Musicians on Internet & Filesharing 330
reverseengineer writes "A Pew Internet & American Life survey asked (large PDF) 809 artists and 2,755 musicians, songwriters, and publishers about how they use the Internet, and whether it has been beneficial or detrimental to their success. Results (larger PDF) are quite interesting, with near 50-50 splits on a variety of questions involving fair use and filesharing. A quote from Pew's summary: 'Across the board, artists and musicians
are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more
money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work
from piracy or unlawful use.' Here is the NY Times summary [ Free registration blah blah ] of the survey."
Story Text brought to you by BugMeNot (Score:4, Informative)
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: December 6, 2004
The battle over digital copyrights and illegal file sharing is often portrayed as a struggle between Internet scofflaws and greedy corporations. Online music junkies with no sense of the marketplace, the argument goes, want to download, copy and share copyrighted materials without restriction. The recording industry, on the other hand, wants to squeeze dollars - by lawsuit and legislation, if necessary - from its property.
Advertisement
The issue, of course, is far subtler than this, but one aspect of the caricature is dead on: the artists are nowhere to be found. A survey released yesterday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, an arm of the Pew Research Center in Washington, aims to change that. The report, "Artists, Musicians and the Internet," combines and compares the opinions of three groups: the general public, those who identify themselves as artists of various stripes (including filmmakers, writers and digital artists) and a somewhat more self-selecting category of musicians.
Most notably, it is the first large-scale snapshot of what the people who actually produce the goods that downloaders seek (and that the industry jealously guards) think about the Internet and file-sharing.
Among the findings: artists are divided but on the whole not deeply concerned about online file-sharing. Only about half thought that sharing unauthorized copies of music and movies online should be illegal, for instance. And makers of file-sharing software like Kazaa and Grokster may be unnerved to learn that nearly two-thirds said such services should be held responsible for illegal file-swapping; only 15 percent held individual users responsible.
The subset of 2,755 musicians, who were recruited for the survey through e-mail notices, announcements on Web sites and flyers distributed at musicians' conferences, had somewhat different views. Thirty-seven percent, for instance, said the file-sharing services and those who use them ought to share the blame for illegal trades. Only 17 percent singled out the online services themselves as the guilty parties.
"This should solve the problem once and for all about whether anyone can say they speak for all artists," said Jenny Toomey, the executive director of the Future of Music Campaign, a nonprofit organization seeking to bring together the various factions in the copyright wars.
Ms. Toomey, whose group helped draft part of the survey, believes that artists are usually underrepresented in the debates about the high-tech evolution of the industry.
"These decisions need to be made with artists at the table," she said, adding, "it's not enough for both sides to reach out and get an artist who supports their position."
Indeed, big-ticket acts like Metallica and Don Henley have famously denounced illegal file sharing. And the Recording Industry Association of America, which has filed thousands of lawsuits against individual file-sharers, often invokes musicians as prime movers in its crusade.
"Breaking into the music business is no picnic," its Web site reads. "Piracy makes it tougher to survive and even tougher to break through."
File-sharers, on the other hand, often point to high-profile performers like Moby and Chuck D who acknowledge that the online swap meet has provided them with valuable exposure.
"I know for a fact that a lot of people first heard my music by downloading it from Napster or Kazaa," Moby wrote in his online journal last year. "And for this reason I'll always be glad that Napster and Kazaa have existed."
Without questioning the convictions of artists who feel strongly one way or another, however, the Pew survey appears to show that the creative set is both mindful of the benefits the Internet promises and ambivalent about the abuses it facilitates.
"The overall picture," said Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Project, "is that the musician-ar
Re:Story Text brought to you by BugMeNot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Story Text brought to you by BugMeNot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Story Text brought to you by BugMeNot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Story Text brought to you by BugMeNot (Score:4, Informative)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Most musicians and artists say the Internet has helped them make more money from their work despite online file-trading services that allow users to copy songs and other material for free, according to a study released Sunday.
Recording labels and movie studios have hired phalanxes of lawyers to pursue "peer to peer" networks like Kazaa, and have sued thousands of individuals who distribute copyrighted material through such networks.
But most of the artists surveyed by the nonprofit Pew Internet and American Life Project said online file sharing did not concern them much.
Artists were split on the merits of peer-to-peer networks, with 47 percent saying that they prevent artists from earning royalties for their work and another 43 percent saying they helped promote and distribute their material.
But two-thirds of those surveyed said file sharing posed little threat to them, and less than one-third of those surveyed said file sharing was a major threat to creative industries.
Only 3 percent said the Internet hurt their ability to protect their creative works.
"What we hear from a wide spectrum of artists is that, despite the real challenges of protecting work online, the Internet has opened new ways for them to exercise their imaginations and sell their creations," said report author Mary Madden, a research specialist at the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
The nonprofit group based its report on a survey of 809 self-identified artists in December 2003. The survey has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
Re:Story Text brought to you by BugMeNot (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me or are these two things contradictory? In order to have a margin of error, you need a random sampling of a known population. I could self-identify myself as a sculptor. That wouldn't make it so.
Yes and no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes and no. (Score:2)
True. But by downloading it you are encouraging the behaviour.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:2)
Of course, with the internet it may seem to be highly ambiguous who is really considered to have copied a work. Is it the uploader? Or the downloader. It becomes disambiguous, however, if one considers that the copies of works in a person's shared folder(s) are ultimately just that, copies, and since they are being offered for availability to other people, no
Re:Yes and no. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Record companies like to make it easy and market the same group of artists, and milk their talents. Look at Eminem, he's got a new album every freaking month. Do you think that was his choice? Kurt Cobain was stressed out as hell. The list goes on...
Re:Yes and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was their choice to sign over the copyright, and that is a choice that not all musicians make. For what its worth, in my option copyright should only be transferable on a contractual baises. In other words, the record companies should be working for the artists and not the other way around.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes and no. (Score:2)
Am I missing something? Arn't patents just as important to life as copyrights? They both protect creators and their creations... so... why the HUGE FUCKING GAP. Or am I just mis-informed as usual?
Re:Yes and no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Disney doesn't have a patent on Mickey Mouse.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:2)
They have ruled the custmers by distributing some poor songs, putting a lot of pressure ont the artists because there was no alternative!
Now, this alternative exists: artists can be known through the quality of their works, and they are directly judged by the auditors. They can fund their work by making more concerts and tours, this is a better reward than selling many cds a
Re:Yes and no. (Score:3, Insightful)
How true. I have been very pleased with about 70% of their weekly free downloads. The real benefit to me is that iTunes gives me the chance to easily listen to clips of the entire album. You could do this before through amazon.com and others but it was not as seamless.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically it's not even their descision to make. It's up to the distributers as they own the rights.
I just wish that more artists would realize the benefits of allowing the free distribution of their music.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:3, Interesting)
Here, here. As a muscian I fully agree and have been directing every other musician I know to creativecommons.org [creativecommons.org].
If more people hear your music more people will buy your music, but that isn't understood by most musicians. The percentage of people that buy your music may be smaller, but that doesn't matter if you maximize the amount of people that hear your music your net will be larger.
If
Re:Yes and no. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yes and no. (Score:2)
http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php
Sounds a little like radio.
Sonny Bono owns you (Score:5, Insightful)
The artists are given temporary control
To anybody who participates in the creation of a recording or other work of authorship, how is life plus 70 years "temporary"? It sounds more like a prison sentence for a double murder than an acceptable bargain to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Results not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Results not surprising... (Score:2, Interesting)
there are several faces to this whole problem, the riaa wants to keep their monopoly on the music industry, the best way to do that: hamper arts doing it on there own, the only way to "make it big" is through them.
Re:Results not surprising... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Results not surprising... (Score:2, Interesting)
Really due to the nature of bittorrent, there's no difficulty in non RIAA record-labels or artists making their albums freely available. krecs.com could post the bittorrents on
Re:Results not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA labels can stifle artists if they choose (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's not forget that a lot of artists sign deals with RIAA-affiliated labels, only to have the label decide not to "push" them. The label can just sit on their work, and the artist has no recourse. They can't release it on their own because the label owns it. They can only sign a label deal if they sign over the rights. If the label then decides that you aren't the "in" sound, you are basically dead in the water. They control the content and the delivery system. Hopefully with things like satellite radio and the internet, this can change.
Re:Results not surprising... (Score:2)
That's rather the whole point of the whole exercise: encourage the creative types to be more creative.
Media empires and rock stars are just a distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Creativity begets creativity and it was ever thus. (Score:2)
Statements about turning out something "good" are remarkably subjective and not convincing in the least. One hit wonders in the popular music world conflates creativity with the
Re:Results not surprising... (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, where did you get this? I could easily have missed that point in 61 pages of results, although the word "elite" doesn't appear anywhere in it.
Title (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a fame thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Those that are already famous want to wring every cent out of the fame they've worked hard to get and therefore loathe the Internet's ease of file sharing.
Those looking to become famous love the Internet's ease of file sharing because it enables more people to be more easily exposed to their music.
Re:It's a fame thing (Score:2)
You're probably aproximately correct.
Re:It's a fame thing (Score:2)
I can name 778 exceptions easily.
http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse. p hp [archive.org]
Those that are already famous want to wring every cent out of the fame they've worked hard to get and therefore loathe the Internet's ease of file sharing.
Nah, most of them care about maintaining status quo. Being that most music artists do nothing significant after their 30th birthday as far a new material goes, any rational artist over 30 that has a nice place to stay and can eat and do regular stuff should be p
Re:It's a fame thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a fame thing (Score:4, Interesting)
According to PDF of study.
Among self reported music "Success stories" (Definition 30 or more hours working on music and 80% income from music)
45% said internet has big effect on "Made it possible to make more money from you music"
45% said it had small effect same
= 90% thought the internet helped them
While the same group
30% said it had big effect on "Made it harder to protect your music"
25% said it had small effect on same.
= 55% thought it made it harder to protect their music. This does not mean they nessesarly thought it lost them money.
Statistics in other groups are slightly less in both catagories, meaning they didn't think it made much of an improvment or made it much harder.
Thought 35% of Success stories did think file sharing was bad for artist, this is not very high but higher than all artist, of which 23% thought it was bad for them.
Detailed results of the survey (Score:5, Funny)
54% of respondents pretended like they were not home.
20% of respondents were undecided.
6% of respondents had no front door.
There was a 3% margin of error.
no - these are musicians (Score:5, Funny)
37% were sleeping in until 4pm
33% had their phone disconnected for non-payment last month
18% couldn't hear the phone over the drums and Marshall stacks
12% were intoxicated to the point of being temporarily incapacitated
But are they right? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the best question (Score:2)
Someone won the nobel prize in economics by showing that people don't always act in there own best interest.
BBC link (Score:5, Informative)
Musicians Opinions (Score:4, Interesting)
Most musicians, especially struggling musicians, enjoy using the Internet and File Sharing programs to share their music (See pdf [pewinternet.org]) . However, most feel that their work should be protected and they should get some sort of compensation from it (a perfectly justifable argument. Can't make much music if you're starving) (See pdf [pewinternet.org]).
How are the above to concerns and attitudes towards file sharing in line with the RIAA's past, recent and future actions.
Also, this was an anonymous survey so it'd be interesting to really see who fell where (pop stars vs local bands).
Why do musicians go for recording contracts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do musicians go for recording contracts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Recording labels' job is to promote and get the music distributed.
Now go turn on the radio. Find some music. Who's playing? Score one for the record labels.
Many bands feel it's easier to let the big boys promote them while the band gets a big paycheck, rather than do all the dirty work themselves and possibly not reach as big an audience thereby getting a (much) smaller and less reliable paycheck.
Re:Why do musicians go for recording contracts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like promotion. I can get on the phone to radio stations and maybe one by one convince them to give my music a listen. Maybe some of them will even play it on the air (once or twice). A big record company gives a push to their artists that can actually get something on the playlist.
Or touring. Yeah, small bands can tour a lot and do all right. But what if, god forbid, they want to get *off* the road for a little while? Road life is hard - give a listen to the big established acts about the rigors of the road then imagine doing it without the fancy tour bus, without hotel rooms (sleeping on people's floors).
And booking. Booking even a short tour (1 - 2 weeks) is hard. You need to call each club over and over to finally book the gig. A booking agent makes that so much easier.
Bottom line is that it can be done without any of that support structure, but it's hard as hell which is why so many people are willing to sell their souls to big record labels in return for the exposure and some of the perks.
Radio promotion (Score:2)
Re:Why do musicians go for recording contracts? (Score:4, Funny)
Shhhh. Most artists make better material when they have little money to spend and the only comfort in their lives are good drugs.
Most small bands seem to make more money touring.
I told you to be quiet!
Re:Why do musicians go for recording contracts? (Score:2)
A good book to read for those bands that want to go it alone is "Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground, 1981-1991," by Michael Azerrad. While many of these bands were on labels (small indy ones though), all of them spent their life on the road touring and pushing their records. In certain ways, the world depicted in this book is long pa
Because we don't care about money, just fame. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The "loan" buys you recording time, publicity, transportation, expenses, per diems, etc. Things that a starving band can rarely afford.
2) The "loan" is repaid from CD sales. And that's the fair trade because we realize that chances are slim to no
Re:Why do musicians go for recording contracts? (Score:2)
-You don't have the social network and/or money to push your songs on the air
-You don't have a vast distribution network to make sure CD get sold almost everywhere.
-You don't have the credibility to rent a large studio and/or organise a concert.
That doesn't mean you can't succeed. Just that's you'll struggle more to acheive the same goal, then if you sell out...
Yet, I wish groups like http://www.v [vanderpark.com]
The real question (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't respect the wishes of those people, you violate the idea that this is for the artists. That includes Metallica, even if you hate Lars Ulrich. You can't pick and choose your moralities.
I don't get why copyrights don't matter in P2P articles but they matter in "GPL source code theft" articles.
Re:The real question (Score:2)
Says who, you?
What I don't get is why there's always posters like you who assume things like this.
Re:Hear,speak,see no evil. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't see it that way. I usually see both sides when I look at slashdot comments. If you choose to focus in on the trolls, that's your right, but it's ignorant and it doesn't speak for the entire slashdot community like you implied.
Stupid? Take a look in the mirror.
Re:The real question (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not convinced.. (Score:3, Insightful)
50% of the artists LOVED the internet (Score:4, Funny)
Single song downloading (Score:2)
cheapcds.com (Score:2)
The other side of the music industry... (Score:5, Interesting)
We get to hear quite a lot from the "industry" side of the music business; it's nice to get a little balance from those "other" people who are also involved in some way with the music business, the actual creators.
I'm not surprised they're split over the issue, personally -- the future of music distribution is not at all a clearcut thing, and even the artists need someone, somewhere to be paying them for their work. Naturally, there are many more solutions that will work for the artists than there are solutions that will work for the industry that has developed purely to advertise and distribute their work through very limited, specific channels...
Movies and Music are different (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Movies and Music are different (Score:2, Insightful)
as you have to pay for studios fees, for the cds, the box, for the publicity, the promotion tours, the hardware for the tour and you have to distribute it...
The fact is : most musicians are broke...and can't live from their music.
Mainly because the labels don't (for the big ones) or can't give (for the others) 'em much...
You really have to struggle a lot when you want to distribute your music.
The good thing about internet is that you can distribute your music and b
Re:Movies and Music are different (Score:2)
This will definitly hurt the huge budget, over produced, crap fests that are all over the radio today, not that peers won't still be editing and producing each others work.
I heard "The White Stripes" the other day and it took me 5 minutes to figure out that it was distortion not something going terrible terribly wrong.
Musicians will have to go a little more technical if they want to rework their stuff, but you kno
Actually, movies not only product of actors! (Score:2)
Actually I would put forth that is not strickly true. Popular actors do make money on movies to be sure, but they have something else of value - lifestyle!
Think of how much money is made by the obsessive tabloid industry just trying to find out anything they can about actors and actresses. What I have wondered for a while is why actors do not capitalize on this - for instance if they are having a wedding let magazines big on the right to send in photographers.
Re:This is changing (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all musicians perform live. (Score:2)
Lots of things are different.. (Score:2)
It's kind of like saying it's murder to kill a nun, but maybe not much of a crime to kill a drug addict. They are both murder. I hate to use a fairly lame analogy like that, but it is a similar kind of reasoning. You are trying to rationalize, or perhaps justify, one behavior over another for peripheral reasons that fundamentally don't change th
Don Henley eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, big-ticket acts like Metallica and Don Henley have famously denounced illegal file sharing. And the Recording Industry Association of America, which has filed thousands of lawsuits against individual file-sharers, often invokes musicians as prime movers in its crusade.
Metallica, yes, Don Henley, dunno.
Metallica can continue to charge $75+ for half full concert venues (vs $35 and sold out, no pun intended).
Don Henley on the other hand is no sympathizer for the RIAA.
The Eagles have their own recording company and they are not RIAA members.
Also, this url, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0217-01.htm [commondreams.org], has more info straigh from Don Henley's mouth (pen, keyboard, whatever).
no big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Music "piracy" usually only hurts the suits at the recording companies. I have a hard time feeling too sorry for them. They're making their living by charging artists for advertising and distributing their work, and the internet makes that very low cost or free. The business model has changed, and the recording industry has not changed with it. A band can now make a very professional recording all on their own, advertise it, and distribute it for next to nothing. The suits just haven't realized it yet.
Re:no big surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no big surprise (Score:2)
OT: Wow! The NYT is getting better! (Score:3, Funny)
Usually they require a DNA sample or your first-born child!
Courtney Love's point of view (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Courtney Love's point of view (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com]
i don't know how this can be passed of as hers...
Re:Courtney Love's point of view (Score:2)
Dangit! I'm usually the one who posts this link around here once or twice a year
Re:Courtney stole nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Courtney essentially stole this (Score:2)
too vague (Score:3, Interesting)
Here, "use the internet" can mean anything from communicate with agents or people who book gigs or recording engineers or fellow musicians, to communicate with fans, to put up web sites with band info, sample tracks, etc. Most people wouldn't think of "having all my work traded on file sharing systems without my permission" as "how I use the internet." So a conclusion like "across the board, the internet helps artists make more money" is disingenuous. Note that I'm not saying that the net is good or bad for musicians, just that such a broad conclusion is dopey.
Irrelevant in most cases (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a leveling effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Those that are currently struggling anyway really have nothing to lose from filesharing, and plenty to gain.
But the mega star types will have an eroded fan base as the fans find music more directly in line with their personal tastes. And artists who peaked early will not be able to coast on their old glories for nearly as long. Songs that would have made them hit big will not sustain them as long as people will just buy one copy when they hear it the first time, and probably just grab copies after that. Or just rip their original to new mediums as the medium changes.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:Its a leveling effect (Score:2)
When everybody is given the same voice, some good, most bad, it becomes problematic to wade through. You will see a rise in genre specific websites that wade through the garbage to give the fans the "best" of the music. Of course a whole payment structure will form, advertisement, and a pay for play structure like google now has. Pay extra the "Rocker search engine" will move you higher on th
Built in assumptions (Score:3, Interesting)
The wierdest, most difficult to address assumption is the idea that people don't currently like what they really like. I'm inferring that from your idea that people will go more 'more directly in line with their personal tastes.' It seems like a logical assumption from the standpoint that if you were given 5 choices before, once you've been given 50 that included those 5, you'd statistical
Taping TV (Score:2, Funny)
tape to watch at home at a later time should be deemed legal under the fair use provisions
of copyright law."
Wow. I didn't know Jack Valenti had an album out.
Re:Taping TV (Score:2)
But I wonder if that also means that 9 out of 10 feel the same way about digital media sources, and from that, I wonder how many out of 10 own a Tivo, but wont admit it??
Garage Bands (Score:2, Insightful)
To much FUD from the RIAA MPAA etc...! (Score:5, Interesting)
File sharing is huge in Iceland, about 10% of the nation use the largest P2P network every month, and there are several other domestic networks and the plethora of foreign networks. P2P started to hit it big 4 years ago.
Record sales have been up 11% each year, we hold the world record in movie attendance, movie sales up 26% since last year and so on. You should also note that the average movie ticket costs $14, rentals are $8, CD's and DVD's are $30-45.
This is not a strange coincidence to have this burst along with the growing of P2P networks. And don't give be crap about being an island in the north-Atlantic - movies are usually screened here before the "previews" in the US. Hell Sigurrós the world renowned Icelandic band even have their own P2P network!
The internet _could_ have been.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a time when there was an internet radio station called "Soma FM" available for free on the internet.
(Slashdot even had some stories when they were forced to close down)
They played a lot of _very_ interesting music I never heard before -
and that you wouldn't get on your typical commercial radio station either for that matter.
That was the time that I actually bought the highest number of CDs I ever did in my Life!!
I remember more often than not, that I heard some _really_ amazing stuff there - and simply opened another tab on my browser, went to amazon and just ordered a bunch of CDs.
- It's been some time now that I bought any CD at all - not because I 'd be downloading stuff or such
rather because I just wouldn't know what to buy - the stuff on mainstream radio just isn't worth it..
just my 2 cents
Re:The internet _could_ have been.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Shameless plug: Cured By Porno [curedbyporno.com] - Electronic Lounge - what if George Clinton and Debbie Harry had a baby?
An example of how the Industry doesn't get it (Score:3, Informative)
but...wait for it....
Bill Gates should ban the mp3?? [taxi.com]
Feel free to make jokes about the hair. Thanks to this guy, I found out that I'll never make it in the business, as I am a 30-something musician in the midwest.
Well, it was fun while it lasted.
Re:An example of how the Industry doesn't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
My brother in law is in a band [iuma.com]. A buddy of mine who's an agent wanted to play some of their stuff to a friend in the recording industry. They industry guy's first question? "How old are they?". When he found out they were mid-30s, he said to forget it.
All that the record companies want is pliable lookalike boybandz.
Wired News' article (Score:2)
about holding p2p services liable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:about holding p2p services liable (Score:3, Insightful)
"If p2p application makers are held responsible for illegal file-swapping, should not gun makers be held responsible for the illegal use of their products?"
Generally, no. If you're not sure of the difference, ask yourselves these questions:
Re:The article states... (Score:5, Informative)
From CNN [cnn.com]:
But two-thirds of those surveyed said file sharing posed little threat to them, and less than one-third of those surveyed said file sharing was a major threat to creative industries.
Only 3 percent said the Internet hurt their ability to protect their creative works.
Re:The article states... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most 'artists' (of any kind) don't make a living selling their work, sure most would like to, but the reality is that most are just hard average hard working 'Joes' (and just to be PC 'Janes'), many of whom have trouble buying $20 cd, as many 'non artists'.
For this to be a real survey they would need to beak the artists into several catagories:
Re:Well, which is it? (Score:2)
The catch here is that you have to actually read the line about "wide variety of questions" in there. Some questions were more contentious than others. Honestly, the summary was pretty misleading, as it basically said that overall, views averaged out, then gave a summary bit at the end saying that one question hit one extreme and another hit the opposite ex
Re:Well, which is it? (Score:4, Informative)
IE, they're not believing the RIAA crap that 1,000 downloads actually equates to 1,000 lost sales.
Re:On Corellia.... (Score:2, Funny)