Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
One thing you're missing here: Craigslist started charging for the Adult Services section at the request of previous Attorneys General with the idea that adding a charge that required a credit card would curtail the use of the section for illegal activities.
http://www.scattorneygeneral.com/newsroom/pdf/2009/craigslist.pdf
Posted by: Collin |
September 8, 2010 6:04 PMAh! Makes sense. Updating the post. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Posted by: Adrianne Jeffries |
September 8, 2010 6:14 PMI'm baffled as to why craigslist didn't see the profit issue ahead of time. I'm 100% behind them, but raking in millions just doesn't look good, and makes them an easy target. From day one of charging for Adult Services, they should have been giving 100% of that money to organizations that work to prevent sex trafficking and child prostitution, to make it 100% clear that the money was for filtering, not for profit.
Posted by: Brad Weikel |
September 8, 2010 6:17 PMI think this is a good thing to do for Craiglist. But I bet that some thousands or maybe millions of dollars will be taken out from earnings in the industry with Craiglist ready to censor. LOL. Thanks for the info.
Posted by: WebHosting Guru |
September 8, 2010 7:09 PMI'm baffled how an article on ReadWriteWeb could miss the obvious question of free speech on the internet.
What you have here is public officials (facing re-election) using their office as a pulpit, making legal threats they know to be unenforceable, and lying to the media in order to prohibit speech which they know to be legal. State AGs are literally using a public relations campaign to circumvent an Act of Congress intended to curtail their power against just *this* kind of electioneering. That the AGs happen to be exploiting victimized children in their media campaign is almost incidental to the larger attack on the law and Constitution.
The Communications Decency Act protects electronic publishers from liability for content produced by users of the system. Absent that immunity there could be no Google, no Blogspot, no Facebook, no WordPress.com, no Digg or Reddit, no Twitter and no comments (like this one) on ReadWriteWeb.
The moralistic campaigns against 4chan and craigslist all lead to one inevitable conclusion: the publishers of ReadWriteWeb will be criminally and civilly liable for the comments of this community.
Here's a concept that's new: Has anyone ever substantiated the claims that Craigslist has ever been used for child or human trafficking? Is there even one demonstrable case of this occurring? If not, then the site may have just established millions of dollars in damages for a defamation suit against it's detractors. Yes, Craigslist is a public person, that doesn't mean they can't be defamed: they just have to prove damages.
Posted by: Baffled |
September 8, 2010 10:04 PMMobile phone carriers should be banned to provide a phone number to prostitutes as they are also making tons of money from an illegale activity.
Same thing for people selling cloth, sex toys, etc.
Posted by: idont |
September 9, 2010 9:21 AMOne thing you're missing here: Craigslist started charging for the Adult Services section at the request of previous Attorneys General with the idea that adding a charge that required a credit card would curtail the use of the section for illegal activities.
http://www.scattorneygeneral.com/newsroom/pdf/2009/craigslist.pdf
Posted by: Collin |
September 8, 2010 6:04 PMAh! Makes sense. Updating the post. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Posted by: Adrianne Jeffries |
September 8, 2010 6:14 PMI'm baffled as to why craigslist didn't see the profit issue ahead of time. I'm 100% behind them, but raking in millions just doesn't look good, and makes them an easy target. From day one of charging for Adult Services, they should have been giving 100% of that money to organizations that work to prevent sex trafficking and child prostitution, to make it 100% clear that the money was for filtering, not for profit.
Posted by: Brad Weikel |
September 8, 2010 6:17 PMI think this is a good thing to do for Craiglist. But I bet that some thousands or maybe millions of dollars will be taken out from earnings in the industry with Craiglist ready to censor. LOL. Thanks for the info.
Posted by: WebHosting Guru |
September 8, 2010 7:09 PMI'm baffled how an article on ReadWriteWeb could miss the obvious question of free speech on the internet.
What you have here is public officials (facing re-election) using their office as a pulpit, making legal threats they know to be unenforceable, and lying to the media in order to prohibit speech which they know to be legal. State AGs are literally using a public relations campaign to circumvent an Act of Congress intended to curtail their power against just *this* kind of electioneering. That the AGs happen to be exploiting victimized children in their media campaign is almost incidental to the larger attack on the law and Constitution.
The Communications Decency Act protects electronic publishers from liability for content produced by users of the system. Absent that immunity there could be no Google, no Blogspot, no Facebook, no WordPress.com, no Digg or Reddit, no Twitter and no comments (like this one) on ReadWriteWeb.
The moralistic campaigns against 4chan and craigslist all lead to one inevitable conclusion: the publishers of ReadWriteWeb will be criminally and civilly liable for the comments of this community.
Here's a concept that's new: Has anyone ever substantiated the claims that Craigslist has ever been used for child or human trafficking? Is there even one demonstrable case of this occurring? If not, then the site may have just established millions of dollars in damages for a defamation suit against it's detractors. Yes, Craigslist is a public person, that doesn't mean they can't be defamed: they just have to prove damages.
Posted by: Baffled |
September 8, 2010 10:04 PMMobile phone carriers should be banned to provide a phone number to prostitutes as they are also making tons of money from an illegale activity.
Same thing for people selling cloth, sex toys, etc.
Posted by: idont |
September 9, 2010 9:21 AM
Yet Another Study Shows Musicians Making More Money
from the well,-look-at-that dept
We've made the argument repeatedly that saying unauthorized file sharing is hurting the music business lacks evidence. Instead, what we've seen, over and over again, is that more money is pouring into the music business, more music is being produced and (most importantly) that more musicians who embrace this new world are doing better than they would have otherwise. Now, we've pointed to research in the UK, Sweden and the US that have all shown aggregate growth for the music business, with some of the numbers suggesting more money going directly to musicians, rather than gatekeepers.
The latest study, highlighted by TorrentFreak takes a similar look at the Norwegian music market to show very similar findings and (of course) that musicians are, indeed, benefiting:
Like the UK and Swedish studies, this study, covering Norway, found that the aggregate amount going to the industry is up slightly (4% in real terms), mostly thanks to live shows more than making up for the decline in music sales (it's important to note that these researchers appear to have modeled their research on both the UK and Swedish studies, and made only slight changes, which they explain (and justify) in the report. The key finding is that musicians appear to be making significantly more these days than in the past:
Total artist revenues have gone from NOK 208 million in 1999 to NOK 545 million in 2009, which is an increase of about 162%. Excluding state subsidization, the income from 1999 to 2009 has increased with NOK 229 million, or 147%....
According to this, Norwegian artists have seen an increase in all four of their income sources during the past eleven years. This goes contrary to the common belief that artists have seen a decline in income because of the digitalization of the industry.
The loss of record sales because of consequences of the digitalization of the industry has not affected the Norwegian artists in the same brutal way as it has the record companies. Artists earn in general 20% or less from record sales, and a decrease in record sales would most likely be compensated by an increase in one or more of the other three income sources.
Now, it's worth pointing out -- as I learned when I attended Nordic Music Week last year -- that the Norwegian music industry is heavily subsidized by the government, which is one of the four revenue streams discussed above. However, that only represents about 30% of artist revenue in 2009. The largest single component -- again similar to what we've seen elsewhere -- is live revenue, which continues to grow. Even if you exclude state subsidies, the report found that Norwegian artists doubled their income in the past 11 years:
Adjusted for inflation, total artist revenue has gone from NOK 255 million in 1999 to NOK 545 million in 2009, an increase of about NOK 290 million or 114%. Excluding state subsidizations, the increase has changed from NOK 192 million to NOK 386 million, which is an increase of NOK 194 million or 101% This goes to show that the artists themselves, as a group, have seen tremendous more growth than the industry as a whole.
And, yes, there are more musicians out there to split the pie, but the growth rate in the industry has increased more quickly than the growth in musicians.
Since the total number of artists in 1999 and 2009 are available to the authors, it is possible to calculate an average income from music for artists in Norway. With 3200 artists in 1999 the average income from music would be about NOK 65 000. With 4100 artists in 2009 the average income from music is about NOK 133 000, creating an increase of NOK 68 000 or 105%. Adjusted for inflation the income has increased with from about NOK 80 000 to NOK 133 000, an increase of NOK 53 000, an increase of 66%.
Overall, the results, like those in Sweden and the UK, seem to clearly debunk the repeated claims from recording industry folks (and some musicians) that artists are somehow suffering under this new setup. Now, there may absolutely be cases where artists who fail to adapt are struggling, and there's no doubt that some labels that failed to adapt are struggling -- but there's increasingly little evidence that the overall music industry or artists as a whole are suffering. All of the evidence seems to suggest that it's not file sharing that's a problem at all. More money is going into the music business. The only problems are from those in the industry too stubborn or too clueless to adapt to capture the money that's flowing in.
27 Comments | Leave a Comment..
robert shumake
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Yet Another Study Shows Musicians Making More Money
from the well,-look-at-that dept
We've made the argument repeatedly that saying unauthorized file sharing is hurting the music business lacks evidence. Instead, what we've seen, over and over again, is that more money is pouring into the music business, more music is being produced and (most importantly) that more musicians who embrace this new world are doing better than they would have otherwise. Now, we've pointed to research in the UK, Sweden and the US that have all shown aggregate growth for the music business, with some of the numbers suggesting more money going directly to musicians, rather than gatekeepers.
The latest study, highlighted by TorrentFreak takes a similar look at the Norwegian music market to show very similar findings and (of course) that musicians are, indeed, benefiting:
Like the UK and Swedish studies, this study, covering Norway, found that the aggregate amount going to the industry is up slightly (4% in real terms), mostly thanks to live shows more than making up for the decline in music sales (it's important to note that these researchers appear to have modeled their research on both the UK and Swedish studies, and made only slight changes, which they explain (and justify) in the report. The key finding is that musicians appear to be making significantly more these days than in the past:
Total artist revenues have gone from NOK 208 million in 1999 to NOK 545 million in 2009, which is an increase of about 162%. Excluding state subsidization, the income from 1999 to 2009 has increased with NOK 229 million, or 147%....
According to this, Norwegian artists have seen an increase in all four of their income sources during the past eleven years. This goes contrary to the common belief that artists have seen a decline in income because of the digitalization of the industry.
The loss of record sales because of consequences of the digitalization of the industry has not affected the Norwegian artists in the same brutal way as it has the record companies. Artists earn in general 20% or less from record sales, and a decrease in record sales would most likely be compensated by an increase in one or more of the other three income sources.
Now, it's worth pointing out -- as I learned when I attended Nordic Music Week last year -- that the Norwegian music industry is heavily subsidized by the government, which is one of the four revenue streams discussed above. However, that only represents about 30% of artist revenue in 2009. The largest single component -- again similar to what we've seen elsewhere -- is live revenue, which continues to grow. Even if you exclude state subsidies, the report found that Norwegian artists doubled their income in the past 11 years:
Adjusted for inflation, total artist revenue has gone from NOK 255 million in 1999 to NOK 545 million in 2009, an increase of about NOK 290 million or 114%. Excluding state subsidizations, the increase has changed from NOK 192 million to NOK 386 million, which is an increase of NOK 194 million or 101% This goes to show that the artists themselves, as a group, have seen tremendous more growth than the industry as a whole.
And, yes, there are more musicians out there to split the pie, but the growth rate in the industry has increased more quickly than the growth in musicians.
Since the total number of artists in 1999 and 2009 are available to the authors, it is possible to calculate an average income from music for artists in Norway. With 3200 artists in 1999 the average income from music would be about NOK 65 000. With 4100 artists in 2009 the average income from music is about NOK 133 000, creating an increase of NOK 68 000 or 105%. Adjusted for inflation the income has increased with from about NOK 80 000 to NOK 133 000, an increase of NOK 53 000, an increase of 66%.
Overall, the results, like those in Sweden and the UK, seem to clearly debunk the repeated claims from recording industry folks (and some musicians) that artists are somehow suffering under this new setup. Now, there may absolutely be cases where artists who fail to adapt are struggling, and there's no doubt that some labels that failed to adapt are struggling -- but there's increasingly little evidence that the overall music industry or artists as a whole are suffering. All of the evidence seems to suggest that it's not file sharing that's a problem at all. More money is going into the music business. The only problems are from those in the industry too stubborn or too clueless to adapt to capture the money that's flowing in.
27 Comments | Leave a Comment..
robert shumake
Pentax K-5 announced and previewed: Digital Photography Review
Pentax K-5 announced and previewed: Pre-Photokina 2010: Pentax has announced the latest member of its DSLR line-up, the K-5. The new model is based on the Japanese manufacturer's current flagship DSLR, the K-7. Body design and control ...
David Helfenbein: The Facebook <b>News</b> Feed and Twitter Generation
The largest misconception about Generation Y is that technology is a replacement for interpersonal dialogue. Technology is becoming more ever-present, and Gen Y is still managing to talk to one another.
Vid-Biz: Netflix in Canada, <b>News</b> Corp-Cablevision, Comcast-DirecTV <b>...</b>
Today on the Net: Netflix is on the verge of unveiling its streaming-only subscription service in Canada, News Corp. and Cablevision are the latest to get into a retrans fight and DirecTV might drop Comcast's G4 network if the two don't ...
robert shumake
No comments:
Post a Comment