RIAA vs The Economy

thumbtack writes "Boycott-RIAA.com is running an analysis of the RIAA sales vs a number of other large corporations. It was compiled by Justin Moore at Duke University. It is really quite interesting, showing the the RIAA sales are pretty much consistent with the rest of the economy. From the analysis: I would assert, however that it does make the case in cold, hard numbers that the RIAA's claim of digital piracy ravaging their sales must be taken with a rather large grain of salt. The CEOs of Eastman-Kodak are in a nearly identical economic situation as the RIAA, yet do not have the luxury of blaming digital piracy."

Comments

So...

[kmac06]

So you're telling us the RIAA is using the crappy economy to strengthen their monopoly?

Since when is this news?

Re:So...

[stand]

News from a totally unbiased source

I don't know about you, but I don't care if someone presents an obviously biased view. I just care if they can back up their bias with good arguments and data.

problem solved!

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEOs of Eastman-Kodak are in a nearly identical economic situation as the RIAA, yet do not have the luxury of blaming digital piracy.

Obviously, they need to add a license agreement to their film products. Just forbid the stuff you don't like to happen, and then you can use every crooked law in the book to sue folks who switch to digital.

87% of all statistics are made up

[krisp]

It looks more like the RIAA is targeting the 1% of people who actually pirate mp3s to account for their slowing sales due to a poor economy. Atleast Kodak has a valid reason why people don't want their film products.

Again?

[OzPhIsH]

This article is just another representative of the facts we've known since the RIAA's crusade against piracy began. Now I have the opportunity to read the same old comments by the same old people saying the same old things. Might as well be a repeat..

Eastman-Kodak a good comparison?

[birdman666]

I don't know if Eastman-Kodak's financial situation is a good marker for economic trends. I think a great portion of their market has faced the invasion of digital photography which is certainly cuts their consumer film sales down significantly. Their economic situation may be due partially because of the economy, but also partially to an emerging technology that they is taking away some of their marketshare.

Re:Eastman-Kodak a good comparison?

[rgmoore]

But how much is digital photography cutting into Kodak's business? It's not as though they're exclusively committed to the film business, you know. They have excellent lines of both amateur and professional digital cameras themselves. And while they don't make film sales on the cameras, the base price is enough higher that there's a significant short-term profit potential. They also sell inkjet photo paper, online printing services, and photoCD. They were not exactly caught off guard by the switch to digital.

Re:Eastman-Kodak a good comparison?

[OWJones]

E-K might be suffering from their own economic problems, but they're not running to Congress to get laws enacted to protect their business model, or outlaw the competition. My theory is that when new laws are proposed, the first question should be "Is there a valid problem that this is going to help fix?" I think my analysis hints that the problem might be -- not so much piracy -- but just a plain side effect of the economic downturn.

-jdm

EMI profits down 40%

[sh0rtie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1999556.stm

of course this has nothing to do with the fact that the public is tired of being ripped off and taken for idiots and now is not interested in their products.

so instead of creating products that people actually want or investing in talent instead of boy bands and the like, they blame their outdated buisness model on piracy, sounds like sense to me.

are you smiling yet ?

In conclusion...

[$$$$$exyGal]

Here is an excerpt of the conclusion:

This particular analysis does not tell us exactly how accurate the rest of the model is, and several other professional statistician shortcomings. Remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics; this is just another statistic.

In other words, they are saying their numbers are also probably wrong. At least they admit it.

Re:In conclusion...

[Moofie]

However, the analysis DOES break RIAA's prima facie argument, which goes like this:

1) We're losing money.
2) People seem to be getting lots of music without paying us.

Therefore, the only reason we could possibly be losing money is piracy. QED.

Anybody with two neurons to bang together could point out the fallacies in that argument. Which is why our congresscritters seem to have so much trouble getting past it...

Re:They just blame Digital Photography.

[L7_]

and dupont can blame mental patient founders

and exxon can blame stricter environmental laws

and honeywell can blame global warming affecting thermostat sales

etc etc

Companies need to evolve to the state of the world, not point fingers about causes (real or imaginary) of thier misfortune. Digital content distribution is real and it is here to stay. It can either be looked at as an opportunity or as a degression; obviously the RIAA sees a degression since it can't rely on its standard business model and can't adapt to the change.

Out with the old and in with the new

[t0qer]

I am hated.
I am one of "those" dot commers responsible for screwing up the economy.

This is the attitude I get from a lot of people. Since the crash all the non-tech people I know have taken every oppertunity to take a cheap shot at me, "Ya told you it wouldn't last forever" or my personal favorite, "It's never coming back"

"Bullshit" I say to myself as I try to keep my temper from flaring up.

This type of thinking perme-ates (sp?) our society simply because nobody likes being replaced by younger newer models. This is the way it's been since the dawn of time. Someone makes technology (Castles) and someone else makes a technology that makes the former irrelevent (gunpowder) With both the RIAA and Kodak, it's the same problem. Someone came up with technology that quickly made the foundation of these organizations obselete.

In the case of the RIAA, the combination of internet with Mp3 compression made the old models of music distribution obselete. I worked for a local music magazine for a few years, and often I would hear rockers cry about how Mp3's are sending them all to the poorhouse crying because they can't sell CD's anymore. No matter how many times I would try and tell them website+thawte+oscommerce=mp3 online store they just wouldn't listen because they were all brought up to believe that the RIAA method was the only way. Now apple sells songs 99cents apiece and is making a fortune. With all the money and power the RIAA has, it's a shame they didn't adapt the way apple did and just give their customers what they want.

A good sign of how well CD distribution is dying is the ill fated "Wherehouse" music stores. To my knowledge here in san jose, they are all gone. CD sales just slipped into the toilet and all their stores have just vanished.

Kodak isn't much different. For years they depended on film technology as the cornerstone of their business. By the time they entered digital photography other players had already developed cheaper and more mass producable camera's with higher quality than kodak. I suppose kodak never thought that digital technology would catch up with film, they should have paid closer attention to moores law.

Both companies are old hats, trying to milk every dime out of innovations that are already 100 years old. Let them die already so the new upshots can give us better, faster, cheaper.

and you don't think the RIAA knows this???

[Newer Guy]

Of course they do!! The RIAA KNOWS that the reason their sales are down is because the economy sucks....See, they're LYING...when they claim that p2p is hurting sales. p2p threatens their distribution model like nothing before and they'll do anything to kill it. They'll lie, cheat, steal, sue, bribe (mostly Congress) and do whatever else is necessary (whether ethical or not) to keep the mother lode they (now) exclusively mine. the things I've described above aren't new either...they've been doing every one of them for many years (back in the 70's and 80's the record company radio reps used to be known as SNOWMEN and I'm not talking about the weather here!).

The situation's aren't comparable.

[AzrealAO]

That's because Digital Photographers aren't STEALING THEIR FILM AND CAMERAS.

The situations are not comparable in the slightest.

New Technology for picture taking is supplanting Eastman-Kodak's traditional film-based market, and they are adapting by expanding into the digital photography arena. It's other companies using new technology to sell a different/better product.

P2P is distributing the RIAA's member's works for free to anyone that requests them. You CANNOT compete with someone taking YOUR PRODUCT and giving it away for free.

It's not like Indie bands are giving their music away and thriving off of increased goodwill and concert attendance. That would be somewhat analagous to Eastman-Kodak's traditional film business vs. Digital Photography.

People are taking the RIAA's property and giving it away for free without permission, there is no way around this fact, no matter HOW you try and justify it.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[Dastardly]

P2P is distributing the RIAA's member's works for free to anyone that requests them. You CANNOT compete with someone taking YOUR PRODUCT and giving it away for free.

Hmmm... The RIAA seemed to do pretty good with cassettes that let you copy their product and give it to some one else.

CD burners have been available longer than P2P and don't seem to have hurt them much.

Oh, and the movie industry seems to do allright with video tapes.

The PC game industry seems to have done pretty good against people copying games and giving them away.

People are taking the RIAA's property and giving it away for free without permission, there is no way around this fact, no matter HOW you try and justify it.

Correct. But, as the cases above show it is possible to compete with very inexpensive. Oh, and just like the other cases of this same thing it is not free. Just very inexpensive. The cases mentioned above you still payed for media. With P2P you pay for your internet connection.

There is no justification for stealing, the problem is that a disruptive technology has entered the marketplace, and rather than embrace it as the opportunity it presents RIAA members have decided to try to put the genie back in the bottle. There attempts at embracing the technology have been feeble due to infighting (two subscription services that couldn't share catalogs). Not presenting a product that the consumer wants (subscription services only allow you to play music on your computer). Pricing that was unacceptable $10 a month whether you download music or not.

In the end, it appears Apple may save the music industry from itself by providing the product that people want, at a reasonable price, legally.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm. due to ASCAP/BMI, even the "downloaders" still pay royalty. You buy anything advertised on radio, or admission to a club or even a meal at a goddamn restaurant and RIAA gets a slice.

When will you RIAA supporters get it thru your thick skulls that it is OVER. For the longest time you got money from us every which way. We paid three four, five times for the same piece of music. Now that the REALITY of the world has changed, you can't stand the fact that you can only get us one or two ways.

And even that is better than the rest of us, who have to work a day to get a day's pay. You and your artists think it should be work one single day and get paid for the rest of your life, and your descendants after you, too. Fuck you and your abuse of the royalty system.

And I don't want to hear a peep about how the music will die. Somehow still, I don't think you will have any trouble signing acts who will only earn 1.8 million a year instead of 18 million. Most acts are in it for the pussy anyway. But it is you who is locked into the cashflow, because how are you going to get pussy with your ugly face and no Ferrari?

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[rhavyn]

Stealing a physical item and copyright infringment are not the same (no matter how much the RIAA would like you to believe).

I think the problem is that the RIAA only know one business model. That business model is out dated and consumers don't seem to be buying into it. Consumers are saying quite loudly that they want to pick and choose music (even by the track) and they want it cheap. People will pay for it (see the Apple music store for proof) if it is packaged attractively. Capitalism doesn't make any promises that your business model will work, nor does it promise that it will continue to work later even if it works today. If the only way to get someone to buy a car was to deliver it your house full of fine-ass women and cases of Heineken, then you damn well better believe that car dealerships would be doing just that. And right now, the RIAA has the equivalent of a large segment of their consumers wanting their cars deliever, with women and beer.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[unicron]

You need to get out of the mindset that a good has to have a physical form. You can steal cable, internet access, cell phone time, etc. Their good is music. You're stealing music. You're stealing their good.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Good?"

I thought we were talking about property. What people refer to as "Intellectual Property" is neither physical property, nor a service rendered. Music is a service if it's a live performance. If you sneak into the venue, you're stealing the service. If you steal CDs, you're stealing plastic laminate discs.

If you're stealing cable, you're stealing a service. Ditto for internet access, cell phone time, etc. Those services are provided at a cost to the provider.

You cannot "steal" ideas. "Intellectual Property" is ideas.

Copyright is not property. It is a temporary legal monopoly on the particular expression of an idea. It isn't a turnip, goat, or plot of land.

You need to get out of the mindset that ideas can be property.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[randyest]

Easy there tiger. Re-read my comment, take a deep breath, and think for a second before you launch another poorly-aimed vitriolic diatribe. Exactly what part of my logic is flawed, again? Maybe you meant to reply to some other post?

I did not say that I (or anyone) was a freedom fighter. I did not say that the RIAA was unjust. You are so angry (why?) that you're completely missing my (valid) point.

To reiterate a key phrase:

I'm not saying it was or is incumbent on the RIAA to do so, but it certainly would have behooved them to do so . . . [arguments to support this position].

You do know what incumbent and behooved mean, don't you? Your post would seem to indicate otherwise. If necessary, please see dictionary.com or a similar reference for clarification. Understanding is key to effective argument.

See, I was trying to point out that the RIAA had an opportunity to nip this whole p2p debacle in the bud a long time ago. I didn't say they had a responsibility to do so (I even went out of my way to point that out). I didn't say that their failure to do so justifies anything. I do think they made a bad business decision (based on fear and ignorance, mostly) and are now flailing about while desperately clutching a failed business model (bitten asses or not), and seeking legislative support for their own bad decisions.

You don't have to agree with me but, if you diasagree, it would be more useful (for both of us), if you'd address my points rather than flaming. Your hateful nonsense is just as (or more) silly and ineffective as the p2p fanboy self-righteous justification that you so vehemently attack.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[nihilogos]

Nobody ever made the comparison. The RIAA are wailing about P2P piracy affecting their music sales and using this to push for the implementation of draconian copyright control measures which trample all over consumer's rights.

Their declining music sales are supposed to be "proof" that digital piracy is affecting their business. However it's also possible that this is just part of a general economic trend, which is what this article is asserting.

For decades RIAA companies have made bucketloads of money of which artists only get a small fraction. Companies that should exist soley to promote and distribute the works of artists make more money than the artists themselves. See anything wrong here? The sort of things that are retrospecitvely taken out of artist royalties are unbelievable, food and alcohol at a promotional party for example.

The real reason the RIAA feels threatened by P2P is that if it was adopted as the medium of choice for music distribution, then the entry barrier into the industry would be lowered almost to the point where the artists could do it themselves. Their monopoly is threatened. So rather than embrace P2P as something which could potentially benefit the artists its member companies purportedly represent they are trying to legislate it out of existence. Using phony arguments like "P2P is eroding our profits".

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[letxa2000]

but once scarity is removed (i.e. easily available for free), the value to the legitimite owner is destroyed.

So you advocate the artificial creation of scarcity? So the owner of an otherwise non-scarce product can artificially create scarcity so that something that wouldn't otherwise have value has value?

I can understand the artist's desire to make money, but things that are by nature NOT scarce should not and, in the long term, CANNOT be made scarce. Legally or illegally the market will make certain of that.

The owner consumed resources to develop the IP, and it is reasonable for that owner to expect to extract value from that investment.

Many people create IP and don't expect to extract money from it. Many others even invest time and money creating IP *expecting* an ROI and never get it. Just because something requires time to create doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to money. The market decides what any given product (or IP) is worth. If the market has decided that music in its digital form is free then the artists either adapt to that reality by taking advantage of free music distribution to promote themselves, their products, and hopefully score endorsements, or they can find something else to do for a living.

I have yet to see a credible argument that only tangible property has value.

It's not that IP doesn't have value, it's creating artificial scarcity that gets you (or the RIAA, rather) into trouble. Charging $20 for something that costs a buck and for which even $3 should create healthy profits is as much robbery as people getting some free tunes online. You overcharge like that and you're just ASKING for a black market to be formed (file sharing) or asking for someone else to redefine your market (Apple).

The thief can justify it however he or she wants, but the IP has less value after he or she takes it without permission.

Maybe, but if the owner had chosen a price nearer to its NATURAL PRICE the owner would find that fewer people would "pirate" it and, thus, fewer people would lower its value by taking it without permission. In fact, I'd say that piracy is bringing the overall price of music to its NATURAL PRICE. They charge $20 for CDs but lots of people get it for free. Perhaps if you did the math you'd find that averaging the total amount earned and the total amount pirated that the final amount earned was, say, $6 a CD. To me that means that that's the NATURAL PRICE.

Legally or not, all products in a free market WILL find their natural price. Free markets do that.

But in the end, yes, digital distribution will reduce the "value" of music. That's because most of the value has been concentrated in the DISTRIBUTION of music and that's now nearly cost-free. I'm not convinced any of this really affects the artist who generally earns more money from concerts and endorsements than from the sales of their CDs.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[will592]

You can steal cable,
Signal, if you 'steal' cable you're connecting illegaly to an electric circuit that has a finite capacity to source current. You are 'stealing' their signal strength and if enough people steal it they will have to increase capacity to maintain that signal for their paying customers. You are in fact stealing a physical good.

internet access,
Bandwidth, if you steal internet access you're sucking up bandwidth that paying customers are being denied. The ISP will eventually have to lay out cash for hardware to compensate.

cell phone time,
Circuits, if you steal cell phone time you're filling circuits of which there is a limited supply. If you don't know the value of cell circuits as a physical good then you're out of the loop. Again, the cell companies will have to lay out cash and buy new hardware to increase capacity.

Their good is music.
If you're stealing CD's from a store, you are stealing music. They have to print more CD's to make up for the ones you steal. If enough are stolen, they will have to print more or risk not having CD's to sell to honest customers. If you're making a copy of the CD (And frankly, most of the music 'stolen' is not a perfect copy of a physical good but an imperfect copy of part of the good) you aren't denying the company producing the CD any inventory. You aren't doing anything that will force them to create more CD's.

Are you stealing art if you photograph the Statue of Liberty? Distributing copies of someone else's music without their permission may be wrong but it is not theft in the same way that the things you mentioned are theft.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[j3110]

This is a very interesting idea. In normal economics, you would just balance supply and demand. In economics like software, supply is negligable, and demand can be extremely high. I think what you are getting at is that these economic calculations don't even really apply.

The best way I think there is to price software is with price discrimination, which is probably the next step in the chain it appears. For a better quality product, you'll have to pay more. I think that's were they are trying to head with the new media that will expire. I think they are just running into another dead end that would be theoretically the most profitable for them.

If they really wanted to make money they would cut their fat (their stupid legal/lobbeying) and start charging what the market will bare in the digital world instead of crying over spoiled milk. They aren't paying artists Jack at the moment, and that's going to come back at them if they don't change fast. I'm betting there will be some mom and pop record labels crop up on the internet with enough following to make it worth it for a band.

Just another point that you may want to use to strengthen your arguement for music anyhow: the song writing and distribution could be seen as an investment ammount of work that can lead to a real job like concerts. Most musicians are extremely wealthy for doing so little actual work, if you could actually call it work. I think most people that create software and music do so for their own pleasure, and would do it even if they weren't getting paid to.

The future of all IP industries seems very clear to me: service-oriented market. There are quite a few open source projects out there taking up this model of selling services so they can work more on something they want to. The end goal is a more effecient worker who hardly notices that they are working at all. Musicians are going to have to take a hit and live like us lowly software developers. Some will be wealthy, some will not. I doubt you will see many musicians as wealthy as they are today in the future. All this fuss is about a few people that think they actually worked harder than, or ar better than the man that takes their trash away at 4AM. One day I hope they'll wake up and realize that the empire is falling and once again they'll have to work for their money instead of strangling that trash man for more money for something to listen to while he works.

It'll get better after the large one's fall I'm sure :) Especially in the field of software/music where it doesn't require vast resources to make a decent product.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[kien]

>>CD burners have been available longer than P2P and don't seem to have hurt them much.
>>Oh, and the movie industry seems to do allright with video tapes.

These are both analogous to the above. Video tapes suffer from analog copying especially badly, since a standard VHS tape is only half TV resolution to begin with, and who ever paid the money for Super VHS?

I'm not sure if you intended to make this kind of Valenti-esque slip in your reply, but you state that both CD copies and VHS tape copies are analogous to cassette tape copies. You then proceed to support your VHS claim (and I fully agree with that comparison) while (conveniently?) failing to demonstrate how CD copies are analogous to tape copies (where physical media cost is the only thing I find analogous between the two).

Of course, this entire discussion is rather academic given that the entertainment industry has repeatedly failed to prove their losses and history has repeatedly failed to bear out their dire predictions.

--K.

Re:The situation's aren't comparable.

[mpe]

Where this position fall short is that information has value only when it is scarce. Patents and other IP violations are only copyright violations, but once scarity is removed (i.e. easily available for free), the value to the legitimite owner is destroyed. The owner consumed resources to develop the IP, and it is reasonable for that owner to expect to extract value from that investment.

Just because person or corporation has invested X amount of money into a certain business, product or business model does not mean that they are entitled to get anything out of it. This argument would mean that the state should pay the creditors of bankrupts and compensate them for however much they "invested" in their failed business.
Nor is there any reason to assume that just because something might have been profitable in the past it will continue to be profitable in the future.

Hmm

[smoondog]

It looks like to me that this report does not prove that the decline is due to the economy, it simply suggests that the decline is statistically consistant with it. It is possible however that both arguments are correct. The decline may be due to the econonmy and therefore (because of the economy) consumers are turning to piracy as a reasonable alternative. I really think the underlying problem is that the big media companies need to take a course in basic economics and lower their prices! Used CD's, gnutella (etc), and the economy all play a role in declining sales. They should lower their prices with the decline in the economy and revenues will increase!

-Sean

Be honest

[Lust]

I have few close friends that buy CDs. They are mostly over 30 with well-paying jobs and extensive CD collections from the pre-Napster era, yet they do not buy CDs anymore. Instead they download (bootleg) all their tunes, including entire albums. Tell me you're surprised.

I recognise that the existing entertainment sales model is a dinosaur, but to suggest that music downloading hasn't affected the industry's bottom line is absurd. Granted, they may have made MORE by switching to a different model, but that says nothing about the source of their current state in this transition period. I don't believe the hype.

Re:stealing become acceptable?

[finkployd]

Copywrite infringement is not stealing. Both are wrong, but let's at least get the terms correct before we start equating it theft on the high seas.

Finkployd

Re:Get the analogy right!!

[ShinmaWa]

For christ's sake can anyone get this analogy right? To take something with a grain of salt means to take something as significant as a grain of salt -- which is very tiny (read: insignificant).

Bull.

There are two theories about the etymology of the phrase "taken with a grain of salt." One theory traces it back to the Latin phrase "cum grano salis", which was found -- among other places -- in the works of Pliny in the first century as a description of an additive to make an antidote effective. A second, more believed theory traces the phrase to the kitchen table, where salt can make any dubious dish a little better.

In either case, the meaning of the phrase is not to treat something as insignificant, but rather to subject it to a healthy dose of skepticism.

My theory - perfect information

[santos_douglas]

As a student who has sat through countless hours of economics lectures, I'd like to float my own theory on file sharing and declining music sales. In economics, a perfectly competitive market has the following characteristics:

1. Many buyers and sellers

2. Low barriers to entry and exit

3. All buyers and sellers are price takers(unable to affect price)

4. Homogenous product/service

And most relevant here:

5. Perfect information

Before people were unable to properly sample a music product before purchasing it, and therefore made their purchasing decision based on incomplete and often misleading information - often by factors that had nothing to do with the quality of the music (hype, etc). File sharing has created near perfect information for consumers, and the results suggest that with this information consumers have decided that they were not getting their money's worth in value. Also, and this has been proven in court, the small number of large recording companys have effectively created a cartel - and have and continue to collude to inflate prices. This behavior is expected in a market with such conditions. How else can one explain the inflated price of music despite obvious and significant efficiencies and cost reductions in the production, distribution, and manufacture of recordings?

Re:My theory - perfect information

[dyoo78]

A good in a perfectly competitive market contains three characteristics - rivalry, excludability and transparency (many people call transparency, perfect information as well). Failure to meet any of these requirements constitutes market failure.

Rivalry simplpy means this: while you consume the good, no one else can consume that same good. For instance, when you eat an apple, that apple is removed from the apple market. No one else can eat that apple except you.

Excludablitiy refers to the ability for companies to exclude that good from you. If you purchase an orange, the orange is excluded from you by security gaurds watching you, price, etc.

Lastly, transparency refers to perfect information. You obviously get the point.

Now, in information markets (CDs included), the good is non-rival and non-excludeable. First, if listen to a song, you can listen to it at the same time. It doesn't take away from the total marketplace. Second, the good is non-excludable. Listening to a song is very easy. We can listen to the song on TV, radio, the internet, etc.

Hence, information goods resemble public goods because the goods are non-rival and non-excludable.

Stating the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is merely stating the obvious. It's a sad state where you have to explicitly state the obvious in order to debunk the utterly twisted view of any organization.

That said, I'll state the obvious from my perspecitve, the consumer. I only have so much money I can spend on CD's. I love music, and I'm pretty sure I buy more music than the average person, roughly 5 albums a month. If I could, I would buy more, but after losing my job and taking up a new job that didn't quite pay as much as my old one, having car payments, rent, insurance, utility bills, and a spouse to feed, there's only so much left to spend on what is essentially a luxury item. I don't think this is much different than most average people.

That said, I normally don't pirate software, I don't steal from people, and I consider myself to be a good citizen and neighbor. HOWEVER, I do download mp3's. Is it legal? Hell no. But so are a lot of other things that otherwise good citizens do which really doesn't harm anyone.

My CD buying patterns are strongly influenced by my economic status, and have never been influenced by p2p file sharing. (I can't buy 10 $15 CD's when there's only $75 in my posession.) I don't feel like it's morally wrong to copy something "virtual" (digital data) that I otherwise wouldn't have purchased anyways. The only thing that has changed with the arrival of p2p file sharing is that I listen to a wider variety of music, and make better purchases. (I buy more of what I like, and have fewer CD's I regret purchasing.) In short, I'm what would otherwise be known as an "informed customer" which is usually viewed as a "better customer" in most other industries.

So the bottom line is, yes, people download mp3's. Yes, people still buy CD's, whether or not they think $15 is a rip-off or not. And finally, yes, there are a (probably small) handfull of people who have likely stopped purchasing music completely since they've been able to compulsively download all their favorite music. On the other hand, there are also people that walk into record shops and shoplift CD's, which probably does much more damage. Either way, the number of shoplifters and p2p thieves are likely little more than static noise in the overall sales figures. Think about it, even if record shops all of a sudden stopped "tagging" the CD's and removed all surveilance cameras and tag sensors at the door, most people would STILL pay for the CD rather than pocket it. (Admittedly, the same shoplifters would probably steal even more hard cold physical products such as CD's are, if these surveilance systems weren't in place, but that's a bit different than stealing the data.)

So, the RIAA's claim has little basis, I'm preaching to the choir, stating the obvious, posting AC, and otherwise enjoying another day of bashing the favorite enemy in genuine /. fashion. :-)

Re:You don't understand...

[Guppy06]

"it was like the equivalent of going out of business 5-6 times."

Well, if the accountants hadn't multiplied the profit margin numbers five or six times...

Here's a Doozy.

[Funksaw]

Here's a doozy.

I got these numbers from the Blockbuster website:
DVDANALYZE THAT / (SUB)
$21.99

VHS ANALYZE THAT / (P&S DOL)
$16.99

CD
ANALYZE THAT / Original Sound Track
$17.98

That's right. The SOUNDTRACK costs more than the VHS version (and only slightly cheaper than the DVD)

Now, let's not go into the fact that the DVD costs nealy as much and gives you more value... let's also go into the fact that people aren't *Nearly* as resentful about movie prices as they are about CDs.

Why?

You can RENT DVDs. If you just want to see the movie, you can fork over $4 and see it... no problem.

The RIAA could have had the benifits of File Sharing before File Sharing... Like only the one song on the radio? Not sure about the other 9? Rent the album for $2. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Unfortunately, the RIAA isn't even keeping up with the business models of the late 1980s, let alone the business models of the 21st century.

The article really did not

[PotatoHead]

tell me much. Stats are stats are stats. I did enjoy reading it, but feel the answer is elsewhere.

CD sales have dropped for me recently and this is why.

DVD movies now occupy that under $20 knee jerk purchase price point. Everyone knows a DVD is better than a CD in general, so how come the CD is still so expensive? I don't think twice about $16.99 for a DVD, that's a nice deal really. So what does that do for the same pricing on the CD? All I know is that $16.99 number on a CD is pretty unattractive in general these days. To pay as much for a CD as I do a movie, it had better be a damn good CD.

The current buttload of music being pimped via the usual Clear Channel right now is garbage plain and simple. Sure, there is plenty of good music, but it sure is hard to find, unless...

One can sample! Maybe that $16.99 is worth it. (It sometimes is.) I am willing to look and consider the purchase, but nobody is showing. Wonder why they don't sell product? Duh!

Currently I don't download anything. Thought I would make the change and see what happens with me and my family.

I must say that without P2P, I am missing out. All the radio stations here play the same (crap) music. There is little to get excited about. I know there is a lot of music that I would be interested in buying, but I can't find it easily!

P2P is costing the RIAA something in the young market though. If they (kids)have the money they will buy the CD, even if they have downloaded it. But if they have a (better) choice they won't. These days there are more good choices, so kids buy fewer CD's because they know they can get the music somehow later, but can't easily repeat a spur of the moment movie trip. So, the RIAA is losing sales here in my view. In a twisted sort of way, they might be right with the younger crowd. They can squeeze more out of their latest boy band if there is less P2P, but at what cost?

On second hand they might already be hosed. When I shut down the P2P, my kids ended up doing the same thing I did. They go to school, talk about the music, find out who has it and why, and copy it if it fits.

There are more CDRs laying around the house now than when P2P was running.

Now, I do get excited about movies and guess what? That is what I buy. The movie market appeals to everyone at some level. There are several layers to the whole thing that make it easy to sell to those looking to buy that music just does not have today.

The RIAA is currently trying like hell to milk everything they can from the kids. (Remember the point earlier about cost?) Problem is that those same kids also have DVD, subscription TV, cell phone plans and other new things to worry about. With all those new choices offering different values, is it any wonder CD sales are not as attractive given their low value proposition in comparison?

Your average teenage girl can get a cell plan for the cost of many CD's that will provide way more bang for the buck than that CD will...

I think the RIAA is getting squeezed right out of their prime market because of these things and their own ignorance.

Now here I am sitting with my disposable income looking for something to buy. Does it take much of a stretch to see that I am going to buy something from those people willing to entertain my business?

Whatever problems the the movie companies have with digital are not getting in the way of moving product. They are showing me lots of pricing options, good content and good value across the board. I can easily find blockbusters along with interesting smaller films.

What do I get on the music side of things?

Shit.

The majority of the content is aimed at people half my age. I cannot realistically sample using the radio because they are all but owned by the big boys, so they mostly play the same things. Going into the music store to sample is a joke really. All they do is put the same tracks on the in-store boxes that I just got d

Re:The article really did not

[Carrot007]

> Everyone knows a DVD is better than a CD in general, so how come the CD is still so expensive?

I've seen this train of thought brandished around every time something of this nature crops up and I still don't get it.

Music has a much higher replay value that that of a Movie. I mean for the average person how many time do you want to watch a movie? Music on the other hand is listened to many times, and is often also put on in the background.

So please help me out and justify this reasoning.

Myself I havn't bought a CD in years but not for this reason, I also think that DVD's are massively overpriced.

Re:The article really did not

[PotatoHead]

"Music has a much higher replay value that that of a Movie. "

I agree for the most part. I still listen to my first CD often. Movies do have some repeat value, it is just different from the CD in some ways.

For me the issue of music price has been a sore one for a while. New vinyl was about $8.00 Singles were $3-4.00. The price of a CD has never dropped even though the medium promised great cost reductions. That first CD was $21.99. In 1985 dollars that was a lot. --It still has the sticker on it! Today those dollars are worth less, but the minor drop in price does not reflect the cost savings originally promised. Dire Straits "Love Over Gold" is still $21.99 last I checked this year. WTF?!?

I payed the price then because of the long life and high sonic impact that only got better with new equipment. I will still pay now, if the music is good --for the very reasons you indicate.

Good music does have a high replay value indeed compared to movies.

The trick is getting the good music into my hands where I have a chance to purchase it easily.

A good album is worth as much as a good movie to many people, me included. In some cases it is worth more. So why pay so much for a movie, or why not accept the value of the album at face value?

I accept the higher cost of DVD due to the technical nature of the content. Those visuals did not come cheap. I understand that and am willing to let the studios make their money. At least they do a good job of letting me know what they have and what its value is.

I may not watch movies as often as I do listen to music, but I do re-watch them from time to time. Sometimes a good story is worth hearing again just as a good piece of music is.

They are both stories if done right that evoke emotion and creative, sometimes profound thought. When something strikes me that way, I tend to want to capture it for later. Often the reason is that I want to see if the changing times combined with the same presentation will evoke something different. Good movies and music both work this way though music does it more easily.

You know, the movie companies know this to some degree, or at least are allowing for it. If I were to purchase 'Independance day' it would have to be at rock bottom dollar. Though the technical part of what I am getting is more than I get with music, the replay value is quite a bit lower. Consider another movie like 'Brazil'. I will watch that one more times because the story is complex and interesting. Given the times, it also is more relevant. It also costs more which leads me to believe the movie people understand some of this and want people to pay for it.

The music people don't get this to the same degree. Shallow Bubble gum pop boy bands cost the same as well thought out albums with good stories and continuity. Why is that? (Britney vs Dire Straits "love over gold" or Saga "Worlds apart" (Your tastes may vary, but you get the idea.)

As for background, movie soundtracks are sometimes very interesting. Some movie styles lend themselves to audio only listening. Maybe that is just a matter of perception or habit on my part, but I can't be the only one.

DVD also compares favorably to subscription television as a CD compares to XM or digital music delivered via cable. I have found that a few good media purchases each month cost a little more than quality subscription programming. The value is higher however. I can loan the movies out (though I want to loan copies), watch interesting ones when I want, and occupy the kids with quality movies when they want to just watch something. Same goes for music.

You can get a lot of use value out of either DVD or CD media provided you are given the choices that enable that to happen for your tastes.

The movie companies are basically doing that where the music people are failing.

Finally, I want to own the CD and or DVD. I would much rather put my dollars toward something I have an interest

Kodak

[Trolling4Dollars]

The CEOs of Eastman-Kodak are in a nearly identical economic situation as the RIAA, yet do not have the luxury of blaming digital piracy.

No... they have digital photography to blame. If people are happily making their own photos with Sony digital cameras, working on them in "digital darkrooms" with Photoshop, PSP or the GIMP and printing them out on Epson printers using photo paper made by Epson, that means fewer people using Kodak products. Sure the current lineup of digital cameras isn't ready to compete with real film for someone who knows the difference, but for "Joe America" they are "just as good" is not better because of how much cheaper it is to take a digital photo.