When Numbers Don't Add Up → Totally Disagree

I totally disagree, my downloading of music from p2p software IS helping to destroy the music industry and when it falls I will be dancing a cooler jig than I am dancing right now. Then I will take my fair share of the glory for helping out in the revolutionary cause. I'm shaking my booty in glee as they continue to fall face forward.

said by Maxo:

---

I totally disagree, my downloading of music from p2p software IS helping to destroy the music industry and when it falls I will be dancing a cooler jig than I am dancing right now. Then I will take my fair share of the glory for helping out in the revolutionary cause. I'm shaking my booty in glee as they continue to fall face forward.

---

It is posts like this that strengthen the RIAA.

If you are going to pirate, then do it silently. Don't give the RIAA any ammo to take to the courts. Don't you think that someone monitors these forums? When they get tons of evidence from people like you on public forms saying "I steal and I am proud of it", it only helps them when they take it to the judge. You aren't some kind of digital robin hood.

The RIAA may be a corrupt organization, however, copyright infringment is also wrong.

Ahhhhrrrrr a pirate~

Walk de plank mate

"The RIAA may be a corrupt organization, however, copyright infringment is also wrong."

Who's really being 'infringed' upon? Yourself? Me? 'RIAA' (sic)

I know John and Rob from Buffalos very own GooGoo Dolls. I've played the clubs of Buffalo myself.

I remember countless times talkin to those 2 cats and hearing the horror stories of the 'Lables' and all the 'industry'.

If 'RIAA' was so damn worried abut the artists, maby they should pay them what their worth instead of them having to do months on the road wearing themselves out.

It would seem easier/wiser to put all those litigation funds into promotions and new artists rather then the blood-suckin lawyer/lobby industry.

Dave

said by Jackson$:

---

"The RIAA may be a corrupt organization, however, copyright infringment is also wrong."

Who's really being 'infringed' upon? Yourself? Me? 'RIAA' (sic)

I know John and Rob from Buffalos very own GooGoo Dolls. I've played the clubs of Buffalo myself.

I remember countless times talkin to those 2 cats and hearing the horror stories of the 'Lables' and all the 'industry'.

If 'RIAA' was so damn worried abut the artists, maby they should pay them what their worth instead of them having to do months on the road wearing themselves out.

It would seem easier/wiser to put all those litigation funds into promotions and new artists rather then the blood-suckin lawyer/lobby industry.

Dave

---

It doesn't matter who you know. The fact of the matter it is copyright infringment and distributing them over P2P and other means is pirating. If you are going to do it, then don't yap about it or how right it is.

P2P is _NOT_ pirating.

This,»www.theregister.co.uk/co ··· 574.html however is.

Infringing on copyrighted meterial for intentions to make a profit. Thinking otherwise is falling right into the RIAA/MPAA's hands.

The profits lost from P2P sharing is minimal, if not harmless. The profits lost from pirating however is excessive.

The profits lost due to people finding better music thats not RIAA owned is also massive. People dont want todays crap, they use P2P to find and enjoy new bands that dont even have any RIAA relations.

The RIAA hates this with a passion, its not about 'piracy', because it doesnt exist unless theirs a profit becoming of it. Its about control. They dont want people finding new music and avoiding theirs. Without that control they have had before the internet, they dont really stand a chance in todays world.

Buy independant music, and still be accused of lost sales due to 'piracy'.

Go figure it out.

No company makes all these excuses, false numbers, fake reports, congress demands/lies, blames everyone (including people that make them what they are, customers), and every new rediculious idea all because of 'piracy'.... You rarely see these major piracy ring busts, because the RIAA has the blame in the wrong place, a wrong focus, rather a deadly focus at that.

Killng online filesharing will not shutdown major piracy ring operations that occur in every part of the world.

Its always P2P this, P2P that, but where is the real piracy? Right at your local bargain discount swapmeet. Millions, if not billions being cost to the RIAA. Not everyone owns a computer, not everyone downloads, or can even afford a computer/and/or broadband line. But anyone can go and buy pirated cd's.

So think about that. Before P2P is blamed.

Also, you know the economy is a major play in lost sales...
If you havent noticed, even Mcdonalds has reported a 'first time ever' loss of sales in this quarter very recently.

If people are not going to fast food resturants like they used too, are they really going to buy CD's? Hell no. Im sure these people got better things to do with their money these days. All the layoffs, all the dying companies. People looking for work on UI arent going to go buy the latest Britney Spears porn sound flick.

The RIAA is acting savishly, as if they are the only company out their reporting lost revenue. Basically all this is one big stranglehold to go out there and get what they want, because now they have the biggest excuse and the best time period to try and do just that.

quote:

---

P2P is _NOT_ pirating.

This,»www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28574... however is.

Infringing on copyrighted meterial for intentions to make a profit. Thinking otherwise is falling right into the RIAA/MPAA's hands.

The profits lost from P2P sharing is minimal, if not harmless. The profits lost from pirating however is excessive.

---

As you and others here know, this is a huge grey area. How much profits are truly lost? We will never know. I do know one thing for sure. The RIAA is going to win the battle in the courts. They have so far, and no one will stand up to them. In then end, the "lost profits" will be huge.

Yes, the RIAA is a corrupt organization. I never denied that. However, stealing is stealing. You download and not buy...it is stealing. Doesn't matter how greedy the company is, it doesn't make it right to steal from the company due to greed.

quote:

---

No company makes all these excuses, false numbers, fake reports, congress demands/lies, blames everyone (including people that make them what they are, customers), and every new rediculious idea all because of 'piracy'.... You rarely see these major piracy ring busts, because the RIAA has the blame in the wrong place, a wrong focus, rather a deadly focus at that.

Killng online filesharing will not shutdown major piracy ring operations that occur in every part of the world.

---

The RIAA has a legitimate gripe though. Yes, it is about control, and the RIAA has had control of the industry for years. Now, they have to lower prices or go on the internet to sell. However, if they spend millions on a website, will they come? Especially considering the ease of use of P2P. How cheap will it have to be to have good sales numbers? We will probably never know until a good website is built and that site has everything the customer wants. Lets face it, the customer has room to demand a lot.

quote:

---

Also, you know the economy is a major play in lost sales...
If you havent noticed, even Mcdonalds has reported a 'first time ever' loss of sales in this quarter very recently.

---

I know the economy makes an impact. However, only a fool would say that P2P doesn't make an impact either. I know MANY people with gigs of music that haven't bought a CD in years. Yet they download daily. What about the lost sales from those people? I asked them if they would buy online music if it was cheap enough, and most of them said no due to the fact P2P was easy enough to use. Yes, this little survey isn't a survey of the masses, but it isn't something that suprises me. In the battle between cheap and free, the general public will always go toward free. Especially if the ease of use is there.

In conclusion...

P2P does detract from music sales in some way. Downloading music and distributing it via P2P is against the law. All grey areas and/or doubts about this will be cleared up in the courts.

I know the economy makes an impact. However, only a fool would say that P2P doesn't make an impact either.

Only a fool would presume to know something you CAN'T POSSIBLY.

said by Angrychair:

---

I know the economy makes an impact. However, only a fool would say that P2P doesn't make an impact either.

Only a fool would presume to know something you CAN'T POSSIBLY.

---

mmmmmm, troll.

said by Nightfall:

---

However, if they spend millions on a website, will they come?

---

I don't even see why this is an issue for them. If they can afford to spend money on worthless copy protection, buying politicians, hiring people to infiltrate P2P networks, etc., I don't think they're hurting as badly as they would have us think.

I'm not saying it's OK to use P2P to acquire music that you would normally have to buy, but the RIAA seems intent on blaming everything on file trading. And I'm not saying P2P has nothing to do with their sales being down, but they can't see the real problem -- 99.9% of mainstream music sucks, to put it bluntly.

said by Nightfall:

---

said by Angrychair:

---

I know the economy makes an impact. However, only a fool would say that P2P doesn't make an impact either.

Only a fool would presume to know something you CAN'T POSSIBLY.

---

mmmmmm, troll.

---

So it's a troll when I say someone is a fool for making unprovable claims, but when you make unprovable claims, and intimate that someone else is a fool for not believing them, that's not one?

Many people that download gigs of music wouldnt even buy the music in the first place even if they didnt download it. They downloaded it because they didnt want to buy it. Or because they were going to buy it later on. If they didnt download it, the RIAA wouldnt gain any sales because the person wouldnt of bought it to begin with.

How many of these people are out there?

If people dont want to buy CD's, they wont, and if they dont download music, they wont ever listen to music. No lost sales when there wasent even an intention to buy any cd's to begin with is there? Nope.

I just dont want to buy cd's. And if i stopped downloading music tomorrow, i still wouldnt ever buy CD's.

Lost sales? No. There wasent even a potential.

quote:

---

So it's a troll when I say someone is a fool for making unprovable claims, but when you make unprovable claims, and intimate that someone else is a fool for not believing them, that's not one?

---

I know for sure it does impact. My example above shows that friends and others I know that download and don't buy. Therefore, the industry is impacted right there. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that.

In fact, how many people do you know that download and don't buy music? It doesn't take much looking to see there is an impact against record sales and P2P is a culprit.

said by Spike401:

---

Many people that download gigs of music wouldnt even buy the music in the first place even if they didnt download it. They downloaded it because they didnt want to buy it. Or because they were going to buy it later on. If they didnt download it, the RIAA wouldnt gain any sales because the person wouldnt of bought it to begin with.

How many of these people are out there?

If people dont want to buy CD's, they wont, and if they dont download music, they wont ever listen to music. No lost sales when there wasent even an intention to buy any cd's to begin with is there? Nope.

I just dont want to buy cd's. And if i stopped downloading music tomorrow, i still wouldnt ever buy CD's.

Lost sales? No. There wasent even a potential.

---

Sorry but that is a flawed analogy.

There are many people I know that download just to avoid buying the music. That is pirating and copyright infringment. Plain and simple. If you don't want the music, then don't download or buy it. That makes the decision easy. It doesn't make it right to download and keep the song to avoid buying it in the store. There are no consequences, which is why people download.

Sure, there are people in the other spectrum that download and buy what they hear. I don't know any personally, but they exist.

The excuse of "Well, if I didn't download, then I still wouldn't buy" can't be proven. In the past, record sales were stronger considering prices were higher. These days, they are lower priced, and the economy is a lot tighter. I would like to turn back the clock and see what would happen today if P2P was never released. Then you could make that arguement. The fact is that you can't make that arguement because there is no IF. P2P is out and entrenched and there is no getting rid of it. You and I can both speculate, but the fact is that we don't know for sure what would happen.

said by The Antihero:

---

said by Nightfall:

---

However, if they spend millions on a website, will they come?

---

I don't even see why this is an issue for them. If they can afford to spend money on worthless copy protection, buying politicians, hiring people to infiltrate P2P networks, etc., I don't think they're hurting as badly as they would have us think.

I'm not saying it's OK to use P2P to acquire music that you would normally have to buy, but the RIAA seems intent on blaming everything on file trading. And I'm not saying P2P has nothing to do with their sales being down, but they can't see the real problem -- 99.9% of mainstream music sucks, to put it bluntly.

---

I agree. The money isn't the problem. I can see their fear that they could build the best site known to mankind and yet no one would buy because of various reasons. Either they are too expensive, but how much is reasonable? Fifty cents a download? What about bitrates? Bandwidth to distribute it? Maybe some people would just say, "P2P is easier and it is free after all" and just stick with that.

In fact, the RIAA is sitting pretty right now. The battle is for control right now. While the RIAA is doing what it takes to regain control, you have the morons on message boards proclaiming themselves to be digital robin hoods and showing off 30 gig collections. That does nothing but give the RIAA more firepower. When you hit a dog chained to a tree, you better be ready when the chain breaks.

said by Nightfall:

---

said by Spike401:

---

Many people that download gigs of music wouldnt even buy the music in the first place even if they didnt download it. They downloaded it because they didnt want to buy it. Or because they were going to buy it later on. If they didnt download it, the RIAA wouldnt gain any sales because the person wouldnt of bought it to begin with.

How many of these people are out there?

If people dont want to buy CD's, they wont, and if they dont download music, they wont ever listen to music. No lost sales when there wasent even an intention to buy any cd's to begin with is there? Nope.

I just dont want to buy cd's. And if i stopped downloading music tomorrow, i still wouldnt ever buy CD's.

Lost sales? No. There wasent even a potential.

---

Sorry but that is a flawed analogy.

There are many people I know that download just to avoid buying the music. That is pirating and copyright infringment. Plain and simple. If you don't want the music, then don't download or buy it. That makes the decision easy. It doesn't make it right to download and keep the song to avoid buying it in the store. There are no consequences, which is why people download.

Sure, there are people in the other spectrum that download and buy what they hear. I don't know any personally, but they exist.

The excuse of "Well, if I didn't download, then I still wouldn't buy" can't be proven. In the past, record sales were stronger considering prices were higher. These days, they are lower priced, and the economy is a lot tighter. I would like to turn back the clock and see what would happen today if P2P was never released. Then you could make that arguement. The fact is that you can't make that arguement because there is no IF. P2P is out and entrenched and there is no getting rid of it. You and I can both speculate, but the fact is that we don't know for sure what would happen.

---

Nightfall's OPINION is absolute, 100%, fallacy. Can you go back in time, eliminate filesharing from the equation, and prove that any song anyone has downloaded would have been sold to them as a cd instead?

You're on a slippery slope, and you're a troll. Not a good combination.
[text was edited by author 2002-12-18 15:16:06]

quote:

---

Nightfall's OPINION is absolute, 100%, fallacy. Can you go back in time, eliminate filesharing from the equation, and prove that any song anyone has downloaded would have been sold to them as a cd instead?

You're on a slippery slope, and you're a troll. Not a good combination.

---

No one can go back in time...that is the whole fault of your arguement. You say a lot of IF's. If we didn't have file sharing, no one would buy. Well, there is no way to remove the file sharing out of the equation so we will never know.

As for being on a slippery slope and a troll, sorry you have that opinion of me. Doesn't mean I resort to calling you names when I voice my opinions. Guess you do so I see what is going on.

said by Nightfall:

---

said by Spike401:

---

Many people that download gigs of music wouldnt even buy the music in the first place even if they didnt download it. They downloaded it because they didnt want to buy it. Or because they were going to buy it later on. If they didnt download it, the RIAA wouldnt gain any sales because the person wouldnt of bought it to begin with.

How many of these people are out there?

If people dont want to buy CD's, they wont, and if they dont download music, they wont ever listen to music. No lost sales when there wasent even an intention to buy any cd's to begin with is there? Nope.

I just dont want to buy cd's. And if i stopped downloading music tomorrow, i still wouldnt ever buy CD's.

Lost sales? No. There wasent even a potential.

---

Sorry but that is a flawed analogy.

There are many people I know that download just to avoid buying the music. That is pirating and copyright infringment. Plain and simple. If you don't want the music, then don't download or buy it. That makes the decision easy. It doesn't make it right to download and keep the song to avoid buying it in the store. There are no consequences, which is why people download.

Sure, there are people in the other spectrum that download and buy what they hear. I don't know any personally, but they exist.

The excuse of "Well, if I didn't download, then I still wouldn't buy" can't be proven. In the past, record sales were stronger considering prices were higher. These days, they are lower priced, and the economy is a lot tighter. I would like to turn back the clock and see what would happen today if P2P was never released. Then you could make that arguement. The fact is that you can't make that arguement because there is no IF. P2P is out and entrenched and there is no getting rid of it. You and I can both speculate, but the fact is that we don't know for sure what would happen.

---

That may be true about not buying it at all, but if P2P had nver been released, then the undergroud CD copying and swap meet markets would have picked up some of the market????

said by Nightfall:

---

quote:

---

Nightfall's OPINION is absolute, 100%, fallacy. Can you go back in time, eliminate filesharing from the equation, and prove that any song anyone has downloaded would have been sold to them as a cd instead?

You're on a slippery slope, and you're a troll. Not a good combination.

---

No one can go back in time...that is the whole fault of your argument. You say a lot of IF's. If we didn't have file sharing, no one would buy. Well, there is no way to remove the file sharing out of the equation so we will never know.

As for being on a slippery slope and a troll, sorry you have that opinion of me. Doesn't mean I resort to calling you names when I voice my opinions. Guess you do so I see what is going on.

---

There is no fault in my arguement. That's the point. NO YOU CANNOT GO BACK IN TIME. THAT IS THE POINT. You can never prove that filesharing has actually impacted sales either positively or negatively. Everything you'll ever read regarding whether it has, or hasn't affected sales, is purely speculative opinion, just like what you've posted.

I know for sure it does impact. My example above shows that friends and others I know that download and don't buy. Therefore, the industry is impacted right there. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that.

Let me write it out in small words for you to understand: THIS IS NOT PROOF.

You can NEVER prove that any of your friends would have actually bought anything rather than simply downloading it for free. End of discussion.

Filesharing has impacted sales and will continue to impact sales in some way, shape, or form.

quote:

---

Let me write it out in small words for you to understand: THIS IS NOT PROOF.

You can NEVER prove that any of your friends would have actually bought anything rather than simply downloading it for free. End of discussion.

---

It is if they tell me they would. Especially when they say, "I would have bought the CD if I had the money." That is an actual quote. Therefore, there are lost sales right there.

Any reasonably intelligent individual would see the impact of P2P on sales. Some people speculate it is huge and others say it is small. I am merely stating that it exists and it is negative. If you fail to see that, you are living in a cave or something.

I would not argue for or against the idea that what I do is pirating. But I don't have any moral dilemma over what I download. Whether I download The Beatles or some new bands album, that band is not seeing much any of the money. The people who did the real leg work and put forward the talent to make it available aren't seeing anything. It's the guys in the suits picking up the check. Now if I download Atom & His Package's new album or stuff from The Coup then I feel a little guilty. These bands have built a fan base based off of real hard work. The album sales go directly to the band members and they work very hard to just barely get by.
But let's say I hear The Turtles - Happy Together on the radio and want it for myself. I'm gonna have to shell out probably $10-$15 either for the full album or for a best of the oldies album to get it. I don't think so. When there are no other options people result to stealing. The fault lies on the lack of options laid down by the recording industry. My desire to destroy that industry isn't because I don't care or whatever. I hope the business suits go bankruped. I am a huge music fan and I own over 400 albums of music. I'm pissed that I can't buy albums or songs at a reasonable price and I'm pissed that when I do buy them I'm not supporting these guys.
Plus the social implications that the recording industry has done. Let's say I want to listen to rap. Everything on the radio and MTV is a racist portrayol of black culture. Back when rap was a revolutionary music you heard a lot more of, "Some police think that they have the authority to kill a minority." Now adays it's all something about, "Oh yeah, I'm a n***er cappin' another n***er." The recording industry has removed the revolution and replaced it with sugar coated racism. They've done the same to punk. You used to hear kids talking about how they hate preppy jocks and being tired of being picked on. Now it's those same stupid jocks playing the lame ass sissy-punk that MTV would have you believe is sooo authentic. Revolutionary music becomes conformity.

Bottom line is these people don't care about music or anyone else. They just care about $$$. If you care about music and care about supporting the artist then you should care about bringing down the RIAA. And if people really want to buy N SYNC or Brittany Spears albums then by all means let them do it. And let that money be directly funneled to the respective artists. Allow them musical freedom instead of the restrictive record contracts. By freeing up artists rights and giving them the due respect then you will see more record sales, lower prices, and better music that comes from the heart and not from the lowest common denominator. I totally agree with nightfall. It is piracy, it is illegal, and it is hurting the RIAA. I hope those teenager who have been suckered into crappy music at the risk of looking not-cool download those albums instead of paying the record industries for their lies.

said by Nightfall:

---

Filesharing has impacted sales and will continue to impact sales in some way, shape, or form.

quote:

---

Let me write it out in small words for you to understand: THIS IS NOT PROOF.

You can NEVER prove that any of your friends would have actually bought anything rather than simply downloading it for free. End of discussion.

---

It is if they tell me they would. Especially when they say, "I would have bought the CD if I had the money." That is an actual quote. Therefore, there are lost sales right there.

Any reasonably intelligent individual would see the impact of P2P on sales. Some people speculate it is huge and others say it is small. I am merely stating that it exists and it is negative. If you fail to see that, you are living in a cave or something.

---

Obviously you're either too stupid, or too small-minded to ever understand that you're wrong. Oh well, your loss.

quote:

---

Obviously you're either too stupid, or too small-minded to ever understand that you're wrong. Oh well, your loss.

---

Is it dark in that cave, troll?

Without quoting your post, I have to agree. The sooner the RIAA loses control the better. Either that or the sooner they wise up and put a full catalog of music on the internet for full download without restrictions the better. The RIAA lost control of the car when P2P was released. Now they are trying to get the steering wheel back.

The trend in the court system indicates the RIAA are winning. My hope is that people tone down the bragging about their 30 gig mp3 collections, how right they are, and how wrong the RIAA is. That will bite us in the ass later.

The obvious thing to do is to support the band directly by attending concerts, buying band merchandise, and so on.

Glad we could make a sort of consensus. I do see your point about toning down the bragging. I definitely agree about the best way to support bands.
It's nice when two disagreeing sides can at least see each others point without butting heads.

said by Nightfall:

---

Filesharing has impacted sales and will continue to impact sales in some way, shape, or form.

quote:

---

Let me write it out in small words for you to understand: THIS IS NOT PROOF.

You can NEVER prove that any of your friends would have actually bought anything rather than simply downloading it for free. End of discussion.

---

It is if they tell me they would. Especially when they say, "I would have bought the CD if I had the money." That is an actual quote. Therefore, there are lost sales right there.

Any reasonably intelligent individual would see the impact of P2P on sales. Some people speculate it is huge and others say it is small. I am merely stating that it exists and it is negative. If you fail to see that, you are living in a cave or something.

---

LOL. . .so are you saying that if p2p didn't exist your friend would still be able to go out and purchase a CD if he has no money? Thats not a lost sale you idiot. Your analogy is completely flawed. . .p2p is not just about signed artist music, but also but unsigned groups that want to get themselves heard. You are ensentially for the RIAA limiting free speech for there own profit. Additionally, I admit I have downloaded music from p2p. But its all music that I own and if I do sample music that I like I go out and buy it. That is not piracy you fool, its just the same as going to a music store where you can sample the music. What's next? Is the big bad RIAA going to limit that to?
[text was edited by author 2002-12-20 04:15:42]

quote:

---

LOL. . .so are you saying that if p2p didn't exist your friend would still be able to go out and purchase a CD if he has no money? Thats not a lost sale you idiot. Your analogy is completely flawed. . .p2p is not just about signed artist music, but also but unsigned groups that want to get themselves heard. You are ensentially for the RIAA limiting free speech for there own profit. Additionally, I admit I have downloaded music from p2p. But its all music that I own and if I do sample music that I like I go out and buy it. That is not piracy you fool, its just the same as going to a music store where you can sample the music. What's next? Is the big bad RIAA going to limit that to?

---

Another troll! No need to flame and call names.

When you want something bad enough, you make the effort to save the money. Either that or you charge it. There are millions of people out there that buy things they want but can't afford. Just because you don't have the money, doesn't mean you won't do what it takes to purchase or afford it. Even if it takes working overtime to get it. Therefore, it isn't a "lost" sale.

As for sampling music and then buying what you like, I have no problem with that. I have never stated that was bad. In fact, that is what I do! The music industry has made a boatload of money off me since I got P2P. You would think the RIAA would take that into account. However, they do not. They only worry about keeping control of their cash cow.

said by r00tdenied:

---

its just the same as going to a music store where you can sample the music. What's next? Is the big bad RIAA going to limit that to?

---

Seriously, I wouldn't put it past them. I've listened to albums at the store, liked them, and bought them. On the other side of the coin, I've listened to a few, found out they sucked and didn't buy them. I'm surprised they don't consider these "lost sales."

said by Nightfall:

---

In fact, how many people do you know that download and don't buy music? It doesn't take much looking to see there is an impact against record sales and P2P is a culprit.

---

I understand where your coming from, but you are assuming that everyone that downloads music had intentions to buy the CD. If they never had the intention to buy the CD but download a song, how can you consider that a potential profit?

said by stickfigure:

---

said by Nightfall:

---

In fact, how many people do you know that download and don't buy music? It doesn't take much looking to see there is an impact against record sales and P2P is a culprit.

---

I understand where your coming from, but you are assuming that everyone that downloads music had intentions to buy the CD. If they never had the intention to buy the CD but download a song, how can you consider that a potential profit?

---

Lets say that 100 people hear a song they like or a series of songs they like. Instead of buy the CD, they download. How many of those would buy the CD before P2P was released? 25? 50? I would think that 25% is not outrageous.

The key is they download and keep the song on their systems. It isn't like they just download to listen for a few days then delete. A lot of people I know just download and enjoy the songs over and over again. Even for a full year or more the albums has been out. I think that is a strong indication of lost profit. It is hard to measure the exact damage though because the surveys are not accurate. I know people who have lied on the surveys just to protect P2P when they haven't bought a CD in years and yet have a 20 gig collection of music.