Slashdot Mirror
Napster Spurs CD Sales; Gets Sued Again Anyway
hammy writes: "The Sydney Morning Herald is running this story about the results of a survey demonstrating that users of music downloading programs (ala Napster etc) actually buy more music. I'm sure this doesn't come as a surprise to any of the Slashdot crowd but it's nice to see a formal survey that supports our intuition. Makes many of the RIAA arguments ring a little hollow." Meanwhile, Napster is being sued yet again. That's gratitude for you.
Personally, the number of CDs I've bought has
gone down since I started using Napster. Why
should I pay out good money when I've got the
music already?
Of course, this _is_ almost completely hit-and-run tactics and has been since around 1990: release, go multiplatinum within a year, discard, repeat. It hugely drives RIAA label sales, but it doesn't make any new artist careers. Britney Spears is the Warrant ('Cherry Pie') of 2001. Warrant went double platinum back in '91 with that- and in ten years has not added another platinum to that total. TEN years with no further sales, after double platinum in the first year. The only difference between that and Britney is that these days, sales are up so much that Britney goes _13_ platinums in the same time period... and then, nothing, when they tire of her or when she starts demanding a career, or gets too old (say, 20...).
It's sick. But it sure as hell sells a lot of records. There is no way to sanely argue that sales are down.
I'm currently studying longterm sales in the music business, and here's the deal: the bands being sought after to sell beer and things (Bob Seger, et al), are the A-List of twenty years ago.
Around ten years ago, the music business shifted to all-out A-List promotion rather than any attempt at career building. This is when you began to see bands that came out, did double platinum in less than a year, and then _vanished_. I don't mean broke up- the record remains in the catalog whether the band's still around or not, but when the record industry does this, they do incredible volume for a very brief time and when they stop promoting, NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR ANY MORE.
Beer companies don't want to use bands like that to sell beer, either. They want Bob Seger or Brooce- catalog sellers from at least 20 years ago.
What the A-List artists are these days is processed stuff- 'N Sync etc. The RIAA _can't_ lose control of artists like that, because history shows that when the RIAA quits pushing that kind of act, the sales STOP. With real bands, the sales continue- sometimes in a big way, for what's called a 'catalog killer' album. There are no such albums being made these days, and that's intentional.
This is because dealing with always new and inexperienced artists means no nasty skepticism about deal terms, no griping about contracts, no questions about what's recoupable expenses: using only new inexperienced artists means they can be contractually hosed, wrung out until all the money is squeezed out, and then dropped. If the RIAA labels had to maintain careers they wouldn't earn as much relative to the artist because the artist would develop savvy and clout and ability to negotiate contracts. The RIAA needs _virgin_ artists with no savvy or clout in order to get away with the margins it needs to survive.
It needs these margins because it's viciously squeezed by rack jobbers and independent promotion- both of which have been consolidating, bigtime. The RIAA doesn't _keep_ its money- it's gotta pay a LOT of 'protection' to independent promotion, which controls radio. It's gotta bribe people to get CDs placed in Wal-Mart, when there's only 2 slots available and they're being viciously fought over. You can see why the RIAA doesn't dare allow genuine careers to develop- it needs puppet artists to manipulate and discard. They come cheaper.
The trouble is, once you quit pulling the strings, the puppet artists collapse, and sales completely stop. When you pick an act and a single and a video specifically because it's horrible enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and then you dump lots of it on the market, you can move a lot of units to half-interested people- then when you have to rely on the value of the material for back catalog sales, the sales absolutely fall off a cliff because nobody really wants to hear it- it's fake.
And this is shown by the tendency of commercial music (the beer manufacturers and so on) to want guys like Bob Seger in preference to fake A-List pop stars that have sold three times as many records as Seger ever did. They know that the fake stuff will stop selling the instant the RIAA label stops pushing- and they need more appeal than that, to sell beer. They know that the RIAA is operating on a 'push' basis and can't or won't invest in developing artists that people _want_ to hear.
And THAT is what the RIAA is so scared of.
Do the math: it's all a matter of public record. You can get the information online, about sales of platinum and gold albums, and look at the sales curves before and after 1990. That seems to be roughly the dividing point.
My modem's only got 11 speeds! Where do you get one of these 33 speed modems?? I want one!! The geekiness of having 33 speeds, compared to a puny 11, would be incredible, even if the modem itself could only be running at 9600, from his description.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They already did. Even in Canada
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
About 2 months ago I saw a group I liked on a Nationally televised show (name withheld to protect the guilty from pro-napster nastygrams). I subsequently hit Napster and downloaded several tracks. I liked 'em, so I found the groups website and found they were playing locally. I purposefully held off on purchasing the CDs so that I could get them at the local gig-ensuring more profit for the group. I also bought a shirt and brought 4 people with me. End result, the group grossed well over $100 between tix and merch. And were it not for the tracks on Napster, the whole thing would've been dead before it started.
After the gig, the members of the group came out and mingled with the audience. I mentioned to one of the members that our presence was due to Napster, she made a comment about Napster being evil. I followed up with an email to the group, specifically outlining precisely what happened and how much they made directly due to Napster. They just don't get it. They're too caught up in the concept that it's a violation of copyright to grok the fact that they are benefiting from it. The irrational fear that they are losing money is totally blinding them to the reality of the situation. You can lead a horse to water...
It's all about progress. Some people embrace it and thrive, others fear it and try to stop it. They seldom succeed, and often damage themselves in the process-although many never even figure this out.
Regards,
ehintz
And I'd like to make it clear for me that it's just the opposite. I have actually bought MORE music as a direct result of Napster.
I have not only used it to sample songs to see if I wanted to buy albums I was aware of, but also to discover new artists, and sample their songs. And in the last three months, after losing my DSL access (thank you Northpoint), my music purchases have seriously decreased again, without this method of previewing music and exploring what is available.
I suppose it's still not something the RIAA would be pleased with since quite a few of those purchases have been independent labels outside of the RIAA's realm - but I plan on continuing to focus mainly, if not exclusively, on non-RIAA artists after their wonderful attempt to keep their distribution monopoly.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
It seems people really need a lesson in correlation and causation. Just because two things are correlated (ie they have some link, whether casual or otherwise) doesn't imply causation (that one caused the other). CD sales went up and people used Napster. These things may be related, or they may not be. People who use Napster buy more CDs than other people. This could be caused by them using Napster. It could also be that people who buy more CDs are more likely to use Napster. There are many factors that can affect something like this, and just saying "CD sales went up and a lot of people used Napster, so therefore Napster caused CD sales to go up" doesn't hold any more water than saying "CD sales went up less than they have, and lots of people used Napster, so it must be Napster that is impeeding the growth". There is no proof that the relationship is causal in either direction, because there is no control group that never has seen Napster. There is no way to say with any kind of certainty that Napster has hurt or helped CD sales (not that that will stop either side from trying).
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
What are we comparing against when we say "more CD's"? If we are saying that these people buy "more CD's than they would have without Napster" then great, it sounds like Napster (and other programs) have a positive impact on people's tendency to buy.
On the other hand, if we are saying that Napster users buy "more CD's than people who don't use Napster" then we haven't really said anything at all. People that are more interested in music would be more likely to both download and buy music than people who aren't interested in music at all.
So, which one are we really proving here?
--
- More music
- Less music
- The same amount of music
- Cowboy Neal
- I don't use napster
This poll is hereby released into the public domain.ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
along with the RIAA's own data which shows increased CD sales?
It is a fallacy to assume that since overall sales have gone up, that Napster has not suppressed sales below what they would have been otherwise. I'm not supporting the RIAA here, just pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument. Record companies are entitled to try to make the most money they can, as long as they do so within the law not within ethics or morality (which you might hope they would consider anyway), and when someone costs them sales in violation of the law (which is what is (or rather was) at issue with Napster), they are entitled to a redress of their grievances against that party, and perhaps damages. In a civil case, as far as I am aware, incidentally or accidentally helping out the party you have "wronged" is not an affirmative defense, i.e. if you broke the law and the opposing party actually came out ahead, that is not a defense (you still broke the law). Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong on this point....
Whether you support Napster or not (I'm actually on the fence), you can't use surveys to bolster your argument. Neither can the RIAA. Surveys are inherently flawed as a scientific method of producing data. Surveys can use misleading questions, slightly unusual definitions, and a host of other methods to twist the results even before they are collated. Even if you have NO agenda, and just honestly want to know the answer to a question, results obtained from surveys are highly suspect, and must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I have some (small) experience in this area, as I used to do work for a group that wanted information that could only be obtained by asking our patrons questions. After working for months to design a survey with overlapping, interlocking questions so that we could run cross checks on the results, carefully picking wordings, working long into the night to tailor the questions to specifically address the issue we wanted data for, and then administering and analyzing over 3000 responses, we discovered that: what we thought we were very clear in asking was not at all what some of the patrons thought we were asking; that nearly 30% of the survey responses were internally inconsistent as far as we could tell (ask the same factual question two different ways, and obtain two different responses); that even when the data was unambiguous, it was very difficult to understand (interpret) what the answers meant; and many other problems.
Surveys to answer the question "Does napster encourage or suppress music sales?" will never produce a valid, reliable answer. There are just too many variables. The only way to answer that question for sure is to take a representative cross section of Napster, non-Napster, and former-Napster users, and analyze their music buying behavior before and after the introduction of the Napster service, and correct the results for economic growth, socio-economic status, locale, and many other factors. And then, you MIGHT be able to say something statistically valid. MIGHT.
The survey claims that 86% of respondents claim to have downloaded free music online. What this immediately suggests is that almost none of those polled were non-internet users, which isn't terribly surprising as it seems the poll itself took place online. Why his this pertinent? Because it offers no comparison between traditional music buyers and those influenced by Napster. None of this is made terribly clear in actual writing, though.
Furthermore, both the article and poll itself identify that those polled were "music fans." What about those millions of casual Napster users who aren't "fans" to a significant degree that they would both download music files AND do the right thing and purchase the CDs?
"86% of all respondents said that they HAD purchased a CD album as a direct result of downloading free tracks from it."... so they've purchased "a" CD? I know very few people who've downloaded only music from a single CD while using Napster. A better question may ask respondents whether they purchase CDs for the MAJORITY of the music that they download online.
Heck, even the question as to whether music downloads have stopped users from purchasing CDs is silly. Napster doesn't stop people from purchasing, it merely offers another option.
Worst of all, this poll conflicts with almost every other poll discussing online purchasing trends, particularly among internet users under the age of 18 (which make up a good portion of those polled). While I do feel it's reasonable to blame those organizing the poll for the wording of some questions, they can't be blamed for not adjusting their results to adequately account for outside factors, which are almost always required with online polls. All I know is that there are countless other polls and surveys, performed by more reliable sources for the most part, that conflict what one may be assumed from face value analysis of this poll. Maybe if they'd offered some interpretation of their own along with the poll results, and some analysis of sources of error, I'd be more accepting.
Oh, and the article's HTML title mispells "dowqnload." Maybe that plays some roll in my misunderstanding, heh.
A lot of assumptions are being made here. Assume I don't care about music in any form. I wouldn't be on napster or buy CD's. Assume I love all the music I can get and try. I would buy CD's and log in to Napster. Does that prove I buy more CD's because I log in to Napster? RIAA can't prove either way Napster causes more or less CD's to be sold. They do however assume a song downloaded is a song not bought but taken anyway. This distinctive lack of a KerChing is upsetting them.
The truth shall set you free!
The legal status of old radio shows is a horrible mismash of copyright law, anti-piracy law, and individual laws pased in different states.
For example, early on radio broadcasts weren't copyrightable, but music recordings were. So the producer's of a show would publish and copyright a recording of the theme song, so that any recording of the show would be protected. Some shows (and early music recording) were protected my extentions made to high-seas piracy laws.
Basically you need to determin the status of a show on a case-by-case basis.
What do you know I wrote a novel
This is not a Fugazi
lets say 10 tracks apiece with 5 meg size with 10 cds, thats 500 megs. Maybe he meant some super high quality mp3s? I think perhaps the point was missed that noone buys 3GB drives anymore, and most people don't care about the difference between CD quality and mp3 128kbps quality...
You crazy man? You piss off supahfly!
Who gives a shit if poor ol' Napster is getting another bitch-slap? The stats "proving" Napster spurs more CD purchases are simply ridiculous. There is no way anyone is going to prove any causal relationship between CD sales and Napster (good or bad) - even if such a relationship exists.
Bottom-line... Napster and its users (that includes the 6 songs I downloaded) are absolutely all about stealing music. Period. This geek media fascination with the new, reformed Napster is becoming a sad and pathetic spectacle of denial. And before anyone flames me, the Napster debate is NOT in the same universe of 'fair use' laws.
There...I feel better now.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Come on, this survey was awful. Take the time to read the story and understand the questions posed in the survey. The survey in no way showed that CD sales were "spurred" by downloading MP3's. People were merely asked whether or not they would buy music after downloading it.
And if you read on to the end of the story, you'll see that the guy writing the story has no idea what he's talking about...
a quote from the story - "Seriously, how many people are prepared to spend several days - because that's how long it wil take on 33 speed modem - downloading a whole album and then listening to inferior sound quality; additionally, how many people have hard drives with the hundreds of gigabytes of memory required to store more than a few dozen CDs? About 10-12 CDs worth will completely use up the memory of a 3GB hard drive."
I think that says it all right there... 3GB for 10 albums in MP3 format? I don't think so.
I support Napster, free downloading, etc... but this "Scientific Survery" was garbage.