Zimerman walks off because "..You Tube is destroying Music"

[Flosshilde]

Here's one recent study: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720

Hardly a convincing report. It studied the habits of 16,000 Europeans. That would be a pretty small sample for the UK - for the whole of the EU it's miniscule.

"According to our results, a 10% increase in clicks on legal streaming websites lead to up to a 0.7% increase in clicks on legal digital purchases websites," claimed the report.

'up to' 0.7% is likewise miniscule, & I would have thought statistically insignificant, and it refers to people listening on legal sites, not listening to illegal material. And Zimerman has said that record companies have turned down programmes for recording because they have already appeared on you-tube.

The article, in typical BBC fashion, has a sensational headline, then bends over backwards to give the other side in favour of some obsession with 'balance'. It ends up reading like a piece Kafka might have penned.

The article was very short & said very little. It quoted a response from the group of people who might be most interested - as any reasonable report should (otherwise it's not much more than a regurgitation of a press-release). Hardly an 'obsession' with balance, & as for Kafka .

[ahinton]

Hardly a convincing report. It studied the habits of 16,000 Europeans. That would be a pretty small sample for the UK - for the whole of the EU it's miniscule.

"According to our results, a 10% increase in clicks on legal streaming websites lead to up to a 0.7% increase in clicks on legal digital purchases websites," claimed the report.

'up to' 0.7% is likewise miniscule, & I would have thought statistically insignificant, and it refers to people listening on legal sites, not listening to illegal material. And Zimerman has said that record companies have turned down programmes for recording because they have already appeared on you-tube.

YouTube is, at least ostensibly, a "legal site", yet it hosts many tens if not hundred of thousands of copyright-infringing items and will continue to do so unless these are successfully reported to them.

[french frank]

I feel certain there might be a hefty majority of the population who would keep YT exactly as it is, ahinton, and as you have reminded us many times before majority opinion must hold sway!

But there's the added issue of whether people are required not to take photos, film or record in the venue or at the event which they're attending. It appears (?) that the owners of private property are entitled to prohibit any sort of recording, regardless of whether there is any attempt to 'publish' e.g. on YouTube.

[scottycelt]

But there's the added issue of whether people are required not to take photos, film or record in the venue or at the event which they're attending. It appears (?) that the owners of private property are entitled to prohibit any sort of recording, regardless of whether there is any attempt to 'publish' e.g. on YouTube.

I was being ever so slightly (if uncharacteristically ) mischievous, ff ...

You are, of course, correct. My broader point was to simply highlight the current tendency of promoting one's 'right' to do anything, irrespective of its affect on others and long-established values and institutions.

I can well see ahinton's point about copyright issues which are perfectly valid and I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate, The temptation to do so in response to some members here I find quite overwhelming,

[Beef Oven]

I didn't suggest, nor do I suspect, that it was merely your own anecdotal evidence or indeed that you've taken what you've read in such a newspaper as gospel, but it stands to reason that people who can get whole CDs for free on YouTube will mostly prefer to do that rather than pay to purchase their own copies of the real thing.

Some people, yes. But many of the people wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. I estimate that watching youtube causes me to buy about 100 CDs per annum. Without having my appetite whetted in this way, the expenditure would have not been made.

[ahinton]

Some people, yes. But many of the people wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. I estimate that watching youtube causes me to buy about 100 CDs per annum. Without having my appetite whetted in this way, the expenditure would have not been made.

In my experience over the years, a position such as yours is an exceptional one and, in any case, it might be that at least some of what you have thereby been encouraged to buy is public domain music anyway. The possibility which you raise that some of these freeloading downloaders wouldn't have bought the CD anyway is not of itself an excuse to let them have its contents for free, thereby encouraging them to think that no one else has any right to any of its contents except those who wish to download them for free and the rights of those downloaders are to listen whenever they like to the material that they've nicked for free. Imagine getting a nice brand new Aston Martin Rapide S for free via YouTube; most of those who did so would not have actually spent money to buy one had they not been presented with an opportunity to get one for free on YouTube, now would they?!...

[Pabmusic]

Hardly a convincing report. It studied the habits of 16,000 Europeans. That would be a pretty small sample for the UK - for the whole of the EU it's miniscule.

"According to our results, a 10% increase in clicks on legal streaming websites lead to up to a 0.7% increase in clicks on legal digital purchases websites," claimed the report.

'up to' 0.7% is likewise miniscule, & I would have thought statistically insignificant, and it refers to people listening on legal sites, not listening to illegal material. And Zimerman has said that record companies have turned down programmes for recording because they have already appeared on you-tube...

I know nothing of this report beyond the BBC web page, but I doubt it's as clear-cut as this. 16,000 is actually quite a large sample, even more so if they come from a distinct group (by age-range for instance). There's often a natural point as well, beyond which there is little use in going since the accuracy is not likely to increase much (that's something that varies between topics so the answer may be different in different cases).

But then I doubt that the correspondent who wrote the article understood this anyway.

[Beef Oven]

In my experience over the years, your position is an exceptional one and, in any case, it might be that at least some of what you have thereby been encouraged to buy is public domain music anyway. The possibility that you raise that some of these freeloading downloaders wouldn't have bought the CD anyway is not of itself an excuse to let them have its contents for free, thereby encouraging them to think that no one else has any right to any of its contents except those who wish to download them for free and the rights of those downloaders are to listen whenever they like to the material that they've nicked for free.

sorry

[ahinton]

sorry

OK.

[Beef Oven]

OK.

[ahinton]

Quoi?...

[Beef Oven]

Quoi?...

Don't over-do it - it was very funny as was.

[ahinton]

Don't over-do it - it was very funny as was.

"Over-do" (and why the supererogatory Grewesque hyphen anyway?) what? - and what was "funny" as was what? You really do seem to inhabit some kind of demi-monde of your own, don't you?!...

Anyway, that's enough from me for today (not that there's more than a few seconds of today left); it's been a very long day and I'm off for some shut-eye. Why don't UKIP as well?

[Beef Oven]

"Over-do" (and why the supererogatory Grewesque hyphen anyway?) what? - and what was "funny" as was what? You really do seem to inhabit some kind of demi-monde of your own, don't you?!...

Anyway, that's enough from me for today (not that there's more than a few seconds of today left); it's been a very long day and I'm off for some shut-eye. Why don't UKIP as well?

Don't tell me when to go to bed.

[ahinton]

Don't tell me when to go to bed.

Since when (and how and why) did "Why don't UKIP as well" amount to an order to slumber?