This article is, sadly, typical of the anti-RIAA brigade. The modus operandi is essentially to portray small, irrelevant details ("tut, tut, no adjustment for inflation!") or imprecise or non-legalistic terminology ("It's not theft, it's copyright infringement!") as evidence variously of a sinister RIAA conspiracy, or, as is the case here, simply of their utter stupidity. Next, hands are waved, big claims are made, and untested and economically implausible business models are bandied about with the abandon of someone who doesn't have a dime invested in the enterprise (well, except for the 50 dollars or so they save themselves annually by torrenting the music they want). This is usually accompanied by a healthy dollop of macho posturing: "don't make me steal this!".

Now, I know that no good can possibly come of trying to refute these "arguments", but... to paraphrase the hero in the film "Friday": it's Saturday, and I ain't got sh$t to do! So:

1) "The numbers are not adjusted for inflation."

Adjusting for inflation actually makes the collapse in turnover more pronounced, not less. Ditto adjusting for population or median income. Doh! The fact that he doesn't see this in his own exquisitely crafted inflation-adjusted graph is evidence, were it needed, that there is none so blind as he who will not see.

2) "These are stats from the RIAA. America only."

I should start by saying that this "argument" is slightly less asinine than the previous. It's important, though, to be clear about how this fact presents a problem. If we're arguing that this graph is evidence of the death of the music industry, then we probably should be looking at global sales (on the other hand, the US is the largest and most important music market and thus is significant in its own right). If we're, however, arguing (as most sensible, informed observers are) that filesharing/etc has a deleterious effect on music sales, then it is sufficient for the graph to display like-for-like data (which it does). After all, the effects of piracy are going to be similar irrespective of geographical location. If anything, one would expect more piracy in e.g. emerging markets.

3) "The type of graph specifically masks and trivializes the growth of digital, enhancing the sob story."

Right, so the author whinges in point 1 about data not being adjusted for inflation. "We need correct absolute figures!" screamed the author. But now that we're at point 3, the problem is now that the data is showing absolute rather than rate of growth figures. "We need percentage growth figures!", screams the author. This is just silly. He admits as much by conceding "Ok, ok, that’s kind of cheating because pre-2004 there were virtually no digital sales, but hey, the point is digital has been growing quickly". Sorry, but no, the point is not that digital has been "growing quickly", the point is that the music industry, as a result of the pirates' activities, have been hemorrhaging cash. If digital is growing so quickly and everything is fine and dandy save for a few greedy lawyers/execs/etc at the RIAA/choose your bogeyman, then why is EMI so dead?

Here's another turkey:

"Here’s the actual situation, properly adjusted for inflation, and using a normal line chart instead of a complicated stacked area chart."

So whereas a few sentences ago the author was whinging about the data not being aggregated globally, he now wants the data _disaggregated_ on distribution format. If the question is "does piracy negatively impact music?" or "is the music industry in trouble as a result of piracy?" then cumulative values are exactly what we need to look at, which means we have to look at those pesky, "complicated" stacked area charts.

The only upshot to this fellows little "analysis" was that as a result of it, the RIAA is $25 richer. Well done!