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.'"

Comments

so?

[Anonymous Coward]

so what's the other 25%?

Music Exec

[puppet10]

Time to jack up the license fees on legal downloads!!! We'll make a killing at $4 a song!!

Just playing catch-up

[tyagiUK]

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.

Re: Just playing catch-up

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

I think slashdotters have been saying for years that the problem was the music industry's (non existant) business model, and if they would make it cheap enough to download a song, people would pay for it.

Also, presumably the % piracy is a function of the price, and the goal of the music industry will be to maximize (number_of_downloads * price_each).

Of course, they could virtually eliminate piracy by pushing the price toward zero, but that's probably not what maximizes profit.

Re:Just playing catch-up

[Mr2001]

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.

That's because you own an iPod. For someone like me, who only owns MP3 players and doesn't want to take part in Apple's vendor lock-in scheme, iTMS is quite a bit more hassle.

Re:something's not adding up

[DanteLysin]

illegal downloads
legal downloads
not downloading?

Some people do buy CD's at a store. ;)

Music LISTENERS not DOWNLOADERS

[InfiniteWisdom]

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.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[Nasarius]

Well, most full albums on iTunes are US $9.99. You don't often see physical CDs that cheap.

Check out your local independent shop that buys/sells used CDs.

Bogus statistics: what little we can conclude

[G4from128k]

This is a classic example of bogus statistics. The two figures have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The 30% of people using legal downloads might be mutually exclusive or totally overlapping with the 40% that use illegal downloads. The numbers need not total to 100% (and could total to more than 100%). At best we can conclude:

1. 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.
2. No fewer than 40% of music listeners download music (legal or illegal).
3. At most, 30% use both legal and illegal downloads.
4. 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.

Re:Two important distinctions

[gorfie]

I have downloaded legally and found DRM a pain in the ass, and continue to get my shite from P2P and allofmp3.com.

I've been thinking about going to a legal downloading service but I hang back because I fear that the restrictions and proprietary formats will prevent me from...

1.) Burning unlimited audio CDs for the car
2.) Burning unlimited mp3 CDs for work
3.) Buying any third party hardware player for the files I get from the service

That's basically it... I want to be able to listen to a song I buy from home, in the car, and at work without requiring a specific player or proprietary software (I use a zero footprint mp3 player on my work pc).

Is that possible with any of the legal services? I'd pay $1 per song...

What if we treat it like licensing... if I buy a tune in the proprietary format and then download that same tune in mp3 format, is that really wrong/illegal? Would they really sue me if I could document that I owned each song I downloaded? I rationalized downloading Pearl Jam's Ten a few months back because my CD (bought in 92 I think) is so scratched up that I can't get a digital rip anymore.

Thoughts?

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[paulbd]

sorry, but you, along with so many other people, just don't understand how the music industry works.

while it is true that record company executives do make out like fat cats, their income as a proportion of the overall revenue streams within the industry is small.

the music industry, that is, the traditional music industry, is an exercise in massive cross-subsidy. That mega-hit by that obnoxious and relatively talent-free sex-toy-girl-thing? It helped pay for dozens of minor releases that will likely lose money. Occasionally, a genuinely talented artist will make a record that for some reason sells a lot of copies (the Koln concert release by Keith Jarrett is always a favorite example), but even then, that success makes it possible for the iconoclastic label it was on (ECM) to release dozens of CD's that cost them money.

until you get this model into your head, no suggestions for an alternative system will make much sense. i say this as someone who attempted to set up a new label, released 1 CD by an incredibly talented group, and began to realize how it all works.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[EzInKy]

For something as ethereal as bits on a platter, it hardly seems worth it to pay USD1.00 for a song.


That really is the big story here, isn't it. Ox07 is a just a number. 0x08 is another. String the two together and you get just a bigger number, 0x0708. In reality what you are actually paying for when buy digital music is the "right" to use big numbers that happen to resemble songs when processed by certain programs.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[paulbd]

true, to a point.

however: the most expensive part of making a financially successful recording is marketing.

unless you are making wildly popular music in a style already well-represented in the marketplace, getting the existence of you music out to other people costs way more than actually making it (given the reduction in production costs that you mentioned). its a difficult job, and for a lot of music, its a long term, part time effort.

one of the big problems that musicians have to deal with at the moment is major oversupply of talent. there are a huge number of musicians around now who are at least as talented and making at least as "good" music (whatever that means) as the early progenitors of rock'n'roll, jazz and so forth. there is no way that all these skilled people will get to tap into a revenue stream in the way that the (relatively) few artists at the start of recorded popular music did. as a result, marketing is key, and is going to be an uphill battle for the foreseeable future.

and please, lets not have /. posters prattle on about guerilla marketing. it works for a few cases. its not going to work (and has not worked) for *most* of the artists (for example) on CDbaby.

It's a LIttle Late

[illectro]

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.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[MightyYar]

one of the big problems that musicians have to deal with at the moment is major oversupply of talent. there are a huge number of musicians around now who are at least as talented and making at least as "good" music (whatever that means) as the early progenitors of rock'n'roll, jazz and so forth.

Wow, you've hit the nail on the head as to why I don't care about the fate of the record companies. Can you tell me what value they are adding when I literally run into bands that are just as talented as the best they are selling?

Re:Sure...

[Ubergrendle]

No, but it sounds like its time to raise prices. They'll argue you're paying a premium to recover piracy costs + for the convenience.