RIAA Loss Report Contradicts Nielsen Sales Record 348
DerekAtLC writes "In a not-so-surprising twist of the tables, RIAA reporting of 'losses' is a little bit off. An interesting blurb at Ars Technica referencing a Kensei News article points out that Nielsen's Soundscan (Which tracks retail point-of-sale numbers for the music industry) shows a 10% increase in sales from Q1 2003 to Q1 2004. The RIAA has recently reported drops in revenue from last year, citing online piracy as the main problem. The crux of the issue? The RIAA hasn't been talking about sales or revenue in terms of sales to consumers or money generated via those sales. The RIAA talks about losses in terms of number of units shipped to retail outlets. The article points out plenty of problems with this (and reasons why we are seeing the trend), but it is fairly obvious that the RIAA is not reporting the most 'useful' numbers to the public."
Out of business stores dont keep inventory. (Score:5, Insightful)
Less stores selling music means not only are stores keeping smaller inventories, but some store inventories fell to zero as they left the business. There's just plain less "unsold" disks sitting in the system.
No surprise there (Score:4, Insightful)
What will be interesting will be to see how much play this gets in the mainstream media. Probably no more than any of the other facts that aren't convenient for the "hackers steal $billions on teh intarweb" headlines they like to run. :-|
I don't think it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't care about your stat... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA represents most of the recording industry, but not all of it. Sales going down for the RIAA members does not always equate to sales going down for the industry...
You've got to make sure you know what a stat was really counting before you make conclusions based on it.
Reminds me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line is that anything big businessmen have to say should be taken with a pinch of salt.
It's called "Just in Time" Inventory (Score:5, Insightful)
This trend is commonplace everywhere. Retail outlets don't want things sitting on their shelves for two reasons: First, because they have to PAY for them and second if they don't sell, they have to PAY to ship them back.
What the record stores are doing has been done for years in most other retail outlets. It's called "Just in Time" inventory. For example, a grocery store tries to predict how much lettuce they'll sell and only buys that much, lest they get stuck with rotting produce. McDonald's made a science of this back in the '90's.
Now, the RIAA wants to use this new inventory trend to SPREAD THEIR LIES! It shows just how dirty rotten to the core they are! They KNOW what's going on; they're cherry picking stastics to LIE!!
Court of public opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a religious person, and I normally don't resort to Biblical citations, but I think this one applies:
"The love of money is the root of all evil." (also one of the most misquoted passages in the Bible just for the record).
On the reverse side, piracy is not the ideal situation either. I am a musician, and I hope someday to make a living off my music, but I know it won't be with a record deal-- and I sure as hell know it probably won't be from selling records. Hopefully by the time I am ready to try my music as a full time career we'll have something a bit more established that will allow truly independent music distribution, with a vehicle that guarantees the artist will at least see some money for their hard work.
Dan
honesty, not usefulness (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the word you were searching for was "honest", not "useful".
Then again, this is peanuts compared to Hollywood which manages to make it look like every single movie looses (or makes very little) money so they don't have to pay taxes or pay people who are supposed to get a cut of the profits.
Of course, most of corporate america does exactly the same thing, which is why they've gone from a 52% tax share (versus individuals) to under 5% in 50 years.
Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, statistics are wonderful things, aren't they?
Reminds me of a couple of classic quotes about statistics:
Aaron Levenstein once said "Statistics are like bikinis; What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
and Thomas Carlyle once said, "A witty statesman said, you might prove anything by figures."
The thing is, I dislike the RIAA quite vocally, but I'd still probably believe them if they said their revenue is down. But the first thing they teach you about statistics in math is that "Correlation does not equal causation."
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
Second, if a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated to thrash themselves with the spiked whip of capitalist ethics. They hurt no one by doing so.
Strict adherance to law is simply strict adherance to politicians. They're the ones who make it.
Re:I don't think it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the right to fight piracy. They DON'T have the right to use wildly missleading numbers to convince the government to help them prop up their failing business model.
The Coalition of Independent Music Stores (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1900s called, they want your business model bac (Score:4, Insightful)
If burned discs aren't a solution, then they have to come up with a different solution. If they find a way to press one-off CDs because of the prodding, great for everybody. But maybe, just maybe, that's the hint that CDs themselves aren't the solution.
Don't consider it a problem that it can't be done now - it's an opportunity for a new product to be invented, a new mechanism to be introduced. Could be a digital distribution medium that will actually be researched rather than the crap they've been hacking together lately.
-N
Re:Dont forget (Score:4, Insightful)
No, there are 3 ways: Buy it, Steal It or Copy It
Copyright Infringement is not theft. It is kinda "like" theft, except nobody is left without the stolen item.
Until online music stores allowed you to buy music on demand for a single track, the only way to get music on demand for a single track was to commit copyright infringement.
Many students download music. They don't have music to spend on the music. How this can be termed a "lost sale" is beyond me. More like "free music for students might lead to future purchases when they have money"
I'm sorry, but steal is the wrong word.
Re:Dont forget (Score:5, Insightful)
If Autocad Super Deluxe Enterprise Edition costs $10,000, and 100 Chinese children install it on their home PC, it obviously cost the industry One Million Dollars!
Same difference. If the RIAA stopped being a bunch of whiners and offered a P2P service for $10/mo, they would make SO much money. $120/year is MUCH MUCH more than I spend on CDs in a year. Unfortunately, some organizations are too set in their ways such that they wouldn't know opportunity if it threw a suitcase of money at them.
context (Score:2, Insightful)
"and the bible says 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
gotta love taking things out of context
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:0, Insightful)
If a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated by ethics? Excuse me?
So a homeless man who can't afford to pay a cab driver can just go ahead and make the cabbie drive him somewhere, because he's not morally obligated to pay for it?
Oh, wait, the gas and the driver's time cost money. Well, guess what? Recording, engineering, writing music costs money, as does filming and producing movies and television shows. Don't they deserve to make money from their efforts?
No, I guess you'd think they should assume people can take whatever they want because "it hurts no one". Neverminding that it's JUST ENTERTAINMENT and no one is entitled to the right to be entertained by others for free.
A few possible explanations. (Score:5, Insightful)
- fake products -- scam artists shipping stuff to stores that RIIA membership doesn't know about -- but good enough to fool consumers (haven't heard of this running rampant).
- Less spoilage (shipping fewer, selling more, returning way less). Better profits all the way 'round. Works for stores, artists get more money, so does the RIAA.
- RIAA scam (they tell artists "140M records", but they sell 160M) -- but the RIAA wouldn't do that would they???
Note that, in all possible circumstances, record sales are up.Only in (1) would the RIAA (and artists) actually get less money, but that's not the fault of the "pirate scum" 12 year olds that the RIAA insists on suing. If this is the case, then the RIAA needs to start going after the real pirates, and stop suing kids.
For (3), The artists are getting less money, but that would be because the RIAA is scamming on both ends (cheating artists, raising prices, suing customers). It'd take a public scandal to fix that.
Re:I don't think it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
More Mega-Store Efficiencies and Other Trends (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent point. But it goes further than you suggest.
It is much easier for a mega-store to predict its sales, and manage its inventory efficiently, than it is for a small store.
For example, a small store might receive shipments once a week, or even once a month. For a given CD, that store might expect to sell just two copies before the next shipment, but a week or a month is a long time to be sold out of something, so that store will want to stock three, or more likely four copies of that CD. That's 50% excess inventory on average. Plus, there is nothing the small store can do with that excess except to return it with the next delivery truck.
But a mega-store will receive shipments every day. Plus, the mega-store might expect to sell 5 copies per day of that same CD. So let's say the mega-store keeps 10 copies of that CD on the shelf, with re-orders every day, and ends up returning the excess 5 copies at the end of a month. But that's 5 copies returned on a month's sales of 150 copies, which, in the long run, only represents an excess inventory of 3%.
And let's not forget the mega-stores' other advantages for efficient inventory management, including computerized check-outs, and the ability to move inventory around from one store to another.
So it shouldn't surprise us if excess CD shipments have been drastically reduced.
I can see another way in which Internet Radio, and music downloads would lead to more efficient sales. Today's buyer will go the the record store with better knowledge of what he/she likes and wants. Thus, that buyer will be less likely to pick up the mass-marketed Britney Spears CD, and more likely to pick up some lesser known band. It's not worth it to the record store to stock extra boxes of a small band's CD, the way they would with a Britney Spears CD. Plus, it's less likely for there to be a sudden rush on that small band. Thus, the trend is away from the mass-marketed items, where it's worth it to be wasteful (and necessary, to meet the peaks), and toward more highly focussed items, which sell a few at a time. And let's not forget the increase in the almost-100%-efficient special order sales.
As to the drop in international sales, I think that is more likely to be a shift away from the heavily-advertised American groups, and toward the less-advertised local groups in each country. Once again, Internet Radio and downloads would allow listeners in each country to discover those other groups, rather than simply being led by U.S. advertising. I assume that many, if not most of those smaller groups' sales in other countries are _not_ measured by the RIAA.
Re:Dont forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations! You have fallen into their trap. The RIAA desperately wants you to believe that you have to buy music from them, and heck I bet they'd even settle for you stealing music for them (hey, if all that unchecked windows piracy got MS where it is now...)
But they don't want you to know about the other way to get music:
Make it
Yeah. Independent music will be the death of the RIAA yet. When you've had enough of britney spears strutting around on stage and crooning the same old same old, turn to the indie scene and see what people are making. Nobody good enough? Pick up an instrument and see if you can do better.
Don't expect to get a giant audience. Once the RIAA has convinced everyone that its illegal to share music online, they'll steal the copyrights of all the music and have the government declare themselves the sole recipient of any money for distribution of music, like they have for webcasting [soundexchange.com]. Once that happens, you'll be hard pressed to find anything to let you record and distribute your songs for free, even if you wanted to.
So, just sit back, enjoy the canned music, and don't mind the RIAA as they wheedle and lie into the monopoly position.
Re:Dont forget (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative is to account for the loss, like everyone else does, rather than attempting to mock up some elusive misdirected profit figure. For example:
I make a product; let's say it's a limited edition Newt Gingrich action figure. It costs me $2 worth of materials and I pay various employees about $1 worth of labor per item. Figure another buck in there for distribution costs. I sell these items for $28.50.
Now someone steals one of these little items. What have I lost? By normal accounting, approximately four bucks. By the RIAAs accounting, $28.50. Sure, $28.50 is what they list for, but does that mean that if I decide to list them for $285 each that my loss per item is now ten times as much, even though no one is buying them at that price? This is like those adds which throw in several free items and claim "A four hundred dollar value, only $19.95.". The only legitimate way to account for loss is by demonstrating what the item cost, not what you are asking for it. In fact, such accounting is circular, since the list price of a product invariably includes a markup to account for losses due to shoplifting.
Now, let's take this one step further. Someone sees one of my action figures in the store and, since they cannot afford one, goes home, looks at one the neighbor just bought and makes one which looks just like it. (My grandmother did this with Cabbage Patch Kids while I was growing up. She would make them for the kids whose parents could not buy them.) Now how much has the manufacturer lost? By any normal accounting, absolutely nothing: no materials, no labor, no distribution costs.
If this is done on a massive scale, then some loss of market can be alleged. On the other hand, most of the loss is not caused by the "theft", but by the fact that the manufacturer priced themselves out of a market. If those action figures where sold for $6 (a healthy 50% margin), someone would probably not waste time trying to duplicate it. My grandmother would not be making cottage industry Cabbage Patch Kids if they had sold for $10 apiece instead of $150+. This scenario only occurs when the price of an item is totally out of line with what it really costs to make the item.
Now, the unfortunate part of this, is that people should respond by supporting local, independent artists instead of copying RIAA distributed music. That may be, but you should recall that the RIAA has worked very hard to squash the distribution of anything they don't control. I happen to know a bunch of small-time musicians and performers and personally, I would rather support them then copy the crap that the RIAA publishes and, personally, I do. But, just like kids getting tormented in school for not having a Cabbage Patch Kid (and kids can be vicious, it is hard, even as adults, to not be mainstream and listen to mainstream things. The various cartels have made mainstream music and movies a requirement for participating in modern culture. If you don't have it, you aren't with it, you can wait outside.
Re:Dont forget (Score:5, Insightful)
This is analogous to walking into a CD store, taking a CD off the shelf, and walking out without paying. The difference between shoplifting and making an extra copy of a CD is left as an exercise for the reader.
Daniel
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This article (Score:3, Insightful)
Further, the RIAA wants to impose DRM restrictions, which would force you to buy only RIAA-approved CD and DVD players -- at a higher price.
And now it turns out that the RIAA's claims may be based on a lie?!!
And you don't have a problem with that??!!!
Either you're a fool, or you're working for one of the company's, such as Microsoft, that is hoping to profit from government-imposed DRM. I can inderstand why Microsoft would want the RIAA's lies to go unchallenged.
Re:Dont forget (Score:2, Insightful)
Theft requires that there a tangible object involved. Data is not a tangible object. That's all music is. As long as I don't physically remove a CD from a store without paying for it, I am not stealing anything.
Yes, you can argue till you're blue in the face that I'm depriving lots of people of their money if I download 2 songs rather than shelling out the $15 to get those 2 songs plus 8 to 10 crap filler tracks legally, plus a bunch of bonus Enhanced CD material that I don't want, anyway. But I'm not taking it from them. They never had it in their hands to begin with. Thus: not theft.
That doesn't make it right, but it's not theft.
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Much like if a closed source software company wants your software, but can't "afford" to abide by the rules of the GPL, they're not morally obligated to thrash themselves with the spiked whip of GNU ethics.
If, like many of us, you object to the scenario I have outlined above, you will want to vigorously support copyright law. That is the root of your moral obligation - not capitalist ethics, but your own ethics. This is very much like supporting free speech: I may object to the uses that the RIAA and MPAA make of copyright law, but I will support their right to do so.
These numbers don't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
After all:
* No one loses the use of the original source when someone like Linksys modifies the source and doesn't release it.
* No one loses money because a company doesn't release its changes back to the community.
In short, if copying music is okay, then taking open source projects, modifying them, and selling them commercially without releasing the source can't possibly be bad.
Either intellectual property means something, or it doesn't. But make sure you appreciate the ramifications before espousing the "anyone should be able to do anything" argument.
Steve
Why I downloaded it (Score:3, Insightful)
That simple.
If I died hunger, would that be more ehtic in your view ?
Besides that, your example with the cab-driver does not work. The homeless would intrude a foreign property and force (kidnap, so to say) a human. There is a big difference, not alone in the amount of violence required.
Four years ago I went to the music-store. I wanted to buy the Bomfunk MC's "Burning Sneaker" CD. I could have downloaded it from the net. I didn't, simply, because I like the band and wanted to reward them for my funky funky.
Guess what ?!
The CD did cost 10% of the (then) monthly netto income of the country I live in. Again in words: TEN FUCKING PERCENT OF MONTHLY NETTO INCOME.
And it got better:
The CD read: Not compatible with PC and MAC.
Too bad I have sold my CD player and replaced it with a HTPC...
The CD is published by SONY music!
Did you know, that SONY got big by COPYING US radios ? Heck, half if not more of the Japanese economy got built on copying and imitating other people's invention. _Then_ they started innovating. With the money, they got by copying other people's stuff. Right.
So, I had to pay for a CD, costing 10% of this countries monthly netto income, which was not usable on my AV entertainment system...
Of course, I didn't.
Guess what ?
I downloaded it!
Identity "Theft" vs Real Theft (Score:3, Insightful)
(While I use Clint Eastwood just because I saw BttF3 recently, the above applies to any other person.)
Of course, compare with copying a song - if, within the confines of one's home, it's in a closed system and not theft. But if you were to alter the master copy of that song or deprive the "owner" of that song... but how likely is that?
Re:It's not something we can ever get hard numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree with you. On the contrary, I think the majority of people would choose buying something over getting it for free. The catch here is that the item has to be priced reasonably. It all comes down to economics. At $5 a cd, piracy would drop to negligible levels. If you go even lower to $2 a cd I daresay no one would even bother to copy them anymore (except for making mix cds). Why? Because it's simply not worth the time and effort when you get a shiny pressed cd with artwork and a case for your pocket change.
I think they should embrace and encourage, maybe give a biz model similar to what Napster was pushing for. A distributed model (sign the music so you know it isn't tampered with) that will is a premium up and above the free realm stuff like kazaa.
Again, I have to disagree. There is simply no way people are going to willingly give up their bandwidth and hard drive space so a company can make money off that. I suppose if you're clever though with the spin, you could get the crowd that clicks on the punch the monkey ads to run it.
Re:Dont forget (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution I see is the magic $5 price point for cds. Then you're getting into the range where it's harder to justify piracy or going to the trouble of burning your own, for the simple fact that you get a shiny new pressed cd with artwork for a low price. Plus $5 is like the magic number in the U.S. since you can get a value meal at most fast food places for that. I think a lot of people would go for that because it's easy to justify $5 since a cd is more permanent than a meal and americans are good at rationalizing away things like that. Oh I skipped breakfast=$5 so I'm breaking even for the day.
Re:These numbers don't matter (Score:2, Insightful)
If I download the source code to the Linux Kernel modify and then SELL it as MY PRODUCT then the community is hurt. The same goes for music if I download a song, remix it and the RESELL it for a huge profit (I didn't pay for the original so all profit is huge) then that would be a 'bad thing'.
If I understand the GPL correctly a company doesn't have to release changes back to the community if it doesn't release the product. But once again if your making a profit selling something that is not your's then you a a pirate (ARGH!).
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but you completely changed the point just to fit something unfunny. I'll bypass it for the points you attempt to make:
Your attitude wouldn't be nearly so obnoxious, if the subhumans you were apologizing for didn't try so hard to murder every single bit of free entertainment there used to be.
How's this? I'm not apologizing for anyone, nor supporting the actions of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm against anyone who thinks that if they can't afford something, then they're perfectly allowed to steal it. Steal, as in, not pay for something which can only legally be obtained by paying.
You can't afford Windows XP Pro, but hate Windows XP Home, so you should be allowed to pirate it because it's too high a price. Same with Photoshop and Acrobat Writer.
No one's being hurt, after all, since you couldn't afford them anyways.
Except, well, you're gaining something from their use and taking away a profit from those who created it. There are free alternatives to nearly every software package out there, so why not use them? If they don't meet your needs, lower your needs or raise your disposable income.
For music and movies, there are free alternatives. Nick Park released one of his ten mini-films for free on his website. Many big bands have free music on their websites. There are concerts you should be able to find in your area which have little to no charge to attend.
So, again, how on earth are the RIAA/MPAA killing free entertainment? Oh, yeah, they're trying to retain their monopolies and losing. So what? Help them die off by NOT listening to/watching their productions, even if you could do it for free, and support those who meet your price range or code of ethics.
How long til they actively start lobbying against it? With software, we already see the "free/open software threatens the livelyhood's of programmers!" bullshit, and that being true (god, that was hard to type, even as a "for the sake of the argument"), does not the guy that puts up a free novel on the web not steal from those trying to sell theirs?
So? Educate the opposite. Pass out free copies of software you legally can. Offer to train a person or two in how to use it so that perhaps they can show off to others, and pass along the knowledge.
But playing the "Someone else put this up for free, so we must stop it" bit is boring already. There are free novels available, and free stories, free music, free movies, free everything. As much as people hate competition and will try what they can to limit the damage competition does, supporting free alternatives helps them to grow. So please stop using this as an argument that free alternatives are dying; they won't if people like you help them out.
If I play the guitar on my front lawn, am I not robbing poor little Britney Spears?
No, and I have no idea why you bothered with this logic. It's not based on anything in my post.
You arguments are old and tired, and have nothing to do with logic. If they want to be artists, fine, you'd think they'd be flattered so many want their "art".
How does it have nothing to do with logic? The parent poster suggested that if people cannot afford a service, they are not morally obligated to pay for it, but can still receive it. Where's the logic in that? And I provided examples of how stupid it really sounds when it does not involve a geek trying to get free entertainment.
But no one said that they had a god-given right to make a job of it, or that they have any say in how I arrange bits on my hard drive. That they could make a living out of it, for a few decades, that doesn't make it any more profound or righteous.
Nor did I even imply it. However, no one has a god-given right to get services for free that are otherwise only obtainable through paying channels. Whether or not you could afford it makes no difference. You want that welfare, contact the gove
Not lieing, just proffesional assholeing (Score:3, Insightful)
So you are saying that omiting vital information to distort the picture to give an impression exactly opposite how things really are, really isn't lieing.
You're probably right. If I lead people to believe something that clearly isn't true, based on subjective selection of information, but not telling anything provably wrong, it can't be lieing.
You're just being an asshole with an agenda. This is normal. However, I have a serious beef when people like this has govermental influence.
Call me naive, but I'd like to think that things haven't allways been this bad.
Oh! And feel free to suggest laws against this kinda trickery though. But that would probably backfire on Mr. Bush, so he'll probably be against it.
Re:Why I downloaded it (Score:1, Insightful)
Same for everyone. The US got rich by stealing European inventions. The Europeans got rich by stealing Arab inventions. The Arabs got rich by stealing Indian and Chinese inventions. God only knows where they got those from, probably aliens or something, but I bet they didn't come up with them themselves.
Re:Out of business stores dont keep inventory. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is a very old (political) paradign, "Lie and lie (and bribe and bribe) until you get what you want."
I would be extremely refreshing to see a statement from a congressman saying something like "I originally found the data from the RIAA to very persuasive and announced support for House bill xyz. In light of this additional data, I believe we should allow more time to pass before considering legislation and I am therefore withdrawing my support of xyz." What do you think are the chances that this will occur?
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:3, Insightful)
That's so rediculous that I really don't know what to say, besides that, if you're reaching for these kinds of pathetic comparisons, you may be on the losing side of the argument.
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like in Canada and most of Europe, where this happens?
You shouldn't get to copy their stuff without permission, because our laws say you don't have the right to.
You mean except after 28 years, or for that matter, any reasonable delay, when it becomes public domain? Oh, I mean lifetime of author (~60-80) + 75 years.
Laws don't have to say what's right. The beauty of the US Constitution is that I have many rights, that there wasn't any need to explicitly put into writing. That "our" laws, and by this, I'm using your words, not mine, say otherwise, is sad. But "our" isn't so accurate anyway, is it. Some corporate lobbyists sent a Lear jet to DC, to pick up a few congressional friends for a game of golf at a resort. You see, senators like that, because there's not that great a chance that Air Force 1 will ever be theirs. Then, the lobbyist tell them how horrible it is, that Mickey Mouse will be public domain, and they'll lose something they deserve to keep! Oh no! But the senators, high on complimentary nose candy, they're too stupid to realize, hey, only a 2 minute clip, Steamboat Willy is actually going to become public domain, because Mickey is trademarked.
And then, the really fun stuff starts. Millions of apologists like you stand up, and say "Thank god we protected Micke!" even if it means you're being stolen from. As if some korean knockoff could be any worse than the tripe Disney tosses to the public.
There exist many systems far more efficient and fair for compensating creative people. But we're not getting close to those systems, we're moving away from them. So forgive me if I roll my eyes when I see you cheerleading.
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:3, Insightful)
"Take a service without permission, leaving the service more or less intact for others to take with or without permission" - if you think this is in any way an adequate description of rape, you are really in trouble. Do you consider sex 'a service'?! Did you grow up with Windows NT? Do you think you can start sex with the Win32 CreateService API function? Are you implying that you regularly see bills of the 'Hand Job, Qty. 1, $#' variety? Religious enough to go for the 'God-ordained master/servant relationship to man'? Misogynous enough to speak of sex as though between animals? Or are you merely somewhat cynically suggesting that all forms of physical affection are work done as a form of employment, and that rape is a crime merely because the attacker witholds the cash/barter?
Aside from the above, rape is a close-contact crime. If it were the case that the process of copyright violation required one to tie up the artist(s), rip their clothes off and shove CDs where the sun does not shine, then perhaps you might have a point that the two were analogous. Both would then involve pain, humiliation, helplessness, violation and potentially serious physical and psychological ramifications. Since this is manifestly not the case, I suggest to you that you should either update your choice of analogy (to, perhaps, having your paycheck unfairly docked because somebody stole your paperclips) or simply leave the sensationalism out entirely. You clearly knew that it was a dodgy analogy before you made it - so why bother?
Re:using that to condemn phony accounting is fine (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want your analogies, it's analogous to fantasising about someone without their permission. You're gaining benefit as a result of someone else, but they aren't having to do any service as a result of that. At the very least, this should be allowed for personal use only!
Re:Dont forget (Score:4, Insightful)
No, there are 3 ways: Buy it, Steal It or Copy It
Where along the line did we forget Make It?
Re:It's not something we can ever get hard numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
There is such a large outcry that the RIAA should change their business model, and until they do, they're forcing you to download free instead--yeah, right. There are some of you that have the correct idea with recommendations to boycott (that means don't USE as well as don't buy) RIAA or to support indie bands instead. For the unauthorized P2P downloaders, though, you have no right to claim any moral high ground when you will not do without the product as part of your protest. Listen to the music you have instead of "acquiring" new, or if there's a new song you really like, buy that track from iTunes.
If you want to protest them, but do the right thing, cut your music consumption. If P2P downloading of their music decreases, and they still only get a few dollars a year from each person by buying individual tracks, they will get the message. (Not that they will honestly present message in the media, though)