Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Music Industry Had a Fantastic 2017, Driven by Streaming Revenues (fastcompany.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Global recorded music revenues soared by $1.4 billion in 2017 largely due to the increased adoption of music streaming services among consumers, reports the Music Industry Blog. Global recorded music revenues reached $17.4 billion in 2017, putting it just a hair below 2008's $17.7 billion in revenues. That means that most of the decline in recorded music revenues over the past 10 years has now been reversed. Streaming was the largest driver of that growth, accounting for 43% of all revenues. In 2017 streaming revenues surged by 39%, topping out at $7.4 billion.

80 comments

  1. Weird by rdwulfe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They said streaming would be their downfall. Funny how that isn't true, huh?

    1. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Weird how this industry's P&L generally mirrors the overall economy?
      Economy good, folks buy food and music.
      Economy bad, folks buy food.

    2. Re:Weird by worf_mo · · Score: 2

      They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this. Until it sunk in that they couldn't charge people only once for their music, but monthly.
      I don't use any music streaming service - I prefer to pay for an album (CD or mp3) and then listen to it and keep it for as long as I please - but apparently these services appeal to a lot of people. And that is fine - I can see the convenience of having access to a large music library.

    3. Re: Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google play music lets you download the content. You still have to pay the subscription of course. And even then I find I tend to just use YouTube. The advantage is it's YouTube red so there are no ads. Combined with a WebTV wth a YouTube app you get a pretty good experience. I haven't felt the need (nor could I really afford to right now) to get a home.entertainment system. I don't use discs. I three away all my cds. About 100 of them collected over 15 years. They were worthless junk, not in good enough condition to be worth hording. I'm not downloading. And I don't even have a favourite band. I tend to just listen to a lot of older songs on the radio in the car. But their are too many ads and the radio hosts talking is horrible. Inane utter shit. I skip channel to water ever is playing music or turn the radio off. There's a lot of really average music on air too. I value the lack of ads more than I value the music I get through YouTube red. I use it more for watching documentaries and anything good I can find. There's always Netflix on the side and I'm not paying for anything else. With the cost of internet subscriptions and mobile telephone what I am paying is probably comparable to the cost of cable, wired telephone etc. That one would have had when these industries were last at their heyday. The middleman market has changed is all. If I hear the entertainment industry complain about themselves not getting enough of the financial pie I am actively going to ensure that my subscription proceeds do not go towards their coffers by viewing count. All the false face publicity whore idolizing of industry is sickening. Actors snorting coke on $20million a year while average earner's wealth decays. Food is more expensive these days. Everything costs. How can they expect to feed their parasitic lifestyles if the sheep are hungry? Idolistic narcissistic celebrity scum.

    4. Re:Weird by youngone · · Score: 1

      Home taping is killing music.
      the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone...
      The content companies have never understood their customers and have always feared change.

    5. Re: Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple music lets you download the content, too, anywhere you like.

  2. on the legal front... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    lawsuits against evil pirates will continue unabated.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  3. What to expect then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might stop whining about "piracy" ?

    Ha ha ha. Who am I kidding.

    1. Re: What to expect then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without piracy, revenues might have been $30 billion or higher! The lawsuits must continue.

    2. Re: What to expect then? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      According to RIAA logic used in lawsuits, without piracy revenues should have been $30 vigintillion.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: What to expect then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to the fantastic year, they have a fantastical amount of money to use for pursuing pirates!

  4. And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ask the artists how much of that streaming revenue went to them. There is more than one kind of pirate.

    1. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Pirates with lots of money are called corporations, not pirates.

    2. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So only musicians who are entertaining to see live should make any money? What an incredibly stupid idea.

    3. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure that several cents of every dollar was paid to the artists. Remember, it is very expensive to distribute and advertise music. Just like movies.

    4. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on their deal.
      Independent artists typically makes more from streaming services.
      Artists tied up to the larger record companies typically have deals that gives them better royalties on CD-sales while the record company pockets the most of the streaming income.

      Artist that hate streaming services are typically those who can't read a contract good enough to realize who are screwing them over.

    5. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It's not very expensive to distribute and advertise music.

      If it was very expensive to distribute music then it would also be very expensive to send HTML, CSS, Javascript, JPEGs and PNGs.

      As for advertising, it depends on how and where you advertise. It's also less required than a decade ago since whatever platform you use, you get recommendations depending on what you bought before. That's free, targeted advertising.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      probably a lot more than their share on CD sales.

    7. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not free. Labels pay for those placements.

    8. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess from previous behavior is that musicians are likely getting $1.50 buck fifty per year.

    9. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      For pretty much 99.99% of man's history, musicians only made money by performing. It was the advent of recorded music and radios back around 1920 that changed it. No surprise we're swinging back to the way it historically was - money for performance, not ad-infinitum royalties. This is also true for pretty much ALL art - the painter sold the painting once, the sculptor sold the sculpture once. The musician or actor sold their performance once (the musician and actor, however, could repeat their performance later in time, unlike the painter who would have to create a new painting).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Ask the artists how much of that streaming revenue went to them. There is more than one kind of pirate.

      My sympathy for the artists is becoming more limited as time goes on.

      It's not exactly hard to sell digital music. If you think you can do it without a record company, go for it.

      If you can't, then I guess the record companies are adding some value.

    11. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you missed the /sarcasm?

    12. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by schweini · · Score: 1

      But why, though?
      The record labels used to provide a complex and valuable service to artists (studios, physical distribution, promotion)
      All of these seem way easier to do for small companies, or even the artists themselves, thanks to the advancements in technology and communications.
      So why are the record labels still skimming so mucho money of the top? Why hasn't a fairer smaller label disrupted the market yet? Why don't more artists self-publish or self-distribute?

    13. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I only listen to independent artists and believe me they are NOT paying for those placements.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      That's why it should be called "Recording Industry" not "Music Industry". In Canada, RIAA Local 2, a/k/a CRIA, changed it's name to "Music Canada" but only pricks call it that. It'll be CRIA and CRIAA if you want to be funny.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    15. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you take the view of the painters act of painting being the performance, in which case they could make prints. And how does your analogy relate to something like a photographer.

    16. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that because RIAA cartels have extorted out the larger pieces of the subscription revenues leaving independent artists to struggle rather than allow a free market. Maybe. But they also drive publicity through more traditional means and multiple channels. You'd be lucky to get much media attention without a label unless you're really really good.

    17. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by youngone · · Score: 1

      And how does your analogy relate to something like a photographer.

      It doesn't. That has no bearing on the argument which is still correct.

    18. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It why should a musician. Be expected to work harder than other "artists" to make a living? As far as I am concerned they can all starve if they can't make a living by busking and don't want to work in a supermarket.

    19. Re:And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Factually incorrect.

      1990s: one CD sale would return me 10-11% under contract, more (up to 50% return) for an indy release (but you got fewer sales). So, about $2 a pop under commercial contract.

      NOW: you need to stream the equivalent of a couple of thousand CDs to earn that same $2. No, it doesn't happen. Don't kid yourself. You end up footing the bills and paying others for the "exposure", not making anything. And, if you don't make a minimum amount of money in a month, these pricks (the tech-industry) just keep it. You earned it, but they just say "screw you". No change there, just another layer of slimebags on top of the pre-existing slimebags. So yeah, in today's wonderful world you can do the equivalent of selling a couple of thousand CDs and not get *anything*.

      See, to even get to the shitty figures mentioned in the article - when the music industry quotes figures, they do it with modern accounting practices - they include the earnings of everybody even remotely connected. eg. If there's a live show, the estimated earnings of the hot dog van parked a block away, the wages of any police for the event and the money taken home by the cleaning crew are included in those numbers as earnings for the artist/company - even though nothing was generated by those people. They are re-adding money already made (in order to pay the cleaning crew, the money had to be made already). In the case of streaming, this includes the money the sysadmins and office cleaners make, and in the case of the supposedly famous and popular, the clickbot-houses make a few pennies from inflating your streams/likes (again, re-added earnings).

    20. Re: And how much of that went to the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 99.99% of man's history electrical engineers only made money designing circuits.

  5. Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    In a few years, will they stop selling music and go streaming-only?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      How is that a bad thing? If all music is available on demand, it pushes ISPs to roll out high-speed wireless in all areas due to customer demand. Pay your reasonable fee and have access to any music you want at any time. Granted, with the death of Net Neutrality it opens up the possibility of ISPs favoring their own streaming services...but we can at least be hopeful that the market will prevent this in the potential extreme.

    2. Re:Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      That's a bad thing because it requires you to pay a fee that will never end for both your music and your connection.

      If I pay 99 cents to get a tune and put it on my iPod shuffle, it's mine forever.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Bad news for us by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      So somehow you're okay with living in a world where you never own anything, you only ever 'rent' things? Someone else owns it all, and they're the only ones who have any actual wealth? You PAY, PAY, PAY forever and ever? Think about what you're saying.

    4. Re:Bad news for us by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      .but we can at least be hopeful that the market will prevent this in the potential extreme.

      The market should self-enforce Net Neutrality. The problem is that market forces don't apply in an oligopoly/monopoly situation.

    5. Re:Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PC is DEAD!

      1876: "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." — William Preece, British Post Office.

      1876: "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." — William Orton, President of Western Union.1966: "Remote shopping, while entirely feasible, will flop.” — Time Magazine.1966: "Remote shopping, while entirely feasible, will flop.” — Time Magazine.

      1889: “Fooling around with alternating current (AC) is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison

      1903: “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad.” — President of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Company.

      1921: “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?”

      1946: "Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." — Darryl Zanuck, 20th Century Fox.

      1955: "Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within 10 years." — Alex Lewyt, President of the Lewyt Vacuum Cleaner Company.

      1959: "Before man reaches the moon, your mail will be delivered within hours from New York to Australia by guided missiles. We stand on the threshold of rocket mail." — Arthur Summerfield, U.S. Postmaster General.

      1961: "There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television or radio service inside the United States." — T.A.M. Craven, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner.

      1966: "Remote shopping, while entirely feasible, will flop.” — Time Magazine.

      1981: “Cellular phones will absolutely not replace local wire systems.” — Marty Cooper, inventor.

      1995: "I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." — Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com.

      2005: "There's just not that many videos I want to watch." — Steve Chen, CTO and co-founder of YouTube expressing concerns about his company’s long term viability.

      2006: "Everyone's always asking me when Apple will come out with a cell phone. My answer is, 'Probably never.'" — David Pogue, The New York Times.

      2007: “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share.” — Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO.

    6. Re:Bad news for us by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      They never sold the music, you only got the rights to listen to the media you got. Even cassette tapes were subject to US copyright law. Legally, you could not make a copy of it, you could not digitize it. Given that there was no DRM, and the vast majority of copies (pre-digital) were for personal use, the music labels rarely went out on a witch-hunt against people making copies of the vinyl onto cassette so they could listen to it in their car.

      We may have had the illusion of owning the music, but for better or worse, we never did.

    7. Re: Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually stop with the disinformation. Home taping was made legal by the Supreme Court back in the 1970s.

    8. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      You've never owned the music. At best, you owned physical media (that were subject to theft, degradation, or destruction) with a license to play the content for yourself only. Additionally, that content was limited to the format in which it was recorded. Through streaming services you have access to the entire library for which the service is licensed, in the most current format, without risk of loss due to theft or physical damage. You can play that content on any supported media device; for example, Pandora is supported on smart tvs, Android, iOS, OSX, Windows, and Linux. Some services even allow you to purchase (licenses to) digital copies of individual songs for offline play...and all this for a nominal fee that is approximately half the cost of a full album.

    9. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      Unless you purchase it through a service that could go out of business and you lose your device and/or backups of that media. Spotify is a great example of the best of both worlds. You set up your library, download the songs, and take them wherever you want. For roughly the cost of 2/3 of an album per month, you have access to the entire Spotify library without concern of theft or device/media failure. As long as you have Internet access you can recover your library. Seems like a fair deal and a fair compromise that ensures media creators are compensated for their work.

    10. Re:Bad news for us by Holi · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has internet access all the time. If I sail past the islands I'd be outta luck then.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    11. Re:Bad news for us by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yeah be sure to enjoy your 'digital only' copies of things that can be yanked back from you with no notice, I'll continue to enjoy my nice old fashioned physical media that you'd have to break into my house to take from me, along with my paper books and other 'physical' things I own. I think 'streaming' is just another scam and you're all falling for it.

    12. Re:Bad news for us by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, then, a service that combines both streaming and offline play will be best for you.

    13. Re:Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So somehow you're okay with living in a world where you never own anything
      Jokes on you, I'm the one who owns it all. And get paid while not actually doing anything for society.

      It's fucking great and I will expend a fraction of my massive capital (it will just float back up) to keep it that way.

      --Dictated but not read by one Sir Pent

    14. Re:Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is owning things so great? If I want to go on a boat vacation I can rent a yacht. I don't want to own it. Owning it is expensive and a lot of hassle.

      If I want to go on a beach vacation, I can rent a very nice beach house that I couldn't afford to buy myself. I don't need to own it.

      If I wanted to listen to music from any one of 10s of thousands of CDs, it sure would be expensive and time consuming to go out there and buy them all. Oh wait I don't need to! I can rent them.

      I don't care if I don't own anything. The less I own the better. Possessions just end up possessing you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw1ZwLXXm8E

    15. Re:Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is owning things so great? If I want to go on a boat vacation I can rent a yacht. I don't want to own it. Owning it is expensive and a lot of hassle.

      If I want to go on a beach vacation, I can rent a very nice beach house that I couldn't afford to buy myself. I don't need to own it.

      If I wanted to listen to music from any one of 10s of thousands of CDs, it sure would be expensive and time consuming to go out there and buy them all. Oh wait I don't need to! I can rent them.

      I don't care if I don't own anything. The less I own the better. Possessions just end up possessing you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw1ZwLXXm8E

      Let me know how that whole streaming bit works when your internet goes out or you travel to a place with no signal.

    16. Re:Bad news for us by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      So you don't give a fuck if you're paying EVERY SINGLE TIME you want to hear something? And if they decide they don't want to offer it anymore and you wanted to hear it again, that's just too fucking bad for you, tough shit, listen to what THEY want you to listen to? Are you really this dumb?

      Go look up "feudalism". You're the 'serf'.

    17. Re: Bad news for us by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a specific case you are referring to? I'm familiar with Sony v. Universal City Studios in the 80's, which was about using VCRs to record television. I'm not familiar with any US Supreme Court case involving Title 17 of the US Code / Copyright. There is nothing in the Copyright law that I know of that explicitly allows you (or disallows you) from doing so.

    18. Re:Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad news for morons. If I want a song, I just download it for free. YouTube alone has basically every song you could ever want, for free.

    19. Re:Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between physical ownership and digital ownership.

      Let's take a 256GB USB flash drive as an example. It takes the same room and weights the same thing wether it's empty or filled with books, music, TV shows and movies.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re:Bad news for us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I "own" the music in the way that I can do whatever I want as long as it's for myself, i.e. I cannot upload it, use it commercially, etc.

      But I still own it, compared to someone who's paying a monthly fee and can see the music disappear from the library without warning.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re:Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you purchase it through a service that could go out of business and you lose your device and/or backups of that media.

      So if my house burns down with me and every device, hard drive, and optical backup I own inside and Apple and/or Amazon go out of business. I guess it could happen.

      For roughly the cost of 2/3 of an album per month,

      I buy less than 2/3 of an album per year, mostly used CDs and free (legal) downloads. Shockingly, the music I already have is sufficient for my needs. I would rather not have to pay a monthly fee for the rest of eternity just to pick up a song here and there to listen to every once in a while. Having access to everything means nothing when you only need a tiny portion of that.

    22. Re:Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been on a monthly streaming music plan for several years (Google Play) and I figure as long as I regularly find new (to me) and interesting music I'm fine with this arrangement.
      If the well dries up someday and I just want to pay one time for what I like, I figure I'll just go through my play counts and permanently buy all the songs with 30 or more plays (or whatever threshold is affordable).
      Though it's kind of too bad that some songs don't just eventually become "owned" at some point.

    23. Re: Bad news for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude seriously. You haven't actually tried a streaming service, have you? Songs are cached and can be downloaded for offline listening, too. I do this all the time when I travel and won't have data or wifi.

  6. Artist pay? by wangmaster · · Score: 3

    I wonder what artist pay looks like in this same timeframe. Both mode and median values.

    1. Re: Artist pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      Do the streaming companies support a variety of artists, it is it just a matter of a few artists taking in the dough while the others starve.

    2. Re: Artist pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They all starve. Artist royalties are crap on streaming compared to CD.

    3. Re:Artist pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the artist pay looks fantastic! eminem, katy perry, taylor swift, many are making a handsome profit

    4. Re:Artist pay? by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      I don't know any musicians who are in it for the money. When i was playing professionally, I'd rake in 8 to 14 dollars a night. Enough to buy new strings and eat an early morning breakfast at Dennys. But you do get laid a lot so, there's that.

  7. They'll still complain about so-called 'piracy' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    You know they will. They'll still scream and cry and throw temper tantrums about 'piracy' and how much it's cutting into their revenues and how it's 'hurting the artists the most' (which is a lie). Because the recording industry is a prime example of capitalism gone bad.

    1. Re:They'll still complain about so-called 'piracy' by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

      Revenues have gone up and so they will claim that it is therefore their right for revenues to always go up (which is what thay've done in the past) and that anything (technological, cultural, etc) that comes along and disrupts their ever-increasing profiteering should be legislated against. Just watch.

      The music industry is a hive of scum and villainy and a great example of why capitalism should be kept at arms-length from regulation and politicians.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  8. Hard boycot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've a hard boycot in place since... 20 years on streaming and downloaded music, and with perhaps three exceptions on physical media. That means I don't pay for anything (and I don't listen either). I make my music myself, I go to concerts (and do pay there willingly, most of the time more than the artists ask for).

    I have a dream: that most people did the same, to starve this parasite which is the "content industry" out of existence.

  9. How about that by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Make it available at a reasonable price, and people will pay. I seem to remember a few of us mentioning this occasionally.

  10. How about that giving it away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well except for all the people pirating the free section of Spotify, showing just how much of a lie, "make it affordable" really is.

    https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/18/03/23/234234/spotify-says-2-million-users-hacked-apps-to-suppress-ads-on-its-free-service#comments

    1. Re:How about that giving it away? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Well except for all the people pirating the free section of Spotify, showing just how much of a lie, "make it affordable" really is.

      https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/18/03/23/234234/spotify-says-2-million-users-hacked-apps-to-suppress-ads-on-its-free-service#comments

      And? What is your point?

      Those are the people who would never pay, and they still haven't. Loss: $0.

      Meanwhile, sales booming, because streaming.

  11. Just imagine ... by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    Imagine how much more they could have made if it hadn't been for all that piracy and illegal filesharing^W^W^W^W money wasted on legal action against their best potential customers.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  12. 6.4% by tomxor · · Score: 2
    From the same source: https://musicindustryblog.word...

    If you exclude the "superstars" you know... the people who are already stinking rich, and instead focus on the other 99.9999% of actual musicians then it's (43 + 9.3 + 3.6) / 3.6 = 6.4%

    Pretty low, but I honestly was expecting sub percentage :P basically unless you are a superstar you have no leverage and almost all of the profit goes to the mob unless you deal directly with the consumer or specialise in live music.

  13. Fantastic Streaming Revenues by aglider · · Score: 1

    Despite supposed piracy! Interesting!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  14. But Tomorrow, They'll Complain ... by AncalagonTotof · · Score: 1

    They'll complain that piracy steals so much from their revenue that they are in danger and more aggressive copyright laws are needed.
    Are politicians dumb or complicit ?

    --
    Totof
  15. Morans paying for radio. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck those guys. Im going to pirate twice as much FLACs now.

  16. Re: They'll still complain about so-called 'piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who do think they are, gun manufacturers??

    Deal with that regulatory capture thats gone on for as long as your shithole cuntry has and then well talk about the ebil media jews mmkay?

  17. Re: Are you stupid?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edison was trying to sell you his Direct Currect electric system.. what a shock he was talking shit about Alternating Current!

  18. Re: Cost approaching zero for stolen FLACs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beat that, industry whore!

  19. SUGGEST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just last year i was in some deep mess with my credit report after crashing my car while i was trying to avoid collision with a dog rushing to the bank to apply for a loan to cover my twin children college tuition fee. this almost changed everything for us as the auto crash had a very terrible effect on my credit score and credit report. i was in need of a miracle then i reached out trying to seek for a possible solution. my colleague at work introduced me to this excellent hacking firm QUADHACKED(at)GMAIL(dot)COM that helped her gather facts on her cheating husband by hacking him, they also helped me remove negative listings from my credit report,i wasn't heading foreclosure any more, my credit card was topped and so was my credit score in weeks after application submission and final approval by credit bureau , i was already having a score of 735 , it felt like a miracle, i'll just say you reach out to them and see for yourself QUADHACKED(at)GMAIL(dot)COM.