Slashdot Mirror
Legal Music Downloads At 35%, Soon To Pass Piracy
bonch writes "Entertainment Media Research released a study stating that 35% of music listeners are using legal download services, and that the percentage will soon surpass illegal downloads, currently at 40%. Slashdot has also previously reported on services like iTunes gaining in popularity over P2P services. "The findings indicate that the music industry is approaching a strategic milestone with the population of legal downloaders close to exceeding that of pirates," said Entertainment Media Research chief executive Russell Hart.'"
Legal downloads? What's the internet coming to?!
But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching?
so what's the other 25%?
i did not rta but what is the other option besides "illegal" and "legal" downloads? (35% + 40% != 100%)
It's just damn easier than dealing with all the shit from stealing.
A buck a song? Genius.
For something as ethereal as bits on a platter, it hardly seems worth it to pay USD1.00 for a song. If I buy a CD for USD15.00, I get about 15 songs, so the price of the music is the same, and in addition I also get a nice case and a physical disk and liner notes.
I would probably start subscribing to these "legal" music download sites if they were to stop gouging the buyers. Until then, I'll support my favorite bands by giving away samples of their music to my friends and buying t-shirts at their concerts.
...but if 35% are downloading legally, and 40% are downloading illegally, then what are the other 25% doing? goatse?
How can you possibly steal using "illegal" download services?
Unless people are downloading gigs from ITMS etc. - daily - then I can't see how this is anything more than wishful thinking (or reverse FUD?)
--
"we live in a post-ideological world..." - Billy Bragg.
Time to jack up the license fees on legal downloads!!! We'll make a killing at $4 a song!!
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
no, it means that 75% of music listeners download music.
At last we are waking up to the commercials of downloading paid music.
I believe this trend will increase in every sphere as most people get over the thrill of free or stolen music.
The initial days have passed and more and more people are settling down to the regular method of paying.
Yet there will remain first timers who will always want to go for the irregular path for a quick thrill.
In a way life is getting more monotonous.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
Given the level of integration between something like iTunes and my iPod, it is much easier (for me) to browse, pay, and download, music, rather than search for and obtain an uncontrolled copy.
Provided you've got the cash means to do it, there's not really any excuse for not using "officially sanctioned", paid-for, download sources.
All we've seen is the industry playing catch-up with a technology which took off much faster than they were able to keep up with.
Contribute to the online videogame encyclopedia: GamerWiki
... when Britney Spears appeared in those television ads telling me how wrong piracy was, and how it was stealing from artists like her.
I mean: "We hit a little bit of reality, hardcore, after the first three weeks. But we handled it fine, and now things are starting to go really smooth. Before we got married we were on tour, and we were just like kids, ordering room service, saying, 'Let's go out tonight. Then, all of a sudden, you have this home, you have the kids [Federline's children Kaleb and Kori], you have to get the diapers, get the dog to the vet. It's this reality. Like omigod, I have to tell the maid to buy diapers and get the pool boy to walk the dog? Can't I just make out with Kevin all the time? Being married sucks."
Poor girl... thank god the RIAA kept after the pirates who tried to rob her of her livelihood.
Seriously though, good to hear that online music is working, but it still sucks that 60% of that goes to RIAA liscensing levies.
Learn to read. It says 35% of MUSIC LISTENERS are paying for downloads, and 40% are downloading illegally. The other 25% is either buying albums at a store or listening to the radio. In other words... NOT DOWNLOADING!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does allofmp3.com and similar services count as legal in this survey?
It's apparently legal for allofmp3 to offer the music (in Russia), and it's legal for me in Canada to download it, but I somehow think that this type of service is not what they had in mind when they said "legal".
Hymn was a program that removed the DRM from Apple's iTMS downloads. It was actually nice if you make a lot of mix CDs as you can quickly get past the limit on the DRM for the AAC files. They broke the original version of Hymn with 4.7 but I thought that a new version came out, hosted off in India. But now that doesn't work either.
It's weird, as it seems to me that anyone pirating would simply get an MP3 from some P2P network. So I didn't see Hymn as that big a threat.
You mean actually EMBRACING new technology that everyone is using, is actually BENEFICIAL? Wow, that is such a novel idea!
</sarcasm>
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
only 6: suck it, RIAA
If 35% of the replies are about Goatse, and 40% are about whether the total legal and illegal downloads is 75% or 100%, what will everyone else talk about?
It's "OK" Slashdot editors aren't mathematicians. It's the effort that counts, at least they gave it 110%.
"who have pirated music," Not, "that pirate music on a regular basis." I wonder if the same goes for the legal downloads, have or regularly do. I have downloaded legally and found DRM a pain in the ass, and continue to get my shite from P2P and allofmp3.com.
Also is that replacing illegal downloaders or is it gaining new users.
I am not trying to argue anything here, but gauge the state of the industry.
Sorry about the spelling, I have a Birthday celebration to attend.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
I think what the point is that 35% of music listeners use legal downloading services, 40% use illegal downloading services, and 25% use no downloading services at all.
Of course, I have to wonder how accurate these statistics are, considering that some people are going to lie when asked if they use illegal downloading services. Also, some people, no doubt, illegally download and also use legal downloading services.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Maybe this should have been a Slashdot poll. 35% download legally, 40% download illegally and 25%:
- Rip from CD
- Breasts!
- Mentally reconstruct the music by "reading"
the grooves on an LP
- Record off the radio
- Rely on the voices in their head for all their entertainment
- Cowboy Neal
These stats are brought to you by the same people that make up benchmarking numbers and voodoo economics.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics all.
are just ripping their own CDs, simple.
land on a fraction?
... the entire RIAA should be dragged out into the streets and paraded through town so we can jeer and throw rotten vegetables at them.
In fact, they should make a national holiday out of it. There can be a big parade... and thousands of vendors selling rotten vegetables. Yea. That's exactly how I dreamt it.
I am curious how this is measured. If an illegal downloader is being "measured" in this statistic, does that mean he/she is being "caught"? What about the silent masses illegally downloading music that is not measured?
People buy them, people illegally record on them too. So what? I think that the industry is happy with the fact that people are legally downloading stuff and now they should stop all the whining about the the other folks who don't, and get over it.
You would think something like the VHS tape would destroy the movie industry. Just like downloading music has destroyed the music industry.
Err.... wait a minute... it didn't!
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
The math doesn't have to add up to 1. Values less than 1 and greater than 1 are perfectly acceptable in this sort of thing. Think about it. You have people who listen to music. Some of these people will get music through legal downloads, some will pirate music, some will go with legal downloads and pirate music (meaning the same person counts in both categories) and some will neither legally download nor pirate music (meaning they don't count in either of these categories). So what this means is that there might be somewhere around 25% of music listeners (depending on how many listeners fall into both listed categories) who only buy music on CDs or listen to the radio.
The numbers add up, they just shouldn't be added.
Remember RFC 873!
Who exactly are 'music listeners?' everyone who answered 'yes' to "are you a music listener?" ???
The article references the numbers as 35% of music "consumers" partake in legal downloads compared to the 40% of music "consumers" that admitted to illegally downloading music. So 25% of music consumers don't download music. The percentages refer to the people that consume music as a whole, not to music downloads as a whole.
The article says "35% of music consumers". Presumably, this means "all people who buy CDs" (or would buy CDs, if they weren't busy stealing the bread out of hungry record executive children's mouths).
This allows for overlap between the two groups; in fact, I'm guessing that the vast majority of online-music-buyers have also experimented with downloading.
If there is complete overlap, it would mean that 60% of music consumers have never downloaded music from the 'net. It would also mean that only 12.5% of illegal downloaders have not bought from iTunes or similar...
It would be interesting to see the actual numbers, and what questions they asked :-/
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
35% are legal, 40% are illegal, so the remaining % (25) I assume would fall under both categories. You have to question though, how accurate are these percentages? Just because the EMR can't see users swapping media in not-so-obvious places... that doesn't mean it still isn't going on.
the other 25% are stuck watching a flash advertisment for viagra.
rehab, captain ahab, you're chasing the wrong fish!
And the RIAA will claim the drop is due to them sueing everyone.
Apple will claim iPods and iTunes did it.
Microsoft will some how claim they did something to help with Windows Media Player.
Then more figures will come out saying the opposit and all statements will be withdrawn and more people sued.
I like muppets.
ya... I realized after posting. This is why I hate statistics ( currently taking the class :).
So of the people who listen to music, 25% don't download legally or illegally and purchase CDs or tapes or whatever.
Now I'd imagine all categories overlap... I'm sure a LOT of people buy some CDs, download others legally and also download illegal copies every now and then. So I don't know how those are accounted for.
LONDON (Hollywood Reporter) - Around 35% of music consumers now download tracks legally via the Internet and the percentage will soon pass the 40% who have pirated music, according to a new survey released Monday by Entertainment Media Research.
The online research company used data collected from 4000 music consumers to compile the 2006 Digital Music Survey in association with media law firm Olswang.
Fear of prosecution, Internet viruses, and inferior quality were cited as the main deterrents against illegal downloading, the report said. Nearly two-thirds of music consumers said immediate availability was the key reason for buying tracks online.
"The findings indicate that the music industry is approaching a strategic milestone with the population of legal downloaders close to exceeding that of pirates," Entertainment Media Research chief executive Russell Hart said.
John Enser, senior partner at Olswang, added in a statement: "Clear deterrents to illegal downloading are emerging, with fear of prosecution running high, and close behind is the sense that unauthorized downloading is 'not fair on the artists,' suggesting that the industry's messages, led by the British Phonographic Industry, are being communicated effectively."
--
They suck because they don't understand maths. Particularly, in this case, the Venn diagram (see).
Giving us a "35% use legal music downloads" and "40% pirate music" doesn't give us much clue about the number of people who do both, or neither.
The also fail to understand that when you pirate music (if you have a decent source of some kind) the only reason to stop is when you run out of hard drive space - not even then if you don't mind storing some music on CD-R.
Okay, great, a statistic. All of us are going, "now wait just one minute there..." and using our inane skills of deduction to whittle away all of its importance (like you can do with any statistic).
So yeah, of course we know better, and this has a good chance of not being anywhere near accurate. So what? The rest of the dumb (er, non-nerd) public believes these statistics, at least on a subconsious level, especially the politicians! Let them believe that piracy is going down, that the paying markets are taking hold, that their business model is working. Maybe they'll stop worrying so much and actually focus on what's important, like making good music. Chances are their profits will keep on not going down. And when they ask how this happens even with all that piracy? Ehhhhhhh... it's magic. Here's some statistics. Good dog.
"!"
does the 35% of legal downloads include those using services like allofmp3, or mp3search.ru? i doubt it...but it might add another percent or two as both services are technicaly legal...
is actually the percentage of /.ers who will post "It doesn't add up"!
I'll pirate till I die.
They've charged me way too much money for their low quality bullshit. I can get whatever I want whenever I want it now and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. so NAH NAH NA NAH NAHH. Bitches.
It'd be interesting to know how they arrived at both figures. I mean if you come up with 40% as pirated, could one not give themselves that figure as an arbitrary target. Thus they can surpass it rather quickly and voila! "Efforts via our anti-piracy campaign, and the technology sector embracing legal downloads has allowed us to surpass piracy!"
- No greater than 70% of music listeners download music (legal or illegal) -- i.e., as much as 30% of music listeners simply don't download music.
- No fewer than 40% of music listeners download music (legal or illegal).
- At most, 30% use both legal and illegal downloads.
- It's possible (based on this limited data) that no one does both illegal and legal downloading.
In next month's survey, both numbers could go up or down since the survey does not ask "do you ONLY download music from legal/ illegal sources." Moreover, the survey provides no estimates of volumes -- illegal downloaders could be downloading 10X or 10X less than their legal-downloading counterparts. Or people that download legal music could be the biggest "pirates" and this survey would be none the wiser.Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
...While the percentage of users who buy music (I'm part of this group) may statistically pass the group who uses illegal p2p networks, what is omitted is the fact that, on average, p2p users download *way* more than someone like myself, or anyone else who uses iTunes (or insert favorite service here).
I think it's a bit premature to declare music piracy dead. Apple and others have made great inroads in such a short time to curb illegal p2p usage, but I think that CD sales is losing out to online distro., not p2p networks.
I still buy a lot of albums at the store, but I get all my singles and such online.
*** For a better tommorow, change your life today ***
Sites like http://www.audiolunchbox.com/ Magnatune, eMusic and mp3Tunes are one main reason why this trend is happening. NO DRM, Oggs and sometimes even FLAC - I'd say that is one major reason for the shift. Smaller sites with less mainstream content that let their users actually own the files unrestricted seem to finally be catching on. RIGHTON
I'm one of those ones who downloads music and buys stuff that I think is really good(just to reward those really good artists). So where exactly do I fit into these statistics?
Creative Demolition
"The survey also found that 25% of 4,000 people interviewed said they were prepared to download music legally, up from 16% a year ago." (PCTalk)
This would have been really interesting if the RIAA hadn't gone on it's little sueing spree lately. I wanted to know whether or not people would choose the legal option out of the goodness of their hearts once it was as easy/convenient as the illegal one. But now the sample has been dirtied by the RIAA's bullying tactics and we'll never know for sure whether people have just been scared into downloading legally.
If we use the numbers of downloads SJ quoted at the keynote 430 million downloads, and assume about ~3 MB/download...
That's 1290 million megabytes.
1290 thousand gigabytes.
1290 terabytes.
1.290 petabytes.
just because your section of the internet is not working right doesn't mean everybody else's is broken too. :-p
Over here on the east coast, with primary peering coming out of charlotte, the site is just fine and speedy.
Not if I can help it!
Itunes songs as we all know are $1. Your average cd is about $13-$15.
Shouldnt we be saving money when buying from Itunes? After all they dont need to make disks, buy case's, print the disks or booklets, they dont need to hire people to work in the plants etc, so why are Itunes files priced at $1?
I would buy twice as much music from them if it was 50 cents per song and I wouldnt feel cheated either, I've stopped buying from Itunes for just that reason, $1 is to much for a single song, even more so since its crippled and I have to remove the DRM to play the files as mp3's in my car.
and raise the drawbridges. as soon as they have enough ppl legally downloading and illegal downloading moves to the fringes, drm restrictions will tighten and price will rise. remember the industry pushed for songs to be $1.35 last year? jobs said "wait.. it's like fishing, you have to make sure they are firmly on the hook". i could just be paranoid. maybe they really aren't out to make more money.. 1. Fight new technology. Cry, threaten, sue. 2. Accept futility and grudingly play along. 3. Find out that new technology becomes new cash cow. 4. Profit! 5. Repeat
I still prefer allofmp3.com :) $.40 an album isn't too bad.
So 75% of all music listeners download music? More like 75% of everyone who ownes a computer, an MP3 player, and has a broadband connection downloads music. The rest of the world goes for long periods of time without buying any music at all, much less downloading it.
New to Songpeople? Here's how it works ...
It's really simple. We conduct online research for the music industry. If you join us, we'll send you a bunch of tracks to listen to or some music videos to watch. All you have to do is answer a few quick questions about it. Was it good / bad, did you love it or hate it? You'll then have the opportunity to give us more detailed feedback if you want to.
All of your feedback goes anonymously to the top people working in the major record labels, radio stations and music television stations around the world.
We help record labels determine whether new music by major up and coming artists will be a hit. We do it by streaming songs / videos and asking the opinion of over 250,000 music lovers like you throughout the world. If you'd like to know more about the Company or have a specific question please contact us:
Your enquiries: team@songpeople.com
Its Interesting that anyone would even take this shit seriously. If your confused, I have prepared an easy to read chart ready:
1) Pay Organization for study
2) Watch study favor your industry! (WOW!)
3) ??????????
4) PROFIT!
In your example, you are right. The downloader did nothing illegal in downloading the music.
However, the uploader most likely does not have the right to distribute the music, so it would be an illegal upload.
User buys from iTunes: Legal upload, Legal download
User hacks iTunes to download music for free: Legal upload, Illegal download
User downloads music he does not own from Kazaa: Illegal upload, Illegal download
User downloads music he owns from Kazaa: Illegal upload, Legal download (your example fits here)
I'd be interested to see the raw numbers. I'd say I download about 5000 tracks a year. I'd bet I delete about 95-97% of those tracks.
If only the music industry would let me BORROW the music, throw it on my pod and then let me return it when I've determined that it's crap, I'd be right there buying music like it was my job.
The library offers that but only if I want to listen to the top X, which usually equates to crap.
Until then, love the NNTP!
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
are those who download into their ears or recording device from radiob for free.... legally.
Interesting survey they had at work. It was a company wide survey which was meant to rate your staisfaction level and overall management of the company.
For the first quarter of the year, there were 5 answers to every question ranging from "Completely Dissatisfied" to "Extremely satisfied".
The next quarter the same questions were there, but there were only TWO answers now. DISSATISFIED and SATISFIED.
Interestingly it was announces with great pride that "we're doing something right" since the satisfaction numbers were WAY up.
What's the problem here? Well given two options, folks who were really anything less than COMPLETELY DISSATISFIED chose SATISFIED this time.
Rule: Numbers and results mean absolutely NOTHING unless the methods of collection can be scrutinized and put up for all to review.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
I think it is about time that society comes to grips with the fact that the internet changes the way our world works. We should stop trying to hang on to what worked in the past, but rather embrace this new technology by inventing new ways to interact. For example, instead of trying to DRM online music to prevent piracy, why not just abandon that concept of thinking altogether. I envision the result to be a society where music returns to the original purpose of an artform. Musicians will make music because they are good at it and because they enjoy doing it. People will support musicians they like by donating to them, or buying physical goods from them. It would be a return to a more evolutionary approach to art in which the best survive. I truly hope that one day I can see my vision attained.
Just need one more referral for a
I wonder if they consider music which is under a free to distribute license (like the stuff you find at http://www.podsafeaudio.com/) as "legal music downloads"
Now I know this is still a very small percentage, but I have seen figures that there are several million podcast listeners so I imagine the podsafe music is at least a drop in the bucket.
Personally, that is all I have downloaded or purchased in quite some time, if for no other reason than the fact that I don't want to give my money to the RIAA.
Time to stop paying $4 a song and start pirating music again!
...the noise of the RIAA people grows inversely to the level of actual theft. I have no doubt the MPAA and their ilk would also do the same if bandwidth averages were higher more commonly and a video equivalent to iTunes came about as successful.
Around about the time that 95% of all music sales are download based and CDs becoming a special order item for all but the top twenty, I expect them to be pressing congress for a law banning all audio recording devices without a license, and all devices to mandatorily include fourteen layers of 2048-bit DRM encryption.
Now is not the time to back down and sit there grinning people. Pressure from all angles must be maintained. I'm doing my part on the opt-out side and not buying a single damn CD until they cry uncle. You iPod people, keep jamming. P2P people, keep it up. Remember, reality is not an issue here. Their take on the situation is delusional and the more that reality presses them, the better their crack up is going to be.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Not if I can help it.
http://www.streetracingwar.com/
All those percentages are in metric, that's why they don't add up to 100%.
I'll go back to tapes before I pay $15 for 15 songs that some greedy record exec says aren't mine, or tells me what and how may times I can move or copy a song. Even better - go with one of the "unlimited" (I won't give them pub - if you don't know what - just stay away) services that has such a restrictive DRM that the music you've purchased is worthelss if you cancel your subscription. I won't pay to download SHIT untill the product is MINE. Free to do whatever I want with it - isn't that the point of buying it?
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
I'm a Canadian, and as a Canadian, it is my right to download all the music I want. This is going to start affecting the number of available sources to download music for free. Does anyone know if a napster like project that is born out of canada would be safe from RIAA and the MPAA? FYI: I know it's thought that uploading music is illegal here. The uploaders computer makes a copy and then sends that to the downloader. In canadian law, the person sharing the media cannot make the copy. the person reciving the copy must copy the media. My argument is that the person reciving the media is initiating the copying process and effectivly borrowing the uplaoders computer. the uploader does not physicly initiate the copying process
You are confusing me with someone who cares.
I am totally using this method the next time I have to do a presentation!
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
I haven't bought a CD in years, the prices are just too high. On average you're looking at $12 to $15 for a 10 track CD. On average I enjoy a few songs, between 2-3, on each CD. Sure nowadays, you can purchase songs individually online. But what about people that have bad credit? Or no credit card at all? Or those that don't trust online outlets with their information? I know plenty of people who thanks to spyware and such do not trust any browser or "secure" method of online purchasing cause there is no 100% guarantee.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: they need custom kiosks that can custom burn CD's for price of each song. You go into a store or the mall, and go up to a little kiosk. You pick out which songs you want, and pay for each song. A system then burns you a CD, with those songs on it, and you pay like any other method (cash, check, etc). Until then can come up with a widescale format for releasing CD's, kind of like "singles", with the songs YOU want, people will "pirate". Costs are cheap. CD's cost like a penny to produce blank, probably less. A simple GUI running on a touch screen LCD can be setup so a user can simply go through an A - Z search for song/artist and there are plenty of programs that can be modified to autoburn apon being told so.
Aw Frell this
Even if the numbers of people downloading legally and those downloading illegally reach parity, I think another facet of the problem is that those who download illegally tend to do so in greater volumes. A consumer might buy an album or two from iTunes at a time, but a pirate can get several torrents of any given artist's entire discography at a time. Which means the number of legal downloaders will have to be significantly greater than the number of pirates for true parity to be reached.
People are starting to know better than admit to it.
Im glad
the recording industry for infringement on a well documented fact that they (illegals) were the first to come up with the *idea* of dl'ing music!!
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
In other news, strange research samples have reached 51.2% and will soon plummet to 21 billion cows.
Get a grip: statistics don't tell you ANYTHING about a populace.
Besides to obviousness of the RIAA/MPAA propagandistic fun with statistics, let me just state, for the record, that I will not opt-in (pay for) my music downloads until I am able to anonymously buy music I like for a price that actually represents it's value (and here, you need to think no DRM and allofmp3 pricing).
Fortunatly, I live in a country that allows CD rentals and doesn't prosecute (criminal or civil suites) for downloads; so, I'm not "lingering hopefully" for the music industry to cater to my needs... in fact, I hope they never do. Take that, stuff it in your "new business model" pipe and smoke it.
What things would be like the RIAA had offered any sort of legal downloading before Napster came along. Granted, there would still be massive piracy, and there always will be. But there's no reason that legal downloads couldn't have been the majority from the start. The RIAA is gigantic and virtually invincible, true, but so were the dinosaurs.
English is easier said than done.
"35% of music listeners are using legal download services"
and "illegal downloads, currently at 40%"
This probably can be rewritten as such....
35% of music listeners are using legal download services
40% of music listeners are using illegal download services
so...
75% of music listeners are using *A* download service
therefore
25% of music listeners are *NOT* using a download service
Sound about right?
so basically what your saying is that this study is "inconclusive"? Its useless.
Good, maybe they'll leave the filesharers alone and we can go back to scouring the nets for the songs they refuse to sell us.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
The music industry makes a ton on iTunes. When the songs were $1, they took about $0.80 of that. Now think: They didn't have to pay any distribution costs on that at all, most production costs are taken out of artists' royalties, and they generally made any remaning costs up on CD profits. iTunes money is basically pure profit for them.
And they forced a price hike.
Not too long ago they forced Apple up to $1.25 per song. It was their cut that went up, not Apple's. Apple really isn't making much, since they recognise it needs to be cheap to be widely accepted and they want to corner the market, plus it sells iPods which is where they really make money.
Even that, however, is better than what the record industry wanted: $3/song for popular songs.
So really, that is the kind of thought that goes through their heads. They think they should just be allowed to squeeze every last dime out of people. That's the whole reason they are so paranoid about copying of music. The more outrageous prices get, the more likely people are to copy things and the more morally justified they feel in doing it.
They just need to get below the mark where most people care. They need ti cheap enough that most people will not consider it much money spent, and just make the purchase. Apparantly $1 work pretty well, however I imagine less, probably $0.50, would be around ideal. You want people to feel it's just a trivial amount so they'll impulse buy all the time and end up spending more than they intended.
They other thing is, as the grandparent noted, they can make it easier than illegal services. They have, to an extent, but of course in theri stupidity and paranoia they don't take it far enough. If they were smart, they'd give Apple their entire library to sell. All of it. Every live set, every CD, even those years out of print, etc. Digital storage is cheap. Then people can spend their money on whatever they want. Also, with good search advertising (like Google and Amazon do) they could amke more sales. Just bought the new U2 CD? Did you know you can get 8 different versions of it played in concert? Only $0.25/version/song! Etc.
They could have an above zero price and virtually eliminate piracy, at least in wealthy countries which is all they really care about, simply be making the service really good. If you could get truly anything you wanted, in the quality you wanted, easily with a good search, very very few would choose the illegit means, even though it's free.
Gets the big guys off the backs of us who don't fall for this wonderful plan of theirs.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
would that be an infraction of someones rights? :)
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
Why, In Soviet Russia, music downloads YOU!
Then I set about finding the records... I try to buy directly from the artist, but otherwise:
http://www.gemm.com/
comes in handy that way.
We all just agree on a few basics:
1. MP3 only
2. 192 or better quality
3. rip complete records, and keep it all n the drive.
It works and we all get incredible collections of tunage.
also, we ship each other DVD-Rs of tunes for perusal, same standards.
I recently culled a bunch of crap I didn't like, so now I'm down to 59.6 days of music. I can say that I have bought each record at some point in my long record buying career. I don't listen to music radio, except for a few hours a month to KUSF (a college station). So much music, so little time...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
If I make murdering someone with a blue knife legal, but murdering someone with a red knife illegal, and 50% of murders are committed with a blue knife, does that mean that the number of legal murders being committed are legal murders? I guess so. Changing the rules makes it real easy to make whatever you want legal or illegal.
I'm sure that if you looked at it from their side, you'd see that they consider the increase in legal downloads to be the direct result of their bitching.... ;)
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Probably 25% don't know and don't give a shit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ok say I already own teh cd and download the Mp3 insted of ripping it Do that count that as illegal as its done though one of the P2P aps?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
In Soviet Russia, legal music downloads you
Com'on illegal downloaders. We can't let the legal downloaders win. :(
The profit the RIAA makes via out of court settlements.
"But that's exactly what the RIAA is doing, only their doing it the suit&tie way."
Oh J.S.Fucking Christ! You people are the MOST spineless people that ever got created. You see a damn commercial and you think they're "FORCING YOU". Must be all the years of being beaten up and having your lunch money taken that make you such pushovers. Oh lookie a commercial! Buy! Oh lookie a breeze! Fall over! Oh lookie! A raindrop fell on me! WAAAA! The clouds are forcing me to stand out in the rain! You're the kind of people that make extinction look good.
I bet the sheer amount of music being downloaded illegally per person far exceeds the amount of music being download legally even if the number of people downloading legally is increasing.
35% of music downloaders are either rich or stupid.
This is little consolation for the plethora of legal music services which tried to get licenses from the music industry for years before closing up shop. Companies like eMusic, MyPlay and even Napster (after the first legal challenges) tried to legally sell music online years before Apple was showered with awards for it's 'innovative' music store. Many of the product and marketing staff at apple come from these companies, the tech staff who actually developed the technology pretty much got stiffed.
or perhaps "mercedes" and "driveways"
Give people what they want, and they will come. Free is nice, but nice is better! People want convenience, quality and convenience, and will pay for that.
RIAA couldn't deliver the promise of the tech with their business model, so they instead tried to shut down the tech. Hopefully, SCOTUS won't permit that, and we'll know soon enough.
Meanwhile, let it be remembered, you CAN compete with free.
Hmmm, why haven't I seen this argument before?
I Listen to streaming radio more than mp3 anymore. But every once in a while, I gotta hit that record button, be a damn shame not to use it. http://www.nongnu.org/streamtuner/
Which statistic am I?
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
illegal downloaders could be downloading 10X or 10X less than their legal-downloading counterparts. Or people that download legal music could be the biggest "pirates" and this survey would be none the wiser.
And would volume even matter for the purposes of arguing a point?
What if Bob purchases exactly the same artists' CDs that he always did pre-Internet, but downloads infringing copies of *every other single audio track in existence*. Total losses are zero, even though infringing downloads are massive in volume.
The only number that matters for purposes of affecting legislation is total *actual* losses. The MPAA's losses numbers have nothing to do with the actual losses, mostly because it's incredibly difficult to predict what would happen.
The only number that matters in the long term is making people happy (the whole reason that we have an economy, money, IP, the RIAA, etc). If we could be producing more happy people by clamping down hard on infringers, if this produces more and better music and thus makes does a better job of satisfying a desire for music, then we should clamp down.
On the other hand, if an alternate mechanism of handling music produces more happy people, we should use that.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
You're going to have to back that claim up. The rumor keeps going around, and Apple keeps denying it.
I don't doubt the price will go up one day, but not soon and not to the degree that you suggest.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
and then realized that the whole survey was kinda messed up, and then decided that having my answer be a little messed up was ok :)
so yeah, I agree with you too
I call BS on the survey and say it's a "we've already won" normalization propaganda campain. Telling "consumers" to shut up and be happy without the right to sample, share or even keep their music is what this is all about. The FUD and active warefare against file sharers will continue, but all of it is doomed to fail.
The whole DRM thing is going to backfire soon. People are not really going to be happy with these services when their devices start to fail. It's then they realize they have lost hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of music they thought they owned but were in fact renting. They will envious of people who took the time to translate the music they had to free formats on free systems. None of the FUD is true for music and media on these systems which lack both complicated, error proned DRM schemes and easy targets for the actively waged anti file scorched earth warfare. I've got my music, it's backed up, I can easily move it and I can play it on as many devices as I want. Apple may take care of people with ITunes but "Works for Sure" music boxes are sure to crap out and leave their users flat.
More importantly, there's still competition out there for the big three music publishers. Musicians don't like being screwed and know that's what they get from the cartels. The music industry killed mp3.com, but there are many other to take their place that will offer musicians and fans a much better deal. With Lessing creating an unambiguous legal framework, we can expect these services to be unassailable.
The concentration of power enjoyed by music publishers was a freak of history and will soon go away. People have been singing and dancing for each other throughout human history. I suspect someone will notice a chimp singing to it's young one day and that it sounds better than pop 40. Music copyrights and radio have only been around for 150 years or so. Government regulation of airwaves and music publication created the cartels in those 150 years. Many people have made money off the scheme, but the technology has been obsolete and the regulations overbearing for decades. Laws which keep Girl Scouts from singing around the fireplace are clearly out of line. Laws have gone from reasonable promotion of artistic work and sharing of public resources to blatant anti-competition tools, which thwart basic human desires. In ten years, we will look back on this madness and wonder how anyone dared keep people from singing to each other or sharing digital files.
Until then, visit places like Magnitune and sample the future.
$4.00 for a canned performance? You must be shitting me.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I agree. Piracy is far from being over lapped by any legal means of music distro. People are just getting better at hiding, covering their tracks and for the love of christ, people are starting to learn not to tell people that they pirate. Way I see it, things are just getting back to normal. ;)
You may have noticed the numbers don't add up.
They didn't want to admit the other 25%... are still bootlegging music onto their 8-track players.
Hey, some of us don't like to give up our old tech! It still works, why replace it??!!
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Personally, I feel 99 cents a song is much too high for digital music.
According to this, iTunes Music Store is a failure:
http://www.itunesperipod.com/
we had anything near SANE copyright laws, as envisioned by people who wrote the original constitution, then the percent of people copyright infringing on music would be 5% or lower. since most of the songs being copied tend to be 10 years or older.
no... but go ahead and support itunes(RIAA).
being cool is certainly far better than supporting decency.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Here's how I see it, with the closure of easy-to-use systems like Napster (free Napster that is) the average music listener cannot download music for free anymore. DC++ is too advanced for most people. Kazaa is useless with all the fakes (not to mention the spyware!).
:)
I think while the hard core advanced listeners will continue to download for free, dumbasses will use crappy "pay-to-download" systems.
Oh, and by the way I spend hundreds of dollars on music each year, there's nothing like a REAL physical music collection
Oh what a nice bunch of pigopolists who:
There's nothing on the above list that I want.
You want nice? Go visit any Creative Commons web site and learn how to dream on your own again. Musicians want people to hear and enjoy their work. Lawyers and dipshits want to own it. The musicians are in control of Creative Commons. Dipshits are in control of RIAA music services. You have your pick.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Of course, they could virtually eliminate piracy by pushing the price toward zero, but that's probably not what maximizes profit."
GPL Music. Do to the music industry, what it did to the software industry. Maybe sell some service contracts to support the musicians.
I believe that the same person would download illegal as well as legal music. Some percentage could have access to buy pirate CDs [no need to download].
...34% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Now I can get back to downloading music without being hassled anymore.
This line: "...the sense that unauthorized downloading is 'not fair on the artists,' suggesting that the industry's messages, led by the British Phonographic Industry, are being communicated effectively." Implies to me that the study was conducted primarily in the UK. Being that the UK's ~35 million internet users make up a statistically small percentage of the world's ~888 million internet users, I doubt this is a realistic slice of data.
I demand a poll! On top of this stat being bogus, if they knew who was downloading illegally (the 40%) they would charge them!!! Not to mention quanity, theres just something great about stealing errrr go to shows! artists make more off those than anything else anyway!
Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
Yes, thanks to the industry's "messages" most people do have a sense that illegal downloads hurt musicians. But in fact it's the opposite. Most musicians don't make any money whatsoever from CD sales, because under a standard recording contract all the expenses of producing and distributing the little plastic discs get deducted from the musician's royalties, usually leaving nothing.
Musicians make a living playing live performances, just like they did for centuries before recording technology existed. What they get out of CD sales is exposure, which translates to bigger and better paying gigs. They get that exposure whether you pay for the copy or not. The important thing for the musician is that as many people as possible listen to the music, because a certain number of them will eventually buy concert tickets. Controlling people's ability to distribute copies benefits only the record companies, not the musicians.
Long-time musician Janis Ian wrote a couple very good articles explaining in detail how this works . Here's an excerpt:
It's just a ruse. The pirates only seem to be retreating. They're just going to fall back into the fog, make a u-turn, and come right back at us, shooting canonballs and guns and parrot-powered bazookas!
UTF-8: There and Back Again
I thought that downloads are legal, only uploads are illegal. The Paris Convention treates audiovisuals as books - imagine what you can do with books and the same you can do with music/video. Is it different in the U.S. ? DMCA ?
Hey! Music industry! TAKE MY MONEY! PLEASE?
I would _happily_ pay $0.01 PER PLAY for songs I don't own yet, just to be able to listen to them. If you counted that money towards later purchase of that same song, all the better. (I.e. listen to a song 99 times, you own it.)
There are plenty of songs I'd like to just hear in their entirety once or twice, out of curiosity. I don't want to BUY them... but I'd be willing to pay a small amount for the privilege.
If only the oh-so-scared-of-piracy folks would learn that there are lots of people WILLING to part with their money for the right kinds of services...
- Peter
INsigNIFICANT
So 35% of music listeners are using legal download services but are they doing so exclusively?
It's all very well admitting to downloading, say, 10 legal tracks a month but are you going to admit to also downloading 100 illegal tracks per month from a P2P source.
Most people I know with iPods have a small percentage (if any) of legally paid for music while the rest of their collection is taken from file-sharing.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Dont want the public to fight back? Offer your product at a fair price.
2. Search Usenet, if it's not there request it.
3. Download it with an NNTP client or web browser.
4. Listen to it.
5. If you like it, buy the CD.
6. If you don't, delete it - it's not worth the hard disk space.
No spyware or nagware filesharing clients, pretty much untraceable unless someone goes through ISP logs & far superior download speeds to any P2P crap.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Don't 'clarify' from the rubbish summary, but at least from the rubbish article (which says "music consumers" not "music listeners").
There are very few people who are not music listeners (via the radio, at the mall etc.), so this would effectively mean that 35% of the entire population is using legal music downloads - I really doubt that.
Of course this is still imprecise - is 'consumption' a purely commercial activity? Is a downloader who doesn't also buy CDs or downloads not a consumer? Doubt it. Is someone who listens to downloads, without ever buying anything, a consumer, while someone who listens only to streaming music not?
"Statistics can be used to prove anything that's remotely true!"
It could also be like this:
5% have payed for all their downloads
30% have payed for at least one of their downloaded files
10% have downloades files, but never payed for a single one
The remaining 55% have never downloaded any music, legally or illegally.
What about legal free downloads?
made up on the spot? And with such broad generalizations and lack of details of the percentages, it is 75% likely that it is made up, just like the 95% of all statistics. Not to include, 93% of all statistical studies do not include the actual number to back the 84% of the statistics that are made up on the spot.
Did I mention that 99% of all statistics are made up?
People may be cheap, but they sure is lazy.
I know how to 'steal' music but I don't because it simple isn't worth the hassel. For £0.79 a song I can find the song I want instantly, have it in my library with artwork at a guarenteed quality within a matter of seconds. I don't have to worry about spyware, malware or viruses and better yet I know that at least a couple of pence is going to towards the artist and I don't have to worry about getting arrested.
However laziness has led us into a situation which is probably worse - a digital music monopoly. It simply isn't worth the hassle of me to buy DRM music from another store and then rip out the DRM and convert it to AAC for the sake of a few pence per song. The only way I'll start shopping around is if I can point iTunes at differnt web stores. I can't see why, given the interface or protocols involved, this couldn't be easily achieved and still be as intuituative. I can see why it will be another 'hell has frozen over' moment before it happens (that or a court ruling).
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
The RIAA and the labels themselves are heading for a serious fall. They really will be losing a lot of money, but due to competition rather than "piracy". Apple and Microsoft will eat them for breakfast and I for one can't wait to see it happen.
Who cares ?
In England this week another lady is being sued for £ 4000 by the *AA wankers because her daughter downloaded some crap or other.
Personally I'm NEVER going to use a "legal" download service - even if it costs 1p for a full CD download in raw WAV format.
And I will continue to participate in p2p, IRC & FTP baed swap rooms.
Fuck the *AA. The greedy monopolist bastards. Fuck them. THey are dinosaurs and must die.
I for one, actually made legal downloads far earlier than illegal ones. In the 97-98 time range there were some formats (XM,IT,MOD) quite widely spread (among geeks) smaller in file size than MP3s, if the author made them available. And they did. Most of the musicians were working like people on /. want the music industry to work (heck, lots of them probably are here).
But MP3s? Back on the modem it was a PITA to download MP3s (we still burned CDs with them though, sharing by the manual work protocol).
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
I sure hope this encourages other companies to offer legal content by download. It is wrong for the media to curse piracy if they don't offer legal alternatives on the same medium. I can only hope that competition will further lower the prices. I love iTunes and all, but at 99 cents a song, 20 of my favorite songs cost about the same as a brand new CD. Only this way I'm getting a file locked down with DRM and without the fancy case and inserts.
So far iTunes looks like it is the best choice when it comes to music downloads, but what about movies or games? There are already movie download sites, but from my understanding they are nowhere near as revolutionary as iTunes was for legal music downloads. I honestly can't wait to be able to download all my favorite games online without having to go to the store to buy them and actually pay LESS. (Valve tries to do this, but having all your games tied to an account that they reserve the right to ban at any time is too much for me, I'll stick to my cracked version of Half-Life 2, thank you very much).
35% of music consumers now download tracks legally via the Internet and the percentage will soon pass the 40% who have pirated music
What this means is 35% of people download music using iTunes or similar - this will certainly include many of the 40% of people have ever downloaded music illegally. The 65% of people use CDs. People who don't pay for music probably aren't counted in the questions - the question on piracy looks to have been "have you ever illegally downloaded music"
BTW - the Entertainment Media Research site is password protected so the original survey isn't available.
By the way - this survey was paid for by a *law firm* - not the RIAA. This means that the angle behind the survey is that lawyers want to show that prosecuting music pirates works, to increase their litigation fees.
You know the music industry's business model is seriously flawed when, after buying the new Coldplay CD, you find out you can't play it on your workstation. Copy protected.
So I'm actually forced to pirate the songs I just bought to be able to listen to them at work.
This communicates a clear message: buying will be punished by DRM restrictions, you'd better download.
Gtk-gnutella runs on my system of choice, iTunes does not. Sorry.
You can either complain, or do nothing. You don't get both.
It turns out that people generally don't understand or care about the issues of renting the right to play encrypted content.
Note that I didn't say for whom this was excellent news.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This means that the sheeple are either knowingly buying DRM'd music files or don't care enough to know that the files are DRM'd and that their use (and possibly their usable life) is limited. On top of this, the sheeple are paying about a dollar per file. THis is yet another example of P.T. Barnum being 100% correct about a sucker being born every minute (several per minute now due to the increased birth rate).
40% of music downloaders are 'pirates'. 35% are 'legal'. What are the other 25%?
http://xkcd.com/386/
If God wanted you to have downloaded music on your iPod, he would have miracled it there.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
35% + 40% = 75%. Where is the other 25%? Shouldn't it basically be just the two options, either legal or illegal? Are the 35% and the 40% based on some kind of different counts? If so, where are the 65% and the 60% to match them?
And they said zombies weren't real!
I meantioned in previous comments that piracy was what several bands noted as being their gateway to fortune and fame (and not by winning in court, either.) I have to wonder if perhaps all this current piracy is responsible for the current rise in legal downloads.
On a side note, I doubt this is going to stop **AA from wielding their mighty soylent green sword against anyone. After all, once a bully, always a bully.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
For the record....I know a reasonably large amount of people, both tech-saavy and neophyte. I do not know of anyone that consistently, if ever, has paid for a legal music download.
That being said, I do know people that download music illegaly, and there are those that purchase CDs..
These statistics suggest that over 1/3 of the people I know that listen to music, use pay-to-listen/download services? I have trouble swallowing this..
I read it as the 25% of music consumers who do not download at all, presumably they buy cd's from play.com or whoever.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
You forgot about those of us that cut copies of bought CDs and distribute them to our real life friends, or convert them to mp3 and just give out entire collections as physical CDs to friends. I bet that wasn't factored into there stats. Personally I have gotten better music that way and I have stuck by it. I have a constant influx of music everytime I meet someone with a CD/DVD burner and tons of mp3s.
Putting aside the manufactured boy/girl band claptrap or record company puppet whores like Britney Shite, real musicians and bands generally alternate CD releases and concert tours (in order to promote those releases).
So, a band that is starting out after their first release probably gets a supporting slot on a tour with a more major artist - whereupon their set list is probably about 45 minutes long containing most of the songs from their first album and a few cover versions.
Go forward in time after three or four releases and that same band is probably headlining their own tour, playing most of the tracks of their latest CD release intersperesed with the "firm favourites" from their earlier CDs.
However, we're told by fans of legal music downloading is that they like downloading music because they no longer need to buy the entire CD but only the tracks they like.
Now, that's fine for the manufactured pap artists that only ever churn out plastic chart single music but where does it put the *real* musicians?
What onus will there be for real artists to go into a studio to record an entire album if the downloaders only like 3 or 4 of the tracks from that CD?
How does that affect a band's ability to play live, to create interesting and good set lists for live performance?
Believe me, there is nothing I hate more than buying a CD that contains two good songs and the rest being filler tracks but *real music* is about *albums*, not single tracks.
If I buy a CD by an artist then what I am getting is a *snapshot* of how that artist was feeling at the time, perhaps the emotions in the songs on that album are influenced by external events that happened to that artist. And if I *truly* enjoy the music of that artist then I'm going to take that into account when I listen to that particular CD.
What I'm really trying to say here is that I have albums in my collection that I deem as *classic* pieces of music but I probably play them maybe once or twice a year when I'm in the mood to play them - and at that point, I sit down in a comfortable chair in fromt of a good hi-fi and *do nothing else* but *listen* to that music.
So let's not equate iPods and MP3 players to *music appreciation* because they are mutually exclusive. I use an MP3 player full of my favourite tracks when I work out in the gym - but only because it gives my mind something to focus on (away from the pain of working out) and because it covers the pop crap blaring over the gym speakers - but I am *not* truly appreciating the music at that time.
Unfortunately, people who do *all* their music listening on portable players while doing something else and who do not buy entire albums will kill real music by real musicians that are appreciated by real music fans.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Cool.
The industries will spin it to 'prove' their point to get more laws passed. Reality has nothing to do with their crusade.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Michael Sims, is 'zat really you?
Oh please! Do you actually expect anyone to believe that more people are buying music online than downloading it off p2p networks?? Maybe in the Twilight Zone things are the other way around, but not in reality. Who needs statistics to know that this is complete nonsense?
..price is right. Merge records is now on emusic.com, there is so much good stuff on emusic at the momement now it's insane. Average price of song is like .20 so you have no problem making the jump to buy the whole album, especially if you are a band focused fan of music and not a song focused fan of music.
As far as your abritrary "albums only" lifestyle, that is pure preference - all my favorite bands are able to make a complete record, but I still listen on shuffle 99% of the time.
Finally many bands traditionally have started out with EPs of 3 or 4 songs because even in the pre d/l days, there was an understanding that you needed to start on the scene with those emphasis tracks.
I do virtually all my listening on my ipod with my grado headphones, I get all the fidelity I need with that rig.
So... are they counting the number of paying individuals or are these the millions worldwide that have been winning songs off their bottle cops, free two-week trials, etc.? I for one, suspect the statistical analysis. *When all else fails, manipulate the data.*
They will envious of people who took the time to translate the music they had to free formats
... wala ... windoze DRM assumed it was a new computer and none of his songs would play.
I know one person just like this, who is your typical B&O / Vaio luser. He proudly announced to me that he had just finished converting all of his 800+ cds to....WMA.
I explained to him that this was not really a good idea, because one day these files might not play on a future version of Windows Media Player. I explained to him that he could download iTunes for free, and that he could use it to rip his collection into a format that he would be able to access 'forever'.
He will not do this for several reasons.
Firstly, I showed him that he was dumb, and that he wasted his time; he would not possibly be able to 'back down'. Secondly, he just spent weeks ripping his whole collection and is loath to do it all again.
There will, sadly, always be people who are stupid like this, and it will literally take the elimination of ALL of their music before they wake up and understand what DRM is all about.
I had a friend who did exactly as you describe. A couple of months later he got a new soundcard, installed the new windoze driver for it and
Not one.
Faced with having to do weeks of work all over again (or downgrade to his older card again) he did finally listen, and ripped his entire collection into ogg-vorbis format.
Why ogg? Because, like me, he has a portable device that will play it (a Rio Karma), and because he didn't ever want to have to do this again, and ogg enjoys freeom not only from DRM, but from patents as well. With software patents threatening Europe, and enforcement beginning to rear its ugly head here in the US, the days of MP3 may be as limited as those of WMA.
Consumers will learn their lesson. It will cost them, but they will learn it. Unfortunately, most of them have so bought into the corporate doublespeak eminating from Redmond and Washington that they will only learn it the hard way, from being struck in the face, repeatedly, by their DRM-crippled products and the gaping hole where their wallets, and music collections, used to be.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
if there's a song or an album that i really have to have, first i will look on usenet, then i will look on some torrent sites, then i will look on iTunes. i've ended up buying about a dozen albums since the iTunes music store opened. sometimes i will skip iTunes and just buy the CD, if i can find it cheap enough on amazon or ebay.
if i have an album that i've downloaded illegally, and i really love it, i will usually go out and buy the CD. probably 25% of my CDs are ones that i downloaded before i decided to buy.
True, and at one time, all land was owned by the king and he let his dukes and earls maintain that lang who then hired serfs to work the land.
That model was inefficient and changed, and will continue to change.
So what's so special about he record industry that it should be shattered and rebuilt every few years as makes economic sense?
It is bad... if you are the dumb sucker shelling out money for the crappy music covered in DRM. Here is a novel idea... don't buy music. Hell, don't even pirate the music. Just stop supporting the entire stupid system and watch and be amazed at how easy it is to not care about the other million dumb suckers who are still shelling out their dollars.
Mindless consumering (which is the real complaint you are making) is easy to avoid. Just don't buy into it. Will it stop the herd if you go your own way? No. Should you care? Hell no. If someone asks if you have heard the new mindless crap MTV is plugging with its half hour music spot in the day, just give them a blank glazed over stare.
There are plenty of alternatives out there. There is the Creative Commons, countless college radios on the net, and a pile of other places that offer up free music. Will you know what everyone else is talking about when they talk about the new corporate mass produce CD? No. Is that a bad thing? Only if you are into consumerism... and if you are into consumerism, what in the hell are you complaining about? That it isn't free?
So if 35% of people downloading music are using legal music downloading services and 40% of people downloading music are using illegal music downloading services, what happened to the other 25% of people downloading music?
Don't you think 25% is a rather high margin for error, even for "pulled out of my ass" statistics?
"Provided you've got the cash means to do it, there's not really any excuse for not using "officially sanctioned", paid-for, download sources."
I call bullshit.
There are a lot of practical reasons. Here are just a few:
1) I decide how and when and where I use my CD's. There are no restrictions on them.
2) When The Next Big Thing (tm) comes out for portable music, I can move my CD music to that device)
3) If I think a CD sucks after I buy it, I can sell it
4) The sonic quality of iTMS or any other music source is a shadow of the CD. The people who argue otherwise generally listen on earbuds.
5) I refuse to be "authorized" to listen to music I paid for. There are certain depths I will not sink to, and asking permission from anybody to listen to my music is below my depth.
Even if i'm the last person on the planet, I'm not ever going to pay for mp3s. so there. blow me.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
70% download ilegally
90% download legally
100% rip CDs legally
100% copy friends' ripped CDs ilegally
I understand that you were going for humor but I have to add that you are probably closer to the truth than many realize. These categories are not mutually exclusive. A person may be rightfully counted in more than one. The *should* not add up to 100%.
There are three types of lies.
1. Lies
2. Damn Lies
3. Statistics
--Samuel L. Clemens
One in four people get this quote wrong.
It'd be different if it were on purpose...
you'd think that DVDs have destroyed the movie industry, but they certainly haven't. DVD media sales have surpassed VHS, DVD hardware sales have surpassed VHS hardware. DVD burners are shipping with many new laptops, desktops, etc and if you don't already have one, you can pick them up for under $100. DVD burning software is everywhere and it's easy.
Yet DVDs are selling like hotcakes. Movie theatres are suffering from the popularity of DVDs, however. Check out this article for more information. It notes that those that download movies from internet often see *more* movies in theatres even!
Does anyone know who they are counting in the illegal category? Let's look at the US. Only about 60% of households have computers, and only about half of those have internet connections.
Now those numbers are going to be much higher in the US than other countries.
So less than 30% of US households have internet connections. That must mean that everyone who has a connection to the internet is downloading illegal music. Right?
OK, I'm blurring the line between music consumers and PC owners. But still, these numbers in the article are bogus.
That is all...
i am the dickysofa
But if SCO takes over the RIAA, they can still sue their customers ;-)
You obviously forget that people generally aren't THAT stupid. If they are giving away passwords for chocolate, then the password must be fake!
Also, how many people get suckered in by phishing scams? Or put in credit card numbers to "verify their age"? Or leave their password on a post-it on their monitor, or under their keyboard?
Simiarly, how many people write their PIN number on their bank card?
People ARE stupid.
So you're saying that only a track or two is worth buying.
But if we don't buy all the other crap we don't want we'll destroy music?
Isn't the fact that they aren't making products people want to buy kinda their problem?
I think if X can't manufacture a product people want to buy they will go out of business.
X can be
Musicians
Watermelon farmers
Software Programmers
Pretty much any other job.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most sources say that 25% of Democrats are gay.
I hate it when people say wala instead of voilà.
Art is still a product.
I would buy some CD's and wouldn't by others depending on the value they offer me.
The reason why is this:
Evidence of something else working is sufficient; knowledge of the status quo is not required for one to know whether something else works. As for a specific example, consider the old mp3.com.Wikileaks, no DNS
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.