Study: MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales

I expect... by inertia187 · 2004-03-30 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now I expect a full apology and retraction for the demonization P2P has gotten from the RIAA, et. al. They should be trying to increase downloads like radio stations try to increase listeners.

Record labels should distribute approved MP3 tracks, then offer them as singles on CD, just like the radio stations. They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks.

They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.

TV Production should do this too. If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right. Then they can still sell me the DVD.

That'll probably never happen, though.

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.

Re:I expect... by LostCluster · 2004-03-30 05:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Really, all they'd need to do is release BitTorents of the UPN broadcast complete with the UPN logo and commerical breaks. Yeah, people could try to edit out the breaks, but that'd break the official torrent value.

TiVo's already proven that people will watch ads even with the 30 second skip enabled, you just have to get the viewer's attention during the 2 seconds they see the ad before hitting the skip.
Re:I expect... by lukewarmfusion · 2004-03-30 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

"hey should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks."

Many artists battle with the record companies on which songs make their records. As an artist, I wouldn't want "market demand" determining the makeup of my album.

On the other hand, "artists" like P. Diddy or Britney Spears might prefer it that way.
Re:I expect... by American+AC+in+Paris · 2004-03-30 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, they probably do see it as a tool, but a tool that they need to keep a close eye on.
Their logic probably goes something like this: so long as we can keep making people feel guilty/nervous about filesharing, we'll be able to keep P2P as a promotional tool while minimizing the risk of it taking over as the best way to get music.
They'd never say this outright, of course, as it'd undermine their PR campaign against P2P. But so long as they keep P2P flooded with crap and pursue the occasional lawsuit, they'll be able to reap the benefit of filesharing without having it grow into a serious replacement for their distribution models.
They're not idiots, they're cutthroat businessmen. They care about lots of things, but in the end, making money trumps all other concerns.

--
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Re:I expect... by IWorkForMorons · 2004-03-30 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right.
Right. Until, that is, someone figures out a way to remove those banner ads, leaving a clean near DVD-quality version for everyone to download. Then the industry will cry fowl saying it hurts they're profits, even though the advertising companies have already paid them. Then they'll start creating all these DRM schemes to try and prevent that from happening, which will only be a smokescreen as they use it's failure to press for laws outlawing all media being downloaded from "unauthorized distribution points." At that point, if they succeed, they will effective control all media on the net, because it is illegal to host and upload any media files to anyone whatsoever, unless you pay a licencing fee. Same story that's been going on in one form or another for decades...
Re:I expect... by inertia187 · 2004-03-30 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Their logic probably goes something like this: so long as we can keep making people feel guilty/nervous about filesharing, we'll be able to keep P2P as a promotional tool while minimizing the risk of it taking over as the best way to get music.

How Orwellian. There's a word for that in 1984: Doublethink

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Re:I expect... by OoSync · 2004-03-30 05:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks.
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
Actually, the real fun with the RIAA and major labels is that they already do such things. Please view the Wired article:
BigChampagne is Watching You.
I say this is fun because the RIAA talks out both sides of its mouth: it wants to limit major expansion of free P2P downloads (control the download market) and simultaneously use the data from such spontaneous sources to make smart investments on marketing.
Of course, when they say "CD sales" have gone down, I'm not so sure they mean all CD-based formats (singles, albums, collections, etc.) or just some sub-categories, like CD sigles. I can believe CD singles have been decimated by P2P filesharing, but I'm more reluctant to agree to a rapid, major decline in album sales without proper evidence. In other words, I don't believe what the RIAA claims is exactly what is happening, merely what they want you to think is happening.

--

I always get the shakes before a drop.
Re:I expect... by inertia187 · 2004-03-30 05:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

They'd have to write an application that downloads the official version, strips the banner ad, then posts it practically instantly. So it would then become an arms race. What banner configuration can the official version utilize that will defeat the automated countermeasure?

The countermeasure would have to be fairly instant in order to compete with the official version because who would want to wait?

Eventually, the banner would manifest like it does during an NFL game, by "tilting" and stretching the media to make room for the banner in different places. Or, just by overlaying the banner directly on the media.

Basically, anyone who does us a favor and strips out the banner is actually doing harm because eventually the banner will have to appear in more and more inconvenient places.

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Re:I expect... by RickHunter · 2004-03-30 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

True. On the other hand, this would allow you to release songs that wouldn't ordinarily go on your records AND give you actual data (lots of people downloaded this song and e-mailed me to tell me they liked it) to use to fight the record company. Which is another reason why they're scared of P2P. They're afraid that artists wouldn't have to rely on their nebulous marketing data and might actually have some say in their music.
Re:I expect... by nfg05 · 2004-03-30 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

In a computer media player, it would be all about the first ad because if the viewer isn't interested by the first one, they're going to drag he slider 2-3 minutes into the future until the show is back. Commercials in the middle would be skipped over the vast majority of the time.
Re:I expect... by SoTuA · 2004-03-30 05:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I expect from this is: the study gets entered as evidence on the RIAA lawsuits so they can't claim you owe them more money than you and your children will make on your entire lives for each uploaded file.
But don't think this legitimizes copyrighted work sharing. It's still wrong, folks. The fact that it doesn't hurt nearly as bad as the RIAA would have us believe doesn't make it any righter.
Re:I expect... by IWorkForMorons · 2004-03-30 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

They'd have to write an application that downloads the official version, strips the banner ad, then posts it practically instantly.
No they wouldn't. They could do it the same way they do now...manually editing the video to remove the banner, or build a utility to do the edit automatically but the setup and distribution is done manually. There are people willing to do the work and make it available. It would take time, but it's the difference between watching something immediately with annoying ads that you will throw away after, and waiting for the ad-free version that you want to keep in your collection. That is what they want to prevent. If you don't believe me, try skipping the commercials on a DVD with a brand-name DVD player....
Re:I expect... by mumblestheclown · 2004-03-30 05:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

TiVo's already proven that people will watch ads even with the 30 second skip enabled, you just have to get the viewer's attention during the 2 seconds they see the ad before hitting the skip.
Bullshit. TiVO has only "proven" that people will watch particularly appealing ads. once or twice.
But that misses the point--as anybody who knows anything about advertising will tell you, the "coolness" factor of an ad often is only a minor role in its effectiveness. i could probably watch that doritos commercial with that girl at the laundromat all day, but i still don't buy doritos. rather, factors such as repitition and subconscious awareness building are more important.
You make the classic slashdot mistake though: ignoring issues of scale. Beause people watch commercials without TiVo, and because some people watch some commercials without TiVo, then tivo has no effect on commercials. Bullshit. With TiVo and the 30 second skip feature, fewer commercials are seen. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the truth.
Re:I expect... by mumblestheclown · 2004-03-30 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

"They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks."
Do you realize how close this sounds to 1998-esque dot-com business plans? "Let's give away free pies so that, we, umm, can see which pies people like so that we can, umm, sell pies!"
However, you do one better, with your inane "create an album" idea. Ignoring the first fundamental fact that you shit on artist ingretiy this way and ignoring for a moment that the RIAA has PLENTY of popularity data already based on record sales, polls, radio monitoring, and a host of other means and they dont need terribly much more, you seem to forget that the RIAA's constituent members want to maximize their profit. If the public is willing to buy 10 individual cds to get 12 songs they like, then why bother putting all 12 songs on 1 cd?
You do one better still by talking about video downloads and ignoring the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room which is to say that as bandwidth increases, in a few years videos and movies are going to be facing the exact same problem that the RIAA has today and you'll bitch about the DVD just as you bitch about physical CDs today.
I dont know who in hell modded you as insightful.
Re:I expect... by Tin+Foil+Hat · 2004-03-30 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Most of the popular music sold at mass market venues are highly produced and engineered with the purpose of selling as many albums as possible. Unfortunately, that often leaves little room for artistic expression. That is not to belittle the talent of the artist, but to recognize a greater reality in that market: that business is business no matter what the atistic merit of the product.

If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.

The major labels are good at doing one thing well, and only one thing, and that's making money. Don't let them kid you, even if CD sales are falling, they are still making money hand over fist. They will try to tell you that since this years take is smaller than last years take, they have somehow lost money. That is simply not true. They have made money, just not as much as last year. Boo Hoo.

If there are any record RIAA executives reading this comment, this is for you: "It's the ECONOMY, stupid!"

--
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Re:I expect... by lightspawn · 2004-03-30 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

TiVo's already proven that people will watch ads even with the 30 second skip enabled, you just have to get the viewer's attention during the 2 seconds they see the ad before hitting the skip.

2 seconds? Never mind the reaction time, but are you actually waiting for the start of the commercial?

Here's a recurring pattern in a(t least one) legal drama I watch regularly:

* Shocking information is revealed
* 4 seconds closeup shot on lawyer looking shocked
* Commercial break.

I know that as soon as a lawyer looks shocked after shocking information is revealed, I can fast forward - 3 seconds before the commercial actually begins.

The most likely-not-to-be-skipped time is the last 4 (on average) seconds of the last commercial - chances are you'll see some of that.

Of course, an even better time is during the actual show, when we get to see how fulfilling those lawyers' lives are, just because they use very specific brands.

Of course an even
Re:I expect... by mumblestheclown · 2004-03-30 06:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Right. Until, that is, someone figures out a way
Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane
to remove those banner ads, leaving a clean near
Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Reasonable Reasonable
DVD-quality version for everyone to download.
Reasonable Reasonable Resonable Reasonable Reasonable
Then the industry will cry fowl saying it hurts
Reasonable Reasonable Resonable Reasonable Reasonable
they're profits, even though the advertising
Reasonable Questionable Questionable Questionable
companies have already paid them. Then they'll
Questionable Questionable Questionable Speculative
start creating all these DRM schemes to try and
Speculative Speculative Speculative Speculative
prevent that from happening, which will only be
Speculative Speculative Conspiratorial Conspiratorial
a smokescreen as they use it's failure to press
Conspiratorial Conspiratorial Conspiratorial
for laws outlawing all media being downloaded
Paranoid Paranoid Paranoid Paranoid Paranoid
from "unauthorized distribution points." At that
point, if they succeed, they will effective control
Delusional Delusional Delusional Delusional
all media on the net, because it is illegal to host
Tinfoil Beanie Tinfoil Beanie Tinfoil Beanie
and upload any media files to anyone whatsoever, unless
Paranoid Delusional Paranoid Delusional Paranoid
you pay a licencing fee. Same story that's been going
Delusional Insane and Stupid Insane and Stupid
on in one form or another for decades...
Insane and Stupid Insane and Stupid
Re:I expect... by jarran · 2004-03-30 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Many artists battle with the record companies on which songs make their records. As an artist, I wouldn't want "market demand" determining the makeup of my album. On the other hand, "artists" like P. Diddy or Britney Spears might prefer it that way.

It;s probably worth pointing out that P. and Britney are making the recording industry a hellova lot more than you are.

No offense intended, and I'm not saying it's a good thing. In fact, I think that this is one of the reasons why the recording industry fears P2P so much - not because it effects sales, but because it's capable of smashing down the barriers between artist and listener.

RIAA execs don't lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years times, sales will have been cut in half by P2P.

They instead lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years time, artists will deliver their music straight from the recording studio in their attic, through the server in the basement, to their Internet based community of fans.

OK, this is an extreme idea, but it's plausibly that it will happen to some lesser greater extent. Regardless, it will make the record companies a much less powerful force.
Re:I expect... by snarkh · 2004-03-30 06:05 · Score: 4, Funny

as anybody who knows anything about advertising will tell you, the "coolness" factor of an ad often is only a minor role in its effectiveness. i could probably watch that doritos commercial with that girl at the laundromat all day, but i still don't buy doritos. rather, factors such as repitition and subconscious awareness building are more important.
Wow, your logic is mindboggling.
Re:I expect... by lukewarmfusion · 2004-03-30 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree to an extent - but think of albums that have songs that you didn't like when you first heard them.

I wouldn't want Pink Floyd's "The Wall" without "Is There Anybody Out There?" I didn't really appreciate the song the first time I heard it, but it's one of my favorites now.
Re:I expect... by Dun+Malg · 2004-03-30 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

In a computer media player, it would be all about the first ad because if the viewer isn't interested by the first one, they're going to drag he slider 2-3 minutes into the future until the show is back. Commercials in the middle would be skipped over the vast majority of the time.
Then again, the same could be said not only of a show watched via any recording device, but live TV watching as well. You only see the first couple seconds of the first commercial before you get up and use the bathroom, get a snack, or flip the channel. The first commercial has always been the prime position and advertisers already pay more for it.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:I expect... by The-Dalai-LLama · 2004-03-30 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can believe CD singles have been decimated by P2P filesharing,

I'm sure that your two-cents' worth is absolutely correct regarding the effect that filesharing has had on the sale of singles, but I would also like to add my own pennies and say that I think the sale of singles was already on the skids before P2P made the scene.
Warning: rant commencing in 5...4...3...2...1...
In my experience (i.e. - Take it for what it's worth; I'm not gonna research a bunch of statistics right now and this rant was spawned by a number of incredibly frustrating attempts to go out and buy the single versions of songs that I liked), many albums (dare I say most) only have one or two good tracks anyway. Selling a cheap single of the one track that people will pay to hear probably cuts into the sale of the full album, which many people will buy anyway just to hear the one or two tracks that they like! In addition to that, CD singles cost upwards of $5 (YMMV), so there wasn't a whole lot of incentive to buy them even before P2P. A $6.99 single is an hour's wages for most of Britney's target market, and the added value of some pop princess doing a crappy B-Side live cover of a Stones song that her producer suggested (after telling her who the Rolling Stones are), is not enough incentive to pony up for a single.

Your .02 plus my .02 equals 4 cents that I would rather use as a suppository than contribute to the Rectal Invasion and Assault Association.

The Dalai LLama
what the hell happened the old Chuck Berry 45's?

--
My sig could be your sig!
Re:I expect... by mik · 2004-03-30 06:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

With TiVo and the 30 second skip feature, fewer commercials are seen.
True. However, it is important to point out that those commercials that are seen in this circumstance are more likely to actually be watched. This attention factor ought to be worth something to advertisers - IANAA (... Advertiser), but I'd rather pay for adverts which generate known Tivo views than blanket the airwaves hoping that someone, anyone is actually paying attention during the break.
Example: I typically watch the Superbowl twice on my ReplayTV - once for the game (starting around half an hour late) and once for the ads (ok, not this year, in protest of CBS's slap at MoveOn).
Re:I expect... by dubbreak · 2004-03-30 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

quick, think of a brand of tortilla chips!

The point isn't to make you want to buy the product, it's getting the brand in your head so it's the first thing you think of in that catergory. It's not to get you to buy the product, it's to get you to buy that brand if you are buying that type of product.(although some comercials are blatent you need this, such as infomercials)

quick name a brand of cola!

lemme guess, It was coke or pepsi, the most advertised brands, not RC, or jolt, or zeddy-brand zellars cola etc.

--
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
Re:I expect... by Dun+Malg · 2004-03-30 06:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Heh. I could even hear the original poster's voice going up in pitch as he spoke, and his eyes spinning faster and faster. I wish there was a combination "+1 Funny/Insightful" for this. Then again, the funniest things ARE insightful...

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:I expect... by IWorkForMorons · 2004-03-30 06:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alright, if I could mod this, I'd give it a Funny mod. You've got a point. A lot of it is speculative, because it hasn't happened *yet*. At least not in the TV and Movie arena. The DMCA is doing a pretty good job of allowing companies to sue people in order to prevent them from showing you how to use a Sharpie to disable the DRM on a CD though. It could be used in the same way by TV and movie producers. Oh wait, that's right...the movie guys have already done that (*cough* *cough* *DeCSS* *cough*). And they've already gone through the licencing thing with TV and radio. Why do you think you have to pay for a *broadcasting* licence?
An example is a friend of mine's mother. She loves religious shows. But where she lives she can't get any. And she can't afford a dish. So a friend of her's set up a transmitter at his place, which was a few miles away, to broadcast the religous channel from his dish. All she had to do was tune in to his transmitter. It didn't take long for the cops to shut that down, with orders from the CBSC. He didn't alter the programming in any way. The channel was broadcast in full, commercials and all. But he wasn't allowed to rebroadcast it, because he didn't have a licence to...
Yeah, sure...a lot of what I said is the tin-foil hat kind of rant, but just because I'm wearing a tin-foil hat doesn't mean I'm not telling the truth...
Re:I expect... by egrubs · 2004-03-30 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wrong. That it causes no harm is the single most important reason why it is acceptable.
Re:I expect... by haystor · 2004-03-30 06:36 · Score: 5, Funny

If you read the grandparents post three times a day for the next month you'll see that it is true.

--
t
Re:I expect... by sapped · 2004-03-30 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

With TiVo and the 30 second skip feature, fewer commercials are seen. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the truth.

Nonsense. I don't have a TiVo and I don't watch all the ads. I flick channels, I get up to make something to drink, etc. The Tivo owners simply stay on the same channel and skip the ads. Net result, same number of ads skipped and watched pre-tivo and post-tivo.
Re:I expect... by randomaxe · 2004-03-30 06:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Then maybe the solution lies not in forcing people to watch commercials, but in delivering commercials that are relevant to the viewer?

Simply monitor which commercials a viewer skips, and treat that as a "thumbs down". Use this information to customize the commercial feed to advertise products that the viewer is actually interested in.

You're right, giving the viewer control *does* mean that fewer commecials are seen. But when the viewer wouldn't buy the product anyway, does it make any sense to waste advertising time trying to sell them on it? Speaking as a guy in his twenties, I can guarantee you that advertising dollars would be better spent showing me a movie trailer than making me sit through a tampon commercial.
Re:I expect... by 13Echo · 2004-03-30 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe that the biggest issue is that it is a tool that they *don't control*. They're losing their power over distribution, very rapidly. Even if people are still buying CDs, what does the future hold when traditional music companies are replaced by alternative means of music distribution?

They traditional record label and its goons aren't needed anymore. They're becoming extinct.

The answer is in my sig.
Re:I expect... by skarmor · 2004-03-30 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.

You do realize that you sound like a pompous ass right?

I guess all the people who like music that is popular just can't recognize "art" when they hear it. It's only people such as yourself who hang out at the local "honkey tonks" and "after hours clubs" that truly understand music.

The truth is that many people know that pop music is a marketing tool (I mean, it is pretty obvious) but enjoy it anway. The value of any work of art is completely subjective. So while you and I might prefer Johnny Cash to Justin Timberlake - this does not give us the authority to act like condescending assholes towards people who do like (in my opinion, overly manufactured and soulless) pop music.
Re:I expect... by The-Dalai-LLama · 2004-03-30 07:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I buy singles because I want the remixes. Lots of good Seal singles out there, but I skip over the ones that are only the single - I already own the CD.

You raise an excellent point, and I do still buy singles, but I think that only serves to emphasize the fact that singles today are not the same as the singles of yesterday.

I put the line about the Chuck Berry 45's in there because I often see allusions to singles in that format. I gather (I wasn't around) that the intent of those singles was to make popular songs available to people who didn't want to buy (or couldn't afford) the full album, and to further the public's familiarity with the artist in question. Today, it seems that most people I talk to buy only the singles of artists that we are already familiar with. You'll buy Seal singles for the remixes and I'll spend $7.00 to hear Tori Amos covering a Tom Waits song, but most people aren't using singles to become familiar with new music.

That function has largely been supplanted by P2P.

I don't listen to the radio, so I've never actually heard the Outkast song "Hey, Ya", but I would like to. I would be willing to go down to Hastings and drop 3 bones on the single, but the last few times I've tried that approach it turned into a nightmare. In the end, I'll wind up checking it out on the net. Outkast's record company not only won't get my three bucks, they'll spend $6 prosecuting the person who made it available to me and $2 more publicizing their repudiation of the parent story.

The Dalai Llama
willing to pay a fair price, like most music listeners...

--
My sig could be your sig!
Re:I expect... by Lord+Dimwit+Flathead · 2004-03-30 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is proving fraudlent or malicious intent. In the case of the accident victim, independent medical review should establish the extent of her injuries, which then allows an objective judgement as to whether her claims of damage are reasonable.

With the RIAA, OTOH, there is no way conclusively to establish the extent of their injuries resulting from P2P filesharing. All we have are a bunch of studies with conflicting conclusions, and it's extremely difficult to establish an objective estimate of the true extent of the damages when every conclusion is based on statistical interpretations.

While the accident victim's claims can be shown by medical authority to have been made with fraudulent intent, the RIAA has statistics showing a correlation between the rise of P2P filesharing and the decline of industry revenues (these numbers are not in dispute, AFAIK). Whether there is causation is another matter entirely, but it appears to me that at present there is as much evidence to support the RIAA's claims as there is to refute them. IOW, while I may believe them to be wrong, I have to admit that they may have a rational basis for their claims, which prevents me from inferring malicious or fraudulent intent on their part.
Re:I expect... by ThosLives · 2004-03-30 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

But don't think this legitimizes copyrighted work sharing.
Isn't a library legitimized copyrighted work sharing?

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:I expect... by tanguyr · 2004-03-30 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

It;s probably worth pointing out that P. and Britney are making the recording industry a hellova lot more than you are.

"Of thirty thousand CDs that the industry released last year in the United States, only four hundred and four sold more than a hundred thousand copies, while twenty-five thousand releases sold fewer than a thousand copies apiece. No one seems to be able to predict which those four hundred and four big sellers will be."
- source: The Money Note, by John Seabrook

RIAA execs don't lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years times, sales will have been cut in half by P2P.

Unless their cluelessness approaches nearly mystical levels[1], recording industry executives know that digital distribution is inevitable. Sure, they're probably a bunch of old white guys who never heard of the internet before 2001, but that was three years ago, and you'd better bet they have *some* smart people working for them. Fact: digital distribution of music is more efficient than physical distribution - i can download a much wider selection of songs, at any time of the day or night, than i can get at the record store, and i live in a capital city. Imagine if you live in Armpit, Ar.

But gearing up for digital distribution is going to take a) time and b) money. Time because not everybody has broadband yet - especially when you figure that, to these guys, the market is worldwide. Money because somebody has to invest in the infrastructure to make all this possible. Ask Apple how much they spent on their music store. On the other hand, the infrastructure for doing business in the bricks and mortar world is pretty much paid off and the profit margins are fat.

The recording industry is squeezing every last cent of profit out of their current way of doing business before they switch to digital delivery and start all over. What keeps them awake at night is the idea that by the time they get there, sharing on p2p will have changed people's value perception of music: that they will think of it as something you get for free on the net.

They instead lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years time, artists will deliver their music straight from the recording studio in their attic, through the server in the basement, to their Internet based community of fans.
In any market with many producers and many consumers, middlemen will always emerge. Over time, seeking to maximize profits by reducing inefficiency, these middlemen will be reduced to a few big players. Once this happens, these big players will start to exhibit monopolistic/oligopolistic behaviour - they will think of the market as "their market", not in terms of the market they compete in, but in terms of the market they own, like a private club. Eventually, this behaviour will distort the market and decrease the gains to the producers and consumers - thus providing incentive for somebody to offer an alternative. If that alternative proves profitable, copycats emerge and the power of the old middlemen diminishes until they are driven out of business (in their current form: they usually become just another copycat, vis. Barnes & Noble) and the market is governed by the new middlemen. Over time, seeking to maximize profits by reducing inefficiency, these new middlemen will be reduced to a few big players....

Of course: i could be full of shit. "Professional" musicians have existed for thousands of years, whereas the recording industry hasn't. Then again, how many troubadours in the middle ages lived in castles? Only the ones who worked for the king.

[1]"No one in this world ...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
-- H.L. Mencken

--
#!/usr/bin/english
Re:I expect... by Maestro4k · 2004-03-30 09:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
- Many artists battle with the record companies on which songs make their records. As an artist, I wouldn't want "market demand" determining the makeup of my album.
  On the other hand, "artists" like P. Diddy or Britney Spears might prefer it that way.
I can understand the Artist wanting control of what goes on the album, but consider the marketing advantage you'd have for album sales if all the tracks were chosen because they were quite popular. One of the biggest complaints consumers have with the current system is that you pay nearly $20 for a CD with 1, maybe 2 songs on it you like, and more often than not the rest aren't worth listening to. (Not just bad, beyond bad.) Personally I doubt the artists wanted the CD that way either, unless they really hate their audience and enjoy subjecting them to crap. (Granted a few of those may be songs the artist thinks are really good, but their audience don't. The odds are against 10+ of them being that way though.)
Of course it should be noted that the recording industry killed off the singles market themselves, lusting after the higher profits of a whole CD. Not to mention that from what I hear about "standard" recording contracts, the artist is lucky to break even on CD sales through retail, and it's not unheard of that the recording company's creative accounting will leave the artist OWING money. There's not much incentive for artists to really try to change this since they mostly only make money on concerts and stuff sold at concerts. The recording companies seem to have become so intoxicated with greed that I doubt they'll ever try to change this either.
If iTunes has proven anything it's that a singles market still exists. If the recording industry started selling CD singles of hits, they'd probably be mightily surprised to find people would buy them and they'd make money on it. There's still a LOT of people out there who either have no Internet access (or computer even) but still would love to get a copy of their favorite tracks.
Personally I got so disgusted with the whole thing I stopped listening to/buying/downloading/etc. any US music about 5 years ago.
Re:I expect... by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-03-30 09:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

" But that misses the point--as anybody who knows anything about advertising will tell you, the "coolness" factor of an ad often is only a minor role in its effectiveness. i could probably watch that doritos commercial with that girl at the laundromat all day, but i still don't buy doritos. rather, factors such as repitition and subconscious awareness building are more important."
Well, actually I am in advertising so perhaps I add some thoughts to this. The coolness factor is JUST as important as the awareness building. You see, an ad can be repeated as many times as the advertiser has dollars for, but if it is a shit ad, and nobody is interested in it, you start having people just block it out. This has happened with banner ads. People have started to just mentally block out the space of a page where banner ads appear. While technically it counts as an ad impression, realistically it means one less person seeing the ad.
So while it is important to build in subconscious brand awareness and repetition does indeed play an important role in that, the coolness factor is what gets people to watch the ad every time it is repeated.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:I expect... by richieb · 2004-03-30 10:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can see why musicians would have strong opinions on what goes onto their albums.
The idea of an "album" is an artifical construct due to the technology introduced by the LP record. Until then, all records had to be under 3 minutes. Some of the greatest US songwriters wrote songs in that format (eg. Ellington, Gershwin etc).
With digital music, the idea of the "album" is dead. A piece of music and be 5 minutes or three weeks long. It's up to the artist.
On the other hand songs by their nature (i.e. short legth) are meant to be mixed and matched at the will of the listener.
If artists do not like that, they can get another job.

--
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Re:I expect... by Jim+Starx · 2004-03-30 10:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I guess all the people who like music that is popular just can't recognize "art" when they hear it.
Sadly, yes. There is diffrence between how enjoyable a song is, and it's artistic merit. There are those that say good when they mean enjoyable, and there are those they say good when they mean artisticlly well done.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Re:I expect... by pete6677 · 2004-03-30 16:18 · Score: 2, Informative

The idea of making people pay to receive ads started with professional sports. People pay a lot of money to go to games where the focus is at times more on the sponsors than on the game itself. Some stadiums are so whored up with ads it distracts from the game. Once advertisers caught on to this, they realized this concept could be extended to games broadcast on TV (see ESPN fees).

Once it was clear that people would accept it, they moved on to other cable channels, stores, theme parks, and lets not forget the internet. I love how AOL users pay more for their service than anyone else with a comparable connection and then they are blasted with ads on top of it! You would think its not just slashdotters that are sick of this crap, but based on society's response to it, I really wonder.

RIAA by dolo666 · 2004-03-30 05:00 · Score: 5, Funny

RIAA: File sharing hurts our beloved industry.
Student A: Have you heard that new song from ? It's awesome!!!!
Student B: Yeah I'm going to see them next week in LA!! Road Trip!!!
Student C: I'm going to buy that album they put out last year.
Student D: Me too!
Student A: Yeah it was largely underrated, I guess.
Harvard Prof Guy: Consumption of music increases dramatically with the introduction of file sharing...
RIAA: Harvard SUCKS!

Re:RIAA by hattig · 2004-03-30 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

If it wasn't for file sharing, I wouldn't have gone to see a band play live on Sunday (Icon of Coil, for those of you into industrial/EBM stuff, support from Deathboy, the most excellent Swarf [playing live in USA soon, go and see them if you can] and Solitary Experiments).

I wouldn't have this 3 CD limited edition box set of Blutengel sitting next to me here. I wouldn't have 3 Cryonica Tanz compilation CDs so I can pick other bands I like and then buy their stuff ...

I wouldn't even be into this whole genre! I'd still be looking around local music stores in a bored manner because there is nothing new or exciting on offer.

Its still piracy by FortKnox · 2004-03-30 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

This doesn't hide the fact that it is still stealing. Plus, if you say A whopping one CD per 5,000 files downloaded, then how many files have been downloaded? (fives of) Billions? Then that's millions of CDs. So there is an effect, however small. If the study showed that listening to mp3s made people MORE LIKELY to buy a CD, then the study might help the napster community. If there is any lose, however insignificant, its just another nail in the coffin.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Re:Its still piracy by spudthepotatofreak · 2004-03-30 05:06 · Score: 5, Informative

It may be piracy, but it's not stealing... it's called infingement, escape the common misconceptions ...
Re:Its still piracy by Chanc_Gorkon · 2004-03-30 05:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

I agree with you on this and it could only get worse. When things just started to get out of control is when Napster was pinched. My Dad just started looking at Napster and WinMX at that point. Now he doesn't dowload anything because of the whole napster thing. If this truely had moved beyond us geeks, the potential for damage to the music industry would be much greater. Don't fool yourselves....P2P will affect revenue and it IS stealing. That said, don't make it hard for me to listen to my CD on my MP3 player.

--
Gorkman
Re:Its still piracy by way2trivial · 2004-03-30 05:09 · Score: 4, Informative

You didn't read the article. and it does not match the headline/slashdot comments
The # 5,000 does not even appear in it, and it says they sold MORE copies, not less.
they concluded that file sharing actually increases CD sales for hot albums that sell more than 600,000 copies. For every 150 downloads of a song from those albums, sales increase by a copy, the researchers found.

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Re:Its still piracy by belmolis · 2004-03-30 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative

If you read the actual article, it says that the study concluded that file sharing INCREASES CD sales. On their "most pessimistic model", which is not the one they think is most likely correct, they compute a decrease in sales of 2 million CDs in 2002, which they say is statistically insignificant in comparison to the decrease of 139 million CDs sold between 2000 and 2002.
Re:Its still piracy by CharAznable · 2004-03-30 05:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't speak for other people, but before Radiohead's Amnesiac came out, I had the whole thing in mp3. I liked so much I went and bought the CD anyway, so yes, in my case mp3's made me more likely to buy a CD.

--
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
Re:Its still piracy by stcanard · 2004-03-30 05:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

I made an interesting discovery the other day.
I was looking at my old portable stereo with two tape decks, and realized that the 2nd deck didn't even have a play button. All it had was record, to record from the first tape deck
So, let's think about this -- in the early 80's Sony was making devices whose sole purpose was to record music from other mediums. I will tell you 99% of the time I used that deck to record a tape I had borrowed
The music industry managed to survive a time when they were making devices to copy music (and I'll tell you right now, 10th generation analog copies did not bother me).
A 5th or so generation tape introduced me to what became one of my favourite bands for a long time ... The Violent Femmes. I ended up buying every one of their tapes, then their CD's hen it turned into that.
Nothing has changed in the last 25 years, other than the fact that the recording industry is trying to find excuses to generate revenue through a blanket tax.
Re:Its still piracy by (54)T-Dub · 2004-03-30 05:17 · Score: 2, Informative

More from the article
Songs that were heavily downloaded showed no measurable drop in sales
Just to be fair, it does have an effect, but quite a minor one.
Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf found that albums that sell to niche audiences suffer a "small negative effect" from Internet piracy.
....
Although the practice cannibalizes some sales, it may promote others by serving as a marketing tool

--

"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Re:Its still piracy by dmeranda · 2004-03-30 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's neither piracy or stealing, it's called "copyright infringement"...that's the term the LAW uses exclusively. And even then, it's only for those cases of P2P exchange which are done outside of the allowable exemptions to copyright law.

If nothing else, this study even deflates the already weak argument that P2P is "stealing", because the argument used to be that by downloading you are "stealing" the potential income of artists. Well, without the economic argument now, then what exactly is stolen? There is nothing missing.

You're correct in pointing out that 1/5000 is still a significant number. But also that the study does not concentrate on the other side; that P2P may inspire sales that never would have been made.

The funny thing, but not unexpected, is that most businesses would be jumping for joy if a study like this came out. That percieved threats to your business in fact turned out not to be that bad after all. The RIAA/MPAA *should* be pleased by this study. IF it was about economics. But their reaction shows that it's not about the money at all, it's about their ability to totally control and manipulate human behavior and destroy capitalism, e.g., power.
Re:Its still piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-30 05:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly. If you want to put down copying then debate it on its own merits, not by resorting to emotional appeals. Any argument for or against copyrights should be made without any reference to "theft", "stealing", or "intellectual property". The former two are misnomers, and the latter is just a confusing buzzword.
Re:Its still piracy by r00zky · 2004-03-30 05:28 · Score: 5, Funny

It is not piracy. Piracy involves boarding and stealing ships in the sea with the casual murder of people.

It's called copyright infringement. Escape the common (publicity induced and totally unfair) misconceptions...

;)

--
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Re:Its still piracy by silas_moeckel · 2004-03-30 05:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Besides if it was piracy then you could go to an unfriendly country and get a letter and become a privateer and legaly pirate assuming you paid your taxes. :) But realy it cant be theft as it's by definition all intangable things belong to the creative commons that everybody has access to in the end. The US constitution knew this but we cant seem to still see that fact that allowing one group to own an intangable thing in perpituity is wrong, the guilds tried to do this hundreds of years ago and killed to keep there coveted information. The only difference with the RAII is there information is much more trivial.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:Its still piracy by Opie812 · 2004-03-30 05:43 · Score: 2, Funny

I prefer it to be called piracy because that way when I'm downloading music and somebody asks me what I'm doing I get to finish the sentence with "...arhhh matey!". Changing the nomenclature would make that oppurtunity much more rare.

--
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Re:Its still piracy by siriuskase · 2004-03-30 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

It only infringes on copyright because they haven't come up with a way to include this technology in their rules. Look at radio, look at public libraries. These are two technologies that gave IP people fits until they organized tracking and royalty systems that all sides could live with.
It gets songs out to the public. In almost all cases, that is good for the artists. Most artists benefit from the exposure. And the ones who don't need the free publicity, are so good they can charge outragous prices for their live shows.
It is the recording industry that must change. The basic infrastructure will be needed for years to come, but they no longer have the almost exclusive responsibility/right to find and promote new artists. And frankly, based on what I hear when I veer away from the oldies stations, they aren't doing so hot at that either. Word of mouth and P2P are so much better. And it isn't that good music isn't made anymore, it just isn't promoted. The recording industry and big corporate radio are shooting each other in the feet.

--
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Re:Its still piracy by Artifakt · 2004-03-30 06:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't reccomend trying to define stealing in regular dictionary terms, when it's a legal definition that matters.
Alexander Pope wrote a very long poem, called "the rape of the lock". It's about a young woman's suitor trying to take a lock of her hair. He's not even a stalker or a thief, as this is all an elaborate game to impress her with how much trouble he will go to to woo her, and she isn't averse to being wooed, just enjoying the attention. Words can be stretched, sometimes a whole lot.
Here's a few reasons why I'd suggest you reconsider useing words such as stealing for copyright infringment.

1. All theft is criminal. Once, all copyright infringement was always a matter for civil courts only, and even now, only some forms are criminallized, since the late 90's. Was the US wrong for over 200 years before that, and still half wrong?
2. In the US, all infringment is under federal law. The Supreme court has ruled that the 50 states have no right to make or interpret copyright law. If infringment=theft, the Supreme's reasoning on this would limit the rights of the states to have their own laws on theft as well, or the states would need to insist they have te right to pass their own laws on infringment, so that they did not lose the authority to prosecute theft (and possibly other crimes - imagine if a state couldn't prosecute a man for murder, if he shot someone who was engaged in interstate trucking at the time in that state).
3. Federal law carefully puts infringment under a completely different title than all federal laws regarding theft. Titles are broad categories of law, intended to keep very different areas seperate. Appellate courts frequently compare one law to another, if both are under the same title, (for example if a cruel and unusual punishment defense is invoked) but are much more reluctant to compare across titles.
4. The US signed a treaty called Berne. It relates to civil violation of infringment, and by signing it we have agreed with 181 other nations that infringment is primarily a tort matter, as Berne stresses certain parts concern civil law only and have no authority to regulate the criminal laws of the signing nations, and yet bringing the US into compliance with Berne is cited as the base for much of this new legislation since then.

So the reason to call it not theft is, your legislators say it's not theft, the highest court in the land says it's not theft, just about everyone else in the world's governments says its not theft, except North Korea and the People's republic of Yemin and a few similar nations.
Now if you live somewhere besides the United States, the of course only some of these issues apply to you.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Its still piracy by atomicdragon · 2004-03-30 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

One of the amazing things about the English language and languages in general, are their ability to be continuously changing and to adapt to how people use words over time.
Webster's Dictionary seems to define piracy, in definition 3, as copyright infringement. Similarly, if you look at the definition of to steal, it only says to take or appropriate, it says nothing about the original owner losing anything. Like the example they give to "steal a kiss," that doesn't imply it stops, say the original boyfriend, from kissing the girl (unless it was a really good kiss...).
Of course the dictionary doesn't carry the connotations of the words, which are slightly different. People are going to use the connotation that represents their opinion of how bad the act is. And since whether this is wrong or not is an opinion and not a fact (as in morally, not legally), this is going to differ between people. If the RIAA wants to communicate it is morally wrong in addition to legally wrong, as they are perfectly allowed to do, they will probably want to use a stronger word. In a legal sense, things a little different and legalese is definitely more precise... but thankfully we don't all speak or communicate in legalese.
I think it is pointless to debate over which single word they should be using, since all of them seem to work. Instead, I think some people need to say why they think it is right or wrong instead of hiding behind claiming which word is the only correct word since it happens to have a better connotation.
Re:Its still piracy by Mr.+Bad+Example · 2004-03-30 06:29 · Score: 2, Funny

It is not piracy. Piracy involves boarding and stealing ships in the sea with the casual murder of people.

Oh, please, can we still call it piracy? I just bought a parrot and learned how to say "Yarr!" and "Avast!" and everything, and I'm still healing up from the "wearing two eyepatches" debacle...
Re:Its still piracy by Kombat · 2004-03-30 07:35 · Score: 4, Funny

It is not piracy. Piracy involves boarding and stealing ships in the sea with the casual murder of people.

It's called copyright infringement. Escape the common (publicity induced and totally unfair) misconceptions...

It's called a "metaphor."

When the natives complain about the white man raping their land, the white man didn't actually rape the land. It's a metaphor.

When they say that Kazaa is the bastard son of Napster, they don't mean that Napster, as a company, somehow copulated with another company, producing an offspring company, then denied ever having sex with the first company at all. It's a metaphor.

When you burn a CD, there is no flame involved. It's a metaphor.

When you surf the web, there is no actual surfing involved. It's a metaphor.

When you pirate music/software, you are not actually running around with a parrot, an eyepatch, and a pegleg, boarding ships and stealing software. It's a metaphor.

Think outside the box a little, instead of blindly latching on to the watered-down, pre-approved things that you're allowed to rebel against.

(Note that I'm not implying there there is an actual box involved, that you're actually blind, that there are any latches involved, or that anyone has actually sprayed water onto anything).

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Re:Its still piracy by MikeXpop · 2004-03-30 08:08 · Score: 2, Informative

When you burn a CD, there is no flame involved. It's a metaphor.
You don't know how CD burning works, do you? You actually are burning it (although with a laser, not a flame).

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:Its still piracy by laird · 2004-03-30 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

The article was pretty interesting, but I didn't follow how the author made the leap from saying that there was a particular _coorelation_ between the p2p download data and the CD sales data and saying that p2p downloads had a particular _effect_ on CD sales. In particular, in a real experiment you do the same thing repeatedly, with one "control variable" changed, and that tells you how the control variable affects the other variables. But there's no way to do that with real world music sales, because you can't sell the same album twice at the same time, once with p2p file sharing and once with no p2p file sharing. There's not even a way to compare two different albums, once with p2p file sharing and once without. So I don't see how they could "prove" cause and effect.

That being said, there was a bunch of complex mathematical modeling. Did anyone follow it enough to say whether they figured out how to perform an experiment without a control?

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!

they qualify by theMerovingian · 2004-03-30 05:03 · Score: 4, Funny

two distinguished gentlemen Strumpf and Oberholzer-Gee have most likely made RIAA executives choke on their lunches

Thats all you have to do to be distinguished around here...

--
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti

It is not about sales but control by bathmatt · 2004-03-30 05:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

I feel the best thing about P2P is that you learn about other music that you don't hear on the radio. This is what scares the RIAA the most, not a loss of sales but of a loss of control on what you listen to. If people start listening to independent artists they will no longer just listen to britney spears or limp bizkit or whatever crap the RIAA forces down peoples radio.

Re:It is not about sales but control by keirre23hu · 2004-03-30 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree... this news is not really shocking.. if your album is crap and people find out before they spend their hard earned money on it... guess what? they're reluctant to buy it.

Iff the recording industry had a clue, they would take the poplarity of P2P filesharing AND the change in their sales numbers as proof that people are sick of paying inflated prices for music of decreasing quality. Just yet another example of people with money trying to use people with less money to keep their broken business model floating...

I would like to see more studies on this subject though. It would be nice if the entertainment industry would get over themselves and began to value their customers' wants and needs.
Re:It is not about sales but control by skarmor · 2004-03-30 06:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree... this news is not really shocking.. if your album is crap and people find out before they spend their hard earned money on it... guess what? they're reluctant to buy it.

I'm not so sure that this is the case. The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases in order to sell more albums - everyone knows the quality of the songs before they make a purchase. The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.

Unfortuneately this lack of taste is not limited only to children I've known many adults who listen to Britney Spears or Justin Timerberlake - and when I call them on it they claim that "it's irony". But I don't buy it - wannabe hipsters use irony as a way to legitimize their awful musical tastes.

The point is that many people like crap. They will continue to buy whatever the pop music/MTV marketing machine tells them is cool this month (including CDs, clothing, video games, sports drinks, batteries and virtually every other product). Filesharing has virtually no affect on the buying habits of these people.

I think its helped the music industry by queen+of+everything · 2004-03-30 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have found out about so many bands that I like that I would buy their cds or see them in concert because of mp3 sharing. I never would just go buy a cd of some band I have never heard of; but I can download an mp3 or 2 and discover that I really like the band. I'm glad that there are people studying it from the opposite angle of the RIAA.

--
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein

Hilarious. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-30 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

I love it when people pounce on one study that happens to agree with their viewpoint and discredit studies that contradict them.

I'm talking to you guys, not the RIAA.

Re:Hilarious. by rabel · 2004-03-30 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the point is that this is a study by a couple of guys that can most likely be considered "unbiased" since, well, since there isn't really any money to be made by supporting P2P file sharing.

Most other studies that show the P2P is hurting CD sales are put out by folks that are either paid by the record industry or can be otherwise deemed uncredible.

Oh, and /. readers are certainly biased... just making the (obvious) point that there's a reason why what appears to be an unbiased study is pounced on by the readers here.

Promotion vs. Sales by LostCluster · 2004-03-30 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Free over the air radio has always been considered a promotional vehicle for music artists, that hearing a song on the radio is more likely to inspire sales than prevent it.

More or less, at this 1 CD per 5,000 downloads number, downloading is being called a push, it gives just about as much as it takes away from the recording industry.

I think what the RIAA is really scared of is the fact that P2P distribution might allow an artist to gain fame and make money without going through the "major label system" and that'd be the death of that system. So, it's not that P2P threatens CD sales as much as it threatens RIAA-member CD sales by replacing them with something else.

Discredit? by lukewarmfusion · 2004-03-30 05:04 · Score: 5, Funny

RIAA:
Obviously, these "economists" are just a bunch of nerds with too much time on their hands. What kind of degree does it take to teach at Harvard? A PhD? Like that means anything. Our marketing guy has a Masters. These professors don't even have any platinum records.

Well... by hermeshome.se · 2004-03-30 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

There are probably no study in the world that could convince RIAA that P2P is good for business. They've made up their minds.
BUT, it might convince lawmakers to whink twise, and it shows the common man what they already know: if you want something that is good, you'll pay for it. If you got a broad selection to sample, you'll more likely find something YOU like.

The answer by TheJavaGuy · 2004-03-30 05:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Fuzzy math.

File-Sharing != Threat to Music Sales

The RIAA just doesn't get it.

--
Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.

Regardless... by jwthompson2 · 2004-03-30 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

of whether P2P hurts CD sales, the issue that still needs to be dealt with is the legallity and morality/ethics of the issue. Perhaps in light of this laws or business practices need to be modified but until such time people should not be encouraged by this to behave in an illegal and unethical/immoral manner.

--
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

Embrace, not extinguish by sboyko · 2004-03-30 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Larry Rosin, the president of Somerville, N.J.-based Edison Media Research, said ...
"Anybody who says that the Internet has not affected sales is just not paying attention to what is going on out there," he said. "It's had an effect on everything else in life, why wouldn't it have an effect on this?"

I think everyone agrees that the Internet has affected CD sales. What they (RIAA) don't get is that it can have a very positive impact on music sales and marketing. It opens a new way to sell music, which the RIAA has failed to take advantage of in any meaningful way. If they were to embrace the possibilities I think they could increase sales dramatically.

--
SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?

Re:Embrace, not extinguish by LostCluster · 2004-03-30 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

The real problem from the RIAA members is that they've invested millions in CD-pressing plants, and they're not interested in letting that barrier to entering the market go down so easy. If anybody with a $99/mo. simple webserver can distribute music and get their songs picked up by the radio, then the size of the pie will stay the same, but the RIAA members will each end up with smaller pieces because of all the new players that take little bits.
Re:Embrace, not extinguish by worm+eater · 2004-03-30 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not that expensive to produce high-quality CDs. Yeah, it takes a little work, but the investment is not that high (if you're making 1000 CDs, it's about $1-2 per CD, with liner notes & jewel cases). What costs money is the marketing & distribution, and this is where the RIAA really shines. Anybody with a couple of thousand dollars can put out a short run CD, but getting that CD onto Clear Channel stations, MTV, VH1 and every Best Buy, Blockbuster Music, Tower Records, etc. in the country is the hard part. Sure, it's cheaper to put up an album on a web site than to press CDs, but who's going to download it? If I was the RIAA I would be more scared of having independant artists on iTunes & Napster, right alongside Outkast -- sure, they still don't have the massive advertising budget, but the distribution model legitimizes the music to some extent.

--
Maybe partying will help...

Hasn't this consistently been the message? by kokaubeam · 2004-03-30 05:07 · Score: 2, Redundant

It seems like every time an unbiased study is conducted, it has consistently suggested that P2P not only doesn't harm CD sales but at times has even helped the overall sale of CDs. I have only heard the opposite from the recording industry and the media outlets that get their data from them.

--
Do androids dream of electric sheep?

It's still stealing by stinkyfingers · 2004-03-30 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

But is anyone surprised by this? I mean really deep down surprised. What hurts CD sales is the shoddy quality of the entertainment on said CD's. If I wanted to hear one good song surrounded by 12 crappy songs, I'd turn on the radio.

The cause of lagging CD sales.. by CharAznable · 2004-03-30 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

is of course lagging music quality! If Metallica's St. Anger is not selling like hotcakes it's because it's abject, utter crap, not because you can get it for free on the internet.

--
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder

Re:The cause of lagging CD sales.. by surprise_audit · 2004-03-30 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not just the quality of the music that's letting the RIAA down. The fact that they've deliberately reduced the volume of CDs issued in the last couple of years plays a part too.
No, I don't remember where that little tidbit originally came from, but it was a bit of research that basically showed that the drop in available CDs was suspiciously close the RIAA starting to bitch and moan about the drop in sales, and it came very soon after P2P started to become fashionable.

In Other News... by jetkust · 2004-03-30 05:08 · Score: 5, Funny

...A study by Sharman Networks shows that CD sales are hurting file downloads on their popular file sharing network Kazaa, and have been for some time. Sharman Networks proposes a tax on every CD sold to accomodate for these losses...

The RIAA is not as blind as we think they are by lavalyn · 2004-03-30 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

You may think they are trying to keep what market and distribution methods are available at a cartel. While that's what they are publicly doing, I doubt the masterminds behind the member companies are that perversely blind.

You have a bunch of big corporations, that by definition are not going to be able to react quickly to new changes in the environment. There's layers of bureaucracy within, and many times (think Sony Computer vs Sony Music) the left hand wants to slap the wrists of the right. I think they're just looking for a way to take advantage of the new system but don't have a clean implementation ready to put into production. So they make loud threatening noises and otherwise put up a front.

Then they come out with a new system that everybody had already proposed ten times over three years ago. And everybody, especially the cartel members, end up happy.

"Intel will continue to use its own IA64. No, we are not going to use AMD's x86-64 extensions."

--
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.

Re:Earth to RIAA: by Peyna · 2004-03-30 05:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, but how many did you avoid buying, because after listening to it realized it sucked? Without p2p, you'd be stuck having to buy the CD first to find out if it sucks. Hence, more money for the RIAA.

=]

--
What?

no progress by LighthouseJ · 2004-03-30 05:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

These studies have said the same thing for a while that mp3 downloading has not affected or actually helped CD sales. However, the RIAA still sues people to try and halt mp3 downloading using fear of prosecution and saying mp3 downloading is damaging the executive profit margins. Someone's not telling the truth because they can't be right, and multiple sources have gone against the RIAA so far.

My issue with the situation is when the RIAA going to actually perform their own study and see for themselves that downloaders aren't pilfering from their pockets? I want the RIAA to prove to me that mp3 downloading is hurting CD sales.

A counter point by GreenCrackBaby · 2004-03-30 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Songs that were heavily downloaded showed no measurable drop in sales, the researchers found after tracking sales of 680 albums over the course of 17 weeks in the second half of 2002. Matching that data with activity on the OpenNap file-sharing network, they concluded that file sharing actually increases CD sales for hot albums that sell more than 600,000 copies. For every 150 downloads of a song from those albums, sales increase by a copy, the researchers found.

I think this information needs to be approached skeptically, as there's no way to measure reliably "what would have happened." Given a lack of P2P sharing, can you say for certain how many CDs you would have bought/would not have bought? Of course not.

If CD sales for a popular download increase by 2%, can you ever prove they wouldn't have gone up 3% if not for downloading?

I just don't think this can be proven either way.

--

"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan

Re:A counter point by System.out.println() · 2004-03-30 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

The study only compares it against other songs that were being traded and sold at the same time. It's not comparing what could have been, but more along the lines of the songs that were traded did better than the ones that weren't.

I do agree, it's impossible to say for sure - Maybe the music industry would be dead now if not for P2P, maybe it would be twice as big. No one can say anything besides "probably" or "probably not" for either of those, at least without a time machine.

--
I've got more mod points and GMail invi

The RIAA only hurt themselves by DroopyStonx · 2004-03-30 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

The reason I stopped buying CDs and continue to download mp3s is because of how the RIAA reacted to the situation. Many others feel the same why. Why should we buy CDs? I'll support the artists by going to their concerts instead.

They like to jump around like a big angry monkey and spread their lies and misinformation to get the public (and government) to see them as "poor me, people aren't buying our music" instead of coming to the realization of "Hey, maybe the music we're putting out is junk."

Then they huff and puff, throw lawsuits left and right in an attempt to SCARE people into buying their products. Coercion, anyone?

I think we've all known for quite some time that mp3 downloading is equivalent to when recordable cassette tapes were introduced. There was a frenzy from the industry as if it was the end of music and sales as they knew it. It wasn't.

Now we're seeing the truth.

--
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!

What is? by timothy · 2004-03-30 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Its still piracy," you say. What is?

Do people illegally download copyright material? Sure. But --

Is it piracy when I download out-of-copyright old radio programs*? Or sample songs from bands who specifically encourage this? What about lectures stored on a Morpheus server in L. Lessig's campus office? :)

Both "downloading" and "p2p" can mean a lot of things. I plan to buy a CD of Nero Wolfe MP3s in part because of the excellent episodes I've downloaded so far.

Ah, well.

timothy

* Orson Welles' radio stuff is pretty incredible; his presentation of Dracula in particular is great

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

Re:What is? by FortKnox · 2004-03-30 05:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Don't get me wrong, tim. I want this as bad as everyone else, and I want to see some of these laws reviewed and revised for the new millenium. My post wasn't necessarily my opinion, but a reminder of how lawmakers will view it. I was just trying to bring it down to earth before people started claiming P2P victory. ;-)

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

economists != laywers by uarch · 2004-03-30 05:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Two economists != two laywers though both tend to have their heads an equal distance up their ___

;)

In other news today... by w3weasel · 2004-03-30 05:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Water declared 'wet'
Sky often described as 'blue'
RIAA,MPAA and SCO still suffer from delusions of sustainable profit via litigation
'Open Source Software' community remains fragmented Microsoft called 'evil' by some
Apple hardware percieved as 'expensive'
Intel based hardware discoved to fast, moderately reliable, and disposable.

okay enough stoopid jokes
I personally have bought more CD's because I discovered a band I had never heard of via mp3 download.

foreach ($monopoly_action as $headline)
{$knowledge = beat($headline);}
function beat($deadhorse)
{if($deadhorse){return "jelly";}}

--

Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy

Of course by Psmylie · 2004-03-30 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

File-sharing music has hurt sales. Because now you don't need to drop a bundle of cash on an album before realizing that the cd sucks and never listening to it again.

--

psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

They need to change. by Omni+Magnus · 2004-03-30 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

They music industry needs to abandon this archaic album system, and just make singles. This will be easier to new bands to start, plus they wont have to make more garbage, and we wont have to listen to it.

Optimist (was Re:Well...) by keirre23hu · 2004-03-30 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only thing that will convinve legislators to choose the common man over the recording industry is an equally funded lobbying group... not likely

Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft by Peyna · 2004-03-30 05:14 · Score: 2, Informative

You have a point, but your analogy is horrible. Is the case of the vehicle, you are paying for a service rendered.

Downloading/distributing pirated music/software/movies/etc is not theft, it's copyright infringement. US Code Title 17

--
What?

Falling sales by stecoop · 2004-03-30 05:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

RIAA points to data showing that CD sales fell from a high of more than $13.2 billion in 2000 to $11.2 billion in 2003

[me] Who can I blame for my stocks, mutual funds and 401k falling during this timeframe.
[RIAA] Those bad people we've been talking about downloading music.
[me] So the tech bubble was just hype?
[RIAA] Yes and soon as we start making more money we'll refill coffers with funds.
[me] You mean from those $3,000 lawsuits from people that are buying your music.
[RIAA] Err, uh, ahem...
[me] I see so your working for the little guy now?
[RIAA] Err, uh, aheeem.....

You think it goes something likes that?

actual paper by jdunlevy · 2004-03-30 05:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Available in PDF format via Koleman Strumpf's site.

Re:MP3 Sharing is Still Illegal!! by Bonewalker · 2004-03-30 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe its not a threat economically, but your still enjoying the fruits of the musician's labor without paying for it.

Doesn't this same thing occur every time you listen to the radio?

You might say no because there are advertisers who are paying for the space, which the radio station then gives a portion to the music industry, thus paying the artist back...a pittance.

Well, consider this. By downloading a song, many people, according to the study, often go purchase cd's from these artists whose music they have enjoyed for free. This is even better for the artist because they get at least a little more because it is direct revenue for them and the music industry.

Another example, you can go check out a book from the library for free and read it in its entirety. For free! Not a single cent goes to the author. Yet, you're still enjoying the fruits of the author's labor without paying for it.

Open your mind, see the possibilities.

Be pro-active; spread the word by RLiegh · 2004-03-30 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Instead of circle jerking on slashdot--if you really care about this issue, send a copy of the study to your local congress-critters. Yes, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what the RIAA shovels at them, but it's at least more tangable than "mp3s @r3 t3h r0x0r" and it's a damned sight better than nothing!

content by Archalien · 2004-03-30 05:18 · Score: 5, Funny

1 CD per 5,000 files.

That should show the RIAA how hard it is to find decent music these days.

Quality. Not quantity.

But where is the study by thebra · 2004-03-30 05:18 · Score: 2, Funny

that P2P causes Cancer?

Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft by puck71 · 2004-03-30 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

The difference between your analogies and downloading music is that the people in your analogies actually LOST something. In the first case, the mechanic lost some of his valuable time, and in the second example the city lost some money (according to your example, $20). People that say theft only involves physical property are over-generalizing, but MOST theft does involve physical property.

Downloading music involves no direct loss for the RIAA. Nobody's time is lost and they don't have to pay out any money. The only way they can claim a loss is if they assume you would have bought the album that you downloaded, which is tenuous at best.

In the long term, P2P will kill CD sales by wwwrench · 2004-03-30 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I realize it is popular Slashdot dogmatism to insist that filesharing doesn't harm CD sales, and this may be true now, but what about in the future as bandwidth increases?? The RIAA might be evil, but they are not completely stupid. Right now, downloading songs one by one and tracking down every song of an album is time-consuming. But the RIAA realize that it is only a matter of time until it is faster and more convenient to download an entire album then go to a music store. When that time comes, their current business model will be borked. Other than distribution, the only service the record companies provide is marketing. When P2P distribution beats them out, they will die. Bands don't need a record company to finance the making of their album (with ever-cheaper home recording equipment). They can distribute music by themselves. So the only value the record company gives the band is marketing (and this doesn't add any value for the listener). So the RIAA realizes that in the long-term, they could be fucked. They might be able to retain the business of folks willing to listen to pap fed to them by marketing reps, but that is about it. (Not that this isn't a sizable source of revenue though....) I hope eventually artists will be able to build online music communities of people willing to support them, and then the RIAA will wither and die.

--

Deconstruct the State

Re:In the long term, P2P will kill CD sales by ewhac · 2004-03-30 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I realize it is popular Slashdot dogmatism to insist that filesharing doesn't harm CD sales, and this may be true now, but what about in the future as bandwidth increases??

I got news for you: Bandwidth isn't going to increase.
The cost of real bandwidth -- actual, symmetrical, guaranteed bandwidth, not that overprovisioned ADSL or cable modem crud you may be using -- has remained essentially flat for the last three years. Costs for T1 circuits are still running roughly USD$1/kilobit/sec for "dialtone"; extra charges may apply for bandwidth usage over a certain amount.
There is no market pressure to bring these prices down, and no alternative source to provide lower-cost services since the ILECs have a monopoly and just got the government to agree to lock out CLECs from their central offices. Wireless won't help; at some point, you have to tie down to the wired networks, and you're back to paying the ILECs again. Fiber to the home won't help; it will be rolled out by the ILECs or, worse, by your cable company who only wants you to watch, not talk back (no Counterstrike servers for you, muttonhead).
So, no, I don't see a significant drop in datacomm prices any time soon, which means the Internet for end-users isn't going to get any faster.
Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:Problem with big corporations is.. by Loconut1389 · 2004-03-30 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

to add clarification, i am not saying that the courtoom is solely ruled by the dollar. It certainly increases your odds dramatically if you can afford Johnny Cochran, etc.. But the fact that the judicial/patent system is not designed to handle technical things and is ruled by people who dont understand technical things well enough to compensate makes the courtroom inept at justly resolving technical issues.

Radio Stations by Exousia · 2004-03-30 05:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Radio stations actually pay licensing royalties when a given song is played. Airplay benefits music producers because of the exposure. In order for music to be desired (and purchased) it needs to be exposed well. P2P downloads are generally songs that the downloader already heard on a radio station. Downloading a song for free cheats the producers out of the sale of the song. Moreover, as the law exists, downloading copyrighted material w/o the copyright holder's permission is unlawful. If you don't like it, change the law. Otherwise illegal downloader face possible penalties, civil and criminal.

--

--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.

This is probably true by .nuno · 2004-03-30 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I stopped downloading mp3s regularly already some time ago (about 2 years) not really because I was afraid of the RIAA/MPAA/whomever_else, but rather because I was tired of downloading Jason Donovan's latest hit under the name Rolling_Stones_Start_Me_Up_Live_In_Birmingham.mp3.

During the 3 year period where I did use Napster (and Kazaa later on) to download mp3s I bought the bulk of my 250+ CD collection, mostly of bands that I had initially heard via P2P. In that sense, it did work a bit like radio.

Not unlike many others, I also burned CDs with those MP3 files, but there's nothing like owning the real thing(TM) so I ended up buying the CDs of bands that I really liked.

This has been said (only today) already about 300.000 times but I'll say it again (this is /. after all):
When will ??AA realize that CDs don't sell because:
a) sometimes the music does suck
b) we all get the feeling of being ripped off when paying 20 EUR+ for any CD or DVD, especially knowing how much of that goes to the artist
c) trying stuff is something you have to do. Would you by a new pair of trousers without trying them first? Would you buy a car you never drove?

--
.sig

Damn lies! by LMCBoy · 2004-03-30 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Quoth the researchers:
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.

Respondeth the RIAA:
Weiss cited a survey conducted by Houston-based Voter Consumer Research that found those who illegally download more music from the Internet buy less from legitimate outlets. Of respondents ages 18-24 who download, 33 percent said they bought less music than in the past year while 21 percent bought more. Of those ages 25-34, the survey found 25 percent bought less and 17 percent bought more, Weiss said.

Earth to Weiss: These people bought fewer CDs in the past year, yes. But your stats show nothing about that being correlated with the fact that they are file sharers. Where is the control group? The stats on CD purchases of non-sharers? I'm sure their CD purchases skyrocketed last year, right? Oh wait:

illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.

Huh. Who'da thunk it?

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.

Times have changed by lusid1 · 2004-03-30 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now when I buy a CD, it's because it's a really good CD, not because it was marketed really well. I have P2P to thank for that. Besides, P2P is just a scapegoat. If sales are down, it's really because more of that disposable income is being spent on DVD movies.

Re:A whopping 5000 by hyphz · 2004-03-30 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right. Except it isn't true.

Just because somebody downloaded it, doesn't mean they would have bought it had they not been able to download it. Before you rush to discredit that - it's true that this argument doesn't hold up as an excuse for piracy (which it is often used as) but it *does* hold up as a reason why just seeing the amount that's being downloaded doesn't let you measure the amount of sales the firms are losing.

For example, 6060 CDs a month? Do you think that most of those filesharers could have afforded to buy their share of those? Do you think that they would save up and buy those CD's a few months later instead of buying the new CD's released in the later months?

There is no way they are losing that many sales.

(Anyone responding with a 'but why should you get it for free because you can't afford it' argument gets a free bash on the noggin, which they certainly can afford. As above, the argument is *not* an excuse for piracy, but it *is* a clear reason for a disparity between piracy volume and volume of lost sales.)

RIAA vs GPL by levram2 · 2004-03-30 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

RIAA has restrictions that you can't distribute the music they produce. The GPL has restrictions that you can't distribute binaries without giving access to the source code. Downloading music withot paying for it is morally equivalent to using the GPL in closed source products.

If you don't agree with the license, don't use it.

Hurt the RIAA by stop using their music.

Re:RIAA vs GPL by Dun+Malg · 2004-03-30 07:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Downloading music withot paying for it is morally equivalent to using the GPL in closed source products.
Not morally equivalent, legally equivalent. One could be morally opposed to paying for either music or software and obey the GPL while violating music copyright. This would not be an inconsistent moral position. Saying one must respect music copyrights if one respects the GPL is like saying I can't smoke pot if I'm in favor of prescription drugs remaining prescription-only.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.

Let the market decide by God!+Awful+2 · 2004-03-30 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now I expect a full apology and retraction for the demonization P2P has gotten from the RIAA, et. al. They should be trying to increase downloads like radio stations try to increase listeners.

If you want to prove something from this, you have to let the market decide. If some labels allow file sharing and the P2P networks actually had mechanisms to enforce copyrights, we would soon see whether file sharing really has a positive or negative effect.

-a

--
/. users can't

Re:A whopping 5000 by Wanderer2 · 2004-03-30 05:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's roughly 6,060 CDs per month, or over 72 thousand CDs per year.
Now go to them and tell them that this is not at all a concern and that they should just shut up.

From the article:

Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.

--
I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure

Re:A whopping 5000 by Frennzy · 2004-03-30 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, without digging through your math, let's assume 72,000 CDs per year. At $15 per CD, that's roughly $1.08million dollars. Where is the rest of the $2BILLION they claim to have lost?

For the mathematically disinclined, where is the remaining 99.995% of their alleged losses coming from?

RIAA's responce by the_2nd_coming · 2004-03-30 05:28 · Score: 2, Funny

well those guys are just poo poo heads who don't understand economics.

err wait.....

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

I am not surprised by Tangurena · 2004-03-30 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

In my own experience, I used napster to find songs that my local radio stations would not play. I used napster to track down interesting new music, and then go purchase the albums. This led to me purchase between 5 and 20 albums per month.

As Napster became more and more vilified, companies refused to let employees use napster at work. As a result, by the end of 2001, I was no longer able to use it at work (and had dial up at home, so the time it took to screen potential candidates was approaching an hour per song). With the covert and overt poisoning of tracks placed for sharing, it is not worth my effort to sift through the trash in the hopes of finding gems.

Since being unable to hear new music due to the interference of the record industry (and its cronies BayTSP and congress), and the concentration of ownership by conglomerates like Clear Channel, all the radio stations are becoming the same play list. As there is no way for me to discover new music worth listening to, my purchases of albums dropped from 200+ per year in each of 1999 and 2000 to 1 album in 2002 and zero in 2003. I have about 700 CDs, enough CDs that I probably do not need to purchase any more for the rest of my life. Since the record industry is determined to prevent me from discovering new music, it looks like I already have a lifetime worth of music. From 200 albums per year to zero, the RIAA has decided that I do not need to buy any new music ever again.

What could convince me to buy more albums? I would have to find stuff worth listening to. I enjoy classical, techno, jazz, new age, folk and stuff that gets called world. With the exception of 2 spanish language stations, my local radio stations only play country, pop and rap. The spanish language stations have more interesting music than the english language ones. Guess I need to brush up on my spanish.

The current distribution system for music is BROKEN. Existing and proposed legislation just serves to enforce and prop up a distribution system that was (and still is) corrupt and crooked for the last 70 years. I chose to not support the corruption with my money. I chose to not support the crooked politicians who dance to the tune of the RIAA. It is my money and there is no law requiring me to subsidise their corruption, not that it would be a constitutionally valid one even should one exist.

Unfortunately, the RIAA have painted themselves into a corner with the jihad they have declared against P2P. There is no possible way for them to admit their mistake without them losing billions in the RICO lawsuits that would result. Unfortunately for the RIAA, it is them or America, and and currently, the RIAA is winning the propaganda battle while subverting the justice system of the US. It is as corrupt and evil as if AlQeda was in charge of the White House.

Makes more sense by siriuskase · 2004-03-30 05:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is believable. P2P is a great way to give out free samples. The recording industry needs to learn that as long as most people are still using dialup, the fastest way to download is to drive to the store. They need to change their business model while they still have the chance.

I understand how P2P can hurt niche artists. Record stores don't like to stock things that move slowly. In a way, P2P relieves them of that responsibility. It's good for the stores, only the traditional system gets hurt. Let's hope that niche artists have loyal fans that can support them in spite of this problem.

--
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest

Re:Makes more sense by (54)T-Dub · 2004-03-30 05:50 · Score: 2, Informative

This Wired Article talks about how one company is already using P2P networks for marketing. The article talks about the battle between the RIAA and the Radio Conglomerates. Appearently the RIAA has a hard time getting radio stations to play new/different music. The radio (shocker i know) is at a point where they would rather play the same tired songs instead of risk loosing listeners with un-proven works.

The company in the article, BigChampagne, monitors P2P networks and (secretly) sells the information to the Recording Labels. The record execs then turn around and use the statistics (which are locatlity based) to pressure the radio stations to play tracks more.

"This song that only played 5 times last week had 3,000 downloads in the same area. While this song that was played 100 times only had 500 downloads" .... you get the idea

--

"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov

Copyright, in the right hands... by Dorf+on+Perl · 2004-03-30 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Copyright is good when it is in the right hands: those of a work's creator(s). Unfortunately, many artists have been/are being forced to enter the music market through the "loving" hands of the RIAA member companies, where they lose important rights ("voluntarily," of course).

A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is.

Also, I haven't seen this suggestion here before, but if you want to try out different artists/genres/whatever, and if you live near a half-decent public library system with half-decent interlibrary loan services, you can check out CDs instead of (at the moment) illegally copying them.

Just my 2 cents worth (for large values of 2).

Re:Copyright, in the right hands... by shark72 · 2004-03-30 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Copyright is good when it is in the right hands: those of a work's creator(s). Unfortunately, many artists have been/are being forced to enter the music market through the "loving" hands of the RIAA member companies, where they lose important rights ("voluntarily," of course)."

Typically, when you sign a recording contract, you have the rights to the words and music, and the record company has the rights to the particular recording of that music. A track on the CD is their recording of your work, so rights are shared, in a way. For example, the record company can't have their latest boy band record a cover version of your song without your permission, and you can't distribute the recording on your own without their permission.

"A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is."

I agree with you 100%, and that's how it presently works. I think a lot of people get lost on the idea that a recording's creation process doesn't end with the writing or even the performing, but with the recording, mixing and engineering. Artists typically sign deals with record labels because record labels possess the resources that they don't: cash, access to the distribution channel, and the talent of various engineers, artists and marketers that can get the record sold. In turn, the record companies get exclusive distribution rights on the recordings to offset the massive costs of the endeavor. Record companies, like a company that you or I might work for, or even own, are not philanthropic or non-profit organizations. If they don't recoup their expenses, they shut their doors.

The way to keep the rights to everything is to do everything yourself. Set up your own studio, or come up with the cash to rent time at a studio. Find an engineer that won't ask for a copyright on the recording. Shop your recordings directly to the download services like iTunes, or find a recording company like Magnatunes or CDBaby that does not ask for exclusive distribution rights (as they are not funding your recording and not sinking the kind of marketing money that a traditional record company would). Start a web site or pay somebody to run one for you, put some tracks online, and let viral marketing take care of the rest. Design your own label art or pay a designer to do it, then shop around for a CD duplicator, and then get on the phone with the distributors to get your CD placed at retail. It is hard, sweaty, backbreaking and (above all) expensive work, but it can be done. And you will learn that, as with so many other aspects of life, the cliche you cannot have your cake and eat it too applies to the profession of being a musician.

Of course, there will always be musicians who will prefer to go the label route if they have the chance. Many musicians don't have the resources, skills and/or the desire to be businesspeople -- they'd really rather just play their music and let the engineering/art/sales/marketing geeks go to work. This is a perfectly acceptable choice.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

o sweet sweet irony! by MoFoQ · 2004-03-30 05:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

gotta love it. Kudos to Harvard for publishing facts that most of us already had an idea were true. Now with Harvard saying, yes it is, it gives more weight to what most of us have been saying.

Of course, what if most of the execs of the RIAA are graduates of Yale or Princeton? (ivy league rivalry).

Anyways, this is something I've been saying for years. Even before file-sharing, I rarely bought any CD's, mainly because of the crappy schtuff out there and because of the lack of funds. It's just that both reasons are even stronger now (thx enron/dotcom bust/etc.).

Correlation Does Not Prove Causation by brysnot · 2004-03-30 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Economics 101: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation
Just because there was an increase in P2P trading at the same time as there was a decrease in sales does not mean that one affected the other.
There were also an increase of shark attacks during that same time. Most people when they are being attacked by sharks don't buy CDs.

Sorry, but the legal definitions are DIFFERENT... by Svartalf · 2004-03-30 05:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

In the case of Copyright, it grants the holder thereof a time limited (though it's an insanely long one, all the same) monopoly on the production and the initial distribution thereof for a given piece of literary or artistic work. To duplicate or distribute duplicates is to infringe upon that government granted monopoly. Hence, the term infringement. If I take, say a DVD, and sell it to you, it's not infringement, per rights of "first sale", meaning that Copyright distribution rights only extend to the first sale of the media that a work is placed upon.

You see, contrary to what all the business people have been saying about "intellectual" property, it's not property per se- it's not a tangible thing. Making copies doesn't take the original item away from the owner. It does lower the amount of money they might see, but it does not directly take money out of their hands, nor does it deprive the holder of the so-called property.

Stealing is the taking of something in a manner that directly deprives someone of the thing taken. There's legal terms for this- theft and larceny come immediately to mind.

Infringement is not stealing in any legal sense of the concept- you can apply less than common dictionary definitions for the term or moral arguments to the mix, but you'd still be wrong because there IS a distinction for the whole thing all the same.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

RIAA and this study don't necessarily disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-30 05:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

The studies referenced to by the RIAA were based on people's sensation about how P2P music sharing has changed their music buying habits, whereas Strumpf and Oberholzer's study was based on purely factual data. I'd be more willing to trust the latter... Ever wondered how precise were those studies on how many sexual partners you had in your life? You get the idea...

The Sneaker Net Is Alive And Well by theManInTheYellowHat · 2004-03-30 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

No matter what they do to the file sharing people they will be able to do very about people that copy each others CD's.

AFAIK there is no paper trail on a sneakernet.

Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME by micromoog · 2004-03-30 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, and a saucy post to an online forum has much more credibility than a controlled academic study.

Hint: the most obvious outcome isn't always the actual outcome.

Strumpf is Smurf in French by altarity · 2004-03-30 05:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Did you know that the Smurfs are from Belgium? I thought it funny that some one would call a Smurf distinguised.

--
This Sig. is False.

Re:MP3 Sharing is Still Illegal!! by Bonewalker · 2004-03-30 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

The analogy is not flawed. You, as in the person checking out the book and reading it, are enjoying it for free. Completely free, since most library cards are free.

This was in direct contention to the parent's statement, that is all.

Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft by nolife · 2004-03-30 05:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

You really need to familiarize yourself with a description of Intellectual Property

Electricity is a product, it is electrons traveling down the wire, work on your car is a service performed.
Taking a cd from a record store is taking an actual product. You copying a file from me is NOT stealing a PRODUCT at all, what if you copied the exact clothes I am currently wearing? Is that considered theft? What about copying the paint scheme off my custom van, looking at my custom made porch swing and making your own the same way, how about getting the same exact hair cut as me? These are examples of intellectual property and may or may not be covered under copyright, trademark, patent or trade secret laws, copying them is a copyright violation. You can not take or steal away intellectual property from someone but it may be possible to make unauthorized copies of it.

Steal an audio cd from Walmart and get caught, potential for a small fine. Download or upload the same cd's contents to someone online, face up to $150,000 fine per song. Do the potential fines appear to be in relation to the crime commited?

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.

IUMA, before there was mp3.com by crimethinker · 2004-03-30 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

In 1996, I stumbled across IUMA, the Internet Underground Music Archive. The service provided free downloads from bands that had paid to put up a page and a free song or two. I found a song I really liked. I ordered the album, and loved it. So, I ordered the band's catalog to date. With each new release, I bought it: seven CD's in all. I bought a poster and two t-shirts as well. Plus three more CD's from the artist's side project. All because of an "evil" MP3 (actually, MP2!) file. I can re-tell that story with MP3.com and a few other bands.

But none of those bands were RIAA whores, and that's what scares the suits at the RIAA. Loss of control. It's been said about guns, but we'll adapt and say it about copyright, too: "copyright control mechanisms are not about copyright; it's all about control."

-paul

--
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.

More than Infringment by Exousia · 2004-03-30 05:56 · Score: 2, Informative

It's more than simply infringement. It is unlawful infringement. Moreover, this unlawful infringement usually involves denying legally due royalties to the copyrighter holder, songwriter, producer, and artists, and their families. No, it's much more than simply "infringement."

--

--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.

washingtonpost link -- read it there by rhwalker22 · 2004-03-30 05:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Check out the original link from washingtonpost.com; includes links to archival materials, the study etc.

Perception is Reality by vaylort · 2004-03-30 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

The thing that nobody seems to be talking about is how this affects the QUALITY of the music that is released. I know that the argument can be made about subjectivity and opinions, but the fact of the matter is, as long as the record companies feel threatened - whether or not that pervieved threat is real or imagined - they will be less likely to take chances with artists outside of the proven commercial formulae. This study actually enforces that position, stating that the "niche" artist are the ones whose CD sales drop when compared with downloading activity.

I'm no huge fan of the RIAA, but I love music more than I hate the RIAA, and anything that can be done to increase the quality of the current state of music is a positive thing, IMHO. It was hard enough for musicians to make money before this controversy, thanks to the record companies. Now they are less likely than ever to part with control of the funds generated by the music industry, it seems to me.

WHY do they discredit these reports? by 91degrees · 2004-03-30 06:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, thye may genuinely not believe the report, in which case, they should simply say that, but they seem to be a lot more aggressive than that with their refusals.

What if the record companies actually considered for a second, that there was a possibility that this report was actually right! Then the only possible result could be to increase their profits! By just dismissing it as rubbish, they're harming themselves more than anyone else.

Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME by rjelks · 2004-03-30 06:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not sure that p2p is really the issue. Before the printing press, publishing a book was expensive. People had a precieved value of a book, and it was extremely high priced and rare. Ten years ago, CD's were only published by the record companies, so the value to the customer was set. With mp3's, cd burners and mp3 players, people have a different precieved value of music. I'm not arguing morality at all here. People have adjusted to the new technologies and music doesn't hold the same value anymore. If you combine that with the rising costs of purchasing CD's in music stores you get a product with lower demand. The cat is out of the bag and the cat is compressed digital music, not the p2p networks. When I was in highschool, it was a status symbol to have stacks and stacks of CD's in your collection. Now that collection is compressed onto an Ipod. Our whole perception of music has changed and it's not going to ever go back to how it was before. Video, some could argue, is already there too.

--

Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials

They hate me by chaidawg · 2004-03-30 06:21 · Score: 3, Informative

I have not bought a cd in five years, the RIAA has every reason to hate me. However, I have found a number of new bands through p2p apps. I like the bands, not the distribution associations. Therefore I have a large collection of hats, shirts, posters, and other merchandise, bought directly from the bands websites, where they made more than 5% of my purchase price. Support the artists, not the leeches.

Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft by 91degrees · 2004-03-30 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Redistributing the music without paying royalties *is* a direct loss.

No it isn't. It's an indirect loss. If it was a direct loss, then you could put an entry on a balance sheet called "Losses due to piracy", and every time someone copied the track, you'd be able to put another value in there.

Yet it would likely hold up in court. No royalties were generated from the illegal distribution of the copyrighted work(s).

No royalties would have been generated if the file hadn't been illegally distributed either.

Overpriced by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-30 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

The average cost of making a CD single is between .17 - .33 cents. That includes the CD and all the packaging, as well as shipping to the stores. CD albums cost a little more ($1.25 - $2.00 each)because there are more tracks to reproduce, and there is usually more involved in the packaging of a CD album. Musicians make anywhere from 5 to 25% (if their lucky, I'm being very generous) on profit from cds sales. For a 20-dollar cd that is about 1 dollar and fifty cents for the artist. say about 3 dollars for a very high quality cd. At an average of 8 dollars tops spent on cd manufacturing and paying the artist. Now were does the rest of the money go? Maybe some goes to the recording of the album, studio time, engineers, songwriters ect. But the bottom line is you're over paying. By at least 50%. Lets say an artists goes platinum (1,000,000 records sold) that's about 1,000,000 * $10 that's about 10 mil + profit for the Corporation plus revenue for merchandising, and even a percentage of tour revenues. The bottom line is that the industry is run by overpaid people. Music doesn't come with advertising costs either. Most of the advertising is done by TV/radio word of mouth, tours and now the internet. Its about time people stopped overpaying for cd's. If you really care about the artists then go to a concert that's where they make the real money. My numbers may be a bit off but you get the general idea. Artists make money off tours not cd sales. p2p only hurts the corp, unless I'm mistaken. Then again how do some independent record labels offer cds at the much more reasonable price of 10 or 7 dollars?

Why should the RIAA be different? by Goose3254 · 2004-03-30 06:51 · Score: 2, Funny

In today's society the majority of people are conditioned by the leftist elite to assume no responsibility for their actions, so why should the music industry be different?

It couldn't be that the majority of music is cookie cutter schlock spewed out by a machine used to manufacturing "the next big thing" out of thin air since the 50's, talent and content be d@mned. NO!!! It's Napster...yeah that's the ticket..

It couldn't be that the price point set on the object is unrealistically high, especially considering the division of profits. The record companies NEED 40% + of the cost to defray the cost of forcing the next no talent bimbo down our throats. Not a chance...It's Grokster...they are doing this to us, actually eroding the fiber of what makes America great and single handedly bringing around the demise of capitalism!

No way it could be that WE'RE IN A FREAKING RECESSION!!! NO!!! We commissioned a study by the most expensive ad agency in the country and they say it's most assuredly all Kazaa's fault.

It's not possible that the RIAA and it's lapdog media machine are misrepresenting the facts...like that the sale of SINGLES is down while the rest of the industry held or increased, or that this study and others show that music sharing helps over all and especially the independant artist/producer. The RIAA's position?....We are working tirelessly to buy enough politicians to insure that eventually filesharing will become a capital crime. and it's communist... and definately pagan...and probably satanic...

The problem is that filesharing allows the consumer to intelligently compare and contrast different products. This means that a consumer will make up his or her own mind about quality based on a sampling of all that is offered, and vote with their dollars accordingly. This runs counter to the big corporation view that they know quality more so than the unwashed masses.

Re:Why should the RIAA be different? by CashCarSTAR · 2004-03-30 07:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

I could just mod you into oblivion for "In today's society the majority of people are conditioned by the leftist elite to assume no responsibility for their actions, so why should the music industry be different?", but I won't. It's better to educate than obsufucate.

The truth is, that "the leftist elite", more often than not are not the people who are saying that people shouldn't have responsibilty for their actions.

Who is it then?

It's the corporate backers who push the line that profits count more than people, and that anything you do to that end is fine and dandy.

It's the churches that think that bad behaviour can be washed away through faith, instead of..oh you know..being a good person?

That whole idea is just a big lie presented to hide the real culprits.

The point is the medium not the media sales by m00nst0ne · 2004-03-30 06:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

When is the music industry going to realize (or admit) that it is not file swapping that is hurting the music industry, it's the Internet itself, as a straight media competitor that is hurting music sales. Listeners are spending less time in front of their stereos and more time in front of their computers. Wake up RIAA! You can fight file swapping all you want, you're still going to lose customers.

I don't think that's how advertising works by xant · 2004-03-30 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

As grandparent already pointed out, advertisers care that you are aware of their *product* and buy their *product*, not their advertising. Being aware of their advertising might actually be counterproductive.

--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.

Gaming is the reason that CD sales are down by adug · 2004-03-30 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am not a music download data researcher, but I'll play one on /.

Really, why should it take a research team from an esteemed college or institution to figure out the obvious?

Games sales, console and computer, have increased dramatically in the period of time that CD sales have decreased.

One need not be a genius to figure out that games cost money. The demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales is the same demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales.

If I spend more money on games, I have less money to spend on CDs.

Entertainment priorities are changing, more people are spending more of their discretionary incomes on gaming rather than music.

Yes, it's that simple.

Well duh! by ComradeX13 · 2004-03-30 07:03 · Score: 3, Funny

The other 4990 files were all horse pr0n. Damn Kazaa!

Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME by iminplaya · 2004-03-30 07:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Did it ever, ever occur to you that you might be wrong? How in the world do you think Microsoft got to be the biggest software maker? Same goes for Adobe Do you honestly think they saturated the markets with SALES of their product? What do you think brought down the Soviet Unoin? How do you think the Americans finally got rid of Prohibition? In fact, how do you think American business, especially the entertainment business, got started? Did you ever see the numbers from a few years ago during the height of the downloading scene? Record companies were showing record profits. Sales AND downloading decreased about the same time. Piracy has always been a minor problem for Apple. What do they have? Maybe five percent of the market? Get your head out of you...er...the sand, and at least make a feeble effert to understand that maybe, just maybe, your business model is obsolete, and that you should adapt to the "new world order" of virtually free internet publishing. I find it really weird that you young kids cling to tightly to 19th century ideas. I always hoped that people younger than me would be a little more enlightened than me on how to treat others.

By the way, unregulated P2P DID affect CD sales. They went UP. When everone gets their fat pipe, that too will help sales of music, if not CD's.

--
What?

Used CD's by addie · 2004-03-30 07:17 · Score: 2, Informative

There is one great way to get the music you want, pay less, still have all the packaging and liner notes, and not give any money to the RIAA. They're called used CD shops. Just around the corner, I can buy 4 CD's for $20. Sure it's not the newest, most popular music, but I still find stuff that interests me. If I get an early release of a still popular band, I may be inclined to go to HMV to buy their new album. It's true that used CD's don't give money back to the artist, but they still contribute to their overall exposure. Wait, isn't this like P2P? Only difference is the government still makes taxes of the used CD sale.

Those of you who say you have stopped buying CD's because that supports the RIAA are missing the point. Keep buying CD's, just buy them used. Once you're bored of them, or if they ended up being albums you couldn't stand, sell them back to another used store. The artists still get exposure, which will increase ticket sales, more people at concerts mean more T-Shirt sales, and since this is how artists make money today anyhow, it's a win win situation. And the RIAA never sees a cent.

I'm never going to stop buying CD's. There are just too many good ones, and having a burnt copy, or a digital playlist just doesn't compare to cover-art, liner notes, and the satisfaction of adding to your collection.

Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME by turnstyle · 2004-03-30 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

"By the way, unregulated P2P DID affect CD sales. They went UP. When everone gets their fat pipe, that too will help sales of music, if not CD's"

The only thing dumber than the notion that unregulated P2P doesn't affect CD sales is the notion that unregulated P2P actually helps them.

Fat pipe, indeed.

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda

What to do about it? by tadd · 2004-03-30 07:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is it not amazing we get all excited about a study that affirms what we already "know" and try to discredit anything that disagrees with that "knowledge"? We should declare a moratorium on whining about the RIAA and their ilk. Their deep hatred of file sharing p2p technologies and anything else related to this subject is known and has been repeated ad nauseum. Spend that time and energy: 1. Going to live local independent music shows, concerts, festivals. 2. Learn to play an instrument or sing and make your own music. 3. Buy music and fan crap from independent artists, or directly from the more commercial artists when possible, or just do not buy it, AND, call or write them a letter letting them know why you did, or did not. Businesses do respond to being hit in the wallet, if enough people let them know about what is being done and why. 4. Somebody want to start a database of "I heard it on a p2p and liked it so much I PAID for it!" testimonial? I know many others and I have done this. The technologically advanced among us will ALWAYS find a way to use the system to our advantage, getting their free beer, etc. they always have, and always will. The people who gladly pay their toll to RIAA, MPAA, Clear Channel, Ticket Master, etc will continue to do so, partially out of ignorance, partially out of not minding the leeches making a buck or a million, as long as they get their pop culture fix.

--
[what?]

Newsflash... its the "price" stupid! by popo · 2004-03-30 07:45 · Score: 2, Funny

What's hurting CD sales?

How about the insane $20 price tag?

I just bought a DVD which cost $100 million to produce for $18. Now how much is that CD which cost $30k to produce? What's that? It was produced on a home studio with $3k worth of equipment?

Well relative to the $100M production cost of the DVD, the CD should be selling at $.0006

Nuff said.

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )

weird logic by peteforsyth · 2004-03-30 07:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you ask me, this story is just a touch ideological. The data gathered in the study is interesting, but could easily be used to support arguments either for or against the RIAA's position. After all, haven't we all been screaming that file sharing INCREASES music consmption? Even if it's only 1 CD per 5000 downloads, any study that says that file sharing DECREASES music sales is hardly supportive of that position. I'm as offended by the RIAA's motives and tactics as anyone, but using bad logic to counter their views is just not an effective way of fighting them off.

--
Pete Forsyth

Sharing helps big releases, hurts small releases by uqbar · 2004-03-30 08:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Read this version of the same story for a different take:

"That said, downloads did tend to impact less popular albums - those with 36,000 sales or less. Overall, however, the effect is beneficial, since the music industry makes most of its money from the most popular albums."

So basically all this is helping the majors. I can't count the number of times when I've played a record for a friend and they've asked me, can you burn me a copy of that? I say no. They scowl and accuse me of being a zealot. Then I point out that I'm friends with the band and another friend owns the label, and I don't rip off my friends. While people claim to only be after the RIAA labels, very few people know who they're ripping off - never mind what the record contract actually says (a typical indie deal is a 50/50 split after expenses).

Now, just to maintain a standard... by grioghar · 2004-03-30 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember that statistics can be twisted however one wants.

As long as it benefits the Slashdot crowd, we all eat them up and say "Yeah! Exactly!"

The second some statistics come out to the contrary, I've always seen the arguments here go "Well, those are just statistics, they skewed them to their advantage..."

Just an observation. Flame away. Thought about posting Anonymously, but I've got some karma, and I think it's a justifiable point.

--
Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do

If the music is junk why are we downloading it? by superbam · 2004-03-30 08:09 · Score: 2, Informative

I agree that most new music is crap but perhaps the reason people are buying fewer CDs is due to cost?

I can think of several albums that I wouldn't mind getting but I'm to cheap to spend the $13-$16. The online services that offer an album for around $10 are only slightly more reasonable and the DRM handicap doesn't make them worth while. Instead of buying the music or downloading it I simply go without. Other things are more important then CDs (mortgage, food,...)

If the price of the album was closer to reality (say in the $4-$5 range) I would defiantly purchase more. Personally I think the decline in CD sales has more to do with CD-R media costs then P2P. When you can buy a 100 pack of CD-Rs for almost the same price as 2 CDs it makes you start to wonder what planet the RIAAs member companies are on since they can't seem to find the same deals. Granted there is some setup cost to creating CDs but you can't tell me they haven't found a way to lower it since CDs where invented. To me it's simple price gouging.

The RIAA needs to pull its head out of its ass and realize that we don't buy their claim that P2P is causing a decline in CD sales. Apparently all the years of raping us has made them believe that we are all morons and will believe anything their hype machine spews out. Who will they blame next? Unicorns and the Easter bunny?

--
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas. - Ned's Mom

It maintains a userbase by digid · 2004-03-30 08:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Pirating any copyrighted material creates a userbase that allows the product to remain alive and increase it's popularity(if it's a good product) If kids wern't able to get a pirated copy of Photoshop they won't go and buy it, they just don't have that kind of money. However they get it for free and this creates a huge userbase for the product, free marketing for adobe. The product becomes so popular that sales actually increase. There's is no doubt that the userbase of piraters may eventually convert to the userbase of purchasers of the product.

The RIAA's argument is that if they force people not to download MP3s then they are forced to go buy the album, which is more affordable for most people on their budget. I guess that seems pretty fair for the artist that is trying to sell the album. I think that peer2peer sharing would directly decrease cd sales if popularity and userbases would not increase for the artist. However this is not the case. Artists userbases are strengthened and a more widespread popularity for people to buy the album is created.

Poor Daffy... by the+saltydog · 2004-03-30 09:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Then the industry will cry fowl...

Let's leave the ducks out of this, shall we?

What P2P Does Best by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2004-03-30 09:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

What does P2P do best?

It re-ignites/increses an interest in music overall more than any other one thing.

If you can't understand why that's a good thing, then I probably can't explain it to you any better.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Disregard by ThisIsFred · 2004-03-30 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think I'll disregard further studies, because a crucial piece of information is missing. Stop me if I'm wrong here, but the only way to actually show that CD sales were hurt is by showing that a poorly-selling CD's tracks happened to be very popular on P2P networks. That would also eliminate the "shoddy quality" argument. Last I checked, popularity has more to do with commercial "brainwashing" than with artistic achievement.

--
Fred

"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by FrzrBrn · 2004-03-30 10:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

While I agree that most of the people downloading music from the p2p services are simply looking for freebies, the legitimate gripe that the rest of have is that the labels making up the RIAA have done nothing to address the root of the problem for people who would otherwise buy music. Namely, CD's are too expensive for the majority of the crap that is out there, and most of the legitimate online music services are pathetic.

Then consider the case of DVD's, as you mentioned. For slightly more than that overpriced CD, I can get not only a full length movie, but usually a whole other disc filled with behind the scenes info, out-takes, alternate endings, directors commentary, etc. It's not just about wanting something without having to pay for it, it's about getting a product at a reasonable price. In any market where people feel gouged, any reasonably priced alternative will flourish, even if that involves the creation of a black or grey market. Of course, getting something free will always be an attractive offer if the perceived consequences are minor.

It's the strong-arm tactics of the RIAA, without the promotion of reasonable alternatives that earns them the label of "goon".

--
I read it on the Internet, it must be true!

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by aGuyNamedJoe · 2004-03-30 10:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, your assumptions are showing ...
The only songs I've downloaded are from iTunes Music store, so I reject the assertion that I don' t respect copyrights.

On the other hand, and the reason this is relevent, I refuse to pay $16 for a single disk music CD, so I've not bought a new release CD in about 4 years. Now, I was never a major CD buyer, but I probably bought 10 - 15 each year.

RIAA's pricing is a major contributor to the sales decline, I'd say. I suspect if one plots sales vs price one would see there's a price point at which sales plummet -- for me $16 was it. Also, once I made the decision to stop buying at that price, I didn't reset to "$15.99 is ok" -- I probably haven't bought a CD over $13 since then. A hysteresis effect, I suspect.

Don't confuse me with facts... by Genda · 2004-03-30 10:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it's fair to say that this was never about loss of sales... it would have been remarkably easy for the recording industry to discover the real impact of downloading on their industry, and tweak it as a marketing tool to increase business and improve relations with it's customers.

Clearly that is not the case.

If we follow the smoke back to the likliest fire, we find men, who are alpha dominant types, used to controlling and having their way, confronted by change, decentralization, a loss of control, and shrinking sales. The obvious nknee jerk response is to get complete control. Get draconian. Make sure that nobody anywhere, hears a sound, unless somebody somewhere is paying them for it. It's the natural place powerful men tend to go, when confronted with loosing power and control. Men in charge detest the idea on not having dominion.

The problem is, they never did... it's all a personal illusion. The cure is worse than the disease. The damage done to the local populace is usually devastating, and in the end, the big guy fall hated and reviled as a despot.

Knowing it's not the common way alpha types rule, we need to start teaching our children about dancing with the chaos... embracing change, and using it to succeed. Our natural inclination to resist the flow of nature, when it suits us, tends to provide the lesson, time and again, that nature is bigger and will just run flat over you.

Considering how unpleasant it is to learn this lesson, one would think we'd have to learn it less often?

Genda "May you live in interesting times...
May you receive everything you ask for...
May you come to the attention of your superiors..."
-- An ancient Chinese curse

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by bonch · 2004-03-30 10:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I agree that most of the people downloading music from the p2p services are simply looking for freebies, the legitimate gripe that the rest of have is that the labels making up the RIAA have done nothing to address the root of the problem for people who would otherwise buy music. Namely, CD's are too expensive for the majority of the crap that is out there, and most of the legitimate online music services are pathetic.

See? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If you don't like CDs, use iTunes! Shop online! There are alternatives to ripping artists off because you don't want to go the store and pay for it.

Then consider the case of DVD's, as you mentioned.

DVDs? Did you know the full DVD-R rip of Return of the King is already online? And Matrix Revolutions? DVDs are freely pirated too.

It's the strong-arm tactics of the RIAA, without the promotion of reasonable alternatives that earns them the label of "goon".

Apparently, strong-arm tactics mean suing people breaking the law by distributing your product without your permission. Remind me next time Slashdot tries to rally the troops against the next GPL violation.

Promotion of reasonable alternatives? Yet again, Slashdotters ignore online music stores.

How can one reasonably expect people to follow the GPL while simultaneously arguing that the RIAA is wrong for stopping illegal piracy? Face it--piracy is wrong. It's ripping off artists because you think you have a beef with the "goons" of the RIAA. Once again, you completely ignore the artists who aren't getting paid because you're not buying their albums. How long do you think their record label is going to keep them signed if they don't make any sales?

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by 1arkhaine · 2004-03-30 11:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

See? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If you don't like CDs, use iTunes! Shop online! There are alternatives to ripping artists off because you don't want to go the store and pay for it.

Not for me there isn't. Not living in the US means I can't use itunes. So...now?

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by Bombcar · 2004-03-30 11:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Not living in the US means I can't use itunes. So...now?

In Soviet Russia, music downloads YOU!

Mods: check the link.

--
Fellowship 9/11

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by ChaosDiscord · 2004-03-30 12:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just a question--why do you think it's okay to violate everybody's copyrights and dictate to others how they should distribute their own intellectual property, and then post an article berating some company for "violating the GPL?"

Just a question-- why do you think that Slashdot is some sort of hivemind with a single thought process? Slashdot is a large number of people (several hundred thousand if user ID numbers are to be believed). These people cross the spectrum. Some are against any copyright at all. Some think copyright is a perfect and should be expanded in power. Some hold more moderate positions. Some even hold more nuianced positions that appear contradictory on the surface. This diverse population posts the comments you read and submit the articles that the editor's post. End result: a huge pile of amazingly inconsistent content with little to no pattern to the belief system. All nice and clear?

Of course, I suspect you're just looking for an opportunity to troll. The situation isn't new, and it's been explained. Repeatedly. Furthermore, the post you replied to doesn't make any claims about the GPL or copyright!

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by Breakfast+Pants · 2004-03-30 13:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nice Sig. I love the way in which you imply that everything thought by one group of slashdotters applies to all slashdotters. Thats a nice touch.

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?

Re:Serious answer by ChaosDiscord · 2004-03-30 13:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm referring to the majority mindset--the one reflected by the number of +4/+5 mods and the headlines that the editors post. You seriously disagree that it isn't the majority mindset?

A majority mindset? No. A collection of popular beliefs held by vary varying people? Yes. Slashdot is a large group. Contrary to popular opinion there is quite a bit of variance of opinion here. If one were to take the highly rated posts and and headlines as a whole, one must come to the conclusion that Slashdot both loves and hates both Gnome and KDE. The "majority mindset" of Slashdot, such that it exists is amazingly conflicted. I'm glad for it, it keeps the place more interesting.

As for the articles, well, the editors post what they get and what their audience wants. Their audiance submits and wants this strange mix of things, so they post it.

The fact that my post went from +5 to +1 in 10 minutes doesn't surprise me--clearly I ticked off the majority mindset who disagreed with me, and instead of replying as you did, modded me down. Which is, of course, fascism.

Fascism? "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." Heck, even the most appropriate definition, "Oppressive, dictatorial control," suggests a dictatorship that doesn't exist. I think the worst you can realistically charge is mob-rule and group-think, dangerous possibilities of democracy.

An equally valid possibility is that the moderators genuinely believed your post wasn't worth their time for any of a wide variety of reasons. Regretably, neither one of us can really support either theory. We don't have the data.

So disregard my opinion if it doesn't apply to you--nice and clear?

followed a bit later with...

It was an example of the double-standard that Slashdot holds due to its views on the RIAA.

You're not talking about some small subset of Slashdot. You repeatedly refer to Slashdot as a singular entity. As a member of that entity (as, indeed, are you), I felt it appropriate to refute what I see as incorrect views of Slashdot.

Slashdot editors will post pro-piracy articles and claim they increase sales, thereby supporting copyright infringement. In the next breath, they will post an article criticizing some inane violation of the GPL. How can one expect people to follow one copyright scheme if they profess not following another?

Okay, accepting that there are people who might hold both ideas in their head at the same time, just a few possibilities how one can do it:

"I should be free to redistribute any content I want, whenever I want." or it's cousin "All content should be free." Well, no problems here. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure that content can be redistributed. Someone violating the GPL is attempting to stop the redistribution of content. The two ideas certainly don't conflict.

"I'm against copyright on every level." This is seemingly at odds with the GPL. However, the GPL represents a compromise. Copyright exists today. If you release software for absolutely free into the public domain, someone else can take it and turn it into a proprietary, copyright protected program. So by using the GPL you ensure that at least some things remain (basically) free in a society in which copyright exists while you work to eliminate copyright.

Ultimately, the GPL is about giving people the right to share your work. Is it so surprising that someone who feels that their work should be shared (and remain free to be shared) should want the same thing of others?

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events

Boycott RIAA affiliated bands by nnet · 2004-03-30 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, Just Say No To RIAA Affiliated Bands/Labels.(R)

By using your purchasing power, you decide the fate of these almost-Nazi-like corporations. Send them the message where it hurts them the most, The Bottom Line. By denying the RIAA your hard earned dollars, their shareholders suffer. And while they'll claim p2p responsible for further reductions in sales (as if the economy, CD prices, the thousands of stupid lawsuits that contribute to the price of a CD aren't enough), the truth will be shown that the above study, and other studies that have shown the RIAA incorrect, are in fact true, and the RIAA will be forced not only to rethink their PR strategy, but their ailing dinosaur of a business model.

The number of independant bands/labels has increased a hell of a lot, and of course the quality of the music is superior simply because there isn't the corporate pressure to compromise musical integrity just to satisfy a shareholder. I discovered a progressive rock stream, progrock.com, via an article here on SlashDot regarding the current release of IceCast. This stream has been the main source of bands whose CDs I now purchase.

I haven't purchased an RIAA affiliated CD in probably over 5 years because they haven't released anything worth buying, especially at US$20 a CD. During that time I've been purchasing independant CDs from non-RIAA affiliated labels, and I do so gladly knowing the artist receives more of the money, and the quality of music is far superior. The cost of these CDs is typically US$5-US$7 (not including S&H) cheaper than RIAA affiliated labels CDs too.

As an independant artist, I offer my own original music in mp3 format, freely downloadable, and distributable, see the link in the sig below.

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by kardar · 2004-03-30 15:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here is how I feel about it.

If you can PURCHASE the media (song, movie, dvd) somwhere, anywhere... online store, for-fee download, brick and mortar store - if you can buy it somewhere, then you should really question why you are downloading it "illegally". It's pretty much as simple as that.

You may have to search the internet for the label; you may have to purchase from the label directly - if that's the case, do it. If you think it's too expensive, if you can't afford to buy it, then don't. But that's no excuse to download it. Bascially, just don't download anything that is available for purchase somewhere. It's unethical. Unless, of course, it's one of those rare books or works of art that are available under a creative commons license or some other license that allows you to do that. But those are exceptions, not the rule.

And this is sort of a catch-22, because prior to the "PC", young folks have often spent money on media (music, magazines, movies) that they couldn't really afford; it would be fair to say that the entertainment industry thrives on money collected from millions of people that really couldn't afford to give that money in the first place but were sort of suckered into it by the hype and the fanatacism that surrounds celebrity.

So the "PC", a.k.a Redmond, has usurped the scam; replacing it with another one.

But seriously, if you can buy it somewhere, don't download it. If you can't afford it, just be tough and don't download it either. Maybe if enough people don't buy because they can't afford, maybe the industry will recognize that and do something about it. Doubtful, but in any case, it's your money, and you shouldn't allow people to sucker you into spending it on something you can't afford. But that's not an excuse to try to circumvent the system, either.

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by maxpublic · 2004-03-30 15:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Once again, you completely ignore the artists who aren't getting paid because you're not buying their albums.

Riiight. Tell us another, RIAA butt-monkey. The artist getting paid! How fucking funny is that?

And how much does the artist get per CD? I do believe that Ani DiFranco has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RIAA does nothing but screw both artist and customer, then bend them over again for a good reaming via bought-and-paid-for congressmen.

I could pay $8 for a CD direct from the artist, and even if you take off $2 for shipping and production (vastly overstated, but for you we'll pretend that's the actual cost) the average artist will still earn SIX TIMES what they get paid under the RIAA aegis.

Fuck the RIAA and it's apologists. The middleman isn't worth the price anymore. We can sample the artist's work direct (P2P, wouldn't you know) and buy if we like. And not buy if we don't.

Guess that business model is too complex for folks like you to parse. But in your world everyone's a thief...no doubt a reflection of your own character.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?

Re:Serious question for Slashdotters by thadeusg · 2004-03-30 15:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Amen brother. People like the parent don't seem to understand that an artist gets ZERO money from a store-online-whatever bought CD.

THEY MAKE MONEY OFF OF TOURING AND MERCH SALES AT CONCERTS ONLY. END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION.

Go talk to a few bands, a few artists; learn the truth. I've pointed this out several times, but none of these jackasses seem to understand.

Bands have to buy their shit BACK FROM THE LABEL to even sell it at a concert.

THEYRE RIPPING US ALL OFF.

Slashdot Mirror

Study: MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales

173 of 704 comments (clear)