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.'"
something's not adding up (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
The other 25%... (Score:2, Interesting)
On 40% Illegal Downloads (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Math anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
The numbers add up, they just shouldn't be added.
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.
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:Just playing catch-up (Score:1, Interesting)
Now I'm paying around $25 a month -- to allofmp3.
Listen up, RIAA. It's all about price point. Nothing else. If you match allofmp3.com's price point, I'll happily buy music directly from your monopolies, err, members. You will note that I'm paying more money than I did before. That's because allofmp3.com has found the sweet spot on the supply/demand curve. And you have not.
And until you get a clue, you can get fucked.
Re:I think the tide turned... (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean the unfairness of the world, especially against the white men and even women, is just astounding.
I agree. Buying stuff is better. Just try to buy indie.
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.
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:Bogus statistics: what little we can conclude (Score:1, Interesting)
The only number that matters is happiness (Score:2, Interesting)
And would volume even matter for the purposes of arguing a point?
What if Bob purchases exactly the same artists' CDs that he always did pre-Internet, but downloads infringing copies of *every other single audio track in existence*. Total losses are zero, even though infringing downloads are massive in volume.
The only number that matters for purposes of affecting legislation is total *actual* losses. The MPAA's losses numbers have nothing to do with the actual losses, mostly because it's incredibly difficult to predict what would happen.
The only number that matters in the long term is making people happy (the whole reason that we have an economy, money, IP, the RIAA, etc). If we could be producing more happy people by clamping down hard on infringers, if this produces more and better music and thus makes does a better job of satisfying a desire for music, then we should clamp down.
On the other hand, if an alternate mechanism of handling music produces more happy people, we should use that.
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.
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: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.
maybe if... (Score:2, Interesting)
no... but go ahead and support itunes(RIAA).
being cool is certainly far better than supporting decency.
Advanced music listeners vs dumbasses (Score:1, Interesting)
I think while the hard core advanced listeners will continue to download for free, dumbasses will use crappy "pay-to-download" systems.
Oh, and by the way I spend hundreds of dollars on music each year, there's nothing like a REAL physical music collection
Oh yeah, real nice. (Score:1, Interesting)
Oh what a nice bunch of pigopolists who:
There's nothing on the above list that I want.
You want nice? Go visit any Creative Commons web site and learn how to dream on your own again. Musicians want people to hear and enjoy their work. Lawyers and dipshits want to own it. The musicians are in control of Creative Commons. Dipshits are in control of RIAA music services. You have your pick.
Legal smegal (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Sooo... what do we need the RIAA for? (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA and the labels themselves are heading for a serious fall. They really will be losing a lot of money, but due to competition rather than "piracy". Apple and Microsoft will eat them for breakfast and I for one can't wait to see it happen.
This is a VERY bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
i dont buy it (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, I do know people that download music illegaly, and there are those that purchase CDs..
These statistics suggest that over 1/3 of the people I know that listen to music, use pay-to-listen/download services? I have trouble swallowing this..
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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: But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have to admit that I have yet to use iTunes or a similar interface because I don't have an iPod or an MP3 player in my truck so I still prefer CD's. I do, however, imagine that it's still just as difficult to do an entire album for a particular artist.
So yeah, the music industry will see this as a positive step in the right direction, which is a good reason that I personally believe that very little, if anything, will convince the RIAA/MPAA to back off.
Re: But will the RIAA/MPAA stop bitching? (Score:3, Interesting)