Yes, yes, I understand that illegal downloads are costing rhe record industry millions. £1.1bn over three years in fact. It says so in The Times and Reuters and the Evening Standard.
There’s also the same story here, here, here and here. And I mean exactly the same story.
But where’s the methodology? How on earth were these figures arrived at? No one seems interested in any consideration, certainly in challenging the figures.
Only the good old BBC seems to have done any further analysis (though Monsters and Critics mysteriously carries the same quotes). But, hey, if you’re a hack just print the press release, right?
[...] cynicalbastard » Methodology anyone? (tags: media msm journalism music current-affairs) [...]
Pingback by doctorvee » links for 2006-04-05 — April 5, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
I was thinking much the same thing. Also, the expresision ‘costing’ is misleading. If people are ’stealing’ the music and not buying it, perhaps they wouldn’t buy it anyway, so it’s not ‘cost’ the music industry anything, it’s lost them potential earnings. Not actually cost them anything.
Maybe the 1.1Bn is the cost of Sony recalling all those rootkitted cd’s anyway?
Comment by BillyBob — April 6, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Billy Bob is right.
The idea that someone who steals something would otherwise buy it if, is rather bizarre.
Comment by Serf — April 11, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
The assumption is that every pirate unit distributed is equivalent to a real unit. Of course, you are right, it is not so, ideally piracy should be contained in the group that could not otherwise afford the product. This is quite equitable considering the degree of advertising we have to withstand. It’s not as if we chose to see these adverts, we are bombarded, and if your kid needs to see the latest Disney to fit in at school, so be it, better than kids thinking dads a failures.
If one can afford the real product it is usually preferred because of the high quality, class and the negative and cheap association of pirated products.
Comment by Chas — April 16, 2006 @ 8:45 pm