Slashdot Mirror
Digital Music Sales Skyrocket in 2005
Luke PiWalker writes "The market for digital music hit $1.1 billion in 2005, more than triple 2004 sales. But the industry, wanting to wring the maximum profit out of the consumer, remains fixated on piracy." From the article: "The IFPI also called on ISPs to join the fight against music piracy, which it claims severely erodes the profits of its 1,450 member record companies across the globe. The IFPI added that the legitimate music business was gradually gaining ground on digital piracy. It said research showed that in Europe's two biggest digital markets -- Britain and Germany -- more music fans are now legally downloading music than illegally file-swapping."
The plumber's take on the RIAA and those horrible pirates was:
People discovered that they could do all these cool things with song files -- remix, carry them in their mp3 players, rip, burn -- and there was an enormous demand to do those things. The pressure of that demand caused all sorts of leaks in the RIAA's old pipe full of money.
The RIAA, naturally, started running around in a panic trying to plug the leaks. For every one they plugged, they got more; the demand created that much pressure, and it's not going to be possible to sue every pirate or plug every spot in an entire pipe. It stops being a pipe at that point and turns into something else.
What they needed to do was add a release valve that they could control, but they didn't want to do that. It took third parties like Jobs with iTunes to show them how the pressure could go in a place they directed it. Now that they've let a bit of the pressure out, they're still trying to plug holes though. They don't see that they should concentrate on a workable new system that gets people the water they need rather than setting up a bunch of jury-rigged patches for problems with the old one.
He also included a choice word or two about the "plumber's crack" in the RIAA's thinking, but I won't repeat that here. ;-)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
AFAIK, the ISPs are paid by their subscribers to carry bits between the subscriber and the 'rest of the world'. It is not really the ISP's function to know whether the bits represent music with permission, music without permission, or something completely different from music.
I'm not a fan of steeling, but after seeing stories like this: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/915651 6
I'm not going to cry for anyone. When Mick and the boys can make $162 million in North America alone, who needs record sales?
When they charge you over $100 to see the show, they should give you the CD for free!
I remember when Steve Jobs introduced the itunes music store, he compared it with all the p2p at the time. He said we can't beat them on price, so we have to beat them on
1. Easy of use
2. Quality of encoding/downloads (quality of music is really subjective/ fast!)
3. Selection (you have to find the songs you want)
Not many beleived you could compete with free.
The RIAA anti-piracy efforts have worked in some regards, in that they make pirating music not as easy and make the pay services better in comparison. Pay service typically have better client software as they have the revenue stream to support developers. People don't want to chance a lawsuit so they lay low, "share" fewer songs creating more leaches and poorer selection.
When it used to just be Napster, everyone was on it so the selection was great. Now there are more services with poorer selection.
I think when people think about it, they want to "do the right thing" and support the bands they like. People like downloading music. People wanted this and now they have it they are using it more.
That's simplistic hogwash. No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter. That's especially true of public companies who are required to operate transparently. Shareholders can detect that level of bad management and punish the stock price accordingly.
In other words, not at all.
As far as I am aware, the only people who've ever got in trouble for the mp3s they had were sharing those mp3s over public peer-to-peer networks. They were illegally distributing them. The users of allofmp3.com are not doing this; they are purchasing them from an organisation that has the legal right to distribute them, and importing them into their home countries. It's just the same as if they ordered the CDs by mail order from Russia because they're cheaper there.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"Well, I guess having a sizeable chunk of your expected income stolen will cause a certain amount of 'fixation'."
Exactly. What do you think the cost to benefit ratio is when it comes to suing over internet copying? From what I remember of studies that have been mentioned, the number of sales lost due to internet copying is a very small (possibly negative) number. Internet copying is overall a small problem compared to counterfeit discs fabricated by organized crime. Furthermore, suing their own customers creates a rather large amount of ill will and may discourage sales further. If they actually were losing a sizeable chunk of revenue, I would understand their fixation. But they aren't. I suppose either my estimates are wrong, or theirs are. Or there are noneconomic reasons why they are so fixated, like trying to draw attenion away from lackluster sales. Or if the RIAA raises more of a ruckus over the need to sue people, maybe they can convince the member studios to increase their funding.
Actually, the music I listen to is not played on radio or in any visible format. P2P is my sampler. I stopped buying CD's when I stopped hearing any good music (opinions vary) radio or otherwise and couldn't hear it anywhere. Anyone get some Dave Weckl Band on 107 FM today? Chick Corea? Zappa? Funny thing is is that .mp3 is whats actually saving their ass because of it's shitty sound quality. Good enough to sample, for me only a tease of good music because I gotta have the FLAC. Another good way to sample is those "Red Dot" music sample boxes they have at Barnes and Noble in the music section. Try the "Similar Artists" selection on the display after selecting someone you like to listen to and you can hear some samples of those "Similar" artists. If you are really into music, you may find yourself standing there for a couple hours hearing stuff you never knew existed. And probably buying a CD after hearing something "Good".
The music piracy debate comes up again and again on Slashdot, and there are always similar viewpoints expressed:
View #1: "Stealing music hurts artists."
View #2: "No, it hurts record companies, who are screwing artists anyway."
My suggestion: buy indie music and/or buy straight from artists. Sites like Magnatune, Indieheaven and CD Baby (which also distributes music on iTunes and elsewhere) pay a large percentage of sales to musicians.
[self-promotion]
Suddenly, there's a direct connection: You buy music from me, and most of the money keeps me eating and recording. You get more music, I have more fun, and nobody gets screwed. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
If you don't like what the industry has to offer, don't steal it; buy indie music. [/self-promotion]
To me the problem with the crappy top 40 stuff is that it is overproduced. The artists are managed now such that every dance move they make, every note they sing, etc is planned. I'm sure there are focus groups, market surveys and statistical anlysis done to make sure that every Brittany Spears knock off hits the demographic sweet spot.
Personally, I like music that is the expression of an artist, not the iterative effort of a marketing machine.
While it might have a negative effect on the industry, copyright is meant to serve the public, not authors.
Absolutely. This is a point that many people don't get. Even many lawyers don't seem to get it, and that surprises me. Copyright isn't a "right", it's an expensive privilege granted to creators by society, because society expects to benefit. The theory is vaguely GPL'ish -- by imposing some carefully-chosen restrictions on the distribution of creative content, we actually increase distribution (and eventually enrich the public domain). But the goal is the increase, the restrictions are just the mechanism, and the mechanism is valuable only as long as it actually serves the goal.
Somewhere along the line our lawmakers seem to have gotten that backwards. I think they still understood it pretty well when the issues of mechanical reproduction arose, the compulsory licensing scheme that was their response served the public interest well (even though it arguably harmed creators somewhat). Effectively perpetual copyrights and anti-circumvention legislation that basically puts legal force behind any random set of restrictions a publisher wants to implement, on the other hand, do not serve the public interest.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.