exponents of "2", but it might still take quite a while (or may never happen) that the majority of computer scientists and the industry will switch to the new notation.

thus it is (due to ill-defined units) more or less correct to write:
80GB = 80 * 2^30 Byte = 8.59 * 10^10 Byte = 86GB

obviously it should really be written as 80GiB = 86GB, but such is our beloved computer science ;-))

yet, most likely you already knew that... well, next time better put the <irony> tags *gg*

Hardly Surprising!

[rspress]

Since most of the "losses" come not from file traders but from those who copy the full disc, including the liner notes and sells those on the street and even to music stores.

The RIAA once reported one in six discs that you buy is a pirate disc. This is where they are truly losing money. However if all this contrary information were to make it to the courts that are granting the search warrants for ISP's then it would be that much hard for the RIAA to get those warrants....and that would prevent them from getting the easy money from going after file traders.

Speaking of this easy money, has anyone seen the figures of how much the RIAA has brought in from these Nazi tactics and how much of that total was reimbursed to the artists who lost sales? Also how does the RIAA determine who has been pirated and how are the reimbursed? If someone were to bring these point up to the judge who is issuing warrants then the RIAA might really have to do something more than whine to get a warrant.

It makes sense with their way of thinking...

[DroopyStonx]

They believe that every single pirated song was a guaranteed sale, which is not the case.

Just because a person has 4,000 songs doesn't mean that they would've purchased ALL of those CDs had they not had the means to download them... but the RIAA stands firm in their belief that this is possible.

context

[Deitheres]

Just like I could say:

"and the bible says 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ... The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen'" (that is Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21)

gotta love taking things out of context :-)

A few possible explanations.

[Stephen Samuel]

1. fake products -- scam artists shipping stuff to stores that RIIA membership doesn't know about -- but good enough to fool consumers (haven't heard of this running rampant).
2. Less spoilage (shipping fewer, selling more, returning way less). Better profits all the way 'round. Works for stores, artists get more money, so does the RIAA.
3. RIAA scam (they tell artists "140M records", but they sell 160M) -- but the RIAA wouldn't do that would they???

Note that, in all possible circumstances, record sales are up.

Only in (1) would the RIAA (and artists) actually get less money, but that's not the fault of the "pirate scum" 12 year olds that the RIAA insists on suing. If this is the case, then the RIAA needs to start going after the real pirates, and stop suing kids.

For (3), The artists are getting less money, but that would be because the RIAA is scamming on both ends (cheating artists, raising prices, suing customers). It'd take a public scandal to fix that.

Diatribe

[BiggerIsBetter]

There are 2 ways to get music, buy and and steal it (and please no diatribe on whether steal is the right word).

OK, you *know* it's the wrong word, and yet you use it anyway? You sir, are being an industry shill.

So if you stole it, it should be considered a lost sale, as you obviously wanted the music but chose to steal it instead of buying it.

A "lost sale" is someone stealing a CD off the counter, or even a customer walking out without buying anything because the clerk pissed them off - but we are talking about copying from media that has alrady been bought, not the theft of a product. It's a subtle difference that business doesn't like to acknowledge because all they see is dollars that they didn't get. It's like NOS getting pissy abuot "lost sales" when people build a DIY nitrous system for their car. Sure, they didn't sell a kit to someone who was interested in their stuff, but if the price was closer to the reproduction cost + hassle of DIY, they probably would have. Not being competitive in the market place is the reason they "lose" sales like this, plain and simple.

Once again, it's not a lost sale if you weren't going to get it anyway. I'm interested in lots of music, but I'm not going to buy a $32 NZD industry backed CD because they are a complete rip-off (I also don't download MP3s either). Having said that, I bought a $5 NZD CD of driving music from the gas station last night. Pricing is a key issue - they'll bleat about the cost of producing new music, but if the industry wasn't snorting their profits and spent less playing at being rock stars prices would be more realistic.

And BTW, the same retail vs wholesale thing is the reason (pop star|idol) tops the charts the week of release - nobody bought it except the stores, but the punters see it in the charts and buy it 'cos a) it *must* be good if it's in the charts, b) it's advertised everywhere so it's all they know. The music recording industry is a joke - go down to the pub this weekend and supprt your local bands instead.

More Mega-Store Efficiencies and Other Trends

[Anonymous Coward]

> Another interesting thing has happened over the last few years. The growth of mega-chains such as Best Buy plus the .com's joining into the marketplace have knocked mom and pop record stores out of existance.

Excellent point. But it goes further than you suggest.

It is much easier for a mega-store to predict its sales, and manage its inventory efficiently, than it is for a small store.

For example, a small store might receive shipments once a week, or even once a month. For a given CD, that store might expect to sell just two copies before the next shipment, but a week or a month is a long time to be sold out of something, so that store will want to stock three, or more likely four copies of that CD. That's 50% excess inventory on average. Plus, there is nothing the small store can do with that excess except to return it with the next delivery truck.

But a mega-store will receive shipments every day. Plus, the mega-store might expect to sell 5 copies per day of that same CD. So let's say the mega-store keeps 10 copies of that CD on the shelf, with re-orders every day, and ends up returning the excess 5 copies at the end of a month. But that's 5 copies returned on a month's sales of 150 copies, which, in the long run, only represents an excess inventory of 3%.

And let's not forget the mega-stores' other advantages for efficient inventory management, including computerized check-outs, and the ability to move inventory around from one store to another.

So it shouldn't surprise us if excess CD shipments have been drastically reduced.

I can see another way in which Internet Radio, and music downloads would lead to more efficient sales. Today's buyer will go the the record store with better knowledge of what he/she likes and wants. Thus, that buyer will be less likely to pick up the mass-marketed Britney Spears CD, and more likely to pick up some lesser known band. It's not worth it to the record store to stock extra boxes of a small band's CD, the way they would with a Britney Spears CD. Plus, it's less likely for there to be a sudden rush on that small band. Thus, the trend is away from the mass-marketed items, where it's worth it to be wasteful (and necessary, to meet the peaks), and toward more highly focussed items, which sell a few at a time. And let's not forget the increase in the almost-100%-efficient special order sales.

As to the drop in international sales, I think that is more likely to be a shift away from the heavily-advertised American groups, and toward the less-advertised local groups in each country. Once again, Internet Radio and downloads would allow listeners in each country to discover those other groups, rather than simply being led by U.S. advertising. I assume that many, if not most of those smaller groups' sales in other countries are _not_ measured by the RIAA.

Re:More Mega-Store Efficiencies and Other Trends

[Tiram]

As to the drop in international sales, I think that is more likely to be a shift away from the heavily-advertised American groups, and toward the less-advertised local groups in each country. Once again, Internet Radio and downloads would allow listeners in each country to discover those other groups, rather than simply being led by U.S. advertising. I assume that many, if not most of those smaller groups' sales in other countries are _not_ measured by the RIAA.

I don't know if this is a trend everywhere, but it seems to be true for Norway. First quarter this year, the sale of Norwegian CDs* was up by 46% volume (54% value) compared to the same period last year. 21% per cent of the CDs sold were Norwegian, up from 14% last year.

* Not including singles and DVDs, which probably would have pushed the numbers even higher.

Ref: Sterk økning i salg av norsk musikk (in Norwegian, I'm afraid ...:)

The Wal-Mart Effect In Action

[cmholm]

As other posters have pointed out, retailers are carrying less stock than was previously mandated by the RIAA. Why? While we'd like to think this has something to do with mp3 and Kazaa, I think it's primarily due to Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is renowned for forcing it's suppliers to radically revamp their operations to meet Wal-Mart's needs. Wal-Mart dictates to it's suppliers, demanding just-in-time inventory control and annual - if not quarterly - wholesale price drops. 20% of CD and DVD retail dollars now flow through Wal-Mart. With that kind of buying pull, recorded music became yet another consumer item that Wal-Mart could live without, but that couldn't live without Wal-Mart. If we go with the theory that Sam Walton's boys popped the RIAA's cherry during the buyer's renegotiations, that probably provided leverage for other retailers from Kmart to Tower Records to cut the same deal, especially during a down economy.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the gusto with which the music industry tries to squeeze more blood out of consumers by lobbying Washington and other capitals was in direct relation to how much of they're getting squeezed in Bentonville, AR.

Re:This article

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA wants to remove the Fair Use provisions in the law -- provisions that give you the right to legally copy _your own_ CDs and DVDs. Thus, you would no longer be able to make backups, or listen to your CDs on your computer, and so on.

Further, the RIAA wants to impose DRM restrictions, which would force you to buy only RIAA-approved CD and DVD players -- at a higher price.

And now it turns out that the RIAA's claims may be based on a lie?!!

And you don't have a problem with that??!!!

Either you're a fool, or you're working for one of the company's, such as Microsoft, that is hoping to profit from government-imposed DRM. I can inderstand why Microsoft would want the RIAA's lies to go unchallenged.

#2 is a big one

[Sycraft-fu]

As others have noted, Just In Time inventory is getting real popular. Since shipping now happens quickly and you can track everything on compuer from what your supplier has, to what's on trucks, to yout warehouse to your stores, it is now feasable to have much less on hand and just replenish it more often. It is VERY popular these days since it keeps costs down (it's expensive to have shit sit on shelves).

I met a sony music contracts executive

[holy_smoke]

on a shared cab ride 2 days ago, and we got to talking about P2P, so I slyly asked her if perhaps they had considered that "maybe DVDs, game consoles, cell phones, and gameboys may be competing for entertainment dollars?"

"NO, Absolutely not - its P2P, the children don't understand and need to be educated. Those other explanations are nonsense." she said

I said "hmmm, well are you sure, cause it..."

"Yes we are absolutely sure. These P2P programs are set up to steal and kids don't realize what they are doing it wrong. Its silly and inexcusable, we need to change their attitude."

So you see - they don't CARE to see any facts or evidence that point away from their view. They don't WANT to hear it. And this not wanting or caring will re-enforce their current behavior patterns. It will also cloud their minds such that EVERY way they approach the problem will have P2P destruction or absolute control in mind.

What they DO understand that "war does not determine who is right, war determines who is left".

Re:What else is new?

[TeraCo]

Obviously, that's why a gigalitre of water is 1024 litres.. and a gigawatt is 1024 watts.. :P

It's time to change sampling techniques?

[MtViewGuy]

I think the problem that is affecting groups like the RIAA, MPAA, the television networks, and so on is the fact that their techniques for measuring things like sales and viewership are being rapidly obseleted by changes in communications technology.

If you're read Alvin Toffler's book The Third Wave, Toffer some 25 years ago said that as more communications choices for consumers become available, old means to measuring "eyeballs" won't work anymore. I mean look at what has happened since The Third Wave was published in 1979:

1. Consumers now possess the technology to time shift TV programming by videocassette recorders and increasing digital Personal Video Recorders, which is making the idea of prime time meaningless.

2. The choice of TV programming has literally increased exponentially. Back in 1979, most Americans could only watch at most 5-7 channels of TV programming on over-air broadcasts; today, cable TV has expanded the available channels to over 70 and small-dish satellite TV has expanded the available channels to over 200!

3. The rise of pre-recorded videocassettes and now DVD's have drastically altered the landscape of both movies and TV programming. Indeed, many movies are only breaking even with home video sales (or doubling their profit with home video sales!) and there's now the new trend of complete TV seasons available on DVD! I'm sure HBO has enjoyed healthy sales of full seasons of The Sopranos, Sex and the City, and Six Feet Under on DVD sets.

4. The rise of the public Internet has also started to affect TV viewership, as several recent surveys have shown.

5. Current methods of measuring TV viewership don't take into account the increasing trend of large scale public viewing of TV programs at public gathering places and/or having a large group of friends watching the program at someone's residence. For example, the final episode of Friends probably got underreported by Neilsen tracking because a large portion of viewers probably saw it in a group setting either in a public place or at a private residence with a large living room.

6. Tracking sales of music will have to be revamped, especially in light of the way Wal-Mart handles sales inventories, the sheer retail power of Best Buy, the heavy use of online sales at Amazon and Barnes & Noble web sites, and individual song downloads at various legal sites such as Apple's iTunes web site.

I think if the various media companies actually bother to change their way of monitoring sales/viewership they could actually get a far more accurate measurement, something that could eliminate underreporting of actual sales/viewership.

The Mighty Moses Strikes Out

[MacWiz]

Mr. Avalon almost got a clue there, but he missed the forest because he was able to identify two new varieties of trees.

Maybe next year he'll notice that:

a) Soundscan reports millions more CDs sold at retail than the RIAA reports having shipped to retail outlets (about 60 million for the past two years);

b) Since 2000, the numbers of "units" shipped to "promotional and specialty" outlets (aka record clubs), has dropped by 50%, accounting for the bulk of the industry's decline;

c) The REAL important numbers are how many units were shipped and how many units were returned.

The RIAA's numbers are designed to provide no useful data whatsoever.

SEC can haul your @ss in for misleading investors

[MacDork]

• No. If I am a business I can say things are bleak if they are great or things are great if they are bleak. They aren't misreporting the numbers they are merely not giving the full picture.

If you are a publicly traded company you can't. RIAA is just a trade association, so I don't know how much trouble they can get into for misleading the public. However, depending on how AOL, Sony, and friends go about 'not giving the full picture,' they can easily land themselves in class action lawsuits and hefty fines.

These numbers don't matter

[71thumper]

Music piracy (or whatever you'd like to call the rampant copying of music) is unrelated to the numbers. It's wrong. It's always been wrong and sitting here trying to come up with excuses is hypocritical from a group that zealously defends Open Source.

After all:

* No one loses the use of the original source when someone like Linksys modifies the source and doesn't release it.

* No one loses money because a company doesn't release its changes back to the community.

In short, if copying music is okay, then taking open source projects, modifying them, and selling them commercially without releasing the source can't possibly be bad.

Either intellectual property means something, or it doesn't. But make sure you appreciate the ramifications before espousing the "anyone should be able to do anything" argument.

Steve

Re:These numbers don't matter

[donkeyoverlord]

I don't think anyone has said that downloading music that is not free is a good thing(TM). It's wrong we ALL know that. But your analogy does not apply to the situation.

* No one loses the use of the original source when someone like Linksys modifies the source and doesn't release it.

* No one loses money because a company doesn't release its changes back to the community.

If I download the source code to the Linux Kernel modify and then SELL it as MY PRODUCT then the community is hurt. The same goes for music if I download a song, remix it and the RESELL it for a huge profit (I didn't pay for the original so all profit is huge) then that would be a 'bad thing'.

If I understand the GPL correctly a company doesn't have to release changes back to the community if it doesn't release the product. But once again if your making a profit selling something that is not your's then you a a pirate (ARGH!).

Why I downloaded it

[amix]

When I am hungry and I have no money I steel the food.
That simple.

If I died hunger, would that be more ehtic in your view ?

Besides that, your example with the cab-driver does not work. The homeless would intrude a foreign property and force (kidnap, so to say) a human. There is a big difference, not alone in the amount of violence required.

Four years ago I went to the music-store. I wanted to buy the Bomfunk MC's "Burning Sneaker" CD. I could have downloaded it from the net. I didn't, simply, because I like the band and wanted to reward them for my funky funky.

Guess what ?!

The CD did cost 10% of the (then) monthly netto income of the country I live in. Again in words: TEN FUCKING PERCENT OF MONTHLY NETTO INCOME.

And it got better:

The CD read: Not compatible with PC and MAC.
Too bad I have sold my CD player and replaced it with a HTPC...

The CD is published by SONY music!

Did you know, that SONY got big by COPYING US radios ? Heck, half if not more of the Japanese economy got built on copying and imitating other people's invention. _Then_ they started innovating. With the money, they got by copying other people's stuff. Right.

So, I had to pay for a CD, costing 10% of this countries monthly netto income, which was not usable on my AV entertainment system...

Of course, I didn't.

Guess what ?

I downloaded it!

Identity "Theft" vs Real Theft

[goldfndr]

Regarding identity "theft": if you were to masquerade as someone else in a closed system then yes, this wouldn't be harmful. For example, if I told a bunch of people at a bar that my name was Clint Eastwood, it's a pretty closed system and wouldn't matter. But if I were to use a bank card or ID or something else in his name, this can alter the influence/perception/composition of his identity thus making it something it wasn't previously. And if I knew enough to submit a legal name change or otherwise deprive him of something, that perhaps should be considered theft.

(While I use Clint Eastwood just because I saw BttF3 recently, the above applies to any other person.)

Of course, compare with copying a song - if, within the confines of one's home, it's in a closed system and not theft. But if you were to alter the master copy of that song or deprive the "owner" of that song... but how likely is that?

Re:It's not something we can ever get hard numbers

[snooo53]

I'm sure you know ever really getting hard numbers on piracy is impossible just because the nature of the industry and who would really buy something if they couldn't get it for free.

I have to disagree with you. On the contrary, I think the majority of people would choose buying something over getting it for free. The catch here is that the item has to be priced reasonably. It all comes down to economics. At $5 a cd, piracy would drop to negligible levels. If you go even lower to $2 a cd I daresay no one would even bother to copy them anymore (except for making mix cds). Why? Because it's simply not worth the time and effort when you get a shiny pressed cd with artwork and a case for your pocket change.

I think they should embrace and encourage, maybe give a biz model similar to what Napster was pushing for. A distributed model (sign the music so you know it isn't tampered with) that will is a premium up and above the free realm stuff like kazaa.

Again, I have to disagree. There is simply no way people are going to willingly give up their bandwidth and hard drive space so a company can make money off that. I suppose if you're clever though with the spin, you could get the crowd that clicks on the punch the monkey ads to run it.

so this goes on and on and .....

[Anonymous Coward]

I have read through the posts so far, and a considerble number of the posts made on the subject before and a lot of the analogies come close, but don't hit the heart of it for me.

Here is the way it is for me.

Many years ago (I don't know how many - google it yourself if you're interested), Natalie Imbruglia came out with a song called Torn. I have listened to this song so many times I can almost repeat every note she sings, AND every note the rest of the band plays.

This song ranks among my top 10 all-time favorite songs. It fucking gives me goose bumps on occasion when I listen to it, just because of the way she uses her voice. On the basis of this one song, I am ready to claim that she has a vocal talent worthy of note (even if....(see rest of post)).

So, when all these p2p networks started springing up, I checked into them, in the interest of deciding which CD's would be worthy of MY hard earned dollars. Natalie was my first test case.

My purpose for this was not to download mp3's (at least in the final stage). I happen to like a lot of music where even the tinniest ear can detect the difference between formats. I certainly can. My purpose (as far as Natilie was concerned) was to see if there was enough of her other stuff I liked to purchase a CD of hers. This was the first time I used a P2P network. (I get my porn elsewhere.....tttthhhhhuuuuuppppppttttt).

Not a chance (so far..... I understand she is working on a third alblum).

She seems to be techno-pop, a genre I'm not all that interested in, but I downloaded all of the songs off of the two released CD's I could find of her for sampling.

Conclusion: I still think Torn may be one of the best songs ever written - as it was performed by Natalie. One of these days I will get around to seeing if she wrote it, or it was done by committee and she was only the performing artist. It doesn't really matter to me.

BECAUSE: I found (so far at least) that this is the only song of hers I like. I don't know if the one song was in line with her normal fare and I just can't appreciate the rest of her music - or this is a fluke and the only good song she did.

For the purpose of discussion, it doesn't really matter. What mattered to me was with the availabilty of downloadable mp3's, I SAVED at least 20 dollars because I didn't buy either of her CD's for ONE FUCKING SONG.

I've got more than a few years in me still but I ain't exactly young. Like many, over those years I have purchased LP's, 8-tracks, and cassettes of whole alblums because there was one or two songs on it I liked.

Those days ended long ago.

(okay, about 1975, when I had to start earning my own money).

In the last five years I have purchased two CD's. Alice Cooper - Welcome to My Nightmare, and Black Sabbath - We Sold our Soul for Rock and Roll. As you can see, Natalie isn't exactly my normal fare. For these two CD's I payed what I considered to be an equitable price. $7.99 and $5.99 respectively.

So maybe the RIAA counts the two Natalie Imbruglia CD's as lost sales, because I didn't buy at that time without listening to them first. If so, well.... everyone else has expressed an opinion on this many times that pretty much coincides with mine, but maybe for different reasons.

I don't buy ANYTHING now without listening to it first. Either I listen to it at the local library, the local Borders, or borrow it from someone I know who has it. If I don't like more than one or two songs on a CD, then there isn't a chance in hell I will buy it. If there is a song I really like, I may rip a copy of it off a friends CD, but this is not a lost sale, because I WILL NEVER BUY THE FUCKING CD AT FULL PRICE to begin with. I will wait until I can get it at the local Salvation Army for $0.25.

And that's the way it is.

To the RIAA: Deal with it fuckers. In the last 10 years you've managed to produce about 6 songs I like. Not exactly an exemplary sales position, is it.

Not lieing, just proffesional assholeing

[trezor]

So you are saying that omiting vital information to distort the picture to give an impression exactly opposite how things really are, really isn't lieing.

You're probably right. If I lead people to believe something that clearly isn't true, based on subjective selection of information, but not telling anything provably wrong, it can't be lieing.

You're just being an asshole with an agenda. This is normal. However, I have a serious beef when people like this has govermental influence.

Call me naive, but I'd like to think that things haven't allways been this bad.

Oh! And feel free to suggest laws against this kinda trickery though. But that would probably backfire on Mr. Bush, so he'll probably be against it.

/ducks

Re:It's not something we can ever get hard numbers

[silicon not in the v]

I know that their prices are too high. I know that music piracy is cutting into their profits some, but not as much as they make it out to be. I know that if CDs were priced at $5 or whatever, many P2P downloaders say they would buy instead, but would they? Or would they say it's still too high, or just buy the one every other month that they really really want, while downloading three or four others?

There is such a large outcry that the RIAA should change their business model, and until they do, they're forcing you to download free instead--yeah, right. There are some of you that have the correct idea with recommendations to boycott (that means don't USE as well as don't buy) RIAA or to support indie bands instead. For the unauthorized P2P downloaders, though, you have no right to claim any moral high ground when you will not do without the product as part of your protest. Listen to the music you have instead of "acquiring" new, or if there's a new song you really like, buy that track from iTunes.

If you want to protest them, but do the right thing, cut your music consumption. If P2P downloading of their music decreases, and they still only get a few dollars a year from each person by buying individual tracks, they will get the message. (Not that they will honestly present message in the media, though)