The IFPI has joined the MPAA/RIAA idiocy clan by making the most ridiculous claims, with their trained teams of mind readers we are informed that all the "facts" below are reasons to overcharge consumers and sue those unable to afford any legal defence, when in fact they are a smokescreen designed to hide their monopolising activities and when pressed are usually unable to produce repeatable statistics, every press release contains a fresh set of incredulous statements.
The press release is of course the favoured method employed by these people as it means no one gets to enquire what parameters where looked at in their creation or how they can be justified in the stark light of reality.
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070531.html1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment “free music” rhetoric.
2. Allofmp3.com, the well-known Russian website, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
3. Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
4. Illegal file-sharers don’t care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on “underground” artists and more inclination to invest in “bankers” like American Idol stars.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth – it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
I suppose its down to me to refute these idiotic claims as I cant see anyone bothering just yet
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment “free music” rhetoric.
And I suppose the fact that The IFPI receives all of its funding from the media industries who have a vested interest in attacking the pirate bay has nothing to do with this ? How many trackers do the IFPI operate that need financing ?, Yes folks you've guessed it, zero that I know of.
2. Allofmp3.com, the well-known Russian website, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Besides the fact that its mostly "well Known " due to the iFPI publicising it, Allofmp3.com has never claimed a licence to distribute its services outside of Russia and has paid the relevant Russian equivalent of the RIAA, BPI the royalties required. Russian law and American law are of course not the same and while the IFPI feels it should be, to make such false claims is purely misleading
3. Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Can we see some proof of this often repeated claim that has twice been challenged and no answers have been forthcoming, or is this based on a claim of Osama Bin Laden owning a laptop ?
4. Illegal file-sharers don’t care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
Once again wheres the study to confirm this claim ? This is what we technically call an "opinion"
not a fact as there are no facts delivered to ascertain the validity of the claim.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on “underground” artists and more inclination to invest in “bankers” like American Idol stars.
I hardly think its fair to blame file sharers for the poor standards used to select which artist to promote or not, also the claims of revenue losses are not actually true.
Its well known that the industry is manufacturing less physical media than in previous years as they are adjusting their market model to reflect the consumers preference for music on demand, that market along with the ringtones market have leapt in growth, something like 1500% claimed at one stage.
Whilst this may mean turnover is down, due to a massive drop in outlay costs ( download services cost the labels nothing, third party companies pay these costs) the overall profits are fairly static if not increasing.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
This is rather comical in that we are shown video clips of movies to encourage us to visit the cinema or purchase a DVD that often is nothing like the perceived view shown in the collection of scenes, is this false advertising ?
When we make a purchase of a CD are we often disappointed with many of the "filler" tracks thrown in to fill the CD up a little but never seem to match the intense focus and quality of the one or two tracks that led us to make our purchase ?
Do folks merely wish an Internet connection to download music, this claim is made hollow by a quick search of any database of search requests, porn is more popular than IFPI members offerings.
Frankly we are hearing sour grapes here and wishful thinking again, the IFPI and other corporate interests are merely seeking to pressurise ISP companies to do as they are told to by big media companies even if this means national laws are broken, in the view of the IFPI these laws must be wrong if they don't agree with them, an attitude perhaps shared by file sharers.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth – it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Whilst this sounds like " we know better than anyone else" the facts speak for themselves, ISP companies profit, CD and DVD plants profit, paper plants and ink manufacturers profit, computer manufacturers profit, operating systems companies profit in fact all items capable of holding media and their support systems come into this equation, are we to believe this is all unpaid for and untaxed, and worse no one is employed in these market sections ?
As to aiding the growth of the music industry itself think of the profit the recording industry gain by purchases made from their back catalogues , often after a download sample on a P2P network, I think they should qualify this to mean non media sector profits versus the music industry profit, I,m sure one outweights the other substantially.
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners
Could this have anything to do with the fact that those owning a computer and internet connection are more likely to be those able to pay for it (perhaps middle or higher income earners) ?
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Really ? This seems like a good time to introduce some of you to the language involved here, uploaders are the ones who actually infringe, downloading is legal in most lands provided its not of a type of material thats forbidden. The use of the word "filesharer" is a nice way to muddy the water a little to make downloaders think they are breaking some kind of law, rest assured you are not, we on this site would rather no one bothered with the pathetic offerings from companies that rip off many artists to reward a few, but its an individual choice and one for you to make as are most things in life.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
This may possibly be true but its unlikely with bands often unsigned releasing a few sample tracks to gain a fan base its a perfect way to acheive recognition, I myself think that P2P systems are more like vast repositories of information not all relevant and not all new but to try to make claims that sound more like how the IFPI wish things where than to how they actually are is lunacy, for all anyone knows P2P may become the predominant way to distribute your musical samples, in the case of bit torrent this surely is true for some types of visual media, many utilise this cheap distribution method to publicise works the media companies are not likely to bother with due to the lack of profit in doing so for themselves.
I hope we see some more claims soon that are as "Factual" as this set, feel free to add your own points and comments folks , ridicule is the best way to deal with these parasites of creativity.
