Study: File-Sharing Increases Music Sales

Right, and if you're an already established act with a lot of mainstream appeal and 300+ seeders on Demonoid, there's a good chance someone will be persuaded to think "Eh... fuck it..." and just snag it from there, never thinking twice about it. Multiply that times maybe 400,000, and you can see where it adds up.

Again, nobody is arguing that file sharing isn't helping people find artists they wouldn't know about (and therefore wouldn't get their money anyway), but to pretend like there's no way to truly know whether or not not it actually leads to music sales going down is ignorant at best, and a lie at worst. I find it hard to believe you think there's no basis to the idea that someone who has $20, enjoys Eminem, and thinks it would be cool to have that new CD while still having some beer money for later in the week still might have actually spent the money at some point anyway if there wasn't a way to get it free.

Terribly simplistic view of the matter. The exact same thing could be said about the popular music scene 10, 20, and 30 years ago, and the same thing could be said about Linkin Parks perceived credibility.

 

Love this. There are always growing pains when new technology impacts an industry. The fact that record labels won't stop kicking and screaming is only making it worse.

However, the title of this thread is still "file-sharing increases music sales," which is a silly claim and pretty easily refuted.

 

What I've never understood's how the Recording Industry has decided that downloading Michael Jackson's songs will net you 20-plus-years in prison, but the judicial system has decided that murdering him will net you only five years in prison.

The fact that the Recording Industry has such ridiculous fines and whatnot for downloading music makes absolutely no sense to me, especially when you consider that file-sharing isn't hurting the artist in the slightest. I've read numerous quotes from members of bands regarding the fact that they don't see any significant monetary payout from their album sales. Most bands make their money through touring and merchandise sales; very, very few bands can make money off of album sales, unless they're a huge, huge act.

I think file-sharing's awesome, personally. Without it, I'd've never heard of most of the bands I listen to; I've also purchased all their music I could find, so I've got a substantial collection of physical music now. The problem's that the Recording Industry doesn't see the benefit of preview-before-you-buy; they're worried about making money. Well, the way I see it, if a band's music is pirated and they're shitty and no one likes them and doesn't buy their album, then the record label can move on from that act and stop wasting their money promoting them or funding them. But, if a band's music is awesome, there's a huge chance someone will go buy the album (provided they're not douche bags) and actually go to a concert and buy merch, which supports the band more than the album sales anyway.

 

It's just a copy/paste of the headline of a site. Can be changed to what better fits by a mod.

 

Digital sharing is the thing of the future. Not just with music, but with a multitude of things. You can share and multiply material without actually having to produce anything. It's just a bunch of 0s and 1s. You don't need supplies to make or copy it. You simply create it out of nothing. This is why the potential is so great. You can add value to the world really without any effort or cost.

So when people say pirates are stealing, it's kind of nonsense. For example, if I pirate Living Things, Linkin Park will still have their property. I just created something out of nothing and added it to the world. I guess you can argue it then devalues their original material, but whatever. It's still not stealing.

The digital world is taking over and will take over eventually, and people need to find ways to adapt to this new direction.

 

Ignoring the fact you apparently have no idea what intellectual property is, the main thing you and apparently a lot of these "Sharing is in no way stealing" people don't seem to get is that you've still taken and enjoyed something that was offered up in exchange for money that the creator relied on, knowingly depriving them of the money. This was something that, at one time, you would have no choice but yo exchange money in order to enjoy. This is usually followed up by the "Well, thing about that is... I probably wouldn't have paid up in the first place, so no loss...", which has been addressed.

 

Ideas Are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property


Edit: I forgot about this one. It's a way better read. The Fight Against Intellectual Property

 

creativity is obviously more important than life itself

 

For me it's pretty simple. I listen to music on the internet. If I find something interesting, I search more of that artist. If it still interests me, then I sit back and think 'is this worth my money or not?'. If it is, I'll probably go to the record shop as soon as possible and buy the record of that artist. If not, well, I just continue listening to it on the internet BUT I will tell people 'you have to check this out'.

In short: I only buy music that I think is worth my money BUT I'll spread the word nonetheless. That's some serious mouth-to-mouth advertising and that's free for the artist. They're gaining a lot from the internet.