Slashdot Mirror
The Truth About File-Sharing
According to the January issue of American Demographics, a magazine which hardly supports radical copyright-infringers, music sites like Napster have created "powerful new opportunities for music marketeers." Despite the best efforts of the greedy record companies and a few recording stars -- Metallica and Dr. Dre come readily to mind -- to alienate a new generation of music lovers, recent figures prove that file-sharing services actually generate sales and put more money in artists' pockets.
This has enormous implications for those making movies, publishing books, or creating any kind of saleable entertainment. It suggests that the Net may work best as a three-step process: first connecting customers with culture, then generating interest in cultural and informational offerings, then keeping track of their tastes through sophisticated new digital marketing research. Theoretically, file-sharing approaches could go beyond shopping to stimulate interest in education, business, even politics, if the music experience is any indicator. And it sure ought to be.
The relationship between new decentralized software programs -- Napster, Freenet, Gnutella, P2P -- and such issues as copyright infringement, artists rights and conventional retailing is complicated. Legal, political, educational and other institutions haven't begun to sort through them. But clearly the music industry's panicky and greedy overreaction will prove one of the most dunder-headed, short-sighted responses in recent business history. The industry couldn't have been more off-base, dishonest or greedy.
Nearly 75 percent of college students have downloaded music from the Net, 58 percent of them using Napster, according to a recent study by Greenfield Online, a Connecticut research firm, and YouthStream Media Networks. Nearly two-thirds of the 1,135 college students surveyed say they download music as a way to sample music before buying it. The proliferation of online music is introducing consumes to artists they don't know, in almost precisely the same way department stores offer samples of food, perfume and other retail items. A survey by Yankelovich Partners for the Digital Media Association found that about half the music fans in the U.S. turn to look for artists they can't or don't hear in other venues, like radio. Nearly two-thirds of those who downloaded music from the Web say that their search ended in a music purchase. Music labels should have been donating money to Napster users, not threatening to sue them and chase the site off of college campuses.
And the much-libeled Napster users are dedicated music buyers, quick to reach for their wallets. Jupiter Research says it found that 45 per cent of online music fans are more likely to have increased their music purchases than online fans who don't use Napster. The Jupiter study of Napster users found that 71 percent of users say they're willing to pay to download an entire album.
Interestingly, reports American Demographics, the Jupiter Study of Napster users found that 71 percent of those who use the site said they were willing to pay to download an entire album. But in a Greenfield Online survey of 5,200 online music shoppers, nearly 70 per cent say that they have not paid -- and will not pay -- for digital music downloads. This suggests that subscription-based services may be more likely and successful than a per-song fee system.
This potentially revolutionary model for marketing culture is about to be dismantled by the new partnership between Napster and Bertelsmann, which is giving the file-sharing site more than $50 million to develop software that will charge users for music. Bertelsmann says it will keep a part of Napster "free," but watch for yourself to see how quickly it shrinks.
These figures, remarkably, demonstrate that almost every assumption about the free music movement, reported in most media outlets and used as justification for a wave of new legislation and legal action like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, is dead wrong:
- Most music downloaders aren't thieves or pirates but music lovers willing to pay for music.
- Artists have made more money from this new generation of music lovers than they would have without them.
- The true significance of file-sharing wasn't an end to intellectual property, but an exciting new way to develop markets.
- Record companies and other corporations should be supporting file-sharing sites ratherthan hiring lobbyists and lawyers to intimidate, sue and enrage new and eager customers. College students have nearly universal access to broadband, and are tomorrow's mainstream consumers. The more information and culture they have access to, the likelier it is that they'll sample new venues, products and information.
- Evidently, file-sharing isn't a dangerous menace but an effective new method of disseminating -- and selling -- content, and culture. Aside from these new findings, the Napster experience also suggests that when it comes to dealing with the Net, businesses often have no idea what's good for them.
And oh, yeah. Don't believe what you read about yourself.
Most of these are pretty old (if I recall correctly), but these are all merely claims. Some might be lies. Some might be wishful thinking. Others may simply forget to pay. All certainly value napster and don't want to see if regulated out of existence...so we can assume that they'd want to defend it. Put simply, you can't simply trust this data alone as the last word.
This is the only potentially worthwhile piece of information, but I'd want more information before I really swallow it whole. I question how the data was gatheredm, in what context, and I question what it really means. For instance, if the general trend due to economic up turn is an increased purchasing of music, it would make sense for music fans (which tend to be napster users) to increase their music purchases more than non-napster users--even if their purchases are actually LESS due to the demand that napster sates. Furthermore, this does not address the question of what will happen once (or if) napster and clones become efficient at finding flawless copies of music, or once mp3 players become cheap and improve in quality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this first bit of data, that 70% of shoppers have not, and will not, pay for online music terribly relevant to what Bertelsmann is doing? Katz seems to say that people are only willing to pay for a subscription service, yet any attempt to push for such a thing by the industry is met with extreme hostility.
Anyways, I have my doubts from my own experience with mp3s and with others I know. I've simply seen and known far too many people that have reduced or stopped purchasing CDs entirely due to Napster. Others I know would stop, if they could afford a decent mp3 player, or had a faster connection, or knew how to use these services better, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that RIAA people read Slashdot in their efforts to come up with ideas to use in its fight. It makes sense: Slashdotters, as a whole, are more insightful than RIAA people. Slashdotters have a clue; the same can't be said of the RIAA, which continues to wear blinders and refuses to come up better ideas for the future.
Unfortunately, the same can be said of many other industries today. Take the telecom industry, for example....
In a few years, when digital audio players (MP3 or ogg or whatever) are completely ubiquitious and all connected to the network, I don't think many of us will still be buying CDs.
That's what the record companies are afraid of. The lifespan of CDs as the most convenient form for music storage is limited. It's already over for the hardest of the hard core geeks.
While this observation is legit, and should strike terror into the RIAA's heart, it should also be a lesson in how to combat it. Convenience is king and their cludgy protection schemes that make it a pain in the ass for customers to access their music JUST WON'T WORK. They need to make it easy. People love easy, people will pay for easy.
You're point that the execs are dunderheads for their stance is misguided because you refuse to see where they are standing. You cannot defeat an enemy until you understand what they are fighting.
Nearly two-thirds of the 1,135 college students surveyed say they download music as a way to sample music before buying it. The proliferation of online music is introducing consumes to artists they don't know, in almost precisely the same way department stores offer samples of food, perfume and other retail items. A survey by Yankelovich Partners for the Digital Media Association found that about half the music fans in the U.S. turn to look for artists they can't or don't hear in other venues, like radio. Nearly two-thirds of those who downloaded music from the Web say that their search ended in a music purchase. Music labels should have been donating money to Napster users, not threatening to sue them and chase the site off of college campuses.
Here you display your complete lack of the concept of how the big industry music moguls use the limited market for gain. They do not see expanded consumer choice as a way to make money, they see it as a burden of expanded inventory maintainance. Their ideal world would consist of a populace that had exactly one CD to choose from. This would give them only one title and artist to maintain and promote. For the execs more consumer choice only adds up to more discount bin titles as the fads come and go. Their goal is to limit choice to a few 'superstars' (ie, overpromoted mediocre artist).
And the much-libeled Napster users are dedicated music buyers, quick to reach for their wallets. Jupiter Research says it found that 45 per cent of online music fans are more likely to have increased their music purchases than online fans who don't use Napster.
Meanwhile 55% of online fans who used Napster decreased their purchases to zero?
The Jupiter study of Napster users found that 71 percent of users say they're willing to pay to download an entire album.
They also said that they were willing to pay for a trip to Mars; however, none showed the color of their money. My point is that a survey of what people claim they are willing to do is completely meaningless and no marketing exec worth his salt pays any attention to such surveys.
Interestingly, reports American Demographics, the Jupiter Study of Napster users found that 71 percent of those who use the site said they were willing to pay to download an entire album. But in a Greenfield Online survey of 5,200 online music shoppers, nearly 70 per cent say that they have not paid -- and will not pay -- for digital music downloads.
And there is the real proof. People will say that they will pay, but when it comes to actually putting the cash on the table...
This suggests that subscription-based services may be more likely and successful than a per-song fee system.
It means no such thing. It suggests that people want something for free and that they are quicker to lie about their willingness to pay than they are to produce their money.
Face it, Jon, et. al. The music industry execs have had a nice ride over the last few decades. New technologies have a habit of disrupting the ride, causing them to spill their champagne. While the new technologies often enable huge new markets, they very often cause a depression in existing markets. Someone makes it big in the new market, but that someone isn't necessarily the same people who are big in the market that is being disrupted.
New media provides people with the ability to communicate one-to-one the world over. Music execs are distributors who control the one-to-many communication pipelines. Their job is to control who talks to who. Change the pipleline and you change the job that they know and the medium they are able to manipulate. The Net not only changes but removes the exclusivity of the one-to-many pipeline altogether, leaving the execs out in the cold. We know that, and they know that, so cut the bullshit about how they should accept the changes with open arms. They would be fools to do so.
The music industry is on shaky ground that will quickly disappear into an ocean of one-to-one communciation. I won't be throwing out a life-preserver, but I also won't be claiming that they aren't drowning. (Sink, you bastards, SINK!!)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
What you (and most others on this post) don't seem to understand is that this is *already* how it works. The Backstreet boys share their revenue with Yanni, and Yanni shares his pitiful revenue with Britney Spears. Organizations such as ASCAP and BMI control distribution of royalties for music, whether you buy a CD or hear it on the radio or see a video on TV. Radio stations, clubs, MTV, etc.. all pay a blanket amount to ASCAP and BMI (both, regardless of whose music they play more of) and it is "fairly" distributed among the artists based on who is at the top of the charts this month. If you're very small, and only have a couple of published songs that noone ever plays, you may get specific payments (i.e. my dad had a song that was played at the '86 (?) olympics in LA, and he got a small check for it). This makes a lot of sense for handling digital distribution, because it's about as arbitrary as a jukebox or radio station might be.. keep stats on which songs are downloaded most and pay those artists.. bah-da-bing, bah-da-boom :)
> Okay, but picture this: I create a few songs. I join the pool, but I do
> not release a cd. I generate *NO* profit for the system, I just make music
> available for download through the system. If everyone downloads my
> digital music then I am theoretically entitled to a large portion of the
> money pool when I have contributed none through actual physical sales. Is
> there some aspect that I have missed to prevent this sort of situation?
yes - any distributor out there that wants to can take a copy
of your music. make up some posters, CDs, some fancy packaging
that will make it appeal as a product to your fans.
THEN -- every time they sell a CD (with your, and other stuff on it),
they pay back a percentage into the musician's pool. that musicians
pool sends micropayments into your bank account based on how many
people downloaded your song for free.
the following has to be worked out by those involved - change it
as necessary -- but the basic idea is this: by having your song downloaded
for free, you would have to register an email address -- a place to make
micropayments to -- such that any downloads made in your name get registered
into the 'payment pie' -- which is determined by the number of 'napster'
downloads (doesn't really matter if its napster or something else - that
can be any download service that is willing to participate in this).
RIIGHT... So you are telling me that I am going to hear songs from independant artist on the radio. I live in a very religious part of the USA. Here, music is only played on the radio if the "moral majority" approves of it. You can guess what the radio is like here. As a result of this, I am not exposed to *any* music that I deem worth *my* dollar on the radio.
There is a store here in town that does exactly this. They have a system which uses 320kbps mp3 files and headphones to allow you to listen to any song on any CD in the store. They even have the music sorted by ID3 tag, so it is easily searchable. Needless to say, this store is the *only* place I go to buy a CD. They also play random songs from the mp3 archive in the store, with a scrolling screen to show the Artist's name, CD title, song title, and track number. I have actually purchased quite a few CDs just because I heard a song from it played in the store.
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
Nope. Britney and the Backdoor Boys don't see a penny from BMI or ASCAP unless they have a writing credit. Mike Martin gets the performance royalties for these artists (as writer and producer for these two "acts").
If someone covers a Britney or Backdoor song (gag!), Mike Martin still gets the dosh.
What artists get are mechanical royalties, based on the number of shiny little discs sold (it was 37 1/2 cents/side IIRC), along with a percentage of sales from the record company.
Calling all Karma Whores: will someone please post the links for "Courtney Does the Math" and the Steve Albini rant that's based on?
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
we're all pirates and doing fairly illegal stuff
Dont you presume to speak for me. Im not a pirate. I have never attacked any shipping. However, I do perform unauthorized copying from time to time. And I dont like Newspeak.
not to say that the RIAA is doing stuff fairly, but they are doing it legally.
So what? Until the 1860s it was perfectly legal to own slaves in many American states. Legal!=Right and Illegal!=Wrong.
i'll admit. i've bought 1 new cd in the part 5 months, while i've burned 200 high quality cds from mp3's with a bitrate for 192 or higher that I downloaded from Napster. I download the mp3s, burn the full cd's, then delete the mp3s to make room for more. I use amazon's recommendation system to pick out which cd I want next based on whether I like the one I just downloaded or not.
Cool for you. But if you truly like some of that music, you really should think about supporting that artist, no?
Don't tell me what we're doing is legal. It isn't, and shouldn't be. But I do it anyway because I love music but detest paying $18/cd
Has anyone else noticed this? Every time this subject is discussed on /. the people, who by their own admission copy a lot and never buy the CD, are people who readily say what they are doing is wrong and use the loathsome word "pirating"?
Have you no honor? Im not saying youll have to agree with all laws, or obey them for that matter if you disagree, but you should at least be man or woman enough to follow your own convictions. If you, as you say, think unauthorized copying is wrong, dont do it then. Pay those $18 or go without. At the very least, dont be a hypocrite!
Personally, I think it is an unalienable Right of any man, woman and child to copy any and all released information without any restriction. On the other hand, it is also our solemn Duty to support the artists that we like. I follow my ethics - I copy, and I support.
/Dervak
recorded music purchases from students at college campuses that have banned "napster" programs vs. recorded music purchases from students at colleges that haven't banned it.
In the history of music sales, before Jan 1, 2000, only two albums ever sold 1 million or more copies in their first week of sales. In the year 2000 alone, five albums sold 1 million plus in their first week. It makes me wonder if stockholders should start the class action lawsuits; properly embracing online sales would definately 'enhance shareholder value.' Crushing it, though, probably hurts the bottom line, in so many ways.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
When will people understand that it doesn't matter if Napster users are all angels (and they're not, btw). It doesn't matter if they go out and buy 20 albums for every song they download. It doesn't matter if Napster generates more revenue. It doesn't matter if Napster is their biggest break since the microphone.
What matters is that Napster has removed the artist's say in what happens to their music. If artists want to be stubborn and miss this "great opportunity," that's their right, and it ought to be respected. Pretty simple.
Flat
Big Media has always been quick to shoot itself in the foot. They also said that the VCR would be the end of the film industry. Today's statistics don't quite agree with that viewpoint.
Just because a medium can be used to copy their product, doesn't mean it won't also increase their sales to the point that the lost revenue due to copying is offset a hundred times by the gains in sales.
What's it matter if two people run around with bootlegged copies of oh say a Lard album, when twenty people downloaded "The Power of Lard!", liked it, then ran over to Alternative Tentacles' website or Amazon.com and ordered their CD?
Thieves! Thieves and Liars! Hypocrites and Bastards!
Calling all Karma Whores: will someone please post the links for "Courtney Does the Math" and the Steve Albini rant that's based on?
Here ya go:
Steve Albini's rant
Courtney Love Does the Math
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And oh, yeah. Don't believe what you read about yourself.
*feeling pretty stupid*
Isn't this reserved for April Fool's?
we're all pirates and doing fairly illegal stuff
not to say that the RIAA is doing stuff fairly, but they are doing it legally.
i'll admit. i've bought 1 new cd in the part 5 months, while i've burned 200 high quality cds from mp3's with a bitrate for 192 or higher that I downloaded from Napster. I download the mp3s, burn the full cd's, then delete the mp3s to make room for more. I use amazon's recommendation system to pick out which cd I want next based on whether I like the one I just downloaded or not.
I bought that 1 cd because I couldn't find it on napster and I had $10 off at BN.com while I was buying books.
Don't tell me what we're doing is legal. It isn't, and shouldn't be. But I do it anyway because I love music but detest paying $18/cd
I believe that the recording industry isn't woried about losing record sales, they're woried about losing their monopoly on distribution. A monopoly is much more valuable than the actual CD's.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
Since that has happened I have not bought one new CD(thats about 1 year now). I dont want to buy a whole CD for one song, I want to Download other Songs by an artist and hear the Songs in FULL before I waste $12-$16 on a CD that cost MAYBE $5 to make.
Your first step is to listen to something else besides Top 40 pop music (the only kind of music which has one good song per album).
Ok. This guy has a point. And I did try this out the other day:
A - Find a CD I want.
B - Hunt Napster for songs from that CD.
C - Attempt to download said songs (preferablly from people with connections faster than my 300bps BBS days).
D - After finally putting together the whole album..(A task I can only compare to finishing my Original Star Wars IV "in the box" figure set...Unless you are looking for top 40...which you could just hit hear on the radio anyway) Determine if the songs are actually "whole" songs and not snippets of downloads gone bad in a previous life.
E - Convert to WAV files
F - Burn to CDR
Time spent hunting: 1+ hours
Time spent dload (T1): 1+ hours
Time spent re-dload (people think it's neat to cancel a request 3 megs in: 1+ hours
Time spent quality check: 45 mins (listen to each song)
Time spent convert and burn: 45 mins
Total time: 5.5+ hours for 1 CD (I think my time is a little more valuable than that....I will stick to buying them the old fashioned way thank you...Unless it is OOP or something)
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
--| piracy or copyright? the third solution |---
- copyright exists to ensure musicians get paid.
- the other side is that once an artist produces something,
it goes beyond them and many benefit.
- between consumers and producers now stands record companies
- but paying artists is only a step on the way to gaining profit.
in practice, many musicians (who play instruments) starve, while
marketing bimbos (spice girls) thrive - this is wrong.
- a fundemental qualitative difference between physical and
electronic goods is - if i have an apple and give you an apple,
i no longer have an apple; but if i have an idea and give you an idea,
we BOTH have an idea. therefore you cannot treat electronic things as
if they were actually physical goods, because they aren't!
- still, you must compensate producers of the original bits.
so what to do?
> MUSICIANS ASSOCIATIONS:
- the physical distributors and merchandisers pay into the musician's
pool that pays and feeds the musicians.
- the musicians pool distributes it equitably among its active producers.
- from the pool comesmore new music. which is given away for free.
unlimited digital copies for everyone, never again a dime paid for
anything that's just DATA.
- distributors get fresh music, and sell and package more STUFF.
- distributors pay back a percentage of sales back into the pool.
- so it comes back and feeds itelf (the most important part).
> RESULTS:
- so all software is free - you get mindshare from it.
- but if you make a physical whose value lies on the free music on it,
then a percentage goes back.
- but the artist is not paid direct - it goes to the musician's pool,
which doles out shares each month by percentage of overall downloads
from a service such as Napster.
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles
--
The Strength of the Wolf is the Pack;
and the Strength of the Pack is the Wolf.
(Rudyard Kipling)
"Here!" says his neighbor, and thrusts a thick sheaf of statistics at him. "The American Demographic Society says that 81% of passing drivers believe your lawn to look better without this tree!"
"Wha?" says Jon Katz.
"And here! I've got a completely different landscaping model which, according to my calculations, can increase the beauty of your lawn by fifty percent or more! Think of all the new friends you'll have!"
Jon Katz chases the guy away with a stick. His neighbor, while running, shouts, "Short-sighted dunderhead!" and "Closed-minded corporate goon!"