Ipsos-Reid: More Americans Downloading Music

An anonymous reader writes "Ipsos-Reids ongoing research on file trading called Tempo again confirms a continuing rise in the number of Americans downloading music from the Net. Furthermore, almost a third (31%) of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online. Of course, having paid once from services like Rhapsody and PressPlay doesn't mean you were satisfied with the value. It does mean though that a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa. You can see the the report graphs here."

Comments

Anecdote:

[thisisatest]

I haven't bought more than a couple CDs in the last two years, myself... On the other hand, if I didn't download music I'd just be listening to the radio with its horrid commercials.

Re:Anecdote:

[thisisatest]

It's probably also worth mentioning that 80% of the music on my computer was ripped by me - I'm not too interested in much of the new music these days, and already own all the good albums by bands I like. Hence, no music purchasing in recent times. I cannot believe that a third of Americans have really paid for music on the Internet. On the other hand, I've even had a relative who was stupid enough to give his credit card number to a porn site, so one can never tell...

Re:Anecdote:

[Jucius Maximus]

"On the other hand, if I didn't download music I'd just be listening to the radio with its horrid commercials."

I agree that typical radio stations tend to have very unsavoury commercials in large amounts. It might be worth checking out 'community' radio stations in your area. I listen to jazz fm broadcast from Toronto a lot (also available on webcast) and since they're a non-commercial radio station as defined by the CRTC, there's only something like 6 minutes per hour of ads. I *have* bought CDs based on what I heard on this station.

Do any similar 'non-commercial' radio station designations exist in the USA?

Re:Anecdote:

[Christianfreak]

Do any similar 'non-commercial' radio station designations exist in the USA?

Yes they do. They can have 'sponsors' basically the DJ will thank a company for donating money and repeat their slogan. So they aren't actual ads. Its pretty nice.

Unfortunatly Non-Commercial stations are somewhat few. NPR (national public radio) is non-commercial of course. There are a couple of local ones here where I live but I haven't found too many in other locations.

Re:Anecdote:

[Triv]

Do any similar 'non-commercial' radio station designations exist in the USA?

College radio.

For example, one of the Brooklyn colleges (might be fordham, but I could be wrong) has an AWSOME radio station. New stuff, old stuff. Generally light, almost always good. Accoustic flavor to it. They even air the college basketball games (not that I care really, but I love sports stuff for background sound).

My dial at home's always tuned to it - I'll let you know the channel when I'm not at work. :)

Triv

Re:Anecdote:

[uncoveror]

Good for you! Don't Buy CDs, except for used ones, which the RIAA and affiliated labels get nothing from.

Trodo

[webword]

We just launched a web site that is sort of like a free eBay or maybe something like an offline Napster: Trodo.com. What is Trodo? "Trodo is a place to trade stuff. It is a friendly barter system. It is a bazaar. It is place to swap stuff. It is a place to share. It is a place to meet people who have stuff you want. It is a place to find out-of-date and hard to find stuff. It is a place to give people stuff you don't want, and to get stuff they don't want." This is a legal, (currently) free, and easy way to exhcange stuff with other people, like CDs and books. After you pay for something and use it, trade it away and get something in return. As I said, we literally just launched. What do you think?

Re:Trodo

[webword]

I strongly disagree; this is definitely on topic. There has been little attention paid to other business models for sharing music. Read through the rest of the postings and you will see that people are asking how they can get hard-to-find music. They are talking about sharing music with other people. They are talking about music sharing communities. Trodo allows for exactly this kind of activity so posting information about it is a good idea.

In Post 9/11 America....

[Phosphor3k]

The Music Downloads YOU!

Obviously

[mschoolbus]

Very few will actually pay for music online to download when everybody else will download the same music, with no copy restrictions for free!

Re:Obviously

[Berrik]

Actually... I think that once the music industry lightens up and gets a clue, pay-to-download will become more popular and common.

Attention to all Record Labels

[GroovBird]

And that goes especially for you, BMG!.

Since you will no longer be selling uncrippled CDs, you will have forced me to find other sources of Music. I will therefor no longer buy CDs that I cannot play in the manner that I want, even if that manner is in compliance with copyright laws.

Thank you.

Dave

Re:Attention to all Record Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

>Are you under the impression that copyright law requires record labels to provide you with CDs that you can play in the manner you want? If so, allow me to enlighten you: It does not.

It does, to a certain extent. When you buy a CD, you're not paying for the physical medium or the encoding of the media. You're paying to have the right to use that media.

No one is obligated to buy crippled media, but then again if people have to use illegal means to access the media they want, there's something wrong going on (as in : the media companies should listen to their customers instead of pissing them off).

Re:Attention to all Record Labels

[Lumpy]

this is not the only place you need to do this, you need to tell them directly, MAIL A PHYSICAL LETTER. signed and properly formatted.

Everyone using BMG needs to do this... email doesn't mean squat to them, a physical letter does.

Me? I finished up my requirement with them and cancelled via US mail letter with a full explination of this, that I will not buy un-useable CD's from them that does not work in my Car stereo, home stereo, and portable player. (all of which play mp3's and thus fail on the "protected" cd's)

Also end the letter with, "I am reccomending to all my friends and relative to avoid doing business with your company because of this."

Re:Attention to all Record Labels

[GroovBird]

Oh, sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

I've been ripping my own CDs for years on end now, for my own convenience and without breaking any laws. (oh well i don't need to prove that fact, you won't believe me anyway.).

I'm not saying they HAVE to deliver uncrippled CDs. What I'm saying is that I won't be buying crippled CDs. Saying that I'm the one who brought it onto myself by stealing in the first place, I could take that as an insult, but seeing you're just as ignorant I won't be taking it personal.

I found some good music on mp3.com. Look up Ted Bjõrling. I'll be buying netCDs from him, thankyouverymuch!

I don't mean no disrespect to all the Slashdot crowd happy to share whatever comes into their /pub/incoming, but it's just not my bag, baby!

Dave

But remember....

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because someone downloads it doesnt mean they like it. Many people downlaod music that they would never buy and end up liking it and then buy the artists CD. The trading of music over the Net has greatly increased the different types of music that a person listens too. To bad the RIAA doesnt trust the studies that say this is true.

Re:But remember....

[Jucius Maximus]

"The trading of music over the Net has greatly increased the different types of music that a person listens too. To bad the RIAA doesnt trust the studies that say this is true."

They have realised this but are scared silly about it because they don't control the filesharing networks' distribution methods, and thus aren't in charge of how much money they will make.

The RIAA would rather have no music industry as opposed to a music industry where they don't control their own profits.

Re:But remember....

[Lumpy]

and if you want a good example... I just recently bought some RIAA music breaking my recent stance of No RIAA bands...

Uncle Tupleo and Son Volt. after downloading alot of their music and listening... I just bought every Sonvolt album and am currently searching for the Uncle Tupleo albums... if it wasnt for kazaa/napster/ftp/irc I would have NEVER heard of these bands and never bought all the albums.. I still buy at least 1 Indie artist CD a month.

My Cd buying has increased significantly over he past 3 years.... directly because of napster/kazaa/irc/ftp/etc.... and i know that I am not a oddball in this.

Re:But remember....

[digidave]

Even if they trust the studies, they still don't want this happening. The record companies want predictable sales and if many people are finding new artists on the web, sales become unpredictable.

At the moment, a record company knows what and how much will sell based on marketing and payola. Britney Spears will sell a lot because she has huge marketing and is payola backed to get her songs and videos played. What would happen if the next Spears album came out and no one knew about it, like what happens with most artists? Surely it wouldn't sell very well.

If the average teenybopper music buyer didn't have intelligence equal to that of driveway asphalt maybe we'd have a better music industry.

Re:But remember....

[Big Mark]

This is true for many, many people - I must have spent at least five hundred of your English pounds on music from bands I first heard over the Internet, and that's money I probably would have spent on beer if I didn't buy CDs.

Of course, most people don't listen to music - they just like the beat of a song and burn the album it's on from mp3s so they can have it in their car or whatever. The minority who actually care about music - and it IS a sizeable minority who spend billions a year - get really, REALLY annoyed with the low, low quality mp3s most people make (remember, kids: use LAME or ogg at 192kbps minimum) so they buy the studio-quality stuff. The record industry hates the high-quality mp3s you can get, as that's another reason not to give them your money.

Although giving the poeple who make the music I like money - even if via record companies - just seems the Right Thing to do. Vivé Amazon.co.uk!

-Mark

Re:But remember....

[IshanCaspian]

Predictability, hogwash. The point here is that the RIAA is using their current monopoly on music distribution to stifle competing methods of music distribution. They don't care whether or not their income is predictable so long as it is copious. Are they afraid of people getting music for free? Yeah, a bit. Are they afraid of new infrastructure developing which will make them obsolete? You bet your AC-trolling ass they are. The point is that the internet totally removes the need for some ultra-huge corporation to physically distribute the cd's, because Joe Geek can run apache on his cable modem and send his music to people all over the world.

The internet is here. MP3 is everywhere. The cat is out of the bag. No amount of legislation will ever put the cat back in the bag. We as a society must find a way to make digital music, which has an infinite supply, financially profitable. That is the challenge that technology has presented us with. We must not allow the self-preservation instincts of an outdated business model to prevent us from dealing with the problems we are presented with. This is the challenge of our times...we must make music profitable or face the loss of a key element of our culture.

Now, there are probably a number of answers to this problem that involve watermarking, buying music over the internet and so on, but IMHO all of that is destined to failure.

The essential problem is that the internet is really a form of collective consciousness. Once a piece of music is put in someone's P2P share folder, it essentially becomes part of this enormous network of information storage. Once a song hits the net it is no longer physical goods, but rather information. The cornerstone of the information anarchist philosophy is that information wants to be free. It's difficult to reason yourself out of watching a pirated movie. Download a divx you haven't seen and burn it onto a cd. Place it in front of yourself. Whether or not you can get past the inhibitions society has placed on you, the indoctrination that information must not be free, somewhere in the back of your mind you feel there is no wrong in that information moving from that disc into your mind. The emerging interconnectedness of our society means that music is no longer a good, but rather information. Trying to fight this only divides us.

Clearly the relationship between artist and consumer is no longer the traditional capitalist one of producer and consumer. Music is not consumed, it is spread, as information.

However, the capitalist mode of thinking does apply when we look to the relationship between artist and society as a whole. Society consumes the performances of the artists and returns a fee based on the success of said music. This is the essential characteristic of the music industry, not the business model that the RIAA has crafted to complete this relationship. We only need to find a new way of expressing this relationship in a society where music is not scarce. The solution is this: all Americans must pay a yearly tax. The infrastructure to generate income via taxes is already in place and quite efficient. Then, the music of any artist would be accessible to anyone via the internet. All we then need is some mechanism to track which artists are listened to the most, or perhaps each tax form would require a list of artists who should be compensated. Perhaps some democratic process could elect representatives who oversee and influence the process. In the end, though, artists would be judged on their contribution to society and recieve appropriate compensation. However, there would be a maximum as well. Once an artist reaches a certain contribution to society they recieve a fixed fee for the rest of their lives, whether they produce music or not. Instead of making millions because of artificial scarcity, they will be given a more modest life, but one that has absolute security, freeing them to continue with their music, unhindered by financial worries.

Think of it this way. If someone said to you "We're going to take care of your living expenses for the rest of your life. You're not going to drive a porche, but all you have to do is make music. You will never have to want for housing, food, medical, anything. No worries. If you are famous and loved, even if only for a few years, you are set for life." and you didn't take it, you're in it for profit anyways, and you're as bad as Brittney Spears. The true artist seeks glory, recognition, and success. If you want to be rich, well, then you need to contribute to society in some other way. There is still a motivation to reach the cutoff point. Say you write one song, release it, get a few thousand downloads, you might get a check for a couple hundred bucks. If you make a song that is as popular as any mainstream single these days, you're going to be taken care of.

Sure, this idea is pretty damn communist. Sure, artists can't have huge mansions anymore. However, it does two important things: listeners aren't criminals anymore, and the RIAA's price-gouging won't lure idiots like a lot of the trash on MTV because of the massive amounts of money involved.

Look at musicians over the course of history. Our society is an aberration in that Musicians are respected and paid as if they were royalty. Muisicians previously lived for two things: recognition and security, and my proposal offers just that. The life of a musician should be one that sacrafices the greedy pursuit of financial wealth for the satisfaction of making a meaningful contribution to society. The truly great musicians write music to express what is in themselves, and to share that with others, and they look to our screwed up system to ensure that they get to eat the next day. The RIAA has commercialized music beyond belief, thus uprooting the true factors that should drive a musician.

Re:But remember....

[Sylver Dragon]

Many people downlaod music that they would never buy and end up liking it and then buy the artists CD. The trading of music over the Net has greatly increased the different types of music that a person listens too. To bad the RIAA doesnt trust the studies that say this is true.

I have no doubt that they know this is true, and I am sure it scares the hell out of them. Consider for a moment one of the implications of people hearing more/different types of music. I don't think it takes a leap of logic to conclude that some of the bands a person likes/buys are from independent labels, or direct from the artist. And the more independednt artists' CDs people buy, the less money the RIAA/Major Labels get. Also, if people start listening to non-RIAA stuff, the pop/recycled crap bands probably won't sell as well.
Don't fool yourself, the RIAA et al. know exactly what the score is on P2P networks, they are not stupid, they have been making billions by spoon feeding the masses the same crap over and over again. The last thing they want you to do is start looking at new/different artists. They want you to listen to a Clear Channel radio station and have the newest RIAA backed artist's songs drilled into you. This is why the content companies hate the 'net, and want to control it, to control you. They want to control all of the music and information reaching you, to control your thoughts.

Re:But remember....

[quintessent]

They don't want you to increase the music you listen to. They want you to listen to Britney Spears, Kitch'N Sync and the other stuff they decide for you to buy. If you listen to independent artists, you might be tempted to buy stuff from them.

Re:But remember....

[IshanCaspian]

monopoly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Yeah, but brand X doesn't have to predict anything so long as they keep anyone else from starting brand Y.

Whatever crap they stuff down our throats on the radio and MTV is automagically successful because there is no competing method of distribution. What's to predict?

That was kind of the point of my post....

Another View

[Technician]

It shows a larger proprotion of the downloaders have tried a pay service. I wonder if the proportion isn't more people, but less quality free stuff due to Napster shutdown, Aimster/Madser litigation, looping files, improperly named files, etc. and those Dl'ing for free, not admiting it due to possible litigation exposure.

Re:Another View

[bbuda]

I have a hard time believing that that many people have paid to download music in the form of services such as PressPlay, Rhapsody, and others. The numbers? Ipsos-Reid claims that 60 million Americans download music, and 31% (about 18 million) "reported having paid for any of the music they have downloaded." Maybe I'm missing one, but I don't think that these relatively new services have reached nearly that subscription level yet. Instead, I think many people who answered yes to the "have you paid for music" question were confused in one of two ways: either they thought that their ISP fee pays for the music, or they are referring to music that they bought in CD/Tape/other physical form, and also have seperately downloaded to their PCs. Unfortunately, the Ipsos-Reid and TEMPO websites are short on details, such as the exact wording of questions asked.
I did locate another TEMPO survey that a mere 27% of downloaders would prefer to pay for a music service if it were availabe (italics mine). All these data seem a bit inconsistant, and if you're doing anything valuable with this info, I wouldn't trust it much more than a Slashdot poll.

Re:Another View

[LX.onesizebigger]

Especially since the TEMPO survey didn't have a Cowboy Neal option, those insensitive clods!

Re:Another View

[Tackhead]

> Ipsos-Reid claims that 60 million Americans download music, and 31% (about 18 million) "reported having paid for any of the music they have downloaded." Maybe I'm missing one, but

You and Ipsos-Reid missed something.

It took me a while to figure it out, but I'll bet the 31% that "reported" having paid for the music did this:

Q: Did you download music from the Internet?

A: Yes, I've downloaded music from the Innurnet.

Q: Did you pay for the music you downloaded?

A: 69% - "Fuck no, I l33ched it from a P2P service, FTP site, or USENET newsgroup"

A: 31% - "Of course. The TV ads for my ISP said I could listen to music with AOL 8.0! For just $21.95 per month, a friend of mine showed me this Kazaa thing that puts lots of music in my AOL! He says it even works with other Internets too, not just AOL!1!! But $21.95 a month for all that music is a pretty good price!"

I purchase

[Apiakun]

I purchase plenty of music in CD and LP form. Some of what I listen to is obscure, some of it is quasi-popular, but very little seems to be online anyway. It's much easier and less time consuming for me to go out and buy the stuff from the local non-chain music store.

Occasionally I'll download a track or two to see if I like an album, so I can put it on my "buy" list if I enjoy it. It may take me a while to buy it, but I do if it's available.

The germans are hot on there heals

[oliverthered]

Try besonic, a guilt free way to download music.
Don't forget to select your country if your germans not upto scratch (the site's english, but quite a bit of the popular music is German!)

Americans downloading more Free Porn...

[MosesJones]

Porn industry doesn't complain

"Its all free advertising, and we've got premium services that are making a profit"

If the record industry could follow this model then it would be less of an issue.

Even though you can get it all for free?

[benhaha]

Shurely shome mishtake?

Surely you mean:

Even though they can get it all in return for hosting viruses and trojans on Kazaa?

Even thought they can get it in exchange for their integrity on Kazaa?

Even though they can get it in return for sitting online for hours looking for a decent quality recording of a track?

Interesting, but wrong analysis

[mikeage]

Hmm... this one was interesting.

(First, does anyone wonder if this "anonymous reader" really exists, or if it's just michael making something up again?)

Anyway, here are the facts we have (from the summary).

1. A continuing rise in the number of Americans downloading music from the Net.

2. 31% of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online.

Let's review those for a minute. First: Piracy (or, to those zealots who says there's no guy with an eyepatch here), the illegal downloading of copywrited music without proper (in the legal, not moral sense) compensation is up. Second, thirty-one percent says they paid for some of the music they downloaded! So... how much did they pay for? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%? Who knows? I'd guess no more than a third. If that's true, we have less than a third of the pirates paying for less than a third of their music... which, if downloading is uniformly distributed, means less than 11% of all music being pirated is being paid for.

And based on this he claims "a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa."?

Yeah, right.

Re:Interesting, but wrong analysis

[silverhalide]

I'd guess no more than a third. If that's true, we have less than a third of the pirates paying for less than a third of their music... which, if downloading is uniformly distributed, means less than 11% of all music being pirated is being paid for.

It is very probable that said 11% of music would have never been listened to in the first place, and consequentially not purchased without the existance of file trading software. Conversely, this 11% is probably is accounted for by a 11% reduction in the purchasing of crap CDs (read: 'N Sync, Britney, etc.) since the users found out they were crap by downloading it. My personal belief is that consumers are still spending approximately the same amount on CDs as before, but those expenditures are being shifted away from the big labels their monster budgets to the smaller independent labels with real artists on their payroll.

Re:Interesting, but wrong analysis

[rtechie]

Well, as I pointed out here and elsewhere, the RIAA etc. is very aware that a large, non-crippled, commercial downloading service would be very popular and make a considerable amount of money. Studies have been done, etc. Trust me that the RIAA knows this for a fact.

However those same studies have shown then that such a regime would end up making them significantly less money than they do now (for various reasons, mainly related to the profits on album vs. per song downloads). I can't stress enough how much effort has been put into coming to this conclusion by the RIIA/Record labels and various technology companies.

Knowing this, they are simply unwilling to jepordize their album sales by building a large-scale, effective and popular downloading service (which could be done EASILY).

They won't change until they're FORCED to by a major drop in CD album sales (at least 30%). So if you want legal downloadable music stop buying CDs. Pirate for a while if you prefer.

Re:Interesting, but wrong analysis

[Idarubicin]

If that's true, we have less than a third of the pirates paying for less than a third of their music... which, if downloading is uniformly distributed, means less than 11% of all music being pirated is being paid for.

I'm confused--what are you trying to prove here? The argument cannot be that the 89% who do not pay are responsible for any drop in record sales. If the Internet did not exist, most of that 89% probably just wouldn't buy much music at all. I freely admit that I download much of the music to which I listen, infringing on copyrights held by record labels. Quite frankly, I can't afford to buy a large number of CDs that contain mostly low quality music. Back before file sharing was popular, I recorded music off the radio using analog media.

I will still buy classical music CDs. Good classical recordings have much more dynamic range than popular music (which is engineered for radio). Higher bit rate actually makes a difference, too. If there is a band with a track record of quality music, then I will shell out then, too. Twenty dollars for two good tracks is too much money, though.

I'd pay for most of what I've downloaded and delete the rest if I could pay on a track-by-track basis. Charge me ten cents for a preview track that I can listen to for (say) a few days or a week. Load it up with DRM, I don't care. Let me buy tracks for fifty cents apiece. Those should be genuine mp3s at 160 kbps, that I can copy and burn as I see fit. To really impress me let me apply the initial dime to the cost of the mp3 track. Send me a monthly bill for downloads, or perhaps I can pay a fixed amount up front and operate on a declining balance system.

I want to fairly compensate artists, but I will not be ripped off.

Re:Interesting, but wrong analysis

[timeOday]

Well, I cannot make any claims as to the significance of the study.

However, for me it happens to be somewhat accurate. I had a subscription to emusic.com for about 6 months. I cancelled in the end because it was taking longer to find music I liked and I wasn't using it enough to justify a subscription fee. (If downloads were priced individually I'd still be a customer. If all the latest and greated music were available, I'd still be a customer.)

From my experience, finding what you want on a website in seconds, then downloading it at 1.5mb/s, completely blows the socks off P2P.

If the music companies got together and sold their music online for low prices in accessible formats, the only people left on P2P would be kids. My total spending on music would at least triple. As it is, I only buy buy music as gifts because knowing what it SHOULD be like, I can't be bothered with making a trip to the store to buy overpriced CDs that I might or might not like.

Rethinking Royalties

[Lokist]

I understand that artists need to be paid for what they do just like everyone else... and I don't have a problem with artists being paid MORE then everyone else... What I do have a problem with is there royalty system. The music labels need to come up with a way of making money for themselves... Endorse the label and not the song. Create a way for us internet people to get a hold of the newest and latest music online and not charge download fees...

I guess my point is...Libraries, slashdot, open source software...etc etc... all seem to remain alive without making people pay big bucks for what they offer.

BMG or SONY could come out with a really awsome way to organize our songs... or help us out with the quality of what we get... but they don't... they just complain.

Bottom line: This is 2002... Kazaa(which I hate), and GNUtella(which I love) is not going away...neither is the mp3 format... deal with it.

Re:Brazen Thieves

[tcdk]

It may be your opinion, but your argument doesn't hold.

There where "artists" like Britney Spears before napster or even the internet.

Musicians didn't make (lots of) money before the invention of radio and records. Right now technology makes it possible for (some of them) to make lots of money. It a few years technology has made it impossible for most of them to make (lots of) money.

If everybody "stole" their music, the record labels wouldn't have the money to promote artists like Britney Spears and only musicians who where willing to promote their own music (by giving it way) would make money (on t-shirt and live acts).

Things change - learn to live with it. In the old days musicians had to play at least a couple of gigs a week to make a living. My guess is that those days will return.

Re:Brazen Thieves, NOT!

[thumbtack]

You notice that it says free...It doesn't break down if they were download illegally from a filesharing service or if it was from legitiatmate sources, such as DMusic.com or Mp3.Com or for that matter the artist's websites?

Free does not neccesarily mean "stolen". Sounds like you've bought into the RIAA position lock stock and yardarm.

Downloading or Downloaded?

[Uri]

The statistics aparently refer to the number of people who have *ever* downloaded music. Which means that you'd be fairly surprised if they didn't rise. No?

(And since they also refer only to Americans aged 12 and over, it is even conceivable that absolutely *no-one* is presently downloading music, and the 'increase' comes simply from counting all the former 9-year old Napster users for the first time.)

When will surveys start asking the right questions?

neverending story

[John_Renne]

The whole idea of downloading music is a neverending story. People will allways claim they do it because CD-prices are too high in their opinion. The record-companies on the other hand will continue to claim prices must be high because music is downloaden so often.

I won't claim I've never downloaded music but when the album is worth it I'll purchase it. Downloading just prevents me from buying and the regrets afterwards. Downloading and never buying therefor is quit lame in my opinion.

Downloading also gives me the opportunity to get familliar with different kinds of music. Record stores aren't very happy when people keep on listening without buying. P2P programs let you enjoy the listening in the comfort of your own home. As everybody can see there are some very legitimate reasons to download MP3. If everybody would follow such standards I think the entertainment industry would have much less of a problem with it.

Re:Brazen Thieves, NOT!

[mikeage]

Cute and even true, but almost always wrong. Come on, you know better than that. Yes, we all have our favorite band who has legal mp3's out. Yes, we all know about the legal files on mp3.com. But honestly, isn't almost all of what you (if you like mass-produced junk) and your cookie-cutter friends (like 90% of the world) like pirated?

If not, I'm sorry, and pleased to meet you. If so... take a number.

is a REAL underground finally possible?

[pezpunk]

over the last few years, a tiny number of gigantic companies have locked up all our aural culture tighter than a drum. they hold a monopoly on the ears of the general public. radio stations are almost universally owned by Clear Channel. concert venues of course belong to Ticketmaster. there's pseudo-competition in the record industry, but all the competitors there are equally soulless.

there has always been those who reject this hierarchy, but until now we've relied on word of mouth, dubbed tapes, lamppost posters and flyers to reach our audience. musicians are slow adopters, but we are catching on. CD-R's and MP3's are mainstream now. can enough like-minded musicians -- musicians who reject the whole corporate machine, and don't mind sacrificing money and fame to operate outside of it -- can enough of us band together to form a cohesive movement, or will we remain isolated and disparate?

geography is less of a barrier than ever. the music industry has never been in greater need of revolution. and independant musicians have never been as well armed as we are now ... but DAMN, do we like to fight amongst ourselves, and so many woul rather go with the status quo, too afraid to find our own way.

i suppose only time will tell.

dan
the overprivileged
http://www.theoverprivileged.com

Re:is a REAL underground finally possible?

[Dun Malg]

be careful of what you say online these days. if you're against our capitalistic lifestyle, you might be considered a terrorist.

Capitalism is based upon Free Markets (i.e. competition). The recording idustry is Monopolistic, which is the opposite of the Free Market. What we have is the government bolstering the position of a monopoly, which is more akin to socialism than capitalism.

Re:is a REAL underground finally possible?

[pezpunk]

my sig is a sig ... i just added my name and my website to the message.

glad you liked the show. we palyed pretty horribly hahaha.

Newsflash...

[Erik Corry]

...almost a third (31%) of shoplifters claim they have paid for at least some of the goods they got our of the shop!

It's been said

[Apreche]

Almost everythign there is to say about the issue has been said already in previous slashdot stories. So just about anything I could say would be redundant. Except I just realized something. Let's say I bought all music I wanted on CD and didn't download anything. I would be without all my music from foreign countries and without my video game music remixes! That's the real reason I don't buy CDs. They don't have the music I want and don't have. Seeing as I've already got all the classic rock ever on vinyl.

I'll make a deal with you RIAA. Release a CD with the best of OC Remixes and I'll buy two copies. Until then, make mine winMX.

Re:Brazen Thieves

[night_flyer]

"Well you know why popular music scene is full of "artists" like Britney Spears? It's because of people like them stealing music and destroying the chances of decent musicians."

puleeze, commercial acts like Britney have been around LONG before P2P "pirates". ever hear of Flock of Seagulls, Duran Duran or Poison?
the good acts will ALWAYS be drowned out by the more commercially viable acts. P2P actually increases the distribution of the good acts, as there is no commitment up front to spend money on an album that you know nothing about.

I cant download music anymore...

[LordYUK]

at my current connection speed, it would take about forever to download a typical 3.5 meg song... thank you AT&T Cable!!!

God its depressing when you go to a site that says 1 minute @ 56k and it takes you 90 seconds on yer cable modem...

Try before you buy...

[KillerBob]

Sorry, RIAA and MPAA, but given the consistent mediocrity that you people have been getting away with for years, I simply don't trust you to give me the product I'm paying for.

What that means for you is that I will download movies on Kazaa or Imesh, and I will get MP3's before I pay one red cent to you. It doesn't mean that I want to rip you off, it means I don't want you to rip me off. It's basic economics that you don't seem to be understanding: I download 100 MP3's. Of those MP3's I find 4 or 5 that come from artists I decide I like. The rest get deleted because I decide they suck. I buy CD's that have been released by those artists to see if I like everything else they've done. I'd say that aside from a couple anthologies from 70's and 80's bands, and the copy of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" that I had to replace, I haven't bought a CD in the last 5 years that I didn't preview somehow.

Movies... same deal. I don't even trust Hollywood not to fsck up "Lord of the Rings", and won't see it until I'm done downloading it. If you people hadn't been consistently passing off crap for the last quarter century, I might be more willing to spend money on you, but as it is I'm not spending anything on you until I know that I'm getting what I pay for.

Re:Try before you buy...

[carpe_noctem]

Most CD stores will let you listen to albums in the store (well, the big chains like sam goody and such really only let you listen to the 'sponsored' album in the store). But generally speaking, you can both support your local store and your favorite artists at the same time here. Saying, "Well I didn't wanna buy any CD's because all the music sucks" is a cop-out.

Re:Try before you buy...

[Gonarat]

I agree about the RIAA, but at least the MPAA's products (movies) can be rented from any number of Video Stores for $5 or less. Between reviews from friends and the general "word on the street" I can decide if I am going to see a given movie at the Theater, wait for DVD release, or just avoid it. What is really ironic is the movies I have purchased on DVD lately (LOTR, SW:AOTC, Harry Potter I, and Shrek [I have a 12 year old Daughter]) have all been $15 and change including tax.

It as cheap or cheaper for me to buy the DVD than it is to buy the CD -- and I know that the DVD will work in the DVD player while it not a given that the "CD" will work in any CD player. I don't agree with a lot of the MPAA's practices, but at least I can get a fair shake for the buck. Now the RIAA's another story, and that's why P2P is so popular.

Re:Try before you buy...

[Simon Kongshoj]

The record stores I buy music in have a bunch of stereo systems with headphones, I can just go hand the clerk a CD I want to listen to, and he'll put it on so I can indeed try before I buy. Don't American record stores have such an option?

Much as I hate the established music industry, I'm not really sure I buy this one.

Re:Try before you buy...

[Simon Kongshoj]

Hey there,
I think the reason why the RIAA doesn't want to coexist with the 'Net is because it scares them shitless. The 'Net allows artists to easily distribute their music online without having to sell their souls to Sony. What's going on isn't "anti-piracy" or reactive defense, it's an attempted power grab. They want maximum control over this medium, or at least to make music distribution through it as difficult as possible, simply because it will make them obsolete, and they know it.

Abolishing a technology because it has potential for abuse is stupid. There's nothing wrong with P2P (or knowledge about nuclear processes, or mapping the human genome), there's something wrong with the way people are using it. I don't see anything wrong with using a P2P service to listen to a few tracks before going to the record store, so you know what you should be looking for when you get there. The problem is, this isn't how people are using P2P. I realize that this is a sure way to get this post modded into /dev/abyss, but seriously, most P2P users I know download hundreds or thousands of songs and only purchase CDs when they can't find the tracks they're looking for on KaZaA. Then they come up with a lot of trendy political reasons for using Kazaa afterwards. Usually something about the recording industry being evil and wanting to stop them from performing copyright infringement, or something like that.

I hate the big recording industry as much as J. Random Slashdot Poster does. These guys are people who screw over the very people who create the stuff they're selling, and I hate that no matter if it's practiced by factory owners, Bill Gates or some soulless Sony exec. They suck. However, small labels frequently have a completely different attitude, and have a much more respectful way of dealing with the musicians they work with -- some of them are genuinely interested in music, not just in making money. Ironically, such labels are hit harder by warezing of music than the big ones are, simply because they don't have the gigantic swollen wallets of the big music business. Besides, people with obscure music tastes have a lot less to get from Kazaa than those looking for Linkin Bizkit's Greatest Hits. Also, most popular P2P services run on software developed by scum, and I don't want any of their hideous abominations on my system. Not that they make hideous_abomination.tar.bz2 for Linux available, but I guess that might be because Linux users frequently use tinfoil headwear and would go to great lengths in stopping Kazaa from dropping spying and thieving little turds all over their systems.

P2P, in its current incarnation, sucks. Your favourite P2P client doesn't care if you're downloading the latest Sony-produced pop album or if you're downloading Live In Eindhoven. I care, though. I don't like paying for some exec's new car, but I very much like the thought of my money being sent to a donated guitarist's family because they ruined themselves trying to pay for his cancer therapy. You may think you're being really trendy for messing with the big labels, when you might in fact be hurting the good guys.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying you have stupid P2P habits. I'm just trying to say why I've found that the majority of P2P users do, and why I'm not using any P2P software myself.

Kazaa

[A non moose cow]

Kazaa is not free. Each popup cashes in on a little piece of my sanity...

...which is still better than the recording industry cashing in on a large piece of my wallet.


`I dare say you never even spoke to Time!'
`Perhaps not,' Alice cautiously replied: `but I know I have to beat time when I learn music.'

It doesn't have to be an underground movement

[Mothra the III]

The giant record companies were once a necessary evil when proper recording equipment was very expensive and there were few channels for distributing music. Now it is easy to record at home, modify the recording on your home computer and burn your own CDs or put your music on the internet. I do like the idea of a musicians community where you can exchange resources and ideas, or at least network.

Royalities for the portable people

[Lokist]

I have an even better idea for how the record labels can make money... They can charge 1 time royalty fees to companies who make portable Mp3 players.

Example:

Sony makes an Mp3 player that can hold 100 songs...charge Sony royalties for 100 songs...for every product sold... They would make a fortune.

Then again...wait a second... Isn't sony also a record label? So technically they would be charging themselves for distributing songs? That can't be right.... So if Sony the label wants people to stop pirating songs... Why do they make MP3 players to play those illegal songs?

Things that make ya go hmmmmmm....

--
An active Open Source advocate.

Re:Royalities for the portable people

[Zathrus]

So if Sony the label wants people to stop pirating songs... Why do they make MP3 players to play those illegal songs?

Because, maybe, just maybe, Sony has different divisions and they don't talk to one another?

Sony Electronics is virtually a separate company from Sony Entertainment. Each of which have sub-companies which don't talk to one another much. The money funnels upstream, but very little corporate direction funnels back down

It's a huge company... as are many nowadays. You don't think that the GE engineers making lightbulbs sit around and have lunch with the ones making high performance jet engines, do you?

Re:Royalities for the portable people

[aengblom]

You don't think that the GE engineers making lightbulbs sit around and have lunch with the ones making high performance jet engines, do you?

More like, you don't thinkt he GE engineers making lightbulbs sit around with the ones making power plants to see how they can make a lightbulb emit less light and use more electricity.

Turns out the best way to run a business is usually to just make each product the best it can be instead of concentrating on "the big picture"

Thank god. (not that it prevents many from trying)

Attention to you

[stratjakt]

The less money we make each fiscal year, the more we will blame piracy. Sure we are an overvalued service, which is slowly becoming obsolete, but we won't admit it.

Thanks to headstrong pirates like you, we can take our dwindling profit margins to the Congressmen we own, and force legislation that will put you behind bars, and/or force you to buy our product.

You are our best friend, Mr. Pirate, and we salute you.

Thank you.

The Industry

Re:Attention to you

[rutledjw]

I don't think it's all that funny. So far RIAA has made the most blatant attempts against privacy and any kind of personal freedom on the net. They have attacked ISPs and driven through bills which support HUGE prison sentences for Copyright Infringement.

Then they tried to get permission to hack into personal computers looking for "unapproved" MP3s? These guys are dangerous. Period. No question about it...

Puzzling Question

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

The top 40 lists are guided by album sales, additionally, artist tend to write what sells. I am guessing that the crowd under 25 yrs old downloads much more than over 25 yrs old (completely unsubstantiated guess) that being said, the top 40 does have a lot more mature type sounds lately (more accoustic music, higher vocal quality etc...) Could the traditionally teeny bopper top 40 be getting more guidance from the older more apt to pay crowd? Could teenagers be robbing themselves of their 'right to vote' for the music of their choice? If they are is that something that still matters or will the top 40 fade in the shifting paradigms of the 21st century?

As I said that is all speculative.

Re:Puzzling Question

[sirinek]

On the contrary, the top40 is a load of crap these days. I was on a roadtrip last weekend and caught Casey Casem's top 40 on the radio. He proudly boasted that there were something like 14 solo female artists in the top 40 that week. Too bad they are all shit. Its all manufactured bubblegum pop. Mature my ass.

Re:Puzzling Question

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Too bad they are all shit. Its all manufactured bubblegum pop. Mature my ass.

Wow, you are really bitter. Cheer up, it's JUST a radio show. My point was not that the entire top 40 was more mature, perhaps I was not communicating clearly. Rather, that on the whole the popcharts are more mature. Also, by top 40 I do not only refer to the hip-hop top 40 but the alternative lists, country etc...People like Dave Mathews and his countless clones sit well on the charts.

Re:Puzzling Question

[Freshie]

That's a very interesting point of view. I've never thought of it that way.

Although I don't beleive that the radio airplay is dictated by sales, it does seem to be a little less "pop-py" than it used to. It still doesn't make me want to listen though.

We have numerous stations here in Toronto, however only 4 playlists. Granted the playlists might be in a different order if you're lucky my only 4 just the same.
/.Country Hits
/.Adult Contemporary
/.Teen Beat and Pop
/.Indie College Radio


Those are your choices. On the occasion that I go driving, in the 3 hours it takes to get from here to my parents place, I hear the same playlist rotate. [same station, bounced down the lakefront]

That's sad... 3 hours of content? ha! not even.. 3 hour playlist ,inus commercails gives roughly 2:10 playlist.

RIAA wonders why we crave music downloads? How many times can you hear her croon about 'Making Things so Complicated' before you wish she'd have some minor complications of her own.

If the content exists, I need to be able to find it. One headlining song beating me over the head is not going to make me buy the CD. Even if I did like that or a particular song, if it's the only one I know, then why buy the CD? all I have to do is listen to the radio, it'll be on again in a second...

I don't buy in the store, but i'm still paying.

[yobbo]

I pay 100 Aus dollars a month for 11.5GB of downloads (yes, capped broadband) per month, 11 of which goes to Kazaa. Basically, i'm spending 90 bucks a month on entertainment. Sure, the artists don't get squat, but i'm still "paying" for what I watch.

Perhaps the record companies, movie companies etc should consider this in their business plan...

Re:Brazen Thieves

[puto]

How can you lump Duran Duran and Flock of Seagulls in with Poison? Well, all three bands wore heavy eye liner at one point.

I think Poison was the bigger of the sell out band of the three, following by Duran. However, Duran did some decent tunes. Flock of Seagulls was a really good light band but wouldn't go saying they were commercial to the extent of Britney,Duran, and Poison. Duran did write most of their own stuff.

Poison was glam and guitar rock mixed then they evolved into a hair band. Couple of good tunes but nothing earth shattering. Working class mulletheads. Every rose has it thorns is a good ballad. They owe much to KISS(damned Knights in Satans Service.

Puto

Supplies!

[Malicious]

Buying an Album shouldn't be like opening a gift bag. You should be able to know what's on the disc, before you buy it, to decide if you WANT to buy it. Sure, the radio plays 1 or 2 songs, over, and over and over.... and Most modern music stores will let you listen to a CD in store, but what if i want to listen to that music in context?
So i download it, give it a listen from my favorite armchair, and decide wether or not it's worth my $20. If not, it goes into the Recyclebin. I'm not a pirate, if i don't like it, i don't keep it. If i do like it, i buy it, and rip a higher quality MP3 straight from the CD.

My weekend music downloading story...

[sdo1]

Friday 9:15pm - Downloaded new Audioslave album

Friday 9:45pm - Listened to about 4 songs and realizing that it isn't anywhere near as interesting as I'd hoped it would be.

Friday 10:00pm - Hit some discussion boards to see what other people with similar tastes are listening to.

Friday 10:30pm - Dowloaded albums from Lightning Bolt, Beck, and Interpol.

Friday 11:00pm - Began listening to downloaded albums. Liked Lightning Bolt and the new Beck, but didn't care much for Interpol.

Saturday 11:00am - Trip to Newbury Comics (New Englanders know...). Buy 2x Lightning Bolt and 1x Beck. And also while there bought Johnny Cash and Sonic Youth on vinyl. Total outlay... about $65.

Saturday 4:00pm - Served with an arrest warant for illegally downloading music.

Sunday - Spent the day trying to explain the finer points of SoulSeek to my new friend Bubba.

Monday 9:00am - Allowed access to prision computer terminal to check on Slashdot. Awaiting bail...

Yup. I'm a criminal.

-S

Re:My weekend music downloading story...

[sdo1]

BTW, up to the last few lines, that story is 100% true. The fact of the matter is that since I discovered SoulSeek (never cared for the business models of Kazaa and the like), I've been buying MORE music than I did before because I can be reasonably sure that I'll be happy with my purchase because I've already listened to it.

When I was in high school, I copied cassettes with my friends like there was no tomorrow. When it college, I started buying CDs, but still went copied almost everything I listened to. But all of that fueled my love of music and now that I'm making decent money, I buy music.

If the record lablels squish music sharing, kids interests will turn to something else and they will have lost a generation of future consumers with money. They need to tread very carefully here....

-S

Re:My weekend music downloading story...

[Tackhead]

A story of mine from last year:

> Sunday 11:01am - Typed the words 'christmas' into eMule.

Sunday 11:02 am - Typed the words 'john valby' int o my favorite P2P app. Downloaded "Herniated Jingle Balls".

> Monday 07:45am - Moved 5 downloaded albums into my not-shared folder and looked at the other 10 that are still downloading.

Monday 07:45 am - Begin playback. Wipe coffee off monitor. Replace keyboard.

Monday 07:46 am - Realize I'll never have to grimace my way through yet another sickly-sweet goddamn Christmas album again because I now know the real lyrics to all the Christmas carols.

Monday 12:30 am - Sent a money order to John Valby and a note of thanks.

Re:My weekend music downloading story...

[Tackhead]

> I see your point but the thing I find funny is that best tunes I downloaded, in my opinion, were by Bing Crosby. And it was a recording of a radio show that was broadcast free at the time...

Yeah, and truth be told, I've got nothing against Bing.

It's the 5000 "$POPSTAR_OF_THE_WEEK Sings $CAROL" compilations albums that always show up this time of year that just make me want to... well... sneak into a CD pressing plant and replace an entire year's Xmas lineup of RIAA crap with John Valby :)

Re:Brazen Thieves, NOT!

[thumbtack]

Actually no it isn't...Because since July 13, 2000 when I first registered boycott-riaa.com and threw together the website, I have purchased not one REPEAT not one, major label release. Nor have I downloaded any either. I don't feel the need. But I have bought close to 150 independent cds. The RIAA drove me to it, and you know what? Its usually much better music, production without overproduction, and usually much better priced as well. My shopping habits have changed as a result.

As for me and my cookie cutter friends usually most people are quite surprised to find that I'm not a 20 something geek that's pissed that I can't download for free, but instead a 50+ year old who works the system writing letters, meeting with congresscritters, attending events like Future of Music Coalition Policy Summitt or SXSW Educating consumers and artists alike.

Tha whole point is to make the RIAA, Hilary Rosen, The IFPI, and Jay Berman irrelevant. They are are a Maginot line to independent music. We just go around them. If an indie is given a chance to distriubte their work, get airplay without paying millions in "bagman" payola they will have a chance to make a decent living from their music. It doesn't take millions of sales to make a damned decent living if you aren't having 90% of every dollar in sales (of those actually reported) skimmed by corrupt record labels, And you pay the expenses out of your 10%.

Re:Rethinking Royalties SLASHDOT NOT MAKE MONEY?

[puto]

Well you make a good point, if we lived in a perfect world where we all played nice in the sandbox but.

1. Libraries pay for books. You check the book out. Read it, bring it back. You aren't making a free photo copy and then letting your friends make a copy. And only one person can have that book at a time. And most importantly libriaries are subsidized and have to fight for the money they get, they do not just exist.

3. Open Source Software - Well it is a good model if you pay for service, or donate to the project, or even buy the gasp COMMERCIAL PAY VERSION. Which most people don't do. Most people in the community just dig around Source Forge for something they need. And we wonder why IT is staying in a slump. Anyway, OSS is a good way to get loads of people working on something, then take the good of it, and make it commercial.

4. Slashdot, SLASHDOT not make money? Don't let the .org fool ya. Slashdot is a money making enterprise. May not have started that way, but you see the banner ads. And not from little companies. IBM, RackSpace, Sun, AND EVEN GASP MICROSOFT. Someone has to pay for all the bandwidth we eat up every day. And why not make some loot as well? I bet Taco and Neal do quite well, and OSDN gets a nice montly check fromt banner revenues.

And what is this " Create a way for us internet people to get a hold of the newest and latest music online and not charge download fees" hmmm so if all music was for free, how would the label or the artist make money? Even less people would buy cd's. The money is not made in concerts, not too much, but from LP sales and merchandise. You think the stones made their entire fortune from touring? Years upon years of alblum sales.

Take a reality check. I am not gonna own a company and give you 2 million dollars to cut a record, so you can can just pay me my 2 million back one day. I am gonna want a piece, which is fair. Quid pro Quo. Most people around here still haven't realized that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I am for downloading tunes, but paying for them, whether it is a .50c or a buck. But I gotta tell you any code I write that I deem econmically viable. I sell and sell and sell. I gotta eat, wife has to eat.

Puto

Be honest... AND have fun!

[occamboy]

I've been using Rhapsody for a few weeks, and it's a blast. For $10 (roughly the price of CD) each month, I get unlimited online access to a huge catalog of well-digitized music. Very simple and very good.

The $1 per track charge to burn to CD is pretty high, so I don't do that.

Just because record companies are swine, it does not mean that it's OK to steal stuff from them. Rhapsody lets me get (most of) the music I want at a very reasonable cost.

Highly recommended.

(No, I don't work for them, etc.)

Re:Be honest... AND have fun!

[KjetilK]

I'd say mod up parent, this is interesting.

However, what kind of files are there?

Any kind of DRM involved? Are they using open standards?

Honestly, I would pay $10 a month to get access to a large selection of high-quality Oggs, but if they try to feed me with crippled files, forget it. They have to do their best and not treat me as a potential criminal.

Because I'm not. I never used Napster or the like, because I feel they were only trying to rip people off too. Most of my MP3s are legal, and I am buying music, though the only CD player I have is on my PC.

'Artists?' need to move

[oliverthered]

Me emailing them, or sending letters probably wont do squat, but if the Musicians they represent said that crippled CD's weren't in there contract, bye bye.... Then maybe EMI/BMG et all would notice.
So, Email/Write to your favourite musician and tell them that you will no longer be buying there music because it's crippled, suggest that this might be a get out of Jail free card in terms of there contract etc....

Re:'Artists?' need to move

[oliverthered]

I'm sure some of them do, and they'll 'listen' more to what your saying.
The RIAA don't give a fuck, your probably not the market they want anyhow.

You obviously have never used KaZaa!

[mekkab]

And based on this he claims "a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa."?

Yeah, right

Have you ever tried to search for a specific song? or an entire album? Its like pulling teeth! Factor that in with all the dial-up users or broadband users that allow 20,000 concurrent downloads (1.5mbps/20,000 = 75 BITS PER SECOND, plus overhead!) and those slow connections always have the stuff you want...

Then factor in non-mainstream tastes, and there are things you just can't find on KaZaa.

I'd rather pay money to download from a fast pipe, on demand. Give me at least 80kbps and I'm happy. Give me 175kbps and I'll have your children.

Once I've paid off this semster of schooling I'm getting a subscription to Emusic.

Ok remember how the record industry works

[sielwolf]

and how that is different than other entertainment media: money the industry spends (contracts, studio time, etc) is spent on future returns on this investment. So the idea is that you can spend half a million on a band with the hope that you will reap many fold over this.

Everyone mentions Britney Spears but also notice that her music is not what the record industry hopes for. What is best for them? Pink Floyd, Journey, etc. Remember that these old rock acts are not on the Billboard 200. Why? Because decades old music would represent 75% of the chart! These are the records that go quadruple diamond and will continue to sell... forever. Britney/N'Sync are good right now, but do you think those albums will be constant sellers in a decade?

So not only is trading cutting into these longterm sellers, the industry knows that if they don't sell Britney et al now, that is money that won't come around in the future.

[In an Economic view] Now this industry is making all these investments and their market is bottoming out. All their speculation tools are useless (since, as others have said, they don't know where to spend their money).

The big difference between the record companies and economic speculators is that the record industry can't invest more in mainstays! I mean there are only so many Zeppelin and Beatles hits comps they can release a year.

"Well they should only release good music!" Yeah, and when has that ever happened in any product industry? Software? Automobiles? Fast Food? Pffff. Pipedream justification.

You've never used KaZaa, have you?

[mekkab]

And based on this he claims "a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa."?

Yeah, right

Have you ever tried to search for a specific song? or an entire album? Its like pulling teeth! Factor that in with all the dial-up users or broadband users that allow 20,000 concurrent downloads (1.5mbps/20,000 = 75 BITS PER SECOND, plus overhead!) and those slow connections always have the stuff you want...

Then factor in non-mainstream tastes, and there are things you just can't find on KaZaa.

I'd rather pay money to download from a fast pipe, on demand. Give me at least 80kbps and I'm happy. Give me 175kbps and I'll have your children.

Once I've paid off this semster of schooling and finished christmas shopping I'm getting a subscription to Emusic.

No.

[wadetemp]

Furthermore, almost a third (31%) of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online.

The key word is "claim." The actual value is probably much lower, and getting increasingly lower.

The Ipsos-Reid results summary is very vague anyway... it doesn't say that poll respondants paid for a download service, just that they "paid for any music they have downloaded". They very well could have bought a CD of music that they downloaded online... I would think many people would consider that paying for the music.

It does mean though that a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa.

No. The number would be significantly smaller were people to know free services existed. Some friends who were left in the dark by Napster started to sign up for these pay services until I told them about the existance of free ones, at which point they quickly about-faced.

The American Way: don't tell me there's no such thing as a free ride.

Re:No.

[Tackhead]

> The Ipsos-Reid results summary is very vague anyway... it doesn't say that poll respondants paid for a download service, just that they "paid for any music they have downloaded". They very well could have bought a CD of music that they downloaded online... I would think many people would consider that paying for the music.

Or most likely of all: They don't know the distinction between what their own ISP serves and content they get from somewhere else.

I'll bet most of that 31% said something like "I pay $21.95 a month to subscribe to the Internet. I get my email at $ISP.com. My start page is $ISP.com, and that's where I go when I surf the web. My friend gave me this Kazaa thing, which lets my Internet get music too. I'm paying $ISP.com $21.95 a month them to give me email, the web, and music."

It's actually pretty natural for a naive user to assume that as long as they pay to access "The Internet", and just as "The Internet" includes email and a web browser, so long as their experience of "The Internet" includes downloading music, they'll continue to believe they're paying to download music.

Such users aren't idiots, they're just naive users who have constructed inaccurate mental models based on their experience: In every other area of their experience, paying a monthly fee and getting access to $FOO as long as they keep paying, is called "paying to subscribe to $FOO." Why should they expect the Internet to be any different?

I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online

[Skapare]

I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online, provided...

• My privacy is absolutely protected (my identity cannot be sold to anyone for any purpose whatsoever)
• The music comes in a format which will work on my computer system, which is Linux on my desktop, and Linux or OpenBSD for the servers.
• Once I buy and download it, I can play it from my computer as often as I want.

I do download music from the net. But what I download I either delete or I buy the CD of it. When I get the CD, I rip the tracks and put them in my junkbox machine (e.g. my Linux file server) and play them there. The CDs are stored and not sold, given away, or even loaned. But if the CDs eventually no longer work, then I will certainly reconsider my plan. If I can pay to download and that works, fine. But if none of the pay-for methods work, what else can I do but steal the music?

Artists ... is your label ripping you off by not making your music work for me?

Re:I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online

[dirk]

But if none of the pay-for methods work, what else can I do but steal the music?

What about the option of either listening to music that does fit into your requirements (such as indie bands) or not listening to music that doesn't fit into your requirements. Once again, just because something is not available in the way you like doesn't justify you taking it without paying. I cannot say that I will only use code that is licensed under a BSD license, so since Linux is not offered under my requirements, I will take it and distribute it as if it was a BSD style license and use it in my closed source systems. Not liking the way something is distributed gives you the right to not pay for it and not use it, not to take it and do what you want and ignore everything else.

Re:I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online

[Skapare]

It's a matter of whether they want to include me in their market space or not. If they don't make it for the computers I use then they are not putting me in their market. That means they aren't really interested in my business. Then I don't feel any moral obligations. But as soon as they change to include me in their market by making their product work for me, then I would feel it right to pay them for what I use.

You are stealing! (Media companies are, that is)

[Thud457]

Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, an EXCEPTION to the natural state.

Sit there and mull that over a bit.
Think about the implications.

By trying to contratually (EULA) or technologically (broken CD s) strip away our fair use rights granted under copyright law, media companies are stealing from the commons. (Ok, so this is the complimentary argument to their "TIVO users are thieves".)

I do agree that if consumers are ill-informed enough to buy into something, that they get what they pay for. If they start getting pissed that they can't listen to their Briteney'N'Sync in their imacs and returning them, maybe things will self-correct. If you sign that EULA, you agree to abide by its terms. You can sign away any rights you want to in a contract.

But make no mistake about it, copyright is an ARTIFICIAL state of affairs. Hell, look at what happened with "It's a Wonderful Life". It was of little value until it had been RETURNED to the public domain . Then the cable companies started using it for cheap holiday filler, and it became woven into our common culture. And this was something that the media companies (unknowingly) did.

Mickey Mouse would not be worth anywhere near so much if people everywhere didn't recognize him. Disney owes that value to Mickey being part of our common culture -- and copyright is a temporary grant of use THAT MUST BE RETURNED to the public domain.

standard Discordian disclaimer : parts of this are blatent lies, parts are true -- use your head and figure it out for yourself

I'm not surprised this is happening.

[MtViewGuy]

I think the problem the RIAA does not realize is the fact they are falling victim to the laws of economics--the invisible hand has slapped them hard.

When you start pricing album-length audio CD's at US$18 per disc in what amounts to a cartel-like situation customers are LESS likely to buy CD's produced by RIAA member companies because the customer thinks the record companies are gouging them for high prices. Anyone who's read up on basic microeconomics know that high cartel good prices encourage ways to undermine the cartel, hence the reason why file-sharing sites have become all the rage in the last four years.

If the RIAA had been a bit more enlightened they should have priced CD's at round US$11 per album-length disc, which would have drastically cut the economic incentive to pirate music. After all, is there rampant piracy of DVD's here in the USA? Of course not, given the fact that the MPAA allows DVD's to be sold at reasonable prices (US$20 per disc for new releases, US$15 or much less for older releases).

Re:I'm not surprised this is happening.

[Joey7F]

Yes but does your VHS, have commentary, behind the scenes documentaries etc.? All of that costs money...

$20 for a dvd seems fair and if you can get it for $15 then that is definitely fair (provided the movie is decent...hell I got Episode II for 9.99!).

20 dollars for a cd doesn't seem as good an entertainment value as 20 dollars for a DVD.

"Pirating" seems to be more about convience that not wanting to pay.

--Joey

Re:I'm not surprised this is happening.

[MtViewGuy]

You have got to be kidding.

The problem with DiVX movie files is that their picture quality is frequently inferior to the original DVD source and also the fact that you often lose the great Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS surround sound audio tracks, not to mention the commentary tracks! DiVX files are about 350 megabytes per hour in size, and downloading a 700 MB file of a two hour movie is a daunting task even for folks with broadband connections.

Besides, haven't you heard of this thing called Amazon.com or DeepDiscountDVD.com, where you can get DVD's for real cheap? Or better yet, carefully watch the sales flyers for Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart, Target, and so on to get first day of release sale prices? I got The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings Extended Edition for US$24.99 + tax on the first day of sale! At US$24.99 FoTR:EE was probably the biggest DVD bargain of the year, in my opinion.

The problem with buying CD's online is that they don't offer much cheaper prices than the US$18 per disc you see in mortar and brick retail stores. Small wonder why CD piracy is so rampant.

Yeah, right...

[stubear]

"You can see the the report graphs here." ...and reports and graphs are always so honest, you can believe them without any corroborating evidence or other reports. ;)

jazz.ca

[Kenshin]

listen to jazz fm [www.jazz.dv] broadcast from Toronto a lot (also available on webcast)

I don't mean to be rude, but how exactly did you transmogrify jazz.ca into jazz.dv?

I hate that station, alot, but I felt it necessary to fix the link :P

Re:jazz.ca

[Jucius Maximus]

"I don't mean to be rude, but how exactly did you transmogrify jazz.ca [www.jazz.ca] into jazz.dv?"

WTF? I was sure the original link was right. I even tested it.

But no, it was not meant to go to jazz.ca. It supposed to point to http://www.jazz.fm/.

Thanks for pointing it out.

The RIAA has had YEARS now to figure it out...

[Newer Guy]

...and they still can't come up with a successful model that will allow them to make a buck from downloadable music. They're a bunch of F**K- ups, what can I say? There's truly no other way to describe these morons. For the TEN MILLIONTH TIME let me try to explain it to these pure idiots: The consumer is willing to pay for downloadable music under the following conditions: First: It must be reasonably priced. The guys who think I'm going to pay a buck a cut for a 128k quality MP3 are nuts! 35-50 cents is more like it. A monthly flat rate for stuff over a year old makes even more sense. Second: I want to be able to play MY songs (emphasis on MY) on my computer, in my car, on my boombox, on my portable player, and anywhere else I see fit. Third:I want a GOOD SELECTION OF SONGS! I HATE the crap coming out on CD these days. Also, I NEED A SOURCE TO HEAR all kinds of music! I half give you credit for this one: at least you got half a clue and stopped biting the hand that fed you with Internet Radio (kinda). Finally:This paranoia over 'copy protection' has simply got to stop! There's a saying that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush! Perhaps it's time that you guys learned that saying, 'cause right now the bunch of you get NOTHING from the bush!...except for Hilary Rosen -maybe- *wink*

Re:Brazen Thieves

[night_flyer]

My wife is a big Duran Duran fan, so Ive heard it all. when they FIRST came out they weren't good, (at least to our ears at the time and the definition of good) they were pop trash. since that time we can look back and say, yeah they had some good stuff. the same WILL be said about BS in a few years.

Downloading music sells computers

[Rai]

I heard a customer in the electronic dept of Sears speaking with a sales person about buying a computer. He said "I wanna be able to download CDs and use a CD burner" and the sales person said something to the effect of "this Compaq model can do that for you." I guess RIAA will be suing Sears now.

Re:I pay for my music...

[Simon Kongshoj]

ACK! Don't say those things on a public forum! Next thing you know all ISPs will have to pay royalties to the RIAA.

The Cartel & Monopoly Mindset

[FreeUser]

The RIAA would rather have no music industry as opposed to a music industry where they don't control their own profits.

This is part and parcel to the monopoly mindset. Recall the AT&T fought its breakup tooth and nail, despite the fact that now, as one competitor among many in an industry that has grown by orders of magnitude due to competition, they make vastly more money than they did as a monopolist, and despite the fact that many, many economists and analysts were predicting exactly this behavior.

Microsoft is another example: with Palladium and DRM they are flirting with the very real risk of making their entire product ("the PC" in most people's minds) so crippled and singularly unattractive to consumers that it will go the way of DAT tape (not extinct like the original DivX pay-per-view DVD scheme, but relegated solely to professional use). They lock out GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, and anyone else who might wish to compete on the Intel/AMD platform and lock in their monopoly, only to kill the feature that made the Intel platform appealing over the Apple, Atari, etc. platforms, despite the other's superior software and (in many cases, at the time) hardware: the apparent openness and competition that existed on the IBM compatible side of the fence. Once that is gone, all Apple has to do is continue business as is ... for their hardware will dual boot GNU/Linux, does now (for the most part, goofy video connection cables notwithstanding) provide as much openness as Intel and, with the advent of Palladium, soon to be much more openness.

Suddenly the equation shifts, and Microsoft becomes a legacy providor on a closed platform no one wants to stay with. They get the 100% market share they so desire, in a rapidly shrinking market. The odd thing is, the cartel oligopolist and the monopolist prefer this to outright competition, even though they stand to make so much more money in a vastly larger competative marketplace!

The recording industry is no different. In an industry saddled with incompetent people at so many levels, and the fear of competition that incompetence breeds (remember how poor AT&T service could be, back in the monopoly days, or how poor SBC Ameritech service remains?), they would rather cling to 100% of a tiny (and shrinking) market they control, than face the uncertainty of having to compete on their merits, even in a market place orders of magnitude larger, where even despite their incompetence they would likely earn vastly more money.

It is a very odd mentality, but one that is well documented and recurrs over and over again in the industrialized world, and is arguably one of the best arguments for why monopolies should be illegal, and not merely tolerated and "guarded against" should abuses arise (which doesn't happen when the government chooses to willfully ignore its duty under the law *cough* Baby Bush's DOJ *cough* anyway).

A legal quandry

[Control-Z]

So what's the legality of paying for the song from a pay service and then downloading a [bootleg] MP3 of the same song that will play on my car MP3 player (which is where I do 99% of my music listening) from a filesharing network?

Don't forget emusic

[tylerh]

A great place to download mp3's is emusic. $10/month. no DRM, no proprietary player crap, no technical restrictions. Just all you the 128k mp3s you can eat.

If you're looking for the latest stuff you heard on the radio, it's ain't here. But there is a lot of good stuff if you're willing to dig around. In addition to serious bands that didn't quite make it ( lots of They Might Be Giants and Sonic Youth, for example and checkout Airplane Man's Moanin') they have incredible breadth: In addition to some hard to find symphonic and a great Chilean Reggae band (no, really!) they have hours of George Carlin, and even Noam Chomsky if you're into that.

I have no connection with emusic, other than being a very happy customer.

Re:Don't forget emusic

[oliverthered]

Besonic has some of the best features I've seen so far,
It records all your history and makes suggestions,
It's easy to find music, there's there std radio, mood radio( random stuff for the mood your in ,not that many moods but ok)
The Cube, Genetically bread your music (pick what you like and find more of the same).
Play anyone's play list.
All streaming or downloading or buy on CD.

Unfortunately there's no way to donate money to people who's music you've downloaded for free (some people charge to download).

The market is bottoming out?

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Unproved assertion, bad assumption, flawed argument.

But, Moriarty - they dropped the Goons!

[Snork Asaurus]

It might be worth checking out 'community' radio stations in your area. I listen to jazz fm [www.jazz.dv] broadcast from Toronto

I used to listen to them for years and that's where my dial was always pointed by default (btw, the correct url is Jazz-FM). But even they are not what they once were. They started off way back in 1949 as CJRT, part of the then-named Ryerson Institute of Technology (thus the RT) - a low-power student station for courses in broadcasting. They managed to carve a niche in non-commercial non-mainstream music (jazz and some blues, classical and folk). Eventually, they were spun off into a stand alone entity and Ryerson got a new station (CKLN).

Unfortunately, with the recent re-birth from "CJRT" to "Jazz-FM", they lost focus, (and Ted O'Reilly, their most recognizable voice, who apparently quit in disgust after 37 years) and moved to a more soulless MOR jazz format.

But the (IMO) most egregious wrong that they committed in their march toward banality was that they stopped airing the BBC comedy The Goon Show (a classic radio comedy and much of the inspiration for Monty Python), which had been playing on their station for as long as I can remember. For that I will never forgive them. The Goons are yet another victim of the march toward radio banality.

I have completely given up on radio and now only listen to it as a source of news and information. I don't buy commercial CD's and I don't download copyrighted mp3's. But I love music and get my fixes through independent artists - you can find a tremendous amount more variety and a surprising amount of quality there.

Fun with vinyl!

[sdo1]

I recently got back into listening to vinyl... you know, those 12" black things that are (gasp!) analog. I'm finding this hobby really fun for a few reasons...

First, there's an amazing amount of stuff that's out there and DIRT CHEAP. Scour around used record stores, record shows, yard sales, etc and there's a ton of material to be had for a buck or less if you're willing to look.

Next, it sounds better than CD. No one is going to convince me otherwise. I can listen for hours and hours and enjoy every minute of it. Even the best CDs that I have are fatiguing to listen to after a while.

And finally, even under the most assenine RIAA intupretation of the law, this is completely legal and the record companies don't see an additional penny from me.

I just find it really funny that the industry gets all riled up over downloading, but my digging into used vinyl is actually worse for them yet there's not a damn thing they can complain about.

(of course we know that the RIAA has tried to stop the sale of used CDs but was summarily shot down because the practice is protected by the "first sale" doctrine of federal copyright law)

-S

I just bought an album the other night....

[ainsoph]

For the first time in over 3 1/2 years. Yet somehow I seem to procure at least 5 albums worth of music a week.

How do I do it? I'm not telling. Why do I do it? I made a commitment to the recording industry that I would not pay for anyones music unless I hand my money *directly* to the artist for that music.

I was lucky. The other night I got to see one of my old Heroes, and he was selling records.

stealing or scrumping?

[oliverthered]

stealing, taking something with the intent to permently deprive etc......

I'm sure you know this already but.

I make a 'copy' of X, the copyright holder still has X and I have a 'copy' of X all that has been done is to put another, all be it illegitimate X in the world.

I steal X, the owner no longer has X and has been permently deprived.

Case A: I just breach the copyright, this is not stealing. As I like to call it, I have scrumped a copy, there will be copies tomorrow and copies next year, I've just obtained one without permission.

Case B: I've stolen.

n.b. Scrumping is the find English art of running into someones garden (usually as a child) and picking an apple from an apple tree without getting caught.
It is normally expected by apple tree owners that children will scrump and it's largely overlooked or ignored.
If the branches overhand the road then you are allowed to pick the apples, this is not scrumping it's your right, if they overhang your garden then you must ask the owners permission(otherwise your scrumping).

Have I just found a presedent for copying IP, I'm not longer a Pirate I mearly scrump music.

Flawed counterpoint

[sielwolf]

Unproved assertion
Assertion of original post: music industry works via investment on future returns.

Since I thought this was "known" I didn't have to prove it. Read an example on how this works.

Supporting metaphor: market bottoming out. Not primary assumption.

Your counterpoint: take non-central point, simplify argument to that, gesture authoritatively, ignore.

Ouch!

[Snork Asaurus]

I understand what you mean but I guess I'm just too young to know how it was in the old days.

Ouch. I may be looking back at 35, but I'm not ready to move to Florida yet! The dates in pre-history come from the web, not my aging brain cells ;-). But the changes have been, for the most part, in the last 2 years or so, so the old days aint too far back. The station was always a holdout against lowest common denominator programming, but it has shifted a little in that direction and lost some of its unique appeal. But it's still probably the best we've got.

I still listen to "A Prairie Home Companion" now and then.

So do I. You know that it is a production of Minnesota Public Radio, not a local show, right?

But hey, I like the station. I guess it works for me so I'll listen to it.

No slight intended. I really meant to damn the station with faint praise. They're still one of the few listenable stations on the dial here, but not as good as they used to be. I'll admit that I still tune them in from time to time.

I only started listening to this station recently so I did not experience the loss of "The Good Show" at all.

The Goon Show was classic radio comedy produced by the BBC in the 50's and early 60's (even before my time!). It was silly, irreverent, and damned funny. It played on the station up until last year or so, but it was only 30 minutes out of a week and easy to miss. It forged a lot of the comedy style that Monty Python's Flying Circus would later adopt (and by which they would openly admit to being influenced). I hope that you know what Monty Python is (if not explicitly, you will know Monty Python implicitly by spending time here at Slashdot).

And now the penguin on top of your telly will explode.

ASDL just for piracy

[phorm]

My uncle recently mentioned that he wanted to get DSL... just to download music. He's more or less computer illiterate, but sees that this is the "in-thing" nowadays.
Flame me if you want, I realize that piracy is happening because of the amount of crappy music and crappier pricing, however I believe this is the point at which things get out of hand.
Having a few kiddies downloading the newest tunes, whatever, they wouldn't have likely bought them anyways. But when an adult basically subscribes to a service just for piracy? That's just bad.

Also, all things considered, after the first month or so he'll probably only download music equivilient to what he could have bought for the price of DSL/cable anyways (1-2 CD's a month).

It makes me wonder though, how many people *just* use the internet for piracy? You'd do just as well to buy your music second-hand, rather than poring money into DSL+burner+CD's+etc,etc and pissing (whether they deserve it or not) the music companies off.

Swine comment

[sacrilicious]

Just because record companies are swine, it does not mean that it's OK to steal stuff from them.

A few points:

• "steal" is a heavily loaded term that has been abused enough of late that more precise language would be well advised. People who download music without paying artificially inflated cd prices and without constraining themselves to the tiny selection of what the record labels call "music" can be thought of as being civilly disobedient in the name of a worthy cause at least as easily as they can be thought of as thieves. Which interpretation you choose probably says more about you than it does about them.
• People are not dowloading music for free solely out of spite as your statement would imply. It is true that the internet has enabled a very large number of people to comprehend how their choices and wallets have been commandeered over the past few decades by the recording industry. It is also true that these observations coupled with the industry's recent repugnant power grabs that place profit above any sense of human decency and which seek to violate the constitution have lead many people to conclude that the industry is a bunch of swine and vermin who should be eradicated. But the notion that the industry is full of swine is not the main reason people download. People download because they want to recover a culture that they feel belongs to them, a heritage that has been choked and strangled and squeezed into inaccessibility until now. That the industry is as swine-ridden as they come is secondary.

.

empowerment

[sacrilicious]

I just ran down to the 7-11 and liberated some Twinkies in the name of "civil disobedience" and "recovering a culture that belongs to me".

Thanks for the humor, I liked it. :)

Seriously though, interpreting one's actions has everything to do with the context in which they take place. Let's say that you live in some country where a cartel has cornered access to food, and feeding your family now costs you 90% of your income... not because there aren't enough food producers, but because the cartel has artificially restricted supply simply to squeeze more profit out of people. What does stealing twinkies amount to in this case? You can bet that way before stealing becomes a question of actual survival, there will be a revolt by the populace to recover their dignity and their ability to go about life without being squeezed at every turn.

I'm not saying that the recording industry controls a product whos scarcity can kill. But I *am* saying that the spectrum of concepts are similar, and it would be a mistake to miss these concepts by getting hung up on humor.

.

I've had this experience

[for(;;);]

> The key word is "claim." The actual value is
> probably much lower, and getting increasingly
> lower.

Over the past couple years, I've started getting into blues and jazz (the old, good stuff; not the new, pretentious shit.) At first, I downloaded songs from Napster. This was alright, but it was hard to find really a lot of really obscure stuff. I also had half-downloaded versions of a lot of songs.

Periodically, the Napster mp3s would all get wiped out due to my lazy-assed administration.

Then I subscribed to eMusic. This was really cool, in that I could get full albums of a lot of stuff I'd previously downloaded. Like with Napster, I could get ahold of a lot of different artists, this time with full albums. Again, I was frustrated by the lack of comprehensiveness in the album collections -- it's not like Blind Willie McTell or Billy Murray are a big sellers in these post-wax-cylinder days; they should have the full collections up, goddammit. Eventually my subscription ran out.

Predictably, the eMusic mp3s all got wiped out due to my lazy-assed administration.

So I bought the CDs I'd downloaded. The music collections were much more complete (e.g., BWMcT's obscure duets with his tone-deaf wife, with lyrics railing against "shine"), and the difference in quality was startling (Leadbelly's "House of the Rising Sun" was way different on CD -- full, rich, deep.)

So now I have permanent backups of these Ogg files. I won't subscribe to another music download service, because the quality is less for a little less price and no more convenience. I *will* buy more rippable CDs from artists I've become familiar with. I *would* buy CDs from other artists if I could hear more samples of their songs, as this was how I got into this stuff in the first place.

In my case, downloadable mp3s genuinely *did* work as music advertising (Napster). They didn't work as a way to replace CDs at all (eMusic). They have very much affected which and how many CDs I buy. This is not bullshit! This is not zealotry! This is what has worked best for me.