Slashdot Mirror


Music Industry Thriving In an Era of File Sharing

levicivita notes ZeroPaid coverage of a recent study by the UK music industry's own economist showing that overall UK music industry revenues were up in 2008 (study, PDF). The study is titled "Adding up the Music Industry for 2008" and it was authored by Will Page, who is the Chief Economist at PRS for Music, a UK-based royalty collecting group for music writers, composers, and publishers. From ZeroPaid: "[T]he music industry is growing increasingly diverse as music fans enjoy a wide range of platforms to hear and consume music. Sales of recorded music fell 6% for example, digital was up 50% while physical dropped 10%, but concert ticket sales grew by 13%. In terms of what consumers spent on music as a whole last year, this surprisingly grew by 3%."

38 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Oh come now... We know this can't be true. by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

    The recording industry has lost [CARL-SAGAN] Billions and BILLIONS [/CARL-SAGAN] due to those Evil Content Pirates(tm)!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Oh come now... We know this can't be true. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to forget those who pirated non-evil content. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Oh come now... We know this can't be true. by Hammer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come come... You are getting confused here...
      What on earth does the recording industry have to do with the music industry ???

    3. Re:Oh come now... We know this can't be true. by davester666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And all those bastards that aren't buying all the songs on an album. Really, just buying what you like and not taking what you don't want is just stealing from hookers and coke dealers. How will they feed their families without the support of the music labels?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Just imagine... by narcc · · Score: 5, Funny

    How much greater would the reported growth be without losses due to piracy?

    I'm guessing it would be something like 3 billion percent.

    1. Re:Just imagine... by Tono_Fyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that your problem here is that you listen to bad music, rather than that CDs follow that pattern.

      I have well over 250 CDs, and I enjoy almost all of them from start to finish, and my list grows larger every month. I contend that the problem isn't with music at large, but with your devouring of what the radio shovels into you.

    2. Re:Just imagine... by Tono_Fyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, perhaps if you don't like most songs by your favorite artists, then maybe they're not your favorite artists. Or perhaps they're not worthwhile as musicians. If they can only write one or two good songs every 10 or 15, how could one call them "good" at what they do? If a chef could only make one good meal every 10, no one would call him a good chef, would they? Or a computer company that only manages one good OS every 15.

      Also, you're really overreacting, for the record.

  3. no shock by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    the number of consumers out there probably grew by more then 3%, so i'd be shocked if there wasn't an increase.

    recorded music is where the juicy profits are though, so profit wise i'm guessing they lost out.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  4. Inflation? by hoarier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The report does tell us:

    Make no mistake; the live music industry grew in 2008. More events, more bands, more tickets and importantly, higher ticket prices. Breaking it down to basic supply and demand economics, and given the scarcity embedded in its model, the live music industry is somewhere you really want to be right now.

    My emphasis.

    Perhaps the figures include all the tickets all those suckers bought for the triumphant London return of the "king of pop".

    Or maybe this year's new music isn't as boring as last year's (I pretty much gave up buying CDs when I found they were all bland and soporific).

    That's quite a report, in its gushing marketingese. I note with delight that "heritage act" has supplanted "senior citizen" as the euphemism for "old age pensioner" or "old geezer".

  5. Long story short... by KneelBeforeZod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The money flow is going the way it should. More about the artists and less about the publishers. And at better prices. To gain recognition, artists aren't required to sign away all their rights to a giant publisher anymore.

  6. What's the Cause? by brit74 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow. I guess piracy really doesn't hurt the digital content industries.

    Oh wait. Two caveats:
    (1) "Sales of recorded music fell 6%" (which means other digital industries that don't involve giving concerts shouldn't expect comparible results).
    (2) A recent (July 13, 2009) study of UK piracy says "The analyst firm published a study on Monday that showed the numbers of those who regularly file-shared had dropped by a quarter between December 2007 and January 2009. The trend was particularly pronounced among 14-18-year-olds -- at the earlier date, 42 per cent were file-sharing at least once per month but at the latter date only 26 per cent were doing so."
    Source: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2009/gb20090713_439306.htm

    1. Re:What's the Cause? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is that the kids just got smarter. You don't brag about filesharing anymore. No matter how much a study is allegedly "anonymous".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What's the Cause? by Draek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that, when illegal file-sharing dropped, so did actual sales?

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  7. Where the profit goes. by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ticket sale money doesn't line the same pockets as CD sale money (for one, the artist gets a cut).

    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    1. Re:Where the profit goes. by PerZon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you can fit a million people into a concert then you can compare figures. Its good to see artists sweat n work for their millions. Almost anyone can spend a week in front of a modern PC and bang up a reasonably audible production.

    2. Re:Where the profit goes. by monktus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The record company will not take it out of your concert/t-shirt money unless you've signed away all your revenue streams and/or soul to your label like Robbie Williams did with EMI. Generally when you sign a record deal, your advance will be recoupable (i.e. a loan against your cut of future earnings) and your recording costs may or may not be depending on your leverage and your lawyer.

      e.g. Your first record costs £$â50k to produce and both it and your 50k advance are recoupable. Your cut of record sales for the first year is 80k, therefore you don't earn any money until the next year once the money you're due reaches 100k. Recording costs in many cases are not recoupable so in that case you'd be 30k up.

      Generally record labels only own the physical recordings and right to licence them! In most cases they have no right to your earnings from mechanical royalties, sync fees (from songwriting in both cases), touring or merchandise!

      --
      Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
  8. AGAIN? by PerZon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what I remember, the same increase was seen throughout the industry when Napster was at its peak.

    The industry should be thankful for being able to reach a larger audience without having to pay the giant advertising costs!

  9. To hear the accountants tell it by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An album hasn't turned a profit in twenty years. Otherwise they would have to pay royalties to the artists, which would ruin their business model.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:To hear the accountants tell it by Hammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now would that be the same people who raised the price when the CD came "to pay off the investment"?
      When independent economists calculated the price of a CD, on the shelf in the store, being ~10 cents less than the LP. That included paying off investment in 5 years...
      Or is it the people who said that the prices would drop as soon as the market grew?
      I am still waiting for the CD market to take off so the prices will drop ;-)
      Or are we talking the guys who manage to set the price of a soundtrack CD higher than the movie DVD?

    2. Re:To hear the accountants tell it by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the cost to produce a record has gone down, not up. Recording equipment has never been cheaper, software can do the job of gear that used to cost a fortune, and CD duplication prices are a fraction of vinyl pressing costs.

      "They don't pick some random price and have a committee on it." Actually they do, that's why Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Bertelsmann's BMG Music and EMI Group, plus retailers Musicland Stores, Trans World Entertainment and Tower Records paid out a $140m+ settlement for CD price fixing.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:To hear the accountants tell it by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, then why does the movie soundtrack on CD cost more than the movie itself (soundtrack and all) on DVD?

      As for the cost of CD vs. LP, during the time period when both were released at the same time and the CD cost more to buy, it cost less to make. That's not inflation.

      There's been an explosion in audio technology that if used to full advantage should have halved the recording cost by now.

  10. Physical Media by jbfalek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interestingly it looks as though even though the physical products are not selling well people are returning or atleast partially embracing vinyl records

    From Wikipedia -

    "Figures released in the United States in early 2009 showed that sales of vinyl albums nearly doubled in 2008, with 1.88 million sold - up from just under 1 million in 2007."

    1. Re:Physical Media by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, CD's upper limit is 22khz, vinyl used a 44khz carrier to encode the rear channels of quadrophonic. The closer you get to the 22khz Nyquist limit imposed by CD's 44khz sample rate, the greater the aliasing. A 15khz tone has only three samples per trough, how can you possibly reconstruct a complex waveform with three samples?

      Plus, audible frequencies are colored by supersonic waveforms. You don't have them with CD. However, you would have to have a higher sampling rate with your digital master for the vinyl to sound better.

      Since if you mix analog with digital you get the worst of both worlds and the best of neither, the best thing would be for the music to be recorded in analog if you were going to publish it in vinyl.

      When CDs first came out they were superior to vinyl, because they had been recording digitally for a few years already, so the LPs really had none of the advantages of vinyl, while the CDs had the advantages of digital.

  11. The Money is going into the wrong pockets by defireman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The RIAA et al. is screaming about piracy not because money is not lining into pockets. The money is only being lined into the wrong pockets, and they don't like it.

    Executives only exists to protect themselves. The facts don't lie.

  12. File-sharing has dropped in the UK by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like how both the article and the Slashdot submission completely ignore that file-sharing has dropped in the UK, especially among teens. Though I know this was posted on Slashdot to give pro-pirates the idea that sales are thriving in spite of piracy, this story doesn't disprove the effect piracy has on sales--if anything, it bolsters the idea that sales go up when piracy goes down.

    1. Re:File-sharing has dropped in the UK by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know about that one.

      You're ignoring that there are better content delivery systems these days. Years ago you almost NEEDED to pirate if you wanted a digital copy (especially if you weren't a techie), these days you can buy from many online stores, DRMed or DRM free.

      I'd say you're putting the cart before the horse. Piracy has dropped because there's more choice for legal avenues. It's not that pirates have been busted therefore buy more legit downloads.

    2. Re:File-sharing has dropped in the UK by master5o1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was considering moderating you as troll or flamebait simply because it was going against the traditional slashdot ideals. Good thing I already posted above.

      --
      signature is pants
    3. Re:File-sharing has dropped in the UK by selven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot (or at least the segment you are referring to) is not trying to increase piracy, it's trying to reduce copyright, and one of the desired reductions is to make personal file sharing legal. If the artists are doing fine without the draconian laws some people are proposing then it supports the (Slashdot-approved) idea that we do not need those laws.

    4. Re:File-sharing has dropped in the UK by bemymonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to mention all the people who're finally willing to buy digital media online (legally instead of allofmp3.com or similar sites) because you can get the files in relatively high quality, and without DRM. I can't wait until the first 99ct FLAC store opens...

    5. Re:File-sharing has dropped in the UK by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) Correlation does not imply causality.

      2) Who paid for the survey? Take a look at http://www.theleadingquestion.com/ and you'll find prominent Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony and Universal logos on the front page. Do you trust them to be unbiased?

      3) Even if the survey was fair, unbiased and accurate, it cannot distinguish between people who are aware of the RIAA's tactics and are no longer willing to admit to filesharing and people who have actually stopped.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    6. Re:File-sharing has dropped in the UK by Andy_R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The RIAA labels are well aware that file sharing is free advertising and it increases sales, the reason they are against it is that it breaks the monopoly on exposure that the RIAA labels had. Being able to try before you buy via P2P allows people to discover great self-promoted and small label music without making expensive 'stab in the dark' purchases. This means that although file-sharers spend on music is higher, the amount that ends up in the pockets of the RIAA labels is lower.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    7. Re:File-sharing has dropped in the UK by NekSnappa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention the way they're raking internet radio over the coals.
      I've probably bought $50-$80 worth of music over the last 2 years that I'd have never heard of without soma.fm's Bootliquor station.

      That's a combo of physical CD's, and downloads from both Amazon, and iTunes.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
  13. Increase in profit due to price hike? by dg5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting statistic. I am all for pushing digital content out to the masses and being able to pick songs you like. I'd much rather buy a couple of songs that I like off an album and not having to fork out the bucks for the rest of the dross. It also creates competitive drive for artists and makes them dig deep into their creative juices or shell out the money for people who know how to produce stuff that sells better (whether of better quality or not).

    But it would be interesting to do a follow up statistic on how much concert ticket prices have changed with the onset of the digital file sharing. I have certainly noticed the hike in prices over the last 5 years. I am sure there will be arguments about recession being blamed for it, and I am not denying it may be true. It would just be worth a second and deeper look into the profit stratas to figure out whether it's really digital file sharing that's causing the profits to soar or if it's something else.

  14. Piracy doesn't affect the economy by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All money that's not spent on what is supposedly downloaded instead (rather than in addition to), is still there to be spent on other things. Other media, even.

    --
    We are all God's parents.
  15. Performance - not sales by DomHawken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The PRS is the '_Performing_ Rights Society'. As the article says - 'Consumers spent less on recorded music, down 6% since 2007, but concert ticket sales have grown by some 13% as the industry as whole slowly evolves and adapts to digital distribution.'. They collect royalties for performances, not physical sales of CDs, or royalties from downloads, which are collected in the main by the MCPS (Mechanical Copyright Protection Service). The music industry in terms of the main labels remains slow to adapt, and the ridiculously high percentages charged by download services like iTunes (50% for smaller labels/bands in the UK, plus another 10% to go through a broker if they refuse to deal direct) means that bands are forced to play live as the only sensible source of income.

  16. In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Chief Economist of PRS was found dead in his home, apparently of autoerotic asphyiation, with ropes tied around his neck and completely naked.

    The UK police are stumped. "We did find a card with the word 'RIAA' on it, but we decided to ignore it and call this a suicide. A sex game gone wrong." Outsiders call this a case of corporatism - the government and the corporations colluding to cover-up a murder. "It be fascism, that's what it be," said a local man who refused to identity himself.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  17. Re:Well Good by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason that the big record labels perpetuate the myth that new artists need to be 'funded' is so they can perpetuate the closed ecosystem where artists can't reach the public without signing away 90 to 100% of the profits to them. This is the real reason why the music industry are willing to make payola payments to distribute songs for free on the radio, but are fighting against the free advertising of their product by filesharing, although both forms of advertising generate sales - it's because they can monopolise the airwaves but they can't do the same with P2P. It's all about artificial barriers to entering the market.

    Apple don't lose money on iTunes, they make a HUGE profit. They take 29 cents per 99 cent song, and have sold over 6 billion songs, do the math!

    Not much variety in music? Go count the number of artists on iTunes, Mr Troll.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  18. It's not about sales, it's about control by mookiemu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I still contend that 90% of all illegal downloads comes from people who weren't going to buy the music anyway. The problem for the music industry is that piracy opens the world up to a larger variety of music. As a result, it's almost impossible for the industry to dictate the music trends. In this modern world it's much harder for the industry to ram "She Bangs, She Bangs!" down our throat. My cousin was so happy when he got a six record deal ten years ago. Then they promptly shelved him for the duration of his contract. Turns out my cousin sounded too much like their cash cow, Marc Anthony. These shenanigans happen all the time. In 1998 the record company shelved Chuck D, stating that market research showed that no one was interested in Public Enemy anymore. So he circumvented the record company by releasing the album on mp3.com and it went on to become, up to that point, the most downloaded album of all time. though he lost the battle with the record company, he was able to, thanks to digital downloads, rub egg in the face of the label execs. What the record labels are most afraid of is not piracy, it's the fact the digital era and the internet is going to render their services obsolete. Who needs a record company when you have the internet? The recording industry needs embrace piracy and re-adapt their business model to one that embraces the advantages created by piracy. As this article clearly shows, though album sales are down, concert sales are way up, and so are sales of paraphenilia. If you don't think the piracy model can't make money, then take a look at the Grateful Dead. They asked their fans to pirate their songs and to make bootleg tapes and distribute them freely. Then they went on to make a fortune on sold out concerts, t-shirts, books, magazines, etc.. They became the highest grossing act of their time! One last thing, another reason for more sales is that now you can buy your music unencumbered. That's major. DRM is terrible in that it severely inconveniences those who are trying to do the right thing. Meanwhile, the people using pirated goods have the freedom to play their music anywhere and on any machine or gadget they want to.