Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Canadian Record Industry Disputes Own P2P Claims

Posted by Zonk on Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:31 AM
from the talking-crazy dept.
Media Music
CRIAWatch writes "The Canadian Recording Industry Association has quietly issued a new study that contradicts many of its own claims about the impact of P2P usage on the music industry. Michael Geist summarizes the 144 page study by noting that the research 'concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers, that P2P users frequently try music on P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic, and that reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Canadian Record Industry Disputes Own P2P Claims 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • It's... well... what... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Suddenly_Dead (656421) on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:36AM (#14946882)
    This has got to be the first time the recording industry has said anything surprising, or possibly realistic regarding piracy.

    I'm scared, someone hold me.
    • What was stated isn't surprising. The fact that a RI said it is surprising. The Candaians... who'da thought it? Actually, they've been saying a lot of things recently that made $respect.canada++;

      • Re:It's... well... what... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Dashing Leech (688077) on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:59PM (#14948614)
        "What was stated isn't surprising."

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

    • How to change their tune... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2006, @01:10AM (#14946981)
      1. Never, ever pay for anything that you can download.

      2. Make sure your friends and relatives know how to download stuff for free.

      3. Make sure your friends and relatives know they cannot be caught or sued if they just download. Sharing or uploading is what all lawsuits have been based on.

      4. Remember that if it is free, it is probably crap. But so is what you would pay for.

      • If you have patience... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JediTrainer (314273) on Saturday March 18 2006, @11:32AM (#14948312)
        5. you can get everything you want at the library. You can legally borrow it and rip it to MP3 or copy the disc for your personal collection (in Canada, anyway). You can even get new/popular stuff if you simply put a hold on it. In my town, you can place a hold online, and they'll check all the libraries in the area and bring it to the library of your choice when it's available. The wait is usually somewhere between 3 days and 2 weeks. They call you when it's ready for pickup.

        I've not had a need to download when all the material I want is available for free right there.
      • I pay tax on burnable CDs to cover the cost of music downloaded from the Internet without paying for it. Therefore what I download and burn to CD is paid for. Since it's paid for, am I breaking the law? I think not.

        Access to a virtually endless supply of cheap (see above) music has changed the way I think of music in my life. I download whatever I might be interested in and delete whatever I don't like without thinking "hey, I paid $2 for that song I'm keeping it even though I hate it". Now I can amass

    • Re:It's... well... what... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MadUndergrad (950779) on Saturday March 18 2006, @03:53AM (#14947230)
      I wonder how the RIAA will respond to this study.

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

    • Translations... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shmlco (594907) on Saturday March 18 2006, @07:28AM (#14947596) Homepage
      concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers

      Because in most cases people have ripped their existing CD collections to disk. Better question to ask is what percentage of their current playlist is P2P? And I agree with some of the other comments here, in that if I thought that a third of the people out there were ripping me off, I'd freak too.

      that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic

      In other words, the people with the most interest in music do both. Surprise, surprise.

      reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services

      Agree here. Though while decent content is an issue, I also think that other entertainment options (games, dvds) have an impact, as well as reduced salaries, rising gas and oil prices, and other economic factors leading to less disposible income.

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

  • The Invisible Downloader. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:40AM (#14946893)
    Um. In keeping with the invisible nature of P2P (intentional or otherwise). How does anyone know that they have the facts?

  • Dare I say it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rank_Tyro (721935) <ranktyro11 @ g m a i l.com> on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:43AM (#14946902) Journal
    No shit.

    Glad they finally figured it out...

  • The Fault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by therage96 (912259) on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:44AM (#14946907)
    About time someone pointed out the obvious. The most mindnumbing about the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle is how they keep blaming their diminishing sales on the consumers as if we are required to buy so many of their products per year. Last time I checked, when a business's sales are dwindling, its time to try something new, or perhaps even innovate. However, their brand of innovation, i.e. suing everyone, seems to be a bit counter-productive.

    Of course, it doesn't help when they have the government in their pocket either.

    • Re:The Fault (Score:5, Informative)

      by ozmanjusri (601766) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {bob_eissua}> on Saturday March 18 2006, @01:03AM (#14946964) Journal
      The most mindnumbing about the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle is how they keep blaming their diminishing sales on the consumers

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

      • price (16%)
      • nothing of interest (14%)
      • lack of time (13%)
      • collection is big enough (9%)

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

      • Re:The Fault (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MightyMartian (840721) on Saturday March 18 2006, @01:20AM (#14947006) Journal
        Quite frankly I think the root of the problem is that the record companies have become so overwhelmingly corporate in nature, so dominated by dull, unimaginative accountants and MBEs that they've forgotten the precise nature of the business. I really can't believe that the early 1990s saw the last gasp of groundbreaking music, but the last decade has basically saw a cookie-cutter approach, with forgettable boy bands and female stars who require odd sounds and digital enhancements to make their "dance" records even work in any sense of the word.

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

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

          You underestimate :)
        • who require odd sounds and digital enhancements to make their "dance" records even work

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

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

          Then again, we have a flood of "Some unknown vs. Well known artist of old (80's etc.)" with the well known artist's song and just repeating the first line of the chorus to some shitty backing dance crap. At least some poptarts try singing the whole song, albeit without the

  • Spin control? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anagama (611277) <thepotter@yah o o .com> on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:47AM (#14946918) Homepage
    I haven't read the 144 page research report, but I think it is worth noting that the person who summarized this report, states at the end of his summary that he has been claiming for a long time that p2p downloading doesn't affect sales that much. In other words, he has a perspective on the issue. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that the recording industry is going to look at the stat which shows that a 1/3 of music on computers is from (presumably copyright-violation style) downloading (this is for the most-frequently-purchasing demographic (teenie-boppers)), and say "oh yeah, p2p doesn't harm our bottom line. The recording industry has a different perspective ... they'll say they're losing 33% of their sales and have a freak fit.

    Anyway, I wonder if people were asked this questions: "of music you have downloaded (as in copyright violation style), how much of that music is good enough to keep for a 1x/decade listen, but not worth buying?" Maybe I should RTF 144pg report ... naaa.
    • Right, I thought something similar - it's an emperor has no clothes deal.

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

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

      Does the availability of ubiqu
      • Tell me that p2p and even street-sold pirate records do NOT affect at all record sales.

        People (that I know) that download p2p music normally buy "official" records and support (going to shows etc) the musicians they like. They also throw out a lot of the downloaded stuff -- the things that are no good.

        There are two kinds of people (that I know) that buy street-sold pirate records: the immense majority are relatively poor people that buy one CD for R$ 3 (US$ 1.50), because they can, and they wouldn't pay R$
        • All of my peers download music and don't buy. In fact, I can't remember when we've collectively seen the inside of a music store.

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

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

          I've heard all the "moral" arguments. Fact is, that less than 5% of major lab

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

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

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

        Did Homer write his Odyssey to promote a fucking

      • "In the long run, content is going to be free."

        In the long run, content is going to be paid. Why? Because the people who make music and movies and write books have to eat. Because all of them require significant upfront investments in time and energy and money. Because for most of them selling t-shirts at personal performances doesn't pay the rent.

        A "Firefly" episode cost a million dollars a pop to make. Serenity $45 million. If you're not going to pay for it, and you don't want advertising, then who wi

        • Who says it has to be free?

          Besides, some of us like having physical media, liner notes, etc. Personally, I like playing cds in my car and it's a lot easier to tell the "real" ones apart at a glance than it is with any of the mix cds that I burn.

          As for rewarding the RIAA for behavior that I find distasteful, I don't reward them. How? I buy most of my cds used. The only actual new cds I have bought in the last 2-3 years have been from local and regional bands that I went to see live.

          I look at music the same way I look at software - if the people who made it want it to be free, great. If they want to charge for it, that's fine too. If they charge what I consider to be a reasonable price and I have some use/desire for it, I'll buy it. If they charge too much for my tastes or I don't really want it that badly, then I won't but it.

          It's amazing how that works.
          • That attitude is actually a lot easier with music than with software. Many of use would make dramatically less money if we were to just refuse to use software that we find overpriced. The number of people that would be harmed financially by not buying music CDs is miniscule.
        • So, you just walk into the food store and help yourself to what you want and wander out without paying ?

          "it has to be free or we will just steal it"

          I'd rather pay $15 for a cd if food was free

        • <rant>That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read.

          The vast majority of the music I own is legitimately purchased. I have no particular love for the RIAA, but I do feel that the artists who spent all the time and effort to create the music I'm listenting to have a right to be compensated.

          Besides, the music business is like any other. If they charge an outrageous price for their product, nobody will buy it. Don't try to justify your theft (and yes, it is theft) by saying that I'm an idiot for
          • Sorry for biting...

            But I do feel that the artists (...) have a right to be compensated.

            Oh absolutely. I'm all for compensating the artists. However, very little of the retail price for a CD is spent on compensating the artist, and a lot of it is spent rewarding the RIAA for tyranizing the population. That, I think, is wrong. I'd gladly donate a dollar here and there for the songs I love, if I'm confident that the payment system is reasonably secure, and that three nines or more of the money goes to the

  • Well.... Duh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Everyone here knows it. I buy more music now, not less. And I'm a huge P2P user. I don't buy or even listen to anything from a major label. I don't care if my boycott has any political significance. It's a personal choice. I'm done supporting them. I'm indifferent to whether they survive or not. So I pretty much stopped in to reiterate the obvious. Since it's early in the thread and all... I also like buying used CDs, electronic trance etc from ebay and places like that. Stuff that didn't have huge producti
  • Most audiophiles are not going to have a giant music library of all pirated music and have 0 CDs or purchased media.

    Personally, the only time I use gnutella or such is when I need a copy of a song without DRM for whatever reason. I already have the song on CD or from iTunes.

    This study is pretty much redundant. This has been said again and again. But not that the RIAA [is going/wants] to listen.

  • The OBVIOUS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by us7892 (655683) on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:53AM (#14946938) Homepage
    It seems so obvious. It always has been obvious.

    Except, I do remember a colleague of mine filling half the available diskspace on my company computers with Napster music downloads back in 2000. He was racing to beat the crackdown. He burned a lot of CD's from that frenzy of music downloads...

  • Well, my fiance and I just broke up, so... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MufasaZX (790614) on Saturday March 18 2006, @12:57AM (#14946948) Homepage
    ...let me look out the window...OMFG, no shit, it's snowing in hell, well I'll be...um...damned. =P -c

  • Not suprising. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grungefade (748722) on Saturday March 18 2006, @01:38AM (#14947036)
    I wonder when the recording industry is going to realize they are fighting a battle that cant be won.

    I used to buy CDs constantly. And now with the implimentation of DRM on CDs and not knowing what type of software is installing when you insert a CD in your computer. I dont dare buy a new CD. I want to be able to buy a CD and encode it into any format i want to put it on whatever device i own. And until i really own the music i buy, im not going to spend my money on some music that might be locked inside their encryption. In 20 years my music i bought might be gone because I cant use it in new devices and technology, or with every new advancement in technology Im left converting my entire collection to some new and improved DRM format because of a firmware upgrade because a new bug is found.

    Until I get to choose how I use the music I buy, instead of them telling me how, I wont purchase any.

    • Some things you just can't stamp out with brute force. Instead, you have to find out what is fueling it and try to reduce that source and acknowledge you'll never be able to fully extinguish it.

      • War on Piracy
      • War on Poverty
      • War on Drugs
      • War on Terror
      • ...
      Did I forget any?
  • In fact, I have only bought CD's in the last long many years simply because of P2P. Excruciating story short,,, I simply hadn't heard the likes of what I listen to now. Never knew it existed. Thanks to the non strategy of P2P, it seems to be to those that simply are seeking.

  • If... (Score:3, Funny)

    by rampant mac (561036) on Saturday March 18 2006, @02:29AM (#14947114)
    "Michael Geist summarizes the 144 page study"

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

  • Arctic Monkeys shows what can be done (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nice2Cats (557310) on Saturday March 18 2006, @02:31AM (#14947117)
    Interestingly enough, Wired [wired.com] currently has a longish story about a group called Arctic Monkeys that bypassed all the industry stuff and has been a big success because, not despite them giving songs away:
    Their story is remarkable because of one fact: grassroots communication channels like MySpace and P2P file trading networks worked better than the major-label hype machine. The Arctic Monkeys became hugely popular because they wrote good songs, made them available to their fans for free, and encouraged them to share the MP3s with their friends.
    Given my two latest, disasterous experiences with major-label hyped artists -- Enya and Kate Bush, whose new albums should both best be avoided -- I'm more than willing to look in other places.

  • here's a new one (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xtravar (725372) on Saturday March 18 2006, @03:49AM (#14947221) Homepage Journal
    I buy CDs because I can afford them, and because I can tell the difference between an mp3 and a CD. Yes, my ears are spoiled by high quality ogg and who rips in that but me?

    Anyway, the crap the music industry is making is targetted at people with no money.

    Mommy and daddy's money only goes so far, and for a minimum wage worker a CD is a couple hours of work.

    Now for a software developer such as myself... a CD is a fraction of an hour of work.

    So, hey, why don't they make music that appeals to intelligent music conniseurs with money, rather than target the teenie bopper demographic? They should either put out good stuff that reaches people with money, or lower the price on the shitty stuff. Welcome to economics 101 - one price for all demographics doesn't maximize profits.

  • Just ask the actual ARTISTS and you get the same.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday March 18 2006, @05:48AM (#14947400) Journal
    This [pewinternet.org] may be some interesting reading about this matter.
    "Across the board, among those who are both successful and struggling, the artists and musicians we surveyed are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use. "

  • Notice who the CRIA blames (Score:4, Interesting)

    by davebarnes (158106) on Saturday March 18 2006, @10:06AM (#14948023) Homepage
    I did read (well, skimmed) the Comment and the 2 Appendices.
    The CRIA blames "big corporate radio" for the downturn in CD sales.
    • And with the draconian copyright laws we currently have, most (all?) of the music on OCRemix is considered infringing. I only mention this so we all remember that there's quite a few issues involved in the struggle for better copyright law.
    • No, if it was Fark there'd be an "IRONIC" tag followed by 100+ comments of people slamming the submitter for not knowing what "ironic" means, along with some obligatory Alanis Morrisette references, one or two "HA-HA" Photoshops, someone bringing out the "I work for XXX, and I'm getting a laugh..." quote, and half a dozen "O RLY" owl variations.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.