el temps
diumenge
dissabte
DOWNLOAD
The music industry does like to insist that filesharing - aka illegal downloading - is killing the industry: that every one of the millions of music files downloaded each day counts as a "lost" sale, which if only it could somehow have been prevented would put stunning amounts of money into impoverished artists' hands. And, of course, music industry bosses' wallets. But we won't mention that.
Take the story that appeared in this paper last week:
At least 7 million people in Britain use illegal downloads, costing the economy billions of pounds and thousands of jobs, according to a report.
Shared content on one network was worth about £12bn a year according to the research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property.
David Lammy, minister for intellectual property, said: "Illegal downloading robs our economy of millions of pounds every year and seriously damages business and innovation throughout the UK. "It is something that needs tackling, and we are serious about doing so."
Well, up to a point, minister. Ben Goldacre took apart the rather dodgy calculations behind the claims on Saturday.
But it left me wondering. Why does the music industry persist in saying that every download is a lost sale? If you even think about it, it can't be true. People - even downloaders - only have a finite amount of money. In times gone by, sure, they would have been buying vinyl albums. But if you stopped them downloading, would they troop out to the shops and buy those songs?
I don't think so. I suspect they're doing something different. I think they're spending the money on something else.
What else, I mused, might they be buying? Hmm... young.. like the entertainment industry... ah, how about computer games and DVDs? Thus began a hunt for the figures for UK sales of games and of DVDs and of music to see if there was any consistent relationship between them. And since this was about filesharing, it seemed sensible to analyse it since 1999 - when Napster started and blew up the CD business model.
(It's surprising how hard it was to find these statistics. You'd think someone like ELSPA, the European Leisure Software Publishers' Association, would have them. Nope: instead initially I had to track them via press releases. The BPI, representing British record labels, said that it didn't have numbers going back before 2004, which seemed a bit 1984-ish to me; it turns out the BPI doesn't like to release those figures because it changed the methodology for recording sales in 2004, effectively reducing the number. At least DVD data are easily obtained from the British Video Association and the UK Film Council. Thank you.)
The first clue of where all those downloaders are really spending their money came in searching for games statistics: year after year ELSPA had hailed "a record year". In fact if you look at the graph above, you'll see that games spend has risen dramatically - from £1.18bn in 1999 to £4.03bn in 2008.
Meanwhile music spending (allowing for that * of adjustment in 2004 onwards) has gone from £1.94bn to £1.31bn.
DVD sales and rentals, meanwhile, have nearly doubled, from a total of £1.286bn in 1999 to £2.56bn in 2008.
If we assume that there's roughly the same amount of discretionary spending available (which, even allowing for the credit bubble, should be roughly true; most of the credit went into houses), then it's clear who the culprit is: the games industry. By 2009, the amount spent in games and music is almost exactly the same as 1999 (though note that the music industry changed its methods from 2004).
Yes, downloaders aren't spending money on the music industry, and in that way they are hurting it. But I'd argue that the true volume of "lost" sales is nowhere near the claims made. Assume that music couldn't be copied (as many games can't). I don't think that the volume of music sales would equate to all those downloads. At best, it would be £600m larger.
But the reality is that nowadays, one can choose between a game costing £40 that will last weeks, or a £10 CD with two great tracks and eight dud ones. I think a lot of people are choosing the game - and downloading the two tracks. That's real discretion in spending. It's hurting the music industry, sure. But let's not cloud the argument with false claims about downloads.
divendres
dimecres
dissabte
diumenge
YNEVANIRETAC
In my country, I think that the only influence of other cultures on the food is the one that comes from mass media, overall television and cinema. This way, in our eating habits we have taken products that habitually appear in North American films, like pizzas and hamburgers, which are delicious.
In addition, it’s necessary to add that the people who work have less time to eat, so they consume more pizzas and hamburgers (and ready-made meals), which are easier to cook.
On the other hand, the influence of the immigrants on the food in my country is small. In any case, it depends on the origin place. Thus, for example, the immigrants coming from South Africa have influenced us very little; I have still not seen any restaurant in my city that cooks typical plates of Africa. I have not seen either cooks who use typical products of Africa in the kitchen.
Once I read in a book that an English traveller in Egypt asked to an Egyptian why the Egyptian food is so bad. The Egyptian responded to him that he had to eat typical dishes of Egypt, not to eat dishes of English kitchen. In conclusion, we have to adapt to the place where we are.
dissabte
COCA COLA ZERO
Luego del hartazgo que han sufrido los consumidores ante tanta publicidad veraniega realizada por Coca Cola para su nuevo producto «ZERO», llegan las opiniones médicas y de especialistas sobre las «bondades», o no, de la nueva bebida cola que promete CERO AZUCAR y un implícito «Éxito social» a todo el que la beba, producido por las bien pensadas piezas publicitarias utilizadas en el lanzamiento de la demandada bebida.
Los consumidores se preguntaban al conocer la nueva hermana de la línea Coca: ¿Qué diferencia tiene la ZERO con la Coca Cola LIGHT? ¿No es acaso que ambas carecen de azúcar en su composición? Las respuestas están en sus etiquetas leyendo la composición química de ambas:
La Coca LIGHT tiene: Acesulfame K (16mg/%) y Aspartamo (24mg/%), logrando en total 40 mg/100% de bebida.
Mientras que la ZERO tiene Ciclamato de Sodio* (27mg%), Acesulfame K (15mg%) y Aspartamo (12 mg%)* haciéndola más dulce que la otra (en total 54mg/100% de bebida).
Teniendo en cuenta que el edulcorante* «Ciclamato de Sodio» está terminantemente prohibido por la F.D.A. (Organismo maximo de control de alimentos y drogas de los EEUU de América) por tener efectos comprobados en la generación de tumores cancerígenos:
(667 mg/kg y día de ciclamato sódico generan tumores en el 50% de los ratones con esa dosis, comprobado en más de un estudio, según la UNIVERSIDAD DE BERKELEY)
Y que el Ciclamato (10 US$ por Kilo) es mucho mas barato que el Aspartamo (152 US$ por Kilo), ¿Qué Coca Cola va a tomar de ahora en adelante?
Anexo.
Como es mi costumbre en investigar por internet, no creí en Absoluto, pues no hay fuentes de información (¡¡¡rarísimo!!!).
Así que cuando tuve una hora libre, me metí al famosísimo FDA y ¡sorpresa! Que me encontré... Hay una lista de aditivos a los alimentos que se llama 'Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)' o aditivos generalmente reconocidos como seguros. Y ¿qué creen?...
Efectivamente el Ciclamato de Sodio, no solamente no aparece en la lista, sino que además fue retirado.
¿Fuente? http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-appa.html , que dice: Sodium cyclamate - NNS, ILL - Removed from GRAS list 10-21-69 - 189.
Seguí buscando y encontré una lista de 'cualquier cosa añadida a la comida en los Estados Unidos' Con sigla EAFUS (Everything Added to Food in the United States). En la que claramente está prohibido el Ciclamato de Sodio: SODIUM CYCLAMATE PROHIBITED.
Finalmente: PART 189--SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN HUMAN FOOD.
189.135 Cyclamate and its derivatives.
¿Alguna duda?. Hasta aquí el mensaje que me llegó. Ahora mis comentarios:
La persona que me mandó el mensaje preguntó que por qué si la FDA había prohibido el tal Ciclamato de Sodio no había prohibido la Coca-Cola Zero en USA. La respuesta es simple: ¡¡La coca-cola Zero que venden en los Estados Unidos NO tiene ciclamato de sodio!!.
Como no lo tiene ni en Canada, ni en el Reino Unido ni en la mayor parte de los países europeos. Eso se lo dejan a los países 'pobres' (los países de Europa Oriental y América Latina). Cuando sacaron la Coca Cola Zero en México el año pasado se formó una polémica porque tenía ese ingrediente y la tuvieron que cambiar.
Coca Cola nunca aceptó que fuera por el ingrediente que tenía, sino dice que para 'mejorarle el sabor'. Es indignante lo que estas grandes empresas hacen en los Países del mal llamado 'tercer mundo'.
Les importa un comino lo que pase en la salud de los consumidores (que en su ignorancia por el desconocimiento de ésta, se creen que son dietéticas). El todo es hacer dinero, dinero, mas dinero (Culto al dios momo). Ojalá en el resto de los paises perjudicados se hiciera algo como lo hicieron en México.
Y por increible que parezca, según mi investigación, la Coca Cola ZERO que se vende en España también tiene ese ciclamato de sodio... pero aún mas raro... la que venden en Alemania también.
POR FAVOR CONTRIBUYAMOS CON UNA CAUSA JUSTA, REENVIA ESTE MENSAJE A TODO EL QUE PUEDAS PARA QUE SE SEPA QUÉ CLASE DE VENENO SE ESTA BEBIENDO.
dimecres
Subscriure's a:
Missatges (Atom)