Report Claims 95% of Music Downloads Are Illegal 331
Un pobre guey writes "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) press release claims that 95% of music file downloads in 2008, an estimated 40 billion files, were illegal. Oddly enough, digital music sales are up: 'The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value. Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007. Recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined... Despite these developments, the music sector is still overshadowed by the huge amount of unlicensed music distributed online. Collating separate studies in 16 countries over a three-year period, IFPI estimates over 40 billion files were illegally file-shared in 2008, giving a piracy rate of around 95 per cent.'"
Inflation... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the report:
Music companiesâ(TM) digital revenues internationally grew by an estimated 25 per cent in 2008
I can think of a long list of other industries that would love to have that kind of growth given the current economy.
Using an inflammatory and inflated claim that "95% of all downloads are pirated" is just showing how greedy the music industry is. But we all knew that already.
--
FairSoftware.net [fairsoftware.net] -- where geeks are their own boss
Re:Inflation... (Score:4, Insightful)
The sole fact that their digital revenues have gone up does not tell you much about the growth of the industry.
Re:Inflation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple that with the economy right now and you could say that, since the rest of the economy has gone to shit, avoiding a decline was as good as they could have hoped for. In addition, you could say that since digital downloads make a la carte purchasing possible where physical sales require you to buy a whole cd, the popular songs are getting even more popular with digital downloads. I think that 4x the number of people downloading certain songs would be good overall for the music industry since concert sales are a big draw and everything else (generally) would remain even.
That doesn't take into account the cost to produce a cd or the comparitive profit margins between the two. I don't know what those comparisons are and I'm not even going to guess at them since the rest of my post is based on things that are true and relatively simple extrapolations from that point, but I will say that I personally believe that the shift from physical to digital media isn't hurting their business, although it is definitely changing it. Let's call it a horizontal shift with opportunities to capitalize on the change.
Re:Inflation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I've seen a report over at highdefforum.com which said, even though digital media has increased, sales of CDs have decreased, thereby giving the record companies a net loss in revenue ($1 songs aren't as profitable as $12 CDs).
Oh well.
Cry me a river. What we're basically seeing is a return to the 1950s and 1960s when singles routinely outsold albums. The record companies survived that time period just fine, and they can survive its rebirth.
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? How in the heck could that be? There are costs associated with manufacturing, shipping, distributing and marketing the $12 CD that just aren't there for the $1 downloads. If you're sell a million dollars of $12 CDs vs. the same amount of $1 downloads, how could you p
Re: (Score:2)
First off, it only costs $1(us) at most to manufacture and ship a CD. Probably more like $0.50 or less, perhaps even $0.25. So they are likely making $11 to $11.75 for each CD after the physical costs of creating and moving them.
About marketing: it is a fixed cost which will be the same no matter how the song is distributed, so I don't see how it factors in. Are you saying putting a physical sign at the store is more expensive? I suppose this may be true, but is the cost significant?
As for not making as
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"First off, it only costs $1(us) at most to manufacture and ship a CD. Probably more like $0.50 or less, perhaps even $0.25. So they are likely making $11 to $11.75 for each CD after the physical costs of creating and moving them."
Distributors and retailers get part of the money you spend when you buy a CD. Record companies typically sell CDs into distribution for $8, so if we're trying to break down the margin model for CD sales, it's best to start with $8, not $12.
"Add to that the fact most people don't
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
The poster did not say that marketing is always constant at all times under all circumstances. The poster said that, comparing marketing for a song that is distributed digitally, or one that's distributed physically, the difference, if there even is one, is negligible. If an artist is popular with a certain demographic, you're most likely going to be marketing to that group in the same way, regardless of how it's distributed. The difference between having a brick and mortar store erect a cardboard stand to advertise a cd isn't all that different from the price to have a digital music store show an ad for the album on their homepage. So yes, the net impact of marketing is almost nothing in this comparison, as the marketing strategy would be unlikely to change one way or the other.
Please learn to actually read comments you're replying to before flaming them.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is correct, they couldn't possibly make as much off the physical CDs. I hate being boring "on purpose" but, manufacturing cost, shipment, advertising, returns policies, middleman (jobber) profit margins and last retail outlet margins cut into the list price something fierce.
Sure they have some economies of scale, but not even remotely enough to negate the cost of incidentals.
One thing though, about CDs, is that they are a lot easier for Artist management to enumerate, for purposes of figuring the artist share. And that "share" is usually subtracted from advances, given at the time of signing "For hire" contracts, and is the artist's only non-touring, non-merchandising income.
Contracts almost always have a per unit rate (minus a percentage for breakage/returns) that is considered the artist share. There are exceptions, of course, and some artists have the wherewithal to initiate touring and merchandising business models that allow them to recoup a lot of the actual cash that was sacrificed when they signed away their publishing rights. But that is rare when we look at the industry and its "workers" as a whole.
Things are stacked against the workers, in many of the same ways that are common all across the board in our work for hire system. But the cool thing is that, although the labels can make more money with less accountability, by using all-digital means of production, that same tech is available to musicians, and, if utilized, will put growing numbers of them in control of the "means of production."
If that scenario were to gain the force of momentum and become the rule, rather than the "exception," we'd have a small revolution on our hands, at least in terms of workers' rights and fairness in that industry.
It would be a rather classic case of a monopoly based on shared objectives, rather than negotiation or collective agreements, etc., with the "workers" on the dealing, rather than the receiving, end of the game.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read up the thread you'd see that:
So the issue is $1 million of downloads vs. $1 million of CD sales. The dollar amounts have stayed the same, but their expenses are lo
Re: (Score:2)
That said, it's entirely possible that all of the shrinking has been due to the economy causing people to cut down on their entertainment spending, and I can see music being the first thing cut.
And I agree with your assessment that they'll somehow be able to survive this tim
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inflation... (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, what do you use to rip 'em?
What format do you output to?
I'm actually in the middle of ripping my entire 300+ CD collection which starts with CDs from about 20 years ago. And yes, some of them do 'rust', but this doesn't necessarily mean you can't get a good rip from them. The central factor is (command line tool) cdparanoia. I use two gui interfaces which use cdparanoia. Mostly, I use rubyripper. This uses cdparanoia with no error correction etc. - but it rips in chuncks two or more times and compares the results, and rerips (only the) bad chunks repeatedly. For 'good quality' CDs it rips much faster than any other reliable method. For about 1 cd in 50 with bad scratches or corrosion I use Grip, which by default uses cdparanoia in 'maximum paranoia mode'. This can be *a lot* slower than using rubyripper but it will rip any but the most damaged discs.
Woo! While typing this comment I've discovered my missing (genuine shop bought) copy of Marillion's "Script for a Jester's Tear" in the wrong CD case.
Anyhow, I've ripped about 200/300 now with complete sucess using the above.
You also asked what format to rip to. With current disc space prices, the *only* answer is lossless. FLAC is probably best, you can easily convert this to wav or any other format and it doesn't take much more space than good quality compressed. If you've got plenty of disc space, like I have, you might as well use uncompressed wav format - makes life simpler. My whole music collection uncompressed will fit in about 200Gb
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The record companies survived that time period just fine, and they can survive its rebirth.
I hope not. I want good music :(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The 8-track is a perfect demonstration of how the Electronics and/or Record industry controls consumer choice. 8-tracks were extremely popular in the 1960s and 70s, while the cassette player barely sold, until suddenly "they" decided more money could be made by forcing consumers to re-purchase everything on cassette.
So the 8-track stopped production, even though it was the most popular format at the time, and people were forced to throw-away their 8-track libraries and buy their favorite album twice (first
Re:Inflation... (Score:5, Insightful)
so did the artists themselves see at 25% increase as well, or are they being screwed on all sides now?
Re:Inflation... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"so did the artists themselves see at 25% increase as well, or are they being screwed on all sides now?"
I sold $50 worth of CDs in 2008. I can't remember how much I sold in '07 (too much weed) but I'm sure it was at least a 25% increase.
As for being screwed ... no my wife is pretty much doing it from the same side she always was.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's the screwed one.
Re:Inflation... (Score:4, Funny)
Funny, the RIAA reported the figure at over 9000%. Clearly we must be fair and balanced, and average both sides to reach a compromise.
(>9000% + 95%) / 2 is >4547.5%
Re:Inflation... (Score:5, Interesting)
Using an inflammatory and inflated claim that "95% of all downloads are pirated" is just showing how greedy the music industry is. But we all knew that already.
It may not be inflated. Remember what the music industry considers piracy: Copying your library to an MP3 player, burning a CD for your car, putting your library on a laptop, etc. The industry doesn't like the fair use provisions in copyright law, so they frequently pretend like they don't exist.
It's not like the old days, where you buy an 8-track tape for the car and LP for the house... eventually replacing them with cassette tape and compact disc... sometimes more than once. Who's ever lost or broken an album?
Now that people can make their own copies and backups, there's a lot less opportunity to sell the exact same product repeatedly with ever increasing costs. Digital downloads tend to result in only one sale. You can't "break" an MP3 like a scratched CD. Bummer. Time to bring back Vinyl.
Re:Inflation... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're also going to see their numbers get skewed very quickly with services like ZunePass and Rhapsody.
I had several gigs of pirated music and a dozen or so CDs ripped from over the last 10 years.
In less than a month I've downloaded more music than the last 4 years pirated.
I suspect a Zunepass would wildly inflate the number of legitimate downloads per person as well. This statistic won't stand up very long as the subscription model catches on.
Re: (Score:2)
"The amount of P2P traffic with copyrighted material is still huge."
But the IFPI is equating P2P traffic with copyrighted material with illegal traffic and this is not the case. Most if not all EU countries have protections for the private copy and P2P is on that category so it is perfectly legal.
"An amusing case study was when Icelandic police shut down a popular local torrent site featuring mostly copyrighted material."
Check Iceland laws just in case. In Spain it wouldn't be the first case of a "local t
Re: (Score:2)
Things look a bit different from the other side of the fence.
Granted. As a software developer myself I understand your feelings. The difference is this: you aren't bribing elected officials, having copyright law rewritten in an unConstitutional manner to serve your needs and your needs only and damn everyone else to hell. Regardless of whether mass copyright infringement is or is not causing them significant economic harm, the reality is that their response is way over the top.
The damage these bloodsucking leeches have done to our legal system and our economy isn'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's almost amusing but mostly sad how both you and another guy failed to read the first part of the parent's post, ignoring the information and just try to reply to his other statement without understanding it.
Everything is copyrighted. FOSS software too. Linux is copyrighted, GCC is, this post is copyrighted. That's why, almost by definition, everything linked to from the torrent tracker was copyrighted. (The torrent files are not copyrighted, btw, but that's not relevant to the discussion).
What the RIA
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how they know that the download is pirated.
Do they know if the downloader has or not the music on CD?
Spooky!
Re: (Score:2)
If the downloader had the CD then why didn't the downloader simply rip from the CD?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I for one re-downloaded a few albums that I already own from piratebay simply because I was too lazy to rip them myself.
Why go through the hassle of shuffling physical discs when one click of a button will do the same?
Furthermore I occassionally got additional live-recordings, rare recordings, bootlegs, even documentaries bundled with the discographies that I downloaded - that's what I call added value.
Re: (Score:2)
If the downloader had the CD then why didn't the downloader simply rip from the CD?
Nearly all my CDs are packed in a box and buried in a closet from when I moved. If I were to get a collection of my CDs onto a music player, it'd be far more convenient for me to just do a few searches and queue up a bunch of mp3s than it would be to go CD by CD and go through the rip. Honestly, even if my CDs weren't buried in the closet, I'd still rather just download them. I hate babysitting optical media.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I wonder how they know that the download is pirated.
>>>Do they know if the downloader has or not the music on CD?
That's a good point. I recently downloaded a bittorrent called Billboard Hot 100 for 1980-2000, and approximately 3/4th of the songs I already own. I was probably counted in this survey as "pirating 2000 songs" even though in reality I only pirated around 500. The rest I legally purchased on CD.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do you assume it's inflated? That's one in 20 songs that you download ends up being good enough to pay for. That sounds reasonable. Honestly, I think they're lucky to get 5%. 5% of a mind bogglingly huge number is nothing to sneeze at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Report Claims 95% of Music Downloads Are Illegal
My report claims that 95% of Music Industry Executives Are Illegal.
Re:Inflation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their digital revenue may be up, but their overall sales are way down once again, because almost nobody buys CDs anymore, and that was their main gravy train.
Of course, who wants CDs when they could have something digital instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inflation... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about these maths:
Assume that instead the 40 billion downloads were legal downloads, and not even count the other 5%. Lets also assume that a download is worth 99 cents. Of that, the RI takes a huge chunk, I couldn't find exact numbers but lets say for the sake of argument the RI gets 50 cents (a low estimate in my opinion as the artist gets less than 10 cents in royalties, and apple claims most of the 99 cents goes to the recording industry). So at 50 cents per track this would mean additional revenues for the record industry of 2 TRILLION cents, or about 20 billion dollars. There is no way they were making their current cd sales + legal downloads + extra 20 billion prior to digital downloading.
So what does this tell us? Most downloads are not lost sales. The fact is that people consume many times more music because of music downloads, than if they had to pay.
I'll use myself as an example, prior to MP3's I bought about 12 albums a year or 1 per month. I'd say today I still buy about 12 albums per year, but I also download 3-4 additional albums per month that I never would have bought (i.e. worth a listen or two but not worth my money). Basically I am adding to the download statistics, but the statistics are misleading because the RI has lost no sales in my case. I think the numbers are extremely inflated because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because people get confused with ownership, i.e. Becky's, Steve's, David's, Slashdot's, etc. "It" is still an object, so although it's gramatically wrong, it does make logical sense.
Sales are up so who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Advice to the RIAA: forget the piracy exists. You simply are not going to ever get money from those people - get over it. On the other hand, you're making more money than every from downloads and you should work to keep growing those figures. That's the only thing you can do, frankly. Fighting piracy is like punching marshmallows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I wouldn't say that they would never be able to market to some of the subset (ITMS?), namely the casual pirates. I agree, however, there is a core group of people that will never pay for the content and will engage in distribution of copyrighted material. You can woo those who occasionally use Limewire, etc by not treating people like criminals like they have done in the past. A lot of the time (this is true of movies/shows too) it is much easier for someone to fire up some p2p software and download so
Re:Sales are up so who cares (Score:4, Funny)
Fighting piracy is like punching marshmallows.
Man, making s'mores at your house must get interesting!
Re:Sales are up so who cares (Score:4, Funny)
Man, making s'mores at your house must get interesting!
I hate those uppity blobs and take every opportunity to torture them into submission.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hate those uppity blobs and take every opportunity to torture them into submission.
You talkin' marshmallows or record company executives?
Re:Sales are up so who cares (Score:5, Funny)
You talkin' marshmallows or record company executives?
Yep.
Pretty much (Score:4, Insightful)
Also if it really is that big and your sales are going up, well then what's the worry? Maybe it actually leads to MORE sales.
The problem is they project this image, and indeed have this mentality, that copyright infringement is theft. No it isn't. The reason a retailer hates theft is because not only does it decrease sales, but it takes away an item they had for sale. That hurts the bottom line. If someone steals a bag of chips, I can't sell those chips to anyone else. So if I'm a retailer, I want to do everything I can to stop that (and even then retailers accept that some shrinkage is going to happen regardless).
However if someone came in to my store, made a perfect copy of a bag of chips and then started handing out those copies for free. Well I'd be less miffed. Maybe I'm losing some sales now, but it isn't as though anything has been taken from me. Now suppose that when someone does that my sales don't go down, they in fact go up. People decide they want to come in and buy more chips, or other things I offer. Despite the free stuff being given away, I make more money. Well hell in this case I'd be happy. Let them hand out free stuff all day long if it makes me more money.
They just have this unrealistic greedy idea that if there was a magical system that could stop all copyright infringement, they'd get 20x the sales and thus 20x the profits. Ummm no. At best, you'd probably stay the same (the only empirical study of this ever done by Harvard and UNC found copying has no statistically significant effect on sales) at worst your sales would go down. They need to stop living in a fantasy world and be ahppy with what they've got.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>roast them slowly instead
no, no! Catch it on fire, and then turn it so it gets burned evenly. When it is all black and charcoal-ly, blow out the flames and eat it!
Re: (Score:2)
Blackened marshmallows cause cancer.
(Yeah I know - those doctors take the fun out of everything.)
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm, delicious cancer!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually blackened marshmallows are probably better for you than a slow roasted golden brown marshmallow.
The black is carbon left over from the burning of sugar, and pure carbon like this is very good at absorbing toxins. It also will spend less time over the fire and more of its cooking energy comes from the sugars in the marshmallow. So any foreign agents in the fire which may be leaving unhealthy soot deposits on the outside of your marshmallow have less opportunity to build up.
I call bullsh*t! (Score:5, Insightful)
How can they be sure 95% of them are illegal? Isn't this the same group that's for years been trying to track down who is downloading what and suing them? I mean, studies like this go to the honesty of the other person. And if people will lie about something as trivial as how many sexual partners they've had, what are the odds of people telling the truth here? Besides, if 95% of music downloads were illegal, that's a pretty strong argument that downloading music should be legalized, especially considering how pervasive it is and how ineffective enforcement has been to date.
There are three kinds of lies...
Re:I call bullsh*t! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. that's why i've been trying to convince my employer to take advantage of file sharing rather than fight it. viral marketing is the best kind of promotion one can have. statistically speaking, word of mouth has a higher success rate of drawing new fans and generating purchases than any other form of marketing or advertising. people will gloss right over a magazine ad that costs hundreds of dollars to put up or completely ignore radio commercials that cost thousands of dollars to air, but if their fr
Re:I call bullsh*t! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>they have no idea how to transfer files from one computer to another
I can't believe people are actually that dumb? All you need is an external USB drive. You might even be able to squeeze all your songs into an Ipod and transfer them to your new PC that way. It's a piece-of-cake and obvious.
Re:I call bullsh*t! (Score:5, Insightful)
How can they be sure 95% of them are illegal?
This is what is going on here. The media companies decide, beforehand, how much money they should be making in a given period of time, based on voodoo bullshit as far as i can tell, then if they don't make that much money they bitch about the pirates and blame losses on them.
So while their digital revenue and legal downloads have probably gone up, the RIAA and the companies they represent think it should be going up MORE, a lot more apparently. The problem is they are fucking wrong, and have no credibility to say anything in public anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what is going on here. The media companies decide, beforehand, how much money they should be making in a given period of time, based on voodoo bullshit as far as i can tell, then if they don't make that much money they bitch about the pirates and blame losses on them.
I tend to agree, with the exception that they'll blame the (ahem!) "pirates" anyway whether they exceed their projections or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I call bullsh*t! (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem is they then leap straight to this dream land where every download is a sale they missed out on. most of their shit isn't worth a download when it's free, let alone 15$.
Re: (Score:2)
I may like one Guns'n'Roses song on their new al
Re: (Score:2)
Try to find a song, download it, find out it's mislabeled, download it again, it's a 22kHz MP3, download it again, it's at 96kbps, download it again, the audio is choppy...
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same group that came to Canada last year, and started telling everyone (especially politicians here) that Canada has the highest rate of illegally downloaded music in the world.
I had to explain to several people that they were outright lying - and provably so... In reality the percentage of illeaglly downloaded music in Canada is *ZERO* (ie. it's legal to download here due to the copyright levy), so unless every other country in the world has a *negative* "piracy" rate, it's impossible for Canad
Re: (Score:2)
> How can they be sure 95% of them are illegal?
Easy. Total storage on all ipods sold divided by the estimated storage requirements for all cds sold. Because as we all know, someone with a 40 gig ipod must be stealing music, because nobody could own that many cds.
Re: (Score:2)
"I am not a virgin."
- typical slashdot poster
Well then there is only one solution... (Score:5, Funny)
... Tell the Artist to stop making illegal music.
One thing this shows us... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Small wonder why the iTunes Music Store and the Amazon MP3 download store are doing so well nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying I agree with the RIAA, but it seems to me that it'd be hard for them to compete.
Benefits provided by pirating from private torrent trackers:
1. Free
2. Huge selection, high quality
3. Fast downloads
Benefits provided by theoretical customer-friendly RIAA approved sites:
1. Good selection, hopefully high quality
2. Hopefully fast downloads
Even if they can match the selection, quality, and download speed of the private torrent trackers, they can never compete with free. What other aspect can they provide
Re:One thing this shows us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Market Segmentation (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
95% of statistics are made up on the spot.
No, you're wrong! Only 33% of statistics are made up on the spot.
95%? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an idea (Score:2)
Why don't we use BitTorrent to our advantage and do some creative sharing? I propose a system of sharing free(as in freely licensed, like creative commons) songs where once a person has seeded the song to a certain ratio, it is deleted and it is automatically downloaded again. With enough people helping, I'm sure we could have some fantastic fake statistics a year from now.
I wonder what they consider a piracy download? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds pretty stupid to me.
amazon number 1 - NiN (Score:5, Interesting)
So this means that the album IS available for free to legally download via torrent AND it was the highest sale on Amazon. Remarkable eh!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's just stupid. TPB types are quite open and frank when they commit copyright whatevers; there's no reason they'd depict something as legal when they themselves and their audience are quite willing to do it even it it wasn't.
The harder; but more interesting, question: (Score:2)
Back in my highschool days(IRC, usenet, and earlish Napster, on dialup, eventually low-end DSL) I had a collection of ~80gigs. Given that most of it was 128kb mp3, that was a gigantic number of tracks. I doubt that I li
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, now (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, how much of that music is not available from any "legal" source?
new definition of "illegal" (Score:2)
The only people who's opinions I respect in the music business are the artists and recording professionals. All the rest are spongers and leeches. If digital music connects the people who create music directly to the people who want to listen and pay them, then that's great. If it means that the business goes back to it's roots as a cottage industry and puts all the fat-cats out of work, then even better.
100% (Score:5, Funny)
Sheesh, why not say it's 100%, or even 99.999% At least come up with some believable percentage for crying out loud..
8 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
100% of music downloads were illegal. Sounds like the RIAA is making progress
Does this inclue Canada? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not in Canada. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the law isn't "clear". There is a legal precedent about it. The law didn't change, so if you get sued, your lawyer has to quote a precedent, not the law as written in the books.
Oh! PHONographic! (Score:2)
50% chance (Score:2)
and a 50% chance they will ask for a federal bail out package
Best selling single (Score:5, Funny)
I think my hope for the human race just died a little.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
furthermore... (Score:2, Funny)
117% of people don't understand percentages.
Re: (Score:2)
Quit writing in octal and it might help. Try writing it as 79% like everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
But the other -17% do!
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing better sums up their outdated business model then the fact that this study was done by 'The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry'.