Slashdot Mirror
Sharing Increases Music Purchases?
darnellmc writes "See this News.com article which cites a study that shows file swapping increases music purchases. I guess it all depends on who is paid to do the study and how they carry it out, but this report would counter the study performed by an RIAA backed group, which noted that file swapping lowered music purchases. You would have to be one cheap individual to want to download all the music in your life for free and this study proves that. Because most people are obviously using file sharing to find new music to purchase. A concept the RIAA can not comprehend. If future major music releases are copy protected, it will be interesting how the RIAA will respond if they sell less." Well, if they sell less, it will be due to pirates, of course. A few weeks ago we mentioned Wilco, who released their album on their website for free. The strategy appears to have paid off.
Listening to the new wilco disc as I write this. It's fantastic, anybody who's into bands like Olivia Tremor Control or Neutral Milk Hotel will definatly dig it.
And, coincidentally, I downloaded the whole album off the net a few days before it came out, and still bought it the day it was available.
My own music purchasing has declined substantially since napster went away and getting music got "harder" - limewire and the rest are ok, but nowhere near as convenient as napster was. I've purchased maybe 10 discs in the last 12 months or so since napster really died, verses probably 50 or 60 in the 12 months before that.
Oh well, they want to shoot themselves in the foot, call us all criminals, whatever, I guess they can keep on doing it.
Now I must go, as I have some commercials to fast forward through, as part of my evil scheme to steal television! muahaha!
Internet music sharing is most common wide spread commercial that's possible. There are only two kinds of people, the ones who nuy, and the ones who don't. So if some performers songs don't reach buying public (mostly because of a poor commercial), they don't sell, this way makes it possible to push samples all over the world for free.
RIAA is just bullshiting just like BSA. No common good, just turning a
people away of buying products.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
True,
When I was a student I shared and swapped a LOT of MP3s... Since I started full-time work last year, I buy all my music mainly because:
a) I get the original CD
b) I can play the music on the way to work in my car
I still rip CDs into MP3 so I can just use iTunes rather than cart around umpteen hundred CDs... But it's kinda satisfying knowing that most of your MP3s are from your own collection...
I think what the record companies need to do is no discourage music sharing by rather value add the CDs that they sell. I recently bought "Faithless - Special Edition" and the added value was a bonus CD.
If they value add their CDs along the same lines as the difference between buying video or a DVD - think they they won't have a problem.
Personally, I don't think they have a problem now.
-- Dan =)
I remember reading about a similar report a long time ago (like a while before Napster was shut down)....
WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN TO SHARE?!?!?!?! THEY TEACH YOU THAT IN KINDERGARTEN STILL, RIGHT!?!?!?
Hello, Capt. Obvious.
Slashdot HAS, in fact, posted articles that mention just such a study (heck - THIS article mentions it even if it leaves out a link). And yes, they noted that the study was from the RIAA.
To be fair, this article admits that studies tend to favor the views of those who are paying for them.
You're a smart reader. Follow the links. Read the studies. Note who is paying for the study. Make up your own mind.
Go to clubs w/live music (bands you like), pay the cover, drink lots of beer, score a couple of phone #s, then go home and download all the MP3s you want. Never feel guilty. You will have a MUCH greater impact on the state of the music scene by going out and drinking beer than buying CDs. In addition, you'll support the up-and-coming artists who just want to play music. Just remember, the more beer you drink, the more "in demand" that band will be, and the better the music scene in your city. It's guiness time.
My entire music library now consists of legally free music.
I got sick and tired of listening to the RIAA spout its garbage, so I turned to mp3.com. I have never heard better, more creative music in my life, and all with an open source mentalty. I will never again bother with "music-for-money" - people who create music for the love of it make music that sounds thousands of times better than people who do it for the money.
They (record companies) seem determined to kill the goos that laid the golden egg. They'd rather have control than cash.
I think that they would rather have the cash.
Its more that they don't understand either the technology (which is probably unstoppable), or their own customers.
In particular, the major music labels don't seem to understand that:
1) Some people will pay money anyway for CD's if they like them enough.
2) Alot more people would buy the music if they sold them directly over the internet.
I personally believe that their sales would rocket up even at the same profit margins if they just dropped the cost of producing and distributing the CD's from the price of an internet download. This might only be a few dollars cheaper than what you pay to a major music store for the CD.
So what I think is happening here is the equivalent of what happened to encyclopedia salesmen with encarta. They were so locked in to a large existing sales network with high production costs that they could not bring themselves to cannibalise their own networks to maintain sales. This nearly destroyed the companies (such as britannica) before they finally did a U turn. People were happy to buy an inferior (M$ Encarta - not that it was bad, just less information) product because it was so much cheaper, and almost as good.
The analogy here of technology hitting an established high premium sales network is pretty tight. And I believe that the outcome will be the same. Eventually the networks will recognise this, and sell music tracks online for alot less than they currently do. They will prosper under this arrangement, although much of their distribution network will have to die in the process.
For the record, I can see the same thing ultimately happening with video, and a similar process of technological change is occuring with cameras and film. Our home computers will take on all of these tasks. We will still shop, but for production tools (printers, cameras) and 'raw' materials (blank CD's, DVD's high quality paper). Companies that get on this bandwagon will do well (ask Kodak), and those that pretend it isn't happening will go towards the wall (ask britannica!).
My 2c worth
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading files. About 14 percent of heavy file traders say they now spend less on music.
The problem with this study is that it is contingent on the credibility of people who openly admit that they're breaking the law (though that's arguable). It'll be tough to make that point stand up against the numbers that huge law-abiding (right) corporate entities are backing.
Oh, and I have pretty much dropped back to pre-napster music purchasing habits since it's become more difficult to find what I'm looking for without fear of penalty. I was spending easily 1000% what I am now.
... right now is that the RIAA has labeled me a thief. It wasn't all that long ago that I was downloading music and then making trips to the music store. Somebody'd say "Chemical Brothers is pretty good.." and I'd go find some CB songs and listen to them. Boom, found an interesting album, went and bought a CD.
Now, though, I'm a thief because I download songs. That's it. No other definition. They don't care that the MP3's I had were complimented with store bought CD's. Hell, they even tried to take my rights away with the SSSCA. Did they even try to support me as a customer? Nope. They still sell albums but not singles (not enough singles I should say...). They still insist that I can only listen to the CD and not the MP3 version. They don't cater to my new demands that I'm willing to pay for. They assume that because I own an MP3 Player and a CD Burner that I'm automatically going to stop paying for music. They even use numbers based on that (fictional numbers I might add...) in order to grease up a politician into getting the Government to pass laws to keep their ancient business model going. I'm sorry, but I'm not giving any more money to the RIAA so they can buy legislation that takes my rights away.
Right now, my only realistic approach to buy used CD's. Unfortunately, I feel bad because I really would like to support the artists out there. If there are any artists reading this article now, please... provide me with a way to pay you directly. I'll pay double what your royalty from a CD would be. At this point, I don't care about having MP3's legitimately anymore, but I do care about making sure the artists have incentive to keep doing their work.
Here that RIAA? You're scaring off your customers! How long do you think that business model will last?
"Derp de derp."
It's not about the money!
As much as they pretend about the money, the REAL reason what "file sharing is wrong" is becuase it allows for a subtle shift in the societal mindshare concerning how music gets distributed. The "content industry" is a misnomer, it's actually a "distributiuon industry", producing either very little or NO new content at all. Allowing the public (PARTICULARLY the artists) to begin to think about alternative means of distribution as actual possibilities (not just pipe dreams) is the first step on the road to utter decimation of the status quo.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Status quo is what it's all about, in many things.
The RIAA is afraid of things they don't think they can control. They don't want to lose the control, or even think about losing just a little of it.
A lot of the Big Bands, the RIAA's best little moneymakers, are afraid of someone better than them but less known stepping up and getting popular.
When authors objected to the idea of giving away books, who had the most objections? The guys with lots of books already sold and lots of money did.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
It still surprises me that even on a tech-savvy site like Slashdot, where most readers probably took some university-level math, most people tend to have a fairly weak understanding of logical reasoning, statistical analysis, and game theory.
1. Anecdotal evidence is worthless in statistical analysis.
Even if Wilco succeeds in this one particular case, that doesn't provide substantial evidence that releasing your album for free works in general. We don't even know for sure that it benefited Wilco. It probably did... any publicity is good publicity. But go to MP3.com and you will find a ton of bands who made $6 last month in royalties for the priviledge of allowing people to download their music for free.
2. An effect observed in a small sample size (relative to the total population) may not generalize to a large sample size.
Wilco's album appears to be selling quite well, and let's assume for the moment that that is due largely to their decision to release it for free on the Internet. Now imagine if everyone did that. Now Wilco would no longer stand out in the crowd, and they would lose the competitive advantage they gained from free promotion. Hype is a non-linear effect.
3. You must not ignore the effects of statistical lag.
Imagine a medical study where the patients who receive a new drug feel better immediately, but then die five years later. It is meaningless to compare album sales today to file "sharing" statistics today. It takes time for the effects of technology to affect the market. Take a look at the second derivative, and you may see that file "sharing" is in fact hurting album sales.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
If you think the people who are on mp3.com dont want to make money with their music then you are one seriously deluded individual. *EVERY* musician out there that creates music WANTS to make money off what they create. Some just want to be able to make enough to survive and live a comfortable life -- others want to make millions -- it just depends. Yes, writing music *IS* fun (or can be), but to think that people make music just for the "joy" of it is ridiculous.
GWB to President of Brazil - "You have blacks, too?"
There are a lot of reasons for people not to get all their music via download right now. Most people still only have dial-up access, and if you want to pirate more than a few tracks per day, you'll basically have to leave it on all the time. None of the lossy encoding out there has reached real CD quality (well I've heard that if you run the ogg encoder at the very highest quality setting, it turns all of the compression entirely off, but that doesn't count), and this is compounded by the fact that most of the files on P2P services are very poorly encoded, and this is the channel by which most people obtain their pirated music (some of them even have upper bitrate limits, so even if you have high-quality rips they won't be shared).
That being said, being on a college campus where very fast broadband access is universally available, I know of many people who listen to lots of music, and don't own a single legal, commercial CD. This of course is the future...broadband will become more prevalent, compression algorithms will improve, and little by little people WILL pirate what they can. Personally I do buy some CDs, but my reason is the exact opposite than what all these piracy advocates put forward...I buy not what I can find on the Internet, but what I CANNOT. This has to do mainly with my distinctly minority musical taste, most people really can find most of what they want to listen to through various channels.
I think that if piracy of copyrighted music continues it most certainly WILL lead to the downfall of the commercial music recording industry as we know it. This is quantitatively different than VCRs...nobody uses Gnutella or whatever to copy what they already have (if you own the CD or DVD, and you want a copy on your computer, you'll rip it yourself with your own preferred quality settings, after all). I personally support this, and would love it if commercial pop music were to disappear from the face of the earth, but judging by what most people prefer to pirate on the Internet, I would say many of you probably feel differently.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Its all about control.
Here in L.A. the radio SUCKS! There are about five hip/hop/R&B/top 40 stations, a couple of classic rock stations and the rest pretty much is spanish. I listen to the music I love by going to a couple of stations' websites (wxrv.com and wbos.com)., looking at their playlists and downloading the music. If I find an artist that I like, generally I buy that CD. So far this year, I've bought perhaps 15-20 CD's due to my ability to listen to the songs this way. There's no other way to hear this type of music here in L.A. as it's not played on the radio. For me, downloading music is an alternative to listening to it on the radio. Let me state this again, as it's an important point: Downloading has replaced the radio as my preferred (ne' my ONLY way) way of discovering new music.
Now, I can't understand why the RIAA is so clueless as to think that all of us want to listen to Mary J. Blige and N'Sync. My 17 year old daughter doesn't even listen to that stuff (though my 14 year old does).
The reason that that music sales are down is simple: the recording industry isn't serving the consumer! If I get a bad meal at a restaurant I don't go there any more. If there's a TV show that I don't like, I don't watch it. If a store rips me off, I don't shop there. None of these receive govt. assistance. THE MARKETPLACE serves them, and they live or die based upon it. Why should the music industry receive special treatment from the Government then? If the record industry is producing a poor product that I have no desire to buy, why should Congress stifle their competition to try and force me to buy their product?
Can anyone explain this to me...like I was a six year old?
Also note that 1999 was a record year for just about everyone, RIAA included. betwteen 1998 and 1999, the largest category increase in consumer spending was in entertainment, an 8.3% difference (PDF) according to the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average US citizen spent $1,891 on entertainment in 1999. In 2000 (most recent year for which stats (PDF) are available), there was a -1.5% change from the previous year -- avg. total of $1,863.
Gee. People spend less on entertainment -- because of a bad economy or because of file trading? Your guess is as good as mine, but file trading sure as hell was around in 1999 -- a record year for the RIAA.
Good thing no one ripped that bonus CD and posted it on the Internet.
I've no doubt it's prolly already been ripped. Like you said, anythng that's a value add can be ripped. but I think there's a bit more psychology there too:
Person A: has a burned CD of Band X
Person B: Has the limited edition Super CD of Band X.
I guess it depends on the person but I think you'll find many people will want to be in Person B territory, especially if they think in term of collectability etc.
I'll ask another question: Who do you think will get more value out of a game: Person A who has a rip & plays single player or LAN, or Person B who paid AUD$80 for a game where they have access to the online communities etc...
Sure you can circumvent it, but why would you? I guess my attitude changed the day I got to talk shop with some game developers (Pandemic DR2), also the fact that local developer AURAN is just down the road (and I might add, going through tough times atm laying off ppl from what I hear...)
I guess it all depends on perspective. I don't have too much love for the large top 40 manufactured artists etc. But I'd look like a hyporcrite if I bought locals/bands that I like and ripped the rest (not that I'd listen to their music anyway...), but it's a principle thing...
-- Dan "Who really should stop posting on this topic and work on his paper" Thomas =)
Part of the problem with them ever selling it online is the lack of quality out there. How many CD's can you think of that have more than a song or two you'd like enough to buy? I've got a handful here that have at least 3 songs that *I* like; but most of them were purchased for a single song or two. I really don't think online purchasing will fly unless it was by the song and if so I can't see there being enough money there....
This is free for the RIAA et al. to adopt:
They allow high quality streaming of ALL the songs from the albums. Then sell HIGH (196kbs) Quality mp3 downloads of the songs for a fraction of the cost of the cd.
Do not worry about people who will never buy, Don't worry about people who only buy CDs. There are many others like me who would rather buy just the songs for a cheaper price. Of course now they will be providing songs that can transmitted to friends and etc. Don't worry about that; those people who would like to download them from friends probably will download them from filesharing utilities.
But what about those who download and then buy the album? If you sell them online cheaper you lose some money right? Yes, yes you do. However, you make a lot more from people who want to pay for the music but can't justify 18 dollars for a cd.
Trying to clamp down and stop honest people from using the music fairly BENEFITS NO ONE. Trying to stop filesharing is like trying to push unused toothpaste back in the tube.
At the risk of sounding cliche don't alienate your base and don't sweat the small stuff!
Were things better for you all along time ago? Maybe. Have things changed? Yes yes they have. Was it overnight? Nope. Will it change back? Not only no but hell no.
--Joey
War does not determine who is right Only who's left
The actions of the RIAA have driven me away from mainstream. Last year I purchased 53 CDs, and NOT one was from a RIAA member label. When I started boycott-riaa.com in July 2000, I quit buying mainstream music, and it hurt. I really enjoy music, of all genres and was somewhat lost, as to what to do. Soon I discovered that there is a huge amount of music available from independents. Soon I was visiting CDBaby every payday, visiting indie artists websites, buying from the artist rather than the cartel.
.4 of a percent. I wish I could say the same for my 401K.
Over the years I've usually purchased 1 or 2 CDs per month. Last year I purchased about one per week. The reason? I heard the music beforehand, not after I got the CD home. Every CD from every artist let me hear not just 30 second samples but most often full tracks, or the full CD. Many let me download MP3s of those tracks. Damn right the RIAA sales are down, they got not one cent of my money, in a year I bought more CDs than every year before.
In the ongoing "Chicken Little" scenario presented by Hilary Rosen and her band of thugs, they neglect to tell you that Sony Music was UP last year, that Warner Music was UP last year, and that EMI as down a scant
Yes, writing music *IS* fun (or can be), but to think that people make music just for the "joy" of it is ridiculous.
Yeah. Just as ridiculous as the idea that people would write code just for the "joy" of it...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!