Howdy! Well, I'm happy to have spurred further thought, but I think you might have misunderstood my point of view. There are only 2 reasons I wrote this articl

Howdy! Well, I'm happy to have spurred further thought, but I think you might have misunderstood my point of view. There are only 2 reasons I wrote this article: 1) The original chart is horrible. It's embarrassing that it was published by reputable sources due to it's awkward and very skewed presentation of data. The fact that figures weren't adjusted for inflation is not a "small, irrelevant detail" but rather a fundamental requirement when graphing monetary value over time. Regarding the stacked vs. line chart: The stacked chart is "complicated" because although the formats are broken down, it's actually very hard to get a read on any individual format's numbers over time. A line chart is a more simple (less sexy) way of showing the total over time AND the individual formats over time. 2) I'm kind of fed up with the "sky is falling" sad face the RIAA puts on and the overblown news stories dramatizing this fall. Come on, first digital revenues in 2004? There's a very clear business reason the sky is falling. It's simply embarrassing that after avoiding/fighting digital distribution for years and years, the RIAA tries to rewrite history, explaining their losses on lions, tigers, bears and pirates. So, again, to be clear, the goal of the post was not to prove or disprove anything, but to correct and clarify. Regarding my relationship to this story: I have many dimes invested. I am a musician and run a small business selling digital music by subscription (which encourages sharing) and which was profitable from the day of launch.