US CD Sales Increase in 2004 398
Lindsay Lohan writes "BBC is reporting that CD sales rose by 2.3% in the U.S. in the year 2004 despite the growing popularity of legal digital music downloads through services such as iTunes. On the other hand, a BBC report from last July noted that pirated CD sales have hit a record high. Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma."
Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
2 things (Score:4, Interesting)
2) It seems to me that the year-long push by the RIAA to associate P2P filesharing with stealing is paying off, though only to the tune of 2% or so. If they can convince enough people that piracy is a crime, then it is guaranteed to boost actual sales of CDs at the expense of filesharing.
People are generally good and are willing to follow the law. The RIAA's push to make people aware of copyright law has finally made some progress, but also consider that music artists have also become generally better lately than they were in say the mid-late 90's. Of course, the increase in sales corresponds more to the anti-piracy push than to the improvement in music quality (Good music can still be pirated as easily as bad music).
Define "real pirates." (Score:5, Interesting)
This was not just onesy-twosey stuff. Any given week I'm sure one fellow sold 20 or 30 CDs at five bucks a pop. Multiply this by 1000's of businesses across the country and it's easy to see how it can really add up.
What amazes me is people really cannot tell the difference (or don't care) between a real CD and a POS CDR burnded from MP3s. I would be indignant about the pirates SELLING this stuff, but given these people are buying something akin to a cassette tape all you can really say is "it's their money to waste."
what do you expect? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not good growth compared to economy, DVD's (Score:5, Interesting)
Those numbers don't look so good if you compare the growth in CD sales to the sales of video (VHS/DVD's) software, or to the economy as a whole:
Video: Consumer Electronics Association: [ce.org] DVD Software Sales Benefit: Although movie-ticket sales fell one percent to $9.2 billion in 2003, consumer spending on the purchase or rental of video software (VHS tape and DVD) rose 18.2 percent to $22.5 billion, according to DEG. DVD accounted for 72 percent of total home video spending.
Overall Economy: CNN [cnn.com] The economy has expanded at rates exceeding 3 percent for the past six quarters and seems poised to keep growing. The White House last Friday estimated GDP will expand 3-1/2 percent in 2005.
Better music? (Score:2, Interesting)
They really should just go after this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does Not Follow... (Score:2, Interesting)
A common refrain from those in support of filesharing is that the network effect ("Hey, this band is really good, listen to this!") that piracy makes cheap and easy can lead to increased sales of legitimate CDs. Thus, the RIAA should support filesharing networks because it is 'free advertising'.
And yet, the same argument can be pointed at the makers of pirate CDs. They are like AOL CDs, a cheap way to try out a band you would not have blown $15 to listen to otherwise. Trying out music from pirate CDs, and showing it to your friends, could lead to increased legitimate sales of music you discovered via pirate sellers.
My point is that it is wrong to talk about P2P sharing as 'good' and pirate CD sales as 'bad'. It's wrong to argue about the benefits of one, but ignore the potentially identical benefits of the other. And it's wrong to cheer when a pirate factory in Hong Kong is shut down, but boo when a bittorrent website is shut down.
It's hypocricy. They're both equally bad or good, depending on your point of view.
Just as a note, I use bittorrent and iTunes. In the past I have used Napster, Gnutella, and Kazaa. I have not purchased a physical CD in years. I am not against piracy, but I am against hypocricy... it is THEFT (in the US), at least until the laws are revised. I support weakening of IP laws, but I do not support mealy mouthed thieves calling their behavior angelic. Own up to your crimes and move on, and donate money to organizations that are seeking to revise the laws so they are less insane. But don't pretend that you fart roses in the meantime.
Hmm. Rambling rant. Oh well.
demand for pirated materials / scare tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
This affects the demand for pirated materials which in turns lowers the economic viability for pirates.
The real issue for the RIAA / MPAA is getting all the "not sure if it's really wrong, I do it sometimes, I still buy occasional CDs and DVDs but like to try them" crowd over to the "It's wrong." view. Until they can do that, no amount of efforts will slow piracy down because so many people are doing it, and OK with doing it, that there is a serious strength in numbers.
The crux of the matter is, and will always be, people give their money to companies for often irrational reasons. If more people contributed to artists and things they liked and enjoyed directly, we wouldn't need oppressive middle-men grasping at straws to retain their distribution powers.
Re:The figures show just how insignificant piracy (Score:2, Interesting)
It probably also means that tat won't get bought, and maybe greater sales of music are down to there being better music advertised to the consumer. Instead of pop tat, there is a lot more variety of music advertised these days.
Re:damn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly, the RIAA is going to take this data and use it as PROOF that their legal assautls are working and that P2P piracy is 100% of the reason that sales took a dive to begin with.
I remember a few years ago when the labels were bitching about declining sales and Napster, someone did a study and determined that if even the most ridiculously high estimates of P2P usage were true and counting that every downloaded song as a lost CD sale that P2P only accounted for like 20% of the drop in CD sales since the 90s economy bubble.
In reality it was the economy that caused sales to drop, after all buying CDs is just about the most optional thing and the first thing to go when the .com that was overpaying you ran out of funding.
Now the economy is on the upswing, and surprisingly people are spending more on leisure items like music.
Re:Obvious solution: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does Not Follow... (Score:3, Interesting)
What if the guy on the street is selling at cost? Does that make it less bad for the copyright holder? Does it make him morally better? Compare this to the person running an FTP with a ratio... you have to upload 2MB to download 1MB. They are obviously getting 'paid' for the files they give you, in return for other files. It's just a different type of payment.
With bittorrent, people who just download and leave without sharing back are looked down upon as leeches... but aren't they, by this whole 'if it's free it's morally better', helping you stay 'pure'? By not 'paying you back' for the files you sent them, it means you really ARE giving it away for free. But people don't LIKE that do they. They want their payment for sharing files... in the form of others sharing in return. What is payment but getting one good or service in return for another.
File sharing is full of this 'tit for tat' exchange. You give me stuff, and I'll give you stuff. People in the warez world look down on leeches who take but don't give back... they are looked at as thieves because they did not PAY for the file they downloaded. It's still payment, whether in bits or in dollars. People who share files online demand payment as much as the guy on the street selling bootlegs, they just accept a different form of payment... bandwidth.
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does Not Follow... (Score:3, Interesting)
Try running bittorrent in 'no sharing' mode. You are giving away none of your precious bandwidth to the other users of the network. You are not 'paying'. And your download speed is pitiful.
Now, start uploading to the bittorrent network. As you start 'paying' for your bits by sending out bits, your downloading improves. The other users 'profit' by getting their files a bit faster, and you profit in return by getting your files faster. An exchange of goods and services... a virtual economy, where the currency is bandwidth.
I do agree that when you buy music you usually get more than when you steal it. Sometimes however, you get less... as is the case when you buy a DRM locked CD that does not work wherever you want it to.
But that's not really here nor there... many albums are shared along with the cover art. Maybe the extras that come with the CD are irrelevant to you... particularly for people who own portable mp3 players, everything but the music can be rather irrelevant, if you're going to be ripping it anyway. Some bootlegs are sold with well made covers and printed labels. Few storebought CDs come with a poster or added benefits beyond the music itself.
All that matters, when it all comes down to it, is this:
Re:but... (Score:3, Interesting)
The real question is what are they doing about music quality. Inundation of Britany Spears and the Backstreet boys have made me care much than less.
I have not bought a CD in 2 years. I HAVE, however, downloaded iTunes entire albums and countless singles. There's no point when I'm just going to put it in my mp3 collection anyway so that it's portable.
The REAL question(s) is (are) 1)what are record companies doing about the QUALITY of music such that we'd actually care about purchasing them in the first place? 2) The only "CDs" I've recently bought are Dvd-audios. Am not sure of any current way to rip 5.1 surround sound to mp3 or any other compression format, so how does piracy apply here?
I know that if I would ever actually want to own a hard copy of anything, it would be a Dvd-audio or maybe an SACD. What's the RIAA have to say about that?
*cricket*
It's not that clear-cut (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't exactly think the world of the recording industry, and it's a good point that there's a huge fallacy in their argument. I don't think it's a very serious one because most people in the financial world probably consider it a loss if they were expecting money and it doesn't come, and it's getting very picky to start complaining otherwise. Whether or not that was because of piracy is much more contentious.
If we're going to talk about fallacies, however, it should also be acknowledged that pointing out a fallacy doesn't exactly disprove the recording industry's claim that it's making less money than it should be in a fair market. (Trying to prove it isn't easy, either, and the recording industry isn't better than anyone else.)
A profit doesn't automatically mean increased sales. It could as easily mean that costs have been cut, possibly even as a reaction to forward thinking about whatever effect piracy is having. Realistically, most businesses simply have to aim for a profit whether they think it matches their ideals or not. It may also mean that money has been gained some other way such as through partnerships or creative accounting.
It's a fallacy in itself, however, to start suggesting that just because a profit has still been made, piracy isn't having an unfair effect on the industry... which is what the grandparent and a variety of other people seem to be claiming.
I despise the way that the bulk of the recording industry works, and the amount of FUD that they tend to spread in attempts to get themselves noticed. But there's so much FUD going on in both directions that it's often even hard to tell if there's credible evidence either way. Wherever that evidence is, though, this isn't it.
Economics of Piracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, when were talking about digital media, the price to reproduce the good is very close to 0. So we can think of the song/movie/whatever information as being free to reporduce. Now, the RIAA/whoever sets the price of the song/movie to something that is much higher than 0, causing a price floor. If I remember correctly, in my micro-economics class, the teacher said that when you introduce a price floor, black markets emerge. Does this "justify" the online piracy or at least explain in economic terms why it exists?
Of course, I could be confused and have it all wrong
Re:A thief? Hardly. (Score:2, Interesting)
A person/entity has the right to the earnings from its labor; they do not belong to society to meet some vague notion of a "greater good". Society might be enrichened if Jimmy Buffet performed concerts with no admission charge, but the decision to do that is his. It might benefit the "greater good" if Oracle gave away their database, but it is their choice to do so. Frank Lloyd Wright built homes that many consider to be great works of art, but he definately did not do so for free.
The creator of the work, or the entity that funded its creation and gained control over it, has the right to decide how others may use it. The controller may decide that all are free to appreciate it for no charge, or may set a price which individuals are free to choose to pay or not use the item. But society at large is not free to declare that it wants access to a given item for free and therefore take control (or possession) of the item from its owner or creator (emminent domain notwithstanding).
If you choose to create paintings and give them away, write GPL code, or provide free medical assistance to others, more power to you; I think it's great. But don't try to insist that all others also do so, or insist that one answer fits all circumstances.
Re:A thief? Hardly. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, basically, what you're saying is this: You think that you have the right to determine whether or not you should pay for someone else's IP, AFTER you've already garnered the benefit of it? Or, are you saying that you think that you have the right to benefit from it for free, because you think that it is crap?
Ah, I get it - either stance is in strict accordance with the beliefs of the pro-piracy (Whoops, I'm sorry: Pro-copyright infringement - I need to learn to be more politically correct around here) faction here on Slashdot, and one of them got mod points.
"...on a sidenote, I've spent more on CD's this year, than any year prior, and I made less than the year prior (by a good margin)"
So? What's your point? You spent more money on non-essentials this year than last, even though you made less money? Are we supposed to congratulate you? Feel sorry for you? What?
Finally, I note with no small amount of cynicism that the URL you link to is "Copyright Matthew Minix 2004". If you are the copyright holder, then that's more than a little hypocritical, don't you think?
I swear, it's posts such as yours that force me to believe in God - there's no way they could happen by chance. It HAS to be a test for the rest of us, there's just no other explanation.
And I think, with some re-wording, that I just made up my new sig... so I suppose I should thank you for the inspiration.
in a fair market (Score:2, Interesting)
Never mind that the recording industry cut .... (Score:3, Interesting)
We never heard an explanation for that. Hmmm.
No one questions the RIAA on these issues. The big labels cut all their dead weight, low-volume artists, cut production, yet saw an increase in sales?
I have a friend that works for a niche label, and he saw the changes coming, and was happy to sign some of these lower-volume artists as it strengthened their catalog. Some of these artists were considered out-of-reach for the niche labels. And many of these labels saw their sales skyrocket, compared to what they had been before. Admitted, they weren't going to compete with Sony or the other big labels.
Yet the RIAA claims that they were losing billions due to pirates... when the worker bees at the labels tell us that they use the P2P info to see what's interesting to the listeners, and they report increased sales on those artists? Smells like serious smoke and mirrors by the RIAA. Face it. The RIAA is using this situation to try and dictate legislation rather than adapt.
I think that, more than anything, we've seen a lull in "talent". Face it. We've not seen a Michael Jackson or a Nirvana. No blockbusters out there... and it's been awhile. Justin Timberlake? Britney Spears? Ashlee Simpson? Forget it. No talent hacks with fantastic marketing juggernauts behind them. That's it. They are products of technology. Lip-sync and auto-tuners. Fancy dancing with a lot of costumes. There's so little that's interesting music. REM and Dave Matthews haven't had knockout material in a few years. U2 is ok, but not what they were in the late '80s until the mid '90s. Name a rapper that's tearing up the charts? Hmmm. Still thinking...
Re:Define "real pirates." (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe in FREEDOM of information exchange. I didn't like Napster because it was commercial, I have never supported the commercial p2p networks, and the day MP3.com abandonded their own artists and tried to co-opt madonna they lost my support as well.
Commercial piracy is an affront to the ideals I hold about the free flow of information. Any of those people paying five bucks a CD could just as easily have grabbed a $100 laptop and headed for the library, where they could have downloaded the stuff themselves. Obviously, that was more effort than they considered worthwhile for the material - in which case, they should simply do without.
Re:Does Not Follow... (Score:2, Interesting)
I was trapped on a runway at the Newark airport for 3 hours some years ago, during the Great Napster Scare when the RIAA was Going Out of Business Due to Piracy. Guy sitting next to me was a fairly interesting, decent type, so we chatted for a while to kill the time.
It turns out that he worked in the recording industry (the company he worked for dealt with mostly classical music, so he couldn't get me a meeting with Britney Spears' chest or anything) and after I told him I was a computer geek the conversation eventually turned to Napster. His opinion? Not worried at all, and his explanation for that has stuck with me through all of the news of the recent RIAA nonsense: "Piracy on a large scale, where all these doomsday scenarios the record companies complain about are actually true...that would be a very bad thing, but that isn't what's happening. Piracy on a smaller scale? That's called free marketing."
Does the level of (internet) piracy taking place today qualify as a small enough scale relative to the overall market that it's actually helping the industry? I don't know the answer to that, and it's probably a grey area that someone a lot more informed than I am would have to spend a lot of time figuring out. It's the fact that the RIAA refuses to even allow for the possibility of positive side effects that makes me doubt much of anything they say or do. Well, that and poking 12-year-old grandmas with sticks or whatever atrocity it is they're pulling this week.