I understand your point and prefer not to use the word myself. But in this case I wanted to make a point without cluttering it with talk about whether or not file sharers are thieves, because file sharers aren't the core problem.
using common assumptions for size of fan base, number of concerts, distribution, sources of revenue, etc.?
what common assumptions? common for 1980? What good are those gonna be in the digital world of 2010 and beyond?
traditional business model that is being destroyed by thieves
Thieves aren't destroying traditional models. They are a symptom not the root cause. Today's technology is destroying traditional models. Production, reproduction, distribution and marketing costs have dropped significantly. Thieves exist because some people still want to sell $1 plastic discs for $15 and digital files for $1 when it's possible to reproduce and distribute music for $0. The thieves are merely filling a gap in the market. Offer a reasonable product at a reasonable price and the thieves will, for the most part, disappear.
Her ignorance turns into an excuse to divert attention from the indisputable issue that is at the core of all these discussions, writers and performers are being ripped off.
I have a choice to make... I can legitimately purchase a $1 piece of plastic for $13 or I can download pirated music for $0. If I download pirated digital files, I'm a thief. If I pay $13 for a $1 piece of plastic the Artist is a thief.
Until I can purchase a digital album (high quality format) for $2.50 or a CD for $5-7 writers and performers can keep their mouth shut.
A lot of very gifted musicians never made a dime in the previous business model either.
But nothing I've seen in the cwf + rtb model suggests musicians need to be 'great' marketers, 'total' extroverts and spend 'equal' parts making music and interacting with fans.
The reality is that the record industry has been turned upside down and we are in a period of a bit of chaos as we try to sort out what works and doesn't work. And if it turns out that some models don't work well for some musicians, well, we'll just have to figure out what does work for those musicians. But there's no reason to dismiss a model because it might not work for everyone.
So this is a made-up measurement - it’s what ‘we’ (no mention of who ‘we’ are), arbitrarily decided, that selling 10,000 records makes you not obscure. Why? How? Nope, nothing. Just that ‘people know about you’. Very scientific and verifiable. ‘People’.
It’s also based on ‘Soundscan’ statistics. By Soundscan’s reckoning, I’ve sold about 3% of my actual sales across my career – that’s how many have gone through the Soundscan system. Not a single one of my gig sales, my own website sales, bandcamp sales, CDbaby sales have gone through Soundscan. So this tells us that 1500 artists have reported 10K sales to Soundscan. And that’s apparently a story about obscurity?
"I have to ask, really, if someone were to write a crawler for this site that takes all your articles and then makes an iphone app that allows ppl to view them with a different interface and with no mention of you at all, would you not be the least bit upset?"
All culture builds on the past. People are constantly 'stealing' ideas. Louis Vuitton didn't invent luggage, he 'stole' the idea and made his own version. No one creates anything without borrowing an idea or two.
So if you see a creator selling his own works in some way you hadn't thought of before, you aren't going to copy his idea for your own works?
Of course, your Louis Vuitton argument is kinda silly. People who purchase a $50 knock-off of a LV handbag wouldn't be buying the $1200 original if the knock-off wasn't available.
Sure it's the vendor's choice? But what's the best approach for the comic in this story? Get into a legal battle? or provide his own app?