Slashdot Mirror
Research: File Traders And Music Purchasing
An anonymous reader writes: "Like a TV preacher taking excerpts from the Bible to support a contrary thought, the results of research can be similarly interpreted in opposite ways. Edison Research just released a pro-record industry report stating '10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music.' Richard Menta over at MP3 Newswire noted that this also means 90% of file traders are buying music, a positive result that supports the virtues of trading. Menta then goes through the study's findings one-by-one, questioning Edison Research's conclusions. This includes their recommendation to the industry to fight the 'downloading problem.'"
OH...and...FIRST POST! FIRST POST!
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
We already know this. Alot of times people won't buy the album because its crud, not because they aren't willing to dish out the $$$
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
The interesting thing that came up in a conversation the other day was that there is an entire generation of people who are growing up not paying for music.
.mp3s
I come from a generation that has been totally used to paying for things. For me there is a "guilt" syndrome about knowing that the music is made with profit in mind. So I am more willing to make purchases or delete
How do you stay in business when no one sees a direct reason to pay you for the information they can readily get for free? It's a broken business model for sure and they are really fighting to stay alive in more ways than the average guy realizes.... It will be interesting to see what happens.
I like to watch music videos on MTV, VH1 and the country music channel with the TV sound muted while Winamp is playing. It's kind of funny when the music and videos sync up, actually, which is more often than not.
Got friends?
that "10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music" does not mean that 100% of teens are downloading music. It may be that only 15% of teens are downloading music, the rest are just getting on with their lives.
Even my Dad, who thought that Napster was a very bad thing agrees that it probably was not as big a problem as the hype, and that it is the industries attempt force us to like crap that is their reason for losing sales.
The music industry has turned itself into a paridy of what it was, churning out cookie cutter bands and nothing else. Now when someone says all the mane stream is exactly the same crap they entirly correct, and not just some poor lonley indevidual crying for help.
20 dollors is what a date to the movies costs. that includes two to three hours at the theater, plus a drive each way (if the drive is not fun, go out with someone else) some time back home, and hopefelly getting laid. That is a collective 10 hours (5 hours for 2 people at least) of enjoyment.
A new CD at 15 dollors would nead to be listened to 10 times through to get the same price time ratio (2 dollors/hour) for a 45 minute CD. There are very few people that listen to an entire CD enough times within paying the purchase for it to feel worth it.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
...to be misleading. Well, actually only 100% of statistics are misleading.
--arcades
I like to consider my money an investment into a band I support - the more money they have to spend, the more music I get from them in the future. And just like any investment, one must have research tools on hand to ensure that your money is going to get a good return - It just so happens that in my case, its gnutella. Its not piracy - its good business. Surely the RIAA understands that.
The Edison article seems to make it pretty clear right away that the people not part of the "thieving" %10.1 are purchasing music:
...but maybe I'm reading it wrong(?)
"*A majority of downloaders have gone on to buy an artist's CD after downloading a track for free from the Internet."
Inappropriate precision really bugs me. The figure "10.1%" suggests that their reseach is accuruate to 0.1%. There is no way that that is true. Why don't they stick with "approximately 10%"? It just suggests to me that people are trusting the conclusions far more than they have a right to given the raw data that they started with.
Blockquoth the poster:
I'm with you. I keep hearing about the "outdated business model" that the RIAA are using. Ok, I'll stipulate that, so what's a model that works?
I'd like to see someone start a label that signs artists, gets music recorded, books tours, and gives away mp3s without worrying who copies what. If there is a business model in there somewhere that takes mp3 copying and makes it remunerative, then the first guy to do it will be well rewarded.
Plus, it'll end all this bickering as the RIAA members fall over themselves to be the first to copy it.
10% is a _huge_ number to a capitalist corporation. They won't stop short of murder to get this 10% in their pockets.
This is the game of greed.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
If a band you like makes a good album, support them for future albums.
That said, you could also only download singles from one-hit wonder bands or bands you (for one reason or another) don't really like as sort of an "anti-support."
Of course, all of my friends don't follow this at all, having recently downloaded every summer release so far, so I doubt a majority of people would subscribe to such an idea.
Remember, VCRs and videotape will end the movie industry. Jack Valenti himself said so.
it could mean that 90% of the 12-17 age group downloads and purchases or dont download and purchase or dont download and dont purchase because they get cowboy neal to buy their music. :)
I'm 17 and I don't buy CD's anymore. Instead I download the 2 good songs from the CD. I, like most teenagers work at low paying job so money is tight. I don't want to pay $15 if the artist is only going to see 10 cents of that.
Hacker Media
22% of Americans 12-44 years old agree with the statement "You no longer have to buy CDs, as you can download the music for free from the Internet."
The RIAA will interpret this as 1/5 of the population of America will never buy CDs and they're losing out. HOWEVER, this could simply be the large (and growing) faction of Americans who are discovering independant artists via the net and downloading music free legally. They then support the artist through T-shirts and concerts.
"Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
The Edison study shows that 53% of 12-17 year olds have burned a CD instead of buying it. Unless you disagree with the data (and I mean scientifically, not just "no way, man!"), you can't argue that such activities don't cost the copyright holders money in the form of a lost sale. So the real question is, is that money made up? It's certainly possible that the 53% mentioned previously bought two CDs that they would not have otherwise bought, thanks to MP3s they downloaded for free.
/. posters who have bought a few extra CDs in the last year because they heard it online for free first, but we all know that the /. demographic != that of America (or the rest of the world, for that matter).
The study also says that 22% of Americans 12-44 say that you don't have to buy CDs any more, you can just download it for free. Again, unless the data was not correctly put together, that's keeping profits from the copyright holder. So is the other 78% buying enough extra music because of illegal file swapping to make up for the 22% who isn't? I'm sure there are several
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
When logged in and attempting to post a comment in any discussion anywhere, I get a response of "You can't post to this page." -- even when clicking the "Post Anonymously" checkbox or logging out completely.
I currently have Karma: Excellent (should be ~44 or 45) and have not been modded down recently except as an AC, which shouldn't matter. The only way that I've found to overcome this problem is to switch IP's and be completely anonymous (not logged in at all).
Does anyone know why this is, or can point me to a more appropriate discussion of this?
I am sorry to have to post this unrelated question, but I don't know where to find the answer and I believe there's no reason for my being censored.
Before /. explodes into a massive frenzy against the recording industry and the senator from Disney, I have a question for the community:
What is OUR solution to the (perceived) crisis of "piracy" that is today's filesharing world?
Powerful lobbying interests are hell-bent on coming up with some sort of solution. We've all seen the laws being proposed to combat this and other DRM-related problems.
File-sharing may have a detrimental effect on sales. Then again, it may be helpful to sales. Either way, most file-sharing is theft - plain and simple.
I propose that if the online community can not come up with a way to deal with this issue, then the politicians and the lobbies will; and I am pretty sure that whatever they come up with will be a lot less freedom-friendly than what we'd like to see.
So moaning and complaining aside, what are our options? What can be done that is fair to artists and to consumers?
(steps off soapbox, slips on soap, lies unconcious for some time...)
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
I'll admit i didn't read the article but i have a point to make real fast.
when is the RIAA going wake up to the fact that it is impossible to stop P2P music trading? For every network they kill ( Napster ) the community spawns 5 more. They can moan and cry all they want to congress or whoever but it won't do any good. Lets say ANY hosted mp3 becomes illegal in the US, well then people are just going to move to data havens like sealand (or whatever the hell it was called). My point is the RIAA and others should look at P2P as another market and try to work with it not against it.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
From Edison...
*22% of Americans 12-44 years old agree with the statement "You no longer have to buy CDs, as you can download the music for free from the Internet."
MP3's reply:
And most of that 22% continue buy. That is because CDs are still attractive to consumers. That said, at today's prices when a movie soundtrack can run more than the DVD of the actual movie there are market elements that are more of a threat to sales than file trading.
Uh - where did they get the "most of that 22% continue to buy" statistic from - the Edison article only refers to 10.1 of 12 - 17 year olds, nothing (as far as I know) about 12 - 44 year olds buying habits.
People's ability to rationalize an argument for illegally downloading music never ceases to amaze me - even when they have to twist or bend things in their favor (perhaps invent as well).
MP3 is just as biased in favor of Music Piracy as the Music Industry is against it - the only difference is the Music Industry at least has a logical argument - even if people don't like paying $15-20 per CD.
Whoever wrote that article has obviously never bothered to even read the PressPlay FAQ when they say that you lose all your downloaded music after 30 days. Look here if you doubt this.
.wma file from a nice, fat pipe that has no trouble reaching the 1.5Mbps cap on my DSL line.
My experience with the service makes me think it is a step in the right direction. I would definitely prefer more than 10 "burnable" tracks per month, and it sucks not having access to the label's entire music libraries. However, it costs less than 1 album purchase/month. Plus I at least know I'm getting a reasonably high-fidelity
Comments like the one in the article just further the perception that people who listen to MP3s are just a bunch of jerks who want to steal music.
The statement made in the article isn't what's quoted in the summary,
"10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music",
but it's rather
"10.1% of 12-17-year-olds who actively download music from the Internet did not purchase a single CD or cassette in the last 12 months"
The real statement allows the conclusion that 90% of downloaders still buy music media. The one in the slashdot summary, as too often is the case, is plain wrong.
I am tired of posts and articles that point out file sharing increses profits. Even if that's true, it's still against what the RIAA wanted when they put it out. When Morpheus switched from the kazaa-like client and switched to an open source client, even though it was great for open source, the first thing people asked was "Does it comply with the GPL?". It didn't matter if it was good for open source, they did it against the rules. With the RIAA, it's their music, let them release it under their rules, and if you have a problem with it, don't use their product.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
I wonder if this takes into account people like me who rarely buy any CDs? Yeah, I download some songs but I hardly ever buy the CDs simply because most of the bands now adays suck and only put out maybe one decent song. They aren't losing any money because I wouldn't have bought the CD in the first place. Now, the way I support my favorite artists is by going to their concerts because most of the money generated goes to them and not the RIAA. Just a thought.
From the second article:
No, that statistic says that there are four groups:
But apparently he misquoted, because the original article actually says:
Which is a completely different statement. And implies that 90% of teens who download music are buying music.
This doesn't really mean that much by itself. There are at least two contrary arguments you could make with it:
Clearly to get useful information, you need some way to determine which is cause and which is effect. (Probably a little of both.) And in both cases, I made up a second statistic that wasn't supplied by the article. Real numbers might be interesting.
Listen.com - on demand streaming from a library of nearly 200,000 tracks. It rules.
That seems fishy to me. If the study really is supposed to show that file sharing really is on the increase, then why say that only one age group is doing a significant amount of file sharing? Why do they not point out to us any other age groups doing excessive amounts of piracy? This suggests to me that it's just teenagers that are doing some file sharing whereas oldies are still spending lots of $$$ on proper CDs.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
I also burn lots of music mix CDs to play in my car, so I can listen to 80 minutes of the music I like non-stop.
Personally, I think RIAA ought to spend a lot of money prosecuting file swappers and aggressively going after individuals who have MP3's on their home computers. They have already won one Pyrrhic victory with Napster; I think a few more will do unto them that which they richly deserve.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Lemme guess... The result is 99% perspiration...
Perhaps there isn't a business model to be had, that may be a better than any business model. How much money did musicians make before records that you could sell? Not much, but they did anyway, and we have a rich and diverse history of music. After the record industry got started, musicians still made almost nothing, just a few fatcats who had the money to invest anyway. With better contracts and sales of multi-million units, some artists have made a decent amount of money, but this is an infinitesimal number of all musicians. All the while some pseudo-anonymous fatcats with little talent but a large pile of cash, are making their pile larger.
The time for super-stars and immense amounts of wealth for the few may be at an end, at least for this industry. I welcome it. How many bands that have gotten silly, filthy rich produced a good album afterwards? Exactly.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Most of the mainstream music today is just plain crap! Over here in Germany we get flooded with "clone" bands (like Bro'Sis, No Angels, etc.) who often cover older songs, and most of them are pure shit compared to the originals. And their non-covered songs are even worse! Worst of all: This crap is constantly played on the radio all day, leaving little room for good music. So why should the music industry think that everybody is willing to buy such bad, bad rehashes of good old songs or to pay money for torturing one's ears with strange noise made by some replaceable puppets, who obviously can't sing and who don't deserve to be called 'musicians' - i'd call them 'money whores', 'cause it's all about the money, not about good music anymore. So as long as the music industry keeps producing such a crap and thinks that it can take its customers for a ride, it's only reasonable if their sales go down, maybe they have to learn it the hard way...
I don't fill my hard drive up with that frivolous crap. I consider data like any other peice of data, just another bit to babysit. My hard drive is filled up with some games, tons of applications that I use, and tons of stuff that I work on for other people, backups of their postnuke sites, graphics, renderings from truespace, ect.
I do have cat5 strung up throughout the block(and my house of course). Click on my user, look back a a few of my posts, sorry i'm a little lazy to do that right now.
Back to my point, there's a few house frau's that i've taught how to turn their CD collection into mp3's. Over the 4th we pirated the FUCK outta their collection by piping the MP3's through a D/A convertor, then through an amplified coil attatched to some paperish material inside of this big wooden box.
OkOK I lied, I do have a huge collection of stuff I grabbed when napster was still around. I don't swap songs with people though. My upstream is capped at 128.
OKOK I lied again, everytime I have a lan party, I add new songs, but they're not on MY hard drive they're on my other FILESERVERS hard drive. I don't wanna put that kind of junk on my 10kRPM Ultra 160 drive! Yeah I'll just shove it on that crap 80 dollar IDE on the fileserver.
Fuck it, it's too hot and i'm too cranky to write anything usefull. Go ahead and use those mod points to mod me down.
--toq
what excellent viewpoints. you all out to get a medal. or be shot for stupidity. I hate everything. should I do homework now?
'10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music.' Richard Menta over at MP3 Newswire noted that this also means 90% of file traders are buying music,
Ok, someone correct me please, but...
Based on the two given distinctions, there are four groups of people:
12-17 year olds downloading and not buying.
12-17 year olds downloading and buying.
12-17 year olds not downloading but buying.
12-17 year olds not downloading and not buying.
The research shows that the first group is 10.1% of 12-17 year olds. Is Richard Menta saying that that means 89.9% of downloaders buy music? That's what the topic indicates, and there are about ten different really absurd assumptions that would be necessary to make that conclusion. I'm not particularly interested in reading the article, but the way it's presented in the topic is braindead. Hopefully Richard Menta had different reasoning.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
How about the fact that some things simply aren't AVAILABLE on CD? Yet, if I went to AG(before it "died") I could download all the Martha and the Muffins tracks minus a few songs? Had the CD been availble(and no, I'm not gonna get vinyl), I'd be more than happy to buy it.
Perhaps its just the genre of music I like, being rare and obscure early '80s music. The music stores don't seem to get the hint that I want to buy actual releases of Devo instead of the dang compilations. Yes, I want the not-so-popular tunes made by them and others.
Seriously. The only software I buy anymore is Linux distributions, the odd computer game, and a rep theatre movie ticket. Plus, there's no way I'm going to pay for a CD that I can't preview, and without Napster that pretty much means I either steal from my friends or develop a deeper appreciation for the stuff I already have.
I look at all the media corporations out there and I see rich bastards at the top who are looking to fleece their customers, employers and investors so they can buy that umpteenth car or beach-house. Whenever competition comes up, these corporations try to squelch it. If wage earners base salaries went up in the same ratio as corporate CEO's over the last two decades, we'd all be earning at least 20$ per hour.
If CD's, software and movies were priced according to the realistic cost of production, maybe I'd be a little more inclined to pay. But, since it's not, and since the sham rich people pretend is capitalism keeps it that way by killing upstarts, I don't have any option other than to pay (thereby enabling the system I want to fight), or pirate.
So, really, I'm doing it out of a sense of duty. That and the fact there's no way I'm forking over $15 for another mindless Hollywood blockbuster, $25 for another crap-filled album, or whatever inflated monstrosity of a price Microsoft is charging for an OS upgrade. Fuck that.
Just my two cents.
Hmmm. If I was the RIAA I would be looking to see if I could find evidence that the Slahdot offices/employees are actively pirating music. It seems like every other day Slashdot's editors are posting some article which in effect says "Those stinking Nazi RIAA creeps are harrassing us because they are attempting to enforce their legal rights against copyright infringement AND are lobbying Congress to further restrict copying" I mean, could the bias be any more obvious? What is Slashdot hiding?
Clearly the RIAA is doing what any other industry organization - protecting its members legal position, and lobbying for legislation that would be more favorable to its members. This after all is why these sorts of organizations exist. It's no different from other organizations say, like 'The Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry', etc. except that Slashdot thinks what this organization does gores the precious right to swap files despite the existance of long standing laws that clearly state such activities are illegal.
I never bought a single CD before MP3s...I just didn't listen to music. Now, I have some MP3s that I listen to. If those MP3s went away, I'd just go back to not listening to music.
Because "10.1% of people downloading music are not buying music" does not mean that the music industry is losing sales from all those (though I'm sure it is from some).
I wonder how feasible it would be for someone like Borders (trying to compete with Amazon as a music retailer) to directly sign for tracks with artists. Then they maintain at each location a fat data pipe (if this isn't economically feasible, it will be -- small credit-check data lines are already in place and data gets cheaper and cheaper, whereas CDs stay the same). Then they have a really fancy burner or press or whatever at the location. They download losslessly compressed tracks from the Borders central server and cache them at local locations (to avoid retransferring popular tracks). Then people can simply say "I want a CD and I want track X, Y, and Z on it". The money goes directly to the artist, aside from Border's profit.
So lets see why this makes sense:
* Artist gets money, users have less incentive for piracy.
* User gets to specify what tracks they want/don't want and get better quality than they would pirating MP3s.
* The user can buy CDs more cheaply -- by eliminating the middleman, they pay maybe $3 to Borders per CD (you automate the thing, with a little Borders card reader, and there's very little per unit cost) and 10 cents to the artist per track (hell of a lot more than the artists are currently making), and you get a full-quality CD where you're supporting the artist for $5 tops.
* Users would have a much broader selection, not limited to the few hundred titles that might be in the store.
* Borders makes money -- I suspect unit costs after amortization would be about 50 cents per CD, so they get a healthy $2.50 in profit per CD, which is probably more than they currently make.
* Borders risks far less than they currently do -- adding an artist to their central database is cheap cheap cheap. They don't have to risk warehousing and blowing shelf space on CDs that people don't want.
* New artists can break into the market easily -- they simply register with Borders, send in their music to the main server, and start getting money. They don't have to convince much of anyone of their music quality, since there's no massive production/warehousing costs for all the CDs.
There are two drawbacks. One, you don't get extras in the CD. You might be able to print out the cover and the CD label, if this "Borders mini-CD maker" machine was fairly capable, but you might not get other stuff jammed in the case. Second, even with a hefty local cache, Borders still has to transfer 300MB per full CD (assuming lossless compression averaging 2:1) for infrequently requested CDs. This may not yet be feasible -- however, data lines keep getting cheaper, and CD prices stay the same.
Finally, a $100 80GB HD can store about 160 fairly full CDs, and 300 with lossless 2:1 compression. That's a one-time cost -- like incredibly cheaply expandable floor space. At those prices, Borders can afford to have enormous local caches -- one sale of a CD much more than makes back the cost of storing that CD locally.
May we never see th
You know damn well that the artists are not getting much money from the sales. It's all gravy for the fat parasite executives.
I wonder how feasible it would be for someone like Borders (trying to compete with Amazon as a music retailer) to directly sign for tracks with artists.
It's nice to hear an intelligent suggestion towards a solution!
It would make a lot of sense, but require a change in business model. Artists could perhaps sign for 2 deals - one the traditional distribution model and one for electronic distribution (including this Borders method).
Don't think the RIAA would like it, but artists might, esp the lesser-known ones...
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
If cd's were more resonably priced I think more people would buy them. I can go out and get a casset for around $10 where a cd would cost me around $20 usually. Cd's are cheaper and easier to make than cassets and they are no longer new technology. The only reason they are so expensive is because RIAA makes them that way with their oligopoly.
Next the RIAA will want a tax on broadband connections, I suppose.
"According to the latest official figures, 63% of all statistics are made up." :)
- People who are actively downloading music (this doesn't necessarily mean they're not buying music, downloading music they already "own" or downloading indy music that has been made freely available by the artist)
- People who are not purchasing music (like people who don't watch television, there's nothing criminal about not supporting the popular media)
The "or" operand (/) leaves open the possibility that the entire 10.1% consists of people from either group. However, the statement is designed to be open enough for you to reach your own conclusions based on your personal or corporate-sponsored biases.In short, I think it's safe to say that anyone who cites the statement as "evidence" of anything is standing on very shaky ground.
Yow! That's active passive resistance. Ghandi would have been so proud.
But here we go again, the same old crap we have seen with other research and - especially - with benchmarks. Some company, club or whatnot buys a researcher to bend statsitics their way and hopes that no one really notices that they're just reading a modified excerpt from How to lie with Statistics/Charts. And most of the time it works, because most of the really important folks (legislators) exceeded their level of competence when they were elected (you know who you are). They get those really biased statistics on glossy paper with lots of really biased charts, have a look at it and say: "Man, those [insert enemy here]s are really bad and should be [put against the wall|fried|gassed|drowned|beat to teath|stoned]." (Personally, I'd prefer the last one afther ther Berkeley definition.)
Then, it all ends. Why? Because any counterargument comes on standard paper, printed all in black with perhaps one or two graphs meant for people who know what they're looking at, and not for decisionmakers!
In the end, we can all just sing and hope that the revolution's coming and we get to decide who's to be put against the wall. Or at least who's to rethink their corporate policies to avoit a smack-bottom.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
70% of all statistics are wrong anyway right?
--
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
Ah, such beautiful doublespeak. Would you like to hear the sad tale about the twenty-something who is actively not purchasing a new Lexus? In fact, said twentysomething actively doesn't purchase a new Lexus every single day of the year. Assuming a new Lexus costs $40,000, that adds up to nearly $15million per annum, which is a lot of lost revenue for the high-end car industry.
When questioned, this twentysmoething admits he feels no moral misgivings about accepting rides to work in his neighbor's Lexus without the company's express permission, and will probably continue to get free Lexus rides without paying in the foreseeable future.
Something needs to be done about this not-buying Lexus problem!
If you ever listened to, downloaded, or in any way benefitted by listening to music for free (besides on radio). Then you have NO RIGHT in the future to call for people to be thrown in jail and lives ruined when people steal your music.
This applies to people who pirate software and then become software developers who call for prosecuting software pirates.
Hypocrits.
How many people have used the library? Did the author get compensation for that?
Everyone has benefitted from the work of others (including the others). So people shouldnt think it's their God given right to own their intellectual property since it was developed by "stealing" the work of others (who in turn may have "stolen" it anyway).
Of course in many occasions people willingly give away their intellectual property.
I used to buy an average of 2-4 CDs per month. Less than 1/4 was new stuff, mostly I was just fulfilling my dream of owning every song I ever liked. So, I bought a lot of Greatest Hits discs, Best of the 80s, etc. However, even before I started downloading music, I was already beginning to slow down, not because I was anywhere close to achieving my goal, but because there was less and less good stuff to buy. I won't buy a $16 80s compilation just to get 2 good songs any more than I'll buy any *new* CD just to get 2 good songs off of it. Then Napster came along and life was great-- I got a lot of good old stuff that was either difficult, impossible, or economically unfeasable to buy. Given the opportunity, I would have *happily* paid $1 for _every_single_song_, assuming it's a)in a common format (like mp3) so I'm not tied to any one player and b) mine to do with as I wish--burn to CD, keep on a file server so I can get at it from anywhere in my house, etc. I would have _preferred_ that to going the Napster route and winding up with bitrates ranging from 64 to 320, badly encoded songs, songs that have a second or two of the previous or next track on the CD, etc etc etc. If they would make it easy for me to get the music I want in a format I want, they could hook an IV to my wallet and drain money out of me at a steady rate for the rest of my life. As long as they don't, fuck'em, I'll download whatever I want. This isn't a rationalization for what I'm doing. Stealing is wrong and that's exactly what I'm doing. But like I said-- fuck'em.
BTW, listen.com and rhapsody is pretty good, but not great. AFAICT, they don't have a way to download portable tracks. In the classical area you can download 10 burnable tracks per month, but that's retarded. 1) give them to me in a format that I can use as *I* want--I'm trying to move *away* from CDs, idiots! 2) why limit me to 10/month? Let me download portable files at $1 apiece and I'll spend at *least* $25/month, right now. Probably more like $50 a month to start, then $10-$20 a few months down the road. Hell, if I didn't spend $20 a *day* for the first week or two, I'd be surprised. Remember when Napster was good and you'd get 50-150 songs in a could hours? I'd do it again in a heartbeat, and happily pay as I went along.
And if they *really* wanted to clean up, they'd ship a copy of "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits" to every new customer.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I bought the albums of my favorite bands, then cassetts came out and I dutifully bought them as well. When CD's came out, befor the age of burners, I also purchased them. Why should I be forced to re-purchase the same albums time and time again with each new media that's released. Wouldn't the record industry be better off selling a license for songs then allowing the consumer to decide upon the format and on what device they want to listen to the music ? That way, I could make mixed cd's or have all my songs in MP format or store those same songs on my new, yet to be invented device ? It does annoy me that in the near future, if they have thier way, I will have to again re-purchase albums that I already have just to listen to it on another device.
If you are living far away from your country, quite often there is no way to buy the music that you like. Napster and the later P2P networks let people who do not have English as their mother tongue keep in touch with music in their language and songs that are extremely hard to find.
Is that illegal? Possibly. But one thing is for sure - shutting down these networks will not increase record sales in any way. The alternative is simply to not listen to the music you love.
All your favorite sites in one place!
Overrated my ass. That's a quality suggestion. I'll bet someone from the RIAA modded it down.
Anyways, I really like the sound of that. Expanding it beyond the bookstore/coffee shop to radio station ID tags (i.e. listening to the radio if you can remember the time and station you can add it to a collection via the station's website and get radio station burnt CDs for a fee or something) is another possibility (whether it's feasible or not is another story).
I would say that your drawback regarding the extras of a CD (art, etc.) are actually incentives to purchase the actual product, not disadvantages to burning your own. That would justify a slightly higher price for the complete product. Hopefully by the time something like this could be implemented we'll have something that can alleviate those concerns about bandwidth.
For example, I picked up the new Counting Crows CD the other day, because it rocks and has a lot of good stuff on it (as their albums usually do). Of course, I did my part and went to the local independent record store to get it...
Since the word "purchase" appeared in the story, don't forget to use the important phrases when talking about paying a small amount of money for something:
1. Plunk down
2. Cough up
3. Lay down
4. Fork over
5. Shell out
Then again, also remember to use the term "snap up" (a term normally used when discussing finger sandwiches or donuts) if discussing a nine-figure purchase, like all the we're-so-much-hipper-than-you
journalists do. For example:
"After meeting for eight months, the committee decided to make the purchase, snapping up the 1200 acre shopping mall, entertainment center and theme park (which employ some 18,000 people) for an agreed price of $412,349,293.12, payable over 20 years."
What about downloading music from CD's I have already paid for but no longer have due to theft or misuse by friends. I bought Soundgarden's BadMotorFinger five times because my younger brother would sneak it out behind my back and get it confiscated at school, or scratched beyond usability. I've purchased the CD FIVE TIMES. And I should feel bad that I only have the MP3's now? I downloaded the MP3's to all of the other CD's that I have bought but have lost through the years due to lending them and never getting them back or getting them back so scratched from friends kids that a DiscDoctor won't fix 'em. If they consider this stealing, they can kiss my ass.
The last digit should be an estimate, and the number should have an attached margin of error to indicate how much of an estimate. I.e. 10.5 +/- 0.3 indicates that the 10 is exactly accurate, and the 0.5 is an estimate to within +/- 0.3.
You're not supposed to do things like 10.51 +/- 0.23 though -- that should become 10.5 +/- 0.2 (or +/- 0.3 if you're being conservative).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
As a shareware author, I can say, unless there's a brainless way of dropping dollars into someone's pocket, that pretty much almost NOBODY is going to compensate you for your work if you offer it to people for free. It's an ugly truth, but people are used to "free" programs, and they're getting used to "free" music. To take the time to put money in an envelope (or fill out that form for PayPal) for something you've already got, is more effort than most people want to make.
On one hand, maybe it's not so bad that everyone thinks your stuff is good enough for them to use - at least they're not stealing your work and passing it off as their own...
You could always pass a law to FORCE the RIAA to put the taxes that they collect on the sale of blank media in the hands of a neutral party, who would parcel out the funds based on "votes" placed by the average user, based on what they were copying. I think people would be much more free with "votes" than they would be with their own hard-earned dollars, just as politicians spend our tax-dollars so freely. As it stands now, it's the RIAA who chooses where the dollars go, from what I understand.
Of course, there's nothing to stop the band from selling their CD download online for a reasonable amount, say $7.50, with the MP3s encoded at 384 instead of 128, and a "try before you buy" version at 64 for trading online. I think people might want to get the "real goods" from a reliable source for that amount, than relying on incomplete downloads and slow connections via P2P. Benefits to the band? No physical media to ship, no production costs per unit, just the cost of bandwidth and the cost of assembling the original album. Sell the physical CD for $16 (with an upgrade from the MP3 version for $9) for those who want the cover art, booklet, etc.
Does anyone know the cost of pre-production for a decent album these days? Including recording engineer, studio time, mike rentals, mastering costs, art, etc? Working backwards from that, you could estimate how many download albums you'd have to sell before you could start turning a profit...
Don't forget to mention that the artist retains the copyright to their music instead of being forced to sign away their control, practically if not literally, forever.
Right on. If I actually bothered to moderate, I'd give you my +1.
It's really sad when an industry sees that 10% of the population is not purchasing their product, and then has the gall to spin it into accusations of crime.
As if the ones not purchasing CDs are somehow responsible for the rapidly declining quality. Perhaps it's the other way around.
As much as I would love to mail some cash to my favorite band, if they are signed with a halfway intelligent label, there will be a clause in the contract forbidding them from being paid for the music they record while under contract unless it comes through the label. They will nullify their contract with the label if they accept it. yeah, it sucks, but on the bright side, you may give them a sign that a record label isn't 100 % neccessary these days. Perhaps all that is needed is a recording studio, a band, and some way for people to hear the music, ie download site, internet radio, etc.
since I own an ibook with an ipod as companion I buy more new albums than I used to... as soon as I bought a new album I rip it to mp3 and put it on my ipod...
it's a blessing that a lot of new music nowadays is so crappy or else I'd be broke
maybe once in a month I download an mp3 from the new because I heard a song on the radio which I liked so I decide to check if that artist has any albums worth purchasing...
Ricardo.
What percentage of the general public buys music CDs? I bet it's significantly less than 90%. Combine that with 90% of the downloaders buying CDs, and you can make a case that downloaders are more likely to buy CDs than the general populace.
Now, admittedly that's a bogus arguement. Almost anyone who is downloading MP3s is doing so because they're a music fan, and therefore is not representative of the US as a whole. But it sure sounded good for a second, didn't it?
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli.
And for instructions on how to do it, see this.
--
"97.45% of all statistics are made up." - me
The report notes that people are more sympathetic to the artists than the labels and Edison VP Charneski recommends that the labels get "their artists" out to explain that downloading is taking money from the artists' pockets. But in fact, the labels generally have an adversarial relationship with "their" artists these days. And after doing their best to rob them everyway possible, there really isn't anything left in most artists' pockets for downloaders to take anyway. If the labels really cared about the artists, they would stop using their thug tactics and ruinous contracts. The fact is, except for the case of a few top-name artists, downloading doesn't hurt the artists at all. Downloading, in fact, is good for most artists, because it gives them better exposure. It only hurts the labels--and not just because of lost revenues. By taking distribution and marketing out of their hands, it makes them irrelevant. Yes sirreee, that's the real reason the industry is wringing its hands and moaning about this whole internet thing. They are in the same position the pond ice industry was in when refrigeration was invented. That's not such a bad thing...
Heaven and ministers of fate defend us! When did our youth take such a sinister course in life? Where did we fail?
The record industry is obviously hoping none of us recall how, in the days of cassette tapes, those heady days of the 70s and 80s, MOST 12-17 year olds didn't pay for music. Lord knows I rarely did, if I had a friend with the tape or LP. Better yet, I'd ASK friends to dub tapes, because I lacked either the equipment or the ambition to do it myself.
Did I buy music, ever? Ohhh yes. But only if I'd had a chance to hear it on it's own merits without feeding the corporate WHORES who claimed to make it possible. That meant hearing music via non-payola avenues. If I liked what I heard, I bought it, and bought other albums by the same artists.
Unfortunately, it appears to this reporter that corporate execs are as ignorant of all-powerful 'word of mouth' today as they have always been of good talent and new and innovative approaches to music.
That is, unless it appears it could bring in lots of money for them and to PROMOTE and ADVERTISE that they, geniuses that they are, have reinvented the wheel, once again, and tht to buy anything else is evil and unpatriotic, dammit!
Grrr.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
but all those albums suck.
Illegal trading of music has skyrocketed .. yet profits to the record companies are up.
Hmm.
I would have to say that a good starting place for you would be The Greengrocer's Apostrophe
(CD's should be CDs)
RIAA is a member supported organization.
We need to start getting our favorite record companies to start withdrawing from RIAA.
This will have an impact.
Divide it and let it crumble from within.
Start writing those letters.
Next target? MPAA.
If the artists were being paid more
I won't buy a CD because there's only 1 or 2 songs I like on the album
If the cost of a song was $1 to download without restrictions
I'm a poor college student, so I have to download them...
I will pay to support indy labels
While there's a free alternative I'll just use that instead
I already own the CD
You see, when you get right down to the point, it's all just a bunch of excuses. No real substance.
Thanks, Me
Look, the music industry wants to CONTROL DISTRIBUTION. Why? because then they can charge whatever they want for music. If there's competition, then the price will fall. That's capitalism. What the record industry is is a cartel...Cartels exist to keep prices UP. Look at OPEC for example.
The music industry is looking for an excuse for their poor sales. I can give them several, and one is THEM!
First off, they mainly market to teenagers, the ones most affected by recessions. It's the low income base jobs that go first in a recession, which means that many teens just don't HAVE the $$ to buy $20.00 Compact Disks. Also, many of these teenagers' parents are feeling the pinch too, which trickles down to the teens. Frankly, I'm surprised that sales have only dropped 10%...I would have expected a bigger drop. I wonder is anyone has studied other markets for teens like boutique clothing. A friend of mine manages a mall clothing store and he says that his sales are in the toilet. Of course, the music industry doesn't want to know this...because it plays ostrich to anything that doesn't agree with it's belief that downloading causes all its problems. I have an idea for these clueless idiots: Why not try to produce and market music for people who STILL HAVE $$ to spend: mainly 25-54 year old adults?
Secondly, we're about to wind up in a depression. Just look at the stock market recently. People are scared, and when we're afraid we save money instead of spending it. We buy necessities instead of frills. We keep the old car a bit longer instead of buying a new one. We don't remodel the house. We refrain on buying big ticket items...Just walk into the HDTV area of any Best Buy or Circuit City and look at how empty it is. I consider twenty dollar CD's
as frills, because 20 bucks buys a meal for my family too.
I think that the music industry needs to take an objective look at why their sales are down...and stop guessing what their problems are. maybe then they just might find out that their problems are under their control and therefore solvable.
Make music that doesn't suck.
I agree with you. For an example of a wealth of music not influenced by money, just browse the many artists on mp3.com. If you spend a few minutes you can probably find something that you like, made by someone who actually cares about their music, and someone you can have a real conversation with.
In the future, I forsee that the following will be profitable business models:
- Touring and playing live shows (for it is impossible to MP3 the experience of going to a concert)
- Services that find music for you that you will probably like
But NOT recording a disc for a day in the studio and selling the same thing a gillion times.
I would like to know where you get the statistics that the majority of artists make the majorty of money by touring, because it just isn't true. Very few bands make much money touring, maybe the biggest ones who either, no longer make new records, or have huge arena shows that sell 20,000 $50 tickets make money touring. But these are only the top 1%, the other 99% of the bands out there, you know the ones that if they are very lucky become U2 or some band that you like, bust their ass to drive 6 hours a day to play in a small venue (bottom of the hill here in San Francisco is a good example) which holds about 200 people, charge $8 or less for tickets and then distribute that money to 2 or more bands who have generally 4 or more musicians, and one roadie each. If they are lucky they will sell 50 tee shirts at $8 per, but only a profit of $4 per, which brings us to a total of $1800 split over 10 guys, $180 per, wow tons of cash. But you get to spend an evening in San Francisco.
But her interpretations of some her own data struck me as curious, an interpretation that I picked up in the title of the email she sent me "10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music". This implied to me this was a negative stat. Doesn't this also read 90% of teens are both downloading and buying?
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Most, I suspect are neither downloading nor buying. Mental's logic is worthy of the RIAA itself.
Homer: "Facts are useless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
...how many of the people that are actively not buying music are doing so because the RIAA called them a bunch of thieves? I certainly wouldn't have a guilty conscience about downloading music sans paying for it after that.
"Derp de derp."
In this case, however, the study is saying "Instead of buying the CD, these people just copied it."
Are you sure? Are you sure that what they actually are saying isn't "These people copied the cd, and also did not buy it"? You're reading into the word "instead" the idea that they would have bought the CD had they not copied it, when that is not actually implied. Particularly based on how the question in the study was worded, e.g. "Have you copied a CD instead of buying it? (Y/N)", the results may or may not have any relevant implication toward actual purchasing at all. What we really want to know is "X percent of people copied/downloaded the CD and would have purchased it had those options not been available". That is the statistic relevant to determining sales lost to illegal copying.
The enemies of Democracy are
I always hear the "there's only a song or two on the album that I'd even want" thing when these topics come up.
If you regularly only like a couple songs per album, you really need to start listening to good music.
I want to know where the normal group is. What percentage of ALL 12-17 year olds have not purchased a CD in the last twelve months. Without knowing that, we can make no conclusions whatsoever. I know that I wetn almost my whole teen years without purchasing an album (and, yes, there were CDs back then).
Put identity in the browser.
The problem is, most the 10.1% of lost revenue simply does not exist. The majority of the 12-17 age group who only downloads the latest top 10 hits, would not buy all of the albums containing the songs they download. To say that they would is inaccurate.
I wonder how feasible it would be for someone like Borders (trying to compete with Amazon as a music retailer) to directly sign for tracks with artists.
:)
The problem with this is that any artist that you have heard of has already signed a contract with one record label or another and is not allowed to perform on any outside recordings. So if you want an artist who already has a record deal you gotta go through their label, no ifs ands or buts. For all practical purposes they own the artists and their talent for the duration of the contract. Changing the distribution channel doesn't circumvent the RIAA's stranglehold on commercial music. Unless you are talking about P2P.
alex
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
Why do we never hear of emusic.com on slashdot discussions regarding mp3 business model. For less than the price of a single album a month you can download all the MP3s you like from them. These files are not time limited they are normal 128 kpbs mp3s. The catalog offered is pretty extensive and new groups are added fairly regularly. I do not work for emusic, I'm just a satisfied user !
I got a fairly well paid job about the same time MP3s got widespread so it's a bit difficult to tell what affected my record-buying habit the most, but since then I've bought about one record every day. Yes, one every day. A lot of them are singles (as I'm an amateur DJ), but still.
If all these people who used to buy 4 CDs every month now only buy 2 or 3, I and people like me are likely to make up for it. And I know my record consumption habit is far from unique.
However, I buy less and less mainstream music. Apart from my manic collecting of a certain icelandic singer (who occationally puts MP3s of her own, sometimes unreleased, tracks online), pretty much everything I buy is stuff that sells 2000 copies worldwide, at the most. And RIAA isn't seeing any of that money, so no wonder they're pissed. They'd like everyone to buy N'Sync and Celine Dion CDs, and not obscure electronica released exclusively on vinyl. Before the WWW boom I hadn't heard of many of the bands I enjoy today, so while I wasn't exactly big on boy bands the big RIAA labels still got to see a little more of my money.
--- Life is funny.
This article is a pretty interesting view on how recording contracts really don't favor the artists too much. Revenues (as it's been said before on here, I know, I know) are usually generated through concerts and item sales, not record sales (some of the figures in the article might give you an idea of how ridiculous the percentage is). For those of you who think writing is a hard way to make a living (and it is, don't doubt it), music is far worse.
haha.. all the ones you mentioned are perfect examples of bands getting filthy rich and producing a CRAP album afterwards!
let's include the Hip, Tea Party, etc etc etc..
This is sad.. I'll let it go.
They could have listening stations, then you could search through the entire database and find the artists you like. They could also allow employees to choose what music is playing over the stores loudspeakers too...you won't necessarily get only Britney Spears that way.
Very good points, and logicly they should work with no problems.
But you won't see RIAA adaption of little to any of it. Why do you ask? Because of greed, they want to control what you hear, how you hear it, and how much money they can squeeze from you for it.
Om, nomnomnom...
I suspect the music stealing that's going on is not just a problem of how easy and penalty-free it is, but also a function of people feeling a little vague about where that $15.99 is going in the first place. I, personally, have this picture in my head of a fat-cat record executive standing on his penthouse balcony with a fist full of cash tossing nickles and dimes down to starving musicians clad in filthy rags groveling in the street below.
But is the distribution simply $15.89 to the exec and $0.10 to the artist? Has anyone done a comprehensive breakdown of where all the money goes? A&R, advertising, promotion, marketing, etc.? A link would be appreciated.
I'd love to see Ross Perot come on national TV with a pie-chart: "See right here? Two dollars* of every CD goes to the A&R guy. Can I finish?! Two dollars, people! That's over twelve percent!"
*DISCLAIMER: I have no idea how much money actually goes to the A&R guy.
I agree with your post, however why do they need lossless compression? I would think having high quality mp3s (or oggs) and just burn the compressed files on a data track along with the audio tracks should do just fine.
Also, as for extras, they could also burn time indexed lyric files onto the data track--I don't know of any standard format for time indexed lyric files, however it can't be hard to create one. Hell, they could even allow you to buy all sorts of files and burn them on the disc--software, ebooks, music videos, pictures.
The only problem is getting machines that can view/play all that extra information for a resonable price--I don't think computers are quite there yet...well unless you count an ancient machine running Linux, however most people probably couldn't set it up. The game consoles are probably almost there, however they still need a little more software on the mainboard. What is needed is a computing appliance that runs for under $200 or even $100 and doesn't need to be set up--those could not only view the data, but they could also browse the web, read email, do wordprocessing, etc. We'd already be there if it wasn't for Master Bill and his resource chugging OS--his company also bought out WebTV and killed it.
As for printing the covers: I don't think printing the thing should be a problem. I don't imagine writing a program that allows one to select the image on the cover and print all the lyrics would be very difficult. The problem I can think of is cost--wouldn't printing with inkjets and color laser printers be expensive? Maybe they could just do B&W? Then again, it is only one sheet of paper, maybe they can just charge an extra dollar if you want a cover. That should take care of the printing and high quality photo paper (or whatever they use) costs.
I don't see any 'extras' that you get with normal music CDs that you wouldn't get with a well designed system doing you described.
I'm not having a problem at ALL downloading any of my music. If I needed help from the RIAA.. then I'd ask them to create a better download agent.... but currently I'm not having ANY problem downloading free music. Sure I'm a leech, but hey.. they've been leeching from me for over 25 years now.
Those questions seemed very loaded. Like the one asking if there is nothing wrong with downloading music for free. What? Why should there be anything wrong with it? Maybe if they had asked whether or not it was wrong to download music without the copyright owner's authorization. It seems the cartel's FUD is working. Half the people said it was wrong just to download music from the internet--as if there is some moral dilemma just using the network reguardless of actually committing any illegal act!
The RIAA represents a business model that might not be necessary anymore. As many have stated many times before, the artists make their money from concerts, merchendise, and other outlets, and not so much from the sale of CDs that you buy in the music stores. Those CDs are almost completely for the expressed purpose of marketing the artist so they can make money elsewhere. CDs are the RIAA's baby.
Its possible, we simply don't need them anymore. Distribute everything in mp3 and cut out the recording industry completely. It wouldn't hurt the artists any, and it would completely eliminate the whole piracy issue. Of course, there is a chance that the RIAA DOES provide a useful service, but I find it hard to believe that artists won't be able to get coverage if the RIAA isn't around to support them. Radio will still play the good stuff, and they will actually go looking for the good stuff. People will send in good stuff for them to play. It'll happen. It can work, and the RIAA and the companies it represents simply don't need to exist.
Of course, I'm sure they have a different opinion in the matter, but times change. Industry changes. And they had a good run. But its ending. It might be in their best interests if they realize that now and change to match the way the world is going, or they're going to become the insignificant righteous.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
* Artist gets money, users have less incentive for piracy.
If you read the data that is supplied along with the article you will see that the vast majority of people don't care about the issue of supporting the artists as opposed to the labels (51% vs. 53% believe that music download sights need to compensate the labels/artists). For teens there is a slightly wider gap (7%), but teens care less than any other age group about compensating either party.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
I'm 21 years old, and I don't buy music...ever.
/. of course). I'm not as crazy on this as some people I know - some people just collect and collect, with some strange dream of actually getting the entire history of recordings on their machine. Some people have over 50gb of music alone, but they never listen to even half of it. Somehow just having it available makes them feel better. I guess I get in a collecting mood sometimes, and thats it.
Admittedly I'm from the more technical branch of society, but I think many people my age just convert over to exclusively using mp3s they didn't pay for for their music needs. I won't claim that I know exactly why people like me do this, but I think it centers around three reasons, and I certainly don't think these reasons would motivate everyone.
reason one: I don't have to pay. Personally I think paying 20 bucks for a cd is a total rip-off in my current financial condition, and I'd just rather not pay if I don't have to. Hopefully in a few years if I ever buy music, this reason won't even cross my mind. But...I really don't think this is the reason I don't buy cds...I would probably just listen to the radio if I didn't have my computer...what do I care...
reason two: Convenience. I think this is a big winner for mp3's. I'm confortable with my computer and I enjoy trying out new software. I feel like everything should be do-able with a computer. When I listened to mp3s for the first time, more than six years ago, it just seemed like the most natural way to listen to music. Why would I ever want to actually go somewhere and buy a bulky cd if I could just get it more conveniently packaged without ever leaving my desk? The few cds I've been given are just coasters now...its far too much effort to slip them into my machine when I can download them with a few mouseclicks and keystrokes. Plus, its more fun when you see what mixes are out there for the songs you like when you search for them.
reason three: Collecting. People rarely bring this up in discussions of digital piracy, but I think its a major motivation driving some people. I just like collecting stuff on my computer. I feel like I'm wasting space or something when my hard drive isn't full. I know it seems silly, but when you have a few minutes, downloading some songs or movies is just a great way to pass the time (after I read
Why do I think its ok? I don't claim my reason is legitimate and legally justifiable or something, but I think its a good point at least.
CDs are a total pain in the ass and I've thought so since I first used a computer with decent speakers and a hard drive. I don't feel bad not buying them because I think they are a horrible horrible things that should have never survived as long as they have. What kind of stone age are we living in where we have to carry this kind of crap around? I would never buy a cd just because I think they are grossly out of date and I can't stand worrying about losing them or moving them or worrying about people stealing them or something. If I had a little more money, I'd be perfectly happy paying 20-50 bucks a month so I could stick headphones into my cellphone or pda and listen to any music I wanted to, and frankly the technology is there and I'm really annoyed I have to be guilt tripped about downloading mp3s just because the mega-rich music industry has no motivation to innovate with their comfortable oligopoly. What a bunch of rich pricks!
Your signatures belong to me.
- Original 10.1% of 12-17-year-olds who actively download music from the Internet did not purchase a single CD or cassette in the last 12 months.
- Menta But her interpretations of some her own data struck me as curious, an interpretation that I picked up in the title of the email she sent me "10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music". This implied to me this was a negative stat. Doesn't this also mean 90% of file trading teens are both downloading and buying?
- Slashdot Edison Research just released a pro-record industry report stating '10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music.'
Both Menta and timothy (Slashdot) completely mangled the original statement. This shows that there are a lot of illiterates in the publishing industry, nowadays.if 10% of all 12-17 year-olds are downloading music DOES not mean that 90% of file traders are purchasing music. Simple Math will tell you this is only this case if 100% of file traders are 12-17 year-olds! I cannot beleive someone would publish that!
Ultimately, although the business model may or may not be flawed, it is still the responsibility of every DECENT man to resist the URGE to STEAL music. STEALING is taking something without permission from the OWNER, but then the question is, who owns it? The BlackSuits will always fight for the imprisonment of Free internet until the question of who owns the music at different stages is resolved. Until legislation is passed reforming internet ownership, we must check ourselves and stay in accordance with the will of the American People, and respect the CURRENT business model by not stealing property from their owners.
--"You are your own God"--
One pie chart in the report has the following figures:
50.3% are not downloaders and have bought a CD in the last year.
15.1% are not downloaders and have not bought a CD in the last year.
Percentage of non-downloaders who bought CDs: 77
29.1% are downloaders and have bought a CD in the last year.
5.5% are downloaders and have not bought a CD in the last year.
Percentage of downloaders who bought CDs: 84
People who download music are 9% more likely to buy CDs.
See! The pirates are killing the economy!
Errrr... ummmm... I mean uhhh...
Pirates are bad ummkay?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I have to say that most music that I have downloaded, I have eventualy gone out and purchaced, with the exception of the music that has been deleted. Why must good music that is aparently still selling well, have its life brought to an artificial end at the hand of some record company's director. Surely this amounts to fixing the charts? Whats the point in having charts if they are going to be fixed like this? A recent example is the the Elvis Track that was No 1 here in the UK for a few weeks (not that I personaly liked it) but BMG chose to cut off supply to record shops in order to "let some other artist (note one of their own) have a go". I personaly will continue to download music that is "DELETED" as stupid record companys leave me no other choice.
I read a lot about, prices that are to high, broken business models. But the article itselfs state's that there might be an exaturation of the download problem. Sales haven't dropped dramaticly, they went down for the first time in a long time. And of course the worldwide economic downfall, hasn't got anything to do with that, right?
Some qoute's from the articel
So IMHO the problem isn't that big (yet?). If there is a problem the solution is simple (again IMHO). Work with the internet instead of against it. As Janis Ian says here, giving away free music gave her more cd sells and more sold concert tickets. If you combine this with, lowering prices a bit, a campaign to make people aware of the 'problem', things should work out just fine.
"It is not because no one sees the truth that it becomes a mistake" (Mahatma Gandhi)
Sell the music that the listener promotes. I'd rather see competing artists who have to convince the listener not the label to promote their songs. Beats the indentured artist model they use at the moment.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I saw another quote on Slashdot (different story, but applicable here IMHO) that talked about the DVD model for the movie industry. People are bootlegging movies to VCD/CD using DiVX, et al. But people are still buying DVDs in droves. Why? Because of the value add. DVDs are obviously better in quality, but they also have extra features. I think the music industry needs to adopt a similar model (as some artists already have - Paul Oakenfold is one recent example) and add extra features to their CDs.
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
After the war these people have waged on their fans - with the artists front and center despite popular mythology to the contrary (and that gleam in their eyes more often than not) - the question is WHY are 90% of file traders buying music?
Stop.
You can already get CD's, or at least links to them based on what you heard on the radio. In this case it is Web Radio. Check out www.digitallyimported.com. They have a couple high quality streams, forums to talk with people about what you've heard, and links to the CD's that they are playing on a constantly updated playlist. This, in my opinion, is the right direction for music to take.
When did we all get math-stupid? How could this:
"10% of 12-17's are downloading/stealing"
mean this:
"90% of traders are buying"?
I didn't read that 100% of 12-17's are downloading anywhere in that text. This is absurdly flawed logic.
Consider: if only 10% of all 12-17's are downloading at all, then 100% of downloaders are NOT BUYING. If 20% are downloading, then 50% are NOT BUYING.
I find it hard to believe that 100% of teens download music--particularly when some parts of the country still run on dial-up or have no internet access.
How does 10% of 12-17's downloading music "mean" that 90% of file traders pay for music? That statement implies that all 12-17 year olds are filetraders and all filetraders are 12-17 years old!
This is why the RIAA is ignorant. They see a shift in the market as a "problem".
Instead of saying to themselves "10% of our market has shifted, we need to be where they are going" they are saying "10% of our market has shifted, let's force them back into our way of doing things".
Now I am not businessman, but that seems pretty stupid to me. Here is an idea - make people WANT to listen to more music. That is your market. The MP3 format has woken up the music-listening public, much in the same way CDs did. Hey, it is a new format to listen to music on. With CDs it was quality (over cassettes), and with MP3s it is convenience and portability. It HAS these attributes, so utilize them instead of trying to control them.
DAMN. This makes me want to send $5 to some of the bands whose music I have downloaded, and a letter of encouragement to release more stuff outside the record company.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
People will pay what they can afford to pay. The seeds of social, and political revolution lie in discontent. If the upper class tightens the noose on availability of social benefits, the lower and middle classes will struggle to make due until they break, at which point the upper class will reap the rewards of their greed.
Don't forget about the classic rock bands
Besides pretty much every Beatles album ever produced, you have
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here, The Wall
Led Zeppelin - anything after IV
Van Halen - anything after their first album, but before Van Hagar.
And lets not forget about Michael Jackson. Personal feelings aside, there is no doubt that Thriller is one of the best pop albums ever made. And Michael Jackson had already been successful as a member of a band, and as a solo artist.
You say you can return a stereo if it sounds like crap, but not a cd. That is because the quality of the sound of a stereo is much more objective than a cd. You can take it in to the shop, crank up a cd, and you and the clerk may be able to hear static or noise.
On the flipside, take a cd into a shop, tell the clerk that the songs suck, and he could say I disagree, and then who's right? There is no accounting for taste. Maybe it's the artist's fault for not producing better songs.
steve snyder
Vote Quimby.
Furthurnet.com has a "Free as in beer and speech", legal, peer to peer music trading network that allows people to trade shows from bands that allow taping. Examples include The Grateful Dead and Phish, of course, but also The Black Crowes, U2, and Doc Watson (course if you were big fans you probably already knew).
This music is *good stuff*, often patches right from the soundboard, usually traded online using the Shorten format, a lossless audio compression format (etree.org). The only thing separating these shows from a recorded CD are hot mikes and missed chords. To me, this "pure music" is often better than "professionally mixed & polished" CDs. All in all, there are many popular bands with scores of great, free shows.
If mp3s are hurting sales, I'd have to think bands that release their content by allowing taping would also be hurting sales by the same token. Yet I don't hear about that happening. Hrm, maybe because allowing free tapes in your fan community is free advertising which makes for more sales? Call me crazy...
mp3s don't sound like store-bought CDs, and won't for a while. The record companies should wake up while they have the chance (ie, until 600 megs isn't a bandwidth problem for anyone and everyone has lossless copies of CDs available to them and it really isn't easier to walk to the store to buy a CD with all those 1's and 0's than to download it) and figure out a new way to make some dough out of their music!
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Here's a cluepon for all you capitalism buffs: The RIAA is not entitled to a profit. It is entitled to try to make a profit. There's a world of difference. Just because the RIAA and its ilk has made billions of dollars anually in the past, does NOT give them the right to maintain this profit-level in the future. If they continue to put out homogenous garbage (and it seems that's all they can manage to do until they co-opt the next underground "alternative" musical movement) then they will continue to lose money. Is anyone even listening to 'Nsync or the Backstreet boys or Britney Spears anymore? Does anyone care what is getting played on MTV anymore? Does MTV even play music anymore? I think their main problem is that by force-feeding this homogenous music (and it is across ALL genres: all rock sounds the same, all pop sounds the same, all rap sounds the same) they've let a generation of potential customers grow up without falling in love with music. The RIAA signed it's own death certificate when it got in bed with MTV and started marketing crap to young people ad naseum.
So if, as many say here, people who trade MP3s are more likely to buy CDs, and CDs are produced by evil corporations, doesn't it follow that to hurt evil corporations you should boycott MP3-like things?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
why aren't books and movies hurting much from PTP system and the Reason why are numbers. Here is my basic formula that can say whether it will be copied or purchased.
.PDF file is small. Movies have a relative low cost and high time and you loss qualty and take alot of time to download. These itmes have a low amount of coping and many people who own a copy will still go and purchase a legal copy.
(cost of item - cost of blank) / (Time x How Hard x qualty) > Guilt of Doing = Copied (Pirated) else Purchase
Books have a high cost of blanks and are hard to produce thought the size of a
On the other hand music has large cost of item ($15.00 to $20.00) compared to $.05 dollars for a blank CD. Takes little Time to download and isn't hard at all with good to great qualty. This is a bad for the RIAA who make most of it money thought the sales of CD and Radio Lic.