Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ipsos-Reid: More Americans Downloading Music

Posted by michael on from the not-a-huge-surprise dept.

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."

45 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Anecdote: by thisisatest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You'd almost think a 'net company would know
    1. Re:Anecdote: by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "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?

  2. Attention to all Record Labels by GroovBird · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Attention to all Record Labels by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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."

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  3. But remember.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:But remember.... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "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.

    2. Re:But remember.... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:But remember.... by digidave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    4. Re:But remember.... by IshanCaspian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
  4. I purchase by Apiakun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. The germans are hot on there heals by oliverthered · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!)

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  6. Americans downloading more Free Porn... by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  7. Interesting, but wrong analysis by mikeage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    1. Re:Interesting, but wrong analysis by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

  8. Re:Brazen Thieves by tcdk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    TC - My Photos..
  9. Re:Brazen Thieves, NOT! by thumbtack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. is a REAL underground finally possible? by pezpunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    i could live a little longer in this prison
    1. Re:is a REAL underground finally possible? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  11. It's been said by Apreche · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  12. Re:Brazen Thieves by night_flyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  13. Re:Another View by bbuda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Try before you buy... by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    1. Re:Try before you buy... by Simon+Kongshoj · · Score: 3

      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.

      --
      Six sick .sigs, the Number of the Beast!
  15. Kazaa by A+non+moose+cow · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.'

  16. Royalities for the portable people by Lokist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Royalities for the portable people by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

    2. Re:Royalities for the portable people by aengblom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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)

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  17. Attention to you by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  18. Puzzling Question by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Puzzling Question by Freshie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 want more choices. I just want better things.' - Edina Monsoon
  19. Supplies! by Malicious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
  20. My weekend music downloading story... by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  21. Re:Brazen Thieves, NOT! by thumbtack · · Score: 5, Informative

    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%.

  22. Be honest... AND have fun! by occamboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.)

  23. 'Artists?' need to move by oliverthered · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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....

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  24. Ok remember how the record industry works by sielwolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
  25. No. by wadetemp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No. by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > 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?

  26. I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online by Skapare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online by dirk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  27. I'm not surprised this is happening. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  28. The RIAA has had YEARS now to figure it out... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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*

  29. Re:I pay for my music... by Simon+Kongshoj · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Six sick .sigs, the Number of the Beast!
  30. The Cartel & Monopoly Mindset by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  31. Re:Another View by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    > 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!"