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.
An awful lot of commercial applications achieved the market share they got/have because they were released in some sort of try before you buy format, shareware, etc
It's a proven business model.
Why would anyone *presume* that it won't work for music?
They said TV would lower attendance at sporting events. Instead, it heightened their popularity.
Jack Valenti's "Jack the Ripper" comments about the VCR have given way to a rental market that now generates 1/3rd of Hollywood's money every year.
And now comes Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, an album released on the Internet in MP3 format (and still available on unnamed P2P services) that has sold fairly briskly in its first week out.
The upshot, I think, is that the medium-sized bands can benefit greatly from file-swapping, and this only fills the coffers of the record companies all the more. I may or may not have been swapping files for two years, I cannot comment on this, but I can tell you that I have bought many more CDs lately, and this may be because I listened to tracks online before buying, or maybe I didn't. Anyway, the record companies will learn to adapt, because intense copy protection will only doom them in the end, esp. if said copy protection "requires" CDs to go to $20 retail.
OT: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is one of the best albums I've heard in years. Buy it, or find one of those file-sharing things and check out their music there -- then buy it.
Maybe I'm just getting older (I think I would buy less music no matter what - it's not such a priority anymore), but I can't help but look at the wall my music collection takes up, and think about all the money it represents. Add to that all the money I've spent on concert tickets, t-shirts, beer sales at concerts, etc. It works out to be just shy of mother-fucking-lot-of money. And 95% of that has gone to the middleman,labels, and the RIAA. The artists I like tend to be poor. My devotion and buying habits don't help them: instead I just line the pockets of some record company exec's pocket.
I think any study should account for the fact that many people will likely buy less music as they get older. The trends with the kids (as in many things music related) is what really matters.
At this point, the RIAA owes me free access to every thing they put out until I die. I've been a good consumer. I probably paid for some asshole's Porche.
XML causes global warming.
If you don't agree with the Copyright terms, then don't listen to the music. It's a consumers market. The reason that the RIAA affiliates force commercialized pop crap down everybodies throat is because we buy it.
I download songs from the internet. I sometimes purchase albums from artists whos songs I've downloaded or found out about on the internet. I don't use the latter argument to justify the former.
Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you are stealing a *copy* or stealing the CD from a store. It is not ethical because the legal agreement between the artist, recording company, and you is being broken.
If you don't like this contract, then wait things out. Capitalism is a great engine to spur innovations. Eventually, somebody, somewhere, will have a distribution model that works better than what the creative geniuses </sarcasm> in the recording industry can come up with and the *consumers* (that's you and me) will buy into it. Eventually this model will be one that the RIAA can't squash.
In the mean time, our only job is to remind the government that people, not corporations, have rights.
The latest "value" added by a record company really turned me off. I had heard that the I Am Sam sountrack (the one with all the Beatles covers by today's artists) was copy protected. At least I'm pretty sure I heard that.
No matter. The coffee shop where I hang out was playing it yesterday and I went up to the counter and asked to see it. Popped it into my Titanium and ripped it no problemo. Wonder if the copy protection is Windows only?
Incidentally the Sarah McLachlan rendition of Blackbird is pretty darned good.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
A few weeks ago we mentioned Wilco, who released their album on their website for free. The strategy appears to have paid off.
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of arguments on these matters stuns me.. When record industry execs point to apparently flagging CD sales and the rise of P2P file sharing/piracy, people snidely attribute the drop in sales to poor record-company product, and NOT to P2P, rightly pointing out that correlation does not point to causation.
Yet when one band makes their album available for free, and coincidentally sell a lot of records/gets a lot of favorable press, people here (and the author of the referenced article) automatically attribute the PRESUMED increase (the numbers aren't in yet) in sales to the free availability of the CD. Yet they so willingly fall for the same statistical fallacy, namely in assuming that there is some causal relationship between the free availability of the CD and increased sales/buzz the CD is receiving. MIGHT ALL THE HYPE ABOUT WILCO BE ABOUT THE MUSIC, AND NOT THE DISTRIBUTION ?
But what really perplexes me is that the author of the referenced article HIMSELF points out (while damning viewpoint contrary to his own) that "correlation is not causation", even though his whole thesis is BASED on that very fallacy.
There have been lots of bands that have made their music freely available, yet I can't think of ONE that is successful BECAUSE they have done so. Certainly, if Wilco sells a lot of records, people will be cheering filesharing and deriding the RIAA, even though they may well have sold as many or more records without the free distribution.
// Begin beating dead horse
I find zero incentive to purchase CDs for a few reasons (most obvious first):
1.) Why spend money on something you can get for free? "Because I want to support my favorite artist/band" Well you sure as hell aren't doing it by purchasing their CD. We all know by now that the artist makes around a dollar or less from each CD purchase.
2.) Wahh, I want the album art -- almost always available in high quality on various CD cover & insert scan sites, and nice quality printers are cheap these days too.
3.) CD audio is a dying technology. Not to get all the audiophiles on my case here (most of which would probably argue that CD quality sucks to start with), but a lot of people don't even care for CDs anymore. A lot of people just turn their CDs into MP3s as soon as they get them. A lot of people prefer to simply download the album in a format that they can put on their portable players easily, in their own mix preference, without leaving their seat instead of making a special trip to a store to buy a special round disc that takes up space, or order one and wait for it to arrive, then get frustrated trying to get the plastic off of it. To hell with CDs.
4.) You're telling me that I'm supposed to go pay money for this album on a CD that comes out finally today in the real world, when I downloaded it 2-3 months ago and am tired/bored of it by now!? Yeah right.
Wasn't this whole thing supposed to be to overthrow the greedy record industry!? The digital music revolution, remember? Not "Yes RIAA, we'll buy more tangible shiny discs if you just let us keep sharing our copies of them. Now leave us alone and continue abusing your artists." I don't think it's about being cheap, I think it's about convenience, and about NOT giving more money to fat guys that sit at atop skyscrapers in suits smoking cigars that don't know the first thing about music.
I still say you're better off downloading the album and if you really like it, give the artist/band $5 at fairtunes.com
I haven't bought a CD in 2 years. I download all my music from someone that has chosen to share it. I hear it or remember it, hop online, and within 5 or 10 minutes I have it. Don't have to get in the car, don't have to deal with traffic, don't have to wait in line, don't have to pay $20 for one song. I just keep on programming while I download it in the background and it is instantly added to my partition dedicated exclusively to holding my sound library. Cheap and convenient.
I'm done being gouged by the RIAA. They had their chance to charge a reasonable price but chose to gouge instead. Now I wouldn't care if they charged $5 for a CD--I'll just grab it online for the reasons mentioned above and on general principle.
They'll have to conform with the 500 CDs I bought in the 90's earning them about $7500 because I won't be adding to that collection any longer--in fact, I only USE that collection to rip the songs I occasionally feel like hearing so that I never have to get up and look for the CD again.
Screw 'em.
Musicians, on the other hand, can earn money from me by touring. I will gladly pay $20 to see them live if they come through town.
yes, and you have a valid point, as well.
.mp3 does not cost nearly as much to produce as a more tangible product (i.e.; CD): no packaging, no shipping to a retail outlet, etc., figure that if a CD with about 15 songs costs $17, $.50 or $.75 ought to be the price of a downloadable single in .mp3 format.
that said, i want one or two songs from many many many bands. some/many of these songs i already own but am too damned lazy to get up and slap the CD(s) into my comp and rip the song(s) from it/them... i have broadband and can just set up a queue of songs and let them download in the background whilst i am otherwise occupied doing stuff on said comp. i do tend to select high bitrate versions, but as long as the songs are not glitched in some way i am not too concerned with quality ok, so i have ripped quite a few songs from CDs that i own, i am not totally lazy, and i know that i get higher quality this way, etc... whatever.
but there are more than a few songs that i have downloaded that i do not own, and would never buy unless given the opportunity to buy them as singles. that ain't happening, as you should now by now, the biz has put the kabosh on singles for some time now...
IF the biz would get their shizznitt together and give me a way to download singles, AT A REASONABLE PRICE, i'd buy 'em. 'reasonable price' means CHEAP, a 'reasonable price' must be arrived at considering that an
works for me.
and in the end, it's the job of the biz to cater to the consumer (me), while making a buck (or $.50, as the case may be) for the effort. if the biz won't cater to my wants/needs, i will see to it that i cater to my wants/needs.
ok, call me a thief, flame me... fuck it, i could care less...
Possible reasons for falling RIAA sales:
$6.2B/488.7M = $12.69/Unit (2000)
$5.9B/442.7M = $13.33/Unit (2001)
(a 5.04% increase, with 2000 US inflation at 3.4%)
i definitely wouldn't put it past some biz-school smartass to say in a boardroom meeting, "hey, let's bump up the price a little, decrease our sales, and create the data that will convince courts to shut down file traders."
There was an interview on the TV with one of the music recording artists trying to overturn an exemption to a California law allowing for excessively long personal service contracts for people who sign in the music industry. For those who don't know, California limits the maximum length of a personal service contract to 7 years. Any longer than that is illegal. In 1987, the recording industry managed to get an exemption passed just for them, basically allowing for indentured servitude on the part of artists who sign with them.
The recording industry's excuse is that if a band or artist gets popular, they need to be allowed to get maximum return on their investment (ie, they need to exploit them to the maximum the law allows) in order to make up for all the people who they sign that don't make it. The artists (at least the successful ones), understandably, are pissed about this - the example cited in the interview was of a singer who had been signed when she was 12. According to the terms of her contract, she needs to produce 11 albums. At 1 album every 2 years (a statistic she cited as being an industry average) she would be bound to the contract until she was 34 (at the time of the interview, she was in her early 20s.)
After her label got wind of her interview, they managed to negotiate a settlement, but there are other artists in similar positions. Essentially, they sign a contract dictating terms for a certain number of albums, and if they make a hit, they have little or no room to negotiate with the label because of the contract.
Of course, one of the terms of contract is that what they produce is property of the label - hence many artists, even if they wanted to promote themselves with MP3s, have their work controlled by the minions of the RIAA, including future work as covered under the terms of the contract...
That's how evil the system is. Now, before anyone goes off buying the RIAA line, consider this: the old Hollywood studio system functioned in the same way - actors, writers, directors, etc. were all under contract, and distributors were often forced to accept a "B" picture along with an "A" picture. These days, I don't think anyone would say that the movie industry is lacking in profits, even though everyone shuffles from job to job without the kind of iron-clad contracts that still characterize the music industry.
Okay, after some google searching, I finally found Wilco's site. But WTF? Where the hell can I download the album? I don't even see a place to preview the songs, except for a live show. It says they released it on April 23. What, was it only free for a week? Where are all the informative-link-putting-up karma whores when you need them?
Heh, linux users will love the blurb at the middle left: it says "got quicktime?"
c-hack.com |
Don't like RIAA or MPAA, then QUIT PAYING/LISTENING/WATCHING THEIR CHIT, or at least pay EPIC, EFF, and GeekPAC some bucks to offset the profit you are stuffing into Jack and Hillery's pockets. I haven't paid to go to a movie, buy a CD, or paid AOL/TIME/WARNER/CNN/DISCOVERY this year, nor will I for the rest of the year.
I'm in protest mode, and RIAA/MPAA/Sony/Warner/MGM et al can kiss my rosy red behind as long as they keep acting like spoiled children. Frankly, I don't miss the drivel so far. I listen to CD's I purchased in the past, swap CD's, books (and electronic books) & movies with friends & family, and all other legal things I can do to not PAY them. 'Course, Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner is a mite shy on common freaking sense, but that's no more than to be expected from IP control freaks.
Look, put up or shut up. Do something that hits IP profiteers in the pocket book, vote, and give money to those that are fighting for your rights, or shut up and drop it; you'll get what all cowards get sooner or later.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
"Because most people are obviously using file sharing to find new music to purchase. A concept the RIAA can not comprehend."
I don't comprehend it either, because I downloaded a lot of MP3's via Napster and Morpheus - but I wouldn't go out and buy them afterwards. A 192 RIP was good enough for me.
In this way, the RIAA is right. You download the MP3 - you are far less likely to buy it.
There is, however, a very different consequence which comes with MP3 sharing. And it's one which the RIAA, on reflection, has decided it does not like much either:
Overall music purchases dip a little. People who download Mp3's, however, ultimately consume more music. They eat more music, pay less for it, and spend their dollars in a less market efficient fashion.
It's a "hobby effect". You begin to "get into music" more, and you will buy music - just usually not the specific music you downloaded.
The effect is then to redisribute the proceeds of sales from the "leading group of the day" to those who aren't in the spotlight, but come to your attention and you buy it.
So what's in this for the RIAA? The more they market a band, the more airplay the band gets, the more the music is likely to be pirated and the more net sales from that band are adversely effected by music sharing.
Small consolation to the recording label when they find out that - yeah - the kids really like Sum41, and they end up so inspired that they go search out Sum41 "influences", go to the music store to buy some old Green Day EPs.
THe RIAA may be engaged in a vain struggle, they may disinform and lie and distort the facts, but they aren't *stupid*.
.Robert
.Robert
...because I will clearly state what exactly a song is worth to me, because I want to be able to do whatever I want to do with the content I purchase, and because I am not afraid to tell others the value I place on content.
.50$US a song, I would like permanent, fast access to a low-bitrate lossy copy of the song for my portable device (128 CBR mp3 would be reasonable), plus a high-bitrate lossy copy for my personal music collection on my hard drive (--alt-preset standard would be acceptable) from fast, reliable servers. These copies must be in an "unlocked" format.
.50$US a song, plus a losless copy of the song (in whatever format the RIAA decides is cheapest to distribute in, as long as the format is as unlocked as .wav) from fast, reliable servers.
.50$US: I'd gladly drop a dollar a song to have fast access to lossless copies of songs that I want to make a mix CD of, and I'd gladly drop another dollar on top of that to have fast access to some videos with maybe the band talking about the song, the music video, and maybe a video of them playing the song live. Let's say I decide to show said videos to my friends: three bucks on top of what I've already paid, and I get a VCD mailed to my house with SEVENTY MINUTES of video footage about my favorite song: the video, live performances, artist interviews, the works. If my band wants to try to learn to play the song, just pony up five more dollars and there you go. I know I'd pay five dollars for the bass tabs for Tool - Intolerance + an mp3 of just the bassline.
.50$US/song, and the artist sees 20% of what I spend, that artist has pocketed 1.20$US of what I've paid, which is about as much as the artist makes if I were to buy the CD retail. If I buy Tool - Intolerance at the 10$US level, the artist pockets 2$US -- more than Tool probably makes for selling the entire Undertow CD at retail. If I turn around and buy the rest of that album at .50$US/song, then I'll have paid 14.50$US (less than what I would pay retail) and the artist will have pocketed 2.90$US, which is probably much, much more than they make per disc now.
For
For 1$US a song, I would like everything I get for
For 2$US a song, I would like everything I get for 1$US a song, plus access to a few streaming videos of the band performing the song, and access to a streamed music video for the song (if it exists) from fast, reliable servers.
For 5$US a song, I would like everything I get for 2$US a song, plus access to downloadable copies of said video in unlocked formats from fast, reliable servers.
For 10$US a song, I would like everything I get for 5$US a song, plus what I like to call "all access" to the song:
-If I want a copy of the song in a specific format in a specific quality, there is a service that will automatically generate that copy for me and deliver it to me like automagic.
-I get access to any demo recordings of the song.
-I get access to all the materials I would need to reproduce the song on instruments (guitar tabulature, etc.)
-I get access to a multi-track recording of the song, where the individual tracks each represent one musical element of the final song when mixed together; i.e. one is the bassline, one is the lead guitar, one is the drummer, etc.
With a scheme such as this, I can "buy in" to a song to a level equal with my enjoyment of that song. I also have incentive to buy in to levels above
Hell, I even have some CDs where I'd gladly drop 10$US a song for the entire CD if the distributors (the RIAA, natch) would GIVE ME WHAT I WANT.
I DON'T WANT CRAP-QUALITY LOCKED COPIES OF CRAP SONGS, I WANT "COMPLETE" COPIES OF THE SONGS I LIKE, AND I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR FAST, RELIABLE ACCESS TO THE THINGS I WANT.
And put this in your pipe and smoke it: since the middleman is cut out (record stores), the artists can get a larger cut. If I buy a 12-track entire CD at
Since when did the customer stop being always right?
-inq
Yep. For all my cable modem-having, morpheus/kazaa-using, cd-rom burning,
I bought the album without hearing a peep of it before hand.
Why? Obvious reasons! But it's pretty dope!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.