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.

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

[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.

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.

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?

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???

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.