[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Musikindustrie-verliert-1999-$1,400,000,000
- To: "'Thomas Roessler'" <roessler@guug.de>, debate@fitug.de
- Subject: RE: Musikindustrie-verliert-1999-$1,400,000,000
- From: "Vigelius, Christoph" <christoph.vigelius@sap.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:24:28 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@guug.de]
| Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 2:42 PM
| To: debate@fitug.de
| Subject: Re: Musikindustrie-verliert-1999-$1,400,000,000
|
|
| On 2000-02-28 14:11:04 +0100, Ralf Stephan wrote:
|
| > Music Posted by michael on Sunday February 27, @04:22PM
| > from the two-faced dept.
| > In exciting news this week, the RIAA announced that due
| to the massive
| > piracy of digital music "ripped" from CD's and made
| available over the
| > Internet, the music industry lost negative
| $1,400,000,000 in CD sales
| > in 1999. In fact, the damage was so extreme that the
| industry shipped
| > negative 90 million fewer CD's than the year before.
|
| Zu den Aussagen möchte ich doch zu gerne die Berechnungsgrundlage
| sehen. Interessant wäre vor allem, wie die RIAA zu dem Schluß
| kommt, daß das Internet an den Verlusten schuld sei.
reingefallen :-) Liefer mal -90 Mio. CD's *weniger* aus...
...weiter unten in der Meldung auf Slashdot wird es auch erläutert :
> Oh, I can't keep up the fake news any more... In fact, the RIAA reports
that the music
> industry - especially non-copy-protected CD's - is booming. Not only did
the record
> industry sell 10.8% more CD's than last year, they raised their income on
those disks
> by 12.3% - so not only are you buying more music, but you're paying more
for each disk
> you buy. Income from CD's alone increased by 1.4 billion dollars last
year. So where's
> the crippling damage from evil music pirates? If they're suffering so
badly, why does
> their profit chart look like Microsoft's?
gruss,
chris,
der die Meldung auch zweimal lesen mußte...