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.
The article contains an interesting point about the end of the replacement cycle, during which people bought CD's to replace their existing vinyl & cassette tapes. Where the music industry says that CD sales fell by 10%, it would be useful to see a split between newly-released material vs. titles released at least 10 years ago, and how these two groups fared.
On top of that issue, there are of course several other factors that are at work - the soft economy during 2001/2002, competitors for the teenage spending dollar, and of course the rise of online file trading. I know personally that I haven't bought a CD in a couple years, mostly due to the fact I haven't heard anything that compelling, but also that if I want a particular song (rather then blow $$$ on the whole CD), I can get it in a couple minutes online. If these knuckleheads could implement a useful, cheap service to pay for songs, I just might do it. But I want to be able to burn CD's to play in my car, and have access to a wide selection of music - not just one company's stable of trick ponies.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
If you look on the Eff website, it has some interesting ways in compensating the artists if you don't want to buy their CDs.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
..Here are some other huge numbers:
1 million
237 Billion
A Hundred Kajillion!
Wow! those sure are some big numbers I just made up. And I bet I know where those losses come from - Radio. Think about it, where else can you get *TONS* of music for free? And after hearing how damn crappy most of it is, who's going to buy the cd?
air and light and time and space
The RIAA doesn't have to address those concerns. As long as it can buy politicians it can continue saying anything it likes.
George Plimpton's Parliament? That man doesn't have a funky bone in his body. I think you mean George Clinton ...
you can have your observations, but they are moot.
SUPPORT THOSE BANDS THAT ALLOW THE FREE TRADING OF THEIR MUSIC!
I just went to a Dead show in Joliet, IL (I am still smacking myself for not going to the show in Somerset, WI as well as it is on my way home from IL). I saw quite a crowd there to see moe. (they didn't play due to a wrecked/rebuilt stage the night before), Robert Hunter, Bob Dylan, and The Dead.
Amazingly enough, these bands allow and promote the free trading of their music. Somehow, they are still able to turn QUITE a profit, make some INCREDIBLE music, and even have a steady following (Bob Dylan and The Dead have been playing for what 40+ years?)
Here's a list of bands that you SHOULD be supporting.
DMB, a band which is more in the mainstream, makes a pretty penny on CD sales AND touring sales. Imagine that, someone who allows his own stuff to be taped yet makes a profit.
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
B) If pirated CDs are to blame, why aren't there FBI raiding Chinatown's over the U.S. everyday?
They are. Commercial pirates are busted all the time.
Just because it each individual case doesnt make a slashdot headline, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
First problem is creativity. I haven't purchased a CD in 6 years. I haven't pirated I've just listened to the radio and borrowed CD's from friends. I'm an artist and object to pirating on principal.
The second problem is piracy. I say piracy second because the really good work that's done isn't pirated like the pop trendy teenie bopper music is. Peopl may download a really great song but will typically then go out and buy the album.
It's been a long long while since a new artist came out that was actually talented. I played better than most of these tards when I was in 8th grade. Where did all the Bob Dylans go, the Janis Joplins, the Stevie Ray Vaughns and B.B. Kings? Clapton is a memory and the Bettles are history. Good bands like Jimmy Eats World and Weezer barely get played, drowned out by Brittany Spears and J.Lo.
Turn on MTV and watch for about an hour. Keep track with a pencil and paper, count how many of these pop artists actually play an instrument. Then count how many of those actually write their own music. It's disgraceful to call these people "professional". They in no way act professional. They neither write music, play music nor perform it. They have dance instructors for the performances and lipsync the albums.
With all of this how can I as a consumer respect the music? If I don't respect it why in the world would I buy it?
It's easier and more cost-effective to sue in the US, where they're almost certain to win, and recoup court costs as well. At the moment I happen to be living in the Czech Republic, and there's a huge problem with pirated CDs at most of the vietnamese open-air markets, esp. near the German and Austrian borders (this is not a racist remark, it is a comment on the state of affairs...) The Czech police are almost helpless to stop it -- most of the time, as soon as the police show up to raid the markets, the owners simply walk away from their stands, and the police confiscate what's on display, but arrest noone. Worse, court cases in the CR are notoriously prone to dragging out for years, so it's no wonder that RIAA wants to go after US-based downloaders.
Let me point out MY own point of view to the main problem to music sales.
I think that the main problem is almost solely the advent of used CD stores. I know it sounds silly, but when Joe Musiclover buys a CD at Sam Goody, the record label (i.e. Warner Bros) sees revenue. However, when I buy the same CD at a used CD store the record label recognizes $0 of revenue.
I have a large network of friends and I don't know a single one of my friends that will pay the money asked for a new CD when they know they can wait a month and get it for a small fraction of the cost of a retail CD store.
Last "new" CD I purchased was in 1992, and ever since then I have made all of my purchases at used stores which has saved me a bundle of money.
This is another primary loss of revenue that people like the RIAA just seem to overlook and do not want to acknowledge. I have sent them quite a few letters with some facts and figures based upon the people that I alone know. If you were to multiply this across the nation you'd see a LOT larger figures.
Just something to think about and yet it is something overlooked anytime this subject is considered.
Moreover, the real damage Napster did to the music industry wasn't lost sales. Instead, it created an "ala carte" mindset in that same once-loyal cd-buying demographic. Put another way, my kid won't buy an entire cd when he likes maybe only a couple of songs. CDs are a package deal, and the package deal is dead. Ultimately, the recording industry could do themselves a real favor by reviving singles.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
or 7) Because of the definition of the word "theft"
/t
theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.(Emphasis mine) See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
2. The thing stolen. [R.]
If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (C) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
#!/usr/bin/english
I think the distinction needs to be made between a lost sale (and therefore lost revenue) and someone getting a copy for free.
Too often the music industry (and the software industry, and many other industries) simply state that they have lost X amount because those people didn't purchase their copy.
You need to instead consider whether they would have actually aquired it if they had to pay for it. For instance a student with 200 gigs of music would not possibly have bought that music if it wasn't downloadable, so the loss is actually nothing.
The same may apply here, I really don't know. They cite markets like China where these pirates operate, but China does not strike me as the main audiance for American music. Further, they have a long history of piracy, I am not sure if you can honestly say they have stopped purchasing recently.
This isn't to say that I think piracy should be legal - there is no reason that people should enjoy the benefit for free merely because they would not have purchased it - however you cannot merely count the number of pirated copies as lost sales, most likely a legitimate copy would never have been bought.
Pirate CDs sell more than original in Argentina. On every train station, on every main door of a college, there are informal booth offering prirated CDs. Sometimes is a table, and sometimes is just a fabric on the street with the CDs on. They have color photocopied cover. Official CDs costs around 10 USD, and illegal ones, between 1 and 2 USD. When most people earn 200 USD for month, there is no choice.
People who can't affort Internet access, buys this cheaper CDs. Almost nobody buys original CDs.
Another popular way of getting CDs, is asking them to your favorite software dealer. They send it on MP3 or wav, as you wish.
At least here, downloading music is not something RIAA should take care for. There are other issues more important for them (like the booth at every train station full of illegal CDs).
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
People shouldn't get so nostalgic about the past, we remember the good stuff from then because it was good and forget the bad. I don't think the quality of music has a whole lot of affect on these numbers. In any case the peak sales numbers that the RIAA uses when talking about the recent decline are from the late 90's, not exactly a golden era of music (unless everyone here thinks the Spice Girls are going to be making a big come-back soon).
(For any other audiophiles out there who subscribe to Goldmine, you've probably already read their article on the state of the industry. For those who haven't, allow me to summarize.)
For as long as music has been for sale an interesting economic trend has emerged. As a new format is produced (sheet music, player pianos, records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, etc.) it's sales are small at first. As the format catches on, sales boom. People are buying music in the new format left and right (both new music and old music which they may or may not already own). As time goes on (typically takes 20 years) sales decline. The format is not "new and cool." People have purchased the majority of the back catalouge that they are interested in. Sales are limited mainly to newer releases (although back-catalouge sales still exist, just not in massive quantities).
Just about the time this happens, a new format for music distribution is released. This new format has classically featured improved quality and/or convience. After sheet music, the big thing was pre-recorded music. "That's right kids, you don't have to play it anymore! Just listen!" Later, records were replaced by cassettes "No more scratch and it's portable!!" Yay Walkman and Boombox!
Then CD's "No more switching sides and much better quality!" Horray for the Disc man, CD players, and computers.
But the CD format has been around for over 20 years now. People own the back catalouges that they want and will buy any new music that they want.
The music industry lacks a new format that can easily replace CDs. Although DVD-Audio offers much better quality and capacity, consumers have just finished replacing all of their records with CDs. They have installed CD players in their car. They have purchased home stereos, disc men, boom-boxs, and CD-Roms. The economy is down. Consumers won't shell out money to convert to another format now, espcially since the only thing that DVD audio has to offer is better quality and capacity. Many CDs right now don't fill to their capacity (how many of us have CDs that are only 30 or 40 mintues long?!) and many cd players have crappy speakers. In order to really get the quality of a DVD audio disc you need a *good* player, something which costs lots of $$$ and therefore won't sell like hot cakes.
Consumers are happy with CDs.
Although I believe that MP3s and priated CDs are stealing some sales from the record industry (lets face it, they have lost money from the college aged group), they are very few adults which are actually downloading music at a rate that would cause such a drastic deline in sales.
In fact, the Goldmine article pointed out that percentage wise, the decline in CD sales is no worse than the drop in sales that ALL formats before CD suffered on their decline.
The only way for the record industry to get the sales it wants is to get consumers to convert to a new format.
Or to release a bunch of *great* music. I'm talking a contemporary Beatles, the Who, Rolling Stones, Doors, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, Eretha Franklin, Michael Jackson, and hell, even another N'Sync or Brittney. (although these last two aren't music greats, they are niche markets which will produce a large number of sales)
It's an economics thing, not a piracy thing.
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
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.
Did they really call some proposed format "DVDA"?
/.?), "DVDA" is an acronym for, well, let's say a woman who just can't get enough.
For those non-pr0n fans out there (any on
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.10 years ago, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) technology wasn't good enough to make boob toting hacks like Britany Spears sound good.
Yeah, pop music was full of REAL TALENTS back in those days, like Tiffany, and Debbie Gibson!
I realize that they were closer to 15 years ago, but since you're still hung up on Britany (sic) and the Backstreet Boys as the Icons of pop music, I figure you're stuck about 5 years ago yourself.
Ok, I'll bite. You say:
downloading music you haven't paid for is wrong
Really? I know this gets hashed out here a lot on slashdot, but there was a specific period of time set down for copyrights when this country was founded - 14 years. Now, that time has been changed to "basically forever". This is just as "wrong". Or maybe there should be no copyrights at all...while I don't love that idea, copyrights are in no way any kind of natural right, or commandment or anything like that.
Say it with me everybody - Just because the government makes it illegal doesn't make it "wrong". It just makes it illegal. I shouldn't have to give examples to demonstrate this point. Just because the RIAA or disney or whoever want to lock everything up forever and bleed everyone dry doesn't mean they can get away with it. Heck, every time you download something, consider it civil disobedience. Maybe try only downloading things 14 years old or older, make a statement. Unless you feel the founding fathers were wrong and the current government is right, or at least scary. Copyright is not nearly as important as the many other ways governments have abused their powers or made perfectly ok things "wrong". There are plenty of examples of civil disobedience with no moral leg to stand on. But anyone who thinks this is one of those cases, or that all music downloading is automatically wrong, worries me.
The fact that fewer commercial CDs were produced and marketed is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that piracy was the cause, or at least one of the causes, of decreased CD sales. It may be the case that for a marginal band the record company projection that "X" number of CD sales will be lost to piracy is enough to tip the decision from "Yes, we'll produce and promote the CD" to "No, we won't produce and promote the CD because we don't think we'll recoup our money." But for the projected amount of piracy and lost sales, the CD would have been produced and marketed.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
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.