Ruphus -> RE: The internet is in danger! (Jan. 19 2012 10:39:59)
|
# I remember intensive discussions in the audio recording community about copyright infringement with illegal downloads, years ago. The supporters of a free internet delivered much more of hard facts than the hysterical fraction of defenders of intellectual property. It was almost as unbalanced like creationists discussing palaeontologists. The free exchange of music files after all also functions as a marketing tool that results in legal obtain of albums, which again reduces the actual loss in turn-over to much less than the the industry pretends. Which is also why a number of artists choses to offer music for free. The ones who are actually negatively affected with a mere 20% less return are major labels, who yearn for their spoiled times of cockaigne which yet wouldn´t keep them from squeezeing out their gagged artists. Which again is why a not too small number of artists decided to leave and promote their stuff independently over the internet. The major labels still are doing very well, only a bit less affluent than before the internet. And it must be considered that not all of the 1/5 of profit decline are being caused by illegal downloads. In former times the market share was concentrated on a much smaller number of internationally promoted artists than today. With the options of the internet consumers purchasing power is being spread among a much greater number of interprets, of which more and more are being endorsed under indie labels or through own domains. So, all in all true losses on margin are far below of what conservative hooter likes to pretend, and not even worth mentioning before the general advantage of a free internet. Another point worth considering is that a substantial share of illegal downloads is being determined by the habit of exessive profiteering. Many of the consumers of software for instance would certainly prefer to buy a legal copy instead of downloading cracks. Much for reason of legitimacy; partially because of the malware. But the capitalist premisse of squeeze-all-that´s-possible leads to pricings that end up way beyound of what could be appearing remotely adequate. The more specialized the software and the less competing products there are, the more through the roof it gets. From there I recall my message to a sales director of an audio effects maker, who at that time used to be the most famous and most overpriced brand. I suggested to him to settle on somewhat reasonable pricing and earn just as much, if not more through a growing customer base, whilst the interest on cracking should diminish. His answer was furious. So, I started publicly illuminating the growing strengths of competitors´effects and pointing out the hazzles and shortcomings of the aforementioned brand, soon and increasingly confirmed by the user community. Not too long afterwards, with the steadily acknowledged and improving products of competition, the fancy brand´s market position changed dramatically. And they couldn´t regain despite the encrease of price drops and concessions made. And yet, though much more humbly now, they are certainly still doing well. Cracks would hardly exist, and lesser even be used, if demanded originals were being offered at a fair deal. Same counts for albums which for no reason are often offered for double of what even venyls once used to cost. - With yet, the artists ( and increasingly recording studios too) receiving only crumbs. # Objectable about SOPA and PIPA is not only the distortion and hypocricy behind it, but the fact that such laws once introduced will be used to restrict the internet in other regards than just copyright protection. SOPA and PIPA are Troyan Horses of regime. Ruphus
|
|
|
|