Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sales Compared to Download Statistics
OneInEveryCrowd writes "According to an article at SFGate, although the recent crackdown and lawsuits have caused a 22% drop in downloading, the drop in CD sales actually accelerated during the same period. My own response to the RIAA crackdown was to get a Netflix account, get into fansubs, and swear off CD purchases for life. If this was mainstream behavior CD sales would have dropped to zero. I was still pleased to see that many people responded in a similar fashion though." An EMI executive has a piece giving the standard industry view, but this piece about Universal slashing CD prices may be more telling.
[despite a] 22% drop in downloading, the drop in CD sales actually accelerated during the same period
Yes! So it wasn't the downloading that caused poor sales afterall. It was the
crappy music + high prices + strongarming.
Also, congratulations to all who have not purchased CD's in protest. Keep up the good work.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I was watching a live feed from a popstars-style show the other day and one of the people from the industry itself accepted that the single was a defunct medium. I think they forgot that this was being broadcast to anyone sad enough to watch it.
Now I have to listen to the CD in 2 song chunks as I drive back and forth to work (and from what I've read - it sounds like I'm lucky to have it work on an in-car player...)
Not going to buy another music CD for quite some time...
Platform independent bug tracking software
When the RIAA went after Napster, folks here and elsewhere predicted that RIAA was shooting itself in the foot. Instead of embracing the new medium, they tried to destroy it, despite warnings that something even "worse" would take Napster's place.
Looks like we've found "worse":
Meanwhile, he noted record stores report that blank recordable CDs are outselling recorded CDs, a trend that shows computer users are not only downloading songs, but copying and burning CDs.
Instead of an online, somewhat trackable, moderately controllable service, the RIAA is now faced with millions of teens (and pre-teens) with computers and CD burners. No single point of control, just my daughter's friend borrowing her CD so she can rip a copy.
The RIAA played the role of Darth Vader in their own little cyberspace opera. "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine..."
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
So, could this be it? The tip of the iceberg peeking out of the water, leering at the RIAA?
Let's hope so. Let's also hope that the record companies represented by the RIAA realize that it has become the albatross around the music industry's neck forcing the value of their product down.
The price cuts are great - but don't let up folks! We'll know we're winning when the RIAA begins doing layoffs. Until that day - continue the boycott! Don't buy even the cheap CD's. The profits still go towards curtailing your rights.
Remember, the RIAA will do anything to push their agenda, but only so long as the record companies can continue to line their pockets. Cut off the cash flow, and the RIAA goes away.
Continue the boycott!
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Meanwhile, he noted record stores report that blank recordable CDs are outselling recorded CDs, a trend that shows computer users are not only downloading songs, but copying and burning CDs.
That's a gem, using the same logic, if guns outsold waterpistols, that would show that more people are commiting murder. This may come as a shock but CD-Rs can also be used to record data (gasp) or am I the only person in the free world who uses them for this purpose? Also, what if people are creating mix CDs of music they legally purchased? Nah, impossible.
Also, we need to do a little lesson in math:
50 CD-Rs == $10
50 CDs == $750
Does anybody want to bet that even if music CDs were $0.20 each, CD-Rs would STILL outsell CDs.
Nice job distorting the data to fit their pitch though.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Later, through an RIAA spokeswoman, Sherman said the "issue is not the decline in CDs; it's the decline in people paying for the music that they acquire. We need to get people back into the habit of paying for music, whether it's from record stores or a legal online service."
While I may be somewhat divided on the whole RIAA/Filesharing issues, this statement just gripes me. Why is the attitude always about changing what "everyone else" is doing? Why didn't Sherman say "We need to make a product that people are more willing to pay for with their hard-earned money. We need to create value in the eyes of our customers and address their needs more directly?"
I think the major problem with the RIAA's slump in sales is the de-commoditization of the "album". We've had several years as consumers of being able to download just the songs we want. Most major record labels will put together an album with one or two singles that are actually decent. Consumer interest in these songs is what drives sales of the album; you have to buy the album to get the song you want. p2p and iTunes have eliminated the middleman. Now you can get the song without the crap.
I forsee the music industry switching to marketing and sales of individual tracks, rather than entire albums, once it's proven that the public is not interested in plucking down $15 for 14 mediocre tracks and that one song that ClearChannel/RadioOne is shoving down our throats.
What would be even better would be if sales/downloads of those tracks were reported to SoundScan. Then labels would know how popular x song was, and have an idea of where to go with the next single. Keep it at the $0.99 price point set by iTunes, and you're in business.
El riesgo vive siempre!
Your quote is more telling than you may think. Record stores generally sell only "music" blanks, which sends a tax to RIAA through the American Home Recording Act. You have full permission to burn a music CD borrowed from a friend onto a music disk, by law. If all the songs traded over Napster were burnt onto music blanks (which, coincidently are exactly the same as data blanks), there probably wouldn't have been a case vs Napster.
So, saying that blank cd sales are up (especially from record stores) is in effect saying that consumers are giving money to RIAA and exercising a right (which they paid for!) to copy CD's for home use.
If the comment also included data CDs, then the author is completely ignoring the fact that computer users actually write data to CDs. In any case, I suspect the conclusions drawn from that sentence are going to be horribly wrong by 95% of the non-technical folks reading it.
SOme references for this? Ill be happy to buy the music cds for my MP3 use, if the riaa will shut the fuck up, or, conversely, i can tell them to shut the fuck up in court becasue i paid the extra 10 bucks for the music cds.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
That's contrary to the evidence of all of my friends, those who do download music, tend to have MP3 collections in the multi-gigabytes. I don't think they've ever deleted a song they've downloaded, and they haven't bought CD's in years.
Sure it's anecdotal evidence, but if people were deleting the crap they download, you'd think the crap would gradually disappear from the P2P, servers since no one would have it on their harddrives to share.
I know the article mentiones Justin Timberlake, but maybe another part is that the British are not being forcefed the same shit that we Americans are.
The UK top 20 charts don't look that much different from the US top 20 charts. Whether any of us like it or not, the top 20 is where the majority of sales are made (hmm... maybe that's why they're the top 20).
They are making real music decisions, and buying real music.
I think one of the big differences is that the RIAA's numbers tend to be RIAA sales. No one in the US really keeps track of the sales of independant labels. I'm not sure how the UK system works, or where the numbers came from for that article. If there was an increase in independant sales in the US, it wouldn't show up on the normal sales figures the RIAA quotes, and it wouldn't be to their benefit to quote them anyway.
One British band whose new CD you're going to want? IRON MAIDEN.
You might have thought Iron Maiden was washed up long ago, but that's quite contrary to the truth. I've gotten my filthy hands on their new Dance of Death release a bit early, and I can say that these guys are firing on all cylinders.
We shall see, but afaik they're still on an RIAA label for US distribution, so I probably wouldn't even have known they had a new album coming out if you hadn't mentioned it.
Whereas the classic American metal band, "Metallica", put out absolute slop this year, Britain's best put out a classic. For any metalheads out there, try to find Montsegur on Maiden's new album. WOW.
Metallica's been putting out slop for years, where have you been? There are plenty of metal albums out there for people that really care about the music without worrying about whether or not Metallica or Iron Maiden are going to manage to hack one out this time around.
Point is, if the Europeans are sticking to their own music, then that might be another reason why more people buy it. Europeans know better than this Linkin Park Metallica bizkit garbage.
They're buying just as much of that garbage as Americans are, unfortunately.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
"Almost no one buys music blanks any more (unless they happen to own a Philips recorder)"
s/Philips recorde/any AHRA-compliant recorder/
Any standalone recorder, whether made by Philips or otherwise, is legally not permitted to record on "data" CD-Rs. This restriction is mandated by law with the Audio Home Recording Act.
PC equipment happens to be exempt from this law.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Do you have any more details on this?
It's called the Audio Home Recording Act, which basically said that you can make copies of things at home, but in return the **AA's collect a levy on all recording media and recorders sold, and you can only make a copy from a first-generation copy of something.
A good link is here.
The main problem is that the law was passed 10 years ago, and nobody had any idea that the Internet would take off so much, and if I read it correctly, it doesn't protect you if you download. I think the problem with downloading is that the downloaded music is not a first-generation recording, so you can't let someone else copy it. Although, I wonder what happens if you use one of those 99cents download services, and then let people download from your server. I think there are other issues in that computers aren't covered devices because they don't have the necessary !copying protection and don't pay royalties. It's a mess, but it appears that doing a CD->CD transfer with a CD player is ok.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!