… was heute aber oft nicht der Fall ist, was wiederum diese Grafik vom Reddit-Nutzer Question Everything zeigen soll:
Die britische Pop-Sängerin Lily Allen hat sich verschiedentlich mit aus meiner Sicht teilweise etwas wirren Argumenten gegen das File Sharing ausgesprochen:
The internet is the most amazing thing, but it should be OUR thing, and ironically piracy is just playing into the hands of the corporations. What these artists and creators do, they do for the love of it, I know its hard because money is scarce but we have to inject money back into these areas. It’s not fair to steal peoples material,I know it’s art and it has no physical value but even Shakespeare had shares in The Globe Theatre. People will lose their jobs, you’ll be watching X-factor, Simon Cowell will be getting richer, radio stations will be churning out old back catalogues from people your dad or even your grandads age(vera lynn is No 1 this week) and the taxpayer will have to subsidize yet more unemployment. Please, please, please go and see a film in the cinema instead of buying it in Tesco’s car-park , buy a c.d. or album off itunes if you really like it, and god help us, keep buying books . If we do this, i really think we can make a difference.
She needs to sell records because she’s not a singer, and that’s not an offense to her because I think that she knows that too. (…) I think she’s a performer and she’s more of a personality than she is a singer. But I think when musicians are really making real music people come to the show and that’s what we make our money from, from playing live. And I think it’s probably harder for an artist like Lily and any other pop acts. It’s really about the track and about their personality and their celebrity and that’s how they make their money is selling those records. (…) So the downloads – she’s not going to win that fight. None of us will win that fight. So let’s just accept it and let’s see it as something that can be beautiful and it might change music for the better. It might sort the weeds from the flowers.
Interessanterweise entkräftet sie gerade das Argument, dass bekannte Musiker tendenziell weniger verdienen könnten, indem sie klar stellt, worum es aus ihrer Sicht wirklich geht:
Who said that musicians have to be millionaires? Who made this a rule? We don’t need that much money. We just don’t. We only need enough to make music and to eat and to go on tour.
Vor diesem Hintergrund ist der folgende 30 Sekunden lange Ausschnitt aus einem Interview mit Gerd Leonhard sehr interessant, der beschreibt, was Geld verdienen für einen Musiker auch bedeuten kann:
Bereits 2008 hat sich Joss Stone folgendermaßen über das File Sharing geäußert:
I think it’s great… (…) Yeah, I love it. I think it’s brilliant and I’ll tell you why (…) Music should be shared. (…) It’s ok, if one person buys it, it’s totally cool, burn it up, share it with your friends, I don’t care. I don’t care how you hear it as long as you hear it. As long as you come to my show, and have a great time listening to the live show it’s totally cool. I don’t mind. I’m happy that they hear it.
Charles Dunstone ist Gründer und Vorstandsvorsitzender von The Carphone Warehouse, des weltweit größten unabhängigen Filialisten für Telekommunikation. Er hat zum Thema File Sharing eine klare Meinung:
If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.
If people want to share content they will find another way to do it. … It is more about education and allowing people to get content easily and cheaply that will make a difference. This idea that it is all peer to peer and somehow the ISPs can just stop it is very naive.
Vor ein paar Tagen hatte ich auf eine norwegische Studie hingewiesen, die nahelegt, dass Musik-Filesharer auch oder gerade attraktive Kunden sein können. Nun bin ich bei der Los Angeles Times auf einen Beitrag gestoßen, der diesen Schluss auch für den Filmbereich nahelegt:
Vuze — the company that’s trying to sell licensed, high-def videos to users of the BitTorrent file-sharing software — has spent much of the past two years trying to persuade Hollywood that its users are customers, not thieves. So far, however, the major studios have entrusted little to Vuze beyond movie trailers and other promotional videos. Now Vuze is trying to prod Hollywood with some eye-opening data about its clientele’s buying habits and purchasing power: in addition to being copyright infringers, they spend a lot of money on movies and movie-watching gear. Said Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa, „Those users are actually Hollywood’s best customers.“
Yes, that’s a self-serving comment. But BianRosa’s assertion is supported by a survey by media consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates of about 1,300 Internet users between the ages of 18 and 44, nearly 700 of whom use Vuze … (weiterlesen lohnt sich)
Ergebnisse der Befragung: