![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kungfuwaynewho...just demonstrates how stupid and out of touch these people are. From this article, some idiot who doesn't understand how causation actually works says that "digital music sales rose after file sharing service Limewire's shutdown in 2010." First of all, who the hell was still using Limewire in 2010? But second of all, how on earth could you say that one led to the other? This is like that whole sea piracy/global warming thing. "Collectively, this evidence strongly suggests that the shutdown of illegal sites helps create a thriving and diverse digital marketplace."
No. What it does is force new alternatives. Napster gives way to Kazaa that gives way to Limewire that gives way to torrents and from there to Megaupload and its ilk, and now that the direct download sites are under attack, something new will pop up. Why?
BECAUSE I DO NOT BUY SHIT IF I DON'T KNOW IF I LIKE IT OR NOT. I don't know why this is so hard for these people to understand. I am not just going to buy a DVD or a CD without having seen or heard it first. I don't have the money to throw around on a whim, and most other people don't, either. I've purchased things I never would have without downloading them first, because I never would have known those things existed. When was the last time you heard Gogol Bordello on the radio? Exactly. But I have four of their CDs and have gone to two concerts, and I guarantee you I never would have even known about them at all if I hadn't been exposed to their music online.
Also, I rarely buy books. I read them for free from the library. How come no one's shutting down the libraries? What's the difference, really?
If I had to actually purchase all the media I consume then I simply wouldn't consume much at all. That's what these imbeciles don't get. I have a finite amount of money. I'm not just going to magically have more because you shut off my access to popular culture. If the only way I can listen to that song that I'm so-so on is to buy it then I just won't buy it. I don't download movies, so if something comes out and it doesn't excite me enough to go out to the theaters, then I just fucking wait till I can watch it for free when the library buys the DVD. The end. I don't even Redbox that shit. BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY ALL MY ENTERTAINMENT. Sorry, media. Sorry, studio execs and producers and everyone else. That's just the way it is.
They act like it's a zero-sum game and it's not. If I download an episode of American Horror Story because I missed it and I'm so far behind the episodes aren't up on Hulu anymore, I haven't stolen anything. Nothing is missing. I already missed the live airing so I'm not counting in the ratings anyway and whether I watch it six weeks later will have no impact on their ad sales. But if I have the chance to go ahead and watch it by downloading it? I might end up buying it when it comes out on DVD. I certainly won't buy it sight unseen, that's for damn sure. I don't know why they can't see this fact. It's not that hard to figure out.
(I have been thinking countless iterations of this rant since last week. Reading that article finally put me over the edge.)
No. What it does is force new alternatives. Napster gives way to Kazaa that gives way to Limewire that gives way to torrents and from there to Megaupload and its ilk, and now that the direct download sites are under attack, something new will pop up. Why?
BECAUSE I DO NOT BUY SHIT IF I DON'T KNOW IF I LIKE IT OR NOT. I don't know why this is so hard for these people to understand. I am not just going to buy a DVD or a CD without having seen or heard it first. I don't have the money to throw around on a whim, and most other people don't, either. I've purchased things I never would have without downloading them first, because I never would have known those things existed. When was the last time you heard Gogol Bordello on the radio? Exactly. But I have four of their CDs and have gone to two concerts, and I guarantee you I never would have even known about them at all if I hadn't been exposed to their music online.
Also, I rarely buy books. I read them for free from the library. How come no one's shutting down the libraries? What's the difference, really?
If I had to actually purchase all the media I consume then I simply wouldn't consume much at all. That's what these imbeciles don't get. I have a finite amount of money. I'm not just going to magically have more because you shut off my access to popular culture. If the only way I can listen to that song that I'm so-so on is to buy it then I just won't buy it. I don't download movies, so if something comes out and it doesn't excite me enough to go out to the theaters, then I just fucking wait till I can watch it for free when the library buys the DVD. The end. I don't even Redbox that shit. BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY ALL MY ENTERTAINMENT. Sorry, media. Sorry, studio execs and producers and everyone else. That's just the way it is.
They act like it's a zero-sum game and it's not. If I download an episode of American Horror Story because I missed it and I'm so far behind the episodes aren't up on Hulu anymore, I haven't stolen anything. Nothing is missing. I already missed the live airing so I'm not counting in the ratings anyway and whether I watch it six weeks later will have no impact on their ad sales. But if I have the chance to go ahead and watch it by downloading it? I might end up buying it when it comes out on DVD. I certainly won't buy it sight unseen, that's for damn sure. I don't know why they can't see this fact. It's not that hard to figure out.
(I have been thinking countless iterations of this rant since last week. Reading that article finally put me over the edge.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 05:17 pm (UTC)I don't have a problem with the industry going after the folks who upload tens of thousands of files and who make tons of money off of it. I do have a problem with the industry going after people who download a handful of songs a year and episodes of TV that just aired for free. I'm not sure how it's helpful to conflate the two under the overall umbrella of "piracy." And that's what I'm arguing about, that the RIAA and other organizations and studios and such are conflating the two, which I think is ridiculous.
The problem is that media isn't like it was even just ten or fifteen years ago. A ton of artists have no way to establish themselves. They won't get air play, they won't show up on things like MTV because MTV doesn't introduce new music anymore. Publishers are publishing fewer books, there are a million TV channels. Yeah, Gaiman and Radiohead are established and aren't hurting, but they came from a different era entirely. A band like Gogol Bordello gets heard by word of mouth, not by being played on mainstream radio. Besides, if I go out and buy an album from GB (and I have, all of them), they're not actually seeing much of that money at all. It's going to their label. That's why Radiohead was able to make so much more money by putting their albums up on their own terms, letting fans pay whatever they wanted, or even just downloading it for free. I think that internet downloads are inevitable, and are leading to a new distribution method that actually fits the world we live in today. Piracy is only truly frightening if you're clinging to the old dinosaur way of doing business.
I don't mean to be grr argh and argumentative, because I think we basically agree. I'm really just saying that less piracy =/= more purchases, because I honestly do believe that most people who download do purchase what media they can afford, and if those avenues dry up, they aren't going to be out there buying more. They'll be buying the same amount, or buying less, because they no longer know what to buy, having never experienced it before.