Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Mick,
The "every" analogy does, under the constraints of the existing model, apply.
|
So you can
prove that all of the alleged illegal downloaders would all have purchased a copy of said media if they had not downloaded it can you? I think not.
I suggest that as the number of illegal downloads made is an unknown factor ergo the number who would have purchased if an illegal download was unavailable is equally unknown, as is the number who did purchase after making an illegal download and the sales lost because of reports by
critics and illegal downloaders that the product was the usual complete tripe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
I know that it's difficult to quantify however the fact is that prior to filesharing the only way to access a true copy of any quality was to buy the product.
|
Your statement is patently untrue. You omit to mention word of mouth from disappointed purchasers, you also omit legitimate reviews from Critics which can be found in the press, on TV and on the Net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Radio, national TV etc were used to whet the appetite of the consumer but there was no "try before you buy". In essence - if someone heard a track and bought an album only to find that it was pants the labels didn't care because they'd actually made their money as the now disappointed consumer had already bought it.
|
It's refreshing to hear you freely admit the Industry you support so vociferously hinges so much on deception as a business model. It is therefore unsurprising that so many seem to take so much delight in ripping it off. Sow and Reap come to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
They no longer have that revenue stream as consumers can now readily access the material for free. Ergo every illegal download is a lost sale.
The downloaders counter argument in regard to "Singles" does not wash either as these get sufficient mainstream exposure not only from the mediums referenced above but also from streams from artists sites.
If it were the case that downloading were purely for research or to establish "as a taster" whether one might reasonably purchase a track then how would one reasonably explain the plethora of people sharing single lady gaga tracks (by way of an example) on many of the torrent sites?
One would have to wonder if none of them have access to a TV or radio or any other medium of exposure to music.
|
There is no need to advocate the illegality of downloading copyrighted media to me as I have never defended it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
By the way, I'm not an advocate of mass surveillance - but I'm not in denial over what has helped propogate it.
|
I am of the opinion that this is just the latest attempt using the latest pretext to roll it out.
Not forgetting of course our Oppressive Regime's tendency to roll over at the slightest behest from Washington.
