Legal Music Downloads Increase in 2005

GraWil writes "The CBC is reporting there is marked increase in legal music downloads in 2005. American internet users downloaded 158 million individual songs from January to June 2005, compared with 55 million during the same period in 2004; during the same period, U.S. CD sales decreased by 7%. According to Peter Jamieson, head of the British Phonographic Industry, "the record industry has enthusiastically embraced the new legal download services ... and now we're beginning to reap the rewards". In the UK, sales of seven-inch vinyl singles were also up 87% on last year."

Comments

Trustworthy tracking

[jfonseca]

I wonder how they conclude these things anyway when they have no clue how many songs were downloaded in the black market to begin with....

I bet you the illegal music traffic tripled as well.

If I had the time I could probably prove that broadband connections increased in number, prices fell, newer technologies connected more people, etc...

This is a piece of not-so-well crafted corporate propaganda.

Re:Trustworthy tracking

[Solr_Flare]

Agreed, but I do think the number of legal music downloaders *is* on the rise. It is on the rise from the non-computer savy people who are just now in the process of switching to broadband(yes broadband growth is undergoing the last "big boom" right now). These new average Joe's(my roomate is one of them) pick napster or itunes because:

A) It's convenient.

B) They know its legal so they don't have to worry about it

C) The catalogs and prices are getting friendly enough.

There will *always* be piracy. The idea is to make the legitimate methods more attractive and less hassle and the record companies are slowly succeeding. Now just imagine if they had listened to all of us and done this years ago when they should have instead of suing everyone. They'd probably be in far better shape.

Re:Trustworthy tracking

[Xtifr]

the article was about how many legal downloads there were, which they do know.

Do they? There's plenty of music that's not under the purview of the RIAA. If they're measuring by sales, then their methods are about as reliable as those who measure software popularity by sales in a world where open source is growing by leaps and bounds. Anyone who has installed a dozen or more legal copies of Fedora or Debian from a single CD knows how silly that notion is. And the amount of legally redistributable music out there is many orders of magnitude larger than the amount of free/open source software. The fully legal Etree torrent site is reportedly moving Petabytes on a regular basis.

(But your point that the article was not about illegal downloads remains valid.)

Re:Trustworthy tracking

[Grail]

I think the recording industry has to learn to use piracy as free marketing, rather than viewing it purely in terms of, "lost sales" (which is a fabricated argument anyway).

Make the music available with complete information on where to find it - ID3 tags in MP3 files are ideal for this. Then as the file is circulated through the grey market, people will see the URL to your legal music download site and go, "gee, I wonder if they have anything else I like?"

I contend that people truly desire to help the artists who produce the music that they like. In the meantime, we don't want to be gouged by paying for music we don't want - ever bought an album for the one song you do like? doesn't $AU30 for one track sound a bit excessive?

So I agree, there will always be piracy - the trick it to turn it to the advantage of the artists rather than just whining about it.

Next time some recording executive talks about "lost sales" due to piracy, ask them how much free marketing they got from that same piracy - based on how much they spend on marketing to sell as many albums they do, calculate how much it would have cost in marketing to ship the extra albums that they claim were "stolen".

Of course

[mfloy]

This was inevitable. The popularity of illegal music sites was a clear example of how many consumers loved the idea of downloading digital music. Most people didn't do it to cheat artists, they did it because they had no choice. Now that the labels are catching on they will be rewarded with huge profits. Now if only the TV and movie industry would catch on. There is big money to be made off legal movies and shows, just wait.

Re:Of course

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Take 1:

The popularity of illegal music sites was a clear example of how many consumers loved the idea of downloading digital music.

I suppose they didn't like the idea of downloading analog music very much.

Take 2:

The popularity of illegal music sites was a clear example of how many consumers loved the idea of downloading free music.

Take 3:

Most people didn't do it to cheat artists, they did it because they had no choice.

Of course, "downloading" the music directly from a CD was simply too hard.

Seriously now:

For me, the pricing needs to reflect the savings from not having to press, print and distribute the physical objects. I'd prefer to get the physical CD at a negligible amount more, most CDs I buy are priced around $10-$12 anyway, or used for half that, and I get an uncompressed copy, I don't worry about DRM, or what device to use.

For a $10 album download, the music industry is saving a lot on the middlemen but not passing the savings to the final purchaser.

Re:Of course

[jaypaulw]

they had no choice

This was such as classic BS excuse for why people stole music. Besides bootlegs, the overwhelming majority of stolen over the internet music was widely and easily available and the catalog of what is available on amazon must be 10 times what has ever been available illegal.

the major providers of legal downloads have tiny little catalogs with restricted use.

emusic is the bright spot, it's signifcantly cheaper than buying the equivalent music on CD (wow there's a concept!) and it has a selection of actually difficult to obtain music.

otherwise hard core music fans got no time for downloading your crappy music.

Re:Of course

[Mr2001]

Of course, "downloading" the music directly from a CD was simply too hard.

I know you were joking, but "downloading digital music" is about more than just being able to listen on your PC or your iPod - ripping tracks from a CD is no substitute. It means being able to hear any song instantly. If your friend sends you an IM saying "check out this song by band X", a minute later you can be hearing it, looking up related bands, and listening to their tracks too.

To do that with CDs, you'd have to (1) live at the record store, and (2) run back and forth between the shelves and listening stations, trying everyone's patience, if the store even has stations where you can listen to all the CDs they sell.

Re:Of course

[sankyuu]

Of course, "downloading" the music directly from a CD was simply too hard.

I was gonna mod, but I'll post instead.

When the GP said Most people didn't do it to cheat artists, they did it because they had no choice, the first thing I thought of is that it can be pretty hard to find music that I like where I live.

Searching for music and buying it online is much more convenient, and buying only the tracks I like makes so much more sense.

It's called ease of use.

[VectorSC]

When it's easy to do it legally (aka the iPod), people will do it legally. Why?

Not because people have a great amount of respect for the law, but because we have a great amount of respect for the easy.

Analogizing the debate...

[Sheetrock]

When one thinks of the ongoing struggles of the free music proponents vs. the commercial music proponents one might picture an argument between King Arthur and Robin Hood (fictional example obviously, as King Arthur was not a real person, but it has to be fiction to be an analogy.)

The thing to realize is that both sides not only believe they are working towards the greater good but are objectively doing so even with radically different and diametrically opposed 'solutions' to the problem.

It really puts things in perspective to realize not only that each side is right but that there is more to be gained for each to sit down and figure out what to do with the deer in the forest rather than constantly fighting over territory and methodology.

Re:Analogizing the debate...

[solanum]

picture an argument between King Arthur and Robin Hood (fictional example obviously, as King Arthur was not a real person,

and Robin Hood was???!!!! Wierd idea's Hollywood gives people.

did i just hear a moo?

[pintomp3]

huh? give ppl a way to give you money more easily and they open their wallets? imagine what could have been if they had embraced the internet back in the 90's instead of fighting it tooth and nail. just like audio tapes, just like video tapes. they fought so hard to stop these scary, uncontrolable, make-copying-easy technologies. and they turned into cash cows.

It's called FREE.

[night_sky_nsci]

Not because people have a great amount of respect for the law, but because we have a great amount of respect for the easy.

Also people are known to like not having to pay.

Re:It's called FREE.

[bersl2]

People also like on-demand, which isn't always the case with P2P. Some people will pay (extra) to have something now as opposed to later.

Now if they would only do this for TV shows...

[AgentJose1]

I know I would pay for a service where if I paid a certain amount of money I could get access to a BT tracker that was distributing DRM-'ed video files. I wouldn't mind signing up for a "pay-by-the-show" format, in case I miss an episode. Especially now that my favorite shows(Stargate SG-1, Lost, etc.) are trending towards more arc-ish storylines, so I won't get lost with the story. Granted, most TV programming doesn't have enough story to make these kinds of things worthwhile. I mean, why do I care if Jerry gets eliminated on Survivor 2000:The Last Place on Earth We Haven't Filmed In Yet?

Re:what?

[Magus2501]

eBay, my friend. eBay. I can get numerous CDs that the RIAA is soiling themselves over for a bid that's less than the shipping cost. When the RIAA kicks down my door, I'll kindly smile and show them the album that I ripped my music from.

Some people don't want to be happy

[Nugget]

There are people in this community who will continue to lobby against legal downloads no matter what the terms or what technology is used. I swear, sometimes I think that if Linus himself started a company that sold no-DRM OGG Vorbis songs for a penny a piece and you got a free blowjob from Natalie Portman with every 10 purchased tracks that we'd still see posts on slashdot justifying P2P piracy because we didn't get to pick out Natalie's outfit when she showed up at our parent's basement to deliver.

There are people who read news like this who are encouraged that market is beginning to respond (as markets always do) and there are people who read this news and get grumpy because it just got a little bit more difficult to continue to rationalize their greedy piracy.

How did you react?

Re:Some people don't want to be happy

[kfg]

How did you react?

I went out and bought a CD direct from the artist.

KFG

Re:Some people don't want to be happy

[gkuz]

Aside from your argument being weak, it is also misplaced. I clearly implied in my post that I do not consider copyright law ethical and that I wish it to be reformed. I choose to pass on options (1) and (2) you have given me and go for (3) non-violent resistance to the unjust law -- a resistance which gives me no profit and hurts only the richest and only very slightly; that coupled with raising awareness about the law's harmful effects and doing what I can to change it, or to get rid of it altogether.

This is the lamest justification I've heard on /. in a long time. "I can't afford to buy CD's because I'm a loser who can't stop smoking or playing on-line games even though I have no money, so I'll adopt a high-falutin' anti-copyright moral tone and just take whatever I feel like." Stop smoking cigarettes -- there's 5 bucks a day easy. Stop playin WoW. Maybe even -- GASP! -- get a fscking JOB!

Seconded

[aftk2]

I agree. When iTunes first started doing its thing, a lot of people griped that they didn't think there was a large enough difference between the cost of a CD and the cost of a downloaded album. They argued that you're not getting a physical product, and you're getting a lossy copy, so why does it still cost $9.99 (never mind that this is, in some cases, nearly a 50% reduction.)

I never saw it that way. I always thought that the convenience and the speed with which I could acquire the album more than made up for not getting the CD, and not having a perfect, pristine copy. I had a Paypal balance a number of months back, and debated using it on Ebay, to acquire several albums, or on iTunes to do the same. I chose iTunes - even though I might have been able to get more albums, plus liner notes & the original CDs, through eBay. Why did I choose iTunes? Because I wanted the songs on my iPod that day.

Re:My experiences purchasing and downloading mp3s

[spagetti_code]

Yes, Allofmp3 has by far the best combination of UI (just brilliant, kudos to the programmers), selection and price.

But it's legality is quite dubious and the RIAA has had a couple of goes at it. At the moment it lives in a loophole of the russian copyright system that is unlikely to be closed - those russians have bigger problems to deal with first.

So I guess it depends on how squeeky clean do you want to be???

Re:This article fails to mention...

[Seumas]

I haven't bought a CD since 1998. I have no intention to ever buy a CD. But I'm not going to buy music either. I'll pay for a subscription service to a massive library. Rhapsody is great at just under $9/mo for unlimited music. But unfortunately, those of us who primarily live on our Macs have no such service. You can either pay a buck a song on iTunes or get nothing at all.

If someone wants to put together an affordable subscription service with a client for Mac that has the same selection as Rhapsody or iTunes, I'm all over it. Until then, I'm a SoulSeek man.

The hell they have...

[Chordonblue]

"the record industry has enthusiastically embraced the new legal download services ... and now we're beginning to reap the rewards"

Only because they were dragged kicking and screaming into it. They have done EVERYTHING in their power to prevent even the LEGAL downloading of material. In addition, they have used their might to stop or at least slow down acceptance of new media devices. I need only point to such debacles as:

- The Cassette tape
- The DAT/Cassette DAT
- The CD-R
- The digital MP3 player (remember when they tried to stop those?)
- The Napster ruling
- Internet Radio

Etc... In short, they hate any technology they do not have 110% control over. If the music industry thought they could charge by the minute, they would.

Re:What will happen to the album?

[pandrijeczko]

Now we all know that most albums contain maybe 2 or 3 songs we want to listen to and the rest is filler.

Please don't make generalisations like this. This all depends on the type of music you listen to and the way you treat music.

I listen to a lot of fringe hard rock that gets no airplay here in the UK. It used to be I had to buy an album on "trust" simply by reading magazine reviews and just taking a risk - most of the time I got albums that had only 1 or 2 good tracks on them.

Nowadays, I download the album from Usenet as MP3s, if I like it then I buy the CD, otherwise I ditch it because it's just a waste of hard disk space. To me this is no different to taking a new car for a test drive before you buy it. The music industry gets less money from me because I'm more discerning but, on the other hand, I'm more happy with the overall product I buy because now I'm never disappointed.

I now own over 1200 legal music CDs - yes, a few of those (a minority) are albums with 1 or 2 good tracks on them but most are albums that I only play as albums from start to finish. Occasionally I burn a compilation CD for the car or separate tracks for my MP3 player at the gym but otherwise I'm an album listener.

I accept there is a demand for legal music downloading (I just don't understand why anyone would pay for music that's not on a CD with a nice cover and good sleeve notes) but, unfortunately, it's killing the way I listen to music, both on CD and live concerts.

Simply put, it's through albums that a band creates enough material to perform live for a decent length of time. Unfortunately, the future of music now is grim - if a band only goes into a studio to record one or two catchy songs for the downloaders, their output will be less, as will their back catalogue, this will jeopardise live performances in turn.

If downloading is the way music is going, who am I to stand in the way of progress? But it will kill the way most music is made today, both in the album format and in live performance - and I don't think that's going to be a good thing in the long term.

Ha!

[NubKnacker]

"the record industry has enthusiastically embraced the new legal download services ... and now we're beginning to reap the rewards"

That one made me laugh. I'm not sure which is the funnier word, enthusiastically or embraced.

Nice try making it look as if the industry was the one which ushered in the age of downloadable music. They did everything to stop it and when it steamrolled them over, they 'accepted' it and made it look like it was their creation.

I wish I could warp to another universe, Trance Gemini style, where there was no napster, no kazaa and no BT and look at how enthusiastically they had embraced it there.

Re:This article fails to mention...

[jellomizer]

I am not sure of your tone. Are you saying that Rhapsody is better then iTunes or are you Saying Rhapsody should port to the Mac platform?
I would agree with the second. As for the first it is a situation of how you listen to music. I myself buy less then 9 songs a month, so in my case iTunes is more affordable. I like the fact that there are different types of paying for music subscription vs per song. It allows the consumer to decide what is best for them based on their buying habits.