Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Record Industry Disputes Own P2P Claims
CRIAWatch writes "The Canadian Recording Industry Association has quietly issued a new
study that contradicts many of its own claims about the impact of P2P
usage on the music industry. Michael Geist summarizes
the 144 page study by noting that the research 'concludes that P2P
downloading constitutes less than one-third of the
music on downloaders' computers, that P2P users frequently try music on
P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader
demographic is also the largest music buying demographic, and that
reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on
P2P services.'"
This has got to be the first time the recording industry has said anything surprising, or possibly realistic regarding piracy.
I'm scared, someone hold me.
Um. In keeping with the invisible nature of P2P (intentional or otherwise). How does anyone know that they have the facts?
No shit.
Glad they finally figured it out...
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
About time someone pointed out the obvious. The most mindnumbing about the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle is how they keep blaming their diminishing sales on the consumers as if we are required to buy so many of their products per year. Last time I checked, when a business's sales are dwindling, its time to try something new, or perhaps even innovate. However, their brand of innovation, i.e. suing everyone, seems to be a bit counter-productive.
Of course, it doesn't help when they have the government in their pocket either.
2/3rds of the music on my computer is from ocremix... although I guess if you want to bitch I did download that via bittorrent.
I haven't read the 144 page research report, but I think it is worth noting that the person who summarized this report, states at the end of his summary that he has been claiming for a long time that p2p downloading doesn't affect sales that much. In other words, he has a perspective on the issue. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that the recording industry is going to look at the stat which shows that a 1/3 of music on computers is from (presumably copyright-violation style) downloading (this is for the most-frequently-purchasing demographic (teenie-boppers)), and say "oh yeah, p2p doesn't harm our bottom line. The recording industry has a different perspective ... they'll say they're losing 33% of their sales and have a freak fit.
... naaa.
Anyway, I wonder if people were asked this questions: "of music you have downloaded (as in copyright violation style), how much of that music is good enough to keep for a 1x/decade listen, but not worth buying?" Maybe I should RTF 144pg report
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Everyone here knows it. I buy more music now, not less. And I'm a huge P2P user. I don't buy or even listen to anything from a major label. I don't care if my boycott has any political significance. It's a personal choice. I'm done supporting them. I'm indifferent to whether they survive or not. So I pretty much stopped in to reiterate the obvious. Since it's early in the thread and all... I also like buying used CDs, electronic trance etc from ebay and places like that. Stuff that didn't have huge production runs and are out of print and can't be purchased new. And my mp3 collection otherwise is stuff I wouldn't buy or couldn't find on CD...
Most audiophiles are not going to have a giant music library of all pirated music and have 0 CDs or purchased media.
Personally, the only time I use gnutella or such is when I need a copy of a song without DRM for whatever reason. I already have the song on CD or from iTunes.
This study is pretty much redundant. This has been said again and again. But not that the RIAA [is going/wants] to listen.
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
It seems so obvious. It always has been obvious.
Except, I do remember a colleague of mine filling half the available diskspace on my company computers with Napster music downloads back in 2000. He was racing to beat the crackdown. He burned a lot of CD's from that frenzy of music downloads...
...let me look out the window...OMFG, no shit, it's snowing in hell, well I'll be...um...damned. =P -c
1. Never, ever pay for anything that you can download.
2. Make sure your friends and relatives know how to download stuff for free.
3. Make sure your friends and relatives know they cannot be caught or sued if they just download. Sharing or uploading is what all lawsuits have been based on.
4. Remember that if it is free, it is probably crap. But so is what you would pay for.
Who says it has to be free?
Besides, some of us like having physical media, liner notes, etc. Personally, I like playing cds in my car and it's a lot easier to tell the "real" ones apart at a glance than it is with any of the mix cds that I burn.
As for rewarding the RIAA for behavior that I find distasteful, I don't reward them. How? I buy most of my cds used. The only actual new cds I have bought in the last 2-3 years have been from local and regional bands that I went to see live.
I look at music the same way I look at software - if the people who made it want it to be free, great. If they want to charge for it, that's fine too. If they charge what I consider to be a reasonable price and I have some use/desire for it, I'll buy it. If they charge too much for my tastes or I don't really want it that badly, then I won't but it.
It's amazing how that works.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
I wonder when the recording industry is going to realize they are fighting a battle that cant be won.
I used to buy CDs constantly. And now with the implimentation of DRM on CDs and not knowing what type of software is installing when you insert a CD in your computer. I dont dare buy a new CD. I want to be able to buy a CD and encode it into any format i want to put it on whatever device i own. And until i really own the music i buy, im not going to spend my money on some music that might be locked inside their encryption. In 20 years my music i bought might be gone because I cant use it in new devices and technology, or with every new advancement in technology Im left converting my entire collection to some new and improved DRM format because of a firmware upgrade because a new bug is found.
Until I get to choose how I use the music I buy, instead of them telling me how, I wont purchase any.
I'm glad to see some honesty in this article, even if it's contradictory honesty.
The Emperor has a nice suit on -- his birthday suit.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
For sure, man, i can't believe we haven't figured out what all you americans have figured out.. lawsuits solve all of life's problems!! (makes me glad most lawsuits get thrown out of court for being rediculous)
MABASPLOOM!
In fact, I have only bought CD's in the last long many years simply because of P2P. Excruciating story short,,, I simply hadn't heard the likes of what I listen to now. Never knew it existed. Thanks to the non strategy of P2P, it seems to be to those that simply are seeking.
If do a grep and cut out each "eh", it narrows down the document to 2 pages.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
That attitude is actually a lot easier with music than with software. Many of use would make dramatically less money if we were to just refuse to use software that we find overpriced. The number of people that would be harmed financially by not buying music CDs is miniscule.
No, if it was Fark there'd be an "IRONIC" tag followed by 100+ comments of people slamming the submitter for not knowing what "ironic" means, along with some obligatory Alanis Morrisette references, one or two "HA-HA" Photoshops, someone bringing out the "I work for XXX, and I'm getting a laugh..." quote, and half a dozen "O RLY" owl variations.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I do not think that it does what you think it does.
I buy CDs because I can afford them, and because I can tell the difference between an mp3 and a CD. Yes, my ears are spoiled by high quality ogg and who rips in that but me?
Anyway, the crap the music industry is making is targetted at people with no money.
Mommy and daddy's money only goes so far, and for a minimum wage worker a CD is a couple hours of work.
Now for a software developer such as myself... a CD is a fraction of an hour of work.
So, hey, why don't they make music that appeals to intelligent music conniseurs with money, rather than target the teenie bopper demographic? They should either put out good stuff that reaches people with money, or lower the price on the shitty stuff. Welcome to economics 101 - one price for all demographics doesn't maximize profits.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
There. I knew something was wrong.
Yup!
:)
Coincidentally, that's also why I love it so much.
One of the worst things about Slashdot is dealing with the subset of people who have no sense of humor
It's not always the fault of the recipient for a 'joke' not being got, before you get carried away with the insults. Play nicely. (Condescending's not nice either, huh)
--
Digital media players (UK)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
So, you just walk into the food store and help yourself to what you want and wander out without paying ?
"it has to be free or we will just steal it"
I'd rather pay $15 for a cd if food was free
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Tell me that p2p and even street-sold pirate records do NOT affect at all record sales.
People (that I know) that download p2p music normally buy "official" records and support (going to shows etc) the musicians they like. They also throw out a lot of the downloaded stuff -- the things that are no good.
There are two kinds of people (that I know) that buy street-sold pirate records: the immense majority are relatively poor people that buy one CD for R$ 3 (US$ 1.50), because they can, and they wouldn't pay R$ 40 (US$ 20) -- which is the price of a hit CD on the stores -- they just would not buy the record at all. Some perspective here: our minimum wage is R$ 300/month (US$ 150) and the price of one record is over 10% this value.
Most medium-class folks I know abstain from buying street-sold pirate records; most of the ones that do, use them as the p2p downloaders: to have a large (as in they'll never hear it all), garbage, music collection, and to select to which musicians they'll support by buying the official records.
Mind you, one of our (reasonably good, 1980's hit) musicians decided to sign off a record company and go indie -- with good results for him. I'm not really a big Lobão fan, but he sells his new CDs on the newspaper stands (because the big record companies tell the music stores "if you buy his CDs I won't sell to you") for R$ 10 -- which is far cheaper than Sony/etc would charge for them.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
finally some officials got it!
I still have no doubt, that the RIAA will ignore these facts and continue suing the pants of 15 year olds...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Some things you just can't stamp out with brute force. Instead, you have to find out what is fueling it and try to reduce that source and acknowledge you'll never be able to fully extinguish it.
- War on Piracy
- War on Poverty
- War on Drugs
- War on Terror
- ...
Did I forget any?That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read.
The vast majority of the music I own is legitimately purchased. I have no particular love for the RIAA, but I do feel that the artists who spent all the time and effort to create the music I'm listenting to have a right to be compensated.
Besides, the music business is like any other. If they charge an outrageous price for their product, nobody will buy it. Don't try to justify your theft (and yes, it is theft) by saying that I'm an idiot for paying for my music.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that downloaders are bad. After all, I've done my share of downloading myself. I'm just saying that this whole notion that music should be free simply because it can easily be pirated anyway is stupid.</rant>
Sent from my computer.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
Because in most cases people have ripped their existing CD collections to disk. Better question to ask is what percentage of their current playlist is P2P? And I agree with some of the other comments here, in that if I thought that a third of the people out there were ripping me off, I'd freak too.
that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic
In other words, the people with the most interest in music do both. Surprise, surprise.
reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services
Agree here. Though while decent content is an issue, I also think that other entertainment options (games, dvds) have an impact, as well as reduced salaries, rising gas and oil prices, and other economic factors leading to less disposible income.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
You sound so...reasonable. I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Record companies need to offer a better product. And they ought to consider just giving away a couple of songs per artists right off the bat via P2P. It's happening anyway. I'm an idie musician and I've seen jumps in sales every time I give music away. I can only WISH that thousands of people were trading a few of my songs via P2P because it would send some of them to check out my music, and generate some sales. The music industry should take advantage of P2P instead of trying to fight it. The indie movement is already doing this - most indie artists do give away a song or two. Well, the smart ones do, at least...
Music - www.richardmac.com
I'm not exactly a fan of In Flames (I think they're rather boring and cheesy as far as metal goes) but I agree with your larger point. I cannot name one popular song within the last decade that I thought was actually good. No one in mainstream society has heard of the bands I listen to. Good music is out there, but you won't find it on the radio and you'll be lucky to find it in a CD store. Every once in a while I'll find something good, but it's probably the least selling CD in the store.
Bungo!
Please, understand what you are fighting for.
Please, understand that some people aren't fighting.
....a CD of 80's music. To my supprise his tastes was very similiar to my own, as all the songs were ones I liked.
I considered asking him for a copy so that I might remember which groups (and I'm really bad about remembering names and titles, etc..) so that I might buy the albums (this was before itunes and such). Here if I couldn't figure out the artist or album I would have had something I could let someone at the music store hear, to help me pin it down (good for more than just my memory).
But then the music industry piracy flap began and I figured the music industry really didn't want me to remember, and even less wanted me to have anything that might help me find the music to purchase. So I said fuck you RIAA!!! You'd rather call me a pirate than to see me as a customer.... I'm not going to pay you squat for that attitude.
If I buy at all today, I try to not have the RIAA in the transaction at all, but instead buy directly from the artist.
Obviously I don't buy hardly anything at all.
I also grew up helping garage bands out, where some of the musicans have become professional musicians.I've also seen others make it to some label, only to fail the industries financial machinery. So I have a good idea what the struggle is and how important it is who you know, more than how good of an artist you are, and that unless you become really successful, you are pretty much at the mercy of the industry's financial machinery and who you know.
This is not the sort of thing that helps one focus on their music, but rather promotes more mediocer (middle of the road) music, such as we have plenty of today.
But there is this new internet technology and advances in home recording and for any artist(s) that pick that up and runs with it, they can promote themselves thru it as well as the traditional method of live performances. They can build their own following, or in cases of failure, be more able to mix and match with other musicians to find that "sound" that they want, be it music or music and money.
Its by developing their own following that they also increase their bargaining prower with the labels. No more at the industry's mercy, but a player with weight. And this also helps the industry, as the failures don't have to subsidized by the successful artists monitray generation (thus making the theoretical payoff for the successfull signed artist, more)
But it is the story of the RIAA dog, with a fat juicy steak in it mouth, that crossing over a bridge, sees it reflection and its greed causing it to go after the steak in the reflection, resulting in dropping the steak it had, losing it in th e water.
It really is a time to eliminate the old music industry business model. For the benefit of the artist, and let real competition in to bring the consumer better music.
Then all three shops in Helsinki, Finland stopped selling psytrance.
I ordered mine from Sweden or Holland for a while... but why wait 2 weeks for something you can have in 2 hours?
I'm willing to pay. I'm not willing to wait.
When there are no psy shops in Finland, it's morally ok to ware everything. Well, some domestic psy bands exist but Finnish psy is too psy :-)
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I did read (well, skimmed) the Comment and the 2 Appendices.
The CRIA blames "big corporate radio" for the downturn in CD sales.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
"Across the board, among those who are both successful and struggling, the artists and musicians we surveyed are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use."
That may be true, but I know someone who works for the local musician's union and though he supports P2P, the union sure as hell doesn't.
Property is theft.
Sorry for biting...
But I do feel that the artists (...) have a right to be compensated.
Oh absolutely. I'm all for compensating the artists. However, very little of the retail price for a CD is spent on compensating the artist, and a lot of it is spent rewarding the RIAA for tyranizing the population. That, I think, is wrong. I'd gladly donate a dollar here and there for the songs I love, if I'm confident that the payment system is reasonably secure, and that three nines or more of the money goes to the donatee.
Don't try to justify your theft (and yes, it is theft) by saying that I'm an idiot for paying for my music.
Don't worry, it's not theft, so there's nothing to justify, and you're not an idiot for paying for your music, you're an idiot for paying money to be oppressed by the RIAA.
Anyways, let me explain: If I copied your rhetoric, you would not lose your ability to use it. If I copied all your CDs, you would not lose the raw materials, or the ability to listen to them. If I copied your car (don't ask), you wouldn't lose your car.
It is NOT theft (and I'm sick and tired of people calling it that), it's copying. We as a society (I'll only speak for "my"self, and that's Denmark), had at a time come to the conclusion that giving up our right to copy information (since we were unable to, by virtue of not owning printing presses and CD toaster) would be a good trade, since more works would be produced. Now, the assumptions are wrong: we are able to copy information, almost effortlessly.
I'm just saying that this whole notion that music should be free simply because it can easily be pirated anyway is stupid.
So, if we could copy food limitlessly, we shouldn't let the hungry people have it, because the food-producers need to be compensated?
Yes, it is a valid analogy: copyright creates an artificial limit on the copying on music, the above example is an artificial limitation on the copying of food.
Maybe an economical argument can convince you: once a piece of music is on the internet, supply is infinite. In a free market, that would imply that the prices ought to be zero(*). However, copyright law and the RIAA artificially (try to) limit the supply, thereby artificially keeping the price up.
(*) Note, though, that even if the price is zero, that doesn't prevent people from donating money; surprise: some people do that.
You have to remember this is Canada, not the viciously capitalistic U.S. Canada is actually progressive and somewhat sensible. The U.S. is all about corporations fucking people around and stupid little peons supporting it in the name of some sacred unalienable rights to screw over consumers that are nowhere to be found in the declaration of independance or constitution.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
Dear god, calm down the anti-RIAA rhetoric and think about what you've just said for a second.
The buying and selling of used goods has at best a tenuous relationship to the sale of new goods that are still being produced. It will usually follow the new price up and down as it fluctuates, but it is always less than the new. Exceptions arise when a particular pressing of an album is no longer produced new.
CD shops that buy used CDs from consumers do not pay the RIAA a dime for the privilege. Same then when a used CD is sold; the RIAA only sees dollars when the original sale is made. This is the reason they hate the 2nd hand market so much and tried to stamp it out. Try the First-sale Doctrine.
The new CD market drives the 2nd hand market, not the other way around. Don't let your hate cloud your vision to the simple facts of economics.
And you make the assumption that anyone that even sells RIAA material should go out of business. Can you get any more rabid than that? They sell other stuff yaknow, you're tossing the baby out with the bath water. Why don't you go burn down every CD store in your home town if that's the way you feel.
checking for libvirus... no
ERROR, libvirus.so not found, terminating
Which is one of the reasons I love Kansas City's NPR station so much. I've become a huge fan of Bill Shapiro's show, Cyprus Avenue, since moving there in '03. Saturday afternoons in KC were awesome with Cyprus Avenue and Sonic Spectrum delivering 4 hours of the most refreshing music and discussion on the radio every week. I personally like Cyprus Avenue more with it's stronger rock influence, but for any true music fan, it's 4 hours of goodness.
And, oddly enough, hearing new music that I fall in love with on the air makes me go out and buy it. Cyprus Avenue is responsible for my last 10 CD purchases, my favorites being Uncle Tupelo and Mary Gauthier. Who the hell ever heard of either of these bands on commercial radio? No one I know, yet they're truely outstanding and without independent shows like Cyprus Avenue I'd never know they were there.
If you're looking for a good place to hear good music and live in KC, tune in to KCUR 89.3 FM on Saturday afternoons... If you don't live in KC, go to KCUR.org and listen to the stream every Saturday from 12pm-4pm, CST. We don't live in KC any more, but thanks to the Internet I still get to continue to listen to the best music shows on the air.
I tend to be a fairly pragmatic individual.
Frightening isn't it?
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
5. you can get everything you want at the library. You can legally borrow it and rip it to MP3 or copy the disc for your personal collection (in Canada, anyway). You can even get new/popular stuff if you simply put a hold on it. In my town, you can place a hold online, and they'll check all the libraries in the area and bring it to the library of your choice when it's available. The wait is usually somewhere between 3 days and 2 weeks. They call you when it's ready for pickup.
I've not had a need to download when all the material I want is available for free right there.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
I can count on one hand the amount of CDs I've bought since I first came across napster in like 1999. However, discounting that get xx CDs for a penny from Columbia house, I can also count on one hand the amount I bought pre-napster. Infact, since I was young and flaked on the columbia house thing, I don't think I actually bought any CDs pre napster. I like music, but I don't listen to it religiously so it doesn't make sense for me to go out and pay $40-$50 for the type of CD I might like. I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.
.. people would rather be honest and treated fairly after all?
Damn! This is going to fuck up a LOT of business plans.
The MPAA and RIAA viciously prevent new capital from being created by dampening ability and desire to experiment with existing music to create new mixes.
What makes you think a levy on used CDs won't be next? They tried before, and it's logically consistent with the notion you should be paying for license to use, not the right to own a copy. Buying used CDs is at best a convenient temporary solution that doesn't address the fundamental re-definitions of the way society treats information these corporate vermin are trying to pull off.
There's a difference between buy and use. Most of the really expensive software that you use is paid for by your employer unless you are your own employer.
In that case, you don't pay for it - your employer does because they see the cost to benefit ratio as being reasonable. You just use it.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
They also strive to create new capital by overpricing their records, and DRM, with little thought for the consumer.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
Thats why it is an opinion - TO YOU it is theft - factually (by which I mean legally) it isn't theft, morally on the other hand, that is again an opinion - some think it is theft, dome don't, others think it is as bad as theft, some don't. I don't think you are an idiot for paying for your music, but I do think you are on shaky grounds for failing to distingusih between fact and opinion.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
That may be true, but the reality is the recording industry always makes sure the artists you hear the most are those who are drinking their kool-aid.
Heh. Now imagine what the stats must be like in countries where P2P music downloading isn't legal.
You're reading a lot into my post that really isn't there.
No, that's not true at all. Look at something like the car market, where the "resale value" is used to market the new products, and can drive the "new" prices up. CDs are just so much cheaper, that they don't get as much attention.
That's very hard to believe, and you haven't provided ANY evidence to support this claim at all. There's plenty of reason to believe people would buy fewer CDs, or only buy them at reduced prices, if they knew they wouldn't be able to sell them.
That's ridiculous, I didn't say anything even close to that, and I can't imagine how you could read such crap into my words. The only thing I said was, profits from used-CD sales are likely helping to subsidize stores that also sell RIAA CDs, thereby indirectly HELPING the RIAA.
You made a very strong claim that buying used CDs is not helping the RIAA at all, which is simply not the case. Although only in small part, you are still supporting them.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Err, not YOU, the GP... Sorry.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
So, if we could copy food limitlessly, we shouldn't let the hungry people have it, because the food-producers need to be compensated?
Ahh, like Monsanto?
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
I never downloaded any music files until I discovered that living under canadian copyright law means that I'm paying for shared music through the levy on blank media. Since I buy a fair bit of blank discs (and, formerly, casettes) for data and original non-commercial productions, I was paying for music I didn't get to hear.
So who was the thief?
Now I download judiciously to try to keep up with the levy; i.e. I download far less than would fill up the media I purchase, but enough so that I don't feel like an idiot for paying for music I don't get to hear.
Damn those pesky terrorists