Pay Attention Now Internet User!!

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I have no idea where you got your online distribution figures but they are way off.

You mean my figures saying that cd sales have dropped while online sales have increased? Way off are they? Well the evidence is once again against you Here i sonly one link but if you check google you will find many more.


www.variety.com...

The organization, which represents 65,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers, revealed the turnaround in its financial results for 2009. It reported £623million ($944.8 million) in revenues in 2009, up 2.6% on 2008 -- somewhat of a surprise as the first six months of 2009 showed a 3% decline in revenues.

New PRS for Music CEO Robert Ashcroft said, "2009 was the first year in which the growth in revenues from the legal digital market compensated for the decline in revenues from traditional CDs and DVDs, though we remain cautious as to whether this represents a true turning point."

So they made money in the UK, why? It's because we're embracing online services, paid for services, more than countries like the USA. Once the system embraces this new tech they will be making money again, but people like yourself just can't see it

How about other countries that have embraced digital music?

torrentfreak.com...

The digital market place provided 16.3% of total sales in 2009, an increase of 98.6% over the previous year. 46.1% of digital sales came from streaming services such as Spotify, up from 17% in 2008, with the remaining 53.9% coming from other Internet sources.

According to IFPI, the main factor influencing these good results is a better offering to the public.

“I think the main reason for the increase in revenue is the availability of better legal services,” said chairman Ludvig Werner.

Do you want me to beat you around the head with more figures, facts and logic or will this do? The music industry in the USA and other countries will continue to decline unless they make legal services more readily available.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You obviously didn't understand my question. You just continue to jump to conclusions.

You do know Youtube pays record companies royalties don't you?

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

You obviously didn't understand my question. You just continue to jump to conclusions.

You do know Youtube pays record companies royalties don't you?

Actually i had nothing to go on because you just mentioned distribution figures which can mean several things so don't try and turn that around by saying i jumped to a conclusion. As for the royalties, well they are fractions of a penny per view, if companies did charge a fraction of a penny for a track then you will see piracy disappear overnight. You would also see millions more people downloading music, but of course that price drop won't happen.

I also notice you have consistently failed to address many of the points i've made. So how about i ask you a simple question. Would you buy a car without test driving it? It's the same for music, people listen to it for free, decide they like it and then buy it if they do. What is your problem with that exactly? If your response is simply "because it's mine" then i would say you obviously don't have any decent songs because if you did then it wouldn't bother you. People would downlod them for free, enjoy them and then buy them.

You have consistently made it seem as if downloads are killing the industry and when i provide evidence that legal downloads are now earning money and increasingly being turned to in countries that have embraced the technology you utterly avoid the issue.

You are floundering, you know it and that's why you don't bother to address what has been said. If you don't start dealing with the questions asked then i'll just cast your views aside, because that is what should be done with baseless opinions.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You still don't get it and never will. Do you want me to beat you over the head again with that is not what this conversation has ever been about. Why can't you follow a simple conversation. We are talking about illegal downloading. MY GOD MAN! If you want that conversation we can have it sometime.
It's also strange you talk about the corruption in the system. But yet the system that is replacing it was forged from massive theft. Do you have a problem with that? The way you are pushing it seems to me you do not.

reply to post by rick1


Yeah i won't get it because there is nothing to get. Illegal downloading is intimately tied with legal alternatives and there is a direct correlation between the price and availability of digital media and the rate of illegal downloading. The more prices come down and availability increases the more people use the legal services and i have given you figures to show that.

The fact you are unable to see this is very strange, but then again the reason you don't want to address this is because you can't argue against it.

Also ricky you are the one who originally started using the car simile, i was just using your example. So i ask you again.

If someone wishes to buy a car, do they simply go out and buy one? No they test drive it first to see if they like it. If they don't buy it then the owner of that car has lost money in petrol and wear on the car. Oh sure some people might simply steal a car but they're in the minority.

The exact same argument can be applied to downloads. People try before they buy and others steal. So what are you upset about? If the music that you claim to create has any kind of redeeming feature then people will buy it. Are you so concerned about the inferiority of your music that you won't allow people to sample before they buy? Do you have to force people to buy blind?

[edit on 3-4-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Do you think maybe after all this time you could at least figure out my name. Is that to much to ask?

You need to go back and review my posts. I have always said people should go to music stores to preview music free and they can go to amazon or other sources for free to preview music. I have also said This is what I DO. I guess you just have a short memory.
Since you have never heard my music you have no idea what it is like. My music is available on two sites and you can PREVIEW IT BEFORE PURCHASE. You would have known that had you asked but you didn't bother did you. How dare you trash my music on a public forum. You and I now have a problem and this conversation is over.
Pay attention because libel is about MONEY and your post more than qualifies.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by rick1]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by rick1]

Originally posted by rick1

Pay attention because libel is about MONEY and your post more than qualifies.

I have not trashed your music, i only said that if it is good it will speak for itself and be downloaded, how exactly have i commited libel ricky, can you possibly tell me that? Opinion as to what i think of your music does not qualify for libel, if it did then all critics would be in court right now.

If you think you have a case then please go ahead and have your lawyer contact ATS, your lawyer will have no case, mine on the other hand will most certainly have one after you called me a thief. I would advise you again to be exceedingly careful with what you say next. I could call your music trash and it wouldn't be libelous. That is my opinion, of course i haven't heard your music so i cannot judge. Feel free to provide samples and i will judge it with a fair ear, however when it comes to music each person is predudiced depending upon their tastes.

Still it seems strange that you say you yourself have accessed free music to review it and then you are happy to criminalise those who download music to review it before they buy. Your argument is falling apart at the seams, you are a hypocrite.

Edited because my typing skills are rather awful

Local UK time 00:02 April 4th - I add this detail incase of a libel action

[edit on 3-4-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

found this on BBC news web site. technology.
title "Is it time to defend our rights? "
news.bbc.co.uk...
some one puts it in the news

reply to post by December_Rain


Censoring the internet, I believe is the most difficult thing, in history, seriously.

Why would they Governments, want to shut down, informations and data mining abilities?

That is like saying the War on Drugs has been effective.

Come on, these agencies have no time, nor the ability to go after everyone who downloads a file illegally, or is on the wrong website per their standards.

That be like them shutting down facebook, or myspace. Where they in question; have access the everyones personal lives and who they interact with, because these "people' think its cool to let the internet know their every move.

Never would they, do such things.

Ohh and Pirate bay is still online, right? Seriously there is a Trillion places to hack your way into the WWW and the internet, unless they make computer illegal, this is all scare tactics....

Just thought I should bump this, for the importance of privacy, and freedom.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by December_Rain

 

Censoring the internet, I believe is the most difficult thing, in history, seriously.

China does it, Thailand, Iran, among many other countries.
It's actually quite easy for any tech savvy person.

Shutting down a few backbones (there are 13),
can easily bring down the internet to vast amounts of users.

Why would they Governments, want to shut down, informations and data mining abilities?

If there is a perceived "national security threat".

They can actually keep the internet for themselves,
and just take everyone else out of it.

That is like saying the War on Drugs has been effective.

Drugs are a distributed thing,
with many different paths as dynamic as the people that are of it.

The internet has physical backbones and fiber optic cables.
Most of which are under mega-corporation or government control.

Come on, these agencies have no time, nor the ability to go after everyone who downloads a file illegally, or is on the wrong website per their standards.

That be like them shutting down facebook, or myspace. Where they in question; have access the everyones personal lives and who they interact with, because these "people' think its cool to let the internet know their every move.

Never would they, do such things.

Ohh and Pirate bay is still online, right? Seriously there is a Trillion places to hack your way into the WWW and the internet, unless they make computer illegal, this is all scare tactics....

Without hardline backbones the internet would have to evolve to something far more dynamic.
Probably will use much more long distance wireless, like ham radio.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Of course those are also monitored by the government...
It's actually illegal to use strong encryption since the governments are so nosy and paranoid.

Of course you can still use strong encryption and internet (ham radio form) if you live in an area outside government regulation.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by lowki]

So what's your suggestion?

I do agree that information should be shared, that's the only way we all can progress, and what the govts are doing is a grave concern.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

If you agree that information should be shared for free - then what they will do is store it ...

Im not sure how well this is known but, you may want to check out the Library of Congress website – they have just acquired for archive EVERY TWEET EVER MADE.

Add this to the collection of information they already have been collecting for many years from other social networking sites, and then consider the restrictions they may place on you through filtering – then add the ISP download and sharing information, and we may find we are boxed and cornered.

And as for the TWEET collection ....The quote below is from the Congress Library Website:

Have you ever sent out a “tweet” on the popular Twitter social media service? Congratulations: Your 140 characters or less will now be housed in the Library of Congress.
That’s right. Every public tweet, ever, since Twitter’s inception in March 2006, will be archived digitally at the Library of Congress. That’s a LOT of tweets, by the way: Twitter processes more than 50 million tweets every day, with the total numbering in the billions.

We will also be putting out a press release later with even more details and quotes. Expect to see an emphasis on the scholarly and research implications of the acquisition. I’m no Ph.D., but it boggles my mind to think what we might be able to learn about ourselves and the world around us from this wealth of data.

Read the article at the Library ...
blogs.loc.gov...

I would refer you to the Archives Home Page but they are closed today until tomorrow for maintenance.
www.archives.gov...

The Social networking sites (Facebook) have been hacked recently (November 09) with peoples details (over 1 million of them). They are online for sale. The hacker is Russian and claims to be living in New Zealand ... and he seems to have sold over 50% of them ... heavens knows who now has your details!
www.nzherald.co.nz...

It’s more than the Governments that want your information.
Your security – your privacy, and the freedom of the net is being strangled.

(I don't know if there is a thread on this, I am not able to post a thread yet)

Smigs

Originally posted by zatara
It is all about greed.....again.

The other day I watched a major singer tell the audiance to stop copying cd's because it affects the artists income. Then he drove off in his Bentley to his mansion in the Beverly Hills.

WTF....the cinema's are not empty and why must someone like Tom Cruise earn 10 million dollars before he set foot on the set? How can they justify the dangers of going bankrupt because of illegal copying?

They just want that few dollars you saved in their pockets...that's all.

We are still recovering from the international bank-scam. We, the common people are paying for the theft of trillions of Dollars and Euro's. Nobody ever got arrested or reprimanded. Did some president or judge ever wondered where all this money disapeared to? Yeah, it vaporated.

There is no signal going out for people who try to do the same trick and sooner or later it will happen again.

Everything where there is something for free they try to find ways for you to pay.

I am starting to belief that some economy educated idiot is trying to shine with his find. It is not because it is necessary but because there is (more) money to be made.


EDIT: Spelling...again.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by zatara]

Its not about copyright protection as much as it is about control and monitoring people. When the cassette tape came out and people were able to make copies of music they said the record companies would go broke. What happened is the record companies had tremendous growth because copying music is more of a promotional tool then anything.

Today musicians if they do it right can make a comfortable living on the internet even if their are not signed with a major record company. That opportunity did not exist when the cassette tape came out. In those days you were either signed or a starving musician. It's still not easy to make a living as a musician unless you are signed but it is now possible at least with the flow of music not totally controlled by a few companies like it used to be.

So this is all a ruse to allow them to put controls on the internet and monitor it and regulate it. And by the way using torrents is easy and relatively safe if you learn how and take a few precautions like using peer guardian.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by hawkiye]