A lot of musicians on my facebook newsfeed are passing around a link to this article. Lowry speaks the truth. It's time to stop making it excusable to download music without making an attempt to compensate the artist who created the music. A lot of the comments here are trying to argue that copyright is not property, copyright exists to promote public good ... and then what? Is it for public good to download music for free? As long as the copyright term has not expired, it is exactly like property.

Beethoven belongs firmly to the "classical" style, including his later works. There is no way you can include him with the romantics. Schubert is the first "romantic," though still with one foot in the classical style.

Masnick only acknowledges that the metrics are faulty, he does not acknowledge that they don't actually support his statement that the music production has increased, which is contradicted by Lowry's direct observation, even if it's based on a limited sample size. All these metrics only reflect the side of the sellers of music, such as apple and amazon, which as it turns out is not the same as the creators of music. The only exception would be kickstarter, in which musicians both raise the funds and sell directly, but Masnick does not give any data on how prevalent its use is.

If Masnick didn't "create" this metric, which is faulty, it doesn't absolve him from using it to justify his claim that "the sky is rising" for music content creators. He also says:

This contradicts Lowry's observation, based on his wife's recording business, that music production has decreased. Musicians no longer have the budget to make professional recordings, compared with the past and also are less willing to invest in it as in the past, because it doesn't recoup costs because of piracy. They instead concentrate on live shows.

One problem in Masnick's report, as I see it, is that he does not acknowledge that the "technical giants" do well for themselves in selling music without passing the gains along to the musicians who created it. He touts kickstarter, as if it's a viable route for most of the musicians. He mentions bandcamp without saying its actual share in music sold.

How exactly is his criticism "feeble"? Lowery catches several specific problems with the report, such as including game revenue in its metrics and using "music transactions" instead of music revenues. Are you saying these don't count or are somehow invalid?

I see no problem with Lowery establishing his credentials upfront. It allows the reader to understand his biases and also decide what statements can be taken at face value. For instance, I know upfront that the author actually understands what is involved in the process of producing a record and the process of making a recording. The same cannot be said of the majority of those posting on slashdot. For instance, I saw someone commenting negatively about Lowry's description of needing to position microphones, which takes time. The process of recording is still a labor-intensive process, in spite of the technical advances.

I think it is quite relevant to establish whether a report that he criticizes may be biased. Whether or not it rises to the level of "propaganda" or if you want a more politically correct term, does not matter. This is still relevant and from what I understand it is not stated clearly in that report and that site.

Pretty much all of your criticism comes down to presentation, rather than substance.

The slashdot's story is about Lowery's article, which has the same title as the Slashdot's story. I believe that this is what the majority has been discussing. You, however, came in with a snarky post without qualifying that you want to discuss his facebook post from a long time ago and the TechDirt's criticism based on the same. In other words, you want to create your own discussion, based on your own perspective, and your main concern is how Lowery presents himself on Techdirt. I believe others may have been misled by this, as I was, thinking that this is discussion of Lowery's actual position.

what's that supposed to prove? That Lowery can use non-censured language? That's it? I read the whole 5-part article that Lowery wrote, which is well-argued and deserves much respect. I also read the link that you provided in which a blogger criticizes his position without any qualification, then in the comments tries to weasel out of it by saying that he is really responding to a facebook post. That criticism contains nothing persuasive for me and no real data. If you care to point me to what specifically you agree in that criticism, then maybe I'll understand your position. Otherwise, what I see is a well-written, long article by Lowery and half-assed criticism of what turns out to be a facebook post by Lowery from a TechDirt blogger (sorry I forget the name) and then uncivil comments after that blog, which don't sway me one way or the other.

My comment was posted as AC because I didn't realize that I was not logged in. As far as your assertion that Lowerly's posts were a fail, I disagree completely. After reading in full both Lowerly's posts and Masnick's criticism of apparently Lowerly's Facebook posts, I came away with much respect for Lowerly and zero respect for Masnick and for TechDirt. Your implication that Lowerly somehow pays me to comment is simply idiotic and paranoid.