I actually thought it would be higher than 58%!

It's been this way ever since the tape deck. Who here has not traded tapes with friends back in the day. It just been replaced with cd burning.

Eric, maybe so, but with file sharing it done blowed up

Eric, that's about one of the most retarded things I've seen written in BV comments section, and there is a lot of stupid shit said here.

Where's the pie graph denoting the amount of people that download, rip, or burn music that they wouldn't buy anyway?

Like that new Raconteurs album.

eric's not retarded. it is essentially the same thing...i used to borrow a stack of tapes or cds from friends and tape a copy for myself. im a jew...yall can hate all you want.

the fact of the matter is...is it doesnt take 50 minutes (if you were blessed with the hot auto reverse feature ;-)) it takes 30 seconds and you don't need to drive over to your friends house to grab the disc, cuz its just sitting in their azureus seed list.

this is the way it is. the RIAA (and the hollywood studios for that matter) and the like have spent a decade squandering a huge opportunity. instead of holding onto their price tag...they should have realized how much cheaper it is to produce and distribute digital music. instead of being total dicklicks and trying to charge the money theyre used to getting that had costs of disc burning, jewel cases, shipping costs, and dependence on middlemen (RIP Tower Records).

they done fucked up. now i can fit a tower records inventory on a hard drive i can fit in my pocket. and for 100 bucks, my friend can buy a hard drive and copy 50000 songs for them overnight. its over. move on. grow with the times. the industry caused its own demise.

EVOLVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^

Whatever, i'm not against sharing music. I just uploaded a "mixtape" to yousendit.com today to distribute to a list of about 173 friends via email. It's just ton easier to upload a zipped file to yousendit.com and make it available to a hundreds of my friends than making hundreds of copies on tape could ever be.

it's FACT that digital technology and services like yousendit.com/napster/soulseek et. cetera has made it easier to share and distribute music on a larger scale than was ever possible before for an individual. AND IT's CHEAP. You don't have to buy the tapes.

I don't get this whole "downloads and cd burning is just replacing tape trading" argument. It's just dumb. Yes, people shared music back when we were listening to music on tape. But not in this scale, and not with such ease.

were the labels greedy? Yes. Did they not see the future? indeed they didn't. But did digital technology simply replace what was already going on with tape trading or even CD burning before we had the ability to easily transport large files across the net? NO. It's just silly to think so. So yes, Eric made a retarded statement.

great point gordon. my external is filled with shit i'll never listen to and certainly would never have purchased.

YES. CASSETTE TAPES WERE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR JOE SHMO TO SHARE MUSIC. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS IS RELATED?

PEOPLE WERENT PRESSING WAX IN THEIR APT TO MIX THEIR JIMI HENDRIX AND BEATLES TRACKS!

way to add on "music stealers" to the rest of the sterotypes for jews velvet evolver...

velvet evolver, I'm going to call you retarded now too. I'm in no way saying tapes were not the first way to share music.

i'm just saying that digital technology made it easier and more prevalent, and did not simply just replace what tape trading was already doing. it expanded upon that sharing/trading significantly. are you high? you're making no sense at all.

Some mook called Velvet Evolver said "yall". wow. BTW, saw Slash last night. dude's still wearing that lid and smoking cigarettes. Evolve indeed

anon 11:57 -

youre a self loathing jew. embrace your faith. get free shit.

velvet evolver - yall's a mook

good music will continue to be made by people who do it because they love it, not for profit. we will all benefit.

I did not take into the account of illegal downloading because the charts above to not not represent those numbers. The above chart deals with people trading music with each other or buying it. So my comments are correct.

YES!!! ERIC! TAKE THAT ANONYMOUSES!!!!!!!!!!

"good music will continue to be made by people who do it because they love it, not for profit. we will all benefit."

If people really feel that way, why not support more funding for the arts, so the people who make music (or paint or write or anything else) becasue they "love it" can, you know, eat? I hate the major lables and am glad to see them die, but it's strange to see this kind of sentiment in a city that for the past 15 years has become increasingly hostile to artists (at least artists that don't have wealthy parents).

"good music will continue to be made by people who do it because they love it, not for profit."

That doesn't mean that music made by people with an eye towards financial gain necessarily sucks.

"why not support more funding for the arts"

Government-funded rock 'n' roll? Oh hell no.

SOCIALIZE MUSICAL EXPRESSION!!!! hillary'08

Eric, I think the "P2P" yellow section represents illegal file sharing.

100 % here we come!!!

Check out the question that the survey takers asked the respondents: "How many CD's/paid downloads/borrowed CD's did you buy/download/burn/rip for yourself in the past 12 months?"

12 months? I can't remember that far back. These results should be taken with a huge grain of salt.