Slashdot Mirror


Study Suggests Music Industry Embrace Piracy

unassimilatible writes to tell us that according to the Financial Times, the music industry should embrace illegal file-sharing websites. A recent study of the recent Radiohead album release found that huge numbers of illegal downloads actually helped the band's popularity and, by extension, concert ticket sales. "Radiohead's release of In Rainbows on a pay-what-you-want basis last October generated enormous traffic to the band's own website and intense speculation about how much fans had paid. He urged record companies to study the outcome and accept that file-sharing sites were here to stay. 'It's time to stop swimming against the tide of what people want,' he said." Update 19:46 GMT by SM: Several readers (including the original author) have written in to mention that it isn't stressed enough that this study was engaged by the music industry itself, making the findings that much more interesting. Take that as you will.

8 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. What "study"? by XorNand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not saying that there might be some merit here, but this was hardly a scientific study. Someone simply looked at the number of downloads of a single album, by a single band and said "downloads == good." Sure, you can make statistics say whatever you want them to say, but this isn't even trying.

    Secondly, it's no longer "pirating" if it's condoned by the copyright holder, eh? So, we're now expecting labels to just let everyone freely copy music? The problem here is that labels own the copyright and make their money from album sales. Merchandising and concert revenue, on the other hand, typically go into the bands' pockets. So of course there are bands out there that would love to use albums as a loss leader for their concerts. This kinda screws the labels though since the only reason so many people attend the concerts or buy the t-shirts is due to a heavy promotional investment by the labels.

    I can't actually believe that I'm spending a few minutes of my life to defend major record labels, but we do need a bit of intellectual honesty and middle ground in this discussion.

    --
    Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    1. Re:What "study"? by I2egulus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Before I start, I agree with parent post. Record labels that invest time in promoting an album have a right to some of the money too, though not nearly as much as they take currently.

      The question though, is whether said labels are necessary to the industry anymore. Can a band sustain itself without a record label, while still releasing music in an album format digitally? I'm not one to pretend to be knowledgeable on the issue but I figure I can at least pose the question.

    2. Re:What "study"? by RonnyJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not even a good example of an album to study. Radiohead had enormous success with it, but they were hugely helped by two things:

      1) They were already a very well-established band.
      2) They had a huge amount of publicity given to them because the method of distribution was 'revolutionary' (and they got that publicity largely because of 1) above).

    3. Re:What "study"? by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Short answer? Yes. The recording industry as distribution giants are no longer needed. That is not to say that there is no place left for their business, just none left for them to run it the way that they have been. Bands still need help with getting concert venues and promotion. I'll wager that before the large RIAA members figure it out there will be others jumping inline to provide such as is needed by bands who distribute electronically.
      The old methods of finding out about new music are slowly failing. Commercial radio is floundering, magazines are not covering all the music available, so the market (roughly speaking) is wide open for competition to large record labels. I listen extensively to Internet radio. I live in a large metropolitan area and there is NOTHING on regular radio that I can suffer through for 6 songs an hour. I say this because if I have gotten to this point, you can bet I'm not alone and as a result the RIAA members are losing out until they start supporting the "New Way" of doing business. It is now completely legitimate and plausible to do without their services IMO.

      The real problem for RIAA members is that they don't seem to realize how long ago this boat left the pier while they were partying at the boathouse. Now they have to play catch-up to the likes of iTunes, Napster etc. They have given their business away by being afraid to innovate and change with the times and technology.

      Bands mostly sustain themselves on concert generated revenue, not record sales. The smaller the band, the more this is true. The internet sales model is giving some small bands more money than they could have thought possible without a record deal. Direct sales == money. Radiohead, NIN, and others are showing that it's not just a big money pit to throw away your profits in. It DOES work. Some reports say that revenues for a band from CD sales is negligible, so in these terms the Radiohead deal is a big deal. They got all the revenue from music sales. Despite mistakes or blunders, Radiohead and NIN are showing others how to do business in The New Way.

      As technology takes it further, the avalanche of music available to users will overwhelm them, and they will look for the New MTV to help them limit their choices and search for the next pop idol. That is where Internet websites will slowly begin taking share from RIAA members. The new nexus of distribution is being the person who knows what is available and can help you find music you like.

      So, in both short and long answer... yes!

    4. Re:What "study"? by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, that explains How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb...

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Re:RIAA should learn... by gone6713 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I doubt that the RIAA almost went bankrupt in the 30's, considering it was formed in 1952.

  4. Why the RIAA refuses to embrace piracy by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It helps their artists (and them as well), but it also helps artists who are not uinder contract with its members.

    The RIAA has radio and empty-v to advertise its wares, as well as internet radio and P2P. Their competetion (the independants) only has internet radio and P2P. Killing internet radio and P2P is a blow against the indies, and since the RIAA has radio and empty-v, they can do without the internet. Their competetion can't.

    What they are doing is blatantly illegal, but the government is their pawn. We, the People, are defenseless.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest