Now, there's the question what the band receives a percentage of. If you use your common sense, you'd know that this can never be the retailprice for three reasons:
- Retalprices aren't fixed: different stores have different prices based on their overhead, profits and buying. This would mean that an individual store would have to calculate the retailprice, take 10 percent off, and transfer it to the band (possibly through a middleman). This would be an impossibly difficult process to coordinate.
- Cd's tend to drop in price. A new cd would be sold for as much as 15, but stores sell their overstock for as little as 5 euro's. How do you keep track of how much the band makes? Take 10 percent of this 5 euro's? That's just silly looking at my previous point. Or agree that the band receives a fixed 2 euro's? That would mean that in the line of labels-wholesalers-retailers somebody would be making less money than they earn - which isn't very realistic either.
- As royalties vary from 10 to 20 percent, retailers would have to have knowledge of this information in order to calculate a price. This is impossible, as this information is never disclosed.
These are indeed good points.
Now you started your previous post with "I have no sources, but I know". I could argue that this isn't the best way to contradict my sources, since you are after all just a stranger from the internet. You could then do some googleing yourself then, and probably come up with graphs that would say other things than the ones I found, and so on.
Let's leave it at that that I will assume you're right in this point for the rest of our discussion - because what you said sounded (more or less) convincing, not because you proofed anything. Now of course if the artists really get so little money from a record sold, the whole downloading thing doesn't look so crucial anymore. Nevertheless, a small loss is still a loss for the band, and therefore my points remain valid. It's just a matter of scale. Taking ten cents out of a strangers valid isn't so bad as taking ten bucks, but that doesn't make it right to take anything in the first place. Like Led Guardian said, there are exceptions to that, and there are bands and artists that make a lot of income through cd sales, and neither you nor I know how numerous they are.
At 80 cents an album that's a whopping 36 euro's flowing back to the bands. Which is ridiculous because you just spent 15.000 euro's on cd's.
So obviously, yes: it is always possible to say that there is at least one artist somewhere who made some money, but with these figures, it is quite silly to maintain the argument that downloading is bad just because it's hurting the artist. When you buy a concertticket and a t-shirt, you are giving a band exactly the same financial support as you would when you bought a 1000 albums.
Like I said, neither of us can really prove if that's exactly true, but I'm just assuming you're right about the numbers for now. No matter how big the numbers are, some artists are always going to suffer from downloading anyway, especially the ones that don't tour, or the ones that have their own labels.
and by the way:
I await you reply, good luck with your hangover.
but let's get back to serious business
In the meantime I would like to respond to the article you quoted in the post at the top of this page. I read that it isn't something you wrote yourself, but you translated it from a different source and put it on this forum. The same laws that protect cd's from being copied (the laws which you so dearly hold on to on page 1 of this discussion), protect written articles. So I would like to ask you: did you have the author's permission and/or did you pay the artist to quote that article?
Neither. But you're wrong about the protection of written articles, and I'm quite sure you know that you are. Imagine, to give just one example, every university student would have to track every author/copyright holder of every book he uses for each of his papers and pay them for it. Different countries have (mostly slightly) different wordings, but the essential part is that you are allowed to quote excerpts of pretty much everything, whether spoken or written, if you don't adulterate the meaning of the original text/statement and if you attribute the quote to the originator. There are some other guidelines too, concerning the extent and context that differ from country to country, but that's pretty much it.
Juss wrote:If no assumption is being made where does that 'stolen money' come from?
To keep it short. Certain people would buy it if they couldn't download it. When they download it and then not buy it, the money loses band in terms that they don't gain what they would otherwise. I explained this at great length in many of my previous post, is it too much to ask you to read them? I don't want to waste my time by writing everything twice just because certain people don't consider it necessary to read the stuff already said and explained. Or to put it differently, I just saw you wrote it yourself:
Yet there is no money being stolen then unless the downloader could and would pay for the product
Following that logic you are stealing from Hanna Montana by not buying her last <whatever-she-sells-now>, you don't enjoy it nor find it usefull or whatever, so you won't pay for it.(example doesn't apply if you actually like that)
Yes, that would totally be "following that logic". Listen. If you download your BG albums and not buy them afterwards, the band makes less money, because you, judged by what you said, would have bought them if you couldn't have downloaded them (Yes, t.a.j., I'm aware that a system that would actually be able to prevent something like that wouldn't be desirable). If you download "Hanna Montana" (whoever that may be) and "don't enjoy it nor find it usefull or whatever" it's a different thing because, why would you want to download that stuff in the first place if you "don't enjoy it nor (...)"? It sounds like you wouldn't even have considered buying that product, so that "Hanna Montana" person would not be affected by you downloading or not downloading anything anyway.
Led Guardian wrote:Not a perfect analogy, I know, since the original is removed, but it still describes the same issue: making use of something that someone created, and that you haven't paid for the right to use.
Not a perfect analogy indeed, but that doesn't matter too much since stealing isn't only the removal of things. Think of a prostitute you don't pay after having made use of her services. Nothing removed, yet money stolen.