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.
years ago when I wanted Free music I had to sit next to the radio all day until they played the song I wanted and recoreded it using the Tape Deck, crossing my fingers hoping the DJ wouldn't come on early before the song ended.
$cat
I don't quite get the relation between music sales and my swapfile.
I'm glad that I'm not the only who's doing this. Just last month, I was looking around for industrial music and decided to download the entire "Downward Spiral" album off of LimeWire. I ended up liking it so much that I went off to Best Buy the next week and put the CD in my pocket while no one was looking before quietly walking out the back door and sprinting for my car. Man, what a rush.
Anyway, more power to the music sharing people. I think it's about time someone ran an honest, non-biased study about this, and I'm glad to see these results. They just prove to me what I've known all along.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
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!
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?
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.
And guess wich study will get the most attention in the mainstream media?
No prices for knowing the correct answer to that one I'm afraid...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
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
Every single CD I own I bought because they'd been suggested by a friend who sent me an MP3 (or told me to download one). Before Napster, I'd never bought music other than movie soundtracks...
For example, my favorite group, Apocalyptica (rock'n'roll cellos) - I own all 4 of their released CDs. Were it not for Napster, I'd never have heard of them, let alone purchased their music.
Music corps lose nothing if they can explicitly control music use. They could then choose to allow sharing as widely or as narrowly as they like.
Watch for it - the DRM PC will become a reality.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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 =)
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.
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!?!?!?
don't get me wrong, i'm all for prereleasing albums on the internet, but, looking from a completely neutral standpoint, can the success of the album be attributed to it being released on the internet? How many of the 55,573 copies were purchased by people who had heard about the album on slashdot and wanted to try to 'help the cause.' If another band were to release an album on the internet first, but didn't get mainstream (as mainstream as slashdot can be, at least) attention, would it have as much success?
...
just an opposing viewpoint to think about
ìì!
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.
Actually they did.
jamie flamed them heavily though...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
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.
"Music sellers should devote their limited resources to online marketing and distribution"
Hahaha. Limited. I sure hope they we're being facetious.
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.
I know plenty of people in both categories. There are many people who download music in order to hear things they aren't familiar with, and then buy the CD if they really like it (or at least buy some of the CDs they really like). But I also know many other people who no longer ever buy CDs and instead burn their downloade mp3s to audio CDs. If asked why they don't buy CDs, the usual response is something along the lines of "I already made the CD myself, why would I pay to get the same thing?"
There's an increasing number of these "freeloaders," as it were, compared to say 3 or 4 years ago. By now the only people I know who still buy CDs are one of:
1) obsessive fans of a particular band, who buy everything that band puts out (but still pirate everything else)
2) music collectors (often self-described "audiophiles") who enjoy physically owning the CD because it increases the size of their music collection
There also used to be people who liked the liner notes and cover art and such, but with cheap scanners you can find most of those online these days anyway (many mp3-release groups release the scans along with the mp3s), so the only people who still care about that are the people who already fall into category (2) above, and want an authentic physical copy rather than a printout of a scan.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
At a music store the other day, I saw Mahavishnu's cds, and there were songs that I have never seen on AudioGalaxy, Kazaa, Gnutella, Edonkey, no single file sharing program. I could go back to my home and search for more Mahavishnu on AudioGalaxy (and I did a few days later, and there are much more), but there, standing with the cd at my hands, I thought: "I gotta listen to these songs".
And this is when I paid 15 dollars for it. I bought a cd from a relative obscure band that, I confess, have downloaded songs from the Internet. But these moments at the store are what we call consumerism. I have to get this cd, the thought wouldn't stop crossing my mind. I have, because the band is cool, I have the necessary money, never heard these songs, and above all, they deserve.
Of course, that's an single example, since this situation happened many more times.
Moral of the history? If I couldn't download Mahavishnu's songs, the music industry wouldn't earn even these 15 dollars.
Second moral of the history? File sharing can be profitable, all we need is a reason to spend the money.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
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."
This is not a troll. It's a serious question.
I agree with your general point, that CDs should have value-added features. But "added" audio tracks will just end up online like the "regular" ones.
Enhanced CDs with videos are a nice thing (videos can be file-shared, too, of course). Good cover art, packaging, booklets, etc. may be even better. You can download scanned cover art and print it on your color inkjet, but it will always look cheesy compared to the real thing.
I guess the Truth is Still Out There.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
You would have to be one cheap individual to want to download all the music in your life for free...
People *are* cheap. How many people do you know who send off their income taxes with a smile, saying "I'm so glad to contribute to the causes which we citizens have jointly agreed to support"?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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.
Btw, Chumbawumba seems to understand the power of the internet. Though they don't 100% fit my vision of what a web-based band should do, they are much much closer. Here's their site:
:)
http://www.chumba.com
Not only do they seem to understand that the internet is a powerful tool for selling their music, but they also provide some songs to download for free. I highly recommend reading their FAQ because they talk about their views on file trading and how the corps try to soak up more money than they deserve.
Be cautioned, though, they are basically an anti-corporate band. Although I'd highly recommend you read about what they're about instead of taking my overly-processed view of who they are.
"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.
> Anyway, more power to the music sharing people. I think it's about time someone ran an honest, non-biased study about
> this, and I'm glad to see these results. They just prove to me what I've known all along.
Yes, but when asked to comment on this report, the suits in the record industry claimed that ``people lie" & we shouldn't believe it.
Sigh. Those people are deep into denial, & if it were a river, Fritz Hollings & his ilk would be buying first class riverboat tickets. They won't be happy until they have control of the contents of every last hard drive -- even that ancient 20MB drive you've used as a door stop for the last 5 years.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
humor maybe? I could be grasping at straws but sometimes funny = good.
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.
Help, I'm a Slashbot and I'm confused. Does this mean that to hurt the Recording Industry I have to buy more music?
~Chazzf (today masquerading as SlashBot#1138)
No statement is true, not even this one.
// 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
For me it is simpler; when I was using Napster, or on those odd times I'm using Gnutella these days and its working well, I find simply want to go out and buy more CDs.
I've never analyzed why I behave this way, but I think it's related to the same impulse that makes me google the artist and the song title to find out who else recorded it. Music is just getting a bigger share of my attention span.
When I get interested in an artist or a genre of music, the cost of a reasonably priced CD is simply no barrier to my wanting to acquire the complete original recording in its full quality. "Reasonably" is a fuzzy line,for me ten bucks is on one side and twenty being on the other. I wouldn't pause enough to blink when shelling out a ten dollars for a CD but if it's over twenty I will think longer and harder about it than the decision deserves.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the record companies couldn't sell CDs with free filesharing, but the way they sell them would very likely change. There's lots of people who spend over five hundred bucks a year at Starbucks, because the individual cups of coffee are priced below the level where they think about it. Right now, CDs are priced at the "have to think about it" level. This isn't to say they are too pricey, just that the average person isn't going to spend five hundred dollars a year on music. It's not practical to drop the price of CDs to the "don't think about it" level, because the CDs are priced for optimal revenue now. However, if they value of the music on the CDs could be increased, the price drops wouldn't have to be very much to reach the sweet spot where individual CD purchases fly under the consumer's cost consciousness.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
The strategy appears to have paid off.
/. couldn't have anything to do with that now, could it?
Umm, sure. A headline mention on
Obviously the RIAA is out of touch with the reality on the ground. But there's no need to mollify them by essentially saying "Look guys, if you get with the program, you can rake in the bucks just like you always have!" That's a lie. The economics have changed, and continue to change; and not in the RIAA's favor. Don't worry yourself about Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti. She may have his panties in a bunch, but these lovebirds are doing just fine. Much better than you.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
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...
Its all about control.
The shareholder is always right.
Right. They're too darned busy paying off the radio stations to play the latest ``hit'' from some boy band or Britney wannabee. Gotta sell those records to recoup all that expensive hype.
Since the radio stations aren't actually playing any music from the other 99 percent of the artists that they distribute, just how the hell do the record companies expect those artists to be heard? Or do they expect those un-hyped bands to gain their sales as a result of impulse purchases?
If I hadn't found a sample of a band's music (or the occasional full track) in MP3 format, there are bands whose music I wouldn't have purchased. Take note, Hilary, lest you wind up killing off the Golden Goose.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Actually, that analogy doesn't really seem very good at all, since ENCARTA IS NOT MADE BY COPYING BRITANICA'S ARTICLES, which is what in effect Napster and other music sharing programs do.
You are correct about the copying issues. However, I was referring more to the advancement in technology allowing distribution of information by a different medium. I'm just saying that you can't turn back the tide anyway.
Filesharing over the internet is a superior distribution network to buying CD's at a store. Encarta was about killing book encyclopedias and replacing them with a CD. MP3's are about killing CD as a means of distributing music.
Even if the major labels were to lock down CD's to be uncopyable (unlikely!) this medium would allow less well known groups to produce and distribute their own music. This is already happening. And this is my analogy to Encarta. Its not about copying music, its about sending music over the internet (legally or otherwise). Its unstoppable. Those who ignore it will suddenly find that they are no longer major players in music production, and that people don't even want to buy music on CD's.
The sort of company that will do well with internet music distribution will have to:
1. Basically destroy the entire music distribution structure. Stores, Freight, Middlemen. The lot. They won't like it one bit. They will still find work, of course. All those encyclopedia salesmen now seem to sell mobile phones.
2. Continue to sell music, but using the internet. (Whether its a secure format doesn't matter - Is encarta copy protected?)
3. Continue to advertise to generate demand (Some things never change!)
4. Make money out of related areas. For example:
-Sell memory stick players for you car (Why burn a CD? Memory sticks are getting big enough to hold whole albums.)
-Sell Labels, covers and printing software for those that want to produce their own CD.
-Tie in with related areas like live performances which people want to go to.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I see the analogy very stronly here. Its about a change in distribution technologies, not about copying.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Among those who own recordable CD drives and subscribe to high-speed Internet access--but don't swap files- -the report found that about the same number of people reported increasing and decreasing spending on music.
Suprising that non-swappers are also buying more! However, we then get to the critical part:
The Jupiter study did note that the average drop in an individual's music spending was larger than the average increase in spending. That effect could explain the overall drop in record sales, the authors noted.
So there you have it, the survey shows that the wallets of people cutting down their spending outweigh those buying more.
And of course, as others have pointed out, there's no information on how the data was collected, and no attempt to verify if people's responses were truthful or not, so any arguments either way should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Its more that they don't understand either the technology (which is probably unstoppable), or their own customers.
I'm SURE that that the RIAA understand the technology. They understand that in the future when more people have broadband, large drives, and spiffy software that it will be very easy and convenient to download songs. If people continue to buy music or not is unknown except that if the MPAA (AND RIAA) and get something like SSSCA passed, then the control they will get will earn them cash for the long haul.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
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?
Of course people are cheap, but most people don't like wasting time any more than wasting money. Back when Napster was big, I installed it and went poking around for some of my favorite songs from back in the '80s. After a few hours of not really finding anything, I gave up and never went back. Online file-sharing may be free as in money, but certainly not free as in time.
Now, as far as comparing a purchasing decision with paying income taxes, the comparison is ridiculous. If I don't feel like buying CDs, nobody will probably notice; but if I don't pay my income tax, there's a good chance somebody might arrest me. Income tax isn't even remotely voluntary. And no, don't give me that crap about "jointly agreed to support." I have never once voted for an incumbent, because I consider supporting any Federal budget passed since the beginning of the Cold War as essentially crime against humanity, with its huge military black budget. Seriously.
(One last note: with Napster, I may not have found what I was looking for, but I *did* find some other bands that I liked. I probably own about a dozen CDs now that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. And, no, I haven't bought a single major-label CD since Napster was shut down.)
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."
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 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.
That's good point. When Metallica protested against Napster they didn't say there was anything wrong with file sharing as a business model, just that they didn't get the opportunity to opt-out. If Wilco does this and it works and a whole bunch more people do it and it still works, then so be it. That's what happened with open source. Open source isn't exactly a stellar example of a business model, but it is rather popular. At least with open source, the people who develop the original software get to make the choice to release it under some particular license.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
And the sheer mass of it. My girlfriend's CD collection lives in one of those tall IKEA CD-holders. It nearly killed me last year when the jewel-boxes fell out as I moved it to take a furniture delivery.
My entire music collection is mostly indie artists that I've gone to see in concert anyways, so I've paid my dues.
Even though more than 75% of my collection is std. commercial (tho not top 40). The main reason I really started buying CDs was the local scene. I live in Brisbane, and it was always awesome seeing the guys from my town doing great now. I've always made a point of buying the Guys' CDs at the concerts becaue I figure I'm showing support. Last time I did this I bought 3 CDs and T Shirts from bands that are just a bunch of young blokes giving it a go...
Good to hear that you support your locals - on my website I publish local bands discographies etc. Tho I haven't in ages (lousy stupid scanner)...
-- Dan =)
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 |
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 =)
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.
I have dabbled a little with gnutella, and find it handy. mostly i look for two things:
In most cases, if I like the tunes, I buy the disc. If I only like the radio track, I won't buy it.. and in most cases I won't even keep the MP3. Figure the stuff will be crap enough before long.
So, for me, sharing helps me make a more informed decision. And (probably to the record company's chargrin) I won't buy their crappy disc of crap for only one track I would like. So, I guess it does suck for them..
-'fester
"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
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....
The music industry hasn't gotten a single fricking penny out of me since about 1994. Before that I bought album after album, only to discover that some record company/lazy artist bastard RIPPED ME OFF! Yes, that's right. I would buy a CD, listen to it, and then discover that out of the 10 songs on the CD, nine of them were complete stinkers.
So, I protect myself now. I just got a DSL line and installed Kazaa lite. I'm discovering that I've missed a lot in music since 1994, and that there's some pretty good stuff out there.
BUT I warn the record companies: I will check out every song on the record before I buy it. If there is more than one crappy song on the disk, I will keep my damn money. If the CD is filled with good songs, then MAYBE I will actually buy it.
That's the deal, Mr. Record Company, take it or leave it. I'm content to go back to just not buying any music at all. I did it for 8 years! You've sold me so much garbage in the past, that if I insist on previewing everything that I might buy from you, I think you ought to just sit down, shut up, and ask me nicely to please please buy your record.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
...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$US a song for the entire CD if the distributors (the RIAA, natch) would GIVE ME WHAT I WANT.
I DON'T WANT CRAP-QUALITY LOCKED COPIES OF CRAP SONGS, I WANT "COMPLETE" COPIES OF THE SONGS I LIKE, AND I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR FAST, RELIABLE ACCESS TO THE THINGS I WANT.
And put this in your pipe and smoke it: since the middleman is cut out (record stores), the artists can get a larger cut. If I buy a 12-track entire CD at
Since when did the customer stop being always right?
-inq
Yep. For all my cable modem-having, morpheus/kazaa-using, cd-rom burning,
I bought the album without hearing a peep of it before hand.
Why? Obvious reasons! But it's pretty dope!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
The right balance between the rights of listeners and the rights of creators may be making nonprofit use legal. You can copy music for your own use now (Audio Home Recording Act). You should be able to pass music around for free, but not charge for it, add advertising, or do anything that generates revenue.
This means hobbyist sharing only - no Napster, no MP3.com, no Kazaa. Gnutella and Freenet, yes. Now that's worth lobbying for.
So what I think is happening here is the equivalent of what happened to encyclopedia salesmen with encarta. They were so locked in to a large existing sales network with high production costs that they could not bring themselves to cannibalise their own networks to maintain sales. This nearly destroyed the companies (such as britannica) before they finally did a U turn. People were happy to buy an inferior (M$ Encarta - not that it was bad, just less information) product because it was so much cheaper, and almost as good.
Encarta is an abomination even worse that World Book (Bleaah!) by comparison with Brittanica!
Brittanica was/could-still-be the gold standard of Encyclopediae. No Joke.
Friggin kids these dayz...(mutter mutter)
HEY! GET OFF MY LAWN!
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Tom Waits' new label Anti is streaming both his upcoming releases for the days before they're released next Tuesday. I listened to the first one and after two songs I was on CDNow placing my preorder.
Now that's what I call increasing music purchasing. I haven't bought a CD since February and it took 8 minutes for me to go buy two that aren't even out yet.
They're great records too, if you're into Tom Waits.
A Transmission From PlanetJIM.[end trans]
I think that they would rather have the cash.
The problem is that the record companies are scared. They've looked into their crystal balls and don't like what they see. OK, for now mp3's might serve to whet people's appetites for the original CDs. But looking ahead, imagine a machine sold by SonicBlue which scoured the net for music files, then downloaded albums, automatically burned full CDs as well as printing labels and inserts, all at quality very close to the original. That's what would eventually happen if the record companies allow digital file swapping to go unchallenged. So they are doing everything they can to avoid this fate.
People think the record companies can still make money with digital distribution at high (guaranteed) quality, but I don't think that's going to happen. First of all, it seems very hard to get people to pay anything for digital content, as any online newsmagazine will tell you. I'd guess that most people would rather pay $15 for a CD than $5 for a digital download of the same exact thing. Secondly, the quality issue can be fixed. A free site like Audiogalaxy could generate user ratings alongside their file lists. Don't know which version of "Smutch.mp3" to get? Pick the one which has a "Score 5" next to it.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
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
while I'm not john mayer, I feel obligated yet again to mention his motto-
"you can burn a CD, but you can't burn a t-shirt"
decent people like him who are in touch with the technology will thrive in the next 10 years...
I'd be happy if every major label went bankrupt and all the indie's took over.
rock on wilco- I didn't see that post earlier, but I'll check them out tomorrow.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Last week I interviewed the head of Sony Music NZ who also happens to be spokesman for the local Industry's "Burn and Get Burnt" campaign -- an attempt to reduce the levels of CD piracy.
The Sony exec told me that they see the main problem being "organised" groups of pirates who regularly burn CDs and sell them at flea-markets, schools and the like.
Later, a former "top cop" from the UK, who now happens to be under the employ of the UK recording industry, was interviewed on TV.
He claimed that CD piracy was being run by the same organized crime groups that were traffiking in drugs, arms and similar illegal products.
His pitch was pretty much that if you buy a burnt CD you're contributing to the illegal proliferation of drugs and guns -- now that's a new one eh?
The Sony exec said that copy-protected CDs will be introduced in to New Zealand shortly and added that overseas trials have been very promising, with only a very low level of complaints.
At least he acknowledged that this lack of outrage might be because they were trialing the technology on music that was unlikely to appeal to the demographic most active in Net-based trading or casual CD ripping/burning.
He told me that although they still considered burning/ripping a CD for your own use to be illegal (there's no "fair use" here in NZ), their main targets in the anti-piracy drive were the "professional" pirates.
When I pointed out that "professional" pirates would not find the copy-protection to be nothing more than a minor irritation he got a bit agitated and wouldn't comment.
I suggested that perhaps this copy-protection was going to have the most impact on those people who are not in the business of copying music for friends or resale -- but simply want to be able to buy a CD that is certain to play on whatever player they choose (including a PC) to play it on.
I also suggested that copying an expensive CD onto a CDR for use in the car is a sensible thing to do. CDs in cars are prone to get scratched or damaged so using a copy is simply insurance against that.
He told me that this was illegal (here in NZ) and that if you scratched a CD so that it wouldn't play then you should simply buy another copy.
What's more, when I told him that in the days of vinyl I used to tape my expensive LPs and use the tapes for day-to-day listening so that the originals didn't get scratched he told me that this was also illegal (here in NZ). When I suggested that lots of people did this -- he told me that was rubbish.
It's easy to see why the recording industry has a problem -- they live in a world where the sky is a completely different color.
In an interview with Australia's Channel Nine this week, Elton John attributed the decline in CD sales not to piracy or the Internet -- but to the "crap" that the industry is trying to pass off as music.
It was refreshing to hear this sentiment echoed by an artist of such standing in the music industry.
Nice to know that there are still some recording artists that haven't sold out.
One study says file swapping is lowering sales another claims that it stimulates sales.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The copyright holder has the right to distribute the music they control any way they choose. It is not for the consumer to decide for them.
If you are trading copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission then you are breaking the law and it doesn't matter squat if you disagree with the law.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
CDs don't work for me. I am a poor judge of a CD's staying power. Back when I bought CDs, I would frequently buy crappy CDs. Now I download full albums from MP3 distro groups. I've got about a hundred albums right now. If an album gets old, I delete it. My collection is excellent. I don't buy anything.
CDs scratch and oxidize. MP3s are forever. If I ever buy a CD, it is only because it's so uncommon that it can't be downloaded. And then I rip it and play it on my computer or my iPod.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
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
When I was younger sound quality was everything. My stereo had to be perfect, the sound perfect, etc. I still am able to detect flaws in sound that many others can't--or just don't care about. My wife thinks I'm obsessed with sound quality.
That said, for pop music I find that 128 bit MP3 is perfectly adequate. For symphony or orchestra I usually go for 192 or 256. It's good enough for me. Perhaps 10 years ago it wouldn't have been, but these days it's more than adequate.
I think as you get older the obsession with 100% accurate sound reproduction fades. Perhaps it's a combination of ones ears naturally deteriorating with age and perhaps it's just a matter of moving on to more important things in life. Perhaps it's a matter of having grown up recording tapes to hear in my car only to have the speed of the tapes motor just slightly off or tape stretch working hours of recording time--one realizes that the quality we have now, even 128 bit, is much better for much longer than what I was used to growing up.
Whatever the reason, I'm perfectly happy with the quality of my collection. I invite you not to listen to it if you don't want to. :)
The problem as I see it is that these same points apply to the arguments organizations like the RIAA are making. Whats worse, they are using these questionable arguments to push for equally questionable laws that will require considerable time and effort as well as an expesive court process or an act of congress to repeal. If that ever happens.
Sure, these arguments are flawed. But the industry is acting now and forces those who wish to counteract their actions to also act. There is no time for truely accurate analysis (as screwy as that may be).
One final comment - the music industry is happy with the current status quo. They have spent the past handfull of decades developing the system that is their current business model. They also realize that they are being presented with a possible disruptive technology. And while it is possible that technology may present new opportunity some time in the future, it is the safer bet to limit the effectiveness of that technology now even at the risk of outright killing it. The worse that can happen is they'll be forced to deal with the current status quo.
Sure you can. It's called: CD Quality vs. MP3 Quality =P
-Jayde
What's a sig?
I agree. I buy more music now, however it is not the same music that I use to buy. Thanks to internet radio and mp3 downloading I buy a LOT less garbage. My taste in music has become much better over the past view years....no thanks to mainstream RIAA means of publication (aka FM radio and MTV).
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
(I know, I keep saying this stuff...Now it's a rant).
s t-5.html
s t-6.html
This essay is a work in progress. It's a compilation of various rants of mine. If you have ideas for improvement (or critiques) they'd be welcome.
My saga into the online music controversy began at CFP99 (the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference). A panel with both an RIAA representative and a rap-artist and a few other folks were talking (actually they were mostly shouting!) at/to eachother.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is a very politically-well-connected music distribution cartel, consisting of five major record companies. The rap artist (whose name escapes me) had his own label, but he favored MP3s, too, because his music's popularity had grown in part due to online music trading. To summarize the arguments...
RIAA side:
You're a criminal, an ordinary thief! Taking this information is AGAINST THE LAW, even if you own the album/CD! The person who downloads music is stealing from musicians as much as a person who "pirates" software steals 'warez'!
Unknown Rap-dude's side:
No, you're a corporate shill, feeding enormous layers of middle men (who don't help our fans at all!) piled onto the backs of artists - who have 0 negotiating power against a giant cartel that's as powerful as the RIAA!
Needless to say, the session ended with the panel still arguing, mostly right past eachother. Everyone wanted to talk about the artists and the fans, but if you listened it was all about money even though words like "money" and "payments" were rarely if ever mentioned! A 1950s-era payment system was assumed to be the only alternative to "100% free."
I walked up, handing out business cards and quietly saying, "you know, I might have a solution to all this, it's called e-gold" to both sides, and both sides have been very slowly getting it (no marketing budget to speak of!) ever since! (Well, it's not been quite that bad, but it's close!) Now, I spend a lot of time asking artists to try e-gold, and some new tools have made it easier than ever to use.
One fan has set up http://www.radsfans.net for The Radiators, a very cool bar-band that should be more popular than they are, IMO.
I can understand why the RIAA dislikes the idea of e-gold. They hold onto their middleman position only because of the difficulty artists and fans have traditionally had in directly reaching or paying eachother. Some bands, like the Grateful Dead, thumbed their noses at anti-recording policies for years, though. I don't think Jerry's heirs are suffering now, despite the massive music-trading of recorded Dead shows which has gone on for decades. Despite the well known fears of bands like Metallica, there are a lot of subtle ways to make it in the music business, and my intent is to spread e-gold tipjars as another one.
I want to jump in on the RIAA's game (and as a middleman, I may charge a lot LESS than the RIAA does, but I'd charge something!) so they're understandably apprehensive about losing the things Courtney Love mentions in http://www.hole.com/speech/ such as "trips to Scores" (a popular NY City topless entertainment club). I think e-gold can be a much more efficient and transparent 'middleman' -- but of course I'm biased as hell.
I want small bands I've never heard of to be able to quit their day- jobs and play music full-time because of what I'm selling, and I'm not going to quit. Other people have said this better than I can, so I'm going to rely on them now.
I would urge everyone reading this to read Courtney's whole rant, even though it goes on for pages...In it, she reveals things like a band declaring bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million(!) earned by their CD sales. Toni Braxton sold $188 million worth of CDs, and went broke because of a contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. We all know what CDs cost, and I'm pretty sure most of us imagine the artists getting a better cut than THAT! Anyway, please go read the whole thing so that you can see from Courtney's math that the examples above are typical. Don't despair, the good part about tipjars is near the end.
Ok, now that you're back, let's get to the fun part and read some online comics about micropayments! First:
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-5/ic
and then:
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/ic
Whew. Ok, now look at what Courtney & Scott were both asking for, between the lines! First:
http://www.fastsci.com -- which allows ANYONE, even someone who is VERY non-technical, to set up the e-gold shopping cart. Then:
http://101574.clicktwocents.com/ -- which attempts to get two centigrams (about 19 cents worth, but two cents US is possible, too) donated to me for my long rant. Think to yourself, "I should ask Courtney & Scott to accept e-gold!" They were both asking for this, and Jim just demonstrated it!
Well, I've already asked them, but more voices will have MUCH more of an effect than just mine, so feel free to help me, and thanks for reading.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
$20.00 to see them live? what dreamworld do you live in?
Taking my daughter to see N-synch $49.50 Each ticket
(Barf bags for me - free, babydoll T-shirt for her $45.00)
Going to see Creed for myself.. $76.00 Each ticket
(T-shirt $35.00, 2 pop's $12.50)
ACDC Last year in detroit - $68.00 (Cheap seats)
you CANT see anything for $20.00 other than maybe a garage band or some other un-heard-of newbie band.. (Which isnt bad, I like newbie bands, I just like to hear them at bars or other venues where the band isn't gouging.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Does the word "control" rings a bell ?
That's the big thing people miss! I'm not convinced it's not about sales though.
It used to be that I would hear a song on the radio or see a video that was kind of neat and go buy the CD. It was about a 60/40 chance that it was complete crap, utter garbage I wouldn't listen to again. Now I can go download a few tracks and find out if I'm gonna hate the CD or not first. The record industry knows this happens, they see this as a bunch of lost sales but it's not. It got to the point for a while there that I wouldn't buy a CD unless I had listened to it first at a friends or a party. I also had a "I like three or more songs" rule, if I only liked one song, no sale. Everyone has experience with this.
The thing is, when I could easily download a whole bunch of stuff, I bough more, not less. I was always finding cool new stuff. I don't buy as many CDs anymore, I'm not sure why, I was out of work for a while and got out of the habit I guess. I also have a harder time finding cool new stuff, my tastes have changed some, it seems to be harder to find stuff that I like now. I've grown out of the Napster demographic or something.
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!
Start listening to electronic music. You can usually get 8-10 hours of music at a show for $20.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I went a step further... Let's remove the inaccurate measuring device (The human ear) and place a real piece of equipment a digital storage Oscilliscope. Now let's set it for 1Mhz capture to avoid missing any data.
Capture 20 seconds of origional CD.
Capture 20 seconds of copy.
set your startpoints accurately.
and notice that the vaveforms are 100% identical sans any power supply fluxuations.. I had this CD copies suck argument with our audio-engineer. and I used his equipment to prove that it is in his head and not anything real. There is a fact in this "perception" the quality of the CD burner is important.... You HAVE to have a quality burrner ($200 - $300 in today's cheap prices) and usually perfoeming the copy with the correct duplication equipment (SCSI Drive to Drive with no software other than the control-box to avoid software coloring the sound... YES, Cdparanoia will color the sound.
in any audio engineering, if you use your ear for anything but a it's there or no sound detector you are adding tons of error into your settings.
and dont get me into levels.. I so many supposed engineers trying to set things without using durrough meters or just guessing on the settings for the Dominator 2 or any of the Optimods.... Dont get me wrong, I have met some awesome audio engineers... but many today are just blindly stomping around.
And no, I didnt waste money on my headphones.. I dont like to downmix my 4 channel sub-bus to two before final mastering.. so I found high quality 4 channel headphones. it makes mastering for your surround audio easier. when you cant annoy everyone in the 3 other editing suites.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Sure you can [provide a benefit to only those who pay]. It's called: CD Quality vs. MP3 Quality
A properly encoded MP3 is CD quality. lame --r3mix will compress stereo sound to an average data rate of 176 kbps with no audible loss. See r3mix's "quality" section for details.
Even then, most consumers are happy with the 128 kbps files that permeate the WinMX, Kazaa, and Gnutella networks. You can't hear the difference above the ambient noise of the street, etc.
Will I retire or break 10K?