April 21, 2009
Yesterday EMI Music representative Bjørn Rogstad responded to a recent study that found “illegal” music downloaders buy 10x more music than those who do not download music illegally:
There is one thing we are not going away [from], and it is the consumption of music increases, while revenue declines. It can not be explained in any way other than that the illegal downloading is over the legal sale of music
Translation: According to Bjørn, illegal downloads are responsible for declining revenues in the music industry.
Simply put, Bjørn Rogstad is an idiot.
The music industry is losing money because its distribution platform has fundamentally changed over the past 15 years. This is not an opinion but a fact. A fact that is even understood by the record labels.
The biggest difference is evidenced by services like Pandora, Playlist, and MySpace Music; namely that people can legally listen to whatever music they choose for free. There is
no longer less of a need to buy music albums or tracks because they can be streamed live, on demand, over the internet.
It is unfortunate that this blatant falsehood of so-called illegal music downloads is still given weight in public discourse, but I guess that’s what happens when a marketer/promoter is charged with talking business strategy.
March 11, 2009
You’re in a store looking at DVDs. You photograph the barcode of a movie with your phone. By the time you get home the movie is downloaded on your computer (free).
- Google Android Phone. (Right now T-Mobile’s G1 is the only option but more models from other carriers are coming soon)
- BitTorrent (download here)
- ThePirateBay.org (or any other BitTorrent tracker)
- Torrent Droid
- Watch and learn
(or you could just pay $9/month and stream any movie you want from Netflix)
February 26, 2009
… your testimony is laughable… literally. From the Pirate Bay trial in Stockholm, Sweden (aka record companies v “illegal” music downloaders):
Pirate Bay Defense Attorney: Would people have purchased every music track they got free from file sharing?
John Kennedy IFPI CEO: Yes
I’m speechless. Obviously the college kid who gets $50/week allowance from his parents but has a hard drive with 1 million downloaded songs could not have purchased every track he acquired “illegally.” This kind of closed-minded arrogance expressed by Mr. Kennedy’s testimony (that he knows full well to be false) is exactly why the archaic record companies are and should be struggling.
December 8, 2008
In the last couple of weeks two seemingly unrelated events occurred. Nov 26 – Nov 29: terrorists carried out ten coordinated attacks, killing nearly 200 civilians in India. Nov 30: the UK’s Times erroneously reported a Microsoft/Yahoo deal in which Microsoft would acquire Yahoo’s search business for $20b.
What’s important is how the two events were covered by traditional versus new media. In short, new media triumphed.
Regarding terrorism in India –
It took established news organizations 2-3 hours on average before they were able to provide any kind of substantial information on the attacks. Meanwhile, there were hundreds of online outlets with real time updates from private citizens giving first hand accounts of the incidents.
A great summary of the events as well as a list of some of the best new media news sources can be found here at Matthew Ingram’s blog; but the point is throughout the attacks more and better information was available on Flickr, Youtube and Twitter than on CNN, ABC or the BBC.
Yes the information online may not have been as accessible to the average, non-tech savvy user but that’s irrelevant. The model and legitimacy of new media journalism was proven.
The issue with the Times’ false story is more of the same. The Times, a well established news media source, published a story that was patently false (and over a week later the article is still up on their site). However, tech blogs like Techcrunch reported on this false story within minutes – first questioning the validity of the story and hours later discounting it entirely.
The point isn’t to bash traditional media. However, so many from that community have been unjustifiably dismissive of new media news coverage that it’s fun to see them wiping a little egg off their sour visages.
November 3, 2008
An email I received today from a prospective business partner:
Your name: Tory
Your Country: USA
I know that XXXXX.com probably gets as many dubious “business proposals” as _____.com which I represent. I can only hope that you smart enough to tell a good proposal from a bad one. I have a good one for you if you’re interested in listening to it. Are you?
I removed the name of the company b/c I’m not going to plug their “service” but XXXXX.com was in the original email. Wow.