×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Report Claims 95% of Music Downloads Are Illegal

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the seems-low dept.

Music 331

Un pobre guey writes "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) press release claims that 95% of music file downloads in 2008, an estimated 40 billion files, were illegal. Oddly enough, digital music sales are up: 'The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value. Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007. Recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined... Despite these developments, the music sector is still overshadowed by the huge amount of unlicensed music distributed online. Collating separate studies in 16 countries over a three-year period, IFPI estimates over 40 billion files were illegally file-shared in 2008, giving a piracy rate of around 95 per cent.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

331 comments

Inflation... (4, Insightful)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491105)

From the report:

Music companiesâ(TM) digital revenues internationally grew by an estimated 25 per cent in 2008

I can think of a long list of other industries that would love to have that kind of growth given the current economy.

Using an inflammatory and inflated claim that "95% of all downloads are pirated" is just showing how greedy the music industry is. But we all knew that already.

--
FairSoftware.net [fairsoftware.net] -- where geeks are their own boss

Re:Inflation... (3, Insightful)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491225)

The sole fact that their digital revenues have gone up does not tell you much about the growth of the industry.

Re:Inflation... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491415)

Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Commander Taco was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Taco and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Taco was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Taco was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Taco that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my Taco was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Taco - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Taco is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Commander Taco started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Taco's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend Taco is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, Taco had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"
Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Commander Taco was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Taco and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Taco was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Taco was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Taco that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my Taco was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Taco - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Taco is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Commander Taco started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Taco's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend Taco is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, Taco had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"
Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Commander Taco was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Taco and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Taco was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Taco was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Taco that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my Taco was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Taco - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Taco is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Commander Taco started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Taco's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend Taco is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, Taco had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"
Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Commander Taco was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Taco and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Taco was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Taco was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Taco that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my Taco was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Taco - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Taco is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Commander Taco started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Taco's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend Taco is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, Taco had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"
Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Commander Taco was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Taco and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Taco was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Taco was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Taco that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my Taco was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Taco - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Taco is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Commander Taco started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Taco's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend Taco is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, Taco had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"
Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Commander Taco was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Taco and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Taco was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Taco was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Taco that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my Taco was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Taco - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Taco is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Commander Taco started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Taco's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face -

Re:Inflation... (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491757)

The fact that the digital downloads grew from 25% and went from 20% of all sales to 25% of all sales says that overall sales remained the same (ie the digital downloads were direct cannibalization of physical purchases). The numbers themselves give that for a fact.

Couple that with the economy right now and you could say that, since the rest of the economy has gone to shit, avoiding a decline was as good as they could have hoped for. In addition, you could say that since digital downloads make a la carte purchasing possible where physical sales require you to buy a whole cd, the popular songs are getting even more popular with digital downloads. I think that 4x the number of people downloading certain songs would be good overall for the music industry since concert sales are a big draw and everything else (generally) would remain even.

That doesn't take into account the cost to produce a cd or the comparitive profit margins between the two. I don't know what those comparisons are and I'm not even going to guess at them since the rest of my post is based on things that are true and relatively simple extrapolations from that point, but I will say that I personally believe that the shift from physical to digital media isn't hurting their business, although it is definitely changing it. Let's call it a horizontal shift with opportunities to capitalize on the change.

Re:Inflation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26492005)

Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007.

Wow ... vinyl and tape still account for 80% of all music sales? I though the market penetration of the CDDA** format was higher than that.

** CDDA = Compact Disc Digital Audio

Smarter idiots, please.

Dear Switcheurs, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491233)

Leopard fucking sucks, because Apple sold out to you PC users. All the interface changes--the ostentatiously translucent menu bar, the flat file folders, the dark gray backgrounds--these all feel like something Microsoft would have shat out. But no, it's apparently Apple's attempt to entice more of you Windows refugees into a community that doesn't want you mouthbreathers anywhere near.

Hope you're fucking happy, you tasteless dweebs. You better make an effort to blend in at Macworld because I'm gonna punch any of you khaki-wearing fratboys I see in the mouth. And I know all the old-school Mac users stand with me on this.

Re:Dear Switcheurs, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26492077)

For such big man talk, you felt the need to comment anonymously. On the internet. On a thread completely unrelated to what you're ranting about. That hardly anyone who would care will read.

I think someone needs a hug.

*hug*

Re:Inflation... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491279)

so did the artists themselves see at 25% increase as well, or are they being screwed on all sides now?

Re:Inflation... (4, Informative)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491861)

Remember that the digital revenue increase is matched with a non-digital revenue decrease. That is, increased downloads come in part from people who used to buy CDs. So, total revenues are not up 25%.

Re:Inflation... (0)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491381)

it uses the maths in it's job, then it puts the lotion on it's skin.

Re:Inflation... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491427)

It uses proper grammar in its posts, and it will not lose its access to the site.

Seriously, is it really that difficult? His, hers, theirs, ours, yours... no apostrophes. Why is "its" so difficult to use properly?

Re:Inflation... (0, Redundant)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491645)

Because the word "hi" is rarely verbed; if it were, it would have to have an irregular singular verb form, at which point everybody would screw that up, too. "He hi's at the cute girl around the corner every time he drives by." See how unfortunate that would be?

Re:Inflation... (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492091)

Probably because people get confused with ownership, i.e. Becky's, Steve's, David's, Slashdot's, etc. "It" is still an object, so although it's gramatically wrong, it does make logical sense.

Re:Inflation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491385)

Their digital revenue may be up, but their overall sales are way down once again, because almost nobody buys CDs anymore, and that was their main gravy train.

Re:Inflation... (4, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491545)

Their digital revenue may be up, but their overall sales are way down once again, because almost nobody buys CDs anymore, and that was their main gravy train.

Of course, who wants CDs when they could have something digital instead?

Re:Inflation... (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491693)

Of course, who wants CDs when they could have something digital instead?

Your joke is at least a little funny, but it's also sort of insightful. But it's really who wants CDs when they could have something random-access instead? Fucking spiral tracks.

Re:Inflation... (3, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491495)

Funny, the RIAA reported the figure at over 9000%. Clearly we must be fair and balanced, and average both sides to reach a compromise.

(>9000% + 95%) / 2 is >4547.5%

Re:Inflation... (5, Interesting)

pestilence669 (823950) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491533)

Using an inflammatory and inflated claim that "95% of all downloads are pirated" is just showing how greedy the music industry is. But we all knew that already.

It may not be inflated. Remember what the music industry considers piracy: Copying your library to an MP3 player, burning a CD for your car, putting your library on a laptop, etc. The industry doesn't like the fair use provisions in copyright law, so they frequently pretend like they don't exist.

It's not like the old days, where you buy an 8-track tape for the car and LP for the house... eventually replacing them with cassette tape and compact disc... sometimes more than once. Who's ever lost or broken an album?

Now that people can make their own copies and backups, there's a lot less opportunity to sell the exact same product repeatedly with ever increasing costs. Digital downloads tend to result in only one sale. You can't "break" an MP3 like a scratched CD. Bummer. Time to bring back Vinyl.

Re:Inflation... (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491567)

I wonder how they know that the download is pirated.

Do they know if the downloader has or not the music on CD?

Spooky!

Re:Inflation... (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491647)

If the downloader had the CD then why didn't the downloader simply rip from the CD?

Re:Inflation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491731)

cuz dey dum, foo

Re:Inflation... (1)

Jamu (852752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492031)

Maybe because the CD is unreadable, or maybe because they can't find the CD, or maybe because it's easier than finding the CD.

Re:Inflation... (2, Informative)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492133)

Well, I for one re-downloaded a few albums that I already own from piratebay simply because I was too lazy to rip them myself.
Why go through the hassle of shuffling physical discs when one click of a button will do the same?

Furthermore I occassionally got additional live-recordings, rare recordings, bootlegs, even documentaries bundled with the discographies that I downloaded - that's what I call added value.

Re:Inflation... (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491873)

Why do you assume it's inflated? That's one in 20 songs that you download ends up being good enough to pay for. That sounds reasonable. Honestly, I think they're lucky to get 5%. 5% of a mind bogglingly huge number is nothing to sneeze at.

Re:Inflation... (1)

dingo8baby (1262090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491919)

Imagine if they would have only shown some foresight and embraced digital music when it was actually in it's infant stages. Imagine if they wouldn't have been so ignorant and stuck in their ways and old business models and actually fostered digital distribution of their product instead of wasting all their money on suing college and high school students trying to stop everyone from being able to play music on anything but a CD/Cassette/Album.

Sales are up so who cares (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491123)

Advice to the RIAA: forget the piracy exists. You simply are not going to ever get money from those people - get over it. On the other hand, you're making more money than every from downloads and you should work to keep growing those figures. That's the only thing you can do, frankly. Fighting piracy is like punching marshmallows.

Re:Sales are up so who cares (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491337)

Fighting piracy is like punching marshmallows.

They should put them on a stick and roast them slowly instead. Crunchy marshmellows are awesome! But RIAA would probably be the idiot kid that sits there setting marshmallow after marshmallow on fire, and then later getting drunk and pissing on the fire to put it out. Boys. Grr. Argh. It stunk for hours...

Re:Sales are up so who cares (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491675)

>roast them slowly instead

no, no! Catch it on fire, and then turn it so it gets burned evenly. When it is all black and charcoal-ly, blow out the flames and eat it!

Re:Sales are up so who cares (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491365)

Well I wouldn't say that they would never be able to market to some of the subset (ITMS?), namely the casual pirates. I agree, however, there is a core group of people that will never pay for the content and will engage in distribution of copyrighted material. You can woo those who occasionally use Limewire, etc by not treating people like criminals like they have done in the past. A lot of the time (this is true of movies/shows too) it is much easier for someone to fire up some p2p software and download some music, than it is to go and access some DRM laden file of purposely degraded quality. Take TV shows for example, I usually watch a show I've missed online by going to Hulu. I don't mind the ads all that much and I don't really care about owning a TV show which has low replay value. However, a show or other media that isn't easily accessible or purposely made difficult to use because of the industry's fear of the customer, I am going to go to a torrent site and just get the material. I'll tell you though, these dedicated distributors really know how to encode a quality file and I usually find a download is of much higher quality than the crap compressed over my Cable. When the pirates can distribute your media at a higher quality and ease of use, it turns into a sad state of things for the copyright holders.

Re:Sales are up so who cares (3, Funny)

TFer_Atvar (857303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491585)

Fighting piracy is like punching marshmallows.

Man, making s'mores at your house must get interesting!

Re:Sales are up so who cares (3, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491765)

Man, making s'mores at your house must get interesting!

I hate those uppity blobs and take every opportunity to torture them into submission.

punching marshmallows.... (1)

nickdc (1444247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491673)

Not only is fighting piracy like punching marshmallows, it's like dealing with this one [wikipedia.org] . They'll definitely need to cross their emitted energy streams to kill it off!

Pretty much (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491897)

Also if it really is that big and your sales are going up, well then what's the worry? Maybe it actually leads to MORE sales.

The problem is they project this image, and indeed have this mentality, that copyright infringement is theft. No it isn't. The reason a retailer hates theft is because not only does it decrease sales, but it takes away an item they had for sale. That hurts the bottom line. If someone steals a bag of chips, I can't sell those chips to anyone else. So if I'm a retailer, I want to do everything I can to stop that (and even then retailers accept that some shrinkage is going to happen regardless).

However if someone came in to my store, made a perfect copy of a bag of chips and then started handing out those copies for free. Well I'd be less miffed. Maybe I'm losing some sales now, but it isn't as though anything has been taken from me. Now suppose that when someone does that my sales don't go down, they in fact go up. People decide they want to come in and buy more chips, or other things I offer. Despite the free stuff being given away, I make more money. Well hell in this case I'd be happy. Let them hand out free stuff all day long if it makes me more money.

They just have this unrealistic greedy idea that if there was a magical system that could stop all copyright infringement, they'd get 20x the sales and thus 20x the profits. Ummm no. At best, you'd probably stay the same (the only empirical study of this ever done by Harvard and UNC found copying has no statistically significant effect on sales) at worst your sales would go down. They need to stop living in a fantasy world and be ahppy with what they've got.

Re:Sales are up so who cares (1)

krayzkrok (889340) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492009)

Although I tend to agree, I don't think that all "pirates" would be pirates if a better legal alternative was available. One thing that a high level of piracy suggests is that it's offering a better service overall. So concentrate on improving the legal services, get rid of DRM, offer lossless downloads, reduces prices, offer discounts for buying albums over tracks, provide supplementary materials such as artwork, band profiles etc - anything to make people think that a legal purchase isn't such a ripoff. I'd never use the bigger online providers because they fail on all the above - the smaller operations do a much better job, and they get my business.

I call bullsh*t! (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491147)

How can they be sure 95% of them are illegal? Isn't this the same group that's for years been trying to track down who is downloading what and suing them? I mean, studies like this go to the honesty of the other person. And if people will lie about something as trivial as how many sexual partners they've had, what are the odds of people telling the truth here? Besides, if 95% of music downloads were illegal, that's a pretty strong argument that downloading music should be legalized, especially considering how pervasive it is and how ineffective enforcement has been to date.

There are three kinds of lies...

Re:I call bullsh*t! (4, Insightful)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491293)

The thing is, I can download illegal music and then purchase legal music, does this mean they counted the illegal music as a lost sale even though I also bought legitimate music? How can anybody know what I'm doing. As you said there are lies...

Re:I call bullsh*t! (4, Interesting)

slazzy (864185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491313)

I wonder if they take into account people downloading music for cds/albums/tapes which they own but are damaged or lost. I have a few friends who have to regularly re-download their music collection each time they get a new computer as they have no idea how to transfer files from one computer to another etc... these same people only seem to download the same 80's music that they already have cassette tapes for, but it's easier to download rather than digitize the music.

Re:I call bullsh*t! (5, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491441)

How can they be sure 95% of them are illegal?

This is what is going on here. The media companies decide, beforehand, how much money they should be making in a given period of time, based on voodoo bullshit as far as i can tell, then if they don't make that much money they bitch about the pirates and blame losses on them.

So while their digital revenue and legal downloads have probably gone up, the RIAA and the companies they represent think it should be going up MORE, a lot more apparently. The problem is they are fucking wrong, and have no credibility to say anything in public anymore.

Re:I call bullsh*t! (3, Insightful)

gotzero (1177159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491487)

This will turn out to be that 95% of music files downloaded were not downloaded legally from RIAA artists. There is a huge world world out there they are not looking at, both geographically and musically. There are massive amounts of unpaid but legal downloads from artists that allow D/Ls, international artists, and D/L services for pay or not that do not sell songs from RIAA artists, etc.

Re:I call bullsh*t! (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491547)

they can't be sure, i suspect they have arrived at his figure by checking for pirated content on torrent sites. so really they should be saying "95% of music on torrents is pirated". Which i would have no issue with - i think they would be right.

the problem is they then leap straight to this dream land where every download is a sale they missed out on. most of their shit isn't worth a download when it's free, let alone 15$.

Re:I call bullsh*t! (1)

TheGreatDonkey (779189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491795)

.. to carry on your thought about bullsh*t, they assume that had 95% not been downloaded illegally, this naturally means that the entire 95% would have been purchased through normalized, legit means. Of that 95%, how many downloads were of people trying to check out a CD or album for free that they weren't sure if they would ever buy? If the music was not what was expected, then the statistic is biased assuming they would have purchased the album anyhow.

I may like one Guns'n'Roses song on their new album and so download a few more to see if I would buy the new album, but this does not mean I would ever have been willing to risk simply buying the album without knowing what was really on it. Yet, counting my evaluation downloads as lost sales is hardly accurate. If anything, perhaps I went out and actually bought the album after finding my appreciation for the new album. So, in fact, their statistic is contrary to true actions.

Basically, these numbers are always notoriously unreliable because they make many assumptions that are statistically impossible to make without interviewing a large sample of these specific downloaders while still providing a reliable value.

Are people pirating? You bet. Let the free market handle this - Charge for good, quality music what it should really cost to make it, and one will still find themselves well enriched.

I hate why individuals feel they are being cheated because they aren't rolling in millions for the result of a popular song. I don't mean to deprive anyone of the right to financially benefit from their own respective work, but a record executive crying foul because he isn't making the profit he thinks he should make off of an artist signed to his company just doesn't quite get my sympathy.

Re:I call bullsh*t! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491817)

It's just the trend of today's powergrab. The RIAA and other Big Media want to force the market to them rather than following the market. Anything short of cruel and unusual legislation it will be a losing battle. If a majority of the market is doing something despite your best efforts, maybe it's time for them to hire some real marketing guys and figure out how to compete rather than stifle.

Re:I call bullsh*t! (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491991)

The other side of that statistic is also that it seems like most pirated music is either of poor encoding quality, or mislabeled, or otherwise bad (besides the obvious joke of all modern music being bad, even in studio-quality).

Try to find a song, download it, find out it's mislabeled, download it again, it's a 22kHz MP3, download it again, it's at 96kbps, download it again, the audio is choppy...

Re:I call bullsh*t! (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492131)

"And if people will lie about something as trivial as how many sexual partners they've had"

*checks URL to make sure am on /.*

Are you referring to us?

Well then there is only one solution... (5, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491149)

... Tell the Artist to stop making illegal music.

Re:Well then there is only one solution... (2)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491607)

yeah well some of the stuff the major record labels try to pawn off as music is a crime.

Oddly enough? (0, Troll)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491157)

How is it odd? Most of my trips to the bathroom are to urinate. Is it therefore odd that I am defecating more lately?

(Yes, this is a commentary on the overall state of modern music.)

One thing this shows us... (4, Insightful)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491161)

If you provide customer-friendly channels for obtaining music legally online, your sales will increase. Quit yer bellyachin' already.

Re:One thing this shows us... (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491549)

Small wonder why the iTunes Music Store and the Amazon MP3 download store are doing so well nowadays.

Re:One thing this shows us... (1)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491971)

Not saying I agree with the RIAA, but it seems to me that it'd be hard for them to compete.

Benefits provided by pirating from private torrent trackers:
1. Free
2. Huge selection, high quality
3. Fast downloads

Benefits provided by theoretical customer-friendly RIAA approved sites:
1. Good selection, hopefully high quality
2. Hopefully fast downloads

Even if they can match the selection, quality, and download speed of the private torrent trackers, they can never compete with free. What other aspect can they provide which the private trackers can't? Other than being unambiguously legal of course.

Re:One thing this shows us... (3, Insightful)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492027)

You are overlooking one crucial point. To the average user, buying a song from iTunes is easier than finding a reliable p2p service, installing the software (and possibly configuring it properly), and searching for the songs they want which may have several versions and different availability. Simply put, it's possible to make the legal channels much easier and friendly to use.

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491229)

...the other 5% are lying.

furthermore... (2, Funny)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491297)

117% of people don't understand percentages.

Re:furthermore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491457)

What do you mean by "18% of people don't understand percentages"?

I have an idea (2)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491241)

Why don't we use BitTorrent to our advantage and do some creative sharing? I propose a system of sharing free(as in freely licensed, like creative commons) songs where once a person has seeded the song to a certain ratio, it is deleted and it is automatically downloaded again. With enough people helping, I'm sure we could have some fantastic fake statistics a year from now.

New business model... any time this century? (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491263)

Hurry up and give consumers more choice in how they acquire music (i.e. change your business model) some time this century, and perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem to begin with. At the moment, we're stuck with "pay as you go" music for per single/per album. Where's the contract music? Where I can get a certain amount of music I want for a flat rate per month etc. Oh wait, it doesn't exist yet (or isn't popular/supported enough)

Re:New business model... any time this century? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491503)

you could try Rhapsody. It's a $15 a month flat fee to stream music to your pc.

Re:New business model... any time this century? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491725)

Or Zune Pass.
Oh wait, it's from MS, and therefore it sucks, even though it's arguably the best mainstream option there is.

Re:New business model... any time this century? (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491793)

I should mentioned in my original comment that I'm in the UK (and Rhapsody is another US only service)

Re:New business model... any time this century? (1)

Wingnut64 (446382) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492129)

Nothing better sums up their outdated business model then the fact that this study was done by 'The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry'.

Idiots (0)

visible.frylock (965768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491275)

The music industry has transformed its business models, offering consumers an increasing range of new services with leading technology partners.

My ass. I used to download music legally (well, paid for anyway). But that was before my country's Commerce Department decided to kill allofmp3. All that the labels needed to do was buy allofmp3 and set up servers worldwide. Hell, combine it with pandora and they'd have a great service. But no, we can't let that happen, it just has to be shitty quality doesn't it? FLAC or bust, morons.

(Before anyone brings it up, yes, I know about sparks, but never got it to work. And yes, there are many songs in which there is no noticeable advantage with FLAC.)

"There is a momentous debate going on about the environment on which our business, and all the people working in it, depends. Governments are beginning to accept that, in the debate over "free content" and engaging ISPs in protecting intellectual property rights, doing nothing is not an option if there is to be a future for commercial digital content."

Yeah, 'engaging'. Uh huh. Doing nothing is not an option? Oh, I don't know, I think it's a damn good option. Then again, I don't have lobbyists.

I wonder what they consider a piracy download? (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491305)

Are they including songs being played on MySpace pages? Unauthorized used on YouTube, etc?

Sounds pretty stupid to me.

amazon number 1 - NiN (4, Interesting)

spandex_panda (1168381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491309)

I read that NiNs' freely available album was the highest selling digital music seller on Amazon [amazon.com] I just checked tpb [thepiratebay.org] and the fellow who created the torrent says the whole album is CC share alike!

So this means that the album IS available for free to legally download via torrent AND it was the highest sale on Amazon. Remarkable eh!

Re:amazon number 1 - NiN (1)

xlotlu (1395639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491929)

From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine):

Ghosts I-IV was released online on March 2, 2008 on the official Nine Inch Nails website, without any prior advertisement or notice. [...]

The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license, in effect allowing anyone to use or rework the material for any non-profit purpose, as long as credit is provided and the resulting work is released under an identical license. Reznor explained this move by saying "It's a stance we're taking that we feel is appropriate ... with digital technology, and outdated copyright laws, and all the nonsense that's going on these days".

And how come the parent was modded down as redundant? RIAA spinners on slashdot?

Parent's links definitely go to prove the *AA business model is obsolete, even moreso if TFA's numbers are correct: people like to try before they buy... unbelievable, innit?

And they damn well know it, hence the mafia-like bullying tactics...

Re:amazon number 1 - NiN (3, Insightful)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491945)

Because it was cheap (only $5) and you could share it with your friends (CC). People like both. People buy both. Are the music labels even listening? It works!

The harder; but more interesting, question: (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491323)

Straight piracy numbers, even when they aren't pulled right out of the industry's ass, really aren't all that informative, given how incredibly easy it is to download massive quantities of stuff. The real question is, how many of the pirates could actually be converted to paying customers?

Back in my highschool days(IRC, usenet, and earlish Napster, on dialup, eventually low-end DSL) I had a collection of ~80gigs. Given that most of it was 128kb mp3, that was a gigantic number of tracks. I doubt that I listened to even half of it once, and only a small part of it more than a few times. I ended up discovering some bands whose stuff I purchased; but obviously not nearly as many as I downloaded.

Now, I'm not going to say that what I did was right or idealistically motivated. Frankly, it was sheer packrattery on my part. I was caught up in the collecting process for its own sake, what I was collecting was largely secondary. And that was back when downloading was marginally inconvenient and slow. Somebody of that kind, today, could easily reach 800gigs by doing with modern methods what I was doing then. Almost none of that, though, would represent actual lost revenue.

Re:The harder; but more interesting, question: (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491701)

i don't think it makes it ok for them to download it because they wouldn't have bought it in the first place - that's a bit of a self for filling prophecy.

if i was the RIAA and MPAA i'd be going after aggregation sites like piratebay etc because they are making a living off it. really their stance that they don't host anything is pretty thin - they are still an intregal part of the pirating process AND they are making pretty big bucks out of it with porn ads and other dodgey crap.

the other reason i think these sites are bad is they are a huge vector of infection with trojans and viruses.

Re:The harder; but more interesting, question: (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491751)

"self for filling"? Remind me never to buy any jelly doughnuts from you.

Self-fulfilling.

Okay, now (5, Insightful)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491349)

...let's go through that list of "illegal" downloads & find what percentage are not available for "legal" purchase/download.

In other words, how much of that music is not available from any "legal" source?

new definition of "illegal" (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491437)

.. meaning doesn't make us as much money as we'd like.

The only people who's opinions I respect in the music business are the artists and recording professionals. All the rest are spongers and leeches. If digital music connects the people who create music directly to the people who want to listen and pay them, then that's great. If it means that the business goes back to it's roots as a cottage industry and puts all the fat-cats out of work, then even better.

100% (5, Funny)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491439)

Sheesh, why not say it's 100%, or even 99.999% At least come up with some believable percentage for crying out loud..

Does this inclue Canada? (2, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491467)

Beacause I've paid for my right to legaly download all the music I can sice I paid levies on CD's I used to backup my photos.

Not in Canada. (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491473)

In Canada, 100% of music downloads are legal. The law is clear: it is perfectly legal to download music without paying for it.

Re:Not in Canada. (1)

hannson (1369413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491947)

Same here in Iceland. There is no laws on downloading copyrighted material. There is how ever laws on sharing/uploading.

There was a big fuzz in the media because of an Icelandic torrent site that eventually got shut down (FYI: the case is still in court). A lawyer for Smais (equivalent of RIAA) even made it crystal clear that they couldn't prosecute downloaders because it wasn't illegal.

Am I the only one thinking only 95%? (1)

chrisG23 (812077) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491513)

I mean really, a person can download a prolific artist's entire discography from a torrent site (and often times get a better product than they could pay for some where else, i.e. more complete, higher quality rips, obscure and bootleg recordings, etc) with a single click. This can be 500 or 1000 songs. Ok dumb (but partly true) example trying to put a nicer face on music piracy. But I feel it is higher than 95% just because it is relatively easy. I mean I could almost teach my mom how to do it.

Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491543)

And how much of these "statistics" are based on legally purchased music from indie bands? Just because some fat cat music exec doesn't make a buck off of it does not make it piracy.

Copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491593)

This is all because of this attachment to copyrights, which are harmful.

For more information see:

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm

Re:Copyrights (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491963)

I see you have never created anything in your life. As an artist, I like copyrights but I think you can get a bit excessive. Your link points to an intellectually bankrupt idiot who thinks that all ideas need to be free. Sorry but as long as this is a capitalist society I like having my monopoly for as long as I can legally maintain it. And yes a monopoly is perfectly legal as long as you don't use proscribed methods to maintain it.

At my IP address it's a nice, round 100% (1)

julian67 (1022593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491611)

At my IP address it's a true 100%, no need for statisticians or surveys. Thank you to the director, the camera man, the other nominess *blubber* *squeal* and most of all to me...oh yeah and all you other leechers too. What strikes me as odd is that the illegal music sounds better than legal music and Works Everywhere!((TM)) Did anyone tell the RIAA yet? Maybe they didn't realise that selling a substandard product at a premium price alienates customers while empowering and enabling alternative providers.

Re:At my IP address it's a nice, round 100% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491721)

If the RIAA was smart, they would go after Julian Hughes from the UK who brags about his illegal downloads for the world to see.

Re:At my IP address it's a nice, round 100% (1)

julian67 (1022593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26492071)

yeah but who gives a fuck? It's hardly a unique name, Hughes is only slightly less common than Smith or Robinson or Jones. And what makes you think I use my own network for BitTorrent? Having lived in rural areas for a long time it's been gratifying to find so many public and unprotected networks on moving into an urban sprawl. And you forget that not all 'illegal' music arrives via the internet, there are also public lending libraries and the collections of friends and relatives. So find me and sue me, and when you've lost you can kiss my hairy arse.

Absolutely! (0, Flamebait)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491619)

While iTunes is a really nice idea for those clueless enough to need some handholding to load their iPod with music, face it - iTunes barely breaks even with the costs between credit card transaction fees and what they are paying to the copyright owner. It isn't a model that anyone would want to emulate. Apple has to do it because otherwise the clueless wouldn't have any way at all to put digital music on their iPod, thus iPod sales would suffer.

I don't know anyone that actually would pay money for digital music. It is all free, free for the taking online - if you know how. And if you have some kind of broadband Internet connection.

For the folks that access the Internet at the library, well, they aren't going to let you download music there, are they? Similarly for people with dial-up. No music downloads there. There is also the over-30 crowd that doesn't understand the Internet, computers or how to program their VCR. So there are still lots of people that have to pay someone to help them get digital music.

Oh, and we can't forget the guilt-ridden. Yes, the RIAA is suing people that distribute music. They are not suing people that download and merely download without redistributing music. So if all you do is leech music downloads from the Internet you are perfectly safe from the rath of the RIAA. But there are plenty of people that will say "... but, but, but, ... it is just wrong!" Yes, in today's climate it is wrong. No question about it.

The "wrongness" of downloading is soon to be moot. We are training (and have trained) an entire generation of people that believe it is not wrong. Anything that can be done on the Internet is OK and it is all there for free. Destroying people'e lives is OK, as long as it is on the Internet - our favorite MySpace scammer is getting another shot. Taking anything that isn't nailed down is OK too. So I see we are coming to a reckoning about copyright, distribution and the Internet.

Yes, I think it is probably a dark future for people that want to "create" as apposed to those that want to create "mixes" and "mashups". Creativity better be its own reward in the future, because anything else is going to be pretty slim in the "reward" or "compensation" category.

Re:Absolutely! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491835)

Wow, what a dismal and petty future you paint for yourself. Incidentally most of us "Over 30 crowd" are the people that designed the technology you asshat whippersnappers use to illegally download stuff with.

you disgust me.

France??? (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491661)

"In France in the first half of 2008, album releases by new artists fell by 16 per cent and local repertoire accounted for 10 per cent of albums, compared to 15 per cent in the first half of 2005."

France also has some of the strictest IP laws in the world. So obviously they are doing something right.

Lies, damn lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491687)

Haven't you heard that 83% of all statistics are made up?

Percent (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26491799)

I'm 95% sure I don't give a damn.

I have about 150 albums in mp3 format that I've downloaded.
Almost all of them I own or have owned on CDs or cassette tape in the past very few of which have survived my various moves or the test of time.

Might not be as outlandish as some suggest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491815)

Obviously the numbers seem quite inflated, but thinking about it for a moment, it might be plausible.

With the advent of iTunes and other pay per track services, consumers are digitally purchasing only the tracks they want. Pirates on the other hand will likely download the entire album for completeness sake. Assuming the average CD is 12 tracks, the numbers do not seem that hard to believe.

What if ISPs were to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26491995)

What if ISPs were to offer, as part of their Internet service packages, subscriptions to legit online music services? Like...

Basic 10mbps service = $30/month
Basic 10mbps service + music = $37

This is NOT a copyright tax, or anything of the like. Some ISPs make deal with AV companies, so customers can get free AV service. How about allowing people to upgrade, for a nominal monthly fee, to get a free subscription to a music service?

If the cost of music is the reason why people pirate, then a low cost, simple as that, may be a partial solution.

Remember, kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26492039)

Remember, kids... NYCL doesn't believe in copyright infringement, and neither should you!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...