Slashdot Mirror
Legal US Music Downloads Beat CD Single Sales
Kelly McNeill writes "I've received a lot of feedback from osViews readers (my site) asking about the music download survey that we've been conducting over the past few weeks, saying that osViews readership must be skewed in one particular direction to get the results we did. The primary reason given is not necessarily the fact that iTunes has significantly surpassed its competitors, but that the results show legal digital downloads surpassing even CD sales. I must admit that even I thought this a was a bit peculiar, but now, according to a BBC World news report, it seems the survey is correct. Digital downloads have surpassed even physical CD sales!" Update: 11/04 23:35 GMT by S : The BBC story refers to CD single sales, so Mr.McNeill maybe not be quite as right as he thinks, sadly.
What's the surprise? People with any kind of feel for the pulse of technology have known for a long time that once digital sales of music finally started to not totally suck, they'd catch on.
I guess album art is really dead? That's too bad as it is an artform in of itself.
all these downloads yet none (except the indies) are in the worlds most popular music format [mp3]
good news yes , but the industry still doesnt get it yet and is treating the customer with distain and as a thief
Convenience is really the key for online music stores. Browsing from your home at all hours of day and night, previewing a track - something you may not be able to do where you buy music - the ability to "impulse buy" a song you just heard or remembered, and the instant gratification of having it available only a few moments after you make your decision (unless you are on a slow connection) are big factors. The "what other people purchased" up-sell can be a way to broaden your music library as well.
As the BBC article mentions, it's not a truly fair comparison because it's all tracks sold online vs. only singles. I purchased a number of my tracks as part of an album, and I don't often buy CD singles, either (never, actually). So, it would be nice if we could compare full album sales instead of the unbalance "tracks vs. singles".
Still, it is nice to see online music doing well - IMHO, anyway. DRM, as always, will remain a key issue here.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
I'd buy if it was in .ogg format, but it's not. The problem with these download services is that they're using proprietary formats... like AAC for Apple's, and MS' will definitely use WMA. We should AT LEAST have the option of MP3 if we can't have ogg.
Happy New Year, it's 1984!
It depends on the disc as to whether it's a waste of money or not. Some artists release otherwise-unreleased songs only onto a CD single. You can get a lot of great & obscure music this way, if you're a big fan of a particular artist.
And sometimes those remixes can be way better than the original. It all depends.
Well, yeah, but people have been saying for years that most CDs have only one or sometimes two songs that most purchasers want. So in most caseds, a single-tune download has literally replaced a single CD sale.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
... would have made if this service was out in 1999.
Granted, legal digital music has been successful, but how many people out there still hate the RIAA?
To all of those who have called music downloaders thieves, all I can say is I told you so. People are basically honest, and they're willing to pay for good service.
"Derp de derp."
For years the public has been screaming at the ignorance of the record industry who forces us to buy music we dont like to get one or two songs we do like. I am a proponent of online music sales and maybe now that this in in place I will once again spend my money on music instead of replaying all those old 80's CDs and casettes :)
Me gonna go write me open source software and grow long beard and smokum some weedus and ummmm hide from people
By volume? Or by revenue?
If by revenue, then HOLY SHIT. Because downloads are a whole lot cheaper than CDs, they'd have to be FAR more popular. Woo hoo!
If by volume, then BIG DEAL. Because an album on CD has like 15-20 songs on it, whereas a single song download has only 1 song on it. So to really eclipse CD sales, you'd have to see downloads at 15-20x the volume of album sales.
Of course, there's a lot of crappy songs on most of those albums, which we'd all be better off without. So there's probably some room for skew in the statistics, however you wanna interpret them.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
"but they're getting the last laugh, and still getting paid."
No they're not. Part of what sparked this is that the quality of music has gone down. They were making money by selling albums at a premium with only 2-3 songs the listener actually wants to have. That translates to roughly $5 a song. Now it's what, $1 a song? To put it another way, people will spend $10 instead of spending $45.
Over time, it might turn into better revenue, as more and more artists will have less and less pressure to create a whole album. But in the short term, the RIAA risks a huge chunk of their margins.
"Derp de derp."
You know, it's not like iTunes is doings its thing without going through the RIAA. iTunes offers the service it does because the RIAA allows it. The RIAA is not fighting paid digital downloads. On the contrary, with all the new services springing up, it would seem that they're supporting it.
Oh, I forgot. They're one of those groups Slashdot doesn't like. Any excuse to bash them, however illogical, right?
~ Aero
The music industry is finally catching on. They need to give people rights, not restrictions. That is what works. Why should I pay $16 for an album I can't play on my work computer. What is the point of that. I can download whatever I want for free and play it on my work computer or at home and then burn them to disk....hmmmmm, this isn't rocket science. $.99 is worth the convenience for a song I really want, but the price must come down if they expect me to buy songs to hear them once and throw them in the trash. I will pay $.25 for mediocrity. But they will have to pay me listen to some of their crap.
If you only buy songs one at a time, and each song must stand on its own, unless they bundle them somehow, you will only rarely buy full albums. Why buy 22 songs when you only want 3 from that album. You will more likely have a folder with an artists name on it, and organize songs that way.
"They want to cut out MythTV, Tivo, splitters, H-cards, and cable descramblers. It's becoming too easy to get at the current data, so they want a change."
I think you're way off for comparing pirate-style technologies along with legitimate ones. H-Cards and cable box descramblers were never about getting access to data or information you had purchased. Anything relating in the defense of H-Cards and Descramblers is legaleze to justify theft. Tivo, MythTV, splitters, etc are making use of media/information that has been legitimately purchased.
DRM as a way to control music is entirely justified. Many people seem to be ok with some level of DRM, but I haven't met a person that trusts microsoft to do it.
As far as 'fair use' is concerned, Apple seems to have taken a decent approach- you can burn endless cd's of AAC-encoded itunes-store songs, but you can only have it active on 3 pc's at a time. That sounds pretty flexible to me.
Show me someone who rants about fair use, and I will show you someone who 99.9% of the time owns a ps2 hacked to play illegal copies, has gigs of non-fair use mp3's, or watches copied dvd's from friends.
It is good that people are now paying for the music they download, but a lot of people don't understand that the artists get very little of this money. Generally a band will only get 10% - $1 for the entire album downloaded, whereas the record company gets $9 for each album downloaded.
:)
In the CD world, 10% ($2) was a good deal for the band because the record companies had to pay for manufacturing, cases, booklets, shipping and publicity, which is quite costly. But now they don't have to do anything - it is pure profit for the record companies, so they should be passing on a higher percentage of the profit to the bands.
Until They change how much the bands get payed for digital downloads I will stick to buying CDs. Plus I like getting booklets
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
"The BBC story refers to CD single sales, so Mr.McNeill maybe not be quite as right as he thinks, sadly."
Who cares which is outselling the other, as long as the consumer has the option to buy either.
Vote for Pedro