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.'"

11 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. On 40% Illegal Downloads by DanteLysin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  2. Re:Bah.. by muszek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually "legal downloaders", not "legal downloads".

    I just hate when people quote statistical data and have no clue about what they're doing. They usually re-interpret the data and reproduce the information that's either incomplete or false. False this time... 35% of people download music and it's kinda stupid to write that it relates somehow strictly to the number of downloads.

    On average I probably buy around one bar of candy a week. If it was free (that's what pirated music is about, right?), I bet I'd eat more.

    Sorry if it seems unimportant, I just kinda get pissed when negligence leads to misinformation.

  3. Re:I'm not surprised by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Exactly what I'm trying to tell to ppl who aren't aware when buying music online.

    Albums that provide you the freedom to do backups, to re-encode in whatever format/bitrate you want.

    Buy a song that has DRM (most online music stores anyway) and which takes away the freedom that you had when buying an album. All that at a price more expensive than buying an album.

    I know music stores will never consider selling music using a lossless codec without DRM but if I have to buy a whole album for a few songs that I want and be able to "tinker with", then so be it.

  4. I don't think so. by Erris · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We'll make a killing at $4 a song!!

    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.
  5. Re:Sure... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting
    But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching?

    No, they won't. If legal download services came to completely dominate the market, the bright lights would simply try to extort more money from those services, and ultimately from the consumer, and thus would find in the solution to the piracy problem the seeds by which piracy can again become common. The root problem is simple. These guys just don't like people downloading music or movies, legal or not. They've made fortunes by controlling distribution (which is where the money really is). They may play along with iTunes right now, but you can be sure that they don't like having any sort of middle man.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Re:Music Exec by Seumas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been doing more "legal" music "buying" than normal, recently. I will never ever pay $17+ for CD. That's ridiculous. But I did have an account with Rhapsody for quite awhile before I switched to Mac (they don't have a Mac client). They're a great deal. High quality streaming library of over a million songs for as low as $8.33/mo. And for $15/mo, you can dumb as much of it and play it on your portable devices as you want (as opposed to having to play it with their Rhapsody player on your PC).

    It takes a little effort to get over the mental hurdle of not actually owning the music you're paying for, but for the price of five or six CDs, I can access an entire world of music. And while they have some licensing issues preventing them from getting some albums/bands (no AC/DC for example), it's generally a pretty effective collection.

    Aside from that, I've also been using mp3search. Yes, I know it might not technically be legit, but for 10 cents per song and about a dollar an album, I'll take it over iTunes any day. Plus, it's real MP3s rather than AAC or other DRM crap.

    Some people say that people will never pay for music if they can get it for free. That's just not true. They're just not willing to pay $17 an album. Or perhaps even $10. After all, if I'm not getting physical media, liner notes, inserts, artwork, jewel cases and have to deal with DRM crap that makes using it on multiple machines and devices a potential headache, why do I want to spend almost as much as I pay for the real thing at a record shop? Give me a ton of selection, easy downloads, non-crippled content and very cheap downloads/fees and I'm with you. And so are a lot of people.

    Once the big boys are out of the way (RIAA members), there will be no reason for such high prices. An artist gets a buck out of a CD sale today - if they're extremely lucky. That's probably before they pay their agents or anyone else, too. So if you take the traditional distributor out of the picture, the artist can sell their MP3s online through iTunes or some other service for $2 per album and still be making more than double what they made under the foot of the RIAA distributors. And there's no cost involved. And they won't have anyone to share that $2 with.

    The only thing musicians will still need is a way to become popular. Today, it's possible to become big at just about anything through internet promotion alone. But even if you needed some sort of professional promotion, you could still engage someone for that and do traditional stumping for your band. At least you'll still have far fewer middle men to deal with in the end.

  7. I'd _hapily_ pay $0.01 per play for songs by jerde · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  8. Doesn't the statistic strike you as "strange"? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 3, Interesting
    35% of music listeners are using legal download services, and that the percentage will soon surpass illegal downloads, currently at 40%.

    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.
  9. The Secret To Finding Good Music by pandrijeczko · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Pay $10 a month for a decent Usenet account like Easynews.

    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.
  10. Legal Downloads Will Kill Music by pandrijeczko · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A few people in other threads have mentioned that musicians (specifically those signed to record labels) only make their money from live performance, not from CD sales. If this is the case, then it follows that legal downloads will kill "true" musicianship.

    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.
  11. I had a friend who did this... by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They will envious of people who took the time to translate the music they had to free formats

    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 ... wala ... windoze DRM assumed it was a new computer and none of his songs would play.

    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