Slashdot Mirror
Does File-Sharing Really Hurt the Music Biz?
Phonographic Memory writes "A new study has come out that purports to show a link between file-sharing and decreased CD purchases. Covering the period of 1995-2003, the study looked for a link between owning a computer and decreased CD purchases. The researcher found that 'some US music consumers could have decreased their CD purchases (prior to 2004) by about 13 percent due to Internet file sharing.' In its coverage of the study, Ars Technica notes that the scholarly consensus on the possibility of a link between file sharing and music purchases is missing: 'the dominant impression gained from reading these studies is that finding accurate correlations between file-sharing and loss of revenue for the music industry is tremendously difficult.'"
1) I have never downloaded a song for which I don't own a CD already
2) I have bought maybe 2 CDs in the last year, vs. 20 a year in the early 90's
This is mainly due to the high level of suckage by today's "musicians". Has anyone done a study that includes that correlation? Also I've built my collection the point where I have almost everything I want already. How does that figure in?
How can people downloading music for free hurt music sales? It doesn't make sense!
But seriously, does this shock anyone? If I'm getting the milk for free how is the cow gonna get paid? Or some shit like.
But of course, increased online digital music sales couldn't possibly have anything to do with *that* could they?
Lots of things have changed in the last 10 years. P2P fileswapping is one of them. iTunes is another.
Said it before, say it again. It's not the Internet, it's the product. Music today sucks compared to years ago. I just have no desire to pay $18 for a CD when I could buy the DVD with full video for the same price.
The same applies to movies. Torrents aren't killing your ticket sales.. Your crappy movies are killing ticket sales.
"Honey, do these jeans make my butt look fat?"
"No, your fat butt makes your butt look fat."
See the concept?
i wrote an albeit sloppy paper on this a few years ago. i found that there were several spikes in cd sales. one was during the heyday of napster. after napster was shut down, cd sales started to slow down. they picked up again as iTunes was gaining in popularity.
personally, i know for a fact that i wouldnt have a huge chunk of my (legally puchased) music collection had it not been for file sharing, simply because i would have never heard the bands before.
And even an inexpensive CD (been out a few years, on a discount site, etc) is about $7.99 today.
That's less than 1 cheap CD a year. That's barely 1 brand new ($15.99) CD every 3 years.
WTF?
And the 80 cent decrease? That's 1 less CD purchased every 10 years.
Right. We download a song from an album that we *think* we want, then we say "Man, this sucks. I'm glad I didn't buy this shit."
End of story. So, yes, you could answer that music downloads hurt music sales, but that only identifies the symptom and ignores the actual problem.
I don't think it does purely for the story I'm about to tell.
Three days ago I had no intrest in Pokemon Mysterious Dungeon, but a friend had the rom so I went "WTF, I'll give it a try".. I found out it played just like nethack, some minor changes, but in my head it became "Pokemon Nethack". I played it for a couple of hours and decided that this was a game I'd want to play on my DS rather than on the PC. So today I ordered the game and it should be here in a few days.
Did I hurt the game industry by using a rom before I bought the full copy or buy a game I didn't have an intrest before I played it? Roms and P2P music has become the new demos, people will buy games they think are worth the money or they'll download games they didn't think were worth the money. You could even argument because of the rom I've now told Slashdot that they can get a Nethack like game on the DS now and may have even sold more GBA/DS consoles/games, but that maybe going too far.
Quality will always sell.
I like muppets.
I think the music industry hurts itself. When CD's were release they promised that they would cost around $5 in a few years as the costs of R&D were covered and mass production set in. The only CD's that sell for $5 are either crappy or used. They want to maintain their monopoly status and are unwilling to change. Those are the reasons I no longer buy CD's.
As for DRM protected content for $1 a song, the protection limits my ability to move to a new ipod every year without loosing music. The price point is too high, who has $10,000 to shell out on music to fill their iPod nano?
It's not file share that is there problem, they are their own problem. Their business model is horrible and I can't wait until they collapse over the next 10-15 years. Once the music conglomerates go broke or more artists move to independent labels that don't overcharge I will start buying CD's again. They claim its in the advertising and number of artists that they have to sign that cause prices to remain high. If they quite charging such a premium and actually went to a few shows put on my burgeoning artists they could cut those "costs" in 1/4.
This study overlooks so much its rediculous. Its comparing Dollars spent, not # of CD's purchased (completely ignoring the CD price fluxuations caused by price-fixing and Big-box marketers like Walmart), its tracking computer owners vs non-computer owners (which brings a lot of economic deltas into the case). Its junk statistics designed to back the RIAA's case, not gain real insight.
The RIAA's attempt to shut down filesharing may not save a single CD sale or record store job. So what? It's still their copyright to enforce, whether they save their business model or not. It doesn't have to make economic sense; they legally have to defend their copyright or they risk losing it.
I've got a computer. I haven't purchased a CD in about 6 months, however, I know that Amazon will still deliver them to me for free, so the cost of driving to the mall has nothing to do with it.
I just don't want their damned music. I don't want their damned music badly enough that I haven't downloaded any of it either.
That CD I bought 6 months ago? It was made on a computer. In the home of the artist. I bought it from her at one of her appearances at a local coffeehouse. It's got a CC license. It doesn't even show up on the sales statistics.
Ya think that might have something to do with the official sales numbers?
". . . finding accurate correlations between file-sharing and loss of revenue for the music industry is tremendously difficult.'"
Yeah, I have the same problem counting the number of pixies living under my bed.
KFG
And how exactly to you propose to objectively measure the "level of suckage"?
Seriously, what you say is not true. What sucks is the music that's played on the radio, not modern music. This is mostly a result of the deregulation of radio that occurred in the 90s, paving the way for a few giants to own just about everything.
The effects were somewhat delayed by the "grunge" boom; every major label was so desperate to find "the next Nirvana" that they took chances with all sorts of interesting bands that wouldn't have otherwise gotten major label deals. They have since realized that they'll make more money sticking to the formula, so they push nothing but garbage on the radio and MTV nowadays.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
I mean seriously, I remember the exact year I stopped buying the same quantity of CDs... It was 1994. Yes, my computer had something to do with it, but it wasn't file sharing. It was I found myself spending most of my disposable cash on computer upgrades and games for the next 2 years. Seriously. I still bought CDs, but my guess would be I had cut down by about 90 percent.
Then about 1996, I moved in with my girlfriend, and the focus of my life completely changed. Again, still bought CDs, it's just music slowly fell down the list of important things to do with my money in my life. You end up living together, then you get engaged, buy furniture, get married, buy a house, start a family, etc... I personally just never found myself back in that stage where it seemed like a good idea to toss massive amounts of my disposable income on music.
I can't possibly be the only one can I?
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
Before we talk about filesharing, we should talk about the more basic issue: transmissable digital file formats vs. plastic media discs
stored in poorly designed (easily breakable) jewel cases.
Let's face it: CD's suck. And I'm not talking about the music. I'm talking about the medium.
CD's have to be swapped out of the cd player. They hold too little music. They're easily damaged. And the jewel case is one of the worst atrocities
of industrial design to be inflicted upon humanity in the last 20 years. (I'd say 30% of mine are broken).
MP3's by comparison are instantly accessible, contain meta data, are sortable, and can be shuffled into infinite playlists. Not to mention, they're
not breakable.
When the recording industry pushes CD's, they are pushing a sub-par product on us.
The music industry was slow to adopt a commercial alternative, and when they did they gave us DRM infected, vastly overpriced, low bitrate shite because they were
still convinced that if given no other alternative we would continue to buy the sub par plastic discs.
But there was an alternative: An infinitely better, cheaper, higher quality and more accessible alternative. The recording industry attmpted to
control the market at the expense of the consumer. They gambled and they lost.
When businesses offer subpar products they fail.
The message to the recording industry is simple: Sell me non-DRM infected tracks at
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
There have been plenty of studies done to establish some link between downloading un-licensed music and decreased sales of legit releases.
The methodology of those studies suck. None of them properly isolate for external variables, like: Just about everything else Johnny Download can spend money on for entertainment. And his motivations for shifts in spending habits.
As an aside, most people pushing the idea refuse to acknowlede that Johnny Download's disposible income does not ramp up infinitely, and that Johnny has (at most) 24 hours in a day to play consumer.
I remember when the same sorts of studies were done in the 70s and 80s, along with the stupid tag to sum it all up: Home Taping is killing music. The opposite was found: Blank cassette sales skyrocketed, along with the sale of legit releases, bootlegs, and incense.
Nothing to see here people. Move along.
In other news the RIAA has sued Microsoft for stealing thier business as computer owners spent more money on microsoft products than non computer owners... and this obviously means they have less money to spend on CDs and must pirate instead! It's all Microsofts fault!
On a more serious note, how could they seriously not realize that owning a computer opens up new entertainment mediums to people? 1 computer game is 2-5 CDs... it's not like people have a limitless supply of entertainment money.
Gotta love bad studies...
I have personally never owned an iPod and don't care to because I will not spend $1 for a song that sucks and limits my ability to own it and do as I wish with it. Maybe they didn't back their music up or whatever, I just took their word that they lost their music. But you have accused me of being a thief when I actually have only legal MP3s without DRM. You are the type of individual that claims to be for freedom of speech, yet when it comes down to it you really mean that you can say what you want but if someone else doesn't agree with you that rule no longer applies. People like you are too quick to criticize what you are incapable of understanding. I have commented in another post I prefer to attend concerts and the bands I enjoy allow their listeners to share their music. Think of the Greatful Dead and Phish, the bands like them that I listen to don't care about the RIAA or charging outrageous rates for their music. In fact a number of them have been bypassing TicketMaster for years because they think the monopoly charging a premium is BS for their listeners. Try a Jam band, they are the only bands worth listening to and they already embraced the culture of their music being shared well before the days of the Internet. They realize that a live performance can make them more money in the long run and sell other merchandise like the traditional tie-dyed tee shirt.
'some US music consumers could have decreased their CD purchases (prior to 2004) by about 13 percent due to Internet file sharing.'
In related news, some Congressman might now be accepting 80% more bribes, 50% of people might be below average, and 100% of statistics prefaced with "some" and "could have" are sensational bullshit. If you've got real statistics, you don't say "some might have."
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
File-sharing is devastating for the big music companies. But it's a real stretch to say that the whole industry has been hurt. The Internet is here to stay, and there's really nothing that can be done to stop file sharing. Every dollar spent fighting it, is a dollar wasted.
There's no way that the the big music companies can sustain the current way they do busness. The reason they exist is that it's very expensive to make and distribute CDs across the country and around the world. It used to be very expensive to produce the music. With computers and the Internet, distribution is very cheap. These companies are now at the end of their useful life.
There you have it. Their product is bad, overhyped, bubblegummy teenage nonsense.
When I find good music I buy it, and in the last 15 years or so the good music is coming out on smaller, independent labels.
Amen.
I buy CDs at shows all the time. The artist gets the money, I get the music, a major label record company gets nothing - everyone wins.
Sure, suckage is very subjective. Another possible cause is a shift in demographics. For us people who used to buy CDs, but now don't because of perceived suckage, we have stopped buying. Period. We have not started downloading (well typically anyway). The higher volumes of new releases are now more biased away from people like me to those who like rap or whatever. Perhaps the rap-buying demographic has never been strong in CD purchases, so perhaps that explains a lot, perhaps not.
Analogy alert: if you replace a French resturant into a MacD,then expect your patrons to change and expect your sales numbers to change too. The wine bar next door should also expect changes since your average MacD eater is probably less likely to fit the wine bar profile.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I will not spend $1 for a song that sucks.... But you have accused me of being a thief when I actually have only legal MP3s without DRM.
According to the RIAA, that makes you a thief. You're a thief if you buy used music. You're a thief if you buy music on sale. You're a thief if you buy any recordable media other than Music CD-Rs, and you're a thief if you use them for music. And even with DRM, you're a thief if you bought it from iTunes and a thief if you bought a CD (you bought music; you must like to steal it too, so here's a free rootkit so we can keep an eye on you). You're a thief if you listen to the radio, you're a thief if you hum or whistle, you're a thief if you can sing, play an instrument, or keep a beat, until they sign you to a label(*) and they can start stealing back from you.
And you're a thief if you don't buy enough new music every 10 minutes.
Basically, everyone's a thief. You've stolen profits they could have had if you'd just bought more.
You haven't lined their pockets enough.
(*) I'm only kidding on that point. They don't sign people who can sing, play instruments, or keep a beat; they have machines to fix that now. It's easier to keep a perfomer if all their talent actually comes from the label's hardware. (They're still working on supplanting physical beauty; lip-syncing stand-ins aren't working well enough.)
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I used to buy a lot of music. In college, I had a huge collection for the time - about 200 singles. I even worked as DJ from time to time in the college pub... Later, i got a job and bought albums. I had (still have some) about 4 feet of vinyl. About 1985 I started buying CD's - quality jump was so impressive from records that I was hooked. I even watched for years to see what was coming out on CD. Remember when it was a big deal that The Beatles were finally releasing their albums on CD? I think the music industry confused rebuilding record collections with on-going music sales.
However, they're not making any more 60's or 70's music; or even 80s, a lot of which was good. I will reiterate the previous comments, modern music sucks! As does rap. I bought the stuff I "gotta have" and there's not a lot coming out that I will run out and buy. Once in a long while I buy something, but not what I would describe as "top 20" music. (...and it's not "oh, you forgot the CRAP from 30 years ago". Pick a random year back then, and list the top songs that still play on the Solid Gold stations. Pick the top albums. Now try to put together a similar list for 2005 or 2004. Pretty slim pickins.)
Meanwhile, along come DVD's. Where I used to buy a CD for $20, I can now buy a DVD, often for less. (Yay to blockbuster and the used DVD rack!). I now have several hundred DVD's, since I would pay $10 for a used DVD or $5 to view it once. The really good movies I might buy new.
As for music - those one-hit wonders and other crappola - yes, I'll admit I have downloaded. If there were an easy way to get MP3's (not WMA or AAC - my MP3 players don't support) I might have bought them instead, but it's too late now.
I also wonder about leisure time. With computers, the internet, and cable channels, and even music feed on cable TV (and video games for the younger bunch) - who takes time to sit and listen to an album all the way through, the way I did 30 years ago? Music as a hobby isn't as prominent as then. Heck, I find myself reading books a LOT less than before.
Similarly, the movie industry is missing the boat. They assume their previously high level of sales can be correlated to current releases, but I suspect a large number are people building their collection. I wonder how many, like me, will be content with what they have - I don't need to re-purchase "Peter Sellers' The Party" or "Meet the Fokkers" in HD. Odds are I won't even re-buy Blade Runner or Dune. Also, HD is NOT the quantum leap that CD was over vinyl. So, HD will be a moderate disappointment to the movie indstry with or without stupid format wars.
As I watch movies being RE-released on DVD, I sense an air of desperation to milk every last dollar from a dwindling market instead of creating new content. ("The Little Mermaid, for the first time now as a TWO DVD set!" Are you listening, Disney? Won't work. The first one lasts forever unless the kids played frisbee with it, and then it gets passed around when they're too old... diminishing market!)
There's a moment when you can jump in and grab the market to yourself. You can be the next eBay or iTunes or Google or Amazon. Or you can do it wrong or miss the boat, and be the next Pets.com or RIAA...
I know that I can put not DRM music on an iPod, I just don't see the point of owning one since I usually listen to XM. Since I pay for the service I just use it in my car. At home I can listen to it as well plus I have a good collection of legal recordings and some older CD's. If I flew more often I might consider an iPod but when I do fly I usually am too busy working to pay any attention to music or I just watch a movie (either on my laptop or the screen).
Most of my firends with iPods are dedicated users and would never give it up. I on the other hand just haven't found the need yet.
DRM and High prices on CD's are problematic, not the iPod or any other MP3 player that I know of (I didn't know some applied DRM to non-DRM music). If I purchase music I should be free to copy it to as many forms of media as I like as many times as I like. I have a horrible track record at maintaining backups and CD integrity, therefore I need the ability to copy it or I don't want it. I am actually supprised that I have been able to keep my DVD's in good shape but I don't put them in my car where I have to drive, swap cd's, etc. I don't feel that I should have to pay $18 for a decent CD. I do buy the occasional box set because they usually give me a good collection for a reasonable price relative to individual CD's (especially when a decent one goes on sale).
My real point is that the RIAA business model is failing due to a shift in consumer habits, not the piracy of music. It wan't much harder to share music back in the days of tapes (look at international markets back then, anything was available on the black market for cheap). The RIAA is upset because they can actually see their music being stolen in front of their eyes and the consumer has had it with their monopoly. I applaud apple for their iTunes store and the fact that they were able to come to an agreement with the RIAA. I only dislike the current model of $1 per song. An artist is entitled to compensation for their work, I just don't think that the labels should get most of the profit when they don't even know how to market effectively, are horrible a spotting talent, and just want to control prices. The artists should be the first to rebel with this age if Internet distribution and put together some cooperative recording studios to work from. There are plent of quality artists out there that the labels ignore. When I have baught CD's from local bands I usually get CD's they produced, the quality is great, and the prices are more like $10 then $20. Everyone wins except the major labels which have no inherant right to make a profit, they should earn their keep before asking anyone to pay them.
you can make as many backups as you want, and you can play on 5 computers simulataneously.
You are correct, but it makes a crappy backup.
Lossy AAC to CD audio and back to lossy MP3 is quite a degredation in sound quality.
That and you use your ID tags.
Personally, I use an iPod but I rip my CDs I purchase from the store to 256kps MP3s for quality and compatibility of all my players (Audiotron, CD mp3, and iPod and VBR is problematic on the CD and audio tron)
I'm tempted to start doing high quality MP4 because I'm an audio freak like that. Too bad iPods don't support FLAC or OGG, but I still like my nano.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
And how exactly to you propose to objectively measure the "level of suckage"?
Does it involve booty dancing videos or angsty emo kids screaming?
No, but seriously.
The reason music sucks today is that all stations are owned by clear channel and MTV doesn't play music videos anymore.
Secondly, most major stars aren't even really musicians in their own right, but rather manufactured acts.
That said... I quote wiki: "In June 2003, Jon Wiederhorn of MTV.com referred to Marilyn Manson as 'the only true artist today'."
And lastly, I have a hunch that more kids are playing video games instead of just listening to music... Or at least putting more income into said devices.
How many CDs could you buy with a PS3?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Music today is no better nor worse than yesterday. You remember the good stuff and forget the crap, the same way I remember the good 90s music and not the crap.. That is how things work. You remember the good and discard the crap.
Every generation has had its share of good and bad music and the manufactured pop idols, but one thing is different today than it was 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
Clear Channel owns all the radios and MTV doesn't play music videos anymore.
This means artists are chosen by the media cartels payola system rather than a voting system by the populace.
As a kid I remember every year, there would a video that would play at midnight and then it would get popular and play at 10pm and then later it would be playing nonstop at primetime for an entire month.
Now, a band is just manufactured and *BAM* they are on the prime time whether you like it or not.
Mabye all those old bands were manufactured as well, but these days it isn't even remotley democratic.
Do you remember the days when any local band had a chance of getting their demo played on the radio and then making it big?
These days there is no such thing as a local radio station. They play the same lists on the East Coast as they do the West coast. Hell many of the shows are getting the same audio stream.
So I wouldn't say the quality of music has gone down hill, but rather the industry itself and its promotions methods. RIAA and crew are no longer satisfied with taking chances with people possibly making it big. If they sign you then they force it down everyone's throats even if they aren't liked.
Which is of course why we see more one hit wonders these days of people who real job was making jingles for commercials or have a pretty face.
It isn't the internet or piracy nor iTunes killing the industry, but the industry itself.
The only way to fix it would be to break up the RIAA monopoly and force Clear Channel to sell its stations.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
This is baseless, inane trash with no grip on reality. The "study" is 100% pure crap.
What's a simpler answer that would *also* match the observations (assuming that ther's a significant correlation)? Let's see, maybe people with computers buy computer games, War Crack, Ever Crack and other things with their disposable income.
They should bring back medieval style public humilation for people who mis-represent and distort the scientific method.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
File sharing DOES hurt the current model of the music biz... one that is based on the disposable mega-pop-star. It is hard to sell 10 million albums for a musician with one hit song when someone can just download the single they like so easily. For a pop-phenomena, it is very easy to hit the critical mass of people online to share something.
On the other hand, there is a lot of music that is very hard to find on file sharing networks. Whole genres of music are pretty much unaccounted for on file sharing networks. If you can't listen to it on an FM radio station, good luck finding it. There might be a successful business model in selling fewer records of more artists, than selling more records of a handful of artists.
Regardless, it is not the role of the government to be propping up outdated business models. I think it is pretty clear that the automobile was pretty disastrous to the blacksmithing and livery industries... but it created even more profitable industries in the long run. Think of the mess we would be in if we tried to save the blacksmithing and livery industries as large scale parts of our economy. True, file-sharing IS stealing and immoral, I don't deny that: but so is taking my tax money against my will, in order to fund a government agency to preemptively go after file sharing, or to legally harass potentially innocent people, or to legally restrict new technologies because they *MAY* potentially be used for file sharing. The immorality of file-sharing (extremely minor evil, if it is evil at all) is far outweighed by the immorality of the draconian methods required for enforcement.
And specific to the music industry... WE WILL NEVER HAVE A SHORTAGE OF MUSIC!!! Music is one of those things people enjoy doing without payment... and one of those things that garners a lot of non-financial rewards (attention, respect, adoration). Look at all the garage bands, amateur musicians, people making demo CDs, people posting their music free on websites, and tell me that we would not have lots and lots of music, even if the entire industry collapsed. Making music is not like building airplanes, in that it takes vast amounts of capital and can be dangerous if done by people who don't know what they are doing.
I bought a DVD the other day for $5. Yet a band from the 70's still cost $11-15. I can't find a good CD for $5. If the movie industry can do it, then the music industry can. I hear that tape sales are way down due to downloads and piracy as well. Why wasn't that ever mentioned in the article?
Can I bum a sig?
At least that's how it has worked for me with comics. An increase in the comics I download has resulted in a direct correlation of an increase in the amount of comics I buy (HINT: Before I started downloading I bought 0 comics).
I don't see why the same can't be said for the music industry. I'd say the reality is that something else has increased in the years that this study looked at. How about an increase in music just sucking? Naaah. COULDN'T be that.
Back in the twenties and thirties, records were used as a means to promote concerts and appearences at clubs. Nowadays is the opposite, ie concerts are organized to promote new (or old) record releases. But in the Internet age, the music gets commoditized, ie no-one really appreciates a record enough to pay $20 a piece, because of sheer abundance. Records of the future will be like radio. Buy a song or a record at nominal price (or for free), and come to our club on saturday. As much as the record companies resent that, that's where their future lies.
From his conclusion: After reading his paper, I'm inclined to agree. The data does suggest that there may have been a 13% drop in CD purchases among computer owners who spent more music than the median consumer, but there may be alternate explanations to account for at least some of the drop. However, it seems clear that filesharing did reduce music sales among that population.
David
that's what it sounds like to me.
but then why am I joining in, I'd not buy one anyway. I prefer my cheap, almost disposable 1gb mp3 player. It cost £30, and works just fine.