4 ms·

"Nobody rationally torrents a CD rip and then goes to the store to buy the real version." I think the comparison of the article went a bit over your head. It's

"Nobody rationally torrents a CD rip and then goes to the store to buy the real version." I think the comparison of the article went a bit over your head. It's all about music/artist promotion, and nothing to do with sales. Otherwise we shouldn't be calling it "the new radio", but "a new radio". Unrelated: who is still going to the store to buy their music? and how often are they actually "CD rips" anymore? The best example of this "radio" analogy is Dubstep. Soundcloud, free digital downloads, artists practically give away all of their music and leave the option for purchase on iTunes and Beatport. Most revenues are from touring and commercial uses of their music. And "cultural progress" is trotting on.

tptacek 14y ago
If file sharing is "the new radio", then by implication file sharing should serve the same role in customer acquisition that the radio did. But it doesn't. That's my point.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  What form of "customer acquisition" are we talking about then? Are you not including merchandising/performance revenues?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Do you think that radio didn't drive concert/merch sales? Of course it did.
    - ewillbefull 14y ago
      I'm asking if you don't think BitTorrent drives concert/merch sales. And because we both know it does, why we shouldn't consider it a force of consumer acquisition?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Revenue By Channel: Merch/Tix Recordings Torrent Yes No Radio Yes Yes A very popular meme: "but musicians make most of their money from concerts anyways". No; after recoup and automatic per-sales royalties, label financing provided musicians with a solid middle-class income. Also: most midlist- and- below artists make very little money touring; the popular conception of how lucrative touring is is queered by cognitive bias from hugely and anomalously successful major acts.
        ewillbefull 14y ago
        What you just posted is completely fallacious. You've just redefined what "consumer acquisition" is based on a narrow exclusion you've arbitrarily chosen, especially when it is blatantly obvious what point the original article was trying to make. And you talk down merchandising profits as if that has any impact on your argument. Do you not recognize the train of logic that has led this far down a thread?
        tptacek 14y ago
        I don't understand. Both BitTorrent and the Radio drove an equivalent amount of concert/merch revenue. But BitTorrent saps recording revenue. Therefore: BitTorrent is worse for artists than the radio. How does "but BitTorrent still drives merch revenue" even logically address that point?
        ewillbefull 14y ago
        > BitTorrent is worse for artists than the radio. Perhaps, but whether one promotional medium is more profitable for artists is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Filesharing is an exploding cultural trend, and in that sense it is the new radio, not in the sense that the industry should like it or it should be economically efficient.

tptacek 14y ago

If file sharing is "the new radio", then by implication file sharing should serve the same role in customer acquisition that the radio did. But it doesn't. That's my point.

ewillbefull 14y ago
What form of "customer acquisition" are we talking about then? Are you not including merchandising/performance revenues?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Do you think that radio didn't drive concert/merch sales? Of course it did.
  - ewillbefull 14y ago
    I'm asking if you don't think BitTorrent drives concert/merch sales. And because we both know it does, why we shouldn't consider it a force of consumer acquisition?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Revenue By Channel: Merch/Tix Recordings Torrent Yes No Radio Yes Yes A very popular meme: "but musicians make most of their money from concerts anyways". No; after recoup and automatic per-sales royalties, label financing provided musicians with a solid middle-class income. Also: most midlist- and- below artists make very little money touring; the popular conception of how lucrative touring is is queered by cognitive bias from hugely and anomalously successful major acts.
      - ewillbefull 14y ago
        What you just posted is completely fallacious. You've just redefined what "consumer acquisition" is based on a narrow exclusion you've arbitrarily chosen, especially when it is blatantly obvious what point the original article was trying to make. And you talk down merchandising profits as if that has any impact on your argument. Do you not recognize the train of logic that has led this far down a thread?
        tptacek 14y ago
        I don't understand. Both BitTorrent and the Radio drove an equivalent amount of concert/merch revenue. But BitTorrent saps recording revenue. Therefore: BitTorrent is worse for artists than the radio. How does "but BitTorrent still drives merch revenue" even logically address that point?
        ewillbefull 14y ago
        > BitTorrent is worse for artists than the radio. Perhaps, but whether one promotional medium is more profitable for artists is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Filesharing is an exploding cultural trend, and in that sense it is the new radio, not in the sense that the industry should like it or it should be economically efficient.