Slashdot Mirror
Australian Record Industry Has Best Year Ever
Hecatonchires writes "ARIA (Australian Record Industry Assoc.) had their best year ever, but are fudging the figures because they run counter to their anti-filesharing arguments."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Mirror here: http://www.silenceisdefeat.org/mirrors/www.smh.com .au/articles/2004/03/28/1080412234274.html
Seriously. No one calls "patent infringment" "patent, stealing", no one calls "trademark infringement" "trademark stealing".
Copyright infringement isn't stealing either, though they can both be independently illegal. The difference here is that the copyright holder doesn't lose his rights. His exclusivity is infringed upon, but nothing is taken.
If people are going to insist on analogizing it to something else, I would suggest TRESPASSING. If I put my foot in your yard, I've trespassed. But you still have your yard; you just aren't enjoying it exclusively.
Anyone who calls copyright infringement "stealing" has an agenda, and shouldn't be trusted.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
aria for the record industry.
It's nice to see this. What the fuck is wrong with the large record labels that they can't see past their own fat asses and USE the new technology? With the popularity of iTunes and other online music services you'd think these labels would be clamoring over each other to offer up something similar. Buy the album at the store for $14, or buy it online for $9 and burn the damn thing yourself?
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
File Sharing Increases CD Sales
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the post said that file sharing is helping sales. OTOH, it does suggest that file sharing can't be hurting sales that much. Like the white crow, this proves nothing, but disproves (or at least weakens) the ARIA's arguements.
#define DRM chmod 000
AFAIK no-one has ever argued that file-sharing helps record sales.
Is it in any way related to the recent broadband deployments and the legislative changes in Australia? Could any Australian posts some statistics of P2P networks traffic in Australian backbones? It could be interesting if that could be used as an argument that file sharing (or "piracy" if you will) might be actually good to artists all over the world. Very interesting indeed.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
However it somewhat invalidates the common media point of filesharing HURTING sales. If sales are in their best year ever, then they're not being hurt too greatly by the sharing that IS going on.
This is kinda obvisous... the total music industry growth p.y. is like 10% (extrapolating numbers from 1988-1998 to now), but CD sales is up only 5% world wide. Of course file sharing is hurting them. Not that I care...
Welcome newcomer! There are many wonderful things to discover here at slashdot and may I be the first to wish you well on your exploration.
meep
Listen now, ye yellow-livered one-eyed pirate scum ! Ye thought ye had em down, didn't ye ? Bu they're still rising, ain't them ? Ye can't keep them Music Empire down, can ye ?!?
Look at these numbers and despair, ye pirate scum !
What the RIAA and the MPAA and their foreign counterparts don't understand is that people are less willing to spend their money on crap. Look at Gigli, where the movie industry blamed movie go-ers who text messaged their friends that the movie was bad. Or the latest Tomb Raider movie, where they tried to blame the latest Tomb Raider video game. Consumers are simply not willing to waste their money on things that suck.
The same is true with music. I for one prefer to download the entire CD to listen to all the tracks. Most online music sites have the first 30 seconds of each song. I really don't feel like I know enough from those 30 seconds to decide if I like the CD. I can usually decide that I don't like the CD. Think of how many people get upset because there's the won good single on the radio and the other tracks are all crap? I will happily go out and buy a CD if I feel it is worth the cost. I have bought more CDs because I listen to the whole CD and decide if I like it enough to buy it.
Record labels lie! Details at 11!
In my regular newspaper column I recently wrote about the phenomenon that is the bargain-bin music browser.
These are the people who spend hours pawing through the big bins of massively discounted CDs you see in the corner of many music stores.
These discs are often compilations or recordings that, for one reason or another, simply never sold at the full retail price.
Although the bargain-bin browsers will happily pay $1, or even $10 for these discounted albums, they'd never ever consider paying full price.
The only way the stores can clear them is to virtually give them away.
Well the arrival of P2P filesharing networks has produced the ultimate extrapolation of the bargain-bin browser.
These are the people who will download a track or an entire album -- but only because it's free.
They would likely never buy the album or tracks in question -- even if they did turn up at $5 in the local bargain-bin.
So do these people really represent lost sales to the recording industry?
No they don't.
A huge percentage of those who download a large proportion of the music found on P2P networks simply would never buy the music they copy to their PC's hard drive or CD writer.
For the recording industry to claim otherwise is, to use the politest term that springs to mind, disingenuous.
Yes, filesharing probably does have some negative effect on disc sales, but the recording industry have brought that on themselves by overstating their case to the extent that nobody actually believes them any more.
If it seems that way to you it's simply because crap music tends to be forgotten with time so you don't remember the older crap.
Stumble accross someones old record collection in a loft sometime and it will no doubt be quite craptacular.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Even the FBI has become involved. It says music piracy has become its third priority behind terrorism and counter-intelligence. A number of US Congress members who rely on the entertainment industry for campaign funds lobbied the FBI to spend more money hunting file-sharers and CD burners. So now CDs in the US carry FBI stickers warning of fines of $250,000 or five years in prison.
I sincerely hope they aren't expending much effort on chasing down teenagers with cablemodems. Given the fuckups at the FBI in the past several years, I would think that they have their hands full just trying to keep the citizens of this country from being killed. Unfortunately, I am never surprised at what money can buy these days.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well, home taping obviously didn't kill music, Simon Cowell and Pete Waterman did. But that aside, the difference between then and now is simply that the record companies are taking a tougher line and are being allowed to do so by their tame politicians. The problem isn't a new one, but the "solution" is.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
....I haven't found any music really worth buying in the last couple of years. I have even stopped downloading music now. What's the point? It's all the same - stamped out of the same studio - with the same sound.
I am still listening to U2's The Joshua Tree (which I bought years ago) and Crowded House. The only thing lately I have heard that was interesting was Ben Harper - even then, only a couple of songs were good.
I mean, sure....Post Modernism is ok - but the same Hip Hop crap about some American cultural "issue" is getting really boring.
It's all the same, but I am supposed to keep forking out AU$30 per album. I don't think so.
The cynical answer is that P2P is never about artist royalties or piracy it's about the fact that one P can be the artist and the other P can be the customer with no sign of ARIA or RIAA anywhere between the two. These big music industries are not fighting for the survival of music and musicians, they're fighting for their own survival at the cost of artists and consumers.
Pure and simple.
This is about spin and control. The record industry's profit/distribution/business model has been turned on its ear. They don't know how to respond, so they sue everyone in sight, bribe (oops! - "LOBBY") lawmakers. etc. All to keep the status quo while they figure it out. So far they haven't been able to. After all, digital distribution (MP3's etc.) have only been around for OVER FIVE YEARS ALREADY!! Besides, we wouldn't want the MARKETPLACE to decide, would we? God forbid another company be allowed to take business from them!See, the RIAA is sleazy and corrupt. They are a cartel. Five companies (soon to be four if they have their way) control something like 90% of the recorded music available for sale in the world. They like their monopoly. They want to keep their monopoly. Wouldn't you?
So, they lie cheat, bribe and do whatever they have to in order to keep the cash cow giving milk. If that means telling Congress that CD sales are down 10% due to downloading when the real reason is that they MANUFACTURED LESS CD's in order to keep the prices up, so be it. After all, the way they see it, you're not really lying, you're just SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH by witholding information.Besides, don't you think that Congress KNOWS what they're doing??!! After all, the politicians INVENTED SPIN!. Don't you think they know whan they're being spun? It's just that the spin comes with a nice bribe attached.
We have the best Government that $$ can buy and until they're voted out, nothing will change!... And don't hold your breath for THAT to happen! :(
There isn't much bio information on the website but he is in his second year of presenting Triple J's current affairs program and was previously a reporter for same. You can listen to the show online.
He has written some interesting articles for the Sydney Morning Herald in the past, including this one on the decline of Sydney and another on censorship of CDs.
cheers
marty
"I can't buy want I want because it's free. Can't be what they want because I'm me." -Corduroy, Pearl Jam
This is pretty impressive considering that Australians pay more for CDs than most people. A$30 which is about $22 US. File sharing just stops people being sucked in by hype, you don't have to rely on the word of journalist, who can't write a bad review, for fear of losing freebies, and the one radio friendly unit pusher that's on an album full of crap.
How are you *ever* going to determine the effect of P2P on record industry revenues, using an unassailable and repeatable methodology? No one has even tried to demonstate the marketing difference between on demand download of 128k mp3 content and analog recording of radio broadcasts. How would you construct such a study? In the end it is all hand waving and opinion, and the only thing that matters is record industry profits.
Chances are industry profits will follow the economy. The more disposible income there is, the more people will "vote" for their favorite bands. All I have to work with is anecdotal evidence: my sister bought 15 copies of the Elvis Costello CD for her friends for Christmans because she "wanted to support him." But my sister has money.
My own anecdotal experience is that the only time I bought any CDs at all was during the heyday of Napster. I bought all kinds of stuff because I was reminded of and found what was good. (Also I had money during the heyday.) I also had money before Napster, but I did not buy CDs because I got burned too often.
What if it turns out that P2P actually stokes interest in music and ultimately increases record sales more than radio broadcast does? It is ENTIRELY possible that this is the case. All of a sudden the industries are going to do this huge spin....
If indeed it is illegal. Here in Canada, we can copy CDs all you want - we pay a tax on every blank CD that's distributed to record labels, and in exchange we have the legal right to copy CDs. Not that anyone seems to make a distinction around here, the "it's theft" people still call it theft...
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
That quote doesn't say that file-sharing helps record sales. It says "... are buying more CDs after file-sharing", which is not the same as saying "... are buying more CDs due to file-sharing".
It is stating the findings of the research - that after file-sharing that particular group of people are buying more CDs than they were before hand. Causation isn't claimed, only correlation which is the point being made.
Maybe CD prices have dropped between the before and after file-sharing time frames. Maybe the economy boomed and hence spending on CDs. Maybe the price of DVD players dropped and suddenly a large number of people had a device that can also play CDs in the lounge room.
The quote you provided makes no claim as to the reasons why, it merely states the correlation. Exactly what the "correlation is not causation" crowd demands.
Posting anon for obvious reasons:
My friend used to work for one of the big 2 record companies. He wasnt particularly senior, but he wasnt a complete chump either, think middle sales [ie keep the stores happy] kinda role.
Every friday his boss would give him about $100 AUD from petty cash to go into the bigger record stores in the City [the way the charts work is that the more popular a store, the more weight each sale has in the charts].
He would be instructed to buy maybe 10 singles of the cheesy artist said large record company was trying to plug to bring them up the charts.
The funny thing is, when I had this conversation, its one thing to assume it happens, but its another entirely for it to be completely confirmed. And its not just 1 guy, his entire department was in a similar chart-pumping scam paid for by said record company.
I always asked him what the 18year old behind the counter would say when a mid 20's guy would walk in and buy 10 of "Cheesy teen pop star latest single".
"oh its for my daughters gift bag for her birthday"
An decent article, albeit with a lot of the same yakkety-yak -- but then suddenly, you hit the money quote:
Maybe it's the record industry that's getting a free ride from file-sharing - a massive marketing system that allows music lovers to get exposed to all kinds of music without the record industry having to pay a cent.
That describes my experience EXACTLY. If you're like me, you remember not too long ago when anytime you met someone in a band, you couldn't wait to ask them what they'd been listening to lately. When everytime you were at the book store, you rifled through the back of music mags looking at the What's Hot list. When you watched MTV late at night (when the format went off tight rotation) hoping to pick up some first-hand "insider" knowledge of whose star was poised for imminent ascendence. You'd go to the record store, buy a few CDs from the list you'd put together, buy a few more that you hoped would pan out, and go home. I considered myself lucky if, after all the advance work, I ended up with one out of three that actually made it into regular play.
Then, everything changed. In my case it started with Hotline. I noticed that in addition to warez, there were sporadic postings of music...and suddenly, a veritable flood. Mostly, it was bands I'd never heard of before. After a brief period of being annoyed at having to look harder for Bryce plugins or KPT add-ons or whatever the hell I was cruising for, I decided to check out some of these MP3s. It was like taking a starving Ethiopian to Royal Fork Buffet. I tried entire genres of music I'd never heard before. Electronic music suddenly made sense. Soon, I was arranging lists of sites that specialized in types of music I couldn't have even named a year before. As James Burke might say, it was The Day The Universe Changed.
Within six months, I ran across the early version of Napster. It was buggy as hell, but the idea of looking on someone else's hard disk to see what they were listening to was like the gift of Promethian fire. It empowered me. Instead of being a remora fish picking among musical scraps left over by people who "knew" what was happening in music, I started becoming someone who knew what was happening. My listening habits started diverging from, and then absolutely veering away from, the Top 100. For the first time, it became transparently obvious that mass music is a processed, focus-group-derived product like mass food or mass clothing or mass anything else. It's not that I felt snooty, just awakened...and for the first time ever, in command of what I listened to. I entered a golden age of enjoying music like never before. Now, I could go to the record store and buy CDs with a 90% or even 100% success rate, compared to maybe 30% in the old days. I no longer felt ripped off. The more I downloaded, the more CDs I felt like buying.
Bottom line: P2P is the greatest marketing tool ever devised for music. I have hit my forehead and said 'Doh!' about a thousand times over the last few years as I've watched the ham-fisted tactics of the RIAA, and their utter inability to change with, and exploit, the revolution in music. They should be getting fatter and happier than ever by seizing new technologies, and surging forward with the explosive push of free, ubiquitous marketing and feedback provided by P2P.
Instead, they are suing 12-year-olds and college students, and selling "secure" DRM CDs that won't play on your computer. They are flunking Business 101 not only by alienating an entire generation of customers, but BY TRYING TO DISMANTLE ONE OF THE MOST ASTONISHING FREE MARKETING GIFTS EVER BESTOWED ON AN INDUSTRY.
Nuff said.
Hmmm... I was just struck with a thought; what if the record industries are being rabid about piracy because they want to shift to a more advanced sales strategy?
I mean, if piracy increases sales of physical CDs, then it might be reasonable to assume that the first step in getting away from the physical-media-based distribution system would be to stop that which drives those sales. If the record industries are trying to impliment a download-based distribution system, it'd make sense for them to [persecute|prosecute] online piracy. After all, which is more appealing to the average consumer, downloading a song for free or downloading a song for a dollar/pound/yen/whatever?
If this is the case (and I make no claims that it is), then I can't say that I like the methods that have been taken (suing ISPs, suing impoverished little girls, etc.), but it would at least make the whole thing a bit more sensical/sane/intelligent, in my opinion.
(FYI, I have not read the article... yet, and it should under no circumstances be construed that I'm making excuses for the recording industries of the world and their lawyers. Quite frankly, I think I hate the bastards.)
~UP
Eat the Path.
From ARIA's own research But what about our research, I hear the record companies scream. ARIA paid a research company to survey music consumers. The survey results suggest there's been a 12 per cent decrease in CD purchases by people who are into file-sharing. The greatest percentage is with the under-17s - people who don't have much money. But the research suggests those with the money, the 45 and overs, are buying more CDs after file-sharing. Now that's a statistic we never hear quoted. It shows that thoes who can affored to buy CD's do buy more whilst those that don't have much money tend to buy less, Lesson to be learn't sell CD's at price all can affored. The Record industry doesn't seem to realise that for most people 15 is alot to spend on something that could be rubbish.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
My listening habits started diverging from, and then absolutely veering away from, the Top 100. For the first time, it became transparently obvious that mass music is a processed, focus-group-derived product like mass food or mass clothing or mass anything else.
So tell me again why the record industry crushing P2P is stupid? It's wrong and evil, but not stupid per se.
Freedom: "I won't!"