Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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..
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.
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.
... 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.
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
i suppose only time will tell.
dan
the overprivileged
http://www.theoverprivileged.com
i could live a little longer in this prison
"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...
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.
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
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.'
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.
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!!!!
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.
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?
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%.
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.
I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online, provided...
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
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).
...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*
The RIAA would rather have no music industry as opposed to a music industry where they don't control their own profits.
... 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.
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
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