Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry P2P Claims Dismantled
Canarock writes "First Monday runs a great
article this month from Canadian
law professor Michael Geist that dismantles the recording
industry's claims about the peer-to-peer. Using actual data from
Canada, Piercing
the P2P Myths, demonstrates that the loss claims are greatly exaggerated
and that P2P has had little, if any impact on the income of the artists themselves." From the article: "The Canadian government has been the target of intense lobbying for stronger copyright legislation in recent months. Led by the music industry, which claims that it has experienced significant financial losses due to music downloading, the campaign culminated in November 2004 with a lobby day on Parliament Hill."
Always revealing the truth. Of course, the question remains if this data was strictly for Canada, or for the global music industry itself. And, more important, what will the RIAA retort? Maybe now the **AA will stop trying to sue everyone and his sister and actually work on competing with what appears to be free media. One can only hope...
- dshaw
I can't find anything worth it.
Why don't you just ask? Yesterday I asked a friend (who owns a comic shop) what kind of music he was listening to and he gave me a huge list of good stuff to buy from all around the world. There is an almost infinite amount of music we'll never listen to and you don't know what you're missing. I ended up buying brazilian and indian records (when I usually listen to hard-rock and black metal).
There's good music out there. They just seriously neutered the end user's ability to find the kinds of music they liked after the Napster death. (Which really felt like what I imagine the Woodstock 69' era would've felt like.)
This industry's falling is going to be like what Microsoft's death will end up being in 20 years (if not sooner.)
One of the key ironies of the debate is that the CRTC (Canadian Radio and TeleCommunications standards body) demands that radio stations and TV contain a certain amount of Canadian content. Instead of spending several billion propping up the music cartel, if they spent it on the artists and uses P2P to spread the content, there would be a Canadian content boom in Canada and the US (since it would be legal to download local bands, as well as Bare Naked Ladies, Rush, Steppenwolf, The Tragically Hip, Bryan Adams, April Wine, Colin James, Neil Young, Alanis Morissette, The Guess Who, Odds, Our Lady Peace, Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne,...)
If the government locks up music and other media, all it will end up doing is giving the market to the biggest "legitimate" distributors (i.e. Americans), and turning our artists into American look-alikes. Celine Dion's music actually wasn't that bad in the beginning before she became americanized to break into the bigger market. She should surve as a warning as what can happen to you if you let the american media machine get to you.
OK - so maybe P2P doesn't have much of an effect of record sales. But does that mean you should just ignore the millions of instances of copyright infringment that occur daily using P2P software? Should you ignore crime? ...because that's what it is. I'm not saying it should be a crime, but complain all you like - downloading a song via a P2P network that you havn't already bought it almost always illegal.
I'm not putting this forward as my view, but just pointing out that maybe P2P has no effect on record sales, but does that mean we should ignore the crime that is taking place?
1 "pirate" copy = 1 lost sale? FALSE!
This is true, but is not always the case. I have pirated music which I may well have bought. I'm sure many people are the same.
However, the RIAA didn't help this by fixing prices and trying to stick to their old business model.
If iTunes came out as soon as Napster died, they probably wouldn't be having this problem. In the days of Napster, I heard many people claiming that they would happily pay for a high-quality, legal service. Now it's too late - people have become too accustomed to getting media for free, which is very obvious on this site.
>>when I usually listen to hard-rock and black metal If you were listening to regular rock, you might try Trile J. There are some great bands brewing in .au. It's only a matter of time before the rest of them catch up with Jet, AC/DC, Mars Volta, SpiderBait, etc... It's only a matter of time.
What he means is that he can't find anything worth it that is produced by RIAA companies. The RIAA couldn't give a hoot about brazilian and indian records. Actually they should logically be in favor of those being traded on P2P and not purchased, because if they're purchased it will mean less disposable income for people to spend on RIAA companies.
I don't download music, I mainly listen to the radio.
Occasionally, I'll browse a CD store, for things that I can't get on the radio, but I buy about 1 or 2 CDs a year currently.
I just look at the price, nearly $20 for an hours entertainment makes a $10 movie ticket seem reasonable.
If CDs were priced at $5 each, I'd probably buy at least 1 a week, and listen to them instead of the radio.
So, assuming that a CD costs $4 (which seems high) they can make $16 a year from me, OR, by cutting prices, $52 a year or more. also remember, that every 'cost' is someones profit. Shipping and Handling? UPS$ Blank CDs? Memorex$ more cashiers to handle higher sales volume? Job$ more chances taken in music purchased? small artist$ more trips to the mall to buy CDs? Food Court$
Hell, it's not just good business, it's their Patriotic Duty To the American economy that they slash prices, like the 0% auto finance. (slightly sarcastic) If they don't cut prices, the Terrorists Win... oh wait, they use terrorist style practices to enforce their will anyway; publicly suing randomly selected people, in order to incite fear. (much more sarcasticly)
Now, they would have to lower the prices along the whole distribution chain; If the stores lowered prices at the same wholesale rate, they would go out of business; but if the wholesale price dropped first, the record store might try to increase their per-album mark-up to gouge the consumers. BUT if they cooperated, that might fall under illegal 'price fixing', so it's not incredibly easy... but it's not incredibly hard.
Put those lawyers to Honest work, writing contracts, and negotiations that actually reduce the need for litigation, instead of finding new ways to sue people.
Join in with the Grammar Guru and sing along!
"The plural of MP3 is 'MP3s' (not MP3's).
The plural of CD is 'CDs' (not CD's)."
Where did so many fucking people get the idea that this was an acceptable place for an apostrophe?
In the UK, bands can be asked to pay copyright fees to perform their own music live!
Custom Rules For SpamAssassin
Ok, I admit it. I'm the person the RIAA should be blaming. You can all mark it down as my fault if you want. I'm the one who stopped buying CDs when P2P came along.
No, really.
I haven't bought a CD in 6 or 7 years. They're very expensive and file-sharing is free. Yes, I feel a little bit guilty about it, but there you have it.
I don't think that everyone is like me, but I really have to admit that I believe that file sharing is indeed costing the music industry money, just in the same way that CD bootlegging cost them money in the past. It's probably not a tremendous amount, I never really bought that many CDs to begin with, but it's certainly something.
So, for all of who argue that file sharing doesn't cost them money, keep in mind there are people like me. File sharins has cost them money from me, probably several hundred dollars.
Now let's hope they don't bash down my door.
--
RumorsDaily
Its amazing, they put out an endless stream of rap, hip-hop, and various forms of noise which involve the word "mix" and then blame declining sales on p2p file sharing. If most of the space on store shelves and racks weren't taken up by CDs with pictures of one or more homey-g thuggy types wearing gold chains and grabbing their crotches, and a little more space was devoted to music that people might actually want to listen to, maybe they would sell more.
I haven't bought a CD in over 2 years. Why? Well, I'm old (46) and most of the bands that I listened to when I was younger aren't around anymore. That coupled with the fact that I bought an XM adapter for my stereo....I don't listen to CD's much anymore. I get a GREAT variety of music, news, comedy on XM without having to fumble through CDs. I have nothing against the "rap, hiphop" ilk (I have a personal problem calling it music). If that is what you want to listen to, more power to you. But I don't care for it. When you go to a music store, that is all you see....I guess it sells. You sure do hear it when you don't want to though.....seems every 4th car has that stuff cranked up so loud you can't help but hear it LOL
I can tell you that it is not P2P that kills my sales it's Fucking Wal-mart. I pay whole sale what wal-mart has on the retail price. I make all my money off Parental advisory Cd's if Wal-Mart would start selling unedited Cd's I'd have to go out of business. When is the U.S. Government gonna start to place the blame on the shoulders of major corporations instead of on the kids that want to here the music before they buy it?
Peace, Love, And Oreo cookies
When I was younger, I used to purchase a ton of cd's. It was what I spelt my allowance on -- my choice.
But as I got older, I started to realize what a waste it was to spend $18-$20 on an album from which I would only listen to one or two songs.
So When Napster came out, I found out about it early (one of the first thousand users) and was able to ride the bandwagon on it, collecting songs that I would listen to and none of the ones that I wouldn't. I still bought CD's that were worth the price tag (the ones where every song on the album were decent and not just a crappy filler song).
Then I mostly stopped listening to new music. I've gotten a lot more comfortable listening to new, independent bands and buying their albums. Because it means more to me to give an independent band $15 for which I know $15 is going directly to the band. The quality of the music is also higher.
I've bought more CD's in the past year than I've bought since I was 12. And I feel good knowing that the money I spend is going to the artists, and not some shitty company.
Fact is, you can't say for definite *either* way - plenty of people will only have downloaded stuff they'd not have bought, or bought all the stuff that they downloaded and liked, but likewise, plenty of people will have downloaded stuff *instead* of buying it.
...
...)
I call bullshit. Sorry, but the simple fact is this.
Lets do a little "back of the napkin" math
If your average CD has 15 titles, and costs about 15 bucks, thats a buck a song. Which also jives with itunes (if memory serves, I have never bought any
At an average of a dollar a song, most peoples mp3 collections is WAY over what they could afford. (Or would reasonably be likely to pay, given their dispossable income.) How do I figure this? Because most people I know who d/ mp3s do so in volumes large enough to have multi thousand dollar price tags at $1/song.
Thus if people were forced to purchase all of their music, there would be far more people with far less music, rather than far more money in the coffers of the RIAA. This is plain economic sense. (Can't. Squeeze. Blood. Rock.)
So, sorry, your desire for ambiguity can be laid to rest. Sure. Some people d/l who can pay for the stuff. But the reality is, most - and I'd say a VERY high percentage - d/l because the cost is just right, that is, next to nothing. (Indeed, with bandwidth costing what it does today, one can almost eliminate that entirely and just consider the time cost of the end user, which is still minimal since it's browsing and clicking while likely doing something else in another window. Or eight.)
The system we *should* have? The system I'd say technology WILL evolve to? Once the government gets out of the way? Donations straight to the artists pocket. How? Simple. Cryptography.
Crypto can ensure you know you're getting a good copy, signed by the artist or their agent. This can also tell your computer exactly how to donate - ie, to what account etc - and you can tell your computer which artists to donate to and how much. Either automatically or per transaction. And off goes an emailed secure micro payment - totally anonymous if necesary, discrete (ie, small amounts) and easy-as-pie.
Thus the internet becomes the new distribution middleman, replacing the distribution component of the RIAA. I don't see the promotional aspect of it going away, but they better evolve to that quickly. Anyway, back to the donation aspect. Let's do some more "back of the napkin" math. Suppose a big artist like Peter Gabriel (picked at semi random, I am listening to him right now) releases a new song to the internet and asks for donations.
Now suppose the average donation is a dime. Yup. One tenth of an American dollar.
Now suppose twenty million people downloaded the song.
Thats two MILLION dollars straight into the artists pocket.
For one song.
I don't think thats a bad deal at all, do you?
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
You and a friend go to a restaurant that charges $10.00 per all you can eat platter and an ala carte menu. You can:
- both spend $10 and get whatever comes in a particular platter, whether you wanted it all or not.
- both spend whatever it takes to get what you want off the ala carte menu.
- one spends a couple of bucks for an appetizer and the other gets a platter and secretly share food.
- go hungry.
This compares (not perfectly, but better) to the music industry as:- Buy music in CDs, etc
- Listen to and record the radio, pay for downloads, etc
- Download music in violation of the copyright
- Not listen to music
Now, we bring in a new idea. All you can eat buffet for $5.00. This would equate to distribution by download. Lower price and higher margin due to lower overhead (maybe) but, also greater chance of someone getting something for nothing.The big difference is the restaurant can enforce a "no sharing" policy for the buffet, but music producers can't. The question is: will people buy something if they can get it from a friend for free? If most people go for the free ride, then there is no profit. If the music producers don't make any money, they soon will not produce any music, just like a restaurant going out of business.
New technologies that make distribution more efficient, that open larger markets, and that increase competition can cause a redistribution, as well as the creation of, wealth.
The real question is: how viable is a business who's product can be duplicated and given away so easily using this distribution method? Will people kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You can point out to your coworker that you're not the only one. I stopped buying CDs probably around the same time you did, for the same reason. And, likewise, most of my mp3s (oggs, actually) are ripped from my own old CDs.
I remember a few years ago, I was walking around a mall with my friend/roommate. We went into a music store, and I thought to myself, "Hey, I haven't bought a CD in a really long time, I should look for something I'd like." I found a CD I wanted, and was horrified to notice that it was something like $19 or $20. What really got to me was realizing that, since the CD was released (IIRC) in the early 90's, it is actually more expensive now than it was when it was new!
That sealed it for me. That's when I transitioned from not buying CDs because I was too poor, to formally making the decision to never buy CDs whether I can spare the money or not.
It will harm the industry, if the industry doesn't change. They've had plenty of opportunity, and they certainly have the money and time to figure it out.
The problem is, they sat on their asses and whined instead of developing something new. Amateurs with home computers ended up with far better, more efficient distribution systems than the industry itself had. That there are copyright violations is a side effect of this.
The video industry is doing the same thing... look at all the HD downloads online, yet we still don't have a solid HD-media standard. There is more HD material available online than at the local video store (which has none). Problem? You bet.
It's great when first monday dismantles p2p claims, but not when they dismantle free software claims?
Oh, that's priceless.
Well, not exactly. Except if you're a fan of ad hominem arguments, which are a classical logical fallacy.
Some of their conclusions:
1) The industry experienced a huge boom during the early to mid 90s as CD players became inexpensive to buy.
2) A good portion of those buying CDs were not buying new albums but CD versions of existing music in their collections.
So the music industry was experiencing golden years due to a new emerging technology and the fact that people were replacing vinyl and cassettes with CDs to augment this new emerging technology. But that behavior only lasts so long. Eventually people would have replaced their collections. They would be buying new music but not at the rates as before.
Also, although the manufacturing costs of a CD have dropped dramatically, their prices were still higher than cassettes which cost more to make. This was done for years due to collusion by the music industry and retailers to keep the prices artificially high. This collusion has been documented as part of settlements of lawsuits.
What's more important is that the industry has expected the profits to be the same as that during the boom times even though times were changing. In most industies, the newest products and prototypes are always the most expensive. When economies of scale kick in and manufacturing becomes more efficient, prices start to drop. Take for example, CD and DVD players.
At the same time, the focus of the industry was changing. By now, most music companies had been bought by large conglomerates like Sony and Vivendi. They expected quick profits and the profits to remain high. The industry began to shift its focus from acts to albums. Before it was about the artists and maintaining them. Now it was about getting the CD out. Getting the music video out. It didn't matter if the music suffered as long as the sales were made. It became about the single, the first minute.
At the same time, the radio industry was experiencing the same kind of consolidation as the music industry. Fewer and fewer independents existed. Most were controlled by a few corporations like Clear Channel.
With the music industries controlled by a select few companies, and the predominant means of distribution tightly controlled (radio and retail), the industry had now a near monopoly on music distribution.
Enter P2P. P2P threatens the industry in two ways. Although there have been music sales lost due to piracy, P2P is more threatening in that artists now have an alternative method of distribution that bypasses their control. Unfortunately, P2P gives them a scapegoat for their sales. It doesn't matter that sales should have suffered years ago due lowering prices (manufacturing cost decreases) and lowering sales (people stop replacing older formats). I suggest you watch the Frontline episode online.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The record companies do loads of market research. They probably know that the sales impact of P2P is minimal. So, why are they fighting so hard to stop it?
The better question would be to ask why they've been dragging their feet so much on stopping it. Napster was up and running and quite popular before they filed suit. My conspiracy theory guess is they wanted us to get hooked on immediate and fine-grained (to the song, rather than album) music distribution. To feed the addiction, we've now got DRM-encumbered pay services. The ultimate goal is the Celestial Jukebox.
For those unfamiliar, it is a content-distribution paradigm where everything is DRM encumbered and available on demand at the most fine-grained level possible. Every time you listen triggers a micropayment. The system would of course be monopolistic, without alternative methods that have that pesky right of first sale.
What's the greatest threat to the Celestial Jukebox? Free music! As in, fully legal free music. Who in their right mind would put up with such a right-stripping scheme when they can get the music straight from the artist and the artist's other fans, never paying a cent to any label. How do the artists make money? They sell concert tickets, merchandise, etc., things that are not troubled by copyright concerns.
So far, free content doesn't yet dominate many of the P2P networks because many of the things people want to hear are still distributed conventionally. Watch big name artists rebel and customers turn away in droves as the DRM gets more and more restrictive. When that happens, the labels want P2P to be quite completely banned, or they will be obsolete.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
"The open source movement is playing an important and vital role in software development at the end of the 20th century, and open source will continue to be an important center for creativity in the next century.".."This paper stresses the important advantage of OSS over commercial development - the inherent possibility of creating simpler products that are superior to commercial products in terms of functionality and user interface."
Scathing. The second article argues for a re-examination of the roots of 'free' software in government funded academia rather than "hacker ethics". Neither article touchs on, much less 'dismantles', any of what are considered the core claims of free software in this forum. Both are in fact pro OSS. That sacks of shit like you completely misrepresent them to knee the groin of OSS advocates and are as-per-usuaul trailed by moderators too stupid or lazy to read a full paragraph, that's the priceless part.
Um in the heyday of Napster, Kazaa and Morpheus there was considerably more music available through them then at the music store.
The music store thus became a non viable option for getting music.
Funny, but true. The RIAA HAS to know P2P isn't as big a threat as they make it out to be? Then why do they waste their time suing the bejeezus out of 90 year old women and kids in diapers instead of attacking the real issue, which is shitty carbon copy music with no soul?
I know I'm only one person, but I've heard this a lot. I've probably bought MORE music because I've downloaded songs than I would have otherwise. I get to listen to bands and records my local CD stores DO NOT carry. Sure I have a lot of illegal MP3s (not nearly as many as some people), but you have to look at opportunity cost. Would I have bought all of these CDs if I had not been able to download them? Hell no. I buy as many CDs as financially possible.
The RIAA also always forgets to mention the economy has been doing pretty bad for the last 4-5 years, which conveniently coincides with a large decline in CD sales. I guess they don't really want to bring the "music vs. eating" disccusion....
...distributed file sharing, cryptography, proxies, and parity will collide and instead of any one person hosting a complete file, the file will be containerized, split, parity containers built, and the pieces uploaded to peers at random based only on their availible space and relative activity and pipe size and so on and the original copy deleted.
Enough copies of pieces and parity files would propagate out based on statistics to ensure reasonable chance to get at anything, not any less easy than eMule of today. If you download all pieces and construct successfully, the solid file isn't seen and listed by IP because only the parts are shared at large. Your whole copy is totally outside the system once gotten.
Once no one person has a complete copy of anything, and each piece is named in gibberish that only the system understands and knows, what are they going to do then? Sue a teen girl because one twentieth of a Metallica song might be on their hard drive and she's got no way of knowing for sure because her storage is managed by the collective peer network?
The technical capabilities exist right now to do it and eventually it will be reasonably perfected. They will be brought to their knees by it, sputtering and whining all the way. It will illustrate very clearly that as long as information is in the hands of individuals, as long as they can read, write, and think for themselves, effective subjugation of the unwilling by any private organization or government will be difficult short of violence or threat thereof.
I don't see a RIAA-SWAT team becoming reality in the future nor do I see work-a-day policemen putting up with the notion of being their tools. So unless it could possibly go that direction, they've lost this fight the instant they picked it. They need to cut to the chase, admit defeat, and bargain for a new understanding between producer and consumer that's acceptable to both parties.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Ok, I'm 44 and have been playing guiter (and other assorted instruments) since I was 13. I have grew up with other musiciams that have had a lot of success (Jake E Lee - Ozzy, RATT) and played in many bands. I used to be all about "getting signed". Now the reality is that musicains are generally flakes and unreliable. Pair this with R&A reps and you've a hard time getting anywhere if you're serious.
Now, the computer age! Right now I have Ableton Live 4 and Steinberg's CubaseSX 2.1 (both music sequencing/mastering programs). The state of the art is now at the point where "quality" produced music can be done with a modest investment and a bit of talent. What really is at the crux of this "file sharing" BS that the RIAA is spewing is really about gaining control of media distribution.
Let me be direct. I don't need to hope to "get signed" in order to produce my music in an RIAA approved studio. I can record, mix and master my music. Now pair this with the plethera of indy music publishers popping up and their main means of exposure and distribution - the net. The way I would (and others) work it is to place a song or two (hopefully one that will hold interest) on to a p2p network - this gains exposure. Now if you like what I've produced you can go to "X" site and see my full album/CD and if so desired buy it! Gee what a novel idea.
Now, using the net, p2p, and the help of an indy publisher or three I actually start to sell my work. So, just for arguement, let's say That my song (released for free on a p2p) is getting attention in the U.S. and Europe. There are over 240 million in the U.S. and a few more million in Europe (to say the least). Now lets say i get $1 for each CD sold (actually more but let's keep it in round numbers). To get a Gold album you sell 500K, and platinium 1Mil. Between the U.S. and Europe I have catchy song and sell a million - I'm rich and who needs the RIAA and it's affiliates?
The only thing the RIAA members may afford me is distribution and advertising (and maybe concert arrangements). I don't need to sign my life away to "get signed" in order to ply my craft, and with the advent of p2p and indy publishers I really don't even need the distribution (though big record companies can provide some nice advertising).
If they get legislation to shutdown or hinder p2p networks then they set legal precedence and can use their legal teams to further gain back their deathgrip on who makes what music and whether or not it sees the light of day.
P2P is just a step in keeping the RIAA's domination over musicians and music creation and distribution. The idea of musicians creating, controlling, and making a sizable amount of money off their product seems to really bother the record moguls - Gee, imagine that. Musicains make money from their music without having to "sign" away the overwhelming majority of the money generation to a "contract" holder, and providing their fans with music "they've" decided they like at an affordable price.
I bet it keeps the RIAA big wigs up at night - any takers on that bet?