Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
No, that is not exactly the same. This is the RIAA's way of thinking and it's ridiculous. One downloaded copy != one lost sale. In some cases, yes. In many others, no. If the single sold 1000 copies and was downloaded 9000 times, do you think that in a world without filesharing it would sell 10000? There is really not a good way to tell - it could sell 1000, 2000, 10000, 500...who knows.
|
Ah - but what you fail to acknowledge is that the rampant free downloading is a direct result of the
ease of stealing the files. No, it may not directly reflect the specific number of lost sales, but if it was equally easy to steal a CD from a music store, than that would probably happen almost as frequently as digital theft happens. So I agree that the number of copies stolen doesn't directly reflect the number of lost sales, but a portion of them certainly does. So say we go with your numbers, and the 9000 stolen copies translates into even 1000 lost sales. That's a lot of lost sales - possibly enough to recoup the costs of a mastering session. See what I'm saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Nearly 95% of the CDs I own are a result of filesharing. So has practically every show I've been to. If it were not for filesharing the music industry would have lost thousands of dollars from me personally.
|
People like you probably aren't the problem though. I'm talking about the people who see something available illegally for free, take it, and
never pay for a permanent copy, thus robbing the artist of money they invested in the production, marketing, and distribution of their album/single.