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.'"

Comments

It's... well... what...

[Suddenly_Dead]

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.

Re:It's... well... what...

[MadUndergrad]

I wonder how the RIAA will respond to this study.

More likely instead of addressing the study they'll try to sue the RI of Canada, somehow making a nebulous claim about the RIoC cutting into their profits.

Re:It's... well... what...

[Takumi2501]

Timbits is one word. :P

Re:It's... well... what...

[Minwee]

It's all so obvious. Low sales in the US are caused by generic Canadian versions of songs coming across the border. The US needs tighter regulatory controls on music to prevent this kind of thing.

Re:It's... well... what...

[thej1nx]

I am sure a truth serum was involved somewhere. :)

Re:It's... well... what...

[KutuluWare]

It's all so obvious. Low sales in the US are caused by generic Canadian versions of songs coming across the border. The US needs tighter regulatory controls on music to prevent this kind of thing

If it gets rid of Celene Dion and Bryan Adams, I'm all for it.

--K

Re:It's... well... what...

[Dashing Leech]

"What was stated isn't surprising."

What the article didn't state makes it even more emphatic. In Canada it is legal to download music via P2P. So all the stuff about P2P in this study refers to legal downloading, and still it isn't harming the recording industry like they say and still people buy music with a legally free alternative. (I say "free", but really we pay a levy on recordable media to compensate, so it's really a legally "already paid for" alternative.) I think that says even more.

The Invisible Downloader.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. In keeping with the invisible nature of P2P (intentional or otherwise). How does anyone know that they have the facts?

Dare I say it?

[Rank_Tyro]

No shit.

Glad they finally figured it out...

The Fault

[therage96]

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.

Re:The Fault

[ozmanjusri]

The most mindnumbing about the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle is how they keep blaming their diminishing sales on the consumers

Yep, when people were actually asked why they weren't buying more music, the greatest factors were:

• price (16%)

• nothing of interest (14%)

• lack of time (13%)

• collection is big enough (9%)

In other words, all the music industry needs to do to make more sales is to sell an interesting product, at a price the market will bear.
Their customer-hate behaviour has been so destructive, musicians contracted to RIAA member companies should initiate class action lawsuits to recover income lost to these inane tactics.

Re:The Fault

[MightyMartian]

Quite frankly I think the root of the problem is that the record companies have become so overwhelmingly corporate in nature, so dominated by dull, unimaginative accountants and MBEs that they've forgotten the precise nature of the business. I really can't believe that the early 1990s saw the last gasp of groundbreaking music, but the last decade has basically saw a cookie-cutter approach, with forgettable boy bands and female stars who require odd sounds and digital enhancements to make their "dance" records even work in any sense of the word.

Record companies are blaming a lot of people for their own failings. Right now the next Beatles or Led Zeppelin could be slogging away unnoticed, but record companies don't seem at all interested in encouraging and developing artists, and they're reaping what they sow, and all the anti-consumer DRMs and legislation won't give these incredibly musically inept corporate types what they need.

Besides, these are the same pack of crooks who spent the last fifty years screwing artists every which way, so I figure that a good deal of payback is in order.

Re:The Fault

[goonerw]

who require odd sounds and digital enhancements to make their "dance" records even work

Ben Fold's said it best in "Rockin' The Suburbs":

I'll take the checks and face the facts, while some producer with computers fixes all my shitty tracks

Then again, we have a flood of "Some unknown vs. Well known artist of old (80's etc.)" with the well known artist's song and just repeating the first line of the chorus to some shitty backing dance crap. At least some poptarts try singing the whole song, albeit without the feeling, intent, or even in the same key, "danced up" and sounding absolutely horrible.

Spin control?

[anagama]

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.

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 ... naaa.

Re:Spin control?

[BewireNomali]

Right, I thought something similar - it's an emperor has no clothes deal.

in fact - if those numbers hold - the RIAA might be able to find some kind of correlation between pre and post p2p sales (hypothetical).

All of which is to say, it's absurd to think that P2P isn't affecting music sales. It's like the climate change thing. It's clear the climate is changing. It's clear that our greenhouse gassing is additional input. The question is - does more fuel burning = climate change.

Does the availability of ubiquitous and free music online mean reduced sales of music? It's clear that P2P is having an effect on music sales. In fact, it might be clear that P2P is having an effect on movie sales. This is the reality. The issue here is that both industries are so tied to their methods of delivery that they need to protect their current pipeline until they've shifted over.

In the long run, content is going to be free. Commercials and conventional advertising is going to die, and the only way to get adverts to the end user is going to be via content. Songs about Pepsi, Trojan brand condoms in love scenes. This sucks for Hollywood and RIAA because it means a paradigm shift away from their models.

Re:Spin control?

[smoker2]

In the long run, content is going to be free. Commercials and conventional advertising is going to die, and the only way to get adverts to the end user is going to be via content. Songs about Pepsi, Trojan brand condoms in love scenes. This sucks for Hollywood and RIAA because it means a paradigm shift away from their models.

foreach $expletive (@profanity){ print "$expletive\n"; }

Since when has the primary purpose of "content" been advertisement delivery ?

Did Homer write his Odyssey to promote a fucking Cruise ship or Eric Arthur Blair pen 1984 to promote his new word processor ?

Or is it just Art for Art's sake (money for gods sake) as 10cc would have it ?

Let's see, you could have Spam, chips, egg and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it !

Well.... Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

No kidding.

[AWhiteFlame]

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.

Re:Damn right

[ClamIAm]

And with the draconian copyright laws we currently have, most (all?) of the music on OCRemix is considered infringing. I only mention this so we all remember that there's quite a few issues involved in the struggle for better copyright law.

The OBVIOUS

[us7892]

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...

Well, my fiance and I just broke up, so...

[MufasaZX]

...let me look out the window...OMFG, no shit, it's snowing in hell, well I'll be...um...damned. =P -c

How to change their tune...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How to change their tune...

[whereiswaldo]

I pay tax on burnable CDs to cover the cost of music downloaded from the Internet without paying for it. Therefore what I download and burn to CD is paid for. Since it's paid for, am I breaking the law? I think not.

Access to a virtually endless supply of cheap (see above) music has changed the way I think of music in my life. I download whatever I might be interested in and delete whatever I don't like without thinking "hey, I paid $2 for that song I'm keeping it even though I hate it". Now I can amass a large quantity of music that I really like which, aside from the CD tax, only costs me some time in weeding through that music. This is made easy with the iTunes/iPod combination. I look forward to the experience every day. If I choose, I don't ever have to listen to the same song more than once. That's amazing.

Re:How to change their tune...

[Parham]

Firefox and umm... a lot of open source stuff.

Re:So let's see here...

[bladesjester]

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.

Not suprising.

[grungefade]

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.

Well, someday hopefully 100%

[synonymous]

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...

[rampant mac]

"Michael Geist summarizes the 144 page study"

If do a grep and cut out each "eh", it narrows down the document to 2 pages.

Arctic Monkeys shows what can be done

[Nice2Cats]

Interestingly enough, Wired currently has a longish story about a group called Arctic Monkeys that bypassed all the industry stuff and has been a big success because, not despite them giving songs away:

Their story is remarkable because of one fact: grassroots communication channels like MySpace and P2P file trading networks worked better than the major-label hype machine. The Arctic Monkeys became hugely popular because they wrote good songs, made them available to their fans for free, and encouraged them to share the MP3s with their friends.

Given my two latest, disasterous experiences with major-label hyped artists -- Enya and Kate Bush, whose new albums should both best be avoided -- I'm more than willing to look in other places.

Grep. You keep using that tool.

[Captain Entendre]

I do not think that it does what you think it does.

here's a new one

[Xtravar]

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.

Re:A short primer on the manifold uses of irony

[x2A]

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)

My (limited) experience and connections

[hummassa]

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.

Re:My (limited) experience and connections

[BewireNomali]

All of my peers download music and don't buy. In fact, I can't remember when we've collectively seen the inside of a music store.

I understand what you're saying. You make two mistakes: asusming first and foremost that your experience is widespread, and second, that everyone who downoads then decides to pay for the EXACT SAME THING - even thoguh they don't have to.

With all due respect, that seems kind of dumb to me. As in not smart.

I've heard all the "moral" arguments. Fact is, that less than 5% of major label artists ever recoup expenses. Which is to say, less than 5% of artists ever sell enough to get into the black. So, buying a record is supporting and bolstering the music cartels that enslave the artists. Even after recouping, most artists rarely see more than $0.15 US per unit sold. The artists get fucked. Record companies are pimp industries and the artists are getting fucked. All of which is to say, the moral argument of buying something after you download makes no fiscal sense, and it doesn't benefit the artists. So, all of you who compalin of the hold the RIAA has on the industry buy into it when you buy music from affiliated labels. Everyone should know that an opinion in the US that you don't put your money behind is not an opinion at all. Good luck with that.

And then on top of it, you're all out of cash from these CDs you keep buying. It makes no sense to me. Honestly. And I work in media. I know mid level music execs who joke and laugh thatthey can't understand why people keep buying music. They LAUGH at you. *shaking head* Execs from Sony and Universal here in New York - it's an inside joke for them that music is worth $0.00 to the audience in the digital age. I've even seen their powerpoint presentations to that effect - I wish I had a link.

This buy music after downloading thing is misguided, and in my opinion, another example of how the system doesn't have to enslave us, they program us to enslave ourselves. And we proceed.

Just ask the actual ARTISTS and you get the same..

[Jugalator]

This may be some interesting reading about this matter.

"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. "

Re:So let's see here...

[Takumi2501]

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>

Translations...

[shmlco]

concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers

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.

Re:Translations...

[utlemming]

However, I seriously doubt that RIAA will even consider your last argument. Why would they? They seem to think that entertainment costs are flexiable and that other considerations will not reduce the demand for entertainment. Just because some teenager can get to the mall does not mean that they have the money to spend it on a CD. Then when you consider that the next generation of DVD is going to run between $35-50, there is going to be some fierce competition for teen's money. There is competition for what teens are spending their money on and blaiming priacy for competition is a straw man argument.

Re:What the ... ?

[FrostRose]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=asinine&r =66

Mostly True

[MadMacSkillz]

The biggest reason that people are not buying as much music is because the corporate offerings mostly suck. The second biggest reason is that there are other, more interesting things to spend your money on in this "day and age" besides music.

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...

Re:So let's see here...

[Uerige]

Please, understand what you are fighting for.

Please, understand that some people aren't fighting.

Notice who the CRIA blames

[davebarnes]

I did read (well, skimmed) the Comment and the 2 Appendices.
The CRIA blames "big corporate radio" for the downturn in CD sales.

Re:So let's see here...

[jonaskoelker]

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.

If you have patience...

[JediTrainer]

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.