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."

Comments

pay?

[Janek Kozicki]

Pay? For music?

Re:pay?

[Bimo_Dude]

Well, based on the results of that poll, there are still more people who are willing to pay for music (44% for Standard ISO CD -vs- 33% for Pay?). And this is among geeks. I wonder what the percentage would be among the non-geek populace, where there are fewer people aware of file sharing? It seems likely that that percentage would be higher.

I still call BS when the RIAA and others claim that p2p hurts record sales. I think that most of the stuff that is produced and sold nowadays in the mainstream is just not very good (IMHO). On the local classic rock station in my area, even, the majority of the callers making requests sound like they are quite young.

Re:pay?

[macadamia_harold]

ha ha ha! It does seem like a silly idea at this point sort of. I like the idea of musicians who bundle their CD's with special concert tickets, limited edition bonus discs, etc. You can't fight the advancement of technology. Record Companies are going to have to learn how to evolve along with it.

RIAA has won

[digitaldc]

Now can they please stop suing their consumer base?

Re:RIAA has won

[gEvil (beta)]

This is a lot like the war on terra. They won't have successfully "won" until there isn't a single person out there making a copy of a song for someone else without paying. In short, it will never end...

Re:RIAA has won

[dc29A]

RIAA has won? Not IMO. RIAA wants to sell you a product. Product being one CD full of shit with maybe 1-2 good songs. Those good songs are being played on radio and bought in online download services. The CD itself is not bought. CD sales have gone down again last year while legal downloads are going up. Thanks to legal downloads, people are no longer inclined to buy an entire CD full of crap because they like maybe one song on it.

Re:RIAA has won

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The "one CD full of shit with maybe 1-2 good songs" comes up every time this subject is discussed, and I have to ask: what CD's are people buying that they say this, anyway? I'd say I like 90+% of the songs in my CD collection, whether I'd heard the song before buying the CD or not -- because I usually buy CD's by artists whose work I know is consistently good, or that have been recommended to me by friends whose musical judgement I trust. Even the best band can turn out a lousy song on occasion, sure, but I have to say that if you buy an album expecting and accepting that most of the songs on it are going to suck, then you pretty much deserve what you get.

Re:RIAA has won

[surefooted1]

RIAA has won
Or have they?

...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.

I think people have just found more "secure" ways of trading music.

Re:RIAA has won

[gEvil (beta)]

This is the difference between a discrminating music buyer and someone who buys the top 40 hit of the week. One buys music because they like the music. The other buys the music because it's cool and that's what they're supposed to do.

Re:RIAA has won

[digitaldc]

I think people have just found more "secure" ways of trading music.

Maybe the DOJ/government will subpeona Google to find out how many people are searching for music and movie files too?

Re:RIAA has won

[ShibaInu]

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.

Re:RIAA has won

[norman619]

LOL They will never "win" I seriously doubt anything they can do would keep the illegal downloaders from doing so. It's a pipe dream. And it's a sure sign of their greed. They already make huge profits. They just want more and are willing to crush their customers to do it. It only pisses people off and makes them less sypathetic. I know that their actions have actually made some people want to do even more downloading just to spite them. They have their heads up their collective anuses and I doubt they will change anything. My CD buying dropped due to the utter crap that is released. I refuse to pay $15 for a CD with only 2 or 3 songs that I actually like no matter who the artist is. I don't buy CD's just because the group is currently popular. As an example I originally bought a DVD burner to burn movies but guess what? That's not what I use it for. LOL I found myself buying DVD's more. Why is that? Because I found DVD's I liked enough to want to burn I would rather have an original copy. The people I find that are burning the stuff and illegally downloading are those that wouldn't buy a copy of anything even if it were almost free. They don't care very much about the qulaity. I equate this whole issue with the whole "Gun Control" issue. The people that are pro gun control (RIAA) fail to notice that CRIMINALS don't buy their guns(download music) legally anyway. Plus they are already able to buy guns that are currently banned. The laws do not make obtaining guns harder for criminals. They only make it harder for law abiding folks. I think it's funny.

Re:RIAA has won

[Redwin]

This is a lot like the war on terra.

Boy, the enviromentalists are going to be angry about that!

Re:RIAA has won

[mzipay]

C'mon! It's not that black-and-white!

The reality is that most people who have a CD collection own both kinds of works - those that they listen to regularly, from the first song to the last, and those that they listen to only on occasion, or only to certain tracks.

Here's a newsflash - musical taste is SUBJECTIVE. What you consider to be the greatest musical masterpiece of humankind's existence might not be worth picking up from the 25-cent bargain bin at the local swap shop to someone else.

The "argument" here (going back to the original post) is quite valid: if I like a particular song or couple songs off some band or artist's album, and I *don't* like (or don't care one way or another) about the rest, I don't want to pay FULL price for the whole album.

Personally, I only buy new CDs for my absolute favorite bands and artists. For the rest, I first look at local CD exchange stores, followed by online used copies, and finally resorting to "piracy" if all other options have been exhausted.

That song that got released back in 1972 that I just heard the other day in a TV commercial and would really like to add to my collection? Um, yeah, I'm NOT going to go out and pay for the entire album when all I want is that song. If I can find the album on the cheap (and by cheap I mean $1 or less), I'll buy it.

Otherwise, it's a pirate's life for me. ARRRRRR!

Re:RIAA has won

[rob_squared]

I think both actually have their place. Sometimes, when I'm doing work, all I really want is background noise, and pop hits do that nicely.

When I'm looking to relax or just sit and listen to music, I seek out specific artists (Jazz mostly: Dave Koz, Chris Botti, Soul Ballet, and yes, Kenny G) or genres.

Re:RIAA has won

[ClamIAm]

This is a lot like the war on terra.

Which is a lot like the War on Drugs, which is a lot like the War on Communism.

Re:RIAA has won

[dangitman]

I think people have just found more "secure" ways of trading music.

Why? There's no reason to believe that filesharing was ever that mainstream, except perhaps in the Napster days. it's not surprising to me that more people legally buy music. After all, most people don't shoplift, even though it is very easy to do. It's just that now there are new ways of buying music (read: iTunes) which are starting to become popular, as people don't see the need for a CD anymore.

Believing that filesharing was the majority is believing RIAA propaganda about the "piracy threat."

Re:RIAA has won

[mzipay]

I think you (like O.P.) are failing to acknowledge one very important facet of musical "taste" (perhaps "enjoyment" would be a better word in this case):

Nostalgia!

Case in point: "Take On Me" (by A-Ha) is the very definition of "one hit wonder" - but I LOVE that song, NOT because it was a top-10 hit in 1985 (had to look that up, in fact), and most definitely not because the music industry marketed or pushed it (I actually DISliked that song when it came out).
I love that song now because it reminds me of my childhood when I listen to it, and also because I greatly enjoy 80s music in general (for the same reason).

It wasn't until years later, in college, that I happened to hear that song somewhere, got flooded with nostalgia, and decided I just HAD to have it on a mix tape (my college years pre-dated the MP3 craze and the CD-burner-as-a-commodity era).

Do you have any idea how freaking difficult it was to find that song WITHOUT the benefit of "digital music piracy"??? Sheesh!

Legal downloads bigger than piracy?

[nordelius]

How are they measuring piracy? How can they possibly get reliable figures on the level of music piracy.
Not that I am necessarily complaining. If the industry is content to consider that online piracy is not as big as legal downloads perhaps they will leave online music alone and look at people who actually make money from piracy (e.g. sales of counterfit CDs/DVDs)?

Re:Legal downloads bigger than piracy?

[Yartrebo]

People using legal download RIAA download sites download only a handful of songs, while people using other services get a cornucopia full of stuff. I'm quite certain that the number of song copies created on P2P far exceeds that done by RIAA sites.

Re:Legal downloads bigger than piracy?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

How are they measuring piracy? How can they possibly get reliable figures on the level of music piracy.

You mean you didn't register your illegal downloads with the RIAA?

Digital Music?

[Compenguin]

Aren't CD's also digital music, not just that downloaded crap?

Legitimate Markets

[warmgun]

"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."

This seems to have little to do with any anti-piracy efforts from the record labels and much more to do with the wide-spread availability of legal markets for digital music for the first time.

Re:Legitimate Markets

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Exactly...
In my opinion, the record companies are going to have to find a new way to measure album sales.
For example- I no longer (like I did in the 90's) buy a whole $20 CD when I just want a song or two- I just buy the song. In my opinion. when I buy the one good song on an album (and we all know the albums that have one good song), the record companies should record that as an album sale. ( Of course this would be subjective... But did you ever notice how Vanilla Ice consistantly has one of the top 50 songs on iTunes in the HipHop category- does anyone think this would be the case if you had to buy his entire album to get "Ice Ice Baby?")

Re:Legitimate Markets

[MtViewGuy]

This seems to have little to do with any anti-piracy efforts from the record labels and much more to do with the wide-spread availability of legal markets for digital music for the first time.

What has changed the entire equation is the enormous success of Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store working in conjunction with the iTunes program. By pricing singles at 99 cents US per song and US$9.90 per album, this has actually benefited a lot of artists because not only does this cut down on music piracy, but it has actually provided a decent revenue stream for a lot of lesser-known artists.

Re:Legitimate Markets

[Cerberus7]

But did you ever notice how Vanilla Ice consistantly has one of the top 50 songs on iTunes in the HipHop category

This just scares the crap out of me...

Enough Is Enough

[gasmonso]

When will the RIAA stop these senseless lawsuits and focus on the digital download market. Piracy will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:Enough Is Enough

[Firehed]

Perhaps when they realize that many people sample through piracy. The two CDs I've purchased in the last couple years I downloaded first. And I found a FLAC copy to download; it was about supporting the artist at the time. I've since downloaded quite a few other CDs in lossless formats, and I *would* buy them if they weren't under one of the RIAA-backed labels. I flat-out refuse to buy any media that translates to my money going to that organization. So they took someone who used piracy as a sampling service into someone who now uses iTMS to sample (with the 30-sec previews) what he's going to go pirate. Good job, guys! Before I was abusing the illegal system in order to get the most out of the legal one. Now I abuse the legal system in order to not waste the time of the illegal one.

When the RIAA is no longer a part of purhcasing music, I'll buy it again. I won't buy products suppored by out-and-out bastards (you'll note a similar trend with movies - my collection is expanding faster than ever (though through free rentals rather than downloads), but the money that the MPAA gets from me has gone to zero). If even 10% of the cost of a CD went to the artist I might think about reconsidering, but it won't happen anytime soon. Make it consumer-friendly and more consumers will consume (meaning no damned DRE). Piss off your customers, and they go without or turn somewhere else.

Re:Enough Is Enough

[shark72]

"When will the RIAA stop these senseless lawsuits and focus on the digital download market."

Record companies, like you and me, can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time.

The success of the digital download market is due to the record companies' focus. Universal has finally digitized their entire catalog and is now digitizing their back catalog of European releases. They've even made noises about an online-only music label, ostensibly so they can make investments in more commercially risky artists without the overhead of the traditional retail channel and hard goods.

"Piracy will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies."

This is another example where folks don't realize that record companies act like other businesses.

Think of your favorite store. Maybe it's a grocery store, or a Fry's Electronics, or a hobby store, or whatever. Odds are that you've noticed that they have sales and promotions, but they also take efforts to curb shoplifting. Your newspaper is filled with pages and pages of ads for sales at your local stores, yet the anti-theft industry remains huge.

Now imagine if you went to your local store owner and gave him or her the same advice you have for the record industry: "Shoplifting will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies."

Do you think that would be good avice?

Store owners know that shoplifters will always exist, but this does not prevent them from taking measures to stop it when they can. The record companies take the same approach.

Re:Enough Is Enough

[paving-slab]

Except, of course, if you shoplift the store has lost an item they have paid for, or will have to pay for, and thus have made a loss. Whereas if someone downloads digital music from another source other than yours you have only made a hypothetical loss.

So your points are invalid, even though they are modded insightful:

Record companies don't act like other businesses, record company losses due to other downloads are pure fabrication, pulled from the ether by their litigious minds, your hardware/whatever stores losses due to shoplifting are an accounting fact.

Your whatever store counteracts shoplifting by adding, for example, RFID tags to goods to inconvenience the shoplifter without undue hinderence to the genuine purchaser. The record company counteracts downloading from other sources by inconveniencing the genuine purchaser with DRM, without undue hinderance to the other downloaders.

Perhaps folk are right, and this is an example of you not realising that record companies don't act like any other business.

Just a little side note on the legality...

[eldavojohn]

Uh, before you rush to use either of those services, please take note of their legal disclaimers such as the one from allofmp3:

All the materials in MediaServices projects are available for distribution through the Internet in accordance with license # LS-3-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users.

And so, since the servers are only operating under the laws of Germany or Russia, you are basically paying money for high quality mp3s. Should be caught with said files, it would be just as bad as if you had downloaded them using a P2P client for free.

Be careful folks, if it's too good to be true, it is.

Re:Just a little side note on the legality...

[eldavojohn]

First off, owning an mp3 is not illegal as long as you have the rights to own it (i.e. you legally own the compact disc, cassette or record of it).

If you really want me to name people charged with illegally acquiring mp3s:
Diana Li
Daniel Peng
Joe Nievelt
... etc. ...

The list is a long one, I hope three names will suffice, if not, you know where Google is ...

Re:Just a little side note on the legality...

[truedfx]

In GB and Germany, they all use http://allofmp3.com/ and http://mp3search.ru/

And so, since the servers are only operating under the laws of Germany or Russia, you are basically paying money for high quality mp3s. Should be caught with said files, it would be just as bad as if you had downloaded them using a P2P client for free.

I don't know about British law, but if I recall correctly, at least in Germany buying from legal online stores, including allofmp3, is itself legal too, while downloading from P2P (assuming it was uploaded without permission) is not. Are you perhaps thinking of US laws?

Re:Just a little side note on the legality...

[Jugalator]

Should be caught with said files, it would be just as bad as if you had downloaded them using a P2P client for free.

Yes, and you may be caught with files having embedded digital signatures, but mp3's doesn't carry tracking information (besides the very easily manipulated file checksums), so being "caught with said mp3s" seems pretty far fetched.

As long as AllOfMp3.com themselves aren't monitored I don't see many risks pirates would take when downloading from there, and so far I'm not really aware of any subpoenas caused by AllOfMp3 downloading. Has to be on a very very small scale in that case.

Re:Just a little side note on the legality...

[Jugalator]

It's not a grey area whether it's legal to purchase mp3 files. It's as legal as purchasing a PDF document.

Re:Just a little side note on the legality...

[meringuoid]

Should be caught with said files, it would be just as bad as if you had downloaded them using a P2P client for free.

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.

Re:Just a little side note on the legality...

[eldavojohn]

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. Well, just because no one's gotten in trouble for it doesn't mean it's legal. For you see, the RIAA and even the Russian government doesn't like what's going on with sites like allofmp3. I bet someone is being paid off over there to let this slide.

There's an interesting article at tech law advisor.

Re:Just a little side note on the legality...

[Pofy]

>First off, owning an mp3 is not illegal as long as you have the rights to
>own it (i.e. you legally own the compact disc, cassette or record of it).

Ehh, owning an mp3 file is not illegal, period. Doesn't matter if you own for example a CD or cassette and so on. Possession is not part of copyright and hence you can't infringe on copyright for having or owning an mp3 file. What can be infringing is the act of copying a song into a mp3 file for example, but that is something else.

>If you really want me to name people charged with illegally acquiring mp3s

Exactly, aquiring, in the case of copying can typically be infringing in many cases, but simply possessing or owning is not. Very different.

Not Impressed

[Kn1nJa]

This is just another ploy to try and persuade people to legitimately buy music. They should realize by now, that no amount of sugar coating will make buying music any better. It's still a rip off and always will be. I've downloaded music ever since the beginning of napster (back when it was actually cool...) and won't be buying any time soon...

Re:Not Impressed

[millennial]

Then you're a leech.

Re:Not Impressed

[dangitman]

Take a music bath once or twice a week for a few seasons, and you will find that it is to the soul what the water-bath is to the body.

The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils.

William Shakespeare

Legal music

[poeidon1]

These companies try to prevent downloading illegal music, without providing a platform to download legal music. ITunes was one of the first to cater that and thats why it is a success but more needs to be done especially with files with DRM

Re:Legal music

[Professor_UNIX]

ITunes was one of the first to cater that and thats why it is a success but more needs to be done especially with files with DRM

IMHO iTunes Music Store would be a slam dunk if they had simply adopted Apple's Lossless codec as the standard format for downloaded music instead of the lossily compressed AAC files. If I'm going to pay the store price for an album on iTunes Music Store then I should be able to take the files I've downloaded and burn a CD that will be the exact same quality as if I had bought that CD from the store. I don't WANT to keep my music in DRM-protected AAC files, I want them to be cross-platform in MP3 or FLAC format but it's stupid to burn the AAC files to a CD and then rerip them since you lose too much audio quality.

Tired old stories

[Bullfish]

Another tired story about how "good" people are paying and playing ball with the RIAA etc in the first portion while the rest of the story spends its time hand-wringing over how pirates are taking everybody down the path to hell.

No doubt we will shortly hear of another round of single mothers being busted because their children have downloaded some songs onto their computers or more pressure being directed against Apple's unscrupulous pricing policies.

Funny how these things seem to be forming a pattern.

Re:In Soviet Russia ...

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Um no... I believe in Soviet Russia, they use AllofMP3.com

Copy protection

[VincenzoRomano]

The world would be much more quiet if only digital entertainment industry got some very simple principle: there is very little to do against copies of digital media! Nothing, actually!
With analogue entertainement (tapes, basically) there has always been a quality loss along with the copy process. And the copy has been done with specialised hardware (tape machines).
Almost any PC with the needed (cheap) hardware and software can do copies, play the media and so on.
Entertainment industry should focus more on quality and new ideas.

Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Anonymous Coward]

"...But the industry, wanting to wring the maximum profit out of the consumer, remains fixated on piracy..."

Well, I guess having a sizeable chunk of your expected income stolen will cause a certain amount of 'fixation'. I am an IP lawyer, so I may be slightly biased, but if people want something that someone else went to the trouble of creating, doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid? I have trouble understanding why so many people seem to condone simply *taking* it... and then playing the 'Evil industry' card on the rightholders to boot! Seems a bit incongruous to me. There's such a thing as free music: download stuff that bands put online for your enjoyment or make some of your own, already.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Daniel Dvorkin]

if people want something that someone else went to the trouble of creating, doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid?

Why yes, it does. And the answer, apparently, from musicians who are familiar with the parasitic ways of the music industry is, "No, not really."

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Bimo_Dude]

Isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins, according to religious people? If so, then the RIAA tactics are greedy AND evil.

I can understand that in the surrent system (at least in the US), it is a company's duty to maximize shareholder value, but the current system also makes it impossible to look beyond the next quarter. Companies can not be concerned by the long-term value that is created when they don't screw their customer base. Suing and screwing seems to be the "new paradigm" (for you management types) in business.

Sad.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[cryfreedomlove]

You are introducing a new topic and I'm not sure why. Are you saying that if a musician is unhappy with the record label they've released on then it's okay to take their music without paying for it? What's the moral basis for that line of thinking?

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[cryfreedomlove]

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.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Bimo_Dude]

Have you ever worked at a major corporation?

All of the really big ones where I've worked (not my current employer) have been severely mismanaged. One of those is a major media company. Consider it hogwash it you may, but that has not been my experience. YMMV.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[cryfreedomlove]

> Have you ever worked at a major corporation?

Yes. That experience formed the basis of my posting. I'm sorry that you chose to work at corporations that practice such short sighted behavior.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[RocketGeek]

> Well, I guess having a sizeable chunk of your expected income stolen will > cause a certain amount of 'fixation'.

Absolutely, and you say:

> doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid?

Yes definitely, but having spent the last few weeks working on a music website for a singer who used to have a music career, had a song that went platinum, and then ended up doing painting and decorating because she never saw any of the money, as did the recording studio who were recording her tracks, I think you are being very naiive if you think that the creators actually get paid most of the time. As her horror story showed me, as well as others I know about from being involved, the money does not go to the artistes, it generally goes to corrupt music industry executives who try and blackmail female artistes into sex for career advancement, and who seem to pocket the money only to spend it on shovelling coke up their noses. Seemingly they spread their fun to their lawyers too. So putting your comments in context, i don't think you really understand the nature of the music business.

> I am an IP lawyer, so I may be slightly biased,

Well I guess you're definitely missing out on the fun the music industry lawyers have.

Can you sleep at night with your views? Knowing that the genuine creators are not compensated, but all the middle men, the leeches like the lawyers etc are essentially stealing the money the creators make ?

> I have trouble understanding why so many people seem to condone simply *taking* it...

Simple. If the creator gets the lion share of the money, then I would pay without a second thought. As long as people who do not add value get the majority of the money, and defend their behaviour through suing everyone else, then I will have no part of it, and will actively seek the middlemen's economic demise.

> and then playing the 'Evil industry' card on the rightholders to boot!
> Seems a bit incongruous to me.

Seems you're a bit naiive for a lawyer.

People like John Kennedy and the IFPI and the RIAA are real scum. Instead of developing a credible business model that fairly compensates the artistes, they are more concerned with preserving their own financial gravy train which keeps the artistes under their thumb.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Bimo_Dude]

Ok. We have had different experience. You are correct in that I had chosen to work at some very shortsighted companies. I finally learned to research companies before agreeing to work there, and am now at a MUCH better place (and, this is also a publicy traded company).

So I now know that there are some decent companies out there, too.

Reflecting on this statement you made "No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter." I realized that you're right. The first time reading it, I missed the word successful. Most of my former employers are not really successful anymore.

Thank you for an interesting and reasoned response.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[ChimaeraX]

I would say most people dont view the RIAA as the "creator" of the music, but the musicians themselves. The RIAA is trying to cling to a dying business model. iTunes is showing the people are more than willing to pay for their music, but they refuse to be gouged by the RIAA's monopolistic tactics. I get all of my music from Emusic.com or iTunes and dont see myself every buying another physical cd. This knee-caps the RIAA because they have historically been able to inflate the overhead required for cd distribution to pad their profits. They dont want to end just p2p, they want to end all digital media because they cant manipulate those markets as well.

The RIAA is the old boys club, who had a good thing going, and rather than adept to the changing market, they attacked their customers. Any good will they may have held as they transitioned to a digital economy is gone. Consumers would much rather give their money to Apple or to the artists directly. These middle men have outlived their purpose.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[bigbird]

If the creator gets the lion share of the money, then I would pay without a second thought.

So do you apply this line of reasoning to all products you need? (e.g. buying a pair of trainers, would you steal them if you think the people actually making them only received a few cents per pair).

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[pedestrian crossing]

What's the moral basis for that line of thinking?

The moral basis is that the media companies are notorious for "creative" (read: immoral) accounting practices.

Artists get an advance on the projected sales of their music. Kind of a "loan" up-front, that they have to pay off with sales. But, they don't get to start paying off the loan until they have paid the promotional costs.

That's where the media companies' accounting starts to get -very- creative. The "promotional costs" are massively inflated by the companies, and they have to sell an extraordinary (inflated) number of units before the artists can break even, much less make money.

It's a huge scam, and if it isn't downright illegal, it certainly is immoral.

Most artists are pretty much fucked by the record companies anyway, I guess a lot of people figure it's ok to fuck the record companies.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Weedlekin]

I think that the grandparent is trying to point out the fact that most of artists who are signed to major labels either earn nothing from what can be quite a substantial number of CD sales, or actually end up owing money to the label. So while agreeing that paying somebody for creating something one wants is indeed fair, the grandparent is stating that this rarely happens for all but the top acts who are signed to major labels, so more and more artists are choosing to either independently market their works via services such as CD Baby (who can get you on iTunes), or go with one of the growing number of independent labels who give artists a much better deal than the bigger, more established companies.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[bigpat]

I have trouble understanding why so many people seem to condone simply *taking* it... and then playing the 'Evil industry' card on the rightholders to boot! Seems a bit incongruous to me. There's such a thing as free music: download stuff that bands put online for your enjoyment or make some of your own, already.

It is probably because most people see very little value in music. For years the "industry" has been giving away music over the radio and making all its money on concerts and recordings. Sure a lot of people made recordings of their own of the over the air broadcasts and it may have been illegal (though that is highly questionable because they were being taxed with the presumption that people would make recordings on blank cassettes and such), but they were of lower sound quality usually, so demand for higher quality recordings made by the studios remained strong.

Then all of a sudden digital copies could more easily be made which were as good or nearly as good as the original recording. Thing is that people never felt they were paying for the content, but rather the quality of the recording and the means to play it whenever they wanted. Now that people can do that on their own with their own devices, people rightly feel that the middleman is in the way. Sure, people will still pay for concerts, but how much will they pay others for when they have already paid to have the means to do it themselves.

I think people will willfully pay a $1 or so for a song that they really like, but they see no value in paying someone who adds no value (the middlemen) for filler. And when people see no value being provided they aren't going to consider it wrong to copy a few data files.

So, if they see no value then why do they do it. That is because in aggregate there is value. Some noise to fill the day, a little beat to work out to, but very little value except in aggregate.

The radio model was a good one, where people listening did not pay directly, and it was only in aggregate that the stations paid for the music.

Sure some people have to have an album and will play it to death. But how much of past revenue was based on frivolous purchases that got played once or twice? Mosty of that "expected revenue" was transitory and the studios should have known it.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[SchrodingersRoot]

What I've thought would be interesting to do is to, especially for artists that shack up with RIAA is this:

1. Find out their mailing address.
2. (Anonymously) send them a dollar (or another value based on the price of the CD/whatever) for every song of theirs that I've pirated (obviously, I've never pirated, so I couldn't use this idea).
3. Tell them that they can split the money with the RIAA/label/whomever any way they wanted, and that I considered all the music of theirs that I have paid for. Tell the RIAA/label/whomever what I've done.
4. Sit back and enjoy.
.
.
.
5. ???
6. Profit!

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Weedlekin]

A far better analogy would be paying five dollars for an illegal copy of a pair of name-brand trainers knowing that the workers at both factories got paid the same. Downloading songs from the Internet is not free, because Internet links cost money; they are however much cheaper than buying a CD, just like those cheap pirate trainers are much cheaper than the name-brand originals.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Amouth]

and as an IP lawyer do you feel it is their right to protect their investment at the cost of the consumer ?? ie sony's rootkit..

and how does it work that they can steal from the comunity (using GPL'ed code in their root kit)

and how it didn't seem to care that the user didnt' agree and accept the terms.

and say you want to retun the cd you can't because they say you might have copied it.

then you have to look at price fixing.. they have been doing it for years.. they got caught.. did anything change.. no

i am sorry but you are defending compines that are wrong in so many ways. I under stand the need for protecting content and what is of value but not by hurting everyone to do it. or anyone for that matter..

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[InvaderSkoodge]

"I am an IP lawyer, so I may be slightly biased, but if people want something that someone else went to the trouble of creating, doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid?"

Besides the fact that it isn't the creators that are getting paid (musicians) it is the middlemen, here's my thought on this.

Since you're an IP laywer I'll make an analogy. Say you want to license rights to a patent. You go to the patent holder and offer $1 million. They say OK, you can license that patent, but you also have to pay $1 million each to license these other 15 patents that you have no use for and don't even want. You likely wouldn't find that an acceptable deal.

That's how I feel when I hear a song I like and find that the only way to get it is to pay $18 for a CD with about 15 other songs that I don't even want.

So for most people this results in one of the following:
1. Pirate the one song they want from P2P.
2. Say "screw it" and do without it.
3. Pay to download the one song they want from a legal download service.

Since I am sick and tired of hearing the RIAA complain that illegal downloading is the root of all their woes I won't do #1. And since the music download services I've looked into have unacceptably restrictive DRM, I also skip option #3, which results in #2 being the only remaining choice.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[JesseMcDonald]

I wouldn't steal from them, but that's because (as in all these IP-is-real-property red-herring arguments) it's their property, and if I steal it they won't be able to use it anymore. I would, however, be disinclined to buy from anyone I knew was taking undue advantage of their employees, and would probably look for someone able to provide the same thing on different terms (which, if applied to patented or copyrighted material, would be considered infringement). There is no correspondance between theft of real property and infringement of copyrights or patents, and I wish people would stop trying to say that they're the same thing. Creating and/or inventing, by themselves, do not give anyone the right to control how others use their property. I, personally, would rather that those who demand copyright and patent "protections" stopped creating and inventing altogether. I do not consider their contributions worth the price they are asking, and do not appreciate being forced to pay that price against my will.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[Travelsonic]

I may be slightly biased, but if people want something that someone else went to the trouble of creating, doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid?

YOu mean if they want to be paid, right? Otherwise it would be contradicting:

There's such a thing as free music: download stuff that bands put online for your enjoyment or make some of your own, already.

Since none of them are getting paid. ^_^

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[grimharvest]

Or maybe the RIAA can follow AllofMP3.com's pricing example. Afterall, they don't seem to be having any problems selling music. We've gotten used to entertainers, or more specifically lawyers and record execs getting insanely rich, buying homes in Hollywood Hills, etc. This in a country where minimum wage doesn't even keep up with inflation. But what if they had to work for more honest wages, had to scrape by every week to pay bills like the rest of us? Would that be so horrible? And if they won't do it willingly, well, other industries have price caps. Maybe the entertainment industry also needs them.

Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil'

[RocketGeek]

If the creator gets the lion share of the money, then I would pay without a second thought.

> So do you apply this line of reasoning to all products you need?
> (e.g. buying a pair of trainers, would you steal them if you think
> the people actually making them only received a few cents per pair).

No, not at all, but the difference is, in most other industries which sell to end users, I do not see companies suing or threatening to sue their everyday customers who go into a shop and want to buy their products, accusing their customers of being criminals when they are not, putting malicious software on their products to deliberately cripple their products, and then consistently lying about their motives, amongst other misdemeanours.

If I went into a sports shop and was accused of being a criminal before even picking up a pair of trainers, I would be pretty annoyed. If I went into a shop and bought a pair of trainers with missing laces, and was told "yes, this is a security measure", then I'd be pretty annoyed.

It makes me very angry that a company like Sony for instance, is allowed to largely escape serious penalty for putting damaging rootkits on their CDs "to protect their IP", yet if any of us as individuals did that, we'd go to jail. Shame really, because that is exactly where Sir Howard Stringer of Sony should be going, along with his cronies at Sony BMG. At least I'm doing my bit. After 3 Sony Vaio laptops, several camcorders and a bunch of Sony AV gear, I will never ever buy Sony on principal, and I have tried to spread the word to many others outside of our community.

Basically, you are missing the point. The music industry started this little war, to protect their declining profit margin in a digital age, and to go for a soft target rather than the more significant source of piracy which is the duplication factories churning out the fake CDs. I used to buy CDs rather than either download or not buy music at all. The music industry then accused us all of being thieves when we were not. They criminalised the innocent. Then I got to learn through friends in the music industry what really goes on. That's the point at which I decided to counter the lies of low lifes like John Kennedy of the IFPI.

DRM'd music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing will ever make me pay my own hard earned money for a DRM'd file or CD. It is just not going to happen. I have no interest in buying inferior products.

Re:DRM'd music?

[zoomba]

Well, so long as you're not pirating the content instead, it's all good. But you can't justify your illegal acquisition of music by saying you disagree with the delivery method.

Re:DRM'd music?

[digitallife]

Why does it need to be justified?

Re:DRM'd music?

[zoomba]

Well, it seems there's always a general outcry any time someone gets nabbed for doing this. I see a lot of half-arsed justification to explain away why illegal copying is "OK" or "right" when someone gets caught.

Re:DRM'd music?

[zoomba]

It's their content... they have the benefit of distributing it as they see fit. Just because I want my TV shows in inverted, sepia tone, doesn't mean I have some sort of right to it if the creator/distributor doesn't want to provide it.

If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. But you're not suddenly entitled to it for free. Vote with your wallet, and if the DRM is offensive enough, enough people won't buy it and they'll change their tune based on economics.

What so few here get is that ethics and what's right and wrong in terms of business practices doesn't make one damn bit of difference. The owner of content gets to set terms of distribution. If they pick DRM, that's that. DRM doesn't bother a very large majority of consumers, thus DRM won't go away.

Like most things here, it's an academic debate on how things should be in an ideal world and has nothing to do with reality.

Simple

[Sviams]

They simply take the magic "projected sales if internet didn't exist and we were still in the 80's" number, subtract actual sales, divide that by average CD price and then multiply it with their gut feeling.

Re:Simple

[nordelius]

Then add 5 ("profit")? :-D
Oh yes, I've been lurking

Re:Simple

[Weedlekin]

"They simply take the magic "projected sales if internet didn't exist and we were still in the 80's""

And cassette tapes hadn't been invented, and home taping was not therefore killing music by taking food from the mouths of poor, starving musicians and the poor, starving executives of record companies who were trying to live off of them.

It's quality and convenience!

[ami-in-hamburg]

Personally, I think increased online sales would have to do with the quality and convenience. I don't have any idea how many times I downloaded some song, then when you play it back, it's something completely different than what you expected because some bonehead mislabeled it.

I don't know what bit rate you can get from legal online services but I also got really tired of the crappy 128bit rate that it seems like everyone ripped to. I recently just finished re-ripping every CD I own to 256bit and I can tell the difference. I would think you won't get all the background garbage noise in a legal download either. At least I would hope there are no (pop, crackle, fizz) in the legal downloads.

Convenience is a huge factor too. I fully understand that one person's fav band is another's most hated. However, I got sick of buying CDs because the group had a couple of tunes on the radio that I thought were really good only to get home and find out the other 8-10 tracks on the CD are crap! The ability to buy single tracks, at least to me, has value.

Re:It's quality and convenience!

[He_Is_Me]

Well iTunes (in France at least, since I live there and haven't checked about their offers for the US) still sticks to the 128k rate, which, as you put it, is definitely crappy, even though they sell you their "improved" (Apple always improves, now don't they?) AAC, which does slightly better than plain ol' mp3 at the same rate. I know only one site that sells 192k mp3 in France (http://www.fnacmusic.com/), but they don't have as many titles available as iTunes has.

Sound quality is still my main objection to purchasing music on the Web... after DRM protection of course. Jobs got everything right once again: after getting people to pay for software to produce content, and refusing people to modify the software to suit their needs, tech companies managed to get us to pay for crappily digitised content that we can't even copy onto the hardware we choose. To me this is pure evil genius, but I will try not to fall into the trap as long as I can find CDs for a decent price.

Re:It's quality and convenience!

[jasenj1]

I recently just finished re-ripping every CD I own to 256bit and I can tell the difference

Fool. You should have ripped everything to a lossless format like Apple Lossless or FLAC. Then when you wanted to play music on a device that doesn't support the lossless format, or put more songs on the device than lossless will let you, transcode to whatever lossy format you want.

-Jasen.

Re:It's quality and convenience!

[AeroIllini]

Sound quality is still my main objection to purchasing music on the Web... after DRM protection of course. Jobs got everything right once again: after getting people to pay for software to produce content, and refusing people to modify the software to suit their needs, tech companies managed to get us to pay for crappily digitised content that we can't even copy onto the hardware we choose. To me this is pure evil genius, but I will try not to fall into the trap as long as I can find CDs for a decent price.

It's not pure evil genious... it's just plain genious.

The DRM in iTunes (FairPlay) is, I think, the best compromise that could be made in the current climate of RIAA control. If Steve had made the restrictions any looser, the record companies would have probably walked out of the contract negotiations. According to the Mac philosophy, you should be able to do anything you want with that music, as long as you do it on a Mac. Import it into iMovie as a soundtrack, listen to it on your iPod, chop it up into sounds for your desktop, render the bits as an image and use it as desktop wallpaper, whatever. Unfortunately, the recording industry won't have any of that, so Steve was forced to add restrictions. I'm sure he fought hard for us lowly consumers, since FairPlay is much more permissive than other forms of DRM available.

As to the question of quality: the vast, vast majority of people who download tracks from iTunes listen to them on their iPods. And guess what? On those tiny little white-cord earbud headphones that make you look "trendy", 128kbps sounds fantastic. In order to get the best sound quality out of a higher bitrate file, one would have to use fairly high-end speakers. Most people just use the earbuds that came with their iPod, and for them, the sound quality is fine.

If you're truly worried about sound quality, then you shouldn't be buying CDs, either. Most music is recorded at a higher sample rate than 44.1 kHz and a higher gain resolution than 16 bit (I'm not sure of the specific numbers, and it may vary by recording device-- audiophiles, help me out here); then it's downsampled to 44.1 kHz Red Book standard. Most music that falls in the "popular" genre (as opposed to "classical") is also heavily equalized with the gain cranked way up. As a result, the whole song falls within the top 4 bits or so of gain resolution, and tends to blare. Classical recordings are usually a bit better in the dynamic range category.

Of course, to have fantastic sound quality you also need fantastic speakers, since they are actually creating the sound. High end speakers are not cheap.

Unfortunately, CDs are the highest quality format that is currently available. I suppose a brand-new LP straight out of the package might sound slightly better than a CD, but that quality lasts about one play, until the needle has microscopically altered the tracks merely by scraping across them. Not to mention that in order to preserve that quality, one would be forced to record that LP (on its first play, mind you) on recording equipment with higher sample rates and gain resolutions that what's available in the consumer electronics market, which usually use 44.1 kHz, 16-bit. You would also have to find the music you like in LP format, and unless you are a DJ, that can be very difficult, if not impossible.

I buy CDs and rip to FLAC, which is about the best quality I can hope for.

Re:It's quality and convenience!

[six025]

If you're buying a CD because of a song you heard on commercial radio, only to find that you are disappointed with the rest of the content (i.e. the only good tracks are the ones played on the radio) ... well I think you are sourcing new music from the wrong place. Radio (now) exists to advertise whatever cr*p the RIAA wants you to buy ... I *do* regularly download illegal music ... but I also have invested a large amount of my disposable income for the last 15 years (and continue to do so) on supporting local bands in my area by paying to see them play live, AND buying their CD & records. I currently have **NO** plans to buy DRM crippled, low bit-rate rubbish from the likes of Apple et al. The illegal tracks I do download are either difficult to find in the CD shops (online or otherwise), or > 20 years old and for which it really doesn't seem appropriate to pay £10 - £15 for (as I don't expect any more income for the work I did 10 - 15 years ago, why should musicians continue to profit from say one good album without ever having to work again?)

Re:It's quality and convenience!

[oberondarksoul]

Vinyl isn't that hard to find if you know where to look - specifically, Amazon are a godsend when it comes to getting new LPs. Just a regular search for and vinyl will usually yield vinyl versions of all their singles and albums - it's been helpful for me certainly just to see if certain albums have a vinyl release, and I've bought one or two.

Sales may be up...

[__aaclcg7560]

You can find the real reason why RIAA think they are losing money. Blame the Apple iPod!

My plumber explained it to me

[ianscot]

Had a plumber in a while ago who was a real talker and a bit of a flake. While he was under the kitchen sink fixing my bad work, he saw that the iMac on the low counter there was showing iTunes where the kids had left it.

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. ;-)

Re:My plumber explained it to me

[eldavojohn]

Tomorrow, Ian Scot's plumber relates marriage to--you guessed it--plumbing!

And be sure to pick up his new book The World Is Pipes, which shows just how pipelike everything is.

This book was released to satisfy the his fans while he works on rewriting the famous Feynman Lectures on Physics so that everything is explained in relationship to pipes. Afterall, what's a wormhole but just a fancy way to say "Time Pipe"?

The famous plumber has dutifully dedicated his life to the understanding and study of pipes after his 3 year old son was killed in a fatal piping accident. We're hoping to see him win the Nobel Peace Prize in Directing Flowing Fluids and Gases this year.

It's a decent and light hearted analogy but I think there's a bit more to it than just cash flow.

Re:My plumber explained it to me

[rob_squared]

Well, computers have pipelines and |'s.

Coincidence?! I think not! :)

Re:My plumber explained it to me

[NixLuver]

"It's a decent and light hearted analogy but I think there's a bit more to it than just cash flow."

What the?

If it's not about money, what *is* it about?

What the ISP's job is

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

artists making millions from concerts

[wilsonjd]

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!

Re:artists making millions from concerts

[SmashMacFly]

I agree most of the "artist" complaining about illegal copy are the ones that never tour.

I'm not a big fan of illegal copy because I feel that if I like a song or a singer, well i'm supportinh him by buying his music. And if I can I'll go and see him live.
I don't care spending 99 cent for a record on iTunes, helps the artist nd give a lil money to Steve ;D

But hey, if I have to make some stupid CD for a party or something with Britney and Co music or ChiPs theme, I will download that's for sure ;)

Re:artists making millions from concerts

[ChimaeraX]

The band that continually used to appear on the top of the money making charts also had a history of allowing anyone to come to their shows and freely record and redistribute their shows.

The Grateful Dead (love em or hate em, not important for this discussion) proved that an artist doesnt need album sales to be successful. Hell, they encouraged people to swap their music. Yet, every year they would tour and tour and sell out show after show and were the richest band during their time. Piracy is a non-factor with empowered artists able to manage their own music and catalog.

The RIAA is setting the stage to make themselves obsolete. They could have gotten ahead of all of this, but that would have required investment and creativity. The former they refuse to do and the latter they completely lack. I look forward to the day when the music industry is making money for only the artists and their distributors (iTunes et.al.) and the scumbags in the RIAA are standing on highway on-ramps holding signs saying "Will make you a star... for food."

The RIAA is representing some people

[crovira]

who are best compared to kings sitting in chairs on the beach commanding the tide not to rise.

It was entirely predictable too.

Music is a pre-hominid, semi-simian, refexive action/reaction. It demands instant gratification. In the internet age, that means music delivered over the ether.

Because of the medium, the scatter/gather packet distribution, the "priviledged communication" nature of the channel, the end-to-end control, podcasters are going to eat the lunch of the broadcastering RIAA represented.

The fact that podsafe music is incredibly more effective at getting people's music out there cheaply and without requiring compromise by the artists, that the only lazy or stupid people will sign up with them.

The RIAA will go away once enough of their members go broke, like the ticks on the necks of the vampire bats that are feeding off of the artists.

The Pod Safe Music Network, Pod Cast Delivery Network (representing growing legions of 'indy' artists) and iTunes Music Store (representing the drying up pool of major label 'signed' artists and 'aggregating podcasts.)

...It seems that

[Anonymous Coward]

...file-swapping is always going to be prevalent and is only going to become more prevalent as we all become geeks. The reason legal downloading is gaining headway is because it is getting simpler and appealing to the older crowd (finally adopting new gadgets like mp3 players). It takes a certain amount of computer aplitute in order to efficiently file-swap, a skill that is only going to be more common in the future.

Qaulity and consistancy - Riaa wins

[acomj]

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.

Oh that greedy, greedy industry!

[windowpain]

"But the industry, wanting to wring the maximum profit out of the consumer, remains fixated on piracy."

Wow man that's terrible. Just like those greedy bastards who have bricks and mortar stores go after shoplifters.

Look, the industry's attempts to combat piracy have been ill-advised and ineffectual. Sony's use of a rootkit, for example, was downright unethical; it's a "solution" they should have rejected. They knew or should have known it would damage their customers' computers.

However, to condemn an entire industry because they're concerned about people stealing from them shows a level of moral retardation just as grave as Sony's.

The big guys need to invest in a new payment syste

[MikeRT]

The CC processors are why they cannot make more profit on $1.00 downloads. If they'd work with Apple to create a new processing company that charges $0.05/song, there'd be much more profit... around and extra $0.25/song to go around.

Stop pulling rank...

[john-da-luthrun]

I don't see why the fact you're "an IP lawyer" should have anything to do with what side you're on. So am I, as it happens. So, for that matter, is Eben Moglen, and I don't seek him rushing to support the RIAA any time soon.

This isn't about people being paid money they deserve - I don't have any problem with the record industry charging for their products, and I don't (generally) make (many) illegal copies of music or have any great sympathy for those caught putting 000s of tracks on file-sharing services

The point is that though that the music industry is turning file-sharing and "piracy" into a scapegoat and using this to at best inconvenience, at worst rip-off their legitimate customers (or even compromise their computer systems - can you say, "rootkit"?). Copy-protected CDs, restrictive licensing/DRMing of music downloads (so that people moving from the US to Europe lose all their iTunes downloads, for example). Twenty years ago if you changed your hifi you didn't have to repurchase your entire record collection. Now? Oops, please tell me you didn't switch from an iPod to another make of "MP3" player? And whaddya mean you bought a copy-protected CD and now you want to listen it on your iPod? Go buy a downloaded version as well, you thief!

The fact is that what makes money for the record companies is good music that people want to buy. It's the failure to find any really bankable, long-term, good quality acts that is the real problem for the record industry, but they prefer to make examples of a few "pirates" rather than address those deeper-rooted problems.

This story only goes to underline this - find the right product, the right price and the right delivery mechanism, and people really do prefer to buy the legitimate goods rather than going for illegal copies.

Re:Stop pulling rank...

[cpt kangarooski]

I am an IP lawyer as well. And while I agree that DRM is unacceptable, and that people generally will prefer resonable legitimate goods, I also think that copyright law should generally conform to people's expectations. Thus, if most people are happy using P2P networks to make and distribute copies, then this should be legalized. While it might have a negative effect on the industry, copyright is meant to serve the public, not authors.

Re:Stop pulling rank...

[swillden]

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.

Re:Stop pulling rank...

[sbillard]

It's the failure to find any really bankable, long-term, good quality acts that is the real problem for the record industry

I disagree. The "flash-in-the-pan", "one-hit-wonders" are by design. You'll rarely see another U2 or $SUPER_GROUP.

Why? The more popular/established a group or recording act becomes, the more leverage they have over their label. They are able to negotiate more lucrative contracts, or threaten to switch labels.

Newer bands, desperate to establish themselves don't have this luxury and often sign ripoff contracts just to get air time.

There is no shortage of supply for the labels. Many bands will sell themselves short just to get a record deal. Then, just before they go "bigtime", the label will sabotage the deal move on to the next sucker.

There are dozens of these bands. They all have a similar sound and the pattern of "prop them up" and "knock them down" is repeating.
Cold Play
Creed
Goo Goo Dolls
Third Eye Blind
Three Doors Down
Bare Naked Ladies
Wheezer
...are just a few that come to mind - but sound alike

The instant hype followed by limited exposure is intentional. Disclaimer: I don't listen to pop rock, so my list above is off-the-top-of-my-head short. I'm pretty sure the same thing is going on with modern R&B and hip-hop.

Wrongo

[synonymous]

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".

Re:Wrongo

[dangitman]

Anyone get some Dave Weckl Band on 107 FM today? Chick Corea? Zappa?

not on 107 FM or commercial radio - but on public radio, sure. All the time.

Re:Wrongo

[synonymous]

Also depending much on geographic location. Actually whilst living in Colorado I found KUVO which is a veritable assault of good music. It's still an egg hunt no matter.

Re:Multi Channel

[SenorCitizen]

think the RIAA should encourage usage of two channel downloads for free and switch to 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 or whatever. Sound is the first thing to truely be 3 dimensional and yet, they refuse to capitalize on that.

True. But the problem is that music is rarely recorded in a concert hall or jazz club unless we're talking classical music or acoustic jazz -- multichannel is only useful if it can be used to deliver the actual acoustic space where the recording was made. Most music is multitracked in studios, and any spatial information mixed to the rear channels is just an illusion created by the reverb machine.

Bah. I'll take a well made stereo recording over a mediocre multichannel recording any day.

Re:No

[theJML]

But all music turns into analog at some point. So that's not a very accurate retort.

CD's store music in 1's and 0's.. So do MP3s, WAVs, AIFFs, VOCs, AUs, etc... the only difference between thet two is compression. And if you think about music piracy, it's still "Piracy" as defined by the RIAA if someone makes a bit for bit copy of a CD without it being turned to analog first.

I think they just used "Digital Music" as a marketing buzz word.

Sure, but that's the ROLLING STONES

[Nerdposeur]

Not to point out the obvious or anything, but "Mick and the boys" happen to be one of the most successful groups of all time. That's like me saying, "Computer programmers don't need salaries; they can make their own programs and get filthy rich. Look at Bill Gates!"

A more realistic example is a known but not super-famous group like They Might Be Giants. Sure, you can get all their stuff on P2P, but you also have the option of buying straight from them on their web site. I like them and want them to keep making music full-time, so I will choose the latter. And since I've only seen them in concert once, they'll end up making more money from me by selling music - which is their primary business.

Re:Sure, but that's the ROLLING STONES

[et764]

A more realistic example is a known but not super-famous group like They Might Be Giants.

They Might Be Giants also offers their albums online in FLAC, without any DRM. I decided to buy one of their albums largely because of this. I've been saying for years that when they finally start seeling Lossless audio, without any DRM, I would buy it. It's nice to see a band actually doing that.

Re:No

[maxwell demon]

Well, at the basic level your computer is also analog. It works with voltages, currents and charges, which are all perfectly analog magnitudes (Ok, charge can only come in integer multiples of the elementary charge, but then, the charges in your computer are still large enough that this doesn't really matter). Indeed, 0 and 1 are not represented by an exact voltage, but by a whole voltage range (i.e. everything which is below a certain voltage counts as 0, and everything which is above a certain other voltage counts as 1).

In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, Bellsouth has begun negotiations with the RIAA to help pay for the bandwidth that the pirates are consuming.

Re:pay? You bet!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Re:pay?

Yup, repay! That's what they ultimately want - for you to continuously repay for music you already 'bought'.

Right now, the guy in the cubicle next to me is listening to his ipod loud enough that I can hear it just a little. I'm sure that BMI, ASCAP et al would like to send me a bill for that.

I'd whistle to mask it, but I can't afford the royalty payments.

Here's a third option

[Nerdposeur]

Note: blatent self-promotion ahead

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]

Re:Here's a third option

[DeveloperAdvantage]

Great job Nathan! You are bang on with your suggestion about buying straight from the artist, or at least with as little as possible between the customer and the artist, and I sincerely hope you are successful with what you are trying to accomplish.

Re:Here's a third option

[RobbieCrash]

What if I want to listen to the Dandy Warhols, the Damned, or the Germs? What are my options then? I could buy indie music that sounds similar to those bands, and I do, but it wouldn't let me listen to *those* bands. The whole buy indie music thing only holds a little bit of weight, and that weight is offset by the majority of people who don't want to listen to music that sounds good, but isn't popular. It's as has been said previously, people want to listen to popular music because it's cool. The fact that there are a zillion more talented and better underground performers, doing similar styles of music to the mainstream/popular stuff, is proof of that. People, as a general rule, aren't going to invest the time it takes to find good unsigned artists when they can just buy or download stuff by the major label artist. As much as I'd like to believe that people are decent enough to investigate other bands that sound similar, but do it better and "real-er" than the top 40 version, I know they're not. If they were radio and mtv would be listenable/viewable.

Re:Here's a third option

[Nerdposeur]

You make a good point - for most people, the popularity of music is a factor in how much they like it. Music is kind of a social thing, so it's nice when you don't always have to say, "well you've never heard of them, but they're great..."

All I was saying is, if you're the sort of person who A) doesn't want to steal music but B) dislikes the industry as a whole, then there is the option of buying music from outside the industry, which probably will be better for the musicians you're trying to support.

As far as searching for stuff, I can picture a Slashdot type system that would help you find new bands with less effort. (This may already exist.) There could be a hojillion songs on the site, and you'd randomly start rating a few. Your recommendations would be averaged with others for an overall rating, and as the system got an idea for your tastes, it would say, "People who like what you like also tend to like this other thing," sorta like Amazon does with purchases. So a newcomer would see things rated high and low, and as they hung around more, they could get recommendations that suited them better.

Re:Here's a third option

[RobbieCrash]

I'm the kind of person that doesn't consider it stealing when I download a song, or even an album. It's only lost money if I would've bought the album originally. Since downloading makes me buy more albums, by a wider variety of artists I consider it free publicity for them, and a free sample for me.

That said, if it's on an RIAA label, I'm buying it used, so I guess one of the two is stealing. If it's non-RIAA, I'll buy it if I like it.

As to your searching for stuff, and finding recommendations, http://www.last.fm/ does exactly that. You submit what you listen to, and it builds up a list of that and finds similar users and matches your songs with theirs. As someone who listens to pretty niche-y stuff, I can honestly say that it actually works really well. It rarely if ever recommends me things that I didn't enjoy, and was pretty good at getting a few new things into my mp3 and eventually record/cd collection. It's a great site, I fully endorse going there and checking it out. I do not draw a paycheque from them.

If the RIAA keeps this up...

[B11]

And insists on suing everyone on P2P, I would welcome the old days of BBS.

Re:No

[Alistar]

I think you are breaking it down much farther needed or even practical.
Yes you are correct, but it still cannot be considered analog as there are only discrete steps (0 and 1) for the lowest common denominator of any 'working' functionality. If computer functioned by actually processing each of an infinite number of values in its operating range seperately, then it could be considered to be an analog device.

Exactly!

[LightningBolt!]

CD's don't count as digital because they're technically analog. They store ones and zeros, but the machine that reads them is analog.

I keep trying to tell people this, but nobody will listen. This is how it works: A vacuum tube in each CD player bounces electrons off the disc as it spins, and each time it hits a "1", it creates heat. A thermocouple converts this heat into a voltage, which is then amplified by yet another vaccum tube. Completely analog.

Re:Exactly!

[Loko Draucarn]

I keep trying to tell people this, but nobody will listen.

Quite possibly, because your facts are inaccurate.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cd5.htm
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cd-burner4.htm
It involves lasers.

apologies for the ugliness of the site, but at least it's accurate.

Re:Exactly!

[LightningBolt!]

Don't believe it. I build CD players for a living. It's all thermocouples and vacuums. ;)

Re:Exactly!

[Your Pal Dave]

Brilliant!

You could make a fortune making those things and selling them to Audiophiles at outrageous prices.

Re:No

[BarryNorton]

CD's don't count as digital because they're technically analog

CDs are the discs, which have nothing fundamentally to do with audio, nor anything else that has to go through digital-analogue conversion - they definitely store digital information.

Audio CDs are a standard defined by the 'Red Book', properly called CDDA or Compact Disc Digital Audio - can't get much clearer than that!

Re:The big guys need to invest in a new payment sy

[autojive]

Um, Apple helped lead the way in getting the big Credit Card Companies to accept special, reduced charges used in micropayments.

Re:Multi Channel

[Guysmiley777]

Oh good god! We've lost another one to Creative Labs' marketing!

Quick son! Repeat after me: "I only have two ears. I only have two ears. I only have two ears." Good, just keep that up until we can get you to a deprogramming facility.

Re:Words do mean things

[windowpain]

"Duplication of such music computer files does not meet the definition of stealing."

RTFA. Duplicating a file for backup purpose is perfectly acceptable. The article mentions "piracy," which is the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted work.

Re:Multi Channel

[Weedlekin]

"Sound is the first thing to truely be 3 dimensional"

Strange. I was labouring under the (possibly erroneous) assumption that space has n dimension, the first three of which are rather older than sound which, unlike space, needs a medium to travel through.

Blah blah blah.

[chub_mackerel]

Yeah, wake me when they say, "OK, we have a workable revenue model now, so we'll stop rigging the laws and suing our customers."

What, you don't think that'll happen? Huh, go figure.

Let's argue in circles about what this news means, then. You take the "stealing is bad" side, and I'll take the "sharing is good" side. Or, we can switch. What fun. Let's do this again tomorrow.

Next major work soon!

[alandd]

Ian Scot's plumber is also preparing his next major work, "Life's Choices: Why Putting Food Scraps in the Trash or Disposal Determines Your Success." It's a collaborative effort co-authored with Dilbert's world's smartest garbage man.

Audio CDs are analog, are they?

[psgalbraith]

CD's don't count as digital because they're technically analog. They store ones and zeros, but the machine that reads them is analog.

Did you mean for moderators to rate this as Funny?

Re:Multi Channel

[psgalbraith]

Bah. I'll take a well made stereo recording over a mediocre multichannel recording any day.

Me too, for the most part. I get a better soundstage image on stereo anyway.

Multichannel formats such as SACD and DVD-A haven't taken off anyway.

People Pay For Convenience, Not Music

[Master of Transhuman]

I've said it a hundred times - people do NOT pay for music. They never have, except for the short period of time when music was only available on phonograph records and cheap cassette recorders were not available. Even then, hobbyists recorded music on reel-to-reel tape drives and exchanged them.

People pay for legal download services only because using the P2P systems is so difficult (search for the music, join a queue, wait for five hours to download the file, get a crappy file, etc., ad nauseum, not to mention configuring the software in the first place, a task some people find difficult.)

I've seen a change locally

[ursabear]

I can see from my teenage children's attitude that they see music downloading differently now than a couple of years ago. My kids and their friends don't think twice about buying music through iTunes (or whatever service their parents use).

Several things have caused this change in their behavior (that is, a change from "let's just get it from BearShare/etc. for free."): We've made a "music allowance" for the kids. We encourage them to try new music by way of a few bucks a month to blow on any tunes they want. Many of the kids who are friends of my children have parents that are doing the same thing.
Another possible cause is that my children and their friends also see me working very hard for many days to create and record a piece of music - and they can see that downloading music from non-sanctioned sites/mechanisms acutally affects *real* people, people who aren't zillionaires...

Another thing that is boosting "online" music sales is supply and demand. There aren't ANY stores in our area that have more than a rack or two of CDs. You can't just go the record store or the discount store and get a wide variety of choice in our area anymore... The only way (again, in our area) to shop music variety is with music services on the Internet.

Buy lossless

[lemonboy]

Is there any one stop shop that sells lossless audio without DRM? The only place I have found is Music Giants. But the lossless format appears to be DRM WMA files. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

The Problem with the RIAA

[TorontoImporter]

The Problem with the RIAA is that it serves a "Special Interest". Earlier replies have noted things such as: "When will it End", and "Stop suing your customer base". The problem is that an organization such as the RIAA must constantly justify its existence by having a mission, thus the problem with special interests, is that their "interests" always relate only to a "special" usually beneficial relationship for which they were formed in the first place(e.g. serving the record companies interests). In my smallish life experience groups like the RIAA crash and burn horribly, but only after they have pushed as far as possible, in which case the parent (record labels) disown their bastard child (i.e. "they lost sight of their goals" etc...)Anyways that's my two cents.

Re:Be careful there...

[ichimunki]

Nonsense. Copyright law does not mention possession except as it relates to intent to distribute. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it, because otherwise I think you're just making stuff up.

Single people?

[Trinition]

This is a lot like the war on terra. They won't have successfully "won" until there isn't a single person out there making a copy of a song for someone else without paying. In short, it will never end...

So they don't care if married people pirate music? Rock on!

Just out of interest...

[dangitman]

podcasters are going to eat the lunch of the broadcastering RIAA represented.

I enjoyed your comment, but do you happen to write George Bush's speeches?

Sort of...

[SonicSpike]

1) It's not theft unless you are shoplifting the CD from the store 2) Most acts do not actually own their own releases. The labels more than likely own all or most of the rights to the recorded masters. 3) Since the act doesn't own their CDs they would have to actually PAY the record company to give them away. Yes, for every promo CD that is made, the band is charged for it and that money is recouped from the income stream by the label before the band gets paid. 4) Yes - direct income for the artists is in touring and live shows. 90% of artists don't make a dime off of album sales. 5) The labels do more than distribution and fronting money for producing the album. They spend hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars on promotional and marketing activities (which all comes out of the act's check before they get paid). They also have invaluable contacts in the entertainmetn industry and serve as gate keeps to help (sometimes) keep the crap out (although that seems to be less and less of the case). 6) Yes I am an audio engineer and have a degree in the recording industry.

Proper formatting

[SonicSpike]

1) It's not theft unless you are shoplifting the CD from the store

2) Most acts do not actually own their own releases. The labels more than likely own all or most of the rights to the recorded masters.

3) Since the act doesn't own their CDs they would have to actually PAY the record company to give them away. Yes, for every promo CD that is made, the band is charged for it and that money is recouped from the income stream by the label before the band gets paid.

4) Yes - direct income for the artists is in touring and live shows. 90% of artists don't make a dime off of album sales.

5) The labels do more than distribution and fronting money for producing the album. They spend hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars on promotional and marketing activities (which all comes out of the act's check before they get paid). They also have invaluable contacts in the entertainmetn industry and serve as gate keeps to help (sometimes) keep the crap out (although that seems to be less and less of the case).

6) Yes I am an audio engineer and have a degree in the recording industry.