Slashdot Mirror
Yet Another Look at CD Sales
citizenkeller writes "Dan Bricklin, of VisiCalc fame, has published a very interesting essay on "CD sales, downloading, and burning". In his own words: 'Given the slight dip in CD sales despite so many reasons for there to be a much larger drop, it seems that the effect of downloading, burning, and sharing is one of the few bright lights helping the music industry with their most loyal customers. Perhaps the real reason for some of the drop in sales was the shutdown of Napster and other crackdowns by the music industry.'"
It's the economy stupid. That's the reason for the drop. Plus there is a lot of crap that sounds the same. It's not the pirates.
Maybe the real reason there was a drop in CD sales was *gasp* the fact that we're in a recession? The Dow Jones was up around 12000, now it hovers around 8000 - CD sales seem to have held up surprisingly well, actually.
Personally, I've bought many more CDs since Napster than I did beforehand, 'cause I discovered lesser known groups like Apocalyptica that I really enjoy listening to.
The slashdot crowd has been saying that ever since the shutdown of napster. Many /. folk have commented on how the nap music to preview before they buy. Others mention how Napster and after Gnutella have actually increaded their CD buying. Most people link the slow down in CD sales to the economic downturn rather than making the RIAA's claim that it's from file trading.
I think it's pretty clear that file trading is pretty neutral on the music industry and i join others in wonderment over the industry's heavy handed tactics to stop file trading when there is no evidence that it even might hurt their bottom lines.
I've said it before, but people don't seem to get it yet: The music industry has a larger plan, namely to seize on the issue of "piracy" to justify purchasing legislation mandating the infrastructure required to support ubiquitous pay-per-use. Today's battles aren't about unit sales of music, but rather about shifting America to a pay-per-use entertainment business model.
This is why the RIAA is perfectly willing to shoot itself in the foot in the short term (5 years). It lets them bleat about piracy while they try to get rid of that revenue-limiting buy-once play-many business model
Remain calm! All is well!
Napster is long dead. There are MANY other (better) options now available. When my roommate used Napster back in the day the average search returned a good enough list to download something at a decent speed. But let's look at Kazaa. The average list resulting from a search is insanely long and the combination of downloads for a higher speed is SO much better. Granted Napster would have incorporated the same thing into itself but that's not the point.
My point is that just b/c Napsters gone does NOT mean that people are no longer able to download/burn music. That's just stupid to say that b/c it is gone there is no more desire to buy CDs.
My theory (based on my own economic situation after the stocks went to shit) is that economics have played a large role in the downturn of everything, including CDs.
Already have an Internet connection, already have a CD burner, already have P2P software, blank CDs running me about $1 a piece/average.
New CDs run me $9.99 - $17.00 depending (especially for smaller bands like I prefer to listen to, SCI, WSP, etc).
What am I going to do? I am going to download the damn MP3s or SHNs and burn them. Just like everyone else is.
Stop w/the happy horseshit.
Support freedom of music. etree and FurthurNET
How many people buy cd's rip them, then sell them? You never really hear about this senario. Is this really bad for the record industry? You are purchasing the cd, and adding to the used industry. It may take a little form the RIAA, but remind me why I should care about Rosen again? :-)
They are losing buisiness because they are treating their customers like shit. You dont' treat your customers like shit and stay in buisiness for long. Eventually they must learn the painful lesson that laws can never overpower market forces and customer satisfaction.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
If the record labels weren't stupid, they would have offered Napster, Morpheus, and the like payola to make artists on their labels appear in searches first. Because downloading appeared to threaten their power over artists, they crushed Napster, and try to crush all file trading, damming up a huge potential revenue stream. When opportunity knocks, the stupid bar the door. The ultimate insult was calling us all theives by making "copy protected" disks that won't play in a computer. boycott the stupid recording industry.
How ya like dat?
If I opened a bakery, and all I did was sell white bread, eventually I'm going to hit a saturation point. After that, I can't expect my sales to improve much year over year.
... you'd think I was nuts .
So I could either increase the price of my white bread, to compensate for the lack of additional sales. But that's a dangerous route to take, because for every price increase, I'm going to probably lose customers (either to another bakery, or to people who just decide to bake at home).
If I wanted the government to mandate that people can only buy white bread, or only from me, or that other bakeries pay me a $0.05 for every loaf they sell, or that consumers pay me a $10.00 levy when they purchase a new oven
The right choice would also expand my product line. and sell other types of bread. Of course, this too will reach a limit. But as long as I sell a variety of products, at reasonable prices, I should make enough money to cover my expenses and be happy.
Right?
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Too bad that most people think that this theory is crazy and will never happen.
Pay-per-view is the holy grail for the music publishers. (not the artists, it's actually the death of art) I hope that if they ever do get this passed that there is some sort of riot, but unfortunatly it will be silently accepted like everything else.
Apathy.
We've all seen reports over the past 5 years, that the increase in digital music trading has allowed for increased exposure of bands and styles of musin to which the music buying public would not otherwise be exposed, thus increasing overall CD sales. We've also seen the competing reports sponsored by the likes of the RIAA, that online music trading has caused grave harm to the recording industry, regardless of the fact they have had record setting in those years. This report is just a reflection of the economy, as the analysis says flat out, but you can be sure the recording industry will use the data of the sales decline and develop their own interpretation along the lines of their usual ramblings.
Particularly interesting was the 7% rise in CD prices in a time of economic decline. I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that a choice to raise prices on a discressionary product such as CDs might be made simply to spur the decline we've seen here. The raw data certainly provides amunition for the RIAA and company, without resulting in a significant reduction in revenues.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Besides the obvious - who in the current economy has tons of available cash to buy lots of CD's - there's the incredible rate at which the price of CD's continues to go up. Um, I'm not a marketing major, but seems to me that if your product isn't selling at $20 and testing says the people like your product they're just not BUYING it, odds are really good that your price is higher than they're willing to pay.
Add to that problem the fact that most music the recording companies are releasing (esp. the stuff they really push) all sounds the same. Either you get copy cats, really is there that much difference between the many "look at my navel" bimbos out there??? Or you get stuck with a group that had a hit album once so all their later albums try to sound just like their one good album. Even if you find a group you can enjoy and listen to, usually you're stuck paying $20 for their CD which has maybe 2 good songs and the rest is crap...
Of course, given alternatives, people are going to find other ways to get their music of choice.
I'm not saying there isn't good music out there but the only new music that gets any attention is typically the latest boy-band or a fresh piece of lip-synching-jail-bait and that is simply not the material I want to part with my money for.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
...We all stop sponsoring terrorism by not bying music which is under the control of RIAA?
Buy indie music from labels who have nothing to do with the helldemons. Check out text file I have attached below.
List of Record Labels that feed RIAA
Everytime you buy a CD that's on that record label listed, you directly finance the people who turn around and take away your fair use rights and civil liberties.
Think about that for a while. As for the Dropping CD Sales, all I have to say is:
The laptop sales are also dropping. I guess it could be attributed to the widespread online hardware piracy via Lapster
(disclaimer: this is a shameless plug for a website, but I am a satisfied customer)
Convenient way to buy independent CDs, without giving any of your money to the RIAA: CD Baby
They even let you pass a message to the artist for every CD purchased. Plus I love the line on the "about" page: "No Microsoft products were used in the creation of this website."
Remain calm! All is well!
I've always been a big music fan. I've got several thousand albums in my collection. I still buy a lot of CDs but the difference now is that I buy most of my stuff from unsigned bands instead of stuff from the major lables. I find a lot more interesting music this way instead of the "cookie cutter" music being put out by the majors. For example, let's say that today I want to buy a heavy metal album. I go to my favorite search engine and look up "heavy metal band". This brings up a list of a ton of bands I've probably never heard of before. I even narrow it down to my home state of Illinois some times to see what the local bands are up to. Then I go down the list, visit webpages, listen to MP3's (yes, most unsigned bands that I've seen post MP3's on their respective sites), if I like what I hear I buy the CD straight from the band. Nice thing is most often the RIAA doesn't see a dime. Another benefit I've found is that most bands like this will actually e-mail you back once you've bought their CD. I've gotten to meet some really cool musicians this way. Try that with some big-name act.
Would I buy stuff from major label bands? Sure if they had anything worth listening to.
for the money. Most people realise that you get like 50+ hours of enjoyment out of a good game while you only get a couple of hours out of a cd until it becomes background music. With the exception of that rare album that you play until your roommate destroys your stereo in retribution.
Also video games have multi million dollar budgets, are in development for years. Most albums are produced with at most a couple hundred thousand dollars, and composed in only a few months. Video games are big business, and may eclipse movies (if they haven't already).
Piracy is a paper tiger. Those who have discovered new artists through file trading have spent more money than the "freeloaders," most of whom wouldn't have bought anyway, have held on to. I suggest having a look at this Life In Hell comic strip from 1988. It shows that the RIAA's whining about piracy was BS then, and is BS now. The music biz first said player piano reels were killing them, then said the radio giving away free music was killing them, and so on. It's the same old BS.
How ya like dat?
What is your point? The industry's claim for years has been that piracy has been *THE* major reason for dropping sales, a viewpoint which has been fairly impressivly argued against. Of course there are more than just one or two reasons for the downturn, but clearly the major one is the economy, followed closely by the thin-gruel-like consistency of most pop music today.
Arguing that since the economy cannot be the *ONLY* reason it is somehow less valid to proclaim it as such than the industry's fallacious attacks on internet piracy is a farce.
I'm sure that one or two deeply religious parents out there have forbidden their children from buying Marilyn Manson albums - does that then also mean that we can claim that "Religion is *THE* reason for the downturn in music sales", as the record industry would have if it chose to exercise a vendetta against religion next?
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
Where the article begins to fall down is when the author begins to speculate without hard data such as his belief that cell phone usage adversely affects music sales. It completely falls down when he counters the very data with the following quote So since burning and downloading didn't cause a sizeable dip in sales it must have caused an increase instead? This conclusion is incorrect and quite illogical.
The author also seems to imply that shutting down Napster reduced the degree of copyright infringement but this seems unlikely given the number of P2P services that sprang up in its stead from Kazaa to Audiogalaxy to Gnutella.
BOTTOM LINE: The article correctly points out that the claims of the music industry of the costs of copyright infringement are exaggerated but falls down by claiming that copyright infringement fuels sales without anything more than a gut feeling to back this up.
So, in summary, the trend of several recent articles:
Long term plan for pay per use, my ass. They're selling less and less. If they make it more expensive, and even worse quality (well, that's far-fetched, ok), people will buy even less no matter what the method of paying for it.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
It's difficult to argue with such common sense. However, while I can cite dozens of companies that excel due to their excellent regard for customers, I can't recall any significant company that has genuinely lost business due to its poor treatment of customers. Corporate leaders know monopolies or otherwise gargantuan enterprises are largely immune to even the most scathing customer opinion.
Please, prove me wrong!
...trying to explain to my gf why I wasn't going to buy her a RIAA produced CD. Her eyes have an impressive range of motion.
Because of the media monopolies crackdown on Napster (and because I am also having a harder time finding music that is worth listening to and CD's that are worth the price.) I decided to boycott their products. So I probably helped a tiny bit with that drop.
I hoped at one point the RIAA companies would get the message. Instead my small boycott has been spun into more ammunition to be used against me.
Speaking as a part time, small volume, music sharer. I bought more music two years ago then I have in a long time and I KNOW for a fact the Napster helped fuel my desire for music.
Go figure.
-Derek
There's a recient report on the drop of CD shipments commissioned by the RIAA (sorry no link because I can't remember who done it! and the search on the register isn't working)
The figures went something like this.
Shipments dropped by 10%
$ales dropped by 8%
So it looks like they put the price up.
The report said
Shipments where 10million last year and only 9 million this year down 1 million
Taking where $10million last year and $9.5 million this year (down $0.5 million)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Of the last 10 CD's I have bought, 8 of them have been because I had picked up MP3's of songs off them by swapping files with coworkers. I don't have broadband at home, so I haven't done much file sharing.
CD sales are slumping because a lot of things in the economy are slumping. I don't listen to commercial radio much since I don't like commercials and I can't stand listening to the morning DJ's, so, aside from MP3 swapping, I hear most new music by occasionally (and vainly) trying to watch videos on MTV/VH1 (don't have MTV2). Maybe CD sales are slumping since the music video channels don't show videos anymore.
Next, I find it annoying that most record store chains have higher prices than discount stores. I know it is a chicken and egg problem based on supply and demand, but I'm talking about nationwide chains, in every mall in America. This goes for movies, too. Why would I go to Suncoast and pay $5 more for a movie?
Finally, if a CD of ~12 songs costs ~$12 and I can obviously rip it as soon as I get it, why can't I just go to the record companies site and buy the MP3 for a song for $1? I would pay, they would get a lot more money per song, and I would be no more or no less likely to share the song as I would if I bought the CD (except that I might not bother buying the CD if I only wanted one song and my buddy has it).
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
As proof of this, let's look at the top 20 selling albums of all time as an example:
1. Eagles: Greatest Hits
2. Michael Jackson: Thriller
3. Pink Floyd: The Wall
4. Led Zeppelin IV
5. Billy Joel: Greatest Hits
6. AC/DC: Back in Black
7.Shania Twain: Come on Over
8.Beatles: White Album
9.Fleetwood Mac: Rumours
10.The Bodyguard Motion Picture Soundtrack
11.Boston: Boston
12.Alanis Morissette: Jagged Little Pill
13.Garth Brooks: No Fences
14.Hootie and the Blowfish: Cracked Rear View
15.Eagles: Hotel California
16.Beatles: Beatles
17.Bruce Springsteen: Born in the USA
18.Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon
19.Guns N Roses: Appetite For Destruction
20.Elton John: Greatest Hits
The list is a little rock-heavy, but look at the difference bewteen the bands. There's a huge variety of musical styles here. In other words, the exact opposite of what's being sold now. Listening to the same carbon copy crap is boring, and the opposite of entertaining. Until the RIAA and the record companies start releasing albums from artists who are willing to experiment musically, then sales will not increase.
Personally, the last CD's I purchased were Ozzy Osbourne: Live at Budokan (and the remaster / reissues he's released this year), and Black Sabbath's Past Lives. I doubt I buy any more CD's this year.
I really don't see how your "mathematical" refutation works. First you're using totally unkown quantities to try and boost a group by making generalizations:
Today, pretty much the only people who are offline are older people who are afraid of/unable to learn the "new" technology.
You then follow this up with:
I highly doubt these people buy many CDs; hell, they may not even own a CD player.
Of course his statistics show that these people don't buy many CD's (thus the 54% of population and only 39% of sales).
Finally, you throw in:
As for the nonusers, this splits into two main groups the way I see it: younger people who are against piracy and older people who don't use their computer for much more than web browsing and email.
Convenient grouping. Care to back it up with any statistics or facts? I'm a P2P non-user yet I'm an IT professional with multiple computers and a broadband connection at home. I'm against piracy, but I don't classify P2P as piracy.
So, after all of this inanities you then trot out the following:
Ultimately, I think the only relevant numbers would be if you could figure out the statistics for Nonusers, Dabblers, Learners, and Lovers between the ages of 13 and 25 or so and their CD purchasing habits because these are the users who make up the statistically significant number of music downloaders and purchasers.
OK, fine. Let's control for that. By your figuring the percentage of users in that group should be *MUCH* higher. So, since these people make up a significant portion of total CD sales, then a drop in CD purchases because of P2P usage would also be *MUCH* higher.
If the 13-25 group represented 75% of sales and out of that group you had 75% of the P2P learners and lovers then say a 50% drop in purchases from this group would be manifested as a greater spike in total sales losses.
Again, no matter how you slice it, the numbers just don't add up. (Controlling for age groups is irrelevant as this study is about overall CD sales.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
> The author also seems to imply that shutting down Napster reduced the degree of copyright infringement but this seems unlikely given the number of P2P services that sprang up in its stead from Kazaa to Audiogalaxy to Gnutella.
.. the author has already admitted it is just that .. a gut feeling. :)
Seems? You go on to chastize the author for concluding something from a gut feeling, yet you did the exact same thing in the above quote. Many other services may have sprung up, but unless you have usage statistics, you're assuming that the total amount of burning and sharing has risen. Unless you can prove that, you're coming to conclusions in the same presumptuous manner the author has.
Asides, probably redering even my assertion moot, the part you quote from the article has the world Perhaps in it. Its no use attacking conclusions to which the author has already correctly prefixed with a qualifier
"Old man yells at systemd"
Since I have been able to download and listen to music, I have noticed 2 things:
1) I buy fewer cds
2) I haven't bought a bad cd.
So, in my case the reason for my decline in purchases isn't because I'm listening to it for free, it's because I have the resources to know more about what it is I'm buying. Before, I'd hear a song on the radio, I'd like it, buy the cd, and hate the other 12 songs, and that cd would go to the boneyard because I just can't switch cds in my car every 5 minutes. Now, I hear a song, like it, download more songs by that artist, and if I don't like what I hear... I don't buy the cd that I otherwise may have.
So yes... in my opinion... digital music sharing decreases sales... but not because we're stealing from the record companies, but because we are more educated about the product they are selling. We're now able to open the hood of that "used car" that we're looking into and see if there's a birds nest in the carbuerator.
Which reminds me... why aren't the bands complaining like RIAA? Oh yeah... because they aren't seeing this money anyway. Maybe there's deeper evils at work??
I urge musicians to produce and sell their own cds. Only then will we truly be able to support them by buying a cd.
My opinion (and probably many others') is summed up quite well in this article. To sum it up: P2P should be viewed as a promo tool (a la radio stations), and if CDs were a bit cheaper everyone would be happy (including the RIAA, who'd see more sales).
DVD of a feature length film with all sorts of extras = $14.99
CD with 2 halfway decent tracks and alot of filler garbage = $19.99
Math looks pretty simple to me if all I have is a spare $20
If the opportunity presented itself where I could legally give a swift kick to the behind of everyone behind the current dominate music distribution model, I would. That given, I thought I would give a take on this whole downloadable music thing that I haven't read before.
This article makes a little inroads in the direction, but I want to point out that just like music downloaders are in various categories, you have a whole continuum of music PURCHASERS. And it isn't a descrete category that people fall into... it is a continuum.
On one side, you have the people who compulsively buy buy buy everything music. On the other side, you have people who don't buy any music at all. In between, there are all sorts of levels of music purchase. And somewhere in between, is the "sweet spot" of consumers which can be swayed one direction or another to buy or not buy CDs.
Now, you have a disruptive technology like online music distribution. Some people like it for the convenience. Some people like it for the cost. Whatever. It doesn't matter except that in most cases, it slightly pushes them down the continuum towards not being as big of a music purchaser. (However, yes, there are counter-trends, like someone getting more excited about music and finding a new favorite group, and supporting them.)
But whenever someone downloads music, in general terms, it pushes them down the continuum towards being a non-purchaser. The effect on an individual level is probably quite small, and difficult to measure. However, when aggregated across a large population, the impact is dramatic.
I think the problem with surveys of how downloading CDs have affected music purchasing decisions is that it is too focused on the individual level. From their point of view, their behavior may not have changed significantly. Or they may not be aware of any change. But a slight change has occured.
That slight change is enough to push some people out of the sweet spot and into becoming a non-purchaser. Or the aggregate of a large number of people sliding down the continuum has an affect on sales figures.
So, this is the basic guts of the theory that I have when it comes to online music downloading vs consumer purchasing.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms?
First, the most important hard number that matters: 13%. This is the percentage by which record sales (as measured by SoundScan) are down this year over the same time last year. That's a HUNK. Study after study has failed to demonstrate that downloading either is or is not responsible for this dip. It ain't the only thing, IMHO.
Among other things, this bust comes at the end of a decades-long boom period for the record industry, and like so many other businesses, labels have spent the last few years riding a bubble. Unsurprisingly, the bubble has burst. We all know that selling records is a low-margin business that usually loses money (SERIOUSLY. NOT KIDDING.). If a larger label makes a killing it is probably on a runaway hit that sells hundreds of thousands, or millions, not ten thousand or less like the vast majority of releases do. Most labels lose money most of the time, and the ones that steadily make money generally do so on a scale that doesn't even register on the radar of the major-label wonks.
So what do we have? We have: four major labels, owned by conglomerates who wish to use the Beatles/Dylan/Zeppelin/Stooges/Clash catalogs to cross-promote their products, and to finance other ventures. These conglomerates have little patience or interest in sinking money into new artists who will lose money for years at a time.
We have Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. selling discs for LESS than WHOLESALE, to the point where small record stores are buying their stock on the sly FROM THESE STORES instead of from the labels themselves.
We have an environment where, in the last year, TWO of the largest distributors have gone out of business (That's like WB Films and Paramount going tits-up), and TWO of the largest retailers-- Virgin and the Musicland family of stores.
We have radio AND touring in the hands of basically ONE company.
We have declining fan interest in the lastest dead horse trotted out by U2, Britney Spears, String, and the N'Backstreet Boys.
All this adds up, not to downloading killing the industry, but the industry starting to feel the effects of too many boardroom ultimatums and short-term decisions.
13% of sales have gone PFFT. It's a market correction, and a lamentable one, that the conglomerates that own the majors have precipitated themselves. Janis Ian is right-- the future is with people selling their own records out of the backs of cars, and this just might be the real start of that.
At this point, the argument's getting ridiculous. Everyone's made up their minds, and no new evidence has been presented. (Every time a study is made, it's praised by the group that agrees with the conclusion and lambasted by the one that doesn't.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
MP3 got bought out by the recording giants (Vivendi Universal) some time ago (this is why they're now plugging artists like eminem on the front page). Then they changed the mp3.com contract so it screwed the artists.
Most of my favorite mp3.com artists stopped posting new material after the contract change.
So, no, mp3.com is not an indy option. Sorry.
DNA just wants to be free...
That's obvious, nobody likes to realize that has being manipulated for years. And that's what RIAA is showing us, even if statistics shows that CD sales increased due to the Napster Network influence they smashed Napster just like we do to a bug.
But why? Because they want to control whatever we'll listen. They want us to think we choose what we like (which now we know it was not just that way).
By controling the distribution medium they can control whatever is avaiable to the masses and avoid unawanted content to become highly avaiable.
Now we have realized what was happening and avoiding being manipulated (although I still believe that many of my likes and dislikes are still manipulated). That's why networks such as Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella aren't bigger just because they still can't live in a pacific and compatible way.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Well, I'd really like somebody to do some real statistics on this matter. I'm not a statistician (though I play one on TV :-) ), but I figured that a nice analysis of variance might do the trick. What you do is that you input CD sales, compare it with some good metric of what P2P did, like number of downloads, if that number exist. Then you input metrics of how the general economy was doing. Also input the for example how albums were received by music critics. In a similar manner, you include metrics for what could conceivably influence CD sales. This is usually what you do in statistics to find out what factors contribute to the variations in a certain variable. Often, the important factors make themselves known very clearly by a good analysis. This is something I'd like to see, but it should be done by a real statistician, not by people like me...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Just imagine a future where artists don't need to sign with a label to make it big. This is the future the internet enables, and the future the labels want to kill.
The labels are smart. There greatest fear isn't the loss of sales, it's that the industry will someday no longer need them.
Look at The White Stripes. Six months ago, their CD sold for $9.99. Now that they've won a few VMAs and gotten popular? Same CD, $13.99.
Betcha the band doesn't see a cent of that extra four bucks...
I agree I dont think one can compare the box-office portion of the movie industry with the video game industry unless one breaks it down like so:
Game Industry | Moview Industry | Music Industry
Arcades | Theaters | Concerts
Game Rental | Movie Rental | ????
Game Purchase | Movie Purchase | Music Purchase
Anyone care to fill in the numbers?
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
I know late -- but here is my view. I used to always get burnt in the 80's - 90's buing CD's that ended up being crappy. After awhile -- I got tired of the whole "hear one song on the radio" -- think that maybe, just maybe this CD may be the next "Dark Side Of The Moon" -- 90% of the time it ended up being bait and switch. So I stopped wasting my money.....Thus without ever even offending me -- the RIAA was out my cash.
Fast forward to Napster and AG. I am really able to give the music a proper test drive -- hence I find a new band that makes the hair on my arm stand up -- I rush to the record store to purchase said CD. Rinse, Repeat. Hell, from my point of view -- the record companies should have been paying Napster and AG rather than suing them. (Maybe the radio stations would have gone broke...)
Fast forward to Post-Napster, Post-AG...(never used Kazzaa (I don't have a windows machine -- they don't have a linux client) -- I have played the dangerous game of trying to decide what bands to buy based on a carefully placed track on the bands website -- or maybe a low quality snippet or two elsewere. I am about 2 for 20 again...Right back to where I last left off.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
This whole "get more money through pay-per-use" makes the assumption that you don't have a strict entertainment budget. A lot of people have only so much money they can spend on entertainment, whether that's music, movies, video games, internet access, theme parks, or scuba diving.
The basis for pay-per-use of music and movies seems to be that consumers have an unlimited entertainment budget, or that they are willing to sacrifice some other form of entertainment to be allowed to listen to the same music over and over.
I don't believe either of these to really be true. I have a set amount of money I'm willing to spend on music in a given year. I'll spend that much, and then I'll stop, because I have to budget for other expenses. Doesn't matter if I am buying unlimited-play music CDs, or pay-per-play music. Once I hit that magic dollar amount, I'm done. If I spent it on unlimited-play music CDs, I'll just keep listening to those for the rest of the year, and not get new ones. If I did pay-per-play music, I'll find other forms of entertainment.
The budget only stretches so far, and there are a lot of things competing for my entertainment dollar.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
That is good. I have responded 100 times with those same thoughts in my head -- yet never been able to find the right words. But you got it -- "Manipulation", "Control", "Availability" ...
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
One. Sell music tapes at standard media distribution rates.
Two. For a one dollar fee, sell a backup of the tape. After all, tape is a fragile medium, right? Who'd want a tape without a backup? Oh, and our backup medium of choice will be... burned CDs. Easy to use for everyone.
Result: You get to sell CDs for the cost of tapes plus a buck, undercutting the entire industry. But you're not selling the CDs - you're selling the tape, plus a small service. You'd just have a music store full of tapes and burn the CDs at the counter, where you provide your custom backup service.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Something occured to me when reading the part of the article that talked about a small number of people buying a large percentage of music sold. Those incredibly valuable customers, for the most part, care about music. They like music and they like bands. And often they buy music as a pledge of support. I think a significant thing that's come out of all this is that the general public is starting to understand that buying a CD is a bad way to support an artist. The more the general public understands this the less guilty people are going to feel not paying for music.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
That brings up another thought: who else "loses" when P2P is the major method of getting "free samples" ??
A: advertising revenue, and the people who control it. Frex if you don't need radio, radio doesn't advertising or payola, and another whole class of leeches is out of a job.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Why is it, nobody seems to be able to make the connection that the drop in CD sales could be because of the poor economy?
Every other industry is blaming their troubles right now on the reduce consumer/business spending, why doesn't the music industry?
It seems obvious to me. Layoffs, salary cuts, etc... mean less discretionary income to spend on stuff like music.
Why is this so hard???
So if I rip a CD I'm lumped into the same catagory as those who download copywrited music? Every time I buy a CD the first thing I do is to rip it so I can listen to it on my computer while my CDRom is being used as a CDRom, not a CD Player. Nothing about ripping music I already paid for is against the law.
"If just half of the blank discs sold in 2001 were used to copy music, that would mean that the number of burned music CDs worldwide is about the same as the number of CDs sold at retail."
That is a statement with absolutly no statistical backbone. I just said that I rip every CD I buy. I then make my own CD's with my own mix of music. Once again, nothing illegal. And yet the RIAA wants to use that statistic to show that I'm a "pirate".
"...over 50 percent of those music fans that have downloaded music for free have made copies of it.
Yep, and I'm part of that 50%. But I still didn't break the law because I downloaded the songs legaly from Amazon.com or epitonic .com or any number of artist websites that give away free music. Once again the RIAA lumps legal behavior in with illegal behavior in an attempt to boost their statistics. I don't have a single illegal mp3 on my computer, but once again, I'm lumped in with the "pirates".
While Bricklin missed pointing out these statistical errors at least he did point out some other significant points:
- CD prices have gone up significantly.
- Radio and MTV are presenting a narrower selection of music.
The obvious answer there is to support college radio and internet radio. Present more choices to the customer and they'll buy more. And yet the RIAA is killing both!Unfortunatly, in this country rather than letting an absolete industry die a well deserved death we'll probably prop it up with more unconstitutional laws and continue to prosecute the industry's most faithful consumers as prirates. The record industry keeps shooting itself in the foot and then blames it's customers for making it pull the trigger. It's pathetic.
Where the hell does the RIAA pull a "just 50%" number? Let's see - I burn ~600 CDs per year at work for client deliveries, archives, source-code escrow etc. Data backups on my home server add some more. This is far fewer than in my previous job where we had a 4-drive Rimage auto burner to handle deliverables and burned thousands of CDs per year.
So...if the average of the most fanatic group was listed at around 10 CDs per year then to reach 50% usage for music I alone am offsetting 60 fans who burn a copy of every album they buy. My former company is offsetting hundreds more.
But wait, I rip/burn music at home to listen on my Rio CD/MP3 player. My base MP3 collection is about 5-6 discs. As I buy new music I often rip it and then reorganize my MP3 cd collection to reflect new stuff I like and to eliminate the stuff I've discovered I don't like. I burn new discs and destroy the old ones (cds in microwaves are fun). So while I may be "using dozens of CDs for burning music" (all of which I have purchased and for which I still have the original CDs I might note), it's just the same stuff being reorganized over and over.
But why am I wasting my breath - it's just a hypothetical number they invented to try to prove a point anyway - it seems to have no basis in either fact nor result.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
A slow economy usually causes people to indulge in more entertainment, not less, to escape grim reality. One would therefore expect that from Sept 11 2001 until now, entertainment receipts would have risen dramatically. Movies seem to be doing OK. Music, not so OK. It's not clear why. But, it's clear that using the economy as a cause of music sales decline is not a very compelling argument. One would expect the opposite.
Blaming p2p is an emotional argument, not a logical one. RIAA sees it happening, and they have an instant scapegoat. In reality, music lovers who are computer literate use p2p to expand their musical horizons effortlessly. How does this hurt the music industry in the long term? I know of teens who have developed a taste for classical chamber music because of p2p, and 40-somethings like myself who have dabbled in pop music just to catch up a bit. Neither group is likely to go out and pay $16-18 for the CDs in question without even a way to hear them (those of us without teen kids at least).
Bricklin's point that CD prices actually increased since 1996 seems more relevant. Even as prices rose, alternative and "free" ways were found to obtain the exact same music at nearly CD quality. Of course, "free" is relative; you still need hundreds of dollars worth of equipment (computers, burners, MP3 portables) to take advantage of "free" downloads, and if you do a lot of file transfers at home, you are probably paying at least $40/month for broadband access.
Maybe all these poor suffering music companies should get into the broadband business and invest in CD-ROMs, MP3 players, etc. I mean, get with the growth sector. All those leather saddle makers in 1895 switched, if they had any intelligence, to automobile upholstery. The rest ended up in the soup kitchen line. Tough luck; that's capitalism and progress.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
NOT TRUE. Free MP3's/Ogg's are NOT the same as free CD's. Think about that for a moment. Even when/if you burn it onto a blank, it is STILL NOT A CD like the one sold at Tower or Amazon. What people are downloading from P2P networks, and copying from their friends' burned disks, may be many things, but it is not identical to the product as sold at retail music outlets. In particular, the free stuff is of lower sound quality, takes greater time and effort to procure, and comes without art, images, lyrics, and the feel-goodness of fandom, supporting the artist, etc. (which has economic value).
You acknowledge that "there are counter trends" but it's not clear at all that the sense of the effect is as you describe. On the contrary, music labels pay enormous sums of money to advertise their product, and one thing free online music most certainly is is free advertising - advertising whose tab is picked up entirely by the consumer - advertising that doesn't cost the labels a penny. How often have you (in your entire lifetime!) purchased a CD that you had not previously listened to in any way?
If the sum total of the effects of free online music (which is unknown, present article and its conjectures notwithstanding) is to decrease CD sales, then it is because the marginal utility of the actual CD product, 44.1kHz 16 bit, liner notes, fan sentiment, and all, over that provided by the free online music, has been judged in the marketplace to not be worth its sticker price - to the extent that this effect has overcome the demand stimulation provided by the free advertising that online music also provides.
Personally, I buy CD's, but only CD's that I know, and only second-hand or at discount. That's what it's worth to me, and that's what I pay.
-Renard
I would expand on what you pointed out and say that different people DO want different things from music. There are benefits to owning CDs, yes. There are also benefits to not owning CDs.
Myself, I'm interested in the music itself. Not the benefits of having a large CD collection. Or hyper-fidelity of the sound. In my case, having a random and immediate access to of 100s of songs on my hard drive beats the hell out of a pile of CDs.
But I think the point I was trying to make is that, to a small degree, it displaces the actual purchase of music. If someone "might" have purchased something, they may be more content to do without if they have an electronic copy. (Or they already have a good selection of downloaded music and feel less of a need to add more to their library.)
You do, however, raise some good points. Personally, I only buy a cassette (now CD) if I really really like a musical group. I think my purchases average 1 per year. But come to think of it, I think I've slipped down to no CD purchases at all anymore. I'll be damned if I put that on a survey, though.
(preface: never take a personal testimonial as signifying any trend)
For me, it's exactly the opposite. I will not purchase a CD that I haven't heard at least 2-3 tracks of - usually from downloading mp3s (since the sort of music I most often buy is rare to non-existent on the radio). So it in no way displaces an actual purchase for me - it's a necessary step in the decision to purchase.
On another note, I agree wholeheartedly that looking at the continuum of music-buying and downloading behaviour is important. The best way of finding the true trends is to not bias yourself to only look at differences between preconceived classes.
[TMB]
Yeah that's a really good point, and something I thought of after posting. IMHO it only goes to show the extreme nature of the tragedy the RIAA and its members are fomenting here - if they were to allow unencumbered downloading, for a price, they might well be able to charge more than they charge now for CD's (greater functionality). In any case it seems like the margins would be a lot better.
But I think the point I was trying to make is that, to a small degree, it displaces the actual purchase of music.
And the point I was trying to make is that it ain't necessarily so. Free music is free advertising, and just because you buy fewer CD's now, and also listen to a lot of downloaded music, doesn't mean that there aren't other factors in play that have a greater effect. Absent those other factors, you might be purchasing more CDs because of online music. Causality can be a tricky thing.
Other factors that may be playing a role: the recession; increasing CD prices; availability of DVD's, video games, and cellphones; RIAA strongarm tactics; overall poorer quality of music (if such is the case); poor selection of radio stations (Clearchannel); even, lack of access to more/different online music (Napster effect)!
My point is not that online music isn't hurting CD sales, or couldn't possibly - just that one thing we know for certain about online music is that in its function as advertising, it is guaranteed to be stimulating CD sales, and that it's an unsolved question whether the sum total effect is positive or negative.
-Renard
I'm tired of Britney, I'm tired of the Boy Bands, the Crap-Rap artists and the average bullshit you hear on the radio. Is the radio playing it because its popular? Or is the music popular because the radio is playing it? I believe the RIAA (rather, the companies under its blanket) select a few artists to fully promote, and the cutting-edge bands tend to get left in the dust.
Anyhow...that's a whole different argument. My point here is that the dip in CD sales can easily be associated with a whole lot of things. But it's one of those cause/effect issues. What causes what? Did napster cause the dips in sales? Or are there people out there that only like one or two songs from an album (the rest being crap), and they resort to programs like Napster to get what they want? Or they borrow and rip from friends. What about the lesser known artists? Maybe the CDs are harder to get ahold of, and much easier to get via digital means.
We can make broad sweeping statements about what is happening in the music industry all we want. There are so many things that can easily change CD sales. Would it really hurt the industry THAT much to experiment with some online distribution methods? I would gladly pay a dollar or two to download a tune from any artist if I liked the tune. Or is that not legit in the eyes of the RIAA?
I'm essentially agreeing with you, but I think its even worse than you state for many people.
If music is too inconvenient or expensive, some people may stop buying altogether. My music buying has tapered off over the last 15 years, until the point where I went to buy a new release for $18 and decided "thats just too expensive. I don't need any more CD's" and I haven't bought a new CD for at least 2 years, maybe 3. Same thing happened with DVD's: I bought lots at $13-15 each, but now that most of them are $20 or more, I don't buy any. Well, thats not quite true, I'll probably buy the $30 FOTR Special Edition. I bought a used $15 copy of Crouching Tiger. I'd like to buy Moulon Rouge, but its $18 used, and that is just too much.
Sorry for the ramble, buy the point is that I don't think the function is linear. When THEY cross some line, purchases drop off a cliff, people change their habits, and they may not come back. I'm sure I could find that Cake album I wanted to buy so long ago for less than $18 now, but I already chose not to buy it, I'm not interested in looking for it again.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
There was an interview in one of the local papers with one of the big discount retailers of CD's here in Australia (JB-HiFi). They were asking the sales manager about the drop in CD sales (aprox 80% of previous years) and he squarely pointed the finger at DVD sales. He said they have seen a drop in CD sales but DVD have exploded. Previously they only sold a couple of Videos (eg a small percentage of CD sales) but DVDs are growing in leaps and bounds. They have even taken over the shop next door to one of there city stores to cater for the selection of DVDs and it is always full. The sales manager beleive that DVD's were taking up a fair proportion of the CD budget that people spent on entertainment, and believed that downloading and coping of songs has nothing or very little to do with it.
Go out and get sailing!
To paraphrase...
...and then complain that Napster is stealing."
"The music industry charges $18 dollars for a CD...
So true....Maybe if the RIAA would stop listening to themselves talk and actually look at some of these reports, they might change their mind...wait...sorry, I was having a case of wishful thinking.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
According to this link April PC sales were down 22.5 percent from last year . Are we to believe that everyone is downloading new computers? Hello the US is in a recession.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
I think you mean, "Talking to the gent next to you while using the urinal is Peer-to-Peer."
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
You're prolly right. While many of us can truly claim we buy more music from new groups we find out via mp3s, just look at our friends and we can prolly name 3-4 that have gone the other way.
As an artist on one of the big media congloms' major labels (who also happens to offer all of his songs as free downloads on his site) I'm still not sure what effect piracy has on my career....the jury will probably be out indefinitley.
What has suprised me is a lot of /.ers' misconceptions about being a musician and the music industry in general.
The RIAA's actions shouldn't suprise any of you nor anger any of you (which, by the way i find insanely funny) they are, at heart, a bureaucracy and, like all bureacracies their medium of choice is the obvious- things like piracy.
Secondly, not buying RIAA sponsored material won't 'stick it to the man' like you think. You are effectivley cutting yourself off from the majority of the artists that you will in turn 'pirate' anyway. The congloms will still make their cash on the britneys of the world (after they lay off hundreds of employess and artists as a result of this 'correction'), and the only person hurt in the end is the artist you enjoy enough to listen to.
The suggestion that artists should forgo the major label route altogether and 'sell cds out of the trunks of their cars' is completley ridiculous. Mostly major labels give an artist a chance to actually make rent and worry about making the best music he or she can make. It's like telling software engineers to quit corporate jobs at Symantec or Electronic Arts and start making utilities and games out of their garages. Give up your healthcare!!! Worry about coding, and marketing and packaging and positioning your product!!! Sure there ALWAYS successful indies in any field, those people are truly dedicated. But most people, including those who post on this board, will opt to stay at their nice job, wouldn't you?
The one point that keeps coming up that is absolutley hilarious is that 'music sucks nowadays.' This claim is made for many reasons, the obvious being that the person is comparing all the CDs that have come out in the past year to their entire collections, which usually span 30+ years. Of course 2001 sucks compared to 1964-2000!!! Are you people listnening?? Most years only have 5-15 important albums anyway. Are you in denial that modern bands like Tool, Radiohead, Air, PJ Harvey, Nine Inch Nails, et al, are making some of the most important music of the 21st century?? Should they get paid for it??
Next time you think that the RIAA is trying to shove shit down your throat and you shouldn't support legitimate artists because of it, have some respect and remember your history- for every Beatles there was a Hermans Hermits, for every Led Zepplin there was a Bay City Rollers, for every U2 there was Mr. Mister, so on and so forth. Same as it ever was. If music sucks for you now then it is obvious you are continuing to listen to the radio and watch MTV like you always have, because that's where all the bad music is, plain and simple You're not looking hard enough in new areas.
I honestly believe that most intelligent people do use swapping as a way to 'preview' an album. My only fear is that the Joe Sixpacks of the world who love 'free shit' are getting their hands on this technology.
Being a musician is really not that different from being a software engineer, we keep insane ours (mountain dew = cocaine, we just go straight to the source), we usually slave for years for free or on minimal pay to acheive any kind of success, projects (albums) can often take 2+ years and cost enourmous amounts of money, and we pull multi-layered, intricate creations out of thin air to enhance people's lives with nothing more than inspiration. How come you guys don't bitch when the IDSA goes after pirates?I used to spend US $100 for a 4 or 5 music CD's at a single time. Granted, this was once every month or two.
Now, I spend the same amount of money (USD 100) for 3 to 5 DVD's.
In a comparison of content, just in minutes of 'enertainment', you get an average of 1 hour per CD (4 to 5 hr total, on average) vs. 2 hours plus per DVD (6 to 10 hrs total, on average).
In the age of the internet, I crave 'entertainment' that is video based much more than I did 5 or 10 years ago. I no longer listen to the radio for hours on end, nor do I watch network TV for hours. I go to the internet to pick and choose my content, for news, music, chat, email, or whatever. Instead of TV and radio, I pick and choose my content with CD's or DVD's. As I explained before, I tend to focus on the video now instead of the audio.
I still watch TV, I still listen to the radio, in the car, sometimes. With my limited time, I choose the most beneficial 'entertainment' per my ocnceptions of price, as well as time.
At 20+ bucks a shot a CD is not a trivial purchase and to find you've bought only 1-2 goods songs makes you feel like you've been burned. Plus at those prices I'm not going to buy like a collector ("Gee, I bought 10 cds today...hope they are good"), I'm going to buy like a picky consumer ("Better check it out online to see if has more than 1 good song").
I've found myself buying mainly cds by bands from the 60's and early 80s not just because they are cheaper but because the music was far better than most of today's, and I'm not some nostalgic old fogey either. Bands like Radiohead and the Foo Fighters are just too rare nowadays.
The cookie cutter mentality of the recording industry seems to be worse today than ever before. Radio airplay is especially bad. Many times I've flipped the dial between two completely different stations (with different owners) and heard the same exact song being played with only a 1 sec difference. It's no wonder I find myself being drawn more and more to small local and college stations and NPR.
Any industry that needs artificial propping up (barring acts of god) by the government to survive should be allowed a merciful death.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
You're missing the point, and so are most of the comentators above. The argument isn't "this is bad", the argument should be "The Law of Supply and Demand is INEXORABLE."
We all know that when the Supply of a good is greater than the Demand, prices drop until Demand equals Supply. Conversely, when Demand exceeds Supply, the price rises until Demand falls off to the level of available Supply.
This Law CANNOT be circumvented, no matter how hard you try. It just turns around and bites you on the ass if you do.
Classic methods of attempting to circumvent the Law of Supply and Demand:
1) Attempt to fix the price artificially low by goverment fiat. (the old Soviet Union)
Market Response) Instant shortages, as too-low-priced goods disappear off the shelf. Demand rises as Supply drops to non-existant, and the price people are willing to pay becomes sufficiently high that an extra-legal black market comes into existance. Black market prices are significantly higher than legal market prices, but the supply is much better.
2) Attempt to fix the supply artificially low by government fiat. (War-time Rationing).
Market Response) If the Demand is sufficiently high, again a black market will develop to Supply that Demand. Black market prices will be higher than legal market prices.
2) Attempt to fix the price artificially high for the available Supply through monopoly control, price-fixing, whatever. (What the RIAA is doing)
Market Response) Create alternate sources of Supply by evading the monopolist control (buying Region 1 DVDs and playing them on your Region-Free player in Europe), monopoly-busting (remember Standard Oil? Ma Bell?), product substitution (buying DVDs or video games instead of CDs), cottage industry/black market (home ripping and sharing of MP3s, indie bands). Or, if the item is a luxury, demand drops to zero. A black market will only develop if the monopoly price is so excessive that the black marketeer can sell his goods at sufficient profit to cover his risks, and still sell at a price consistant with Demand.
Since the current CD-ripping and file sharing market has very low risk and very low distribution costs, a black market is inevitable. If the risks become higher, because of future draconian laws that are enforced, casual ripping and sharing will die out--and so will the monopoly music business. CDs are a luxury, and if overpriced, people can do without or substitute other forms of entertainment. We are already seeing this!
THAT is what people are pointing out.
---dragoness