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'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
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 =)
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.
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.
They (record companies) seem determined to kill the goos that laid the golden egg. They'd rather have control than cash.
I think that they would rather have the cash.
Its more that they don't understand either the technology (which is probably unstoppable), or their own customers.
In particular, the major music labels don't seem to understand that:
1) Some people will pay money anyway for CD's if they like them enough.
2) Alot more people would buy the music if they sold them directly over the internet.
I personally believe that their sales would rocket up even at the same profit margins if they just dropped the cost of producing and distributing the CD's from the price of an internet download. This might only be a few dollars cheaper than what you pay to a major music store for the CD.
So what I think is happening here is the equivalent of what happened to encyclopedia salesmen with encarta. They were so locked in to a large existing sales network with high production costs that they could not bring themselves to cannibalise their own networks to maintain sales. This nearly destroyed the companies (such as britannica) before they finally did a U turn. People were happy to buy an inferior (M$ Encarta - not that it was bad, just less information) product because it was so much cheaper, and almost as good.
The analogy here of technology hitting an established high premium sales network is pretty tight. And I believe that the outcome will be the same. Eventually the networks will recognise this, and sell music tracks online for alot less than they currently do. They will prosper under this arrangement, although much of their distribution network will have to die in the process.
For the record, I can see the same thing ultimately happening with video, and a similar process of technological change is occuring with cameras and film. Our home computers will take on all of these tasks. We will still shop, but for production tools (printers, cameras) and 'raw' materials (blank CD's, DVD's high quality paper). Companies that get on this bandwagon will do well (ask Kodak), and those that pretend it isn't happening will go towards the wall (ask britannica!).
My 2c worth
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading files. About 14 percent of heavy file traders say they now spend less on music.
The problem with this study is that it is contingent on the credibility of people who openly admit that they're breaking the law (though that's arguable). It'll be tough to make that point stand up against the numbers that huge law-abiding (right) corporate entities are backing.
Oh, and I have pretty much dropped back to pre-napster music purchasing habits since it's become more difficult to find what I'm looking for without fear of penalty. I was spending easily 1000% what I am now.
... right now is that the RIAA has labeled me a thief. It wasn't all that long ago that I was downloading music and then making trips to the music store. Somebody'd say "Chemical Brothers is pretty good.." and I'd go find some CB songs and listen to them. Boom, found an interesting album, went and bought a CD.
Now, though, I'm a thief because I download songs. That's it. No other definition. They don't care that the MP3's I had were complimented with store bought CD's. Hell, they even tried to take my rights away with the SSSCA. Did they even try to support me as a customer? Nope. They still sell albums but not singles (not enough singles I should say...). They still insist that I can only listen to the CD and not the MP3 version. They don't cater to my new demands that I'm willing to pay for. They assume that because I own an MP3 Player and a CD Burner that I'm automatically going to stop paying for music. They even use numbers based on that (fictional numbers I might add...) in order to grease up a politician into getting the Government to pass laws to keep their ancient business model going. I'm sorry, but I'm not giving any more money to the RIAA so they can buy legislation that takes my rights away.
Right now, my only realistic approach to buy used CD's. Unfortunately, I feel bad because I really would like to support the artists out there. If there are any artists reading this article now, please... provide me with a way to pay you directly. I'll pay double what your royalty from a CD would be. At this point, I don't care about having MP3's legitimately anymore, but I do care about making sure the artists have incentive to keep doing their work.
Here that RIAA? You're scaring off your customers! How long do you think that business model will last?
"Derp de derp."
It's not about the money!
As much as they pretend about the money, the REAL reason what "file sharing is wrong" is becuase it allows for a subtle shift in the societal mindshare concerning how music gets distributed. The "content industry" is a misnomer, it's actually a "distributiuon industry", producing either very little or NO new content at all. Allowing the public (PARTICULARLY the artists) to begin to think about alternative means of distribution as actual possibilities (not just pipe dreams) is the first step on the road to utter decimation of the status quo.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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.
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.
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 $20 to see them live if they come through town.
Its all about control.
...because I will clearly state what exactly a song is worth to me, because I want to be able to do whatever I want to do with the content I purchase, and because I am not afraid to tell others the value I place on content.
.50$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