Challenging Music Downloading Myths 560
The BBC is reporting on a study by digital music research firm The Leading Question, which found that people who download music from peer to peer networks paid for four and a half times more music than regular music fans. Also that most of these people "are extremely enthusiastic about paid-for services, as long as they are suitably compelling." What is nice is that the BPI welcomed the findings that not all file sharers are actually evil... they still pledged to carry on the 'carrot and stick' approach though.
Downloading isn't evil at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hands up (Score:5, Interesting)
I spend as much money as I can afford on CD and vinyl and am completely unapologetic about downloading leaked pre-releases, deleted releases, music I'd consider buying but only after hearing (RIP John Peel, there are fewer and fewer places to do so), and sometimes just music I've not yet the money or time to buy...
I don't see... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I'm all about legal alternatives... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's even worse than that; they simply don't care.
The world is a good place as long as they can get their Top 40 fix. Finding quality alternatives to major-label music is just too much work. The RIAA knows they can walk all over these people, and so they do.
It's just a shame when people who DO care are impacted.
Bribery (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:4, Interesting)
Though to be fair of the friends I have who were mass mp3 "pirates" [arr, avast ye matey!] in last decade or so they're less so [if stopped completely] now.
It's cool when you're a teen and you wanna download everything and anything. For myself, I was part of the generation that grew up with mod/s3m/it/xm tracks and then this "net thing" hit us. So for us it was all new, fresh, cool, etc.
I think most kids grow out of it once they get a good salary and can afford 20$ for a cd...
Tom
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:3, Interesting)
The upshot is make music cheaper, $0.99 in the US but iTunes is 99p in the UK about $1.7. Without CD and distribution costs + supplier profit, straight to web service should make music cheaper. People are paying for 1 song at $0.99 and downloading 4 others = effectively reducing the cost to $0.20 per song.
carrots? (Score:5, Interesting)
"'...which is why we need to continue our carrot and stick approach to the problem of illegal file-sharing,' he [Philips] said."
What carrots? All I see are sticks. Are good file-sharers being rewarded at all? Let's see...
New CD at Best Buy, at a cut-rate price: $12.00
Paying for an entire CD with 15 songs off of iTunes: $14.85, not including the hidden costs of their DRM.
It seems all we're getting are sticks and heavier sticks from the recording industry. Yet they think they're being nice by offering to license music for a more expensive price. Fuck them, I'll save my $15 bucks and download free music off archive.org.
Give the People what they want (Score:1, Interesting)
Same Old, Same Old (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty much a repeat of history. Back when FM radio and analog tape cassette recording was in its infancy, the music industry also cried foul about people recording music from radio shows and claimed it was cutting into their profits.
Studies of that time showed similar results to the one mentioned in the article: people who recorded music from radio also bought a heck of a lot more music than those who didn't. Ultimately radio served as an advertising medium and wasn't hurting sales at all. The music industry eventually made its peace with radio.
We can only hope that eventually the music industry will relearn this old lesson...
Things never change (Score:5, Interesting)
24 years ago, the recording industry was making the same exact claims that they are making today -- they are losing huge amounts of money due to "piracy". Back in those days, personal computers and the Internet were almost non-existant. CDs didn't exist and the main form of recorded music was the vinyl LP. According to the RIAA back then, the villain was cassette tape recorders. People were borrowing their friends albums and recording them onto cassettes instead of buying their own copy.
So, the RIAA commissioned a study that they hoped to take to Congress as proof that they needed tougher laws to deal with this terrible problem. But a funny thing happened. Their study showed that people who had a good quality cassette deck in their stereo sysytem bought nearly twice as many albums as people who didn't.
Sound familiar?
I question the validity of these findings. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just FYI, downloading isn't illegal (Score:2, Interesting)
That's a HUGE distinction that I think many Slashdotters tend to ignore in order to make the RIAA appear that much more petty and intrusive.
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of things in life are unfairly priced [one way or another]. Doesn't mean you can just take them when you want.
Whether "piracy == lost sales" or not doesn't really matter. The whole point of a music career is to make a living producing and performing music. If you feel that paying for that is not worth it then you might as well not have professional musicians.
Are the RIAA and labels totally disgraceful? Doesn't matter. That's how they choose to do business.
Know that there are ways of getting good music without going through the RIAA labels. Local bands, indy bands, etc, are out there and if you were soooo concerned with unfair music practices you'd go look for them.
Imagine if all you stupid children spent energy spreading word-of-mouth about indy bands instead of further spreading label music. You'd have a WIDE VARIETY of music to choose from, it wouldn't cost 20$ per CD and you'd be happier.
But no, you're stupid and ignorant and fuel the things you hate the most.
Tom
Buy one song vs buy the whole album (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, while some interesting points are being made, I can't keep myself from asking: what kind of ultra-pop-hollow-crap music kind are you used to listen to and, worst, paying for, gentlemen??
Here in the beautiful towns of Bluesia, Hard-rockia and Metal Hill, it's commonly known that the single on each album is often the _worst_ song of the album, put together to please the label and casual listeners, while the juice is in the rest of the album.
Personally, if I bought from iTunes or whatever, I would probably buy every and each song from an album, I would _never_ be satisfied with a subset of an album. (Buy only Smoke On The Water and not the whole Machine Head album? Pure blasphemy!
When you are to buy a song that you probably know is the only decent song of an album, isn't it a sign that you are supporting the wrong kind of people? (Providing, of course, that you are interested in people able to offer you a whole album that is worth listen to, instead of a few isolated lucky good songs in a desolated shallow sea of nothingness.)
I pointed out this because it seems to me that supporting label-made hollow artistroids is not far away to support the hollow views of their labels, which are the main topic. I mean, if they can sell me shit, they probably realize that they can sell it to me and "protect" it in shitty ways (DRM, evil pirates campaigns and whatnot), since I'm an happy shit-eater... Anyone agrees?
Uh, sorry for rude terms
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:3, Interesting)
And you're right, there isn't enough choice with formats - even real life stores allow for choice of media - they have vinyl sections, cd, even tape and mini-disk. Why can't there be a lossless store for enthusiasts? - I'd really like to see this happen. They have an audiobook store and podcasts, why not lossless?
As for DRM... the RIAA dropped a bollock with CDs. Somebody had to be first into the digital media market and given the technology at the time it was hardly suprising that they decided to go with additional quality rather than copy protection - given the chance again I have no doubt they would put copy protection on vinyl, tape and CD, they just didn't have the technology at the time. But its not as if DRM, particularly Fairplay, is hard to crack, its there to make sharing songs more trouble than its worth.
As for iTMS locking you into iPod, well thats the point isn't it? You pay less money for a 'better' MP3 player that supports OGG/Vorbis but can't use it with the most popular online store - leaving piracy as the easiest option. The reason the better portables arn't selling as well is because they are more difficult to use for street consumers - its a package thing. Don't like the package? Don't buy the iPod... is that starting to sound weak to anyone else?
Re:Downloading isn't evil at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
Product differentiation is the key to high profit margins, and corporations know this. You don't see one kind of Campbell's soup on the store shelves, do you? No, because people will pay more for their favorite kind of soup (spicy gristle w/salted rinds, yum!) rather than a simple old standard. There's plenty of reason to dislike the recording industry, but your argument is misguided here...
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:3, Interesting)
Further proof about how out of touch they are (Score:2, Interesting)
Stop marketing crappy music then. Even the most mindless drones of modern "culture" are beginning to notice that the SPAM (Shit Posing As Music) that they are being bombarded with all sounds exactly the same, no matter how enticing/slutty (depends on your POV, I suppose) the singer is.
I mean there are only so many ways you can refry the three/four-guys-in-a-'punk'-band, or the boy band, or the solo-female-who-struggled-from-nothing-to-stardom, etc recipes before it all starts to taste the same.
The same holds true even in the less popular genres. I work for my university's radio station as the heavy metal director. Even the "smaller" labels are pushing this same pre-formatted "loud rock" now. And the standard rock (not top-40 though) that we play during the day time is so bland that I spend most of my time listening to the jazz/blues station.
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:3, Interesting)
And would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?
Granted, being able to try something before you buy it isn't that common. After all, when was the last time you were able to try a fridge before buying it? But then again, if you decide that the fridge you just bought isn't good enough, you can take it back.
A different example: Books. I don't think I've ever bought a book without reading at least a few pages first.
With music you can't try it first, and you can't return it afterward. Is that fair?
Does nobody own up to just plain downloading? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know in the last couple of years, a buddy of mine has obtained over 25 complete downloaded albums, and has not went out and purchased a single one, though they are among his favorite bands. That's roughly $375 that did not go to the record companies or the artist. In this case, somebody is losing money somewhere. I'm sure that this is the more likely scenario than the usual music-lovers-just-want-to-try-it-first voices that I usually hear. I just want to hear some people admit that they download music illegally because they can, it's easy, and it's free. I bet that even if there was an iTunes-like service that contained the same un-DRM'd formats that people illegally download, it wouldn't matter to a lot of people when they could still get it for free.
Re:Things never change (Score:1, Interesting)
I am a huge music pirate because I am a huge music fan. I'm constantly seeking out new bands and expanding my musical collection (and taste) through illegal downloads. I also am a huge consumer of music as well, spending roughly $1000 a year on CDs/digital tracks, concerts, and related swag. No, I don't buy everything I download that I like, but I may very well buy that band's next album and in the meantime I attend their concerts, which from the bands point of view profits them as much as if I had bought 10 of their CDs.
Of course, I'm the enemy according to the RIAA. I'm who they are busy suing and lobbying against. It's ridiculous.
They're simply trying to maintain their monopolistic control over distribution. The Internet has made labels much less relevant to artists, who no longer need to give them such a huge cut of the profits. Technology has made production, promotion, and distribution much cheaper and easier. RIAA members know their model is dying and that their piece of the pie is going to get much smaller in the coming years. They're just trying to slow down the change so they can squeeze as much blood from this stone as possible while they can. They obviously have no problem lying to vilify their biggest customers to do this.
why i don't pay for music (Score:2, Interesting)
there are bands that i really like yet all (well, most) of the mp3s i have from there are from the net for free. that means no money from me to the recording companies (who cares about them anyway? i like the band, not the record company). in that case i'll go to their concerts where i'll pay much more than i'd pay for a CD and it's usually not a ripoff either as i get drunk and generally feel good - both the fans and the artists are happy.
and that way the record companies aren't really involved, the band gets paid and not organizations like the riaa.
so basically if i like the band i'll eventually pay more for their concerts than i'd pay for their cd's. if i don't like a band it's not likely i'll keep downloading their music anyway. all the fuss about it is by the money-grabbing record companies. no real band has ever complained about people having the right to do whatever they want with the music. it's only the record companies who suppose that i'd buy CD's from them if i wouldn't have the music already from the net.
without the record companies life would be much easier for everyone. if bands didn't have to get a record company for cd manufacturing and stuff, they'd get a lot more money for what they do and the consumers/fans wouldn't have to deal with all this bullshit. and of course, the only way to do that is to make a website and sell downloads. no stupid crap like drm or any of that shit limiting the customer - just good old mp3. if people aren't tied down by all this copyright bullshit they won't be leeching stuff just for spite.
I buy all my music (Score:3, Interesting)
But I've stopped buying from big chains and only buying from the musicians themselves at their shows (they get half the take, instead of 2 cents) or at local indie music stores where they get $1 from the $12 CD price.
my prediction is this situation will continue to get worse as more and more people avoid the price-fixing parasites at the middle tier and reroute from the consumer to the provider (musicians).
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:3, Interesting)
1)I refuse to use a DRMed service. Ever.
2)$1 per song is still too expensive to use as a sampling service. I tend to download 5 or 6 songs by an artist to see if I like him, trying a new artist is not worth $5-$6
3)I refuse to use a time limited service. Rhapsody/Napster/whatever would be fine except that they don't have full selection, and if I decide to stop paying I lose the music I already acquired.
4)Not available on Linux. Pretty much a deal stopper there.
eMusic used to have the right idea when they had the unlimited access- pay $10 (or $20, $30, $40, whatever the price needs to be to make it work) a month, grab whatever you want in mp3 format. I'd happily pay for that with decent selection (hell, I payed for emusic like that without decent selection). I'm not going to pay monthly so someone can raise prices on me without warning and destroy all my music if I don't like the new price.
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hands up (Score:1, Interesting)
Hmm... Makes sense. I'll use the same attitude the next time I'm at the gas station. I can't be bothered to legally pay for something if I don't have the time or money, right?
This attitude scares me.
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:2, Interesting)
And I also don't understand where this mythic $20 CD price across the board comes from. I can't remember paying more than $11-15 for a CD, with the exception of the $19-20 a few of my recent Ayreon purchases were, and those were two-disc albums with cover art and extras.
People don't give a fuck about their music as much as they say they do, they just want some cheap background noise.
Re:Common knowledge. (Score:3, Interesting)