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

Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching?

Re:Sure...

[BlackMesaLabs]

Short answer; yes, with an if. Long answer; no, with a but.

Re:Sure...

[MightyMartian]

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.

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.

Re:Sure...

[southpolesammy]

To expound on this, consider the following "add-ons" of a CD compared to an iTunes download.

Physical pressing of CD
CD label
Cover art
Jewel case and shrinkwrap/annoying security tape
Shipping to stores
Marketing and promos in stores
Lossage due to damage/theft

These are the bits that drive up the cost of CD's and also result in the RIAA being able to charge far more than the cost of the recording (as well as the cost of these line items, taken collectively). Even if you assume a 400% markup over cost for any produced good is typical (not just CD's, but anything -- bread, cars, books, TV's), these guys are still making out like bandits. Therefore, it doesn't take a big leap of faith to understand that the RIAA wants their moneymakers back, but can't realize how to get it again.

The litmus test is when the quantity of music downloaded exceeds that which is purchased in the brick and mortar stores. That could easily be the beginning of a massive paradigm shift which could affect traditional, large data footprint, store-purchased items like CD's, DVD's, and computer games, which still makes up the overwhelming majority of the RIAA/MPAA's revenues. If that scenario occurs, a mass change will occur -- no more music stores, video rental, computer game stores, etc. Instead, you could replace their physical presences with a small kiosk in a mall equipped with a highspeed wired/wireless Internet connections, and eventually even that would go away (and already can in some areas with ubiquitous highspeed broadband).

And that spells the death knell for the RIAA/MPAA as we know it. And they know it too.

so?

[Anonymous Coward]

so what's the other 25%?

Re:so?

[tomhudson]

so what's the other 25%?

... people with Britney Spears on their hard drives - they won't admit to it, legal or otherwise.

Re:so?

[RichardX]

I'd be quite happy to have Britney Spears on my harddrive!

Oh, wait, you mean her music..

something's not adding up

[kpp_kpp]

i did not rta but what is the other option besides "illegal" and "legal" downloads? (35% + 40% != 100%)

Re:something's not adding up

[MasamuneXGP]

Apperently they have these things called "stores" that you can reach on sneakernet. Psh, it'll never catch on.

Re:something's not adding up

[weighn]

TFA doesn't make this clear. Can a download be neither legal or illegal? Perhaps, in the way they collected the data, they couldn't tell if these were breaking any copyright law. Probably, under the DCMA, these 25% are just terrorists anyway.

Re:something's not adding up

[DanteLysin]

illegal downloads
legal downloads
not downloading?

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

Re:something's not adding up

[aklix]

It's actually 42%, they just won't admit it. Never be known the reasons will.

I'm not surprised

[Spytap]

It's just damn easier than dealing with all the shit from stealing.
A buck a song? Genius.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Man in Spandex]

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.

Re:I'm not surprised

[jfengel]

Just for reference, the guys who put price stickers on things try to avoid having you "buy them in a heartheat". They make the same amount of money if you just barely buy it as if you buy it with your whole heart.

The price is determined by where they think they can get the most money out of you. That's $15 for a CD; $10 for a crippled digital album.

To reiterate: if you're happy with the price, they're not. If you buy it for $5, they'd rather you bought it for $6.

Instead, it costs $15. If they sold it for $5, would you buy two and give one as a gift? Maybe. But you probably wouldn't buy three, which is what it would take.

Call it "supply and demand". Or call it "greed". But it's hardly "insanity". It's self-interest, and according to TFA, people are buying it at the price they set. If they charged more and made less money, that would be insanity. If they charged less and made less money, that would also be insanity. But self-interest is eminently rational. Greedy, perhaps, but rational.

Still a little bit expensive

[Dancin_Santa]

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.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[MyLongNickName]

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

I will sell you 100 gigabits for only 0.25 cents!

Ofcourse, it will be random 1's and 0's with an occasional Goatse thrown in.

You are not buying bits. You are buying someone's creativity. If you don't think it is worth it DON'T BUY! No one sticks a gun to your head and says "buy it".

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.

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

[Belial6]

I call BS. Of the several bands that I have known who got contracts, all of them paid for most of their own promotions, and virtually every dime the record label paid out was listed as a loan to the band against any future profits. Virtually all of them eventually sold enough albums to pay back the record label, but when the royalty checks came in, they tended to be less than a dollar. I'm not buying that the record label losses millions on small acts that they are loosing money on.

It was obvious that they were playing games with the accounting when they charged the band $5k for a "master" CD, when the company I was working for had 1000 CDs made with gem cases and inserts for $1500. (this was many years ago.)

The record label had conned these poor saps into thinking the the "master" disk costs huge amounts of money to make. (not the music production. A physical disk) And that this master is used to press other disks at a cost of ~$2 a disk.

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.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[servoled]

$9.99 is expensive. I buy a lot of my CDs for $5.99 shipped. The rest of the CDs are purchased from local music stores or from various small labels on the net.

Plus that way I actually own the music instead of being stuck with a lossy file with DRM.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[BackInIraq]

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

Complain about low bitrates if you want, but give me a break on the whole "bits on a platter" thing. What the hell do you think a CD is?

That, and for some reason I've had better luck preserving MP3s than actual CDs over the last 8 years or so...maybe I'm careless, but I've lost a lot more music to damage on physical CD's than I've lost to data loss on my hard drive. In fact, I have yet to lost any MP3s whatsoever. Largely because it takes a lot less blank CD's (which cost both in space and money) to backup my music, even at my usual 224k-256k, when they're compressed. And compact disks are just not a great medium when it comes to longevity, at least if you want to take them out and listen to them. Especially in places like cars.

That said, no I've not bought a single album as an online album...for 3-5 extra bucks I'll go ahead and grab the disc (and promptly rip it at more than 128k). But I've bought plenty of songs, and when you figure I'm saving 13-15 bucks an album (because if I'm buying a one or two songs it's likely because I don't _want_ the rest of the album) by buying those songs, at USD 1.00 they're an absolute steal.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[Sam Ritchie]

Hmm. Following that logic, would you suggest that if all record companies ceased spending money on marketing, people would stop buying music because they didn't know it existed?

I suspect that one day there will be viable alternate channels for musicians to get their music to consumers; be it through automated peer-to-peer referrals, targeted music review subscription sevices, or mechanisms that no-one's thought of yet. It won't replace record companies paying radio stations for rotation, it won't equalise artist remuneration so that no-one earns millions and everyone makes a living, but I think it will make an impact.

Re:Still a little bit expensive

[zerocool^]

I would, but mine shut down recently.

The owner blamed it on pirated music, but I think he was just looking to blame those damn kids - I think it's more likely that when he opened his store, the only cd stores around were sam goody and musicland, or whatever was in the mall, and those places were selling CDs at $21.99/ea. Now, there's a best buy, a circuit city, and three super walmarts that have popped up in the area, not to mention online stores that cater to his demographic.

You can see my friend's blog on the subject.

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:Still a little bit expensive

[RichardX]

Correct, the money goes to the record label. That's why it's mainly the record companies, and not the artists complaining about piracy & p2p nets.
You're also on the right track about supporting artists - if you want to support your favourite artist, go to their gigs, buy their merchandise (the stuff that comes straight from them, I mean, not stuff put out by the label), or, heck, just send 'em money direct.

Quite frankly the business practices of most of the large labels are obscene. Even a lot of artists who you'd think did really well - had top 10 hits, etc - end up in massive debt to the labels.

Just off the top of my head, do you remember the female R&B trio, TLC? they were around in the early 90's. They had 3 back-to-back #1 hits, a debut album that sold over 4 million copies, and a follow up that sold over 10 million. They won grammys, topped the album charts for 5 weeks in the US, the only all female group to have more #1 US hits than TLC was The Supremes.

So.. they must be millionaires now, right? I mean, that kind of success would set you up for life, surely?
In fact, they filed for bankrupcy due to a £3 million debt they owed to their record company, and spent ages in legal battles trying to untangle themselves from their contracts.

And that's far from being an isolated incident.
Remember that the next time you hear an RIAA/record label representative sobbing about the plight of the poor starving musicians.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something here...

[niteskunk]

Not downloading at all.

Wishful Thinking

[Ratso Baggins]

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?)

Music Exec

[puppet10]

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

Re:Music Exec

[Seumas]

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.

Read closely

[Sagarian]

no, it means that 75% of music listeners download music.

Re:Read closely

[Rostin]

I think it's a little ambiguous. We don't know how many legal downloaders have also downloaded music illegally. It could mean that 75% of music listeners download their music. It could also mean that only 40% do, or any value in between 40% and 75%.

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: Just playing catch-up

[Black Parrot]

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).

Which, BTW, suggests that RSN we'll see a hamfisted attempt at DRM-based region coding for music downloads, so that they can optimized that formula independently for the different economic regions of the planet.

Re:Just playing catch-up

[eeyoredragon]

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.

Yah there is. I still don't use things like iTunes for music, because I want lossless files. I'm paying more per song because I'm not getting all the extra crap (which I admittedly don't want) but also not getting the same quality. Crappy deal to those of us that care.

I generally buy used CDs. I keep a running list of about 20 pages on my Amazon wish list. When something goes down to $5 or lower and is in at least "very good" condition, I buy it.

Every now and then I'll get something from allofmp3, and when I do, it's always a lossless file. The online music business is moving forward, but it still has a good way to go.

I think the tide turned...

[Japong]

... 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.

Re:I think the tide turned...

[fermion]

And I don't think i will ever get over the trauma of the tough stunt man telling me just how much he is hurt by people stealing movies. How he works so hard and still don't make any money. Like the high school kids complaining how much time they spend in class, and how hard they worked on that failing test, and how they just deserve an A. Or a drug addict saying he only got caught with cocaine once, and only got caught driving drunk once, and how that could keep anyone from public office is just unfair.

I mean the unfairness of the world, especially against the white men and even women, is just astounding.

I agree. Buying stuff is better. Just try to buy indie.

Re:I think the tide turned...

[CODiNE]

Hey I love making fun of rich spoiled brats like everyone else, but Britney simply didn't say that.

http://www.gawker.com/news/media/us-weekly/lifting -and-misquoting-its-just-like-us-037392.php/

Re:Percentages?

[seinman]

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!

What about allofmp3.com?

[pherthyl]

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 Gone

[WatertonMan]

Speaking of legal downloads, I notice that Hymn is now gone. The website doesn't respond at all. For those of you who know,

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.

Re:Hymn Gone

[SB5]

I am getting a response, and can see the site... Its at: http://www.hymn-project.org/

right?

Oh my god!

[da3dAlus]

You mean actually EMBRACING new technology that everyone is using, is actually BENEFICIAL? Wow, that is such a novel idea!
</sarcasm>

Two important distinctions

[fsterman]

"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.

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?

Fuzzy math...

[Hamster Lover]

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

The other 25%...

[__aawfbm2023]

are just ripping their own CDs, simple.

Every time we hit a milestone like this...

[Narcocide]

... 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.

On 40% Illegal Downloads

[DanteLysin]

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?

VHS Tapes

[Ken Broadfoot]

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!

Re:Math anyone?

[N3Roaster]

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.

Re:It doesn't add up

[Repton]

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 :-/

and

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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.

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:Music LISTENERS not DOWNLOADERS

[vwjeff]

So I don't know how those are accounted for.

It doesn't matter. 101% of all statistics are pulled out of someone's ass. That is a fact because it sounds right.

Re:Music LISTENERS not DOWNLOADERS

[Bastian]

I think if we accounted for each, the numbers would be something along the lines of:

70% download ilegally
90% download legally
100% rip CDs legally
100% copy friends' ripped CDs ilegally
1,536% think statisticians do lead paint shots when nobody's looking.

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:Bogus statistics: what little we can conclude

[RickPartin]

Statistics are usually nothing more than a marketing tool. They are simple and get a point across easily. But nothing is ever that simple. So many variables are in there like who paid for the study, how was it done, etc. But this never matters because once the statistic is out there everyone repeats it and the number becomes fact.

AudioLunchbox.com is one reason why

[kronos7871]

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

Also interesting to note that...

[eldawg]

"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)

Re:Is Anyone Actually Being Honest

[tomhudson]

DO YOU Honestly think people are being honest? With all the recent lawsuits, people are becoming less and less open about downloading. From the people I know, few would admit to downloads, but would do it anyways.

They offered them chocolate (hey, it works for passwords)

Re:Bah..

[muszek]

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.

Consumer

[Joey Patterson]

Time to stop paying $4 a song and start pirating music again!

Rip off + No easy means

[Ka D'Argo]

Now, I haven't read up on every payment method that iTunes and other online outlets provide, but when you combine the fact that CD's still cost $12+ on average with the fact that credit card purchasing doesn't leave some of us alot of options.

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.

Because that's how they think

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Another option?

[BlackMesaLabs]

Why, In Soviet Russia, music downloads YOU!

Re:actual helpful response

[munpfazy]

> 75% of music listeners are using *A* download service

Nope.

If your reading of the article is correct, then there's no reason to exclude overlap between those group who download music. It might just as well be that 40% use illegal download services, and 87% of those also use legal download services, while 60% purchase media.

Something closer to that is certainly in line with anecdotal discussions with the people I happen to know.

But without more detail about how the study was conducted, it's tough to say anything meaningful.

Com'on you guys

[sambira]

Com'on illegal downloaders. We can't let the legal downloaders win. :(

so what's the other 25%?

[antiphoton]

so what's the other 25%?

The profit the RIAA makes via out of court settlements.

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.

See? See! You CAN compete with free!

[werdna]

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.

The only number that matters is happiness

[typical]

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.

Rumor-mongering

[tm2b]

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.

Re:Rumor-mongering

[Sycraft-fu]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/apple_itun es_price_rises/

I don't use iTunes so I accepted the story as is. Register is usually accurate.

Regardless, that they'd try goes to my orignal point. Heck, the current pricing distribution goes to my point. If songs were $1, Apple took half, and they didn't take all costs out of artists' royalites, I'd say it was fair. As it stands, they get the lions share of the money for the least work and risk.

I don't think so.

[Erris]

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.

maybe if...

[KillShill]

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.

Legal smegal

[3.09 a hour]

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!

How does this affect musicians?

[serutan]

Very well worded bit in the article: ...the sense that unauthorized downloading is 'not fair on the artists,' suggesting that the industry's messages... are being communicated effectively.

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:

"In 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show... When someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled! Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped."

Re:Also...

[muszek]

... and out of those 35 mln Brits they pulled a group of 10 people. 3 of them said "sure, I bought some music". One of them was asleep at the time of questioning, so they counted him as half. The result: 35% of people buy music.

Seriously: That's what I've been saying in parent post: they get some shitty, non-representative data and try to generalise based on that. It's not only non-representative - it seems to favor "legal" music - UK is generally rich and it has long traditions in music (which probably co-relates with people being more willing to purchase recordings), etc., etc.

I've heard that those researchers are going to Nigeria to prove that 95% of the World's population is black.

I'd _hapily_ pay $0.01 per play for songs

[jerde]

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

Doesn't the statistic strike you as "strange"?

[pandrijeczko]

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.

The Secret To Finding Good Music

[pandrijeczko]

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.

Did you know that 80% of all statistics are....

[AKosygin]

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?

Sooo... what do we need the RIAA for?

[Aldric]

If the likes of Apple and Microsoft provide all of the infrastructure, why in the world wouldn't they cut out the middle man and work with artists directly?

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.

DRM forces you to download

[gyst]

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.

This is a VERY bad thing

[Secrity]

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).

Now this is interesting...

[Khyber]

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.

i dont buy it

[timtwobuck]

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..

Re:i dont buy it

[saddino]

I'm exactly the opposite; everyone I know buys music legally from online services. Many of them used to get music illegally back in the Napster days, but not anymore.

You have to remember that these statistics are based over the entire population, so in fact, your friends (I'm assuming you're much younger than I am) may in fact rarely pay for legal music downloads, but my friends do, and thus "counter" yours.

It would be interesting to see how this statistic breaks down over age group.

Re:Bah..

[vertinox]

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.

If candy dars are priated music, then you'd wouldn't be able to find them in a store and you'd have to spend 30 minutes looking for one (like searching multiple networks for an obscure song) and once you found one it takes forever dig through the trash to get it (the only person you found with the song is on dial up) and then when you finish getting the candy part you find that its not only not all there but tastes like poop (the song cuts off at the end and was encoded at 96kps argh!).

Legal Downloads Will Kill Music

[pandrijeczko]

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.

I had a friend who did this...

[FreeUser]

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.

Re: But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching?

[SenFo]

But what their reports failed to acknowledge originally is the number of songs that were downloaded illegally, but resulted in the sale of a CD. Lets face it, downloading a single song here and there isn't too bad with P2P. But trying to download an entire album is a pain. Personally (and along with many others) I'd rather go out to my local Best Buy and purchase it.

I have to admit that I have yet to use iTunes or a similar interface because I don't have an iPod or an MP3 player in my truck so I still prefer CD's. I do, however, imagine that it's still just as difficult to do an entire album for a particular artist.

So yeah, the music industry will see this as a positive step in the right direction, which is a good reason that I personally believe that very little, if anything, will convince the RIAA/MPAA to back off.

Re: But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching?

[falsified]

Maybe it is. (Don't hurt me.) I don't buy into their crap, but it's not much more convenient to use iTunes as it is to use Soulseek, especially since Soulseek introduces me to new bands much more effectively and it's relatively easy to find songs. (Plus, there's a wish list for those hard-to-find grindcore bands from 1989.) I can't see what else would cause the average user to go from free services to pay services if not for fear.