Slashdot Mirror


Despite Drop In Piracy, French Music Industry Still In Decline

New submitter Hentes writes "France has one of the strictest anti-piracy laws. After 17 months of operation, Hadopi has released a report, claiming that illegal P2P downloads have been reduced significantly in the country: the studies they cite measured 43% and 66% decrease in copyright infringement. But that huge amount of 'lost revenue' doesn't seem to show up in the French recording industry, as the overall recorded music market has decreased by 3.9% in 2011. Even more interesting is that digital music sales have skyrocketed in France. Could it be that it's not piracy killing the traditional recording industry but digital distribution?"

211 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Simple Answer: by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

    French music sucks.

    NEXT!

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Simple Answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh?
      Keny Arkana?
      Mc Solaar?
      Ok, maybe not your style, but you have to admit, that the French have some excellent music.

    2. Re:Simple Answer: by lightknight · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:Simple Answer: by jpapon · · Score: 2

      Wrong. Check out Phoenix. QED. NEXT!

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    4. Re:Simple Answer: by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      ...except for Daft Punk.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    5. Re:Simple Answer: by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Daft Punk?

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    6. Re:Simple Answer: by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Try Deathspell Omega. Technically speaking they're "rock, admittedly not very classic...

    7. Re:Simple Answer: by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And before that, Jean-Michel Jarre.

    8. Re:Simple Answer: by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would agree, I am french educated and I have a perfect french(more or less), and been living here in France for the last 4 years. I can't say I ever heard something worth it.
      Long live classic rock!

      Well, there you put your digit upon it .. by now we've had decades of music of many genres, forms, alloys and so forth .. more songs than have probably been written or sung in the entire history of mankind. We've even experimented with awful music, where some people have become major stars and quite rich as a result of the public's appetite for something different.

      Where I have a decent collection of classic rock, I find my interests have wandered from todays desperate offerings to music of incredible craft from the 1940's and 50's. Amazing stuff, when you can find good recordings. Even heard Edith Piaf's "La Vie en rose" from 1946 and was quite impressed with her talent.

      With digital preservation of music we've got a lot of it and interests are no doubt diverging. People will listen to whatever, once they break free of following what the crowd does.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    9. Re:Simple Answer: by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Check out Phoenix.

      QED.

      NEXT!

      Exactly what I came to say.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    10. Re:Simple Answer: by Ash-Fox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMO, France hasn't made a decent contribution to the musical world since Debussy (and some would debate that, even).

      I'm sceptical that you have heard much French music.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    11. Re:Simple Answer: by doston · · Score: 1

      French music sucks. NEXT!

      Yeah, French music is contrived, but their culture is so superior. Maybe they just don't have to throw themselves into music. Maybe they're just happy with their society and don't have enough angst to churn out the most emotive music. It takes real misery to make good music, as almost any artist's life will show you. France has a lot less misery than the US, so their music is flat...And they can just buy ours, so who cares really?

    12. Re:Simple Answer: by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I couldn't give a shit less about lyrics; my musical preference is based on what the music sounds like and how it makes me feel. In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida is practically incomprehensible lyrically, but I still dig it for the emotion it invokes.

      The only emotion Daft Punk has ever invoked in me is a powerful urge to drill out my eardrums.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Simple Answer: by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Just listened to their track 1901. I stand... confirmed.

      Bloody awful.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Simple Answer: by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      Yes. And the whole French House scene is singing... to french houses!

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    15. Re:Simple Answer: by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      IMO, France hasn't made a decent contribution to the musical world since Debussy (and some would debate that, even).

      Sir, I beg to differ.

    16. Re:Simple Answer: by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I must admit, I'm finding the seemingly never ending stream of hipsters aching for the chance to lambast my musical preference (by expounding their own) quite hilarious.

      If musical nationalism is your hot button topic, perhaps it's time to move out of mom's basement and get a life.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Simple Answer: by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

      French music sucks. NEXT!

      Yeah, French music is contrived, but their culture is so superior. Maybe they just don't have to throw themselves into music. Maybe they're just happy with their society and don't have enough angst to churn out the most emotive music. It takes real misery to make good music, as almost any artist's life will show you. France has a lot less misery than the US, so their music is flat...And they can just buy ours, so who cares really?

      See, folks?? THIS is why we can't have universal healthcare in the US: It would kill our creativity!!!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:Simple Answer: by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't say I ever heard something worth it. Long live classic rock!

      Or any music played with actual instruments, for that matter.

    19. Re:Simple Answer: by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Whenever i think of french music, i can't help but think of Cacofonix...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    20. Re:Simple Answer: by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      If you are not able to understand this language so yeah it sucks from your point of view

      How... American of you.

    21. Re:Simple Answer: by shaitand · · Score: 2

      No artist can create a true expression if he can afford the cream for his ruptured hemorrhoids. True story.

    22. Re:Simple Answer: by Kongming · · Score: 1

      Three original and talented groups from France that I found to be interesting:

      Pin-Up Went Down

      Akphaezya

      Polichinel

      --
      (no sig)
    23. Re:Simple Answer: by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I don’t know how decent that is, but for some reason I knew exactly why you begged to differ before I even clicked the link. And indeed, sir, I must concur.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    24. Re:Simple Answer: by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I guess you did not like the new Tron then......

    25. Re:Simple Answer: by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      The guy is trolling... I think Pagny is someone who people could, yeah he has talent...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNNGHMcN2mA&feature=channel

      I like Alezai, but some might her a bit popish...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    26. Re:Simple Answer: by doston · · Score: 1

      French music sucks. NEXT!

      Yeah, French music is contrived, but their culture is so superior. Maybe they just don't have to throw themselves into music. Maybe they're just happy with their society and don't have enough angst to churn out the most emotive music. It takes real misery to make good music, as almost any artist's life will show you. France has a lot less misery than the US, so their music is flat...And they can just buy ours, so who cares really?

      See, folks?? THIS is why we can't have universal healthcare in the US: It would kill our creativity!!!

      It's why we can't have all manner of nice things. It's not the greed that stops conservatives voting for universal healthcare, it's that they know the beat here is so right.

    27. Re:Simple Answer: by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Checked out the link... are you sure it's the music you're trying to promote here? Nudge nudge wink wink.

      I'll concede that the beat was fairly catchy, and I bet it sounds better in pretty much any format other than a Youtube video; however, I don't think a single track from a single artist represents the musical talents of a nation as a whole.


      Regardless... well played.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    28. Re:Simple Answer: by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to find out when Motley Crue became 'classic rock'.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    29. Re:Simple Answer: by jedwidz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another good French band:

      Air (French band)

    30. Re:Simple Answer: by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      As an aside, 3:24 from your video is wheretWorld of Warcraft's Night Elf /dance emote comes from. Compare here

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    31. Re:Simple Answer: by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Motley Crue? Dude, Alice in Chains is played on the local "classic rock" station with Soundgarden. If you have a neckbeard, I'm guessing it is going grey.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    32. Re:Simple Answer: by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Halestorm is fucking awesome yet extreme lack of angst in their personal lives.

    33. Re:Simple Answer: by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I also like Desireless or Vanessa Paradis. Can't say I remember anything more recent however. Today I mostly listen to J-Pop, used to be Dance, before that it was Heavy Metal, Rock, or Ballads. Then there is classical, uh... Cannot remember any of those being French however. I was mostly surprised at the number of German singers who got popular in the last couple of decades than anything else. I mean BELGIUM has more and better music than the whole of France for crissakes.

    34. Re:Simple Answer: by KlomDark · · Score: 2

      But he did do the New Tron Dance...

      /// Obscure?

    35. Re:Simple Answer: by Genda · · Score: 1

      Oxygene and Equinoxe, Tres Magnifique!

    36. Re:Simple Answer: by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      Video is blocked for me. How deliciously ironic...

    37. Re:Simple Answer: by qwak23 · · Score: 1

      I don't know... I think even the worst J-pop and K-pop is much better than that.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2EQm6WPMHs&feature=related

      sure it's poppy as hell, but the music has a bit more depth and a much more solid hook.

    38. Re:Simple Answer: by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

      Or any music played with actual instruments, for that matter.

      Did you even bother to look?

      Exhibit 1 - Paris Combo

      Exhibit 2 - Nouvelle Vague

    39. Re:Simple Answer: by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Hate to threadjack ... but the summary makes it sound like the laws didn't work.

      Isn't the real story that P2P usage has declined and digital music sales in France have skyrocketed since the laws were passed?

      Back on topic: Jarre FTW!

      --
      No sig today...
    40. Re:Simple Answer: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In my experience, with both French and Spanish music, not being able to understand the lyrics tends to improve it...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    41. Re:Simple Answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or Justice, or Gojira, and many others.

    42. Re:Simple Answer: by rioki · · Score: 1

      And THAT is the problem... There is NOTHING worthwhile that is also mainstream. You know; in some places of the world, there is stuff that is mainstream and you can listen to it...

    43. Re:Simple Answer: by rioki · · Score: 1

      Can you name music, that was published it the aforementioned time frame? You know, stuff where the people who like the music don't yet own each and every CD from the artist...

    44. Re:Simple Answer: by rioki · · Score: 1

      Yea right like you all understood "99 Luftballons"... (Yes I know that is it German, but that is not the point.) Oh, yea how come the rest of the wold has no problem to listen (and badly sing) English music? What ever, you probably heard Daft Punk and did not know it. (At least if you saw Ton Legacy...) Most (if not all) Music from them is either English or no lyrics at all.

    45. Re:Simple Answer: by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're just happy with their society and don't have enough angst to churn out the most emotive music.

      https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=france+riots

      But lots of good music is about getting laid, err love, so your point is moot anyways.

    46. Re:Simple Answer: by doston · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're just happy with their society and don't have enough angst to churn out the most emotive music.

      https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=france+riots

      But lots of good music is about getting laid, err love, so your point is moot anyways.

      Eh it wasn't the most serious point I ever had anyway.

    47. Re:Simple Answer: by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I kinda figured, but it can be hard to tell on the Internetz.

    48. Re:Simple Answer: by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      If you're watching it for the music, you're doing it wrong. d=

    49. Re:Simple Answer: by Capitaine · · Score: 1

      Actually, the "Hadopi" only monitors P2P trackers. Most French now use DDL. If you look at their hadopi's graphs, you'll see that sales skyrocketed since Megaupload seizure. Just wait a year and you'll see that MU old competitors will just have taken its market shares.
      For the topic, you may know Gojira.

    50. Re:Simple Answer: by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose there's no accounting for taste.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    51. Re:Simple Answer: by hi-endian · · Score: 1

      ...I am french educated and I have a perfect french(more or less), and been living here in France for the last 4 years...

      .. And yet you're still an idiot. Daft Punk? Justice? David Guetta? NTM? Lesser known: Para One? SebastiAn, Surkin? Sebastien Tellier? Thomas Bangalter (of Daft Punk)? Sébastien Tellier? Laurent Garnier? Kavinsky? M. Oizo? Cassius? Older: Cerrone? Jean-Michel Jarre? etc Popular, but I hate them: Phoenix? I am also French educated, am fluent in French; I live in the US, yet I still know more about French music than you do. And yes, I know about the various French pop musical disasters such as Johnny Hallyday, Renaud, etc. This list definitely has a heavy electronic/dance emphasis, so if you don't like that kind of music, you're probably not going to be into this. That said, if you have narrow taste in music, that doesn't mean there isn't good music out there.

    52. Re:Simple Answer: by qwak23 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm confused, but I thought "music" referred to a sequence of images? ;)

  2. Podcasts killed the industry by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course it's the digitable distribution model that is killing traditional music sales. Every week, I get 10 hours of free music in the form of podcasts from my favorite DJs. Why would I go out and pay for music when I can legally get it for free? And the DJs rake in their big bucks not from CD sales, but from their world tours.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...digitable distribution model that is killing traditional music sales.

      The industry shouldn't exist today period. There is no 'killing', it is dead, and the music executives are corpse camping.

      Why do we make art? It's not for money. It's not for social prestige. We make art as an act of self expression and as a way of passing the time when we're not engaged in activities necessary for our own survival. Art has no survival value -- and yet it has persisted since before recorded history. Cave paintings and such, jewelry, etc.

      The recording industry couldn't exist until it was possible to capture audiovisual events. When the technology was first invented, it was expensive to record, duplicate, and distribute it so that people could observe the art of others. Music didn't start with the invention of the phonograph, anymore than acting started with the invention of motion picture.

      But what has happened is that the technology has gotten cheaper, and cheaper, to the point where audio-visual recording equipment only costs a few dollars and reproducing those recordings costs nothing. The industry's raisin de etre is gone.

      The advent of digital technology is what killed the recording industry -- they are no more relevant today than horse shoe manufacturers. The only reason they still exist is because they are sitting on massive piles of cash garnered because the technology decreased the business cost, and they pocketed the difference; They can afford to spend millions, even billions, convincing countries worldwide to rewrite their laws to create artificial markets and monopolies under the guise that if their industry disappears, the art will too.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by s0nicfreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Horse shoe manufacturers are still pretty relevant. It's just that we now use horses more as pets and luxury items than as tools. Horse shoe manufacturers evolved to meet current customer desire. The recording industry did not, and that is their problem.

    3. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Art has no survival value -- and yet it has persisted since before recorded history. Cave paintings and such, jewelry, etc.

      Art in the form of cave paintings can be seen as a form of record keeping directly related to major events and hunting rituals, that would seem to have a relevance to survival.

      Jewelery can be seen as both a method of making yourself seem more physically attractive increasing the chance of sexual success and as a method of storing and displaying wealth which would also seem to have survival element for a animal which lives in such large, reasonably mobile social groups.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    4. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by rve · · Score: 1

      Why do we make art? It's not for money. It's not for social prestige. We make art as an act of self expression and as a way of passing the time when we're not engaged in activities necessary for our own survival.

      Speak for yourself. Self expression and artistic merit are just a means to an end. The end being prestige, money and girls. Sometimes the 'self expression' thing is the best way to achieve that (maybe you're not terribly charismatic or skilled), and sometimes the artistic angle is the way to get there (maybe you like college girls with glasses) but only in so far as they get the job done.

    5. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by billcopc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This.

      Big music is in decline because local, unsigned bands are enjoying a surge in popularity. This isn't specifically a French thing, it's happening all over. A lot of young adults and wise teens are fed up with the current state of commercial music and are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Bands themselves often prefer to DIY, many feel the big label's distribution network no longer justifies the loss of freedom and control over their own work, not when the internet is right there and all their fans are on Facebook, MySpace, Reverbnation, SoundCloud and it's all free.

      Perhaps the French are being hit harder as the result of public backlash against the harsh laws, but I'd bet they're going out more to see live acts, playing music that is actually made for enjoyment rather than profit. Big Music has lost its advantage over the everyman, they have little to offer that can't be bootstrapped with the take from a few gigs at local bars.

      The big gap now is in studio recording. This is where the indies have some catching up to do. I work a lot with local bands and my biggest beef is that their recordings are poorly mixed. A lot of indie studios out there are shitting all over their clients' work. They boast impressive gear which lures people in the door, but lack the experience and critical ear to use that gear to its full potential.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    6. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by lennier · · Score: 2

      Art has no survival value

      The more I learn about wildlife (ie, the more episodes of BBC documentaries narrated by David Attenborough I watch), the less I'm convinced that this is true. Art - storytelling - is among other things a way of passing on learned survival knowledge, and many animal species seem to have some form of non-genetic information transfer. And as we all know from history, manipulation of society's stories can lead to huge changes in behaviour.

      So I think we should be more worried about the commercialisation of art, rather than less, if it turns out that art actually teaches us useful ideas. Because it can also teach us harmful ideas, and if the people in charge of our art don't have our collective survival as their aim, they could be seriously degrading our cultural survival-knowledge well.

      The industry's raisin de etre is gone.

      Yes, but they're coming back again

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    7. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the horse shoe market also shrank massively. The idea of the market shrinking is not compatible with the greed and sense of self importance the recording industry has.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      I think it's more DIY than "fed up with the state of music". The Internet has done a lot more than make it really easy to pirate music at a large scale. It's also made it really easy to produce and publish your own music and create your own "brand" without ever dealing with a corporation that's selective, expensive, and difficult to work with. It's also made it really easy to discover, discuss, and promote bands through this whole "social media" thing.

    9. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by NIN1385 · · Score: 1

      Perfectly said. I wish the mod points went higher than 5 for your post alone.

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    10. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He means mankind. Mankind created music before the recording industry and will do so after. Those who are only in it for the money make shit commercialized crap music with no soul anyway.

      People signing with labels is just evidence that people will take money (regardless of whether they would have created music without it or not) when offered and that the recording industry owns lots and lots of monopoly and political power. For instance, here in the US if you want to stream your own music via online radio you have to pay per play royalties to the big studios... who have no claim on said music.

      The reason the music industry fights file sharing so hard isn't because it costs them money, its because it erodes their control of distribution.

    11. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by shaitand · · Score: 1

      People who love music are going to make music regardless. Yes they usually take artist stance to get laid, but that's the reason anyone takes up any stance. People can and do make music every day knowing they have no real chance of becoming a rockstar or seeing rockstar cash and they will continue to do so if there is no recording industry.

    12. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "without ever dealing with a corporation that's selective, expensive, and difficult to work with"

      Feeling the traditional recording entities are selective, expensive, and difficult to work with is probably what he meant by "fed up with the state of music" most people still think of the state of music via the recording dinosaurs as "the state of music."

      The whole social media and file sharing thing is the real reason the recording industry fights piracy so hard. They don't want to lose control of distribution.

    13. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Why do we make art? It's not for money."

      Wow, just wow, you basically just precluded the idea of someone creating art for money. What horse shit. As a person who has worked in the arts and tried to make a living let me just say it's bad enough without this attitude. I don't know what your chosen vocation is but imagine if someone said the same of your vocation.

      Take for example IT. Why do we do IT? It's not for money." both are monumentally dumb statements.

    14. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Art in the form of cave paintings can be seen as a form of record keeping directly related to major events and hunting rituals, that would seem to have a relevance to survival.

      And they did it instead of hunting, eating, reproducing, etc.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    15. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ here... Did it really shrink that much? I am talking absolute terms, not relative terms. In relative terms absolutely it shrank on a massive scale, but I wonder on an absolute scale????

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    16. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can reduce art to storytelling. I mean, what story is Piet Mondrian's Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red telling?

    17. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by icebraining · · Score: 2

      I think there's a difference between making art for the purpose of amassing money, and requiring money in order to do art.

    18. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, horses are still in demand to work on ranches in the Southwest. A lot of places out there are still pretty much inaccessible except on foot or on horseback, if you don't have a helicopter.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    19. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Easy there, Yerbooty, there are plenty of people writing code not for money. They arguably do a better job than the people who *are* in it for the money. Not everyone is motivated solely by money, no matter what the field.

    20. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      'You need your eyes checked'?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    21. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that's a problem from the creator's side. It's not really a problem from the consumer's side.

    22. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Sique · · Score: 2

      We do IT because it increases our productivity. IT is not an means to itself. IT is a tool. Don't mix up tool making with doing art!
      There are art forms, that are tools too, like design or typography. Also music can be a tool, like the elevator muzak or the music in commercials. But this art is not a means to itself.

      But l'art pour l'art is something different.

      I do IT for a living. I am a toolmaker. I expect the guys who buy my tools to make heavy use of it, and I don't expect them to pay me everytime they use it. There is no "hitting license" attached to a hammer. There is no counter in the screwdriver for the number of times it was turned. There is no regio coding for the wrench. There is no money flow to me everytime someone hits the servers I am maintaining and there is no license attached to the configuration files I wrote. If the customer decides to modify the switch setup I did for him, I don't get asked for a permission to create a derivate work.

      I do art as a leisure. I like doing art. I don't do it for the money. Art is no tool I create. Art is a means to itself.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    23. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Isn't that why Boston Dynamics made Big Dog?

    24. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

      Well, they may be selling less shoes, but now in addition they sell things like hair accessories, fancy jackets and hats for horses, and expensive, supposedly pretty riding skirts for riders, etc. etc.

    25. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      Why do we make art? It's not for money. It's not for social prestige. We make art as an act of self expression and as a way of passing the time when we're not engaged in activities necessary for our own survival. Art has no survival value -- and yet it has persisted since before recorded history. Cave paintings and such, jewelry, etc.

      I have to disagree on that. Art as an act of self expression is a very modern viewpoint, not older than 100 years or so. For the vast majority of human history, art has served communication purposes: propaganda, tribal affiliation, status symbols, etc. Artists were artisans, producing objects and paintings of value commissioned or bought for all sorts of reasons. Most western classical paintings are religious propaganda, bought and paid for by the Church, also portraits of rulers and important business people, and historical accounts of important battles etc. This goes all the way back to ancient Egypt, and includes sculptures, illustrations on pots, etc.

      Does art as a communication medium have survival value? Obviously not on an individual level, however when viewed at the level of large human groupings and civilisations, I'd say it's a vital part of enforcing social cohesion, just like language.

    26. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Nikker · · Score: 2

      It's kind of ironic but I believe very strongly that the music industry will eventually spend all of their money in hopes to remain relevant. Quite a fitting end. I will have to remember this post in 5 or so years when it really starts to happen.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    27. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I'll break it down for you. To aquire large amounts of money means taking it from others. Narrowing down the group the earns money to just a few sponsored and milk dry by publishers. So home the crap idea driven again and again and again, that only the few 'special' people controlled by publishers can create art.

      Well bugnuts, that idea is bullshit, anyone can create art, and what people are really starting recognised is the 'special' art created by 'special' people, was all just bullshit driven by mass media marketing and corporate greed driven control of the public mind scape. Some of the shitiest music made by the shitiest drunken drugged up minstrels, made the top seller list just because of warped psychologically manipulative advertising targeted at children by some of sickest doctorates in psychology.

      Art for arts suck, suck it up fucknuckle eventually you will have to get used to it and as for publishers bankruptcy and a dark stain in history is their future.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The industry shouldn't exist today period. There is no 'killing', it is dead, and the music executives are corpse camping.

      Why do we make art? It's not for money.

      So only independent people should make music? All music must be distributed by the band itself? A lot of people make art so they can make money for food and shelter. Those people don't necessarily have the desire, time, or knowledge to also market and distribute their art. And that is where this "industry that shouldn't exist" comes into play.

    29. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by dargaud · · Score: 1

      For me the nail in the coffin was when 15 or so years ago they passed a law forcing radios to broadcast at least 70% of french music. Oh the crap that I heard, you wouldn't believe. Before that there were plenty of interesting bands. After that I gave up entirely.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    30. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by cbope · · Score: 1

      Well, my only comment is that you are most likely listening to crap music if the artists are only in it for prestige, money and girls.

      You know, some people actually DO love music, including many musicians and bands. Sure, there are the obvious ones that are in it for the money/girls/drugs/etc. Don't support these bands, unless you buy into cheap thrills with no lasting artistic value (I don't). Real music made by real musicians has lasting value and most are not in it for the prestige, money or "girls" as you put it. Music *is* the end.

    31. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 1

      Considering that the main reason for moving to steam-powered, and later gasoline powered, transportation was the huge horse shit problem in major cities... And in WWI Britain alone lost 600k horses.

      I'd say yes, the market shrank quite a lot unless those were all bare-hoofed.

    32. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      I honestly can't tell whether you are agreeing with me, or disagreeing.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    33. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by sjames · · Score: 1

      I would guess that in most areas it shrank in absolute terms as well. Just how many are needed in NYC? Not zero, but not enough to support even a million people either.

    34. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it means the best artists are moving to an alternate distribution as soon as they can, it will tend to reduce the quality on offer from the traditional players.

    35. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by RivenAleem · · Score: 1
    36. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by pantaril · · Score: 1

      The reason the music industry fights file sharing so hard isn't because it costs them money, its because it erodes their control of distribution.

      Too bad i don't have any mod points left. This statement is head on.

    37. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's right. That's not fed up with the state of commercial music, that's going where the music is. The music is going (away from big labels) because of decisions on the part of the creators.

    38. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by u38cg · · Score: 1

      No data to hand, but I suspect not that much. Generally speaking, it was normal for horses to go unshod or to be shod by farm workers (the farm steading I grew up on, a typical Scottih 'ferm toun', had its own forge). Professional farriers would only shoe problem cases and quality horses. It's still the norm in many parts of the world to do your own shoing.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    39. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      Art as an act of self expression is a very modern viewpoint, not older than 100 years or so.

      Seriously? So you don't think people didn't whittled sticks into the shape of animals,wrote songs, stories, and poems about things that happen in their lives, or draw pictures of their surroundings when it was too dark, or wet to work the feilds until sometime after the civil war?

      It's called folk art, and has been around for a long time. There are people in all walks of life who do not have a patron paying them to prepare works that the patron wants who paint, draw, write, and sculpt for no other reason that to amuse and occupy themselves when all of the other things they have to do are done.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    40. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      When the recording industry was first getting started it was sheet music publishers that got all up in arms over the new "disruptive" technology that was eating into their sales. However they seemed to have adaptive fairly well over the last hundred years or so.

      The recording industry will survive. Just not at the levels they once did. Lather, rinse, repeat for the next major shift.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    41. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Self expression and artistic merit are just a means to an end

      Absolutely wrong. If its only purpose is money, prestige, etc. it isn't art. Creative people can no more not create than heroin addicts can stop shooting up. Why else do I write sci-fi and post it to slashdot with no thought of renumeration whatever? Yeah, maybe they'll be printed some time and may sell, but I'm not holding my breath. Why do I play guitar, and never with an audience? Why did Van Gogh continue painting even though he couldn't sell any of his paintings?

    42. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Man, I wish you'd get an account. Your comment was insightful, but few will see it sitting at zero. So I'll just agree: Not everyone is motivated solely by money. In fact most people aren't motivated solely by money, and I personally find the "free equals worthless" attitude disgusting.

      Art made for money is seldom art. At best, it's simply artifacts. Perhaps clever and skillful, but not art.

      When I started programming back in the eighties it was, in fact, with an eye to money. But I kept doing it after failing to monetize my skill, because I simply enjoyed doing it.

      If you do it for the love of money you're not going to care about the work, just the end result of the work (money). Your work will NOT be as good as someone who does it for the love of doing it.

      Do you really think Torvalds started Linux for the money? Or Stallman started GNU for the money? Van Gogh never made any money, but the hacks whose works hung in expensive galleries in his day are forgotten today. Cher and the Backstreet Boys will be forgotten tomorrow.

      Know why the GP's "art" wasn't sucessful? It wasn't art. Without love there is no beauty, without beauty there is no art. And yes, dogshit can be beautiful if the light hits it right or it's rendered lovingly.

    43. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If you're going to be in business you have to cover all the details. The fact is that the RIAA labels are horrible at marketing. The last figures I saw (in an antipiracy screed) said there are 25 failures for every sucessful work.

      I know guys who have been offered RIAA contracts. They all told the labels to go fuck themselves after reading the contracts. "Breakage" of an electronic file? Only a moron would sign something like that.

      The labels are not needed anymore, not by the musicians and not by the listeners. Just as the auto made buggy whip makers obsolete, the internet and cheap equipment make the record industry obsolete.

    44. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ here... Did it really shrink that much? I am talking absolute terms, not relative terms. In relative terms absolutely it shrank on a massive scale, but I wonder on an absolute scale????

      You are arguing against a position without even knowing whether or not you are wrong?

      (PS: you are wrong).

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    45. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Why do we make art? It's not for money. It's not for social prestige. We make art as an act of self expression and as a way of passing the time when we're not engaged in activities necessary for our own survival.

      Self-expression is perhaps the purest form of art, but to whom are artists expressing? Themselves only? The vast majority of artists want the affirmation of having their expression validated by others, and the more the better. This is basically social prestige, and why they chase major labels. They also have other, less lofty motivations in life (like everyone), and so they also chase money, sex and so on. Generally these come later when they realise they can leverage their social prestige.

      Art has no survival value -- and yet it has persisted since before recorded history. Cave paintings and such, jewelry, etc.

      Art has plenty of survival value, it's just higher order, like philosophy. It leads us to examine ourselves and create better communities.

    46. Re:Podcasts killed the industry by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Same here in Canada, where the CRTC, our supposed media regulator, forces a certain amount of "Canadian Content". The idea is cute, but it's still protectionism at its worst. I'd rather play good foreign music than Nickelback, Celine Dion and Douchemau5. Don't get me wrong, we have many solid bands, but they are all gathered in a few narrow genres. If you're trying to put together an electronic music radio show, things get complicated and if you want to abide by the law, you have to put in a lot of Canadian filler to meet your quota and renew that stupid license.

      The internet, by definition, is global. If I want to play goddamned Sitar music from southeast asia, no seat-warming big music shill can tell me not to, and ultimately that's what the CRTC has become: a bunch of ex-media executives backhanding favours to their cronies. The entire system is corrupt from top to bottom, which has resulted in a lot of still-authentic artists avoiding it altogether.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  3. Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or maybe it's simply crappy music that's killing the traditional recording industry.

    1. Re:Or maybe... by danomac · · Score: 1

      I'll add to that: apparently if people can't get the crappy music for free they won't pay for it. Who would've thought...

      Those execs are probably going "What the hell happened??" right about now.

    2. Re:Or maybe... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Why wasn't the traditional recording industry killed many decades ago then?"

      The music didn't used to be all shit. The music of the 50's, 60's, and 70's was damn good. The 80's was in decline but still had quite a bit of quality music. The 90's was in serious decline with pretty much all the good music produced by bands that became popular in those previous decades. It's only gotten worse from there.

      Rap, Gangsta, and Hip-hop are all expression of commercialization. There aren't many examples of real music hidden in these genre. If there is any depth its just tossed in there to appeal to kids who want to pretend there is depth to their lifestyle. Most of it lacks even that, its just some random computer tuned vocals on top of some sort of beat that you can dance to.

    3. Re:Or maybe... by Formalin · · Score: 1

      There was plenty of awful music then, too. (maybe not .9999 like now, but close).

      "Rosy retrospection": forgetting the mildly suck and remembering the good, thinking it was all good.

    4. Re:Or maybe... by Lotana · · Score: 1

      While I do share your sentiment (I also do not like the synthetic "music" of the present and pine for the music of the good-old-day), I believe this is caused by us just simply getting old.

      Recall our parents when the Rock-And-Roll was all the rage. They were saying similar things about the new trends to be degenerative, etc. I guess it is now our turn to scoff at this generation's style.

    5. Re:Or maybe... by Burning1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crappy music is nothing new. Sift through the top hits for any decade you didn't grow up in, if you don't believe me.

    6. Re:Or maybe... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No. Just no. As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s I can tell you, there was a DAMN LOT of music that just plain sucked. And don't get me started on 70s Glam Rock.

      The reason why it feels like music has been better in the good ol' days is simply that you don't remember any of the crap. You also don't get to hear it anymore. You only get the classics, the gems, the shiny pieces of gold between all the dirt, that's what remains today of those wonderful times of good music. You only hear the "good" stuff anymore, you will never hear again what other crap we had to endure during those times.

      You think bubblegum teenie pop is a new thing? It's been here since the 60s.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Or maybe... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The music of the 50's, 60's, and 70's was damn good. The 80's was in decline but still had quite a bit of quality music.

      60s: "I fought the law and the law won" -- yeah, real quality there... quality PROPAGANDA.

      The seventies... Jesus but disco SUCKED BADLY. The only reason people listened to that dreck was the drugs.

      The eighties... empty-v killed rock and roll. Far better than the seventies.

      The nineties had some good music, too. And lest you think I'm some kid, I was born in 1952. There has always been good music, and there has always been bad music. Most everything you ever heard on pop radio, in any decade, was crap. In the sixties Jimi Hendrix didn't get airplay, but you heard The Archies every half hour. Quality, my old ass.

      It isn't that the RIAA music sucks worse than it ever did, it's that independants are making music for music's sake and people are buying it instead of the RIAA crap. Back in the previous decades there were no indies. The RIAA hates P2P because the indies can use it to eat the RIAA's lunch.

    8. Re:Or maybe... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I wasn't alive during the 50's, 60's, and 70's and I was under 10 when 1990 hit. My teens were during the 90's. If anything my taste for 90's music should be starting to get dated.

      There is still good new music coming out. Even in the genre's I mentioned as having less quality music. It's the signal-to-noise ratio that has dropped.

  4. Missing from the Reporting by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reporting on this issue has been pretty crappy.

    What I want to see:

    1) Rates of sales decline for the previous couple of years
    2) Rates of sales decline for neighboring countries or otherwise similar markets

    Without information like that, we can't even begin to have a meaningful discussion as to whether or not HADOPI is "working" or not. So far its all just been hand-waving over half of an equation.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Missing from the Reporting by openfrog · · Score: 1

      Right on! and then, those numbers might be quite difficult to get, I mean, numbers we could accept as accurate. The recording industry, just like the film industry, is addicted to creative accounting (thus the name "Hollywood accounting", and for the same reasons.

    2. Re:Missing from the Reporting by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      The 'wildcat' oil men used to call it 'poormouthing'. You could never get a straight answer from them on the subject 'How much oil, really, do you have onhand?' The numbers they gave might have been way higher than it was, or way less than what it was, but for sure it wasn't what they said it was. Same thing with any 'industry' numbers, whether music or movie. They're going to give you the numbers they think will show them in the best light for that particular situation.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  5. Oh Jeeze! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    The industry died over 30 years ago with the VCR

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. I hope they don't find the site I pirate music on by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's called Youtube

  7. P2P is so 1999 by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come to my house. Bring a few bottles of wine and a blank hard drive. You will leave with more music than you can listen to in decades. Heck - a decent sized thumb drive can provide months of musical amusement. Online is dead. Offline is the future. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with terabyte hard drives...

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:P2P is so 1999 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You just made my day, friend.

      Viva La Revolucion! Viva La Sneakernet!!!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:P2P is so 1999 by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Plenty of schools, colleges and workplaces have a Nigel somewhere who will happily exchange data.

    3. Re:P2P is so 1999 by petman · · Score: 1

      What a nigel?

    4. Re:P2P is so 1999 by Namarrgon · · Score: 2

      I dunno; my station wagon filled with 32GB microSD cards has 73x more bandwidth.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    5. Re:P2P is so 1999 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same that a Johnson was in my time, I guess.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:P2P is so 1999 by shvytejimas · · Score: 2

      Heh, bootlegging, reminds me of this comic strip: Anime is the new crack

    7. Re:P2P is so 1999 by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      I think it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-off_Nigel

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    8. Re:P2P is so 1999 by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I think you may be kidding, but even if you are, you're right: they can clamp down on online file sharing all they want, and people will just go back to using SneakerNet.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    9. Re:P2P is so 1999 by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Pfft, houses have hardly any bandwidth at all!

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  8. Put the Genie back in the bottle? by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know that France had laws to push French content, so I can see a shift to digital distribution would undermine local content laws and hit French artist that way.

    But I would guess that young people are just not used to paying for music. I mean, more young people, if they were to buy music, would do it online. But a lot of them just won’t.

    Which makes the summary off. Who cares if there is a large percentage increase in digital music - from a low base. That just means people who are buying music are switching for one format to another. Maybe buying a top single track is more cost efficient than buying an album? That goes too for the monthly subscription / rental model. (For a bad analogy, after I got Netflix my movie going dropped, so my total dollars spent on “movies” dropped.)

    1. Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? by rhysweatherley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But I would guess that young people are just not used to paying for music.

      Heck, OLD people are not used to paying for music. I've had access to thousands of songs for near zero cost my entire life. It's called a radio. And I've probably spent a few hundred dollars total my entire life on products advertised on the radio, of which only a tiny fraction in the millicents range made it to the artists that created all that music. I have a few CD's, but nothing close to the amount I've consumed via radio over the years while paying peanuts. Music has always been cheap, and the record industry has always tried to invent ways to pretend that it isn't. There may be a future in creating custom listening mixes and radio-like streams. But $0.99 per song? Get real. It would be a rip-off at $0.01 per song.

    2. Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      But I would guess that young people are just not used to paying for music.

      I'm not sure young people were ever used to paying for music. Way back when I was a young kid, you recorded it off the radio.

    3. Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Historically speaking, paying for music was common for rich people, though. There were always minstrels in castles, paid with money or otherwise. And musical performances in theatres were for pay, too.

      I suspect that the big boost in music spending had more to do with the relative affluence of the 60s generation, and their kids in the 80s.

    4. Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? by sjames · · Score: 1

      At $0.99/track, it costs as much as a physical CD that they have to manufacture, package, keep inventory on, and physically truck to the store. What's their excuse for that?

    5. Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Probably the same they had for the jacked up prices of CDs compared to records. A new medium, we gotta recover the investments, higher production costs for better quality, and it will all soon get much cheaper.

      30 years and still waiting for that last part.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Why the qualifier "young"?

      People were never really used to paying for music. Talking to my parents about their music listening habits it becomes crystal clear that we're the first generation that actually spent quite a bit of money on music, with "we" being the 80s/90s generation. My parents listened to radio, and if one of them, once in a blue moon, actually bought a record, it went the circle of friends who all listened to it as long as they wanted and the few "rich ones" who actually had access to magnetic tape or the like made copies.

      Martin, a comment up, has it dead on: Paying for music was a relatively short lived phenomenon, wedged in between the lack of money in the pockets of kids 'til the 80s and the advent of the internet and the easy access to alternatives of the 90s.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Confused by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    How could digital distribution kill the recording industry when they would still be getting all the profits from digitally distributed music?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Confused by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Presumably TFA is referring to the fact that the de-facto bundling of physical distribution($15-$20 for 1 CD worth vs. $1/track) is much harder to push for digital product. The 'chart topper + 14 tracks filler' is now worth ~$1, rather than ~$15...

    2. Re:Confused by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't get it. Skyrocketing digital sales would seem to imply the law is working, as people get their music legally to avoid running afoul of the law.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    3. Re:Confused by robot256 · · Score: 1

      If your ship is sinking, throwing cargo overboard won't make that hole in the bottom stop leaking. The anti-piracy law was never the solution to the problem they actually have, which is the replacement of CDs with digital distribution (monetized or not).

    4. Re:Confused by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily, those people now buying digitally may have previously acquired music from p2p, but they might also have previously bought it on cd...

      A lot of people who used p2p did so because they could not afford to buy music... They still can't afford to buy it, but also cannot run the risk of losing their internet access so they just do without. I know several people who fall into this category.

      Many people cannot afford to buy much music, but will buy some... The lack of p2p takes away an avenue by which they could try new bands. I certainly wouldn't spend money on something i wasn't sure was going to be any good.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Confused by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but people can and do actually listen to the fillers, realize they're fillers, and refuse to buy them.

      The ability to get the chart breaker without fillers is no new phenomenon. What's new is that you don't go into the record store, see the chartbreaker on the 45 record, notice that it's price is about half that of the album and ponder "Hmm... for just twice the money I get 10 more songs, at least one of them's gotta be good enough to warrant it".

      What IS new is that you can get the hit single for a buck.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Confused by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Before I sign that I want to see the digital sales outside of France. If they skyrocketed too (I have no current statistics about digital sales, but if the past years are any indicator, they probably have), the law had nothing to do with it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. doesn't it? by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But that huge amount of 'lost revenue' doesn't seem to show up in the French recording industry,

    But it does. Right there in the decline. Check with a hundred of your closest friends if the following sentence is true: "The more exposure to new music I have, the more likely I am to go and buy some."

    Music isn't like food. You don't notice its absence much. If you go without your iPod for a month, you're not going to miss it all that much after the initial adaptation is over.

    If you reduce the amount of music that people have available, you reduce the demand for music.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:doesn't it? by jsepeta · · Score: 2

      Economists at Stanford demonstrated that other variables were responsible for 80% of the music sales downturn at the height of Napster.
      http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/379

      And it was found that Napster users bought more music, because they were exposed to more music.
      http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-243463.html

      Nobody ever blames Clear Channel's tight control over US airwaves, and their limited playlists, as being a major factor in restricting new music to the buying public, but it is. And what about concert tickets rising from $10 in the 1980's to $100-$200 in the 2010's? We have LESS disposable income now than ever before. Music is mostly listened to incidentally.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  11. Re:I hope they don't find the site I pirate music by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They already have. Many, many videos are blocked here in Germany because the GEMA or SME or whatever other crappy music-mafia content parasite organisation wants to be paid for every view.

    And it's not just music videos, including official band channels. It's also videos where you hear a song in the background.

    They probably held a brainstorming session on how to make the general public pissed off most efficiently as an April Fool's prank and then nobody noticed that the notes were found by a secretary and sent down the chain of command to be actually implemented. It's the only rational explanation I have.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  12. Re:I surrender! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Where can I get that new Obamarama record?

    The French are selling them at the Obama Beach in Normandy.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  13. Ouch.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sarkozy is going to be sleeping on the couch for a week at this rate.

    1. Re:Ouch.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not nice to kick a poodle when he's already on the floor.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Ouch.. by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      If the poodles are Sarkozy or Blair you can make an exception.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  14. simples by usuddy · · Score: 2

    This is simple to understand, the majority of torrent users would not buy the music if torrents werent around anyway, they download stuff freely to try stuff and often delete it. The music industry has changed, its not enough now just to sell music, its about getting embedded into the current cultural trend and doing tours! Artists need to work for their money now by travelling and giving a deeper experience to the fans! its as simple as that!

  15. ZOMG! by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean the RIAA was LYING to us?

    I just cant believe that!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:ZOMG! by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      stupid "underated" button right next to "funny". Posting to undue accidental mod.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  16. Interesting by systematical · · Score: 5, Funny

    You could almost say the French music industry is...retreating.

    1. Re:Interesting by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could almost say the French music industry is...retreating.

      Lame. But also misguided in the same way that a lot of comments on this story have been. You seem to assume that this is sales of French music and not sales of all music in France, which is the actual topic. It's actually more apt of a metaphor to say that the French are driving the music industry out of their nation.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:Interesting by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like they did in Indochine!

    3. Re:Interesting by grahamm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like they did in Indochine!

      I must admit that I have not listened to anything by (the French band) Indochine for quite some time.

    4. Re:Interesting by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Please! It is "advancing in a new direction" and "preparing for negotiations".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Interesting by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      No, but our politicians and media are experts at that.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  17. Re:I hope they don't find the site I pirate music by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    I only use youtube to "pirate" Japanese music videos, because I have no legal way to view them. Amazon has been getting more and more mp3s of stuff I want to listen to, and once that started I began buying them to support that. I'd love it if I could pay some subscription fee and get some kind of streaming Japanese MTV, or if Amazon started selling music videos in the same way they sell mp3s.

  18. What is killing the industry by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is the overcharging for mostly pop garbage in a tough economy.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:What is killing the industry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone talking about "killing" the music industry? You're talking like they're so deep in the reds that the repo dept moved in next door so they don't have to haul so far.

      They are still making a profit. WTF is this talk about "killing" the music industry? Want to inspire hope?

      The music industry is not losing money, it has a reduced profit at the end of the year. Considering the state of the economy, it is booming, not dying.

      Please don't give them any more fuel for even more ridiculous laws with those swan songs.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Or ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Could it be that it's not piracy killing the traditional recording industry but digital distribution?

    Or, maybe it's lousy music that's killing the traditional recording industry? If the only two choices are piracy or digital distribution, you have likely oversimplified.

    Unfortunately, the music industry doesn't seem to be able to believe that one of the reasons people are buying less music is because they're not as interested in it. They just think they should be able to extrapolate from 30 year old numbers and say that should be their level of sales.

    In case they haven't noticed, people might have less disposable income to play with -- and Angry Birds might be dipping into that.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  20. So what? by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 2

    It's poor reasoning to think that a reduction of piracy will mean an increase in market shares, as though those two variables are causally linked and somehow have inversely proportional growth. I would be surprised in the rates of growth of these two variables are not causally linked, though. But that's because loss in sales in the music industry is calculated by estimating the total volume of pirated music, and then multiplying that by the music's marketable value. So 100,000 albums pirated at $10 a copy means the industry "lost" $1 million. But it doesn't follow a certain percentage of those who pirated the album would have purchased it - many would rather not have the album at all than pay the costs to own it. So the labels are still at a loss - they need people both NOT to steal the music, AND to purchase it. Anyways, so if you stopped 80,000 of those 100k pirated copies from going out, it necessarily follows the industry's monetary "loss" will go down as well. It does not translate to a growth in profit or market share. Those variables aren't even linked for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't make sense to staticize them or correlate them in a way the industry itself isn't even doing. This isn't rocket science, people. It's not even high school algebra.

    1. Re:So what? by robot256 · · Score: 2

      So the labels are still at a loss - they need people both NOT to steal the music, AND to purchase it.

      WRONG. They only need people to purchase it. People stealing the music does not affect their bottom line at all. If I buy one copy and download 50 copies, that is still one copy sold, not 49 copies stolen. They want people to not "steal" the music because they think that will make them buy it--any other motive would make them irredeemably evil. But since that link is not at all causal*, it should come as no surprise that reducing the number illegal copies does not automatically increase revenue. * They ignore the fact that "stealing" the music can be sway people to buy it when they otherwise wouldn't have, just as it can sway them to not buy it when they otherwise would have, or (most likely) have no effect at all on their judgement.

    2. Re:So what? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      They want people to not "steal" the music because they think that will make them buy it--any other motive would make them irredeemably evil.

      That's IMO actually the case, but it doesn't make them "evil". It just makes them greedy.

      The point here is control. If you do not control what you create, its value plummets. I had a lengthy discussion with someone from a "special interest group" (not wanting to go into detail here, but I have dinner with the devil from time to time) and he tried to explain it. I can't really follow his logic, but that's the way these people seem to think.

      If you control the distribution of your content, you can control its availability. That's, btw, also the reason for their push for more DRM and the wet dream of disabling content after sale. That they have to "give" the content to you in exchange for your money is actually the necessary evil they have to accept so they can make a buck off you. If they found a sensible way to rent it to you, where you only get a time limited license they can revoke after it expires, they'd instantly change the model.

      I don't quite get their motivation, but control seems to be the key here. If you copy music, even if you would have never bought it, they lose control over it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:So what? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      So basically they put complete control over the world's art above actually selling products that customers want to buy? Sounds evil to me. If all they wanted to do was make money, they could have figured it out years ago and be reaping the profits by now. But they are obsessed with "control" as though it is physically possible and increases their net worth, profits be damned. The whole industry is starting to look like a conspiracy out of a James Bond movie or something (once James Cameron sets up a base at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, their plan will be in full motion, muhahahaha). How does all this make them not evil? The only other explanation is excruciating ignorance: The technology started as an infant, and the giant record companies raised it through strict and careful diligence, but they failed to notice that it's all grown up now and they are riding on the back of a tiger. The best they can hope for is to stay on top, wherever it takes them, but they are so busy trying to steer that they're going to fall off and get eaten.

    4. Re:So what? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It increases their net worth.

      What's the value of a song, and the right to publish this song? Well, basically, whatever money you may still somehow earn selling it. If everyone who might ever want to hear this song has a copy of it, it is, essentially, from a purely monetary point of view, worthless. You cannot monetize it anymore.

      That's why they are about control. They see the songs they "own" as assets, and the (monetary) value of an asset is by definition the amount of money you can get out of it by selling it or using it to produce. Since you cannot easily produce with a song (well, you can sample parts and make something new of it, but that would require additional work, plus you cannot rely on it becoming something you can actually sell), its value is basically what you can charge for it.

      That's basically why they are so eager to control content. It keeps their assets valuable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Check The Math by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From Rob Reid's TED Talk (http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/20/the-numbers-behind-the-copyright-math/):

    "I used it to compare the industry's revenues in 1999 (when Napster debuted) to 2010 (the most recent available data). Sales plunged from $14.6 billion down to $6.8 billion - a drop that I rounded to $8 billion in my talk."

    Let's try a quick run-through on the "switch-to-digital" math:

    iTunes sales in 1999 (the first year cited above): $0.
    iTunes songs sold in 1999: 0.
    iTunes songs sold in 2010: 6b.
    Music Industry Sales in 1999: $14.6b
    Music Industry Sales in 2010: $6.8b
    Track Cost in 2010: $0.99
    Album Cost in 1999: $14.00

    Now suppose that people only bought the good tracks, instead of whole albums -- the new iTunes way of buying music. Suppose also that piracy had zero impact on sales. What would the above sales figures imply about the number of good tracks (tracks that sell) per album?

    Albums Sold in 1999 = $14.6b / $14 = 1.1b
    Tracks Sold in 2010 = $6.8b / $0.99 = 6.8b
    Tracks sold in 2010 per album sold in 1999 = 6.8 / 1.1 = 6/1.

    So, what that says is that if all music sales had become digital single tracks, we would now be selling 6 single tracks for every album we used to sell.

    Bear in mind that this is an upper bound case, assuming all sales have become digital. That is not realistic, but it gives us our first measurement. Let's see if we can refine it a bit with some estimates from iTunes.

    iTunes is the single biggest seller of music and sold 6 billion tracks worldwide in 2010. Suppose iTunes sold 2b of those tracks in the US and all digital vendors other than iTunes sold another 1b combined in the US. In that case:

    Album Spending 2010: $6.8b - $3b = $3.8b
    Album Price in 2010: $16
    Albums sold in 2010: $3.8b / $16 = 237m
    Tracks sold in 2010: 3b
    Albums sold in 1999: 1.1b
    Missing Album Sales: 1.1b - 237m = 0.9b
    Tracks Sold per Lost Album: 3b / 0.9b = 3 / 1.

    These numbers are still estimates, but that calculation shows that one reasonable estimate is that we are now selling three digital tracks for every one album we used to sell, if we assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect.

    It is within the reasonable bounds of the data I could find quickly that the entire reduction in US music sales is due to migration to digital single tracks.

  22. Copyright industry ALWAYS lies by erroneus · · Score: 2

    They have lied about everything since the beginning. With every new technology, they fought it and lied about it. They have lost here and won there. We lost out on consumer DAT (a huge loss) but won big with the CD. The ability to burn perfect copies of CDs, for example, was supposed to destroy the industry. They made profits in the "worst of times" enough to pay all of their politicians as much as they wanted, wrote and funded the DMCA.

    They continue to walk a fine line, but without exception, the publishing industries have made fantastic claims which have invariably failed to come true. It's time for this story to be told and retold over and over and over again until people accept the **AAs for the liars and cheats they are. If the politicians are told the truth, repeatedly and enduringly, they can't claim to have not known. And if they continue to accept the **AA's money, their corruption can be without a doubt.

    1. Re:Copyright industry ALWAYS lies by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not a lie, this is just Slashdot demonizing an industry they don't like. The music industry wasn't trying to discourage piracy because they enjoy spending money on lawyers or revel in negative press. It's a theory that this latest piece of evidence doesn't bear out, although it certainly doesn't disprove.

      From a quick google, the French Music industry went down 11% in 2010. Perhaps the industry would have been harder hit without this law. Perhaps it takes time for consumers to adjust their purchasing behavior. Perhaps people were simply unwilling to spend money on a luxury item due to some other unrelated event. So this piece of law suggests something, but proves nothing.

      I don't know, perhaps it's easier to rationalize stealing when you construe this as an us vs. them situation, where the other side is a bunch of crooked liars.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Copyright industry ALWAYS lies by am+2k · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not a lie, this is just Slashdot demonizing an industry they don't like. The music industry wasn't trying to discourage piracy because they enjoy spending money on lawyers or revel in negative press. It's a theory that this latest piece of evidence doesn't bear out, although it certainly doesn't disprove.

      No, I think the working theory is that the music industry is run by a bunch of old guys who just don't get the generations younger than 50, and are set in the ways of thinking they acquired in the fifties when they were young. They want everything to keep running the way it was back then.

    3. Re:Copyright industry ALWAYS lies by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Judging from the people I know in the industry, they are pretty arrogant pricks who think that their customers will buy any crap as long as they hype it heavily enough. Sadly, they're mostly right.

      To them, music is a product, not unlike fast food. They wouldn't want it themselves, but they think that they can throw that crap at us and we should consider ourselves lucky to get anything at all. I don't get how someone thinks he could sell something he wouldn't buy himself, but that's how these people tick.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Copyright industry ALWAYS lies by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't know, perhaps it's easier to rationalize stealing

      1) What "stealing"? I never know if people think it's actually "stealing" in the usual sense of the word or if they're talking about copying when they use that word. That's why I think it's a problem.
      2) Why would you assume that's what he was trying to do? He belittled them, yes, but how exactly does that mean he was trying to "rationalize stealing"?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  23. Typical TED BS by tomhath · · Score: 1

    These numbers are still estimates, but that calculation shows that one reasonable estimate is that we are now selling three digital tracks for every one album we used to sell, if we assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect.

    It is within the reasonable bounds of the data I could find quickly that the entire reduction in US music sales is due to migration to digital single tracks.

    Why would you "assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect"? It has had a huge effect.

    People hate to buy entire albums for only one or two good songs, so as soon as an alternative was available they took it. Some people pirate music, some buy tracks from iTunes. But ignoring piracy is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Typical TED BS by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      Why would you "assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect"?

      The purpose is to test the hypothesis that Internet piracy had a net effect on music sales.

      It has had a huge effect.

      Yes, that is the hypothesis I am testing.

      In this case, I did so by observing empirical data, analyzing it quantitatively, and showing my work. It seems your approach is more based on a gut check and appeal to ridicule. I do not believe your way is a beneficial part of a healthy discourse on public policy.

    2. Re:Typical TED BS by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Ever studied math?

      Yes, through differential equations and a couple of semesters of statistics and logic.

      If you can ascribe the difference to other means, then piracy hasn't had an effect.

      But he never showed that. What he showed is that total revenue has dropped from $14.6b to $6.8b, and that there are now 3 tracks sold per lost album sale. That seems to show that 2010 spending has shifted from albums to single tracks, but what 2010 total sales would be without piracy is unknown. Could be $6.8b, could be $14.6b, could be somewhere in between.

    3. Re:Typical TED BS by wanzeo · · Score: 1

      Because of the nature of piracy, any speculation about its effect on the market is just that, speculation.

      So allow me to speculate. From casual conversations with people over the last decade, it seems to me that piracy was far more "mainstream" (and thus common) in the early days than it is now. Services like Napster, KaZaa, and Limewire were popular and easy to use, providing an essentially iTunes-like experience: "type song into box, click download". When people casually spoke of "downloading a song", it was clear they meant these services.

      Now, the simplest method in widespread use is torrenting, and for many people that is just too many steps. I have coworkers who used Limewire religiously, but simply can't/won't navigate the world of torrents. Not to mention the fact that many torrent index sites are COVERED in porn, which is a real turn off for the mainstream (especially girl) crowd.

      So where did all those former Napster/KaZaa/Limewire users go? They went to iTunes, because even though it costs money, it provides the experience they understand and are used to. So what I'm suggesting is that piracy in numbers of people is less of a problem in 2012 than it was in 1999-2006.

    4. Re:Typical TED BS by cbope · · Score: 1

      I hate to bring up a semi-rational argument here, but why in the hell do people continue supporting bands that can only produce one or two good songs on an entire freaking album? Sounds to me like you are listening to crap musicians/bands, if their "success" factor is roughly 10% (meaning one or two good tracks out of 10-12 on an album).

      Sorry, no one-hit-wonders for me, I prefer to buy music from bands that can do a little better than that. Sure, on average there are usually one or two throwaways on an otherwise good album, but to manage only one or two good tracks on an album is a pathetic attempt by a lousy band.

    5. Re:Typical TED BS by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Statistics alone should have taught you about assuming a hypothesis, calculating it through and comparing the results with the reality to see whether your assumption holds any water.

      Assuming that copying had no impact on the music industry is not rooted in reality, of course. I'm fairly sure the OP knows that well. He is putting forth a hypothetical assumption and calculates a result based on this assumption. It's like assuming everyone buys the crap advertised during a TV commercial break. Of course everyone knows that's not the case. But you do not know exactly what impact which commercial has. Likewise, we do not know what impact copying actually has. It has an impact, but its relevance is unknown. The OP now put forth a model where copying plays no role and he calculated the results based on this assumption. Will this be 100% accurate? It cannot be. Of course. And I'm sure he knows that. But if his figures (as they do) show that even without any sales lost to copying the result would be lower than what actually happened, i.e. the loss of revenue should actually, even without anyone copying anything, be higher than realized, and based on the fact that due to copying no additional revenue can be generated, we can draw the conclusion that with the impact of copying the revenue loss should have been much higher than shown.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Typical TED BS by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It has had a huge effect.

      Oh? He said it had "exactly zero effect," and then you say it had a "huge effect"? Now, how could you possibly know that?

      And if it affected anything, it was only potential profit.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:Typical TED BS by Guignol · · Score: 1

      Suppose you have don't have a hole in your pocket
      You regularly, say every week put in $10 in coins and every week you buy candies
      You notice that you have lost some weight recently, and thanks to a 'study' you can see that the price per calory of candies (not necessarily the candies you were so found of, but as an average) as risen.
      This conclusively proves that there is no hole in your pocket, you must have been paying $10 worth of candy every week, but you got less candies
      Or maybe it conclusively proves that you have been exercising
      Or maybe it conclusively proves that, since you were buying candies on a weely basis,that the orbit of the moon is slowly increasing
      Or maybe it conclusively proves that you don't have any conclusive proof to begin with
      It does not conclusively prove that your parent studied or not math, but it seriously hints at you not having had too much success at logic
      Of course you said "*everything else* accounted for", but were you really serious about 'two other random things' accounting for *everything else* ???

  24. ::GASP:: by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2

    could it be? piracy drives music sales up?!?!?!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

    let's also ignore increase in concert/merchandise revenue from new fans who didn't pay for the music they tried out. i'm not sure that money even goes to the labels.

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  25. There's only so much .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    .... accordion music one can take.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  26. Obligatory by PPH · · Score: 1
    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Reduced? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    "claiming that illegal P2P downloads have been reduced significantly in the country"

    How exactly would they know that? And is that any justification for harming everyone with draconian laws?

  28. SNEP and HADOPI by slew · · Score: 1

    There seems to be a big problem with the French trying to overmanage this situation.

    On one hand, there is SNEP which is in charge of the enforcement of the French language quota (mostly on radio for this argument), but apparently is having many issues with this. The number of albums produced in French is declining precipitously from 718 releases in 2003, to 158 in 2011. Also many radio stations struggle to fill the quota with songs that are of similar programming format and thus repeat top rated songs many times to fill the quota resulting in lots of overplay (a similar overplay problem exists in the US, but for different "payola" reasons). After this much overplay you might imagine that...

    1. people are either sick of the music and won't download it, or
    2. have already purchased the one-and-only copy that they are likely to buy, or
    3. have already pirated the music.

    Now you put HADOPI on top of this problem of French music piracy. How much can they affect this situation? As the amount of French language music declines, they can affect sales less and less. Seems like a no win situation for the French on this (there have been recent attempts to increase the quota), but just maybe if the quota goes down, people might have more of an incentive to buy music. Seems so strange an idea that it might just work...

    1. Re:SNEP and HADOPI by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      he number of albums produced in French is declining precipitously from 718 releases in 2003, to 158 in 2011.

      I honestly find this absolutely fascinating. I mean, I get it, according to your link singing in English provides for a much broader market, and that completely makes sense, but that just seems so surreal. French musicians aren't singing in French...

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:SNEP and HADOPI by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's not as surreal as it may seem to someone from an English speaking country. Walk through Europe and you'll find that a lot of people, especially in smaller countries, do not sing in their native language but rather in English, simply because the market for their native language is far too tiny to be considered relevant.

      Best example: Björk.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. It's simple math. by jason18 · · Score: 1

    Let's say I really like one song on an album, not the rest. Twenty years ago, my only choice was to buy the album. That costs, say, $10. Now, I can just by the song itself. That costs me $1. Do the math.

  30. Piracy hasnt destroyed anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Digital distribution itself is probablly responsible for a large percentage in declining sales. Used to people spent money buying whole albums, now no one will do that when they can just spend a couple bucks and buy just the few songs off the album they really wanted and forget the rest.

    Then lets not forget the music constantly has lied and has constantly tried to skew information in their favor and has constantly railroaded anyone they possibly can in order to get what they want. Why should this not be any different? How exactly do you tell if a deciteful and proven liar is actually telling the truth? And every few years there is always something new thats going "destroy the industry unless its stopped" but it never happens.

    I cant speak for the french but Ill speak for the americans. If our music industry declines it will be because of of the riaa, because more bands but out inferior music, and because they try to beat up their customers financially and a lot of times legally. The music industry will cause its own ruin by how they treat their customers.

  31. What part of the industry by utkonos · · Score: 1

    When "the industry" is in decline, do they mean the publishing/distribution houses are in decline? Or, are artists who have no middle-men and use digital downloads to bring their music straight from the musician to the listener also losing money or in a state of decline? If it is the former then FANTASTIC!

  32. Re:no price. by kyrio · · Score: 1

    Tracks have generally been priced at $2-3/track in the past, and about $1/track currently (offline or online). It has nothing to do with price and a lot to do with the quality of the product.

  33. This is madness. by Voogru · · Score: 1

    The schools can't innovate, they must do everything by hand so that they use as much human labor as possible. Innovation reduces the need for human labor. The public school system is a jobs program for adults. Not a system to educate kids.

  34. Re:no price. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    I think Apple did very well at $0.99.

    There's no reason to worry about mass copying as an music artist, unless people are NOT "pirating" your stuff at all, then as an artist you should seriously ask yourself why masses of people aren't getting your stuff even if it's "free". Unless you don't care at all, in which case piracy is not a problem.

    If your stuff is popular on youtube, torrents, rapidshare, you'd do better than someone who only 50 people have heard and only 5 can remember. What you need to do is always make it easy for people to give you money.

    --
  35. French American Bands by josiebgoode · · Score: 1

    Not all French bands sing in French. There are at least 3 great bands who sings in English. Sadly, we don't hear much of them even in France. If you like folk music, try:
    - Cocoon
    - Herman Dunne
    - Moriarty

  36. Re:I hope they don't find the site I pirate music by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Get a proxy in a free country.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Interesting point by fireylord · · Score: 1

    Have you got any examples? I'm being serious here, I personally didn't think that French music was particularly good,and i'm not saying that just to have a go at the French, I just thought that French people weren't overly bothered about music to be honest. I'd like to be proven wrong.

    1. Re:Interesting point by rioki · · Score: 1

      I grew up in France and the last good (and popular) music i heard from there was made in the 90s. There are many small bands that rock, but nothing that gets played in the radio. The forced quota does not help much, it just results in the radio playing either old stuff or crap. If you contrast that to Germany, where artists need to actively compete with the international markets, there is more stuff that is worth your while.

  38. Re:Could it be...? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    How the heck can another sales venue that gives profit to the same people kill them? Can anyone shed some light on this?

    What's next? "Is the advent of TFTs killing computer monitor manufacturers?"

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. This is surprising by Alarash · · Score: 1

    So each "illegal" download doesn't equal to a lost sale? Who would have thought? I'm shocked.

  40. Sounds Great! by fireylord · · Score: 1

    How do we do the same in the UK?

  41. Re:Cherry pick much? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That's pretty much what I could read out of this.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  42. I'm not 100% certain by fireylord · · Score: 1

    But I think that this gag may have been due to the French surrender to Nazi Germany in 1940. The French government were offered a way of not having to surrender (in my opinion it was an insane idea they were offered) but chose instead to capitulate. It is indeed daft to use that one instance to paint a picture of the entire history of French military power.

  43. Re:RIAA !! Hire lawyers who can sing and sue by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see some lawyers dance!

    (loads 6shooter)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. Here's a non-piracy explanation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What are the facts?

    Revenue is down.
    Digital sales are up

    Now let's ponder how 20 years ago I could only buy the full album if I wanted a sing, knowing well that it will be the ONLY good song on the album, and today I can buy that very song simply with the click of my mouse on iTunes.

    I wonder whether this could have anything to do with it, hmmmmm....

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Here's a non-piracy explanation by der_joachim · · Score: 1

      Here's another non-piracy explanation: nowadays, people increasingly buy their stuff from the artists themselves, cutting out layer upon layer of middle men. Hopefully, now they actually earn something from their music sales.

      --
      Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
    2. Re:Here's a non-piracy explanation by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And the amount of media-based leisure activities has increased since the 80's. There are many alternatives to get your dose of amusement than through music. A kiloton of cable-TV channels and then we have the internet itself with a myriad of features and services. Even watching a non-music video on YouTube takes time from the amusement timeslot that everyone has.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  45. Re:Plus est en vous by fonske · · Score: 1

    Latin tradition is about excelling.
    And when you excel they kill you - by gunpoint, galley slave or by cuddling you to extinction.
    Whoops, just wanted to mention "Les négresses vertes".

  46. Pierre Poutine by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Well if you are talking about decline, they haven't had a new album in years and years. I do not count the TRON soundtrack.

    If the came out with a new album I would buy it in a heartbeat. Likely would all of their fans. That alone would likely bolster their "music industry" like U2 in Ireland.

    That said, when I read the title, I was more thinking "french speaking" not of french citizenship. Music that is not instrumental or in English, but in French, has by definition a limited audience. There isn't all that many french speaking people in the world (by comparison to everything else). Also, though I have no data to back it up, it might be interesting to compare the 4% loss, to what the decline is in actual french speaking people, maybe that has simply dipped 4% overall in the world. That would be the simplest answer. I know here in Canada, Quebec is constantly at war trying to protect its language from being swallowed up by English etc...

  47. thats cuz... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Thats cuz french music sucks...i could explain, but why bother...

    1. Re:thats cuz... by o'reor · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. Especially the last 12 years.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  48. Go away, you're not 21 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Bands themselves often prefer to DIY, many feel the big label's distribution network no longer justifies the loss of freedom and control over their own work

    How do these bands that go DIY, writing their own songs, shield themselves from allegations of accidental infringement a la Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music?

    they have little to offer that can't be bootstrapped with the take from a few gigs at local bars.

    Unless a band's audience includes high school students or college underclassmen, who are forbidden to enter bars. Do all-ages venues have similar expectations of take?

    1. Re:Go away, you're not 21 by billcopc · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to accomplish here ?

      I run a "label", really more of an online marketing business, that helps put indie bands on the web, sell their music and merch online, fill gigs with eager fans, and steer them toward quality studios and producers. I'm not quitting my day job, but we do decently and we don't rely on underage kids who don't have any significant income nor well defined tastes. We can book out-of-town shows and fill a couple of school buses with fans who follow the bands just to attend a gig and spread the love. Attendance is not a problem, but then again I'm not signing screamo or hip-hop or any other teenage market bands.

      I'm not saying every band deserves to thrive, but the few good ones don't need big music in order to succeed anymore.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    2. Re:Go away, you're not 21 by tepples · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to accomplish here ?

      I'm trying to figure out best practices for a singer-songwriter not to get sued for copyright infringement on account of having accidentally incorporated part of a melody from popular music.

  49. Enough is enough by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    We have enough music. The music industry has been living off reselling much of the same old stuff in new formats, rerecorded. But we don't need to keep getting it. So we stop buying. Sales level off. Boo-hoo. It is not piracy that is ending the boom for the music industry, there simply isn't demand for more. Of course, it would help if they actually produced some good stuff - too rare, too far between.