Slashdot Mirror
CD-Rs and MP3s Not Hurting Record Sales
David Gerard writes "Forget the industry shills' spin - the numbers prove that, for Australia, CD-Rs and MP3s are not hurting record sales in the slightest - based on a recent Australian Record Industry Association survey. It would be interesting to see what the numbers for the US or UK say."
They probably said they made less money...which the article mentions..
But that's from lower prices, not from lower sales...
Advanced users are users too!
Hmmm, according to this article it has not affected the sales in the US either.
But this article at ABCNews seems to indicate that its not piracy thats really affecting the sales, but services like iTunes -
"CD sales are down 15 percent from last year, while legal online services like the new Napster and Apple's iTunes have taken off, especially for the holidays. Apple's iTunes sold more than $1 million in download gift certificates since October."
I think that more than CD-Rs or mp3 piracy, its services like these which would affect the records sales.
The aria news site states: --- Internet file-sharing and CD burning have now been confirmed as having a negative impact on the Australian sales of recorded music, according to a ground-breaking study released today by the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA). --- That was August 2002 - July 2003. Moving on further down the same news posting.... --- "More than 80 % of people who received burnt CDs say that they would 'rarely' or 'never' buy a copy of a burnt CD they had received. More than 50 % of file sharers tend not to buy music they have downloaded (ie. 'rarely' or 'never' buy)." --- No, I know I wouldnt "Pay" for a burnt CD.. I'd pay for the original item.. but never for "burnt CD". Wouldnt the be "burned" ? http://www.aria.com.au/news.htm
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
In Australia we pay directly for every byte we download.
For our monthly ISP fee we are granted a certain number of megabytes that we may download without incurring extra cost. This "bandwidth cap" varies depending on how much you pay per month. Beyond that we typically pay some rate such as 15c per megabyte, or are cut back to dialup speeds.
Now, this doesn't directly affect the discrepancy discussed in the article (between the rate of people burning CDs for their friends and the lack of a corresponding drop in CD sales), but in general you have to keep this in mind when trying to draw conclusions from any investigation of illegal music sharing in Australia.
Of course, it might just be that illegal music sharing has no effect on sales elsewhere in the world, but it's important to realize that our usage patterns will be very different from areas that have unlimited downloads.
OK, so, a few MAJOR differences:
1: Australia pays an INSANE duty on imported music, to the point that when I lived there a few years ago, CD's from the US and UK cost TWICE as much as local fare. As such, it was ALREADY a culture in which people swapped tapes or (more likely) purchased all their music on overseas trips, particularly to asia, where it was ALL boot.
2: Bandwidth is by the byte.
Put these two together, and the stats don't add up.
Hey, I hate the RIAA as much as everyone else, but it baffles me that people can think that in the CURRENT status quo, the internet hasn't hurt CD sales. I've bought fewer CDs, everyone I know has bought fewer CD's. My babysitter has NEVER bought a CD. Neither the math nor the social motivation makes any sense.
On the other hand, the fact that 1980's CD sales we're likely artificially inflated by people "rebuying" their LP collections, never seems to be mentioned, and of course, just because people are buying fewer CDs doesnt mean they wouldnt follow some OTHER (itunes or whatever) business model.
We've had a very good year for the music industry in the UK. CD prices have dropped, which has lead to record sales.
On several occasions, the BPI (UK's RIAA) have politely told the RIAA to piss off when they've tried to convince them to start suing customers. Not only are the BPI just generally much nicer people, but they also realise the futility of suing their customers while their sales are at record highs.
The BPI also believes that offering singles for download will help revive the crippled singles chart.
For the moment, at least, we're much better off than the US is.
People don't pay for stuff if given the choice not to.
... As an example : in the town where I live, there is a bar where you can pay what you want. Their is no fixed prices, you choose. If you dont want to pay at all, no problem. And believe me or not, but it works ! People actually pay more for a beer than what they would in another bar !
... It might not work exactly the same for music on the internet ... But still ... and if you go check the numbers at Magnatunes you'll see that their is people who pay more than requiered ...
I'm not so sure about that
Ok, that's with "real" stuff, you actually get something more than a bunch of bytes
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/34693.html The original poster asked for trends in the UK and the US, this story is not perfect for the cause but it will help complete one more piece of the puzzle.
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. I rotate which of my tracks are available for download from my site, but all of my tracks are available in my shared kazaa folder. Since i am the writer, copyright holder, and recordings owner for my music, i absolutely have the right to decide how it is used. i didn't sign a bad contract, and therefore, can give it away, sell it, remix it, whore it out, or keep it private.
*if* i decided to share only half of my tracks, i'd have to keep the other half unrecorded, or at least, unreleased. The moment i chose to share my music with the world was the moment that i chose to spend money producing a professional recording. I wanted people to hear all of those songs, so i bothered to release it in a format-Compact Disc-where it could be heard and shared by a wide audience. If i didn't want people to hear some of the tracks, what is the point of releasing them? at my level, sharing of my music benefits me, because not having a 'name' label or 'cool' magazines hyping me, i rely on word of mouth and free preview to attract new fans. I'd prefer it if people were sharing and spreading it around for me, saving me bandwidth, effort and money. I love that i get emails from strangers who have heard of my music and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg to get my music in touch with them. Its a cliche at this point, but the community of friends that i've made via email through my band's website is something organic that no label could have paid for. The reason i rotate the songs i keep on my site is simply a design and bandwidth thing. i try to keep up tracks that are being played on internet radio or were written about on other sites. If i can encourage people to download my music from a filesharing program, it takes the strain off of the server here (not that i'm blowing it away with my 30 daily downloads). Maybe if people like it, my hope is that they'll also check up on my site again. Those who like what they here enough are given the option of A) finding more on Kazaa and other p2p options B) emailing me to ask for more or C) buying an album on compact disc, thus getting a free plastic case and some pretty graphics on the CD face and all the fair use rights in the world.