Study Finds P2P Has No Effect on Legal Music Sales 294
MBrichacek writes "The Journal of Political Economy is running the results of a study into P2P file-sharing, reports Ars Technica. The study has found that, contrary to the claims of the recording industry, there is almost no effect on sales from file-sharing. Using data from several months in 2002, the researchers came to the conclusion that P2P 'affected no more than 0.7% of sales in that timeframe.' 803 million CDs were sold in 2002, according to the study, which was a decrease of about 80 million from the previous year. While the RIAA has been blaming that drop (and the drop in subsequent years) on piracy, given the volume of file-sharing that year the impact from file sharing could not have been more than 6 million albums total. Thus, 74 million unsold CDs from that year are 'without an excuse for sitting on shelves.'"
Can't Say I'm Surprised (Score:2, Interesting)
Blah blah blah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, it's obviously somewhere in the middle. I doubt that p2p does much damage to music sales, but it has to have SOME impact...I mean, when I get some stupid pop song stuck in my head and I download it instead of buying it, that's a few bucks that won't go to the damn RIAA, and I have enough disposable cash that I might have bought it, if I had no other option.
On the flip side, I tend to download songs off CDs I already own, so I don't have to get out the sharpie to scribble over the stupid data track, so I can rip it. That's the definition of a no damage situation.
Neither side is ever going to compromise on this; the **AA's are as convinced we're screwing them as we are that they're screwing us. Eventually they'll just wither away and die due to changing distribution models, and that will be the end of that.
Is it even worth publiching these things. (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people prefer supposition and believing what's "obvious" and they will continue to ignore the facts anyway.
Where is the study on how much CDs suck? (Score:5, Interesting)
The music consumer has wised up, and many of us sample music we are interested in on MP3, WMA, whatever, and find out what is good and what sucks BEFORE spending our money. When I find good music, I generally purchase the CD, but I'll be dammed if I am going to part with money for a disk full of B-sides.
Record companies got greedy, when they could have made a fortune selling CDs for 7-10 dollars.
Right fucking NOW, some stupid record exec is reading the report, and in his mind, sees it as another opportunity to RAISE prices.
Fuck um.
Re:The Original Report (Score:5, Interesting)
File sharing enables more acts to be exposed to a larger audience. File sharing is probably hurting radio more than it is artists, as it becomes increasingly difficult to cater to the growing diverse tastes of what used to be their audience. Basically, I pose that file sharing is taking the place of radio to promote artists. Why do I say promote? If you've ever heard an MP3 or other compressed format played at a reasonable or louder volume on quality equipment, you wouldn't be asking.
Control of musical output is being taken away from large conglomerates, and is actually being put back into the hands of the people. Over the course of the last 20 or so years, the FCC has allowed the independent radio station to become extinct as they were gobbled up mainly by one of 2 corporations: Infinity and ClearChannel. These corporations, namely ClearChannel as I have personally seen them destroy the selection of radio stations in my city, have attempted to create a one size fits all set of stations to pump music and [lack of] talent through to the chumps, um, audience. Via this control, and payola, for which I have no direct proof other than the absolute crap on the radio that has driven away large portions of their audience, they thought they were setup to just print money by promoting talentless acts with crappy contracts that would "sell" just because they promoted them.
What happened instead is this internet thing and P2P, wherein people started sharing music, music that wasn't promoted, wasn't on the local airwaves, and thus not in the RIAA members's maximized profit model. It got even worse when sites like MySpace (yes, I have to give it some props) started serving as an alternative promotion source for bands.
So there's much more to P2P and music sales than what these or any statistics show. Falling sales are not related to increased P2P. I'd argue that sales haven't fallen any more than they have explicitly because of P2P. Why? Take a look at the last 6 months of album releases. Can you name more than 2 albums of note? I can't. I haven't seen a single Rock/Alternative/Pop album I wanted in the past 6 months. Is it because there aren't any musicians out there? Naah, it's because tripe has been promoted and is all that's for sale.
I know the effect it's had on my music purchasing (Score:5, Interesting)
Not much.
I was never a huge music buyer or listener really, mostly I just relied on friends music collections to carry me through. Though I understand how some folks get completely wrapped up in their music collections, for me it was mainly background noise to what I was really focusing on. As such, a 1/2 decent radio station would suffice when no friends with massive music collections were around.
Since the p2p downloading craze and the direct download craze that led up to it...though my music collection itself has increased quite a bit, my buying patterns are about the same. Essentially, I have my own personal perfect radio station.
Conversely, I do directly attribute P2P with significantly increasing my spending in one area: live concerts.
Though my effort/money put toward accruing music hasn't changed at all, my exposure to music has vastly increased with the ease of "collection" that p2p has brought. I've always loved a live show, so much so that it probably explains my aversion to recorded music. I love the little flaws in a live performance that gives the music a personality that is often stripped away by significant remastering at the recording studio.
Since a show costs anywere from 10-60 dollars and I'm going to more then ever and in genres I never considered before.....I'd say the music industry is profiting form me more then ever.
Re:Blah blah blah. (Score:2, Interesting)
If piracy became impossible tomorrow and ever more then people aren't going to suddenly go to music stores and buy lots of music. Instead they'll find someone who offers them a price they're willing to pay, which will be an indie artist (who may use ads on their website to make money). If they have a choice between the pirated works of the latest RIAA shill or an indie artist whose offering their work for the price of a banner when you go to their website, people will choose the RIAA crap. If however they have a choice between $20 for the latest RIAA shill or an indie artist whose offering their work for the price of a banner when you go to their website, people will be much more likely to choose the indie artist.
So yes, piracy does hurt legitimate artists. However it doesn't hurt the RIAA's artists.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Study is Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
A. File sharing has caused DRM (e.g. rootkits).
B. DRM pisses off customers.
C. Pissed off customers look for other things to buy instead of CD's.
still one good reason to "pirate" a song... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I like a song enough to want a local copy of it, my first step is to check iTunes. Usually I find the song (recent example: Yell Fire by Michael Franti) and its associated album. If I like the other songs enough, I buy the whole thing, otherwise just the one. However...
If the song is NOT on iTunes (recent example: Justified & Ancient by Tammy & the KLF), I click the icon I keep right next to iTunes... Poisoned [gottsilla.net]. It's exceedingly rare not to find exactly what I want on P2P. As far as I'm concerned, I made a good faith effort to pay for it, and my conscience is clear.
What they really fear from piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Back when I was a kid, the way I "found" new bands was to go to the CD store and randomly buy something. Either that, or the radio. Nowadays I'd be ashamed to buy music sight-unseen (that is, unheard) but it used to be normal behavior.
Re:How bizarre... (Score:1, Interesting)
Accessibility of Music (Score:2, Interesting)
I still buy CD's....sort of. (Score:3, Interesting)
I pretty much stopped buying the drivel put out my the major labels in the early 90's, stopped listening to the radio (di.fm FTW!), and most of the concerts I go to are old bands coming back for the umpteenth time - though I did see Coldplay's 2nd tour which was darn good!
To my mind the music *business* has turned into just that - a machine designed to reap the greatest money from the consumer for the least amount of effort/talent/artistry. There are tons of fantastic artists out there, but the vast majority of them record on little tiny labels (twisted.co.uk, ultimae.com are two that I consider noteworthy).
I admit to doing a bit of Nabstering in my day, but honestly all I was looking for were extended mixes of 80's tunes that are not available anywhere. I would not even consider pirating/downloading any of the music I listen to all the time if I can buy it on CD.
Why does the RIAA still dominate, then? (Score:3, Interesting)
I viscerally want to agree with you on this point, but I'm left wondering - if this is the model for success why isn't it being exploited by entrepreneurs in a capitalistic society? The RIAA labels should go out of business quickly, leaving those following the path to profit as the new kings.
But that's not happening.
Re:How bizarre... (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno about that. One suggestion is that people are getting music, but they still spend money on it. They could use P2P to discover what they want to get, then go get it. Sounds counter intuitive, but you've got to consider that there's always new music coming out. For example, I discovered the Chemical Brothers through 'piracy'. When they released a new album, I just went out and bought it. I was excited about getting it. Etc.
That may or may not convince you, that's cool, I understand. Afterall, I'm only giving you anecdotal evidence. I just know that I've spent MORE money since I've had the ability to acquire music/movies on the net than I did before. Sites like YouTube, for example, have kept me interested in entertainment. P2P may get people content for free, but it also keeps their interest alive. I can picture that balancing out. Ask yourself this question: Do you know anybody who exclusively gets content from P2P but never purchases movies or music? Personally, I don't, but I'll concede I'm only a sample of one.
Re:I agree, but it isn't new (Score:3, Interesting)
That changed some in the 1960s, as TV featured more music. But the total amount of TV "bandwidth" was too small to do more than influence the industry, and form a small ghetto of purely TV stars posing as musicians.
Of course the 1980s changed everything. The record companies were not just a cartel, but owned by very large corporations, typically conglomerates, for synergy. They harnessed 24x7 MTV and a few others to market products with video content more than radio had ever achieved. And they controlled the content to make it safe, harnessing the social/political effects of the music for commerce, rather than the "revolution" (mostly dating preferences) of the previous 30-40 years.
Disco, Punk, AOR, Grunge and so many other "genres" were created as market segments by the corporations, largely structured by video TV viewership. The only real monkey wrench was rap, which was so cheap to make (trashcan turntables instead of even guitars) and distribute through a new medium of tape: boomboxes and walkmans. By the 1990s record corps had figured out rap audiences, too, so that's corporate and harmless.
But music is eternal. It's a fundamental way for people to express ourselves, to ourselves and to each other. It's a compulsion for many people to make, regardless of (and, owing to the defects underlying compulsive psychology, often despite) profitability, subsistence or any other rational constraint. Unfortunately, bad music is pretty persistent. But I hope that the decentralized distribution of networks means more people will hear more people like themselves (in at least some sympathetic way) doing it, and more people will be inspired to do it. Which is all that never changes in music, and where the good stuff comes from.
Re:Exactly (Score:1, Interesting)
The only mainstream music I buy now are from major bands like U2 and that doesn't happen often. I can't remember the last time I purchased in a store.
Re:Why does the RIAA still dominate, then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How bizarre... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyhow, the market has changed, yet the recording industry hasn't. If they don't get their act together, they'll either find themselves without a job, or they'll end up causing a war with all their legal propaganda crap.