Slashdot Mirror
The Effect of Pirated CDs
Moderation abuser writes "The real reasons music isn't selling as much as it used to, and not a lot to do with file sharing." I'm not sure that I agree that piracy is the reason for all of the music industry woes - I think creativity also has something to do with it, but those are still some huge numbers for pirated CDs.
I have a lot of family, a lot of friends, and a lot of coworkers (all in all, about 50 people that I converse with weekly, and at least 15 of whom I converse with daily). All but a few of them participate in music piracy. All of them used to buy cassettes and CDs. I can't remember the last time that I saw any of them even set foot in a music store. I don't know anyone that has purchased a CD in the past year. I have one friend that is a manager at a Warehouse music, the other worked at Sam Goody's. The Sam Goody's closed down, after 6 years of doing awesome business, three years ago sales slowed to a crawl. You want to know what their biggest selling products were? Blank CD/RWs and MP3 players. The Warehouse Music is a pitiful shell of it's former self - they now sell more movies and blank CD/RWs than music. And despite this lack of sales in record stores, millions of songs created by today's modern artists are downloaded daily - even though they supposedly suck and lack creativity bla bla bla.
I can't be alone in my observations.
People can blame a lack of creativity, a reduction in available albums, etc. But I find it amazing that people are so quick to dismiss the effects that rampant, undeniable piracy is having on the music industry. I stopped buying music years ago because I realized that the prices were too high. However, my morals prevent me from stealing, hence I do not pirate music.
Consumer Backlash is a poorly understood concept, but I believe the "Music Industry" is now experiencing it. I've been bitter ever since the price of tapes rose dramatically. This was followed by CD's where I not only re-purchased most of my music library, but was forced to purchase so many "Albums" to get individual songs. After thousands of dollars spent, hundreds of CD's which slowly became scratched and degraded, and complete inability to listen to a constant stream of songs I liked (again forced into the Album mentality), I've had it.
Now "The Industry" is suing their own customers!
I haven't purchased a single CD for five years, and I don't plan to ever purchase another. I am content to listen to the radio.
Torsten
I don't think any of those factors have anything to do with it. When I was a kid, it was a common thing to ask a friend to make a tape of their newest cassett for you. In College, it was burn a new CD. Now it's send me the mp3.
What has changed is quality. 10 years ago, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) technology wasn't good enough to make boob toting hacks like Britany Spears sound good. Now we are inundated with manufactured bands who don't have the quality or maturity of the groups who cut their teeth playing in local pubs to crowds of 4 people. NSYNC isn't famous because of an increasing demand of local fans. They are famous because the RIAA packaged and marketed them down the throats of the 12 to 18 demographic.
Bottom line is that the crowd with the real money (adults with real jobs) is only going to pay for something they will want to listen for a long time and "BackStreat's Back" is NOT it.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
I've bought maybe 2 CD in the last few years. Even that wasn't new music - I think the Stones and Floyd. Also, I don't use any sort of downloading service. Quite frankly, there isn't anything I want.
I think I'm the poster child for the "lack of content" angle. I have money. I'm sick of my old CDs. I'd like good, new CD's. But they keep throwing a bunch of shit at us, and what decent music they give us is mastered so shitty (see slashdot last friday) that it's unlistenable.
BTW, if anyone knows of any decent, modern bands in the spirit of great 60's and 70's rock, I'd be damn grateful. Major label or indie, I don't care.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Was wondering how many /.'ers listen to vinyl, and how has this affected their music purchases.
I have been the pround owner of a VPI Aires Scout for almost a year now.
Although I listen to alot of classical, I found that my wallet took a beating when I went shopping for classical CD's. Little did I know that the same music is available on vinyl, and it's availalble for as little as a dollar.
I recently picked up 3 mint classical records at the New York City Opera thrift shop for a buck a peice. One of these titles on CD still command close to fifteen dollars (on sale, 16.99 regular price)at the local Tower Records.
I also find my vinyl listening session are less iritating on my ears and last longer.
I won't deny that p2p networks have an effect on record sales... But i sometimes wonder how much of an effect.
There's been a few times where i've gotten hold of a couple of mp3s from an obscure band that that i totally dug. And i went out to buy the CD.
Another case in point- I've got a pile of CDs that are many years old, plus tapes and vinyl that are even older. Most of this older stuff i would buy on CD, but they've been out of print for years and years.
Call me guitly, but i just spent the weekend ripping songs and copying CDs for my dad. 6 albums in total. If i could go to a store and buy him the retail version i would, but they're simply not available.
Another case in point-
Some years ago i licensed a few of *my* tunes to be used as commercial spots. I've never seen a dime. I've never heard these tunes on t.v. or radio either, but that's not the point- you pay to use them whether you do or not. I can't afford a lawyer right now to chase them. So i'm out $10K.
You'd think that the RIAA would be all over this, as it is thier job to protect the rights and property of musicians.
Nope. Sorry. "Your claim is insignificant compared to most. Go away."
In the article it mentions that 1) some of the piracy is coming from major labels copying their rivals CDs (with 2 major RIAA companies having been fined twice), 2) the RIAA is producing 25% fewer CDs than it did even 10 years ago ,and 3) most of the money lost by the music industry is being drained by organized crime syndicates, not P-2-P swappers.
Of course the RIAA is afraid and targeting domestic file-swapping. Congressional lobbying/bribing allows them to use their muscle most effectively on their home turf (US Soil). Domestic file-swapping is also a source of revenue drain, just not the primary one. Yet they are afraid because their revenues are down despite having produced fewer units to sell. Their prices are inflated to the point that file-swappers often feel that they are pseudo-Robin Hoods that steal from the rich RIAA and give to themselves and others. The few bad apples who flagrantly do this in violation of copyrights on a large scale "justify" the RIAA "anti-piracy" efforts in the mass media, which the RIAA subunits often hold stock in as well. They have the money and moxie to make the rest of us pay their over-inflated prices while morally justifying it to those people who do not know better.
Meanwhile the international criminals are difficult to track and catch. Thailand may be bulldozing the copies it finds, but I find that the more extreme the public demonstration of enforcing law, the less often it is actually enforced. Thailand, China, and other areas of Southeast and East Asia are the HQ of large-scale piracy. Anyone with friends who visit Hong Kong, Beijing, or Taiwan regularly is likely to have been offered pirate DVDs or CDs of recent movies or music. Even the soundtrack for recent movies are available...often before they leave the theater. Enforcement of copyright in those countries is more difficult, especially since the WTO is reluctant to enforce rules so stringently against the truly huge economies.
Copyright may be an outdated notion according to some, but the RIAA has the money and Congressmen that it deserves watching if only on a civil liberties basis. The DMCA is only one example of how creatvity is stifled for the benefit of copyright holders. Any future moves by the RIAA could be as stringent or worse. I'm not suggesting we appease the dragon that is the RIAA, but instead we keep vigilant watch on where they are actually losing money as this article does. Thus when the RIAA proposes legislation like the DMCA hard evidence can be used to discourage legislators from enacting such laws.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
There has been an ill fated attempt by sony at SACD (Super Audio CD) which never caught on. Then there is DVDA - which has/will not catch on either.
The reason people bought CD's to replace vinyl and tapes is because CD's were a breakthrough in technology (i.e. convenience) - there was the value added for the consumers to buy into it. About the same as MP3's/AAC is now - new technology will only succeed if it adds something new and useful, regardless of whether it is driven by the record companies or not.
The FBI (or rather, the Secret Service, who's really in charge of enforcing copyrights and often works wirth RIAA on raids & stings) isn't raiding Chinatown because that's a complicated issue, and the last thing RIAA wants is for things to get complicated.
See, bootleg CD's aren't all that big here, so it's not as much of a market-threat. In China, Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea, and other Asian marketplaces, it's dominant. It's hard to justify a chinatown raid when the actual crime is happening in china.
And regarding why RIAA won't "show me" these statistics about decreases in production, it's because that's too much for simple middle-america folk to think about. Mom & Pop Smallville can't handle statistics, but they sure do understand a villain and breaking the law.
What I don't get is, if CD sales are down 16% (I think the article said) and CD production is down 25%, doesn't that mean that per CD, sales are up? With your releases down 25%, shouldn't your total expendatures be down as well, and with the incresed sales/release, profits should be increasing. If the RIAA's members are hemoraging money, it can only be due to internal incompetence and waste.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
Seems to me that there are two states of the music industry, the "creative" and the "marketed", like a yin and yang. Mostly it is run as 'marketed' but every so often (late 60s, late 70s, early 90s), the 'marketed' just gets too vapid, too crappy and the 'creative' gets a chance. After a while, the 'creative' self-destructs and the 'marketed' creeps back in.
The Cheeky Girls are a sign that we have reached so low that the 'creative' is probably around the corner.
No, what's changed is that the RIAA has spent the last 30 years buying as much influence in politics as they can. Why else would a middling-sized outfit like them be able to push around the tech industry, whose gross sales figures outstrip them nearly 10 to 1?
The RIAA is scared, plain and simple. They now see that the power to create, publish, and promote music is available to ANYONE, and when you combine that with the degeneration of television advertising as a viable income (broadcast television is almost a thing of the past), they are about to become redundant, and they have no ideas for reinventing themselves. Their choices are:
- Reinvent. Come up with a way to make money off the emerging trends in digital media, home and portable theatre, and live webcasts.
- Fire-Sale. Drop the prices on everything to the point where people will want to buy the physical media again.
- Sue. Use the political clout they've been cultivating over the years and make money by taking it from others, and stifling innovation in the process. This has worked for the oil companies for decades.
- Fade away. All the top execs have money, they could liquidate the franchises, and leave a power vacuum after they take the cash. Let artists fend for themselves (as they do anyways).
Option 3 looks like it has the best potential for short term profit and a lingering continued existance.I found this interesting experiment concerning shareware registration/payment and I think it has some bearing on discussions about music copying, file trading and sharing.
The same experiment is also related here.
What it shows is that people were 5 times more likely to pay for the shareware when they were made to pay versus relying on the honor system. So when the shareware was "free", only 1/5th of the time was the author paid for his work.
The extension of this result into the discussion of music sharing I think is obvious.
Pirating + economic downturn + vinyl replacement finished = far less CD sales. Also mentioned were that teenagers are more interested in cell phones than music these days.
The RIAA and CD Industry has been fined twice for price fixing, and pirating is heavily undercutting the pricing schemes established by the CD industry. So overchaging to the point that pirated copies become massively popular is the implication.
No singles available on CD translates to file sharing with the current high pricing scheme as well.
What would be a good solution?
I remember when Dave Matthews stirred up people, by sending in anti-bootleg teams to bust record stores across the country. They were selling bootleg copies of his concerts, that were unavailable on commerical releases. Apparently demand for his product was higher than delivery. His response was to put people out of business for trying to meet the demand. His record sales dropped as the hard core fanatics got pissed and quit buying his stuff.
Bob Dylan's response. He went out and bought all the bootlegs. Then picked the best tracks and released a 3-cd set of "Bob Dylan: Best of the Bootlegs", thus meeting the demand for more music. He undercut the bootleggers, because his collection was of known quality and cheaper than buying a bunch of $30 bootlegs to find the good tracks.
The RIAA needs to get real and realize that it's current business model is failing. One, it needs to offer more reasonable pricing and cut out the excessive "advertising/promotion" budgets that are used to rip off the artists. Secondly it needs to offer downloads of mp3's at even more reasonable prices since no manufactoring is requited. This would handle the singles market. Then it can attack the bootleg market head on, because it offers a competitive affordable product in line with demand.
Attacking filesharers, is not the best approach. Here's the reasons I see: 1) It would take 2000 years to supoena every file sharer at current rate. 2) Filesharers tend to be youth who are fans of music. Attacking them is attacking your future market. Creating animosity with the primary consumer is not good business strategy. 3) A lot of filesharers probably wouldn't buy a copy if left with no other choice than buying it. In my youth, I was a pirate of computer games, I had no money to buy them--therefore I couldn't and I stole them. Had my only option been purchase at $35/title, I wouldn't have. If I could have bought them for $5/$10 a piece I probably would have. I'm not justifying my behavior, just explaining the business case that the RIAA seems to have missed.
A bunch of entrenched lazy bureacrats who can't keep up with change is half of the problem. The other half, is people without enough self control (encouraged by continuous marketing and consumer culture), who feel compelled to create large markets based on theft.
Supply/Demand economics slapping the RIAA upside the head is what's going really going on.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
The peak of production was in 1999 when 38,900 individual titles were released. But by 2001 this was down to 27,000. Releases grew again in 2002 but were still below the previous high.
...like I did, enter the Sharerware industry with the belief that nobody is going to pay them for their software unless they take some positive steps to ensure that happens. The real question of course is what the most effective steps are.
Isn't it possible that the lack of new releases is a consequence of music piracy? Isn't it possible that some people are consciously not releasing because they are afraid their work will be stolen?
When is the RIAA going to address these concerns? How can keep saying it's all file sharing when it's obvious these factors come into play.
Well, file sharing very likely plays a role. This experiment with shareware showed that only about 20% of the people pay for the shareware they use if they are not forced to pay. I'm sure the same thing happens with other media.
Here is the text of the article:
Why Do People Register, Does Crippling Work, Does Anybody Really Know?
Colin Messitt
Most authors...
There are many, many things that must happen for a shareware program to become sucessful (and I define sucessful as producing a good income for the author, not just being a widely used and acclaimed program), but there are five that seem to me to form the fundamentals for success.
Five Fundamentals For Success
First, the program must be something that users actually need, which, sadly, a lot of shareware releases aren't.
Second, it must actually be good, and again the vast majority of shareware releases are second-rate and buggy (and consider that this becomes more important for shareware because it is much simpler for the user to reject it than for him/her to reject commercial shrink-wrapped software if he/she doesn't like it).
Third, potential users must be alerted to the availability and desirability of the program - good old fashioned marketing that, again, a lot of shareware authors either don't enjoy or aren't very good at.
Fourth, the product must get into the hands of the potential evaluator, either by his getting the evaluation version himself (from a BBS or Vendor or the Internet etc.), or by it being presented to him in some way (on a magazine cover disk, bundled with other software or hardware etc.).
And finally, assuming the user actually needs the program after all the preceeding steps, there must be a reason for him to pay for it.
Industry Myths
As anybody reading this will know, there are a vast number of "experts" in the shareware industry who purport to know what works and what doesn't, and they put forward any number of reasons why a user would pay for a piece of shareware, including additional features, removal of nag screens, printed manuals and just plain honesty. These so called "experts" also often put forward the myth that crippled software doesn't get distributed, doesn't sell and harms the shareware industry in general.
However, if you ask for statistical evidence of any of these claims you won't get any. And perhaps most sadly these mythical beliefs have been enshrined in what is known as the ASP's Policy on No Crippling (PONC) and taken to be gospel without a shred of evidence. Indeed people who put forward alternative views were decried in almost the same way as people who suggested the Earth was round back in the Middle Ages.
When I started attempting to market my programs as shareware I effectively time-limited them, and achieved a reasonable if not spectacular measure of success. Then I listened to the "experts" and thought that maybe I was doing things wrong, and would have more success by removing the time-limiting.
My registration rates went down dramatically, even though there were the suggested incentives of a manual an
The thing to do is to enjoy whining about it. I mean it. Back in the 80's, the Dead Kennedys told us our faults in the U.S.A. I'll excerpt from my warped memories:
When they dig this up in a thousand years
They'll either laugh or cry.
Jock-O-Rama
Save my soul.
Come lick the bu___ of the beef patrol...
Jock-O-Rama on the brain.
Redneck-athon drivin' me insane.
The future of America--leave it to them.
Watch it roll over Niagra Falls
MTV get off the air!
Is my c_ck big enough,
Is my brain small enough
For you to make me a star?
Give me a toot,
And I'll show you my soul.
Pull my (marionette) strings,
And I'll go far.
Well, chick, you're outta luck.
'Cuz I'm rollin' down the stairs,
Too drunk to...
The thing is, some of us have bragging rights. While the cute girls were happily bobbing their heads to "You spin me round round, baby, round round--like a record, baby..." (retch, retch) some of us knew that it sucked while it sucked, and some of us said so and how and why. You Brits would call us wankers as a consequence of our principled aesthetic stance. Oh well. It all comes out in the wash, huh? (snicker)
Nirvana invented pretty much nothing. When I stumbled into "...Teen Spirit" while flipping channels on TV, then I realized that not only had punk gotten self-pitiful--it had become immensely profitable. Oops. Didn't the Brits show us the debacle of that stuff with "...Bollocks"? Oh well. Everyone claimed to understand precisely this "misunderstood generation" X. Yeah. Billy Idol's old band.
Last night a little dancer, came dancing to my door. Last night a little nouveau riche, self-absorbed fella fell OD'd to the floor.
So what else is, ahem, "new"?
Next.