Legal Music Downloads At 35%, Soon To Pass Piracy 467
bonch writes "Entertainment Media Research released a study stating that 35% of music listeners are using legal download services, and that the percentage will soon surpass illegal downloads, currently at 40%. Slashdot has also previously reported on services like iTunes gaining in popularity over P2P services. "The findings indicate that the music industry is approaching a strategic milestone with the population of legal downloaders close to exceeding that of pirates," said Entertainment Media Research chief executive Russell Hart.'"
Sure... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they won't. If legal download services came to completely dominate the market, the bright lights would simply try to extort more money from those services, and ultimately from the consumer, and thus would find in the solution to the piracy problem the seeds by which piracy can again become common. The root problem is simple. These guys just don't like people downloading music or movies, legal or not. They've made fortunes by controlling distribution (which is where the money really is). They may play along with iTunes right now, but you can be sure that they don't like having any sort of middle man.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Interesting)
Physical pressing of CD
CD label
Cover art
Jewel case and shrinkwrap/annoying security tape
Shipping to stores
Marketing and promos in stores
Lossage due to damage/theft
These are the bits that drive up the cost of CD's and also result in the RIAA being able to charge far more than the cost of the recording (as well as the cost of these line items, taken collectively). Even if you assume a 400% markup over cost for any produced good is typical (not just CD's, but anything -- bread, cars, books, TV's), these guys are still making out like bandits. Therefore, it doesn't take a big leap of faith to understand that the RIAA wants their moneymakers back, but can't realize how to get it again.
The litmus test is when the quantity of music downloaded exceeds that which is purchased in the brick and mortar stores. That could easily be the beginning of a massive paradigm shift which could affect traditional, large data footprint, store-purchased items like CD's, DVD's, and computer games, which still makes up the overwhelming majority of the RIAA/MPAA's revenues. If that scenario occurs, a mass change will occur -- no more music stores, video rental, computer game stores, etc. Instead, you could replace their physical presences with a small kiosk in a mall equipped with a highspeed wired/wireless Internet connections, and eventually even that would go away (and already can in some areas with ubiquitous highspeed broadband).
And that spells the death knell for the RIAA/MPAA as we know it. And they know it too.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching? (Score:3, Interesting)
so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:so? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait, you mean her music..
Music LISTENERS not DOWNLOADERS (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'd imagine all categories overlap... I'm sure a LOT of people buy some CDs, download others legally and also download illegal copies every now and then. So I don't know how those are accounted for.
Re:Music LISTENERS not DOWNLOADERS (Score:3, Funny)
It doesn't matter. 101% of all statistics are pulled out of someone's ass. That is a fact because it sounds right.
Re:Music LISTENERS not DOWNLOADERS (Score:5, Funny)
70% download ilegally
90% download legally
100% rip CDs legally
100% copy friends' ripped CDs ilegally
1,536% think statisticians do lead paint shots when nobody's looking.
Re:actual helpful response (Score:3, Informative)
Nope.
If your reading of the article is correct, then there's no reason to exclude overlap between those group who download music. It might just as well be that 40% use illegal download services, and 87% of those also use legal download services, while 60% purchase media.
Something closer to that is certainly in line with anecdotal discussions with the people I happen to know.
But without more detail about how the study was conducted, it's tough to say anything meaningful.
something's not adding up (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:something's not adding up (Score:4, Funny)
Re:something's not adding up (Score:2, Funny)
Re:something's not adding up (Score:3, Insightful)
legal downloads
not downloading?
Some people do buy CD's at a store.
Re:something's not adding up (Score:2, Funny)
Bogus statistics: what little we can conclude (Score:5, Insightful)
- No greater than 70% of music listeners download music (legal or illegal) -- i.e., as much as 30% of music listeners simply don't download music.
- No fewer than 40% of music listeners download music (legal or illegal).
- At most, 30% use both legal and illegal downloads.
- It's possible (based on this limited data) that no one does both illegal and legal downloading.
In next month's survey, both numbers could go up or down since the survey does not ask "do you ONLY download music from legal/ illegal sources." Moreover, the survey provides no estimates of volumes -- illegal downloaders could be downloading 10X or 10X less than their legal-downloading counterparts. Or people that download legal music could be the biggest "pirates" and this survey would be none the wiser.Re:Bogus statistics: what little we can conclude (Score:3, Insightful)
Another option? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:something's not adding up (Score:2)
I'm not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
A buck a song? Genius.
Every time we hit a milestone like this... (Score:3, Funny)
In fact, they should make a national holiday out of it. There can be a big parade... and thousands of vendors selling rotten vegetables. Yea. That's exactly how I dreamt it.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
The price is determined by where they think they can get the most money out of you. That's $15 for a CD; $10 for a crippled digital album.
To reiterate: if you're happy with the price, they're not. If you buy it for $5, they'd rather you bought it for $6.
Instead, it costs $15. If they sold it for $5, would you buy two and give one as a gift? Maybe. But you probably wouldn't buy three, which is what it would take.
Call it "supply and demand". Or call it "greed". But it's hardly "insanity". It's self-interest, and according to TFA, people are buying it at the price they set. If they charged more and made less money, that would be insanity. If they charged less and made less money, that would also be insanity. But self-interest is eminently rational. Greedy, perhaps, but rational.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Albums that provide you the freedom to do backups, to re-encode in whatever format/bitrate you want.
Buy a song that has DRM (most online music stores anyway) and which takes away the freedom that you had when buying an album. All that at a price more expensive than buying an album.
I know music stores will never consider selling music using a lossless codec without DRM but if I have to buy a whole album for a few songs that I want and be able to "tinker with", then so be it.
Still a little bit expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
I would probably start subscribing to these "legal" music download sites if they were to stop gouging the buyers. Until then, I'll support my favorite bands by giving away samples of their music to my friends and buying t-shirts at their concerts.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
I will sell you 100 gigabits for only 0.25 cents!
Ofcourse, it will be random 1's and 0's with an occasional Goatse thrown in.
You are not buying bits. You are buying someone's creativity. If you don't think it is worth it DON'T BUY! No one sticks a gun to your head and says "buy it".
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:2)
Need more be said?
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:2)
iTMS is nice because I don't have to pay for that filler, I can just get the songs I want. And compared to the way I view most CDs, a buck for a good song is a bargin.
I do wish more went to the artist though. Or to Apple. Anyone but the label. Digital distribution cuts out a lot of the costs that the label has traditionally handled for the artist, their cut of the profit should drop in response to this.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:2)
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
sorry, but you, along with so many other people, just don't understand how the music industry works.
while it is true that record company executives do make out like fat cats, their income as a proportion of the overall revenue streams within the industry is small.
the music industry, that is, the traditional music industry, is an exercise in massive cross-subsidy. That mega-hit by that obnoxious and relatively talent-free sex-toy-girl-thing? It helped pay for dozens of minor releases that will likely lose money. Occasionally, a genuinely talented artist will make a record that for some reason sells a lot of copies (the Koln concert release by Keith Jarrett is always a favorite example), but even then, that success makes it possible for the iconoclastic label it was on (ECM) to release dozens of CD's that cost them money.
until you get this model into your head, no suggestions for an alternative system will make much sense. i say this as someone who attempted to set up a new label, released 1 CD by an incredibly talented group, and began to realize how it all works.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:3, Informative)
It was obvious that they were playing games with the accounting when they charged the band $5k for a "master" CD, when the company I was working for had 1000 CDs made with gem cases and inserts for $1500. (this was many years ago.)
The record label had conned these poor saps into thinking the the "master" disk costs huge amounts of money to make. (not the music production. A physical disk) And that this master is used to press other disks at a cost of ~$2 a disk.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
true, to a point.
however: the most expensive part of making a financially successful recording is marketing.
unless you are making wildly popular music in a style already well-represented in the marketplace, getting the existence of you music out to other people costs way more than actually making it (given the reduction in production costs that you mentioned). its a difficult job, and for a lot of music, its a long term, part time effort.
one of the big problems that musicians have to deal with at the moment is major oversupply of talent. there are a huge number of musicians around now who are at least as talented and making at least as "good" music (whatever that means) as the early progenitors of rock'n'roll, jazz and so forth. there is no way that all these skilled people will get to tap into a revenue stream in the way that the (relatively) few artists at the start of recorded popular music did. as a result, marketing is key, and is going to be an uphill battle for the foreseeable future.
and please, lets not have /. posters prattle on about guerilla marketing. it works for a few cases. its not going to work (and has not worked) for *most* of the artists (for example) on CDbaby.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you've hit the nail on the head as to why I don't care about the fate of the record companies. Can you tell me what value they are adding when I literally run into bands that are just as talented as the best they are selling?
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:4, Informative)
You're also on the right track about supporting artists - if you want to support your favourite artist, go to their gigs, buy their merchandise (the stuff that comes straight from them, I mean, not stuff put out by the label), or, heck, just send 'em money direct.
Quite frankly the business practices of most of the large labels are obscene. Even a lot of artists who you'd think did really well - had top 10 hits, etc - end up in massive debt to the labels.
Just off the top of my head, do you remember the female R&B trio, TLC? they were around in the early 90's. They had 3 back-to-back #1 hits, a debut album that sold over 4 million copies, and a follow up that sold over 10 million. They won grammys, topped the album charts for 5 weeks in the US, the only all female group to have more #1 US hits than TLC was The Supremes.
So.. they must be millionaires now, right? I mean, that kind of success would set you up for life, surely?
In fact, they filed for bankrupcy due to a £3 million debt they owed to their record company, and spent ages in legal battles trying to untangle themselves from their contracts.
And that's far from being an isolated incident.
Remember that the next time you hear an RIAA/record label representative sobbing about the plight of the poor starving musicians.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
For something as ethereal as bits on a platter, it hardly seems worth it to pay USD1.00 for a song.
That really is the big story here, isn't it. Ox07 is a just a number. 0x08 is another. String the two together and you get just a bigger number, 0x0708. In reality what you are actually paying for when buy digital music is the "right" to use big numbers that happen to resemble songs when processed by certain programs.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Complain about low bitrates if you want, but give me a break on the whole "bits on a platter" thing. What the hell do you think a CD is?
That, and for some reason I've had better luck preserving MP3s than actual CDs over the last 8 years or so...maybe I'm careless, but I've lost a lot more music to damage on physical CD's than I've lost to data loss on my hard drive. In fact, I have yet to lost any MP3s whatsoever. Largely because it takes a lot less blank CD's (which cost both in space and money) to backup my music, even at my usual 224k-256k, when they're compressed. And compact disks are just not a great medium when it comes to longevity, at least if you want to take them out and listen to them. Especially in places like cars.
That said, no I've not bought a single album as an online album...for 3-5 extra bucks I'll go ahead and grab the disc (and promptly rip it at more than 128k). But I've bought plenty of songs, and when you figure I'm saving 13-15 bucks an album (because if I'm buying a one or two songs it's likely because I don't _want_ the rest of the album) by buying those songs, at USD 1.00 they're an absolute steal.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
Check out your local independent shop that buys/sells used CDs.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Plus that way I actually own the music instead of being stuck with a lossy file with DRM.
Re:Still a little bit expensive (Score:3, Informative)
The owner blamed it on pirated music, but I think he was just looking to blame those damn kids - I think it's more likely that when he opened his store, the only cd stores around were sam goody and musicland, or whatever was in the mall, and those places were selling CDs at $21.99/ea. Now, there's a best buy, a circuit city, and three super walmarts that have popped up in the area, not to mention online stores [interpunk.com] that cater to his demographic.
You can see my friend's blog [jfrank.nu] on the subject.
Wishful Thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
Music Exec (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
I call BS on the survey and say it's a "we've already won" normalization propaganda campain. Telling "consumers" to shut up and be happy without the right to sample, share or even keep their music is what this is all about. The FUD and active warefare against file sharers will continue, but all of it is doomed to fail.
The whole DRM thing is going to backfire soon. People are not really going to be happy with these services when their devices start to fail. It's then they realize they have lost hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of music they thought they owned but were in fact renting. They will envious of people who took the time to translate the music they had to free formats on free systems. None of the FUD is true for music and media on these systems which lack both complicated, error proned DRM schemes and easy targets for the actively waged anti file scorched earth warfare. I've got my music, it's backed up, I can easily move it and I can play it on as many devices as I want. Apple may take care of people with ITunes but "Works for Sure" music boxes are sure to crap out and leave their users flat.
More importantly, there's still competition out there for the big three music publishers. Musicians don't like being screwed and know that's what they get from the cartels. The music industry killed mp3.com, but there are many other to take their place that will offer musicians and fans a much better deal. With Lessing creating an unambiguous legal framework, we can expect these services to be unassailable.
The concentration of power enjoyed by music publishers was a freak of history and will soon go away. People have been singing and dancing for each other throughout human history. I suspect someone will notice a chimp singing to it's young one day and that it sounds better than pop 40. Music copyrights and radio have only been around for 150 years or so. Government regulation of airwaves and music publication created the cartels in those 150 years. Many people have made money off the scheme, but the technology has been obsolete and the regulations overbearing for decades. Laws which keep Girl Scouts from singing around the fireplace are clearly out of line. Laws have gone from reasonable promotion of artistic work and sharing of public resources to blatant anti-competition tools, which thwart basic human desires. In ten years, we will look back on this madness and wonder how anyone dared keep people from singing to each other or sharing digital files.
Until then, visit places like Magnitune [magnatune.com] and sample the future.
$4.00 for a canned performance? You must be shitting me.
I had a friend who did this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know one person just like this, who is your typical B&O / Vaio luser. He proudly announced to me that he had just finished converting all of his 800+ cds to....WMA.
I explained to him that this was not really a good idea, because one day these files might not play on a future version of Windows Media Player. I explained to him that he could download iTunes for free, and that he could use it to rip his collection into a format that he would be able to access 'forever'.
He will not do this for several reasons.
Firstly, I showed him that he was dumb, and that he wasted his time; he would not possibly be able to 'back down'. Secondly, he just spent weeks ripping his whole collection and is loath to do it all again.
There will, sadly, always be people who are stupid like this, and it will literally take the elimination of ALL of their music before they wake up and understand what DRM is all about.
I had a friend who did exactly as you describe. A couple of months later he got a new soundcard, installed the new windoze driver for it and
Not one.
Faced with having to do weeks of work all over again (or downgrade to his older card again) he did finally listen, and ripped his entire collection into ogg-vorbis format.
Why ogg? Because, like me, he has a portable device that will play it (a Rio Karma), and because he didn't ever want to have to do this again, and ogg enjoys freeom not only from DRM, but from patents as well. With software patents threatening Europe, and enforcement beginning to rear its ugly head here in the US, the days of MP3 may be as limited as those of WMA.
Consumers will learn their lesson. It will cost them, but they will learn it. Unfortunately, most of them have so bought into the corporate doublespeak eminating from Redmond and Washington that they will only learn it the hard way, from being struck in the face, repeatedly, by their DRM-crippled products and the gaping hole where their wallets, and music collections, used to be.
Re:Music Exec (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes a little effort to get over the mental hurdle of not actually owning the music you're paying for, but for the price of five or six CDs, I can access an entire world of music. And while they have some licensing issues preventing them from getting some albums/bands (no AC/DC for example), it's generally a pretty effective collection.
Aside from that, I've also been using mp3search. Yes, I know it might not technically be legit, but for 10 cents per song and about a dollar an album, I'll take it over iTunes any day. Plus, it's real MP3s rather than AAC or other DRM crap.
Some people say that people will never pay for music if they can get it for free. That's just not true. They're just not willing to pay $17 an album. Or perhaps even $10. After all, if I'm not getting physical media, liner notes, inserts, artwork, jewel cases and have to deal with DRM crap that makes using it on multiple machines and devices a potential headache, why do I want to spend almost as much as I pay for the real thing at a record shop? Give me a ton of selection, easy downloads, non-crippled content and very cheap downloads/fees and I'm with you. And so are a lot of people.
Once the big boys are out of the way (RIAA members), there will be no reason for such high prices. An artist gets a buck out of a CD sale today - if they're extremely lucky. That's probably before they pay their agents or anyone else, too. So if you take the traditional distributor out of the picture, the artist can sell their MP3s online through iTunes or some other service for $2 per album and still be making more than double what they made under the foot of the RIAA distributors. And there's no cost involved. And they won't have anyone to share that $2 with.
The only thing musicians will still need is a way to become popular. Today, it's possible to become big at just about anything through internet promotion alone. But even if you needed some sort of professional promotion, you could still engage someone for that and do traditional stumping for your band. At least you'll still have far fewer middle men to deal with in the end.
Because that's how they think (Score:5, Informative)
And they forced a price hike.
Not too long ago they forced Apple up to $1.25 per song. It was their cut that went up, not Apple's. Apple really isn't making much, since they recognise it needs to be cheap to be widely accepted and they want to corner the market, plus it sells iPods which is where they really make money.
Even that, however, is better than what the record industry wanted: $3/song for popular songs.
So really, that is the kind of thought that goes through their heads. They think they should just be allowed to squeeze every last dime out of people. That's the whole reason they are so paranoid about copying of music. The more outrageous prices get, the more likely people are to copy things and the more morally justified they feel in doing it.
Rumor-mongering (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't doubt the price will go up one day, but not soon and not to the degree that you suggest.
Re:Rumor-mongering (Score:3, Informative)
I don't use iTunes so I accepted the story as is. Register is usually accurate.
Regardless, that they'd try goes to my orignal point. Heck, the current pricing distribution goes to my point. If songs were $1, Apple took half, and they didn't take all costs out of artists' royalites, I'd say it was fair. As it stands, they get the lions share of the money for the least work and risk.
At last ! (Score:2)
I believe this trend will increase in every sphere as most people get over the thrill of free or stolen music.
The initial days have passed and more and more people are settling down to the regular method of paying.
Yet there will remain first timers who will always want to go for the irregular path for a quick thrill.
In a way life is getting more monotonous.
Just playing catch-up (Score:4, Insightful)
Provided you've got the cash means to do it, there's not really any excuse for not using "officially sanctioned", paid-for, download sources.
All we've seen is the industry playing catch-up with a technology which took off much faster than they were able to keep up with.
Re: Just playing catch-up (Score:5, Insightful)
> Given the level of integration between something like iTunes and my iPod, it is much easier (for me) to browse, pay, and download, music, rather than search for and obtain an uncontrolled copy.
I think slashdotters have been saying for years that the problem was the music industry's (non existant) business model, and if they would make it cheap enough to download a song, people would pay for it.
Also, presumably the % piracy is a function of the price, and the goal of the music industry will be to maximize (number_of_downloads * price_each).
Of course, they could virtually eliminate piracy by pushing the price toward zero, but that's probably not what maximizes profit.
Re: Just playing catch-up (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, presumably the % piracy is a function of the price, and the goal of the music industry will be to maximize (number_of_downloads * price_each).
Which, BTW, suggests that RSN we'll see a hamfisted attempt at DRM-based region coding for music downloads, so that they can optimized that formula independently for the different economic regions of the planet.
Re:Just playing catch-up (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because you own an iPod. For someone like me, who only owns MP3 players and doesn't want to take part in Apple's vendor lock-in scheme, iTMS is quite a bit more hassle.
Re:Just playing catch-up (Score:2, Interesting)
Provided you've got the cash means to do it, there's not really any excuse for not using "officially sanctioned", paid-for, download sources.
Yah there is. I still don't use things like iTunes for music, because I want lossless files. I'm paying more per song because I'm not getting all the extra crap (which I admittedly don't want) but also not getting the same quality. Crappy deal to those of us that care.
I generally buy used CDs. I keep a running list of about 20 pages on my Amazon wish list. When something goes down to $5 or lower and is in at least "very good" condition, I buy it.
Every now and then I'll get something from allofmp3, and when I do, it's always a lossless file. The online music business is moving forward, but it still has a good way to go.
I think the tide turned... (Score:5, Funny)
... when Britney Spears appeared in those television ads telling me how wrong piracy was, and how it was stealing from artists like her.
I mean: "We hit a little bit of reality, hardcore, after the first three weeks. But we handled it fine, and now things are starting to go really smooth. Before we got married we were on tour, and we were just like kids, ordering room service, saying, 'Let's go out tonight. Then, all of a sudden, you have this home, you have the kids [Federline's children Kaleb and Kori], you have to get the diapers, get the dog to the vet. It's this reality. Like omigod, I have to tell the maid to buy diapers and get the pool boy to walk the dog? Can't I just make out with Kevin all the time? Being married sucks."
Poor girl... thank god the RIAA kept after the pirates who tried to rob her of her livelihood.
Seriously though, good to hear that online music is working, but it still sucks that 60% of that goes to RIAA liscensing levies.
What about allofmp3.com? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's apparently legal for allofmp3 to offer the music (in Russia), and it's legal for me in Canada to download it, but I somehow think that this type of service is not what they had in mind when they said "legal".
Hymn Gone (Score:2, Interesting)
Hymn was a program that removed the DRM from Apple's iTMS downloads. It was actually nice if you make a lot of mix CDs as you can quickly get past the limit on the DRM for the AAC files. They broke the original version of Hymn with 4.7 but I thought that a new version came out, hosted off in India. But now that doesn't work either.
It's weird, as it seems to me that anyone pirating would simply get an MP3 from some P2P network. So I didn't see Hymn as that big a threat.
Re:Hymn Gone (Score:5, Informative)
right?
Re:quit that (Score:2)
Oh my god! (Score:4, Funny)
</sarcasm>
Two important distinctions (Score:3, Interesting)
Also is that replacing illegal downloaders or is it gaining new users.
I am not trying to argue anything here, but gauge the state of the industry.
Sorry about the spelling, I have a Birthday celebration to attend.
Re:Two important distinctions (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been thinking about going to a legal downloading service but I hang back because I fear that the restrictions and proprietary formats will prevent me from...
1.) Burning unlimited audio CDs for the car
2.) Burning unlimited mp3 CDs for work
3.) Buying any third party hardware player for the files I get from the service
That's basically it... I want to be able to listen to a song I buy from home, in the car, and at work without requiring a specific player or proprietary software (I use a zero footprint mp3 player on my work pc).
Is that possible with any of the legal services? I'd pay $1 per song...
What if we treat it like licensing... if I buy a tune in the proprietary format and then download that same tune in mp3 format, is that really wrong/illegal? Would they really sue me if I could document that I owned each song I downloaded? I rationalized downloading Pearl Jam's Ten a few months back because my CD (bought in 92 I think) is so scratched up that I can't get a digital rip anymore.
Thoughts?
Fuzzy math... (Score:4, Funny)
- Rip from CD
- Breasts!
- Mentally reconstruct the music by "reading"
the grooves on an LP
- Record off the radio
- Rely on the voices in their head for all their entertainment
- Cowboy Neal
Re:Fuzzy math... (Score:2)
The other 25% were involved in ongoing litigation, or were subject to the confidentiality provisions of a settlement agreement, and chose not to responded to the poll.
The other 25%... (Score:2, Interesting)
On 40% Illegal Downloads (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:On 40% Illegal Downloads (Score:2)
If I am downloading a song that I already own. ( And I have done this ) isn't it fair use? Sorta?
Am I being counted as not legal?
--ken
Re:On 40% Illegal Downloads (Score:2)
What about the masses downloading music they already have licenses for so they can skip the burning step? Not every 'illegal' download is illegal.
VHS Tapes (Score:3, Insightful)
You would think something like the VHS tape would destroy the movie industry. Just like downloading music has destroyed the music industry.
Err.... wait a minute... it didn't!
and (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple will claim iPods and iTunes did it.
Microsoft will some how claim they did something to help with Windows Media Player.
Then more figures will come out saying the opposit and all statements will be withdrawn and more people sued.
Yes, we know better, but... (Score:2)
Okay, great, a statistic. All of us are going, "now wait just one minute there..." and using our inane skills of deduction to whittle away all of its importance (like you can do with any statistic).
So yeah, of course we know better, and this has a good chance of not being anywhere near accurate. So what? The rest of the dumb (er, non-nerd) public believes these statistics, at least on a subconsious level, especially the politicians! Let them believe that piracy is going down, that the paying markets are taking hold, that their business model is working. Maybe they'll stop worrying so much and actually focus on what's important, like making good music. Chances are their profits will keep on not going down. And when they ask how this happens even with all that piracy? Ehhhhhhh... it's magic. Here's some statistics. Good dog.
Interesting (Score:2)
However... (Score:2)
I think it's a bit premature to declare music piracy dead. Apple and others have made great inroads in such a short time to curb illegal p2p usage, but I think that CD sales is losing out to online distro., not p2p networks.
I still buy a lot of albums at the store, but I get all my singles and such online.
AudioLunchbox.com is one reason why (Score:3, Informative)
What about me? (Score:2)
Also interesting to note that... (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds like made up numbers to me (Score:2)
The remaing percentage of music downloaders... (Score:2)
It's a LIttle Late (Score:3, Insightful)
See? See! You CAN compete with free! (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA couldn't deliver the promise of the tech with their business model, so they instead tried to shut down the tech. Hopefully, SCOTUS won't permit that, and we'll know soon enough.
Meanwhile, let it be remembered, you CAN compete with free.
How does this affect musicians? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, thanks to the industry's "messages" most people do have a sense that illegal downloads hurt musicians. But in fact it's the opposite. Most musicians don't make any money whatsoever from CD sales, because under a standard recording contract all the expenses of producing and distributing the little plastic discs get deducted from the musician's royalties, usually leaving nothing.
Musicians make a living playing live performances, just like they did for centuries before recording technology existed. What they get out of CD sales is exposure, which translates to bigger and better paying gigs. They get that exposure whether you pay for the copy or not. The important thing for the musician is that as many people as possible listen to the music, because a certain number of them will eventually buy concert tickets. Controlling people's ability to distribute copies benefits only the record companies, not the musicians.
Long-time musician Janis Ian wrote a couple very good articles explaining in detail how this works [janisian.com]. Here's an excerpt:
I'd _hapily_ pay $0.01 per play for songs (Score:5, Interesting)
I would _happily_ pay $0.01 PER PLAY for songs I don't own yet, just to be able to listen to them. If you counted that money towards later purchase of that same song, all the better. (I.e. listen to a song 99 times, you own it.)
There are plenty of songs I'd like to just hear in their entirety once or twice, out of curiosity. I don't want to BUY them... but I'd be willing to pay a small amount for the privilege.
If only the oh-so-scared-of-piracy folks would learn that there are lots of people WILLING to part with their money for the right kinds of services...
- Peter
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a VERY bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe I'm missing something here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Read closely (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read closely (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't add up (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't add up (Score:4, Informative)
The article says "35% of music consumers". Presumably, this means "all people who buy CDs" (or would buy CDs, if they weren't busy stealing the bread out of hungry record executive children's mouths).
This allows for overlap between the two groups; in fact, I'm guessing that the vast majority of online-music-buyers have also experimented with downloading.
If there is complete overlap, it would mean that 60% of music consumers have never downloaded music from the 'net. It would also mean that only 12.5% of illegal downloaders have not bought from iTunes or similar...
It would be interesting to see the actual numbers, and what questions they asked :-/
Re:It doesn't add up (Score:2)
Re:Percentages? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Math anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
The numbers add up, they just shouldn't be added.
Re:Is Anyone Actually Being Honest (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bah.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hate when people quote statistical data and have no clue about what they're doing. They usually re-interpret the data and reproduce the information that's either incomplete or false. False this time... 35% of people download music and it's kinda stupid to write that it relates somehow strictly to the number of downloads.
On average I probably buy around one bar of candy a week. If it was free (that's what pirated music is about, right?), I bet I'd eat more.
Sorry if it seems unimportant, I just kinda get pissed when negligence leads to misinformation.
Re:i dont buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember that these statistics are based over the entire population, so in fact, your friends (I'm assuming you're much younger than I am) may in fact rarely pay for legal music downloads, but my friends do, and thus "counter" yours.
It would be interesting to see how this statistic breaks down over age group.