Slashdot Mirror
Napster Hurts Album Sales?
Sax Maniac writes "There is a story on Yahoo! that reports on a new study that says Napster cuts into record sales.
" It'd be a more informative study if the study also included the fact that a huge number of college students buy their music online now, which would also drive down sales in the local area - looks like a piece of FUD in MP3 War.
Update: 05/25 12:08 by michael : I can't help but jump in with a link: Pirates Steal Negative $1,400,000,000 from Music Industry.
Courtney Love, of the band "Hole", railed against the RIAA and record industry at a New York conference on Digital Music Tuesday.
And I quote:
"It's become quite fashionable lately for artists to express outrage at music piracy, and I'm a fashionable gal. Stealing artists' music without paying for it is absolutely piracy -- and I'm talking about major labels, not Napster," she remarked, citing major record labels as the single greatest threat to artist subsistence.
She is desperately trying to break off from Geffen to go "DIY".
Here are the links:
news page on the hole site
and the rolling stone article
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Apalogies in advance for some of the rhetoric, but I am so tired of RIAA apalogist posts, and your post is the lucky winner...
You're also screwing the bands whose cds you are not paying for. How nice to show your support.
First, let me say that I do not make illegal copies of music - I own all of the mp3s I possess either through authorized downloads (e.g. mp3.com), or in CD, tape, or vinyl format. It is entirely possible that the post to which you reply was posted by someone similar (many more people than the anti-mp3 propoganda would suggest do in fact only have legitimate mp3s).
And yes, I have used napster to download songs I own on vinyl or tape, but don't wish to go through the hassle of digitizing into mp3 format myself. If the new, draconian copyright laws (Sony Bono Act, DMCA) make this an illegal act, I suppose I'll borrow a friend's turntable and convert the music myself.
I can guarantee you, however, that I am actively screwing the RIAA affiliated bands, as I am no longer listening to their music on the radio or buying any new CD's from them. I am not, however, pirating their music either. I have simply removed them, and all their new material, from my life altogether. Though I am only one person, this is costing them significant revinues (I used to buy allot of CDs - a bad habit exceeded only by my laserdisk and DVD habit, also now broken).
Finally, though the legality is certainly in question, I would find it socially and ethicaly preferable if the original poster would send a few dollars to the band directly for the CD whos contents he or she downloaded in mp3 format, than to purchase the CD legally and put money on the pockets of a cartel which pays artists pennies and seeks to crush or forcibly coopt any new distribution paradigm that comes along and threatens their illegal monopoly.
The only difference between the Mafia and its relationship to the Chicago city government in the 1930s and the RIAA (and MPAA) and Washington is that bribery has in the interim been formally legalized in the form of soft-money and campaign contributions.
Don't expect to see any significant difference in the quality of government, the fairness of legislation being passed, or the appropriateness of law enforcement actions taken. The government has whored itself to the media cartels, and stands over the rest of us with a big, thick broomhandle in hand.
I suppose in parting I should thank the RIAA and MPAA for going through so much trouble and expense to drive me away as a customer. My boycott of their products has already saved me thousands of dollars this year alone, which was very nice of them, as I can now afford to feed my aviation habit instead.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I don't think that anyone is reasonably trying to argue that MP3's in and of themselves are bad... For personal use, they're wonderous. I've got several days worth of music (all from my own CD's, thank you very much) stored on my hard drive at work. MP3's as a promotional tool is also a great thing. I know several artists who release *some* of their songs as MP3's to spur interest in their eventual CD.
If an artist decides that they want to release their music in the MP3 format, they would most likely choose to put it on their own website in order to gauge interest, spur communication with their fans, and receive any revenues (from ads, links to purchase their CD's, T-shirts, etc...) associated with the distributiuon of their music.
Napster does nothing to steer listeners towards buying the actual CD, is unable to produce any data to show interest or number of downloads, and (worst of all, IMHO) is, or will be soon, profitting from it's activities. In essense, they'll be earning money distributng music that the artists themselves will have no way of ever profiting from. The pickings from the labels might be slim, but Napster is effectively zeroing them out.
It's one thing (not that I'm condoning it) to email an MP3 to your friend orrun an anonymous ftp server with mp3's on it. It's another thing to attempt to earn a profit by making that music EASILY available to anyone for the asking, but not return any of those profits to the artists. Napster really should figure out a way log transfers and cut artists checks for 50-75% of their (Napsters) projected take (once they've figured a way to make money... ads, anyone?)
End of rant, for now.
Here's a link to coverage of the study at reciprocal.com, the company that funded it.
Here's a link to the the actual study in pdf form by a consulting firm called "Entertainment Marketing Solutions"
And here, finally, is the Mission Statement for reciprocal.com:
Reciprocal provides comprehensive business-to-business secure e-commerce
services for digital content distribution over the Internet. Our services
include Digital Rights Management (DRM) applications and clearinghouse
solutions that enable e-commerce for all forms of digital content including
audio, text, graphics, software, images and video via the Internet or other
networks.
We protect your intellectual property on the Internet and make it easy for
you to securely and flexibly package, sell, and distribute digital content.
And we provide consumers with the ability to easily access, pay for, and
consume your protected digital content.
Hey, Slashdot Readers... how do YOU spell "Conflict of Interest" ?
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
I see at least 2 conflicts of intrest: 1) percieved image of studies as objective vs. real interest of PR pseudo-science 2) percieved image of news sources as providers of quality information vs. real interest of printing press releases verbatim so they can all get back to playing minesweeper.
There is no pervasive, official, enforced licencing, certification or standards for scientists, researchers or staticians (unlike dr's and lawers), but people tend to believe that "studies" and "research" are supposed to find the "truth" using sound scientific and statistical methods. So there is a conflict between the percieved intent (truth) and the the interest (PR). For the definiton of conflict of interest, the actual intent of the actor is irrelevent (although in this case I'm sure they are quite pleased with the image of objectivity).
But what really burns me up is that this "marketing research" is being reported in the news! Why is this press release (of thousands each day) news worthy? The only fact it contains is that sales have dropped 4% near colleges. Was it the increase in overall record sales noteworthy? What about the sales of shoes? Or red herrings? The only thing that makes this story interesting is the totally speculative napster angle.
Headlines like "Is Napster taking a toll on CD sales?" gives attention to a random speculation to the benefit of a few private corporate interests. There is absolutely no evidence presented that the drop in sales has anything to do with napster, yet the question is posed as if it is currently a debateable issue*.
A more appropriate headline might be "Are College Students Buying Fewer Records?" since the "study" doesn't even prove that students are actually buying fewer records. Indepenednt stores selling small and super-tiny labels, on-line stores, bands selling direct at shows and used CD's weren't accounted for.
Even if they had gotten that far, there are so many likely suspects that singleing out napter is biased, at best. Poorer students (reduced student loan money, increase in drug prices, increase in concert ticket prices, less free booze) crappy major label offerings, poularity of underground [rap, metal, techno] and bootlegs (phish, gdead), are some of many reasons there might be decrease in college student record purchases.
It's this kind of crappy reporting that turns non-issues into something suddenly deemed worthy of congressional investigation. FUD is too good a term for it.
* this is exactly like when they talk about the "global warming debate" as if the scientific community is still trying to decide if global woarming exists! the only atmosheric scientists still questioning global warming are the ones that happen to work for petroleum companies
- bridgette
You may claim that there's multiple data points, spacially separated (ie, different colleges), but they're temporarily the same. (ie, it's the same Napster, in the same market conditions, etc), so you cannot conclude anything useful from this study (IMHO, of course).
Otherwise, they can point to any event in the news, and show a correlation just the same. For example, they could claim that since the MSFT trial started over a year ago, CD sales have been declining. Thus, they conclude, the chaos caused by the trial of the world's largest software house is significantly cutting into CD sales.
Come on! Note that I'm not saying Napster doesn't reduce CD sales, but that there isn't enough data available to implicitly show it (through this study, that is).
Just my twopence.
make world, not war
What you (so convinently for RIAA/metallica schills) fail to mention is that colleges have been caveing in left to right to the RIAA's pressure to ban napster.
Or have you so convinently (for RIAA/metallica schills) forgotten that fact?
Or have you so convinently (for RIAA/metallica schills) missed the stories on slashdot the last few months about colleges caveing in to RIAA pressure to ban napster?
Or have you so convinently (for RIAA/metallica schills) forgotten that college students are among the highest target market for *USEDU CD sales?
A while back someone had posted a link to a list of colleges and universities that are supplicating themselves before the RIAA and banning napster on campus.
It'd be intresting to see if the study bothered to take into account the fact that the administration of these schools DID cave in to pressure and see if sales of CDs are HIGHER near colleges where MP3s are banned.
Or could it *POSSIBLY* be that college students are traditionally the most socially consious and actively progressive element of soceity; more apt to *PROTEST* injustice, and more apt to *BOYCOTT* RIAA albums and MPAA movies?
john
Imagine all the people...
Napster hurts album sales especially among poor college students. This is not FUD this is fact. I'm in college and I know several dozen people who have massive MP3 collections who have cut down on the amount of CDs they buy, myself included. For every person I have heard say, I buy more CDs because I find more groups (how does this happen? Napster is a search service or do people type random names in the search box?) there are five people who say I probably will never have to buy a CD again.
Personally, I like the argument put forth that even though college students pirate stuff now with MP3s that this will benefit record labels in the long run. The RIAA seems to forget that college students grow up and leave college to become adults with lots of disposable income. After all isn't it former bootlegging college students that pay an arm and a leg to see the Who, Rolling Stones and even Metallica in concert. The proliferation of music on college campuses will create life long fans who will eagerly start spending money on the artist once that disposable income comes around. After all that is the rational behind banks trying to attract college students with various student accounts even though it is a well known fact that college students a perenially broke. If the RIAA had any sense, they wouldn't be trying so desperately to alienate fans because this may come back and bite them on the ass.
Something to consider: I've been a Sarah McLachlan fan since 1989, I've bought all her albums (3 copies of her first, 2 copies of her third, 2 copies of Freedom Sessions), most of her singles, numerous shirts, tour books, souvenirs, and attended so many concerts I lost count (more than ten). How much of that money do you think she's seen? About $1 per album, probably less for the singles, maybe a dollar per shirt... under $20 not counting the concerts, and I doubt she gets the whole $35 from each concert ticket.
Which means in eleven years of being a fanboy, I've given her almost enough money that she could buy two of her own CDs at retail.
Oh it gets better. When you buy a CD from Columbia House, the artists often get NO royalties at all - it's considered an advertising expense! (How come Metallica isn't suing THEM?)
These companies pay their artists "starving wages" (and then MAYBE actually promote them so that they can at least make it up by getting $1 from each of a half million people). Then they say WE'RE the ripoff artists. I think that's just a little bit insulting.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
No, no, no- you're quite wrong. Just step through the logic:
1) College areas have reduced sales
2) Non-college areas have increased sales
3) Napster detracts from sales
4) Therefore, Napster detracts from sales.
Oh wait, that's bad logic. Nevermind.
"Man has always been his own most vexing problem." --Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Nature and Destiny of Man"
With that in mind, any time a record exec tells me Napster kills record sales (which they haven't yet done), I will laugh heartily.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
go here
<//-------------//> /. but you can tell it was designed by programmers..."
"I like
I know that there's a lot of people who download things off the net and through napster, and then go out and buy the album. Lots of people actually like the liner notes, and a lot of times the mp3 may not come with a proper ID3 tag to identify artist, album name, track number, track name, year, genre, etc. So people support the artist by buying the CD even though they've already got the whole album on mp3 through napster. (And let's be more general - this isn't really about napster per se, but the easy availability of the media in the first place - IMHO there isn't much difference between napster and any other file sharing protocol, just that napster is what's in the news recently)
But there are a lot of other people who just download mp3s and never buy the album. I'm not going to make a value judgement and say that they are theives, or that they are are excellent freedom fighters trying to liberate ideas from evil recording companies. What I want is for people to take responsibility for what they do. There are a lot of people out there who just take from napster, and never buy albums. That's fine, I'm sure they have a moral justification one way or the other, but I don't like hearing people say that Napster is fine, because it boosts record sales, because most people buy records after downloading things. Conversely, I don't like to hear people say that napster hurts record sales, because that ignores all of the people who bought the album when they wouldn't have otherwise done so due to "sampling" the album through napster.
Frankly, whatever you want to do with napster is cool with me. I don't use napster, but I don't think that people who do are going to starve the RIAA out anytime soon. What I wish though is that people would only speak for themselves and not make arguments for the napster community as a whole. Because guess what? There are people out there using napster who believe that the RIAA have the right to make the money, so they pay for the albums after the fact. There are also people who see themselves on napster as information gurillas. YOu can't have it both ways. Speak for yourself, and live with your rationalizations, whichever way they may be.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
As Hemos said, many can and will buy online now.
The reason is very simple. It's easy to check and compare prices and for items like well known CDs, buying 'unseen' is no big deal.
Stores near universities can no longer count on mere proximity to generate sales. They now have to compete on value. What makes a music store stand out now? Not just having the common items that can be ordered from anywhere, but having less common items or knowing how to get them. A really outstanding store would have used CDs and even allow potential customers to listen to them before purchasing. I've only seen this once, but I made a point of going back to that place. As for service, they "got it." Less risk of buying something for one track only discover all the other tracks are lousy.
As for Napster.. maybe it hurts some, maybe it helps some. It's probably irrelevent overall. College dorms are a places where CD and tapes are borrowed and dubbed already.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
I didn't even know there were such things as "music stores." I always buy my CD's online.
C|NETlink to the story
Favorite Quote: "Cash-strapped students have turned to online music swapping because the record companies have priced the CDs of many popular artists out of students' reach"
Then whose fault is it?
Devil Ducky
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
Hmmm...
Truth --> Raw Data --> Study Findings--> Yahoo Article--> Slashdot.
If there were ANY meaningful pieces of information somewhere along that chain, it's pretty certain they're lost by now...if there's one thing I learned writing psychology experiments, it's that the data can say whatever the hell you want it to, as long as you omit enough pieces of relevant information.
Next.
-
This is so typical. Misleading statistics by bargain-basement statisticians confusing causation with correlation. To assume that there is only ONE cause for declining sales is pure stupidity.
To put it another way, CD sales were down this year, and coincedentally, the price of tea in China also declined. Clearly, the price of tea in China is having a negative effect on CD sales.
This is clearly a stupid argument, but it's not far removed from the one made by these so-called researchers. There is a difference between a cause and a coincedence.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
If it's mostly bands I know and like and some bands I haven't heard of, I'll download the unknown bands' songs.
-----
I found the things store managers mentioned quite interesting. Why is it that a CD Store Owners/Managers don't blame Napster? Instead they're saing it's the high CD prices that are driving down sales on campuses. I'm sorry but forking out $20 for a CD is way too much.
On top of that the study is flawed big time.
1. Didn't acount for online CD sales?
( I've personally not bought a single CD in a retail store. I buy everything on line especially since I can sample most of the music )
2. They didn't compare in sales statistics for CD swap/resale shops which usually have very low prices on used CD's.
( From what I got from the article those stores have not seen any changes )
3. The biggest drop was BEFORE Napster came about. ( Hmm.. ok so why was there a big drop? )
The RIAA is simply looking for anything they can use as artilery to kill Napster. I've been using Napster for the last 2 weeks. I've downloaded over a 100 MP3 files... and most of them I don;t have anymore cause I didn't like em. I've also bought 6 CD in the last 2 weeks of music that people on Napster recommended to me and I got a chance to listen to it before buying. Without that I propably wouldn't have bought them.
You want to know why the RIAA is scared of Napster? Because consumers have more power. I can listen to ALL of the tracks on a cd to figure out if it's worth buying. Not just the 1 hit on a $15 CD that the RIAA thinks will sell the CD to 90% of the target audience. It means they have less control over their consumers. It means they can't manipulate us as they have in the past.
They're a dinosaur that deserves to die a quick death. And trust me it won't hurt the Musicians 1 bit as newer, smarter, better companies that "get it" take their place.
Ex-Nt-User
Coincident with the arrival of MP3 and Napster, these sales take a pretty severe dip downwards.
.mp3 and the RIAA's boogeyman, Napster. One has to wonder who commissioned the study...
:) Shoddy science passed off as fact to an ignorant audience (for the most part).
The majority of people are so easily mislead by statements like this because they lack a simple understanding of the basic rules of logic. In this case, for example, correlation is not causation. There is a direct, frighteningly statistically accurate, correlation between the number of priests in a given town, and the number of alcoholics. Both are functions of population...
I suggest consulting this page for a brief summary of common logical fallacies.
This study is so vague it's almost silly. While they determine that CD stores with physical proximity to universities have slightly declining CD sales, they make no attempt whatsoever to determine the actual cause of said decline, and simply *decide* that it is the result of
FUD. This is the real-world equivalent of trolling
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
A lot of people have been yelling about Hemos's comment that the study is FUD. That was my reaction too- "Not everything that goes against a particular belief system is FUD," I thought to myself, and got all ready to post a long diatribe about it.
Then I read the article in question. Here's what it says (my paraphrase): "CD sales around colleges have gone down, while CD sales elsewhere have gone up. Therefore, Napster hurts album sales."
The conclusion that Napster is to blame for the drop is completely unfounded. It was just made up. Even worse, it was tied to something that wasn't made up (ie the sales drop) in such a way that it seems on the face of it like a valid conclusion to make ("They did a study, and they found that Napster hurts album sales, see?"). That is FUD. It is a particularly bad kind of FUD. It would be sort of like Microsoft saying, "Windows 2000 didn't sell as well as expected among college students, and here's our study to prove it. Therefore, online piracy is having a demonstrable effect on our sales." It sounds almost like real science, but in fact it's a made-up lie to scare people and get your way.
That does not mean that Napster doesn't hurt CD sales. It just means that the study didn't prove it. If they wanted to prove it, they would have to actually do a followup study that actually analyzed why those sales dropped. Which they didn't do, so they can't legitimately say anything about it.
-jacob
And if you download it, would you go out and buy it afterwords? Sounds pretty unreasonable to me.
Maybe I'm unreasonable, but yes, I do go and buy the album. I'd say I use MP3's in three ways:
1) I download a catchy song that I like. This is about the only thing I use Napster for. If I want the latest single from a one-hit wonder, should I pay $17 for a CD otherwise full of crap? Should I pay $13 for the single which has less crap but only because there's fewer tracks? You'd probably say yes, but since I wouldn't have bought the album anyway, I can't see that me having that track hurts the artist. Sure it's not legal, but is it any more harmful than those mix tapes you've got?
2) I download a lot of bootlegs from newsgroups. These aren't being sold anywhere, and if they are the RIAA/Artist isn't seeing any of the cash anyway. A lot of the bands that I download (Dave Matthews, for instance) actually support bootlegs as long as they're not being sold.
3) I've downloaded some albums from newsgroups. I got the newest Cure album the day before it came out. I didn't like it, so I didn't buy it. I also didn't let it take up 100mb on my hard drive either (ie. it's gone). On the other hand I got the Crowded House Afterglow album, enjoyed it, and went out and bought it a few days later.
Admittedly, I'm probably in the minority here, and I don't believe that MP3's are helping artists, but I really don't think they're hurting them as much as the RIAA would have us believe. In fact, my suspicion is that if you had two worlds, one without MP3s and one without record execs, the artists in the MP3 world would be much better off.