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."
Pay? For music?
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Now can they please stop suing their consumer base?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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)?
-- "You never mentioned comets before, Mac. This opens up a whole new area of negotiation." - Gordon Urquart
Aren't CD's also digital music, not just that downloaded crap?
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.
Be careful folks, if it's too good to be true, it is.
My work here is dung.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
...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.
"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.
"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.
Insert witty sig here.
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.
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".
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.
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.
In related news, Bellsouth has begun negotiations with the RIAA to help pay for the bandwidth that the pirates are consuming.