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.'"
But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching?
so what's the other 25%?
Apperently they have these things called "stores" that you can reach on sneakernet. Psh, it'll never catch on.
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.
... 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.
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?
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I am getting a response, and can see the site... Its at: http://www.hymn-project.org/
right?
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
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.
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
- 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.
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.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.