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.

Comments

Anecdotal Data Point

[scotch]

I have about 900 CDs, 100 vinyl albums, some music videos and DVDs, all of which I've purchased, some of it used. I have a couple thousand mp3s/oggs on a couple drives. Most of that is ripped from my own collection. Some of it is downloaded, though: of all that I've downloaded, I've bought albums for relatively little - maybe 10%. That doesn't include downloaded songs for music I already own (too lazy to rip, or my stuff is damaged - whether that is wrong is another topic). At the same time, I don't feel all that bad about keeping the other mp3s for stuff I don't own.

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.

Re:it's true

[letxa2000]

I've bought a lot of music that I discovered via "free" internet sources...

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.

I scare the RIAA...

[inquis]

...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.

For .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.

For 1$US a song, I would like everything I get for .50$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.

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 .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.

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 .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.

Since when did the customer stop being always right?

-inq