Artists Make More Money in File-Sharing Age Than Before It
 

http://torrentfreak.com/artists-make...before-100914/

growth in the music industry as a whole

http://torrentfreak.com/images/nor-mus.jpg

vs the real kicker music for the formally ass raped artists

http://torrentfreak.com/images/nor-art.jpg

porn can't go on tour.

you even read what you post?

fuck off.

really pornstars dance at strip clubs
they escort on the side

the "artist" do have a tour component if they want it.

btw the if you look at the pay vs revenue for a porn scene, pornstars are ass raped musicans of this example.

bangbros can't go on your, apples and oranges.

Oh, so stealing is ok.

Understand.

bangbros = sony
pornstar fucking on bangbros = artist

in this example

re read the article.

you are saying pornstars should be making more hooking and dancing since file sharing.

can someone confirm gideon's thesis?

do pornstars make more money now due to an increase in hooking and dancing revenue since 1999?

spoken like a commie idiot, i can name you literally 50 webmasters who went broke with paysites and I don't remember any porn girl that was paid by them offering to give him any of what she was paid back.

stars eventually get paid what they are worth, in music, movies, sports, porn - the rest get exactly what the market is for their services- actually more than they deserve thanks to price fixing agents.

tell that to tubes

Even if you strip out the live revenue, it seems to me that the revenue is still up, that units sold are still up, and dramatically up in the last two years.

Or am I blind?

I don't see how piracy made or accounts for this growth or how that study proves that either. I know the MPPA or however claims movie/music is down for that has been proven false many times over now.

We can easily identify technology that has allowed music to be produced cheaper, self produced, self distributed, more direct profits can easily be made... just like anything attached to technology, it has grown in the last 15 years and if you're 'the person' attached to it, you grow with it.

If anything, that article shows how digital technology / other technology can help industries grow - it doesn't support a piracy argument at all.

blind. the article says units sold down, increase due to live revenue.

Digital sales are up.. Smart phones have exploded off the chart in the last two years, along with better/bigger mp3 players and home mp3 players, and a long list of other crap. "Digital" sales are through the roof but it isn't due to piracy - it's a technology explosion doing it - overall more fans, more access, more people can know who you are for live shows. So many reasons for music to keep growing, piracy may help bring in fans but it isn't making up that growth.

how does apply to porn? anyways can anyone with experience with pornstars confirm gideon's thesis as stated above?

Man, you know he's so far off in left field it's not even funny...

Like stripping has ever brought real fame or made a porn star any money that compares to live entertainment or the branding that brings. He pretends as if it's a standard, every porn chick/star/person (or even 5% of them) simply can role up to any strip joint and perform or simply become an escort, because a very minor few do.


No part of the music industry relates to porn other than people buying shit they want.

Blimey, those graphs need changing then as they clearly show artists getting more money from record sales.

I'll email Norway.

Thanks.

The article says "In 1999, 70% of the artists made less than 9% of their total income from record sales, and in 2009 this went down to 50%."

The article doesn't say how much revenue growth happened in record sales/digital download sales. I took this as, while they make less revenue this way % wise, they actually earn more because the growth was so large.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The graph is misleading as that shows sales of records as going up and generating more revenue for the artist, quite significantly.

They clearly screwed up the graph.

i know anecdotally that hardly anyone i know pays for music any more. the people that still do don't have a computer or are collectors.

since unit sales down there is a large increase in bands touring to make up for the drop in revenue so that would increase.

all these studies suck. too many variables and bias anyways.

hehe, the graph is probably correct and torrent freak doesn't understand what they mean. :disgust

read the thesis they are making more money, sales include selling the mp3 yourself (independents) on your website.

see

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/store/downloads/


when you don't give the record 90% you don't have to sell any where close to the number of units to make MORE money.

http://translate.google.no/translate...cle3808368.ece

increase in revenue also do to increase in subsidies from the government. if the government will give me money to fuck all day i'm down.

you want porn girls to who delivered the service they were paid for to give the money back because the porn site owner could properly monetize it. and your calling me a commie

i am the ultimate free marketist (well nashian economics)

copyright is a government granted monopoly, it anti free market at it basis.
it should be limited as much as possible.
the penalty for stomping on fair use should be the same as any other sherman anti trust violating action (loss of the monopoly or 3 times revenue generated as damage).

unit sales down, so they tour more to compensate, and since they get a bigger revenue cut from shows than unit sales that explains the very marginal increase in revenue for the artist. also add in government subsidies which could explain the 4% increase in revenue.

all that proves is that artists have to work much harder for the same. also become more dependent on the state. great success.

ps: this cannot be applied to porn in any way either.

pss: before you bring in other studies just use the information from this one, as you are using it to prove your point.

ah piracy taxes which norway and other countries like canada have is based on unit sold.

it goes up as the units are sold, canada counts sales thru itunes now for example, where they originally only counted sales of cd.

what was really bad was that they only counted sales thru stores so independent artist who burned their own cd and sold them at the club dates, paid taxes on the cd and got nothing back now since they can sell their stuff independently on itunes (still a fucking pain in the ass to get approved) they get part of their tax money back.

if canada counted self sales -- see the above link to JC website, then it would be fair.

oh and btw most independent artist in canada don't realize they actually have qualifying sales, so the government is currently holding a shit load of money "undistributed"


http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm

why norway? they don't exactly have a booming music industry.

look at it again, the scalar is different in each graph

one goes up by 500 k each tick
the other 100k per tick.

your not taking that into account when you look at it.

because it's easier to prove your preconceptions in anomalous hothouse environments.

They have oil, high taxes and no one cares what things cost.

Gideon must think every nation in the world can afford the same and pay same state subsidizations.

I love these kind of cherrypicked "researches" and then post it in an off-topic context. What has music in common with porn industry anyway?? It's like telling Africa is too cold because the North Pole have ice.

iTunes sold a lot of music in 1999

Face it gideon, you don't give shit one about anything or anyone's property...you're one of these entitlement people that feels anything ever created should just be given to you for free. You feel you shouldn't ever have to pay for anything. Let's face it, broke losers who steal from others are never going to pay for anything anyways. A bunch of self-entitled idiots who should be suffocated by their own "I don't care if you created it, it's all mine mine mine" like a 5 year old on sugar binge motto. You can defend this stuff all you want, but deep down inside, you have no problems stealing someone else's work for your own selfish wants. People like you have never ever worked hard for anything in your lives. You've had things handed to you and all you do is want more more more.

Just because something is created digitally rather than physically, it does not mean you have a RIGHT to take it. Just like someone who builds things, someone who creates movies and music have COSTS associated with those. People like you never ONCE ever consider this. You can deny it here on GFY or wherever, but deep down inside you know this is true. I'll never be convinced otherwise.

It doesn't matter if revenues are are up, it doesn't matter if an artist has a mansion and private jet. They WORKED for those revenues and are still missing out on revenues. Just because someone has a lot of money, it doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take away their money. It doesn't give someone the right to say "you make too much money". That would be like me coming to your house and saying "hey dude, you made $350 last month, that's way too much money in my opinion, so I'm going to take your couch."

Now, I know that stealing crybabies like you will say there is a difference between a digital product and a physical product, but I'll call bullshit on that. There is still a cost associated with producing a digital product. For someone like you to sit there and claim that the time and money spent producing that is worthless is bullshit and I'll call you on that bullshit.

it way easier to do the study in such a country.

see the above canada short fall example to see all the extra work you would have to do in another country.

btw norway also doesn't have the operating here restriction like canada does, so income has a global income influencer to it too.

not only is it easier to get the raw data

norway has a piracy tax, which is revenue allocated based, which means declared revenues can be extrapulated from the claimed revenue for the tax credit

about as much as the mainstream movie industry had in common with the porn movie industry in the 70 when betamax was a piracy problem for mainstream and a massive revenue boost for the porn industry.

5 years later mainstream finally realized what they could copy from the success.

nothing is so totally unique you can't adapt something from it.

dude this example may be valid for norway because music from norway doesnt mean shit and probably artists there are earning 500$ a year instead of 400 $ before internets
sure with inflation and stuff like that going on...

We need porn subsidies... :pimp

I with him.

Norway is poor example. Do a study in the US wher ethe artists don't get government subsidies.

Exactly! :thumbsup

Napster started in 1999. In 1999 everyone with a computer and Internet connection started going crazy with downloads.

Where are the pre-1999 numbers?

These charts are so skewed.

And no, I am not reading the fucking article when the charts are bogus.

Was that a joke? iTunes wasn't opened until 2003, I think.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Gideongallery...pornstars have ALWAYS danced and hooked. So they ALWAYS made that money on the side. Difference is now...they aren't getting as many gigs shooting for companies or getting paid to sign autographs at a companies booth at a show.

How damn stupid are you anyway?

You DON'T belong here. You aren't in this business, and you have ZERO idea of how it works.

gideons argument is that free content should expose pornstars to a larger audience and thus the increase in hooking and dancing from this larger audience should offset the loss in revenue from porn shoot work.

can anyone confirm the validity of this thesis?

Without the creators of said content, consumers wouldn't be able to enjoy it, and you are clearly only a consumer looking at the now and not a creator. Perhaps if you were a creator you'd be at the very least sympathetic to what creators have to go through to avoid their content becoming worthless through piracy.

Consumers not paying for the content of the creators when it is up to them to pay for it (i.e. not radio where advertisement money is in play) is NEVER going to benefit the creators and is only going to devalue their work to the point when they much stop creating...I don't care what kind of study you want to throw out there to prove otherwise. You are trying to say that piracy spreads awareness of the content for more people that might pay for it, except you have no clue how many people who pirate the stuff would have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. Sure, there's a significant percentage of people who wouldn't have, but definitely nowhere near all, and ultimately people who pay for it see what pirates are doing and get enticed into doing the same when they see people getting stuff for free with no downside whatsoever.

Perhaps in the 24th century when money is non-existent and people can thus create simply to create, Picard and the crew will look back on these funny little GFY conversations laughing at the unnecessary intricacies of life that money creates, but we're not there yet.

I have to agree with The Doc here. It seems like it is more a technology thing than a piracy thing that is leading to more money for the artists. I'm sure there are some artists who are making more from their live shows because of piracy. I think the band OK Go is a good example. They have hit videos, their music is heavily downloaded and I'm sure they sell a decent amount of tickets to their live shows because of it, but they themselves have said they have a lot of trouble actually selling music. So piracy gets them exposure and helps them sell more concert tickets, but it isn't helping them sell actual music.

These days I can write song, use my computer to record it and put it up on iTunes and Amazon and the cost to me is next to nothing. I can then video myself singing it and put it up on Youtube with a link to my song in iTunes and I can make money off of it. If I make $50 of selling my song, chances are that is $50 more than I would have made 10-12 years ago because back then I would have had to make a CD, get it duplicated and then find a way to get it in stores in order to sell it. The cost barrier to me for getting started and getting music out there used to be a lot higher than it is today. With this example it is $50 more than I would have made so I am making 100% income than I was in 1999.

I can confirm the non-validity.

What happens is that a few years ago...Sara Jay would have starred in 100 DVDs a year. They would be fresh and new. And she raises her escort and dancing money because she is a star.

This year? Studios have cut back drastically on production in L.A.
So Sara and others only are in the occasional DVD. The "star" factor goes down. So now she can't raise her price for hooking or dancing.

Add to that...the FACT that there is a ceiling for Sara's price at either. A guy MIGHT pay a couple of grand to fuck her because she is a hot commodity. But that would be a peak price which isn't happening now because she isn't able to star in as many NEW productions thanks to gideongalleries buddies ruining studios ability to finance and distribute a new DVD.

But let's just pretend that she can still make the top dollar....Nobody EVER is going to pay anymore than that for a night with a pornstar. Just won't happen. There is only so much that even a wealthy guy is gonna pay for a hooker since he can always just get another less expensive one if he wants.

Same with dancing. There is only so much a girl can make in a night. I don't care if NFL and NBA players are in the club all night long "making it rain"...there is a limit.

There is only so much that one human being can do in a night.

Gideongallery is forgetting that NOW she is seeing her "star" power slowly diminish because of lack of production.

And all the money that she made from shooting a scene. She's probably lost $200,000 a year from the peak.

So now she has to hustle as hard as she can just to get BACK to what she was making before...if she can physically do it.

Loss of shooting revenue, loss of travel AND top dollar to represent companies at the shows here in the U.S. and Europe. And slow loss of earning potential in escorting and stripping.

You know, I've been around "pornstars"/hookers/strippers since the early 1980's. And the entire game is built around the synergy of "fame".

gideongallery has never even seen a girl naked in real life. Much less have any firsthand knowledge of how the game is played or how our online adult industry (which you are supposed to be part of to even be on GFY) works.

I think that Eric needs to have BarryP. take a long look at gideongallery and determine if he shouldn't be banished from here.

Just because he pretends to be one of us by flying an out of date pussycash banner doesn't fool anybody. I say it's time for him to go back to the stolen content/pirate/torrent/ forums where he belongs...

SURFS UP Gideongallery!

That was the whole point.

gideongallery is trying to imply piracy has increased sales when there are whole new ways and reasons for people to buy music that didn't exist in 1999.

Oh so you are saying their "piracy tax" is also used for state subsidizations of porn? I don't think so and no government or porn industry is going to "adapt something from it". You must be illusional...

Not only that...but one can only imagine how incredibly lucrative the music industry would be right now without piracy but with all the new technologies.

For instance...I'd LIKE to go buy The Cult "Sonic Temple" CD to put in my car (I'm gonna go see them on Thursday night). But...thanks to piracy of music, every music store in the world is shut down. So I have to go to Walmart or Best Buy. And guess what? They don't have it!

So now the only choice I have would be to try and find .mp3 compressed versions online and get each song one by one...or order it off of amazon and wait for it to be delivered.

No more going to the music store and getting what I want when I want. And my fond memories of going to the big music stores like Peaches (I lived in Florida) were finding the record I wanted, and THEN seeing something else and impulse buying.

Those days are gone. Buying it all online can sometimes be real convenient (if a song is brand new), but it took away all the fun of getting an album and it also made music seem sort of insignificant compared to what it used to feel like to go find the record, open the package, etc.

Insignificant to the point where you would buy more and listen to something less times as you don't have an actual record sat in a sleeve and digital music is a bit throwaway?

Great post! :thumbsup