Slashdot Mirror
US CD Sales Increase in 2004
Lindsay Lohan writes "BBC is reporting that CD sales rose by 2.3% in the U.S. in the year 2004 despite the growing popularity of legal digital music downloads through services such as iTunes. On the other hand, a BBC report from last July noted that pirated CD sales have hit a record high. Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma."
But by going after little Susie or gramma they can make the claim that they're doing something about piracy...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
stop buying them for christ's sake! now these idiots will believe that the frivolous lawsuits against 15-year-olds were successful.
In the end, they're both theives.
Hasn't the Music industry recorded record profits during the years when it CLAIMED that they lost MILLIONS to illegal downloads? It seems like the rise of p2p has coincided with profit increases for the music industry. I won't say it's a cause and an effect. But it's a drop in a bucket to them. Apple's success shows people are willing to pay, just not the inflated, over-hyped prices of the crap cds the RIAA has been coming out with.
And they prove that any drop in CD sales was purely because of the economic slump, when non-essential things like CDs and DVDs are the first things to leave the on-the-spot purchase habits of people.
Or maybe the prices have dropped, making the product more desirable to the consumer.
However, they'll just say that it is the result of their "anti online piracy" actions.
hat would be so un-american
Considering this was reported by the BBC, you are probably right.
You say pirate CD sales have hit a record high... and thus the RIAA should be going after them. Umm. That's the same flawed logic that had the RIAA attacking Napster.
What if it is the Pirate CD sales that are the primary motivator behind the 2.4% increase? Come on guys... be consistent. All methods of piracy can have some beneficial network effects on sales. All methods of piracy can ALSO cause lower sales under different circumstances.
It is, in a word, wrong to deify music swapping online, but demonise pirate CD sales. They're both illegal... the only real difference is that one has a profit motive, and the other doesn't. But the actual level of illegality, under current law, is about equal. It's illogical to praise one and not the other, don't succumb to the same stupidity that is rife within the **AA.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Time for a revolution!
That's not the sort of editorial comment I would have expected from Lindsay Lohan.
I knew the RIAA was evil, but to sign such a blatent deal with his lord of evil?
The CD format still accounts for 98% of the 666 million albums sold, according to research company Nielsen Soundscan."
In all seriousness though, internet trading, beit legal or not has done nothing but fuel americas passion for music, which has in turn increased sales of CDs. Not to mention profits turned from lawsuits on the masses.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
Little Susie and Grandma don't know how to cover their tracks and are therefore easy targets to make public examples of. The word gets out even if at the expense of PR.
Michalangelo Progr
So wait, are you still a thief/pirate if you buy a pirate CD?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
1) If you think that the RIAA is sitting on its hands and just letting the largescale music pirates get away with ripping them off while only targetting "Susie and grandma" for litigation, you're quite mistaken. They spend quite a bit of money to seek out and take down these largescale pirates. Unfortunately, some Asian countries are more hospitable to the pirates than others, so policing it is a difficult job.
2) It seems to me that the year-long push by the RIAA to associate P2P filesharing with stealing is paying off, though only to the tune of 2% or so. If they can convince enough people that piracy is a crime, then it is guaranteed to boost actual sales of CDs at the expense of filesharing.
People are generally good and are willing to follow the law. The RIAA's push to make people aware of copyright law has finally made some progress, but also consider that music artists have also become generally better lately than they were in say the mid-late 90's. Of course, the increase in sales corresponds more to the anti-piracy push than to the improvement in music quality (Good music can still be pirated as easily as bad music).
The RIAA should just sell their CDs for $5 through shady looking guys on the street.
CD sales increased when Piracy hit a record high, therefore Piracy causes CD sales to increase. RIAA logic: Piracy should be nurtured and encouraged to grow.
"Little Susy or grandma" might not be the crux of the problem, but "real pirates" are just as likely to be the guy living next door nowdays. They may not be running processing plants like the mob, but I've seen plenty of "village geeks" selling downloaded movies and CDs. At the call center where last I 9-5'd there were several people with fast home connections and DVD burners who regularly sold downloads to other employees on the floor.
This was not just onesy-twosey stuff. Any given week I'm sure one fellow sold 20 or 30 CDs at five bucks a pop. Multiply this by 1000's of businesses across the country and it's easy to see how it can really add up.
What amazes me is people really cannot tell the difference (or don't care) between a real CD and a POS CDR burnded from MP3s. I would be indignant about the pirates SELLING this stuff, but given these people are buying something akin to a cassette tape all you can really say is "it's their money to waste."
"Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma.""
I tried similiar reasoning, trying to get out of a speeding ticket. I don't think the cop was amused.
With all the lawsuits and crappy content flying around, the only way I can stock my MP3 collection is to buy CDs and then resell them on eBay! That's two sales right there! Or sometimes I just take 'em right back and tell the dweeb with the KoRn T-shirt that they won't play in my Dell. I bet they resell the same CDs 3-4 times! Burn 'n' Return baby!
grandma...."grandma got run over by a RIAAndeer...." comes to mind.
The added benefit of suing the lil' guys is that they don't have enough money to fight back....but have just enough money to make a settlement worthwhile....especially when they don't have too many middlemen to pony up to.
Either way, they can't say that downloading is really hurting them any more....they are still selling more and more and the fact that they aren't focusing their attention to real pirates...and yet manage a gain in sales....that tells alot.
Those numbers don't look so good if you compare the growth in CD sales to the sales of video (VHS/DVD's) software, or to the economy as a whole:
Video: Consumer Electronics Association: DVD Software Sales Benefit: Although movie-ticket sales fell one percent to $9.2 billion in 2003, consumer spending on the purchase or rental of video software (VHS tape and DVD) rose 18.2 percent to $22.5 billion, according to DEG. DVD accounted for 72 percent of total home video spending.
Overall Economy: CNN The economy has expanded at rates exceeding 3 percent for the past six quarters and seems poised to keep growing. The White House last Friday estimated GDP will expand 3-1/2 percent in 2005.
There probably was just better music last year than in previous years. Ok, so maybe only 2.4% better but improvement nonetheless. /didn't buy any CDs last year. Long live iTMS!
Lindsay Lohan writes
Wow, I told my local Linux User Group that I am pretty sure Lindsay Lohan reads Slashdot and is an active participant. But on the other hand, there's a definite over-supply of hot-looking busty females in open source community already.
The RIAA's members can always lean heavily on their customers' consciences to go legit when they download a 128k mp3 from Kazaa, but if they buy a perfect replica of the album they have no reason to suspect that they will buy a legit copy. Almost every pirated copy that is sold is a sale that has to be totally written off. Few customers would probably even know the difference. With file sharing, there is always the hope that the user will go legit.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
If sales slump, **AA will blame it on piracy, and use it as justification to enact even more legislation to protect their profits.
And if sales rise, they'll use it as justification that their methods are starting to work against piracy, and consequently we need to make them even stronger.
How much higher would the increase have been had piracy not been a problem? No one can say for sure. But you can't state that file sharing has not had a negative effect as a result of a positive increas in sales.
A blog like any other.
Hi Lindsay!! I luv u!!!
I went to your site and "rocked out" to the intro, and then i saw nothing but PINK! My eyes actually screamed in pain. I heard them. I shit you not.
Please Lindsay. Redesign your site... for me?
And show me your knockers. :-)
Electric Monkey Pants
The report, for the country's National Bureau of Economic Research, studied the habits of 412 students.
Hmmmm.... they studied the habits of students. Aren't students usually short on money but have broadband on campus? This is hardly a realistic "sampling" of the population, so therefore cannot be taken seriously.
So which is it?
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Part of the goal of the RIAA and MPAA is, naturally, to instill fear in those who might KNOWINGLY accept, purchase, download, etc. pirated materials. This creates stigma towards those that do (sort of like anti-smoking ads in the past couple decades).
This affects the demand for pirated materials which in turns lowers the economic viability for pirates.
The real issue for the RIAA / MPAA is getting all the "not sure if it's really wrong, I do it sometimes, I still buy occasional CDs and DVDs but like to try them" crowd over to the "It's wrong." view. Until they can do that, no amount of efforts will slow piracy down because so many people are doing it, and OK with doing it, that there is a serious strength in numbers.
The crux of the matter is, and will always be, people give their money to companies for often irrational reasons. If more people contributed to artists and things they liked and enjoyed directly, we wouldn't need oppressive middle-men grasping at straws to retain their distribution powers.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
People don't have an unlimited amount of money to spend.
If spending goes up on DVDs, then that pot of money is reduced for CDs, Cinema, Etc.
How does this prove that? It may suggest such a thing, but suggestion and proof are miles apart.
I think that file sharing leads to greater purchases of music amongst people who have some money. I know that I download music, but if I see stuff I like in a shop, especially if it is on offer, I'll be much more tempted to buy it if I know it is good, because I want the actual product.
It probably also means that tat won't get bought, and maybe greater sales of music are down to there being better music advertised to the consumer. Instead of pop tat, there is a lot more variety of music advertised these days.
1. Usher - Confessions
2. Norah Jones - Feels Like Home
3. Eminem - Encore
4. Kenny Chesney - When the Sun Goes Down
5. Gretchen Wilson - Here for the Party
Just wondering if lower income innercity kids are the ones buying the cds. Maybe they dont have access to mp3 players and download services.
Or is this the new career? Would explain why we never see you anywhere without the Sidekick I guess...
---
You think this is something? Click here
"If sales slump, **AA will blame it on piracy, and use it as justification to enact even more legislation to protect their profits."
And pirates will use it as proof that their "Robin Hood" campaigns are working.
"And if sales rise, they'll use it as justification that their methods are starting to work against piracy, and consequently we need to make them even stronger."
And illegal P2P'ers will use that as justification for why they should continue.
See, you're riding on a false premise. That no one is using the situation for their own benefit.
The only innocents are the one's caught in the middle, and want nothing to do with the battle.
...pirates the RIAA actually have a chance of catching Grandma.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Person A owns a sandwich. Person B does not. The sandwich has a "usefulness value" of 1.
The following is a description of a theft, an action conducted by a thief:
B takes A's sandwich and eats it.
Net change for A: -1.
Net change for B: +1.
B is a thief.
The following is NOT a description of a theft, and the person doing it is NOT a thief:
Someone has a matter duplicator, which can perfectly duplicate any object with very little (as in neglectable) effort and energy. B uses this matter duplicator to copy A's sandwich. Now they both have a sandwich.
Net change for A: 0.
Net change for B: 1.
Whoah! Our overall usefulness rating is up! And this is what RIAA/MPAA/pro intellectual property people calls piracy/theft? This is hardly anything like the first act - and surely far from the act of capturing someone's ship and cargo.
For real life objects, we don't have "duplicators" - for digital data we do!
I would mod your article -1 Redundant. We've been saying that for two years plus.
"Time for a revolution!"
Funny, coming from a group that can't even get Taco to upgrade the standards used on their favourite site.
Maybe you all should learn to fix your house, before complaining about others?
I think even the RIAA knows that the CD sales have been slumping not because of piracy, but because they need a scapegoat...
Quite the contrary. The reason I don't buy any RIAA CDs is because they're total bastards. The thought that my money is contributing to lobbying efforts against both my interests and ideals will give me too way too much of a nagging conscience to ever enjoy the thing I bought.
Perhaps if they stop suing people and lobby for sane copyright laws (like a 14 year term with mandatory registration and repealing the DMCA and all other related legislation) and wait a few years, I might reconsider my boycott, but I figure I've got shorter odds of seeing pigs fly while being struck by lighting and winning the lottery all at the same time.
I love these articles because they are so misleading. I don't believe there is a strong correllation between sales and piracy. Sales are higher because the economy is doing better. Could they be even higher if there were no pirating? Perhaps, but I would consider it a small subset of people who would have bought something but didn't. Most people downloading stuff would never have bought it in the first place. If the record label lowered their prices that would also increase sales. Thus lower prices == piracy. ;)
The fundamental flaw is that in order to exaggerate their losses they come up with absurd calculations like loss = num_files_shared_last_year * retail_price. That is absurd.
I was watching C-SPAN last night and saw the confirmation hearing of U.S. President Bush's new Commerce Secretary. He was asked by Sen Gordon Smith (R-OR) how he would handle the copyright violations and IP issues that are crippling our innovative entrepreneurial spirit. I believe thre new Commerce Sec nominee has been CEO of Kellogg company. Wasn't that the company who was price-fixing cereal some time ago? Does anyone remember?
The whole point is 2.3% compared to years past is pretty marginal. The issue really is what would that increase have been if there were no illegal downloads? If it had even risen 5% as opposed to 2.3% without the downloads we're talking a massive loss, over 50% of their profits.
And I even bought a couple CD's this year!
So there!!!
Kenny P.
Visualize Whirled P.'s
I think the rise in movie profits has more to do with the change in the format from VHS to DVD, all the movie companies are re-releasing all their classic movies onto "special edition" DVD's and thus people are buying them.
however Cd's havent changed format and there's no reason to buy all your old favorites again. Maybe when DVD-A or SACD takes off we'll see a big spike in music sales too.
Does Lindsay run a Linux box?
Are there more hot girls like her running linux?
Maybe it's time to finally try that new pickup line of mine: "What's your distro, baby?"
Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma."
Oh, oh, I know -- I know! {raised, waving hand}
The reason they aren't going after these "real" pirates is because they are in nations who's legal systems have no incentive to stop the flow of pirated American, European and Japanese media.
It really makes me sad to see this kind of uninformed tripe in a headline. It brings out the general ignorance of the masses in these threads.
"She got some big ass titties"
MY SECRET DIARIES
You're in some sort of anger-filled diatribe about me.
I'm not the one who's mad. I'm stunned. I don't know how to respond.
Much like Slashdot itself, your posts are full of passion (or something) but lacking in substance. Your post about filesharing has neither anything to do with the original post way back up at the top of this thread, nor does it really relate to the actual article or writeup except in a general karma whoring manner. I really ought to know better than to respond to that kind of poster.
"You can justify your crime all you want, but it still boils down to your decision to deprive someone of potential earnings."
It is theft...of value.
Also because someone has the original isn't the blessing in disguise that pirates think, but makes digital piracy a worse crime than just plain stealing.*
*I plan on elaborating on these points in the future (assuming "group think" doesn't moderate it out of sight).
Everybody, shut the fuck up. All of these arguments have been made and rehashed on Slashdot enough times, what's the point anymore? I'll sum up everything that has been/will be said, disregarding the trolls and the spontaneous religious arguments that pop up here. A) The RIAA is full of shit and trying to suck more money out of a system that sure seems to be working in the RIAA's favor, what with them making considerably more money since P2P networks started popping up. B) Well that just proves that their lawsuits work. C) Nobody's losing anything, so it's not stealing. D) You didn't pay for it so it is stealing. Now just pick one (or more).
I just got back from a trip to South-East Asia, and in Thailand, Cambodia and Laos it was rediculous how every single music store sold bootleg CDs. Mostly stuff downloaded from the net (lots of 'best of' with tons of typos), but in high-end/high-quality cases. Especially the stuff I saw in Louang-Prabang (Laos). They were dirt cheap, $2-$5, and I heard they were even cheaper in VietNam, although I didn't make it out there. If you want even more flagrant copyright violations, when I had satelite tv in Cambodia they were playing Swordfish on one of the channels and it was the exact same DivX screener that I'd downloaded when it first came out in theatres...with the same animated logo scrolling across the top right and everything. How crazy is that?
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
picture
Pretty much all you need to know to understand why CD sales dropped for a few years, then rose again in 2004.
> How much higher would the increase have been had piracy not been a problem? No one can say for sure.
> But you can't state that file sharing has not had a negative effect as a result of a positive increas
> in sales.
I'd like to see some evidence of this assertion. I'm very wary of things that seem at face value to be common sense, and I don't see any reason to buy this particular claim. The last album I bought (Brian Wilson's SMiLE) was purchased after I heard a P2P download of Heroes and Villains, and I doubt very much I'm alone.
Record sales have slumped before (there was, as I recall, a big slump in the late 80s and early 90s). It seems that the current slump, which coincides, like the last one, with an economic downturn, has now been oh-so-conveniently attached to P2P piracy.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I see no reason to take RIAA's word for it, any more than I would take, say, Kazaa's word for it that piracy hasn't hurt. Both have obvious interests that render them completely unreliable.
So where's the evidence that P2P downloading caused the slump in record sales?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I suppose the stereotype of "teen idol" must be broadening...
we need open-source entertainment with a centralized online distribution and no RIAA.
any artist could publish their works online and the community would be survived by user donations.
movies, music, etc all accessible and free.
I don't exactly think the world of the recording industry, and it's a good point that there's a huge fallacy in their argument. I don't think it's a very serious one because most people in the financial world probably consider it a loss if they were expecting money and it doesn't come, and it's getting very picky to start complaining otherwise. Whether or not that was because of piracy is much more contentious.
If we're going to talk about fallacies, however, it should also be acknowledged that pointing out a fallacy doesn't exactly disprove the recording industry's claim that it's making less money than it should be in a fair market. (Trying to prove it isn't easy, either, and the recording industry isn't better than anyone else.)
A profit doesn't automatically mean increased sales. It could as easily mean that costs have been cut, possibly even as a reaction to forward thinking about whatever effect piracy is having. Realistically, most businesses simply have to aim for a profit whether they think it matches their ideals or not. It may also mean that money has been gained some other way such as through partnerships or creative accounting.
It's a fallacy in itself, however, to start suggesting that just because a profit has still been made, piracy isn't having an unfair effect on the industry... which is what the grandparent and a variety of other people seem to be claiming.
I despise the way that the bulk of the recording industry works, and the amount of FUD that they tend to spread in attempts to get themselves noticed. But there's so much FUD going on in both directions that it's often even hard to tell if there's credible evidence either way. Wherever that evidence is, though, this isn't it.
Article about the effect piracy is having on the RIAA, from several different points of view. Interesting stuff.
2.4%?
seems a little insignificant to me, perhaps even a random fluxuation, it has to either go up or down, and i wouldnt draw and conclusions until the percentage is a little more significant
I have been thinking a bit about the economics of piracy lately. Anyone who knows a bit/lot ;) about economics, please comment.
:)
Now, when were talking about digital media, the price to reproduce the good is very close to 0. So we can think of the song/movie/whatever information as being free to reporduce. Now, the RIAA/whoever sets the price of the song/movie to something that is much higher than 0, causing a price floor. If I remember correctly, in my micro-economics class, the teacher said that when you introduce a price floor, black markets emerge. Does this "justify" the online piracy or at least explain in economic terms why it exists?
Of course, I could be confused and have it all wrong
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
...is linsay lohan, wait, don't asnwer that, I don't REALLY care!
>So where's the evidence that P2P downloading caused the slump in record sales?
There is no evidence to the contrary, either.
A blog like any other.
The economy was up in 2004... therefore CD sales were up as a matter of trend. As the economy improves, so does disposable income and sales of just about everything.
It takes a lot of CDs to fill and Ipod..... An awfull lot...
That and circut citys 9.99$ for any cd made the price right for me to start getting some more music....
Someone mod this asshat down.
/. at least to appear smart enough to try.
It's morons like you that the RIAA love. You still don't get the difference between theft and copyright infringement do you?
See there is this thing called physical property that involves tangible things. Like say for example a CD sitting on your desk. Now if I walk in and take that CD off your desk and never return it that is theft.
Stay with me here because this is where it gets tricky. If say I take that CD off your desk, copy it, and then put it right back where it was. That is not theft, it's copyright infringement. You never lost any physical property, see the difference?
We have different words for different things for a reason. I realize that to some people it's such a bother to get them all right but lets try here on
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I won this debate nearly six years ago, and we're not having it again. So go home.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
... piracy is good for the industry to some degree, as it brings to mind works that might then be bought. Otherwise its out of mind...
How do I know this?
Its simple, back in teh napster days beginnings a co worker had put together some 80's popular song CD and many ofthe works I liked and thought of getting a copy from him, that I might better be able to find the albums at the record store... something for the sales clerks to hear and help me with..
But IP shit hit the fan about that time and I lost interest due to all the flax the industry was causing over it, and the threats they were making... it all sounded/appeared to be the result of a spoiled child when they believed something was being taken away from them in their greed...
Not very appealing...
a communistic trait by those who want to oppose capitalism and thus drives record companies out of business.
I mean that's about what the US population has grown in the last year no?
But the record companies are still making a profit. File sharing may be costing them 'potential' profits, but it is not causing them to lose money. They aren't operating at a loss, they're still covering their expenses and then some, and file sharing isn't costing them money.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
You can bet some lawyers and desk jocks is busy padding themselves in the back for their "aggressive enforcements of copyrights" that "resulted" in the boost...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
What is sad is that the Guy who runs our local indy music store Gave me 6 (six) cd's full of MP3s when I asked him "what new stuff do you have?"
He said he just down loads stuff like every one else because the RIAA only cares about themselves not the industry (the whole chain, from artists to retailer) as a whole...
I just laughed... then loaded them onto my new ipod.
What an incredibly compelling response, however, since it is RIAA making the claim of harm, it's up to RIAA to provide the evidence to back up their assertion. Are you suggesting I simply take their word?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...has got some big ass titties.
Not to bust your bubble or anything like that, but "Little Susie and Grandma" are just as much intellectual property theives as the guys selling fake merch, provided:
the music isn't captured from CDs they own.
the music isn't recorded off the air by them.
they didn't get it from a friend.
they didn't pay for the copy in any way.
Not being an attorney, don't take this as legal advice, because it's not.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
It's now clear and obvious (as it always was in spite of the FUD), that the intent of the music and motion picture industry (and the larger media conglomerates that own and manage them) has never been to prevent piracy. In fact it's not even about maximizing profits.
The behavior is perfectly consistent with the abuses against all IP being waged by corporate entities and their legal minions, in the pitched battle to own, control, restrict, and monopolize all human knowlege, invention, and the freedom to create. In a world that has substantively shifted to an information economy, the owner and controller of all IP is king.
We're all quick becoming pawns in a war between human freedom and self determination, and corporate design. The science of shaping opinion, controlling the masses, and disinforming entire nations for fun and profit is run riot directly over the ethical and social designs of our forefathers. We are confronted with the conundrum of the successful operation that kills the patient, and in this scenario, you and I are the patient. Either, collectively as a people, we get some backbone, and a whole lot more intelligence, or we can expect to obsolete ourselves in the next several decades.
This is simply one more expression of our own ignorance, the worst of our animal nature, run amock. The beast that blindly grabs for the reins of all human enterprise is without foresight, mind numbingly stupid, infinitely self absorbed, and manned by men with the conscience of politicians. It's up to us (that would be not only the person writing these words, but also the people reading these words), to lay down new laws, build new barriers to barbarism, and set the stage for the next 200 years of human development. The alternative, is a furture shaped a lot like the fossil record for all of us naked apes.
Genda
St John is clearly discussing DRM in the above passage of revelations. The consequence is clear. All those who us longhorn will be dooming their souls to an eternity of torment!
Take heed! Only through the words of the great prophet Torvalds can salvation come! Suffer thee not the DMCA, for that path leads to damnation!
Considering how many times copyight has been extended I think enough has been robbed from the public domain that all agreements are off.
listen, if you're all going to spew the same crap and not do anything productive about it you're going to lose the argument. whether or not we view music trading as stealing the government thinks it is and that's what counts here. personally, although i engage in it, i view it as stealing, too. fine, argue the semantics. ok, you've vented now. but you're still going to lose that battle in front of a judge.
it's like the damn anarchists. they bitch and moan, day and night. but do they accomplish anything? no. they're too busy arguing semantics about whether or not it's actually theft, and whether who they're stealing from is an asshole. the RIAA can laugh all the way to the bank if you fools don't wake up and do something with all of your words.
they have previews and copies of every song by every artist out there for me to decide whether i want to purchase it or not oh wai-
I realize all these +5 insightful posts are more about sentiment than fact or legitimate argument. At the same time, everybody knows that DVD sales took off at the time CD sales were slumping. Plenty of people said DVDs were replacing music as a form of entertainment. So how does this argument make any sense?
Why? a) because I can, and b) because the real CDs are getting cheaper.
At least they seem cheaper to me. I don't remember "$9.97 Tuesdays" a few years ago, and $9.97 doesn't mean as much to me as it used to.
So, is my "a" behaviour, helping my "b" behavior become more affordable? I dunno, but I am sure the "b" behaviour contributes to the %2.9 gain in sales.
I wouldn't have done it without the "a" behaviour, however. And I sure as hell won't buy any CD's if "they" hassle me for my "a" behavior.
[Yes, I know I randomly spell in American and English]
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
...but what the hell are ass titties?!?
But it seems its they are just making up for their losses
On my first trip to Hong Kong in 1967, I found that it was common for the record stores to make a tape with recordings of customer's selected albums on it.
For a 1800ft Reel-to-reel tape, you would select about five albums. The store would record the albums onto the tape. You would pay for the blank tape and about $1 or $2 US for each album's recording. The albums cost about $5 US in Hong Kong at that time.
This was quite common and accepted business practice at every record store except the poorest, smallest ones. I never realized that it wasn't standard practice world-wide until I came to America.
Watching music TV is stealing too, if you don't sit through the ads.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Hey grandma... you have so big eyes...
hey grandma... you have so big federal badge...
hey grandma... you have so big subpoena...
Audio cds would cost damn near nothing because the market is capable of providing audio for free, 99 times out of 100. P2P piracy is a perfectly good example of market efficiency; self interested agents finding the lowest cost of goods, in this case at no cost. Sellers seeking to maximize their profits can risk being the 1 out of 100 by selling their goods at a higher cost than zero, but their time and resources could be better spent getting them a higher ROI elsewhere. The RIAA seems to think that the equilibreum is nowhere near what it is, so we instead get 30$ cds and 40$ dvds(still!? I thoguht they were slapped on the wrist for that!), with a government order in some cases that you must purchase media from the big companies, or not consume at all(unless you're lucky enough to know how to get independant music, not always as easy as it sounds). Governments and industry should subsidize P2P, if anything, in return for fscking up the market by attacking it for so long. Piracy is perfectly fair, so long as markets are perfectly fair. If those in the music industry cannot make as much profit as they desire, then they must find a new industry. You do not necessarily have the right to excessive profits in a free market.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"Now the economy is on the upswing, and surprisingly people are spending more on leisure items like music."
Either that, or we're hewing to American tradition and digging ourselves into more credit card debt. Just wait till the dollar blows out, the housing market falls, and the middle class disappears. You'll be wishing for the good old days of 2004, and pirating, being the only thing you had to worry about.
"Yeah, that's called civil disobedience."
That's funny. I don't remember Gandhi, or MLK hiding behind any P2P programs.
This must be the "new and improved", "civil disobedience" model (Pat. Pending). The one that causes sales of ones enemies to go up, and even more of our rights to disappear.
So here's what I and the American public have to say to you. STOP HELPING US!
Mod parent -1, Flamebait.
"Any time I've heard a decent band get produced by a 'big name' producer, the music has come out sounding soulless, tinny, lacking mid-bass, and poppy, whereas the studio session in the padded and mic'ed garage sounded terrific."
Good for you. Now try and extrapolate your opinion to everyone else.
"Maybe if Americans cared more about art in music than production values, none of this would matter, because if you could produce an album in a few weeks with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment and distribute it cheaply online you wouldn't be as fucked."
Guess that explains why that tape plant closed.
"Incidentally, how do you justify the fact that the artists have to reimburse record companies for the $100k+ loan on studio time from the meager $1/CD that they get from sales? Why does the record company take 90% of profit AND force the artist to pay them back? Oh yeah. That's why we hate the RIAA in the first place."
Do you harbor such feelings towards your mortgage company? How can they justify you paying them back for that loan. On your meager salary? Oh yeah. That's why we hate mortgage companies.
"Without actually confronting pirates because pirates are scary ...arrrgg. In fact, Pirates would kick there F'in ass back to twatville, California. (where ever that is.)"
And yet the irony in hiding behind an anonymous, P2P program is lost on them.
"Don't make me take this parrot off my shoulder...!!!!!!!"
Why would you take off the smarter of the two?
Pirates of the Carribean DVD... $18.
Pirates of the Carribean Soundtrack... $18.
That is why few purchase CDs anymore.
Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma.
You do understand that they think they'd increase sales with, for example, 5% if they didn't try to stop piracy?
And who's to say they aren't right? Neither you or I have seen how much they'd sell without piracy.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The recording industry cut production by 20%, hacked away all their low-volume artists, yet saw an 11% gain in sales during the HEIGHT of the Napster boom.
We never heard an explanation for that. Hmmm.
No one questions the RIAA on these issues. The big labels cut all their dead weight, low-volume artists, cut production, yet saw an increase in sales?
I have a friend that works for a niche label, and he saw the changes coming, and was happy to sign some of these lower-volume artists as it strengthened their catalog. Some of these artists were considered out-of-reach for the niche labels. And many of these labels saw their sales skyrocket, compared to what they had been before. Admitted, they weren't going to compete with Sony or the other big labels.
Yet the RIAA claims that they were losing billions due to pirates... when the worker bees at the labels tell us that they use the P2P info to see what's interesting to the listeners, and they report increased sales on those artists? Smells like serious smoke and mirrors by the RIAA. Face it. The RIAA is using this situation to try and dictate legislation rather than adapt.
I think that, more than anything, we've seen a lull in "talent". Face it. We've not seen a Michael Jackson or a Nirvana. No blockbusters out there... and it's been awhile. Justin Timberlake? Britney Spears? Ashlee Simpson? Forget it. No talent hacks with fantastic marketing juggernauts behind them. That's it. They are products of technology. Lip-sync and auto-tuners. Fancy dancing with a lot of costumes. There's so little that's interesting music. REM and Dave Matthews haven't had knockout material in a few years. U2 is ok, but not what they were in the late '80s until the mid '90s. Name a rapper that's tearing up the charts? Hmmm. Still thinking...
"Copyright protects digital property, whether it is a literary or artistic work, or a dramatic work, cinematographic production or a screen play. The fact that it is fixed in digital form does not generally make a difference to the way it is viewed by the law. "
Also since slashdotters love to educate themselves about issues.
[The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age (2000)]
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064996/html/
Online and readable.
Well to sum up my position...it's complicated. I know everyone wants a black and white, one answer only. There is none, and especially one that will make everyone happy.
However I will say this. IP is going to be the least of man's worries. Any more than that, you all will simply have to pay attention these next two years.
For my part I stopped buying CDs when the RIAA started suing their customers and also stopped buying DVDs when the MPAA followed their lead.
Even if the MAFIA paid the lawmakers to make BLACKMAILING legal, would still be IMMORAL.
And don't forget to let the artists know that you would really like to buy their music but don't want to support an industry that rather sues their customers. At least under german law this could turn the tables as it gives the artists the right to cancel their contracts.
One could argue that p2p sharing kept the momentum high during the slump rather than differentiating interests while disposable income was reduced. So now the RIAA still has a willing consumer base rather than a new generation of jigsaw puzzle enthusisasts whose misdshare they'd have to fight all over again. (think dvd home theater consumers... isn't mpaa riaa's greatest competitor?) ;-)
That's smart spin, ain't it?
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Did you enjoy your speech at the show?
Everywhere we went, people were shouting their desires to "sue NAMI." All we wanted to do was arrange favorable tariffs for the importation of our products, but it was all "sue NAMI, sue NAMI, sue NAMI!" These people are crazy, a bunch of uncivilzed heathens living in tents. They wouldn't even buy any of the CDs we brought, they were too busy trying to "sue NAMI."
As best as we can tell, they want to sue the North American Music Industry. So we left in a hurry and won't be going back to Southeast Asia anytime soon.
D. Cheatham Howe
Legal Counsel, RIAA
Honestly, he's funnier and smarter than you.
You're a dumb piece of crap.
(you would have said "your" instead, proving that you're a dumb piece of crap)
Because, you know, it's such a hotly pursued statistic.
Anyway. . . The RIAA, it just struck me, isn't about what they say they are about. --They may THINK they are what they say they are, but I say they aren't and that what they think they are and what they really are, are different, see?
Just keeping people stressed out. Like having a nice big tap stuck in a maple tree, drawing off the sweeeeeet sugar water of low-level human misery.
Yes, I am out of coffee filters. Why do you ask?
-FL
And not go after anyone.. as obviously they are getting an advantage out of p2p sharing..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We see this same sort of thing every year at this time. The first year it was all cool because it could be pointed out that the RIAA is full of shit on P2P file sharing of music. The second year just reinforced it. But at this point isn't it sort of redundant? Their sales grow every year, wh00h00!
The Farewell Tour II
... because no American study would be allowed by the RIAA and they would make sure that the truth would never be known... certianly not in a court of law.
Tell me... how many people are in jail because the RIAA lied and used it's massive corporate power to bend the courts to thier will?
How many thousands of supeonas did the courts hand out to criminalize and jail people for doing something that injured no one? Typical Americans.
Isn't this an indictment of the entire MP3 saga?
Helloooo???
The definition is clear. No parrots, eye patches or dodgy files are needed to be a real pirate.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
In Greece music and DVD movies are alot more expensive than the price in the United States for CDs and movies. The VAT has alot to do with it, VAT tax is a killer all over Europe.
So beep, no you are wrong.
... how about "Due To"?
You aren't fighting for fundamental human rights here. You simply don't want to pay for music, and are trying to defend copyright infringement by comparing it to an unquestionably just cause.
That you would invoke the name of Dr. King in defense of your petty wants is an insult to real freedom fighters.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
All that, and you seem to have overlooked one fantastic lesson. You complain about people who make all this money while robbing artists, then trivialize it when it's one or two or ten?
In that very long rant, the one thing I heard over and over was "screw the man cuz he's got money."
When you perpeptuate that legacy content IN ANY WAY you are not "fucking them in the ear" you are just helping preserve their power. Those direct payments you claim you'd be OK with? It ain't gonna happen so long as the artist is tied to one of the old school majors - and pirating their content only sends the message to the artists that hey, there really IS something to be had from this, cuz I couldn't even give away my shit before they hyped me on MTV.
Youyr hypocrisy is fucking your own self - and every artist who longs to be free, and every geek who embraces freedom.
Cheating corporations isn't screwing them. Cheating corporations only proves to the corporations - and to the lawyers, and to the public when it comes out on the news that you were cheating them - that they really do have something of value. Hey, if it had no value why would you cheat themn out of it?
If you want to "fuck'em in the ear" stop cheating at the game. Leave them to their game and go elsewhere. Go offshore where thousands of great artists go unknown in the US. Go to Magnatune where artists actually get paid. Freedom is not won from being a hang-around-the-fort-indian.
That said, if you are paying $2 for a CD that should cost $20, then that should be enough notice to suggest to you that you're not getting the real deal.
Or that I'm buying 10 or more used CDs at a pawn shop that offers a 10 for $20 deal.
Lindsay Lohan Commenting on /. Girls read /.?
Ok flame now
Maybe when DVD-A or SACD takes off we'll see a big spike in music sales too.
I'll have to see an SACD Walkman before that happens.
Other than the economy was in a recession and CD's are very much a luxury item. If I am even concerned about if I will have a job next month, I am more likely not to spend money on frivoulous items like CDs. Even if there was no P2P downloading, one could still just listen to the radio.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
There seems to be a trend of packaging DVDs along with CDS - something you cant buy on iTunes or easily pirate. Witness the recent U2 and Goo Goo Dolls albums. Thats what the record industry need to do to drive sales - innovate.
But, take two bands of similar style and quality (who are therefore likely to have fan bases that largely overlap), and price can be a very significant factor.
Promotion is a bigger one. Take a band on a major label vs. an independent band with roughly the same sound; the major label band can move more product at a higher price because more people know that the major label band exists.
I think the biggest problem here is the fact that the member music companies of the RIAA has pretty much set more or less a pretty specific price range for new album-length audio CD's.
There's one problem here, though: the RIAA set this price range so high that it has created an economic incentive the circumvent these prices. Why do you think the original Napster became such a big hit--customers were tired to paying up to US$18 per album-length CD and also found that online stores only subtracted a few dollars from the brick and mortar store price. A few stores priced their new-release CD's at around US$10-US$11, but these were more or less loss leaders intended to drive customers to the store hoping they'll buy the more expensive non-discounted CD's.
That's why the iTunes Music Store became such a huge success. You can buy essentially a full album for under US$10 (without waiting for a sale!) using downloaded AAC music files that could be easily burned on CD-R discs.
The RIAA needs to stop the vast overpricing of their product and reduce the price of a new album-length CD to under US$12, which will cut substantially the economic incentive to pirate music.
Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma.
I wonder if slashdot will ever figure out that Susie and Grandma are "real pirates" too.
This sounds so much like OJ's search for the "real killers" it's not even funny.
-j
while the distinction you're making is correct, you are in fact depriving the copyright holder of something - his legal right to control the distribution of his work. Copyright gives him a limited licence to control non-fair use distribution and copying of the work - without that licence there is far less incentive for many to produce the work. The person copying it has decided that they rather than the copyright holder should have that right - since the licence is exclusive, if someone takes it, they have in fact deprived the copyright holder of something.
This isn't to justify many of the questionable parts of copyright law or the RIAA's "logic" (or the inconsistency - taking artists' and users' copyright privileges is not theft but copying the music is) - but it is salient to note that people who copy music and set it out for mass distribution are doing something which fits the definition of "theft".
I wouldn't buy CDs from little Susie or Grandma, if I were you. Little Susie's reputation was shot some years ago, and Grandma suffered a tragic holiday accident, putting her out of business for a while.
<sorry>
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Just read through a ton of posts here. There's one thing no one mentioned.
The RIAA did not just announce increased sales. Nielsen SoundScan did. Last year, SoundScan reported selling about 25 million more records than the RIAA said they shipped to retail. About the same as the year before.
The RIAA does not announce its year-end "statistics" until late Feb. or March, which never address how many records are sold, just how many the factory shipped out, which includes all the copies that went to record clubs, deejays and giveaways.
The truth is that most comercial radio is crap. I spend time listening to web radio looking for whatever peaks my interest. Then I might go to P2P and download as much MP3 from the new found band and listen some more. When I want to make that music part of my permanent collection I will purchase some CD's and Rip to my specifications for my permant collection. The P2P becomes a part of my sampeling tool that I use to see if I actually like the music enough to purchase it.
Paul E. Bahre
But only if we stop giving them money.
Who are these "we" you speak of? The RIAA can survive without Slashdot users if it keeps on getting money from the sheeple, especially people under 21 who wouldn't know indie music if it bit them because they're forbidden by law from entering virtually all venues where it is played. Any suggestion of reducing the RIAA's power by reducing demand for its member labels' products has to be backed up with methods of evangelizing to the people who actually buy RIAA labels' products. Remember that listeners in motor vehicles are a captive audience who often have access only to commercial radio, and indie labels generally can't afford to buy a 3-minute spot on commercial radio.