Independent of that is the fact that when an artist sells two songs on Itunes they make as much money as if they sold a whole CD. period. the end.
The second fact does not refute first, it is orthogonal.
The point they're making is that purchases are shifting from albums to tracks (as you mention), and because of the higher revenue generated (for the artist) by selling tracks, artists are winning in this scenario and the record labels are losing money.
This point is clearly made in the first bullet of the EFF article.
The larger point isn't about artists at all, but that the old school music industry is waging (and winning) a war using copyright laws, and this is having disastrous effects on free speech. The example in the first paragraph was about the seizure of 82 domains, without any due process, and this was basically because the government enforced (without question) the claims of the music industry.
Imagine if it happened to you, your domain was seized because a company with some lawyers said it was infringing on their copyright. Think you'd be miffed?
Other countries are enacting 3-strikes laws (e.g. France), where if you were accused of copyright violation (downloading illegal mp3/mp4) 3 times (accused, not even convicted), then your IP is blocked, and you can no longer access the internet from that connection.
And the EFF is saying that the music industry is getting these kinds of legislation passed on the false premise that "piracy" is harming artists' livelihoods, when in fact margins on money from sales of music is increasing for artists.
Obviously you can disagree with their points, but the facts they've presented do not conflict.
Purchases are up 50%. period. the end.
Independent of that is the fact that when an artist sells two songs on Itunes they make as much money as if they sold a whole CD. period. the end.
The second fact does not refute first, it is orthogonal.
The point they're making is that purchases are shifting from albums to tracks (as you mention), and because of the higher revenue generated (for the artist) by selling tracks, artists are winning in this scenario and the record labels are losing money.
This point is clearly made in the first bullet of the EFF article.
The larger point isn't about artists at all, but that the old school music industry is waging (and winning) a war using copyright laws, and this is having disastrous effects on free speech. The example in the first paragraph was about the seizure of 82 domains, without any due process, and this was basically because the government enforced (without question) the claims of the music industry.
Imagine if it happened to you, your domain was seized because a company with some lawyers said it was infringing on their copyright. Think you'd be miffed?
Other countries are enacting 3-strikes laws (e.g. France), where if you were accused of copyright violation (downloading illegal mp3/mp4) 3 times (accused, not even convicted), then your IP is blocked, and you can no longer access the internet from that connection.
And the EFF is saying that the music industry is getting these kinds of legislation passed on the false premise that "piracy" is harming artists' livelihoods, when in fact margins on money from sales of music is increasing for artists.
Obviously you can disagree with their points, but the facts they've presented do not conflict.