Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

File Sharing and CD Sales, Again 319

Posted by michael from the dissection-and-vivisection dept.
Andrew Leonard writes "Stan Liebowitz, an economist studying the effects of file-trading on the music industry, says in an article in Salon that new numbers have convinced him that the decline in CD sales may be partially attributable to MP3 downloading. But he also argues that the decline does not justify draconian new laws."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

File Sharing and CD Sales, Again More

File Sharing and CD Sales, Again

Comments Filter:

  • Obviously there is some mistake (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    According to this well written story [slashdot.org], music sharing actually increases music sales.

    This Stan Liebowitz person is probably some guy trying to make a name for himself by stirring up trouble on Slashdot. Let's not give him the satisfaction!

  • Obviously, it does affect CD sales to SOME extent! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by izx ( 460892 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @01:46AM (#4132113)
    You're always going to have the unethical/innocent geek kid who downloads an MP3 and listens only to it since his PC, MP3 player and PDA are the only things he uses for listening to music.

    You're always going to have the normal guy who doesn't care about "branded" CDs or the slight (and sometimes perceptible) quality loss of MP3s over CDs...he goes ahead and burns his MP3s to a 5-cent CDR and listens to it anyway.

    You're always going to have the fellow who likes to support artists, and buys original CDs. Catch? He now listens to MP3s to sample new albums. He doesn't like the sample...he doesn't buy the CD. Whereas earlier he would be stuck with the CD as a sample (no CD returns!), he is now a "loss" to the music company.
    • > You're always going to have the fellow who likes
      > to support artists, and buys original CDs. Catch?
      > He now listens to MP3s to sample new albums. He
      > doesn't like the sample...he doesn't buy the CD.

      This would certainly be me, as are many others.. yes, it decreases sales... but none less then the radio has. The difference is that with the internet, the quality is a little better and you can avoid commercials.

      There is also a 4rd group, like my sisters.. they buy the CDs, but download the mp3s because they aren't knowledgable enough to rip & encode their own.

      The only sad thing is that there are some who abuse the power and never buy the cds.
      • And people who download more than the radio's selection of an artist's work, and decide the majority are Crud, so don't buy the album.

        And people who don't have any radio access to hear new music with (believe it or not, there are large chunks of non-metro California with virtually zero radio reception -- I know, I live in one of 'em) and otherwise would never hear ANY new music, so would otherwise never buy any either.

        But I suspect the majority actually do what I do: I get exposed to some "new" (at least to me) artist via MP3, I like the first song, so I download a few more and like them too, then I run out and buy the album as a hardcopy backup (of better quality) for the ephemeral MP3s that might go *poof* if my hard disk goes tits-up between backups.

        I can tell you positively, that there have been TWO periods when I've *bought* lots of music: when I was DJing and had access to one of the largest music libraries in the world (complete with a tape unit so I could copy whatever I wished), and when I had faster online access and it was reasonable to download lots of MP3s. Since I moved, my connect speed went to hell due to shit phone lines (right now I'm connected at 16.8k!!) and it's no longer practical to download anything; after a while I noticed that I was no longer buying music either (probably because there's nothing new in my MP3 collexion to entice me to lust after my own real copy of).

        Coincidence? You decide.

    • You're always going to have the normal guy who doesn't care about "branded" CDs or the slight (and sometimes perceptible) quality loss of MP3s over CDs...he goes ahead and burns his MP3s to a 5-cent CDR and listens to it anyway.


      There's also the guy who uses MP3s to sample new albums but wasn't falling for the "CD as a sample" trap before - he just wouldn't buy a new album if he didn't know it - he'd wait until perhaps he got a chance to hear it as a friend's place, or just do without. This guy actually buy more CDs since MP3s have come along.

      Are there enough of these guys to balance the others? I don't know, but there are definitely enough that they shouldn't be ignored as a part of the market.

      Russ
    • Also bear in mind that said person samples by downloading an mp3, and purchases something that he would not choose to purchase otherwise.

      Since mp3s hit the scenes, my CD purchases have gone *up*. This is not a unique situation: most of my friends are in the same boat, as well as several studies I have seen on this effect.

      When we think about how this may or may not affect the music industry negatively, don't forget the positive effects as well as the negative.
      • I'm like you in this regard. My CD purchases have gone way up since MP3s became popular. There are several artists I'd never heard previously and now I own every CD they've released.

        The quality of most of the MP3s on the file sharing networks is not adequate for anyone that really cares about the music. I look at them as samplers, nothing more.

        All those MP3s being swapped may well be violations of copyright, but I'd be surprised if even 10% of them represented lost sales. Most of the people downloading these files weren't going to buy the CD anyway. And there are at least some people who are buying more as a result of the file swapping.
    • You're always going to have the unethical/innocent geek kid who downloads an MP3 and listens only to it since his PC, MP3 player and PDA are the only things he uses for listening to music.

      You're always going to have the normal guy who doesn't care about "branded" CDs or the slight (and sometimes perceptible) quality loss of MP3s over CDs...he goes ahead and burns his MP3s to a 5-cent CDR and listens to it anyway.

      Then again, isn't it questionable whether or not the people in these two examples would've bought the CDs anyway? Before MP3s, I just didn't listen to music (outside of the radio and such), and therefore didn't buy CDs. Now, I listen to a lot of songs that are released openly by the artists as MP3s and occasionally save RIAA songs... and therefore don't buy CDs. So in the case of people like me and the cheap or morally opposed people in the examples you listed, MP3s have changed how much music we listen to, but has kept the amount of music that we buy firmly at $0 per year.

      In the end, I think it mostly balances out. Some of the people that used to buy CDs no longer buy CDs because of MP3s, some of the people that didn't used to buy CDs now buy CDs because they were introduced to the artists through MP3s, and some people never bought any CDs and still don't, regardless of MP3s.

      The real problem with this debate, though, is that you can't really tell what's going on. There's no REAL way to tell how many people started buying CDs because of MP3s, how many people stopped buying CDs because of MP3s, how many people stopped buying CDs because of the slow ecnomy, how many people stopped buying CDs because of the prices, etc. It's all just biased statistics based on small samples, coupled with opposite views of the situation that are equally valid and logical.
    • Sure, but what sort of effect it has is still hard to measure. Does it provide free advertizing making people want to support the artists? Yes. Does it allow people to avoid supporting the artists? Yes. So, it probably helps and hurts the industry to some degree.

      That being said, I think that the *single biggest factor* is that the record industry, by targeting Napster has left a serious sense of betrayal with their would-be customers. I personally knew many people that simply stopped buying CD's after Napster. And I personally only buy foreign artists anyway, so the RIAA companies don't get a whole lot from me :)

      So is it artistic doldrums? Probably to some extent. Is it MP3s being downloaded? Maybe a little. But is it the industry treating their customers like crooks? You bet.

  • The horse is dead (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Saturday August 24, 2002 @01:48AM (#4132120) Homepage Journal
    Please, stop beating it.

  • Get a clue (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The guys a moron. His model says a recession doesn't affect sales much, therefore any bigger drops must mean something like MP3s have an effect. Maybe yer model sucks! A 5% change in income may be nothing if your making $100K/yr, and devastating if your making $15K/yr.

    Oh well, I also hate the assumption that if I got if for free, then it's lost revenue, when I would have gone without rather than pay for it.

    blah blah blah

  • RADIO FREE SLASHDOT (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Welcome to Radio Free Slashdot, bringing you the mello sounds of the '70s. Up next, Lady by Kenny Rogers.

    Lady, I'm your knight in shining armor and I love you.
    You have made me what I am and I am yours.
    My love, there's so many ways I want to say I love you.
    Let me hold you in my arms forever more.
    You have gone and made me such a fool
    I'm so lost in your love.
    And oh, we belong together
    Won't you believe in my song?
    Lady, for so many years I thought I'd never find you.
    You have come into my life and made me whole.
    Forever let me wake to see you each and every morning.
    Let me hear you whisper softly in my ear.
    In my eyes I see no one else but you.
    There's no other love like our love.
    And yes, oh yes, I'll always want you near me.
    I've waited for you so long.
    Lady, your love's the only love I need
    And beside me is where I want you to be.
    Cause, my love, there's something I want you to know,
    You're the love of my life, you're my lady

  • Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

  • Might it possibly be....? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @01:58AM (#4132157)
    That I and millions of others like me have decided to boycott the RIAA?
    Hmmm?

    Might we be sick and tired of their power plays and their intrusions into our personal lives?
    Hmmmm?

    Might we be sick and tired of being called criminals by them?
    Hmmm?

    Could we be tired of ther inane music they've been producing the past few years?
    Hmmm?

    Well, My Leibowitz...what do you think??

    • That you think nerds who follow Slashdot are the mass of the populace? That a teenager who wants to blatently steal his favorite artist's music doesn't consider the political ramifications of the RIAA?
    • Boycott? What Boycott? I don't need a boycott. If there were a good CD out there, I'd buy it. I havn't bought a CD in two years. I'm still waiting.

    • Re:Might it possibly be....? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @03:45AM (#4132411) Homepage
      boycott the RIAA?

      Heck, you can throw away the term "boycott".
      I'd say that part of the reduced sales is simply "pissed off customers".
      And it's not like there's a single reason for people to be pissed off, take your pick:

      (1) Irritating the hell out of everyone by inturrupting the grammy's with a stupid-ass antipiracy speech.
      (2) Numerous prominent artists publicly complaining about RIAA's hideous contracts and treatment of artists. Everyone particularly loved the "10% breakage allowance" on CD's deducted from artist royalties.
      (3) Pricing.
      (4) Packaging (in particular a desire for singles).
      (5) Killing Napster.
      (6) Having no respect for the customer.
      (7) Reffering their customers pirates and thieves.
      (8) Making legal threats against a college professor for presenting research at a science conferrence.
      (9) releasing (mostly planning to release) crippled CD's.
      (10) Pushing for a law allowing them to hack people's computers.
      (11) RIAA's "work for hire" bill, a proposed copyright amendment which would steal the permanent right to songs from the artists and hand it to the labels.
      (12) Federal Trade Commission finding the Recording industry cartel anti-competitve and engaged in illegal price-fixing.
      (13) Hiring companies to flood P2P networks with bogus files.
      (14) Failure to keep up with reality and sell music downloads (their sorely belated attempt at this was nothing short of insulting).
      (15) I still blame them for killing Digital Audio Tape, a perfectly good technology. The Audio Home Recording Act mandated that it must include DRM and that cassettes and players carry a tax to balance piracy estimates. The DRM made it useless and the tax inflated the prices.

      And those are just the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty more.

      -
      • (16) Killing internet radio with CARP.

        -
      • 17) Downturn in the economy hitting luxury items like CDs
        18) End of the "rebuy music collection on CD" era
        19) Massive rise of computer gaming as a major money industry, competing with music

      • RIAA acting as cartel is the problem! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @07:05AM (#4132695)
        (12) Federal Trade Commission finding the Recording industry cartel anti-competitve and engaged in illegal price-fixing.

        That is EXACTLY the problem we're still facing in the record industry. I believe it's high time the Antitrust Division of the DoJ go after the RIAA and force them to lower album-length audio CD prices to around US$11 per disc; the current US$18 per disc price is at a point where there is just too much economic incentive to pirate music. A good comparison is OPEC; in the late 1970's they raised prices so high that people were either reducing oil consumption and/or looking for alternate sources of oil. By 1986, OPEC was in dire straits due to economic realities catching up with them.

        Compare this against the movie industry. The fact that new-release DVD movies are between US$20 to US$30 per release set is extremely reasonable, especially when you consider new releases often contain a plethora of extra features in regards to the movie. And you can often get older movie releases for under US$15. At these prices, there is no real incentive in making a pirate copy DVD, to say the least.

        • Yeah, just what we need...more government involvement. Just because the RIAA charges outlandish prices for material of questionable quality doesn't justify stealing what one doesn't feel like paying for. Just break the crack habit, and stop STOP BUYING THE FREAKING CDS!!!! How hard *is* that?
          • However, don't forget the Federal Trade Commission slapped the RIAA already for this cartel practice and it has done NOTHING to lower prices.

            It's high time that the DoJ go after them, because the RIAA is just about the entire music industry in the USA nowadays.

            • This would seem to lend further support for my point. The FTC probably won't do anything serious, because it probably realizes that the best and most effective way to solve this problem is through normal market dynamics. Entertainment isn't like pharmaceuticals, automobiles, or medical care, where people's lives depend on fairness and accuracy. Entertainment is a diversion, and there are substitutions (even less costly ones) that are readily available. What we need is not FTC involvement, but for consumers to get off their lazy butts, break their crack addiction, and make the market work.
          • Hey, let's just opt out of our own culture and live in boxes while we're at it! See, the free market provides choice!
          • Just break the crack habit, and stop STOP BUYING THE FREAKING CDS!!!! How hard *is* that?

            Actually, living without music is pretty hard. But big part of the problem is that I can't easily tell which CDs are part of the RIAA cartel and which aren't.

            I buy a lot CDs that are off the beaten track (i.e. jazz and blues from small labels). This summer I bought several CDs directly from the artists after a concert.

            Is there a way for us to tell a difference between RIAA and non-RIAA music?

      • (7) Reffering their customers pirates and thieves.

        Hey, just because the search feature on slashdot doesn't recognize two letter words doesn't mean you don't have to......

        (7) Reffering to their customers as pirates and thieves.

        I am not a dang "grammatical error junkie" ! I just put 2 and 2 together.....

    • Who are you kidding? Do you know a single person doing so? 4 years ago, I used to buy a new CD every week if I heard something on the radio that I like or was recommended by a friend. That's a lot of money over the course of a year times the number of people that do the same. Since the widespread adoption of illegal filesharing, I have bought a single CD in FOUR YEARS. I download what I want and keep it on my computer or burn it to CD for the car, sometimes entire albums. I know a hundred people doing the same, so seriously, who are you kidding?
    • I have been a fan for a while now of designing a business which would use internet downloads as a service for promoting artists-- applying open source principles to the music business model, and helping everyone to be successful WITHOUT the RIAA. I don't have time to do this (since I am starting a different business), but I would be willing to contribute my thoughts to any serious effort.

      So, if this resonates, feel free to write me.

  • Who cares anymore (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24, 2002 @02:02AM (#4132168)
    When this question was first posted, (in about 1982), I gave a full, comprehensive answer.

    However, it's gone on, and on, and on. So, can we just, for once, sum up:

    Yes, downloading music from the internet hurts CD sales. Of course it does, but so does listening to the radio, and so do blank cassettes and mini-discs. It also helps to promote CD sales, in the same way that radio, tapes, and minidiscs so.

    Nobody will *ever* be able to do a comprehensive study of this, because it depends who you ask. Ask a load of geeks, and they'll probably say that yes, they do download MP3s, but the quality is inferior, so they buy the CDs they can afford. They will proably also mention that CDs are overpriced, and that on a technical note, just about any copy protection could be broken.

    Ask the average 'man in the street', who is computer-literate, and he'll probably say, yes, he does listen to MP3s, and that he doesn't even care whether he is infringing copyright or not, because he doesn't really know much about it. He probably thinks of downloading music as being as bad as copying a friends CD.

    Personally, I think that people should stop trading music illegally, and put pressure on local shops to allow previewing of CDs. Otherwise, you're just playing in to the hands of the record companies.

    Oh, and as for the people who complain about the inferior quality of copy protected CDs, most of you are lying, especially when you listen on cheap speakers, about 5 metres from a pnumatic drill. It is more to do with incompetent recording engineers who know nothing about how to master a CD, (over compressing it, normalising the tracks unnecessarily, letting the level repeatedly hit 0dB on the masters, etc, etc).
    • Yeah, I'm sure we've all got time to drive to the nearest CD store (in my case it's a 50 mile round trip), and sit there doing nothing else while we sample CD after CD trying to find something we like well enough to buy... if that's the only way it was done, I'd never buy another album, because I'd never HEAR another album. Not being a teenager whose time is mostly my own, I just don't have the spare hours in the day for this.

      That's another reason radio, and MP3s, are so successful as "free samples": they don't require much effort on the part of the listener, and you can do other things while the radio plays or the MP3 downloads. You aren't chained to the CD store's counter while you're making up your mind.

      In fact, MP3s would be MORE successful as "free samples" (regardless of what you're selling, free samples are the cheapeast and most effective advertising tool in existence) if the RIAA machine would USE them as a marketing tool, and make them even easier to find and download.

    • Mostly a good post, until you get to...
      Oh, and as for the people who complain about the inferior quality of copy protected CDs, most of you are lying, especially when you listen on cheap speakers, about 5 metres from a pnumatic drill.
      Uhm, I'm pretty sure "lying" means saying something you know to be untrue. Admittedly, most people mind being called stupid just as much as they mind being called dishonest -- but hey, if we can't keep our facts straight, we can at least keep our insults straight!

  • No (Score:2)

    by Perdo ( 151843 )
    The economy is in decline and the baby boom after shock (now 30 somethings) are moving out of their prime music buying years.

    Obviously they are going to loose sales.

    The largest persentage of their prime audience has stopped buying.

    Clueless Bastards (tm)
  • You would think that the music industry would realise that they need innovation to maintain their market.

    Most places can manufacture a one hit wonder. Take those pop stars [superpopstars.com] from those TV show contests [vze.com]. Nice kids, but potentially ruined by the business angles running them ragged.

    But it takes a completely different level of artist to sustain originality. this seems to have been beaten to death by the industry

    Give me a local garage man these days

  • Could it just be possible that I DO NOT EVEN KNOW Any of the album titles from the pirated mp3's I own. Even if I knew the albums from the songs I stole, I wouldn't buy them.

  • Internet, not MP3s, is hurting CD sales. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by InnovATIONS ( 588225 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @02:13AM (#4132209)
    Back when I was in high school we taped our albums (yeah, I'm old, the vinyl things) onto cassettes and shared them around with friends. We could share with maybe a half dozen friends at most and, most importantly, we were spending as much as our various part time jobs, allowances, etc. would spare. One album was serving about six of us and, this is the important part, we were spending as much as we felt we could budget from our incomes.

    With the current generation of high school students, a great many of them think 'why spend ANY money on recorded music at all?' They get all of their music off of the internet and divert their recreational dollars to video games or DVDs or whatever. One albun sale is not being shared among a half dozen friends but 'shared' among ten thousand strangers.

    • I have never bought a CD until recently. Actually, I didn't listen to much recorded music. The question you might ask is why I chose to buy a CD at all.

      The answer is that you get what you pay for. The quality of an MP3 is much lower than the quality of a CD. Sure, it is digital. But there are errors made in copying a CD to a computer, and even more errors made when converting from spacial domain to discrete cosine domain (and back during decoding). The truncation of certian frequencies doesn't help much; they cut off a little of the audible range for those of us with more acute senses of hearing.

      I bought a CD so that I'd be able to enjoy the song more; it was worth it because I like the song enough to care. Maybe I won't be able to tell the difference between CDs and wavelet transformed copies, but we don't have a lot of those yet. So to me, MP3s are a little like high quality tapes- still not quite as good as having the CD.
      • What mp3s are you listening to? Try something encoded at a reasonably cd-quality bitrate, which 128 is not. 128 is "passable for CD sound in most circumstances", which does not include extended frequencies. But try 192 (my typical encoding rate), or even 224. At this point, you're not losing anything you'll notice.

        Without citing a bitrate, you may as well listen toa 64-bit encoded version and say, "MP3 sounds like 3rd-generation taped copies! This sucks!"

  • Treat sharing as promotion and reward sales (Score:4, Informative)

    by epeus ( 84683 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @02:17AM (#4132223) Homepage Journal
    The problem is not copying, the problem is paying the creators for their work.

    Historically, some companies have tried to solve this problem using various techniques (publishing, advances, royalty payments, advertising-supported broadcasting, pledge drives). All of these are predicated on economies of scale for large runs, and high costs of entry for competitors.

    When a new technology comes along that changes these economics, it is time to look for a new model [mediagora.com] to solve the underlying problem, not construct a technical and legislative framework to restore the old barriers.

    • Re:Treat sharing as promotion and reward sales (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @09:27AM (#4132963) Homepage Journal
      Here is the new model, which is already working for some artists (particularly small local bands):

      1) Record an album, using completely independent producers and recording facilities.
      2) Release the entire album as MP3s, on your own website. (Or save yourself bandwidth, and release it to some P2P network, with an id3 comment tag that points at your site, making it easy for filesharers to find you.)
      3) Make it REAL easy, and inexpensive, for anyone who visits your site to buy the CD.
      4) Profit.

      You will notice that nowhere in this scenario does a dime go to the RIAA. And *that* is exactly WHY the RIAA (and the MPAA, tho independent film production takes a lot more horsepower and know-how than independent album production) is trying to stomp out MP3s in particular and filesharing in general: when the artist discovers that the MP3 is a better promotional tool than the RIAA machine, the consequent shift in production/release methods cuts the RIAA out of the financial loop.

      Yet if the RIAA had a clue, they could be jumping on this bandwagon and adding to their own profits. In particular, it would boost sales of marginal artists that they now [claim to] lose money on.

  • Stan Liebowitz - an embarassment to Dallas Edu (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NexusTw1n ( 580394 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @02:22AM (#4132242) Journal
    Stan Liebowitz, author of an upcoming book (set for publication Sept. 7) titled "Rethinking the Network Economy," is digging hard for quantitative answers.

    So, not looking for free publicity to boost book sales then.

    In May, Liebowitz published a paper suggesting that the record industry would soon be seriously harmed by MP3s. But in June, by the time Salon caught up with him, he was questioning his own conclusions after having examined the numbers and finding little solid proof that file sharing was hurting CD sales. Two months later, he's changed his mind again

    So, this respected researcher has changed his mind three times in 4 months . Perhaps he should think and formulate a well conceived, intelligent opinion before opening his mouth next time - is this guy the salon version of the first post trolls ?

    You don't publish a paper, then change your mind about your own conclusions less than a month later, then change your mind yet again, and expect to be taken seriously.

    If it were the case that there was a 9.8 percent drop on albums, when you look at the historical record of the ups and downs of the CD industry, [that's] a bigger decline than we've seen in 30 years. It starts to look unusual.

    Except, that a) we're in a recession, b) teenage disposable income is now spilt between DVDs, Games and CDs c) bland mass appeal music always sees a drop in sales - see the RIAA's "Home taping is killing music" campaign in the late disco, pre punk era.

    If he thinks the drop is unusual then he isn't checking his historical data correctly. In addition, how can he explain the INCREASE in CD sales in the UK last year ? We have Napster too yer know.

    It's really amazing how (CD) prices have tracked so closely with inflation. It's almost as if the industry just bumps up prices with the inflation rate
    No shit Sherlock...

    [What is clear is that] there's no evidence in the data that the tapes caused a decline.

    MP3s wouldn't do the same thing. The reason cassettes led to growth was that before cassettes existed, you didn't have portable music. You couldn't play recorded music in your car, and you couldn't play it walking around, in a Walkman. It was the little cassette that basically allowed you to do that. To be technically correct, there were 8- track players prior to cassettes. But they didn't have quite the same penetration. My theory as to what went on is that [the rise in cassettes] coincides almost perfectly with the penetration rate of the portable, Walkman-type of thing. So it opened up this whole new market, which overwhelmed any copying that went on.
    Oh dear.

    Well 1) Most people didn't have recordable 8 tracks, so no, the 8 track WASN'T the same as musiccassettes. 2)We have new mediums now, such as the MP3 player, so according to your "theory" that should overwhelm any copying.

    If people bought albums in the 80's specifically for the purpose of taping them for their new toy the walkman, then isn't the same going to happen now ? We should see an increase in up tempo running/jogging music, with the advent of solid state MP3 players which are finally immune to jumping, skipping and damage from violent movement.

    So, either I'm going to see lots of hard cord techno stars from Germany and the UK become millionares as their record sales boom, or I'm going to see you change your mind about your pet theories yet again, probably just in time for the official release of your book.

    Did Stan escape from Dallas University's, locked room, infinite monkeys on typewriters experiment ?

    • So, this respected researcher has changed his mind three times in 4 months . Perhaps he should think and formulate a well conceived, intelligent opinion before opening his mouth next time - is this guy the salon version of the first post trolls ?

      Honest researchers change their minds when new data suggests that they should. They don't hold on to pet theories if the data contradicts those theories, you idiot. Thats what makes him a degreed economist and you a moron.

      Just because you don't like what the evidence might suggest doesn't mean he's wrong.

      "If it were the case that there was a 9.8 percent drop on albums, when you look at the historical record of the ups and downs of the CD industry, [that's] a bigger decline than we've seen in 30 years. It starts to look unusual. "

      Except, that a) we're in a recession, b) teenage disposable income is now spilt between DVDs, Games and CDs c) bland mass appeal music always sees a drop in sales - see the RIAA's "Home taping is killing music" campaign in the late disco, pre punk era.

      He just said it looks unusual in the past 30 years -- 30 years which include recessions, splits in teenage income, and changes in mass appeal. He's already taking into account these things. Christ, you're stupid.

      • Perhaps he should think and formulate a well
        conceived, intelligent opinion before opening his mouth next time - is this guy the salon version of the first post trolls ?

        Honest researchers change their minds when new data suggests that they should. They don't hold on to pet theories if the data contradicts those theories

        Try taking something in context next time. (ie. quote the whole reference.)

        He didn't say that changing one's mind is the sign of a poor researcher, but that repeatedly changing one's mind in a short period of time is. I'd find it hard to believe that an honest researcher can formulate a well conceived, intelligent opinion three times in four months; to suggest that this is simply the result of new data is naieve in the extreme - if he's discovering new data that fast, then his opinions can't possibly be thought out very well.
    • So, this respected researcher has changed his mind three times in 4 months .

      WRONG. This might be news to you, but there is some latency between having an opinion, and having that opinion published in a journal. The submission/review process is quite lengthy. I would guess that it took about 6 months, and the research took a few months also. To the extent that he "changed his mind", he probably did so over the period of close to a year.

      Perhaps he should think and formulate a well conceived, intelligent opinion before opening his mouth next time - is this guy the salon version of the first post trolls ?

      I'm going to momentarily ignore the fact that this viscious verbal assault is based on a false premise, and address the fact that he re-evaluated his position.

      Unlike the slashdot herd, he is constantly re-evaluating his position with a critical eye and some intellectual honesty, instead of foaming at the mouth and spewing dogma. This is what scientists are supposed to do-- think critically, as opposed to spewing dogma. Far from completely changing his mind, these apparent changes are really a gradual convergence towards him converging to the truth. At first, he had some argument that it would hurt the industry. Further analysis offered a possible counter-argument to that, but an appraisal of that counter-argument showed that he had it right the first time.

      You don't publish a paper, then change your mind about your own conclusions less than a month later, then change your mind yet again, and expect to be taken seriously.

      I don't see why you can't offer counter-arguments to your own writing. To do so is the hallmark of intellectual honesty, something that you mistakenly consider to be a weakness. It's not like he's doing a complete U-turn.

      Except, that a) we're in a recession, b) teenage disposable income is now spilt between DVDs, Games and CDs c) bland mass appeal music always sees a drop in sales

      The crux of his argument is that this is not the case, or to be more precise, recessions hurt music sales, but they don't hurt them that much. Ranting on slashdot that it isn't so is not much of a rebuttal.

      2)We have new mediums now, such as the MP3 player, so according to your "theory" that should overwhelm any copying.

      That's not true. The MP3 only provides a new medium, but the cassette provided new functionality. That is, the point of the cassette is that you didn't have portability before then. Of course MP3s also offer portability, but that portability isn't new anymore.

      If people bought albums in the 80's specifically for the purpose of taping them for their new toy the walkman, then isn't the same going to happen now ?

      Yes, but this won't result in an increase in sales, because they could already buy albums to record for the purpose of jogging. The only difference is that there will be a new mediium. Or to put it another way, MP3s do not create a market that didn't already exist (or at least, you have not argued that this is the case)

      • The submission/review process is quite lengthy. I would guess that it took about 6 months, and the research took a few months also. To the extent that he "changed his mind", he probably did so over the period of close to a year.

        Except he changed his mind yet again, within 2 months - June - August. I don't expect him to stick dogmatically to one opinion - I do expect him to perhaps stop giving book sales boosting interviews if his research is so inconclusive as to cause him to change his mind every other month. Admitting you were wrong is laudable, admitting you were wrong, "no I wasn't", "Yes I was" "I was wrong about being wrong", "I was wrong about being wrong about being wrong" just makes you look stupid. A researcher not looking for regular press interviews would have reached the conclusion that research into this area is inconclusive.

        It's not like he's doing a complete U-turn.

        But he did offer a U-Turn, then U-Turned back, in the space of 2 months. . Re-evaluting your position is all well and good, but if you can change your opinion so easily and quickly and regularly, then perhaps a little more thought is needed before publically making a statement is required. I'm a lecturer, if I publish a paper, go on record as stating my paper is now wrong, then a few weeks later go on record as stating my previous statement about being wrong, is wrong, I am going to look like an idiot to my peers, it's going to look like I'm publishing before I'm ready, just to get press.

        he crux of his argument is that this is not the case, or to be more precise, recessions hurt music sales, but they don't hurt them that much. Ranting on slashdot that it isn't so is not much of a rebuttal.

        The crux of his argument is that MP3 downloading seriously damages sales. It isn't so.
        Perhaps the BBC [bbc.co.uk] is "ranting" also ?
        "The CD market in the UK has bucked the downward global trend and enjoyed a bumper year, with sales increasing by more than 5% in 2001".


        As I stated - the UK had Napster, Guntella, WinMX, Musiccity and so on, yet UK sales increased by 5% last year. Or is Great Britain a statistical blip in Stan's ever changing world view ?

        Yes, but this won't result in an increase in sales, because they could already buy albums to record for the purpose of jogging. The only difference is that there will be a new mediium. Or to put it another way, MP3s do not create a market that didn't already exist (or at least, you have not argued that this is the case)

        Wrong.

        As I previously stated - Solid state MP3 players allow people to jog or do violent exercise, where previous walkmans, discmans, mini-disc players and so forth would jump and skip. Therefore, the MP3 player is a new medium, and music ideal for such activity - 140 BPM 4/4 beat techno, should see an increase in sales, based on his argument that a new medium results in new sales.

        The fact is, for every RIAA sponsored study that states the MP3 format is killing music, another study will prove otherwise. An academic who changes his position with the changing of the seasons, openly plugging a book every time he does so, rather than arguing that research is currently inconclusive, is worthy of scorn.

        • As I stated - the UK had Napster, Guntella, WinMX, Musiccity and so on, yet UK sales increased by 5% last year.

          What's the penetration of broadband Internet access in the UK?

        • Except he changed his mind yet again, within 2 months - June - August.

          That's not what the article says. Here's a quote:

          But in June, by the time Salon caught up with him, he was questioning his own conclusions after having examined the numbers and finding little solid proof that file sharing was hurting CD sales.

          In other words, he was re-considering his position. It is not clear that he changed his mind at all.

          The crux of his argument is that MP3 downloading seriously damages sales. It isn't so. Perhaps the BBC [bbc.co.uk] is "ranting" also ?

          The impact of broadband is not necessarily going to be the same in the UK as it is in the US.

          As I previously stated - Solid state MP3 players allow people to jog or do violent exercise, where previous walkmans, discmans, mini-disc players and so forth would jump and skip. Therefore, the MP3 player is a new medium, and music ideal for such activity - 140 BPM 4/4 beat techno, should see an increase in sales, based on his argument that a new medium results in new sales.

          People have been doing exercise with cassette players for years.

    • If people bought albums in the 80's specifically for the purpose of taping them for their new toy the walkman, then isn't the same going to happen now ? We should see an increase in up tempo running/jogging music, with the advent of solid state MP3 players which are finally immune to jumping, skipping and damage from violent movement.

      heh. you're right there. I'm in marathon training for the Montreal 1/2 Marathon in April, and I post frequently on a runners' discussion forum. We're always having conversations about the best mp3 player for running, who's bought what CDs to listen to while they run, etc. My vote right now goes for the Nike PSA120, which I'm looking at buying once I hit week 10 of my training program, as a reward. That thing's just perfect for runners, and even comes with an arm band to wear it on :)

      claudia
    • So, this respected researcher has changed his mind three times in 4 months

      That in itself is an interesting fact though... That a professional economist can't decide whether or not music piracy has a statistically significant effect on sales should tell you something. (even if there is a statistically significant effect, its magnitude is likely to be quite small...)

      To wit, Liebowitz notes that the impact of piracy on sales is not likely to be greater than 20%. If I were a record company I would be thrilled to learn this... It means I can offer just what customers want - plaintext (DRM-free) music for sale over the internet, at various price points - which would doubtlessly offset the 20% sales impact of unlicensed uses. (keep in mind that Liebowitz' figures are based on today's large record companies, which offer virtually no legal for-pay downloads of popular/hit music)

      (but the RIAA is not thrilled, which should tell you that piracy isn't what worries them - its the loss of their god-like control over promotion and distribution which the internet is bringing about...)
    • Did Stan escape from Dallas University's, locked room, infinite monkeys on typewriters experiment ?
      This just in... it seems Stan Liebowitz is not really a University of Dallas professor, he just plays one on a television show called "Dallas." He's the one in the cowboy hat [geocities.com].
    • IMO, a lot of these studies are started with the premise already fixed, and then looking for data to back up the prejudice. In this case, the researcher thinks MP3's must have a negative impact, and looks for evidence to support his theory.

      It could (and will) get worse. Just like the tobacco industry, the IP empires are fighting to maintain a position of power, and will use any tool possible. Even more studies will be appearing, showing just how much was lost in revenues that should have gone to the "rightful" owners.

      To be quite honest, these numbers are all "coulda, woulda" fantasy. Lots of people copy software, photocopy books and articles and trade software that they had no real intention of buying. And there are real-life for-profit "pirates", though I prefer to call them "counterfeiters", but I've never met them nor seen their goods.

      One other thing that *really* irritates and scares the IP empires is the way intellectual property leaks out *before* it is supposed to be released. That's what kicked off the Metallica v. Napster thingie, and why Apple attacks rumor sites that post "sneak previews" of their new machines.

      The IP empires hate it when IP escapes before it can be buried. Studios have been known to sit on albums after recording, just to punish the artist. P2P networks offer a way to "smuggle" such works out into the open where they can be freely traded. It robs them of one of their favorite weapons.

      And that's what it's all about, and why studies like this are the new battleground. It's less about the money, but about controlling who gets to see/hear what, and for what price.

      (sigh...)

      I don't know why I had to rant for so long like this. I guess it's because the next have/have-not battle is going to be over IP. Stallman is this generation's Karl Marx, and Disney is the "evil capitalist" bent on maintaining power. It will be interesting to follow...
  • I've got a jukebox of my CDs ripped, so I can just pick and choose from the whole library (27 GB or so at this point). Friends are always picking songs and asking "do you have..", which leads to downloading mp3s & adding them on.

    Downloaded mp3s are handy and quick, but they aren't generally very good quality, and loose mp3s are "unwieldy". So I tend to actually *buy* the CD, both for the additional tracks and for the ability to rip them the way I want them ripped. This is especially true of singles/mixes.

    Where I think the whole file sharing really helps is I *constantly* find older/newer/different music that I've forgotten about or didn't know existed.. different mixes, original recordings, other artists.. all types of things.

    Since I've started downloading mp3s my cd collection has consistantly increased.. because I'd rather know it was ripped right and I like having an archived copy. Before filesharing I was basically done buying CDs. I've probably bought 2-4 every week since I started downloading.

    I'm sure there are people out there that aren't buying any of their music, but it certainly isn't everyone.

    I buy a lot more cds because of file sharing. And I've completely lost the feeling of "buyers remorse" over buying CDs. Even when I buy one that only had 1 good track on it. Because I wanted that track.
    • Same here.. MP3s reminded me of music from my long-gone youth, that wonder of wonders, I found wanted to hear again. And then I had an urge to BUY that old album that I couldn't afford back in my long-gone youth. And when I could find said album, did so.

      As has been pointed out before, MP3s and back catalogs are a match made in marketing heaven, if only the RIAA gave a damn about anything but restricting us, and the artists, to the RIAA's marketing machine.

      I was a free man in Paris
      I felt unfettered and alive
      There was nobody calling me up for favors
      And no one's future to decide
      You know I'd go back there tomorrow
      But for the work I've taken on
      Stoking the star maker machinery
      Behind the popular song

      -- Joni Mitchell, "Free Man in Paris" (1973)
      http://www.jonimitchell.com/HitsParis74.html

  • Economy? (Score:3)

    by sheepab ( 461960 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @02:26AM (#4132259) Homepage
    Um, certainly I hope I am not the first slashdotter to realize this, but, good economy = increasing CD sales (ironically during the first p2p frenzy), bad economy = decreasing CD sales (also during the p2p frenzy). C'mon people, p2p doesnt change sales THAT much, the economy does!
    • The state of the economy does have some effect, but it looks like he's already taken this into account. There have been several recessions over the past 30 years he looked at and the 9.8 percent decline still seams unusual. In addition, this recession is nothing (yet) compared to say 1981. I remember those times vividly -- they were much more desperate than what we have now. By 1982, the unemployment rate had grown to over 9.5%.

      We live in a golden-age today by comparison. Of course, things could get worse.
  • I think the /. editors must have been sleeping at the switch when they let this one though. Whatever happened to editorial bias?

    I liked this quote:

    The net effect of tapes was positive. But it doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been more positive if people weren't making more copies. [What is clear is that] there's no evidence in the data that the tapes caused a decline.

    That's one think I noticed from previous stories on this issue. Readers are always quick to point out that sales increased during the Napster years, but they overlook the fact that the sales were also decelerating at that point. You can't just look at a simplistic side-by-side comparison and expect to jump to a fair conclusion.

    -a
  • Read the article, and he's changed his opinion three times in roughly as many months.

    I mean, duh. Of COURSE the trading of mp3's is going to effect the sale of CD's. The only question that remains is to gauge what percentage the decline in sales mp3's are responsible for.. which appears to be precisely the problem he's grappling with.

    Is it 0.0000001%, or 10%, or 50%?

    He said it best himself:

    "It is certainly not conclusive, by any means, that there's real damage going on from MP3s. [...] We're seeing a medium impact, which still could be explained by other things -- but we can't discount the MP3 possibility."

    Which makes sense to me.

  • this is so easy to prove! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Awktagon ( 233360 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @02:43AM (#4132296) Homepage

    You need 1) a time machine, 2) ability to access to the many-worlds multiverse, and 3) access to the album sale data.

    Just set your time machine back to sometime before Fanning writes the first Napster code. Then, choose a universe where he falls madly in love with a lovely blonde, and gets rid of "that stupid computer" at her request. Monitor CD sales for the next couple of years.

    Next, choose the current universe (or maybe one exactly like this one, except where nobody thought of this experiment, just in case there's some weird time looping feedback thing going on). Monitor CD sales for the same period.

    Then, you'll be able to say if Napster and file sharing affected the music industry, all other things being equal.

    I swear, I bet these so-called "economists" can't even change the gravitational constant of the universe!

  • ...since Napster highlighed the fact that the only people whose interests the record industry serves are their own. We have heard from Courtney Love, Alanis Morisette, and other artists that the record industry doesn't serve them (and recall that those artists are at the top end of the spectrum).

    We can deduce from the rediculously inflated price of CDs, the assumption that we are all thieves, and the total lack of diversity in the music that they premote that they don't serve the consumer.

    It is therefore clear that the only people whose interests the record industry serves are their own, and they do nothing for us (short of lobby congress to restrict our digital freedoms) - so why should we buy from them?

    • We can deduce from the rediculously inflated price of CDs, the assumption that we are all thieves, and the total lack of diversity in the music that they premote that they don't serve the consumer.

      How can you say they are ridiculously priced when the article points out that, when adjusted for inflation, the price of CD's has remained about constant over 30 years? There has been effectively NO CHANGE in cost.

  • Soon-to-be author changes conclusions again (Score:4, Interesting)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @03:22AM (#4132372) Journal
    University of Dallas economist Stan Liebowitz, author of an upcoming book (set for publication Sept. 7) titled "Rethinking the Network Economy," is digging hard for quantitative answers.

    In May, Liebowitz published a paper suggesting that the record industry would soon be seriously harmed by MP3s. But in June, by the time Salon caught up with him, he was questioning his own conclusions after having examined the numbers and finding little solid proof that file sharing was hurting CD sales.

    Two months later, he's changed his mind again.

    As an economist, Liebowitz knows as well as anyone how to sell a book:
    1. Examine a controversial issue the perspective of your expertise (it helps if one side of the issue is backed by a very wealthy cast of characters who will do anything to promote their side)
    2. Announce that you will be writing the book
    3. Announce that you have found "evidence" in favor of one side
    4. Announce you were wrong and that you now have evidence to support the other side
    5. Change your mind again, announcing that further information has revealed that your first conclusions were correct, just two weeks before the book is published.
    6. Now everyone wants to read your book to find out if they've been vindicated.
    He studied 30 years of record sales data, and in the three months prior to the publishing of his book, he has found "new evidence" that caused him to fundamentally reverse himself twice? If this guy publishes a book on how to sell books, I might read it, but I won't be reading this one. Who's to say he won't change his mind again in October when he needs the cas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H finds new evidence?
  • That depends on the individuals involved. But the fact of the matter is that if they're too rigid, they'll get replaced by some start-up that's not. That much is certain. You can't be terribly inefficient, terribly rigid and hang on.

    Maybe not, but if you have congress in your pocket you can drag the whole country to hell trying.
  • I don't think their decreased sales are a result of file-sharing, but they don't believe that at this point. So what have they done? First move was to attack the company, Napster. Futile. Other companies popped up. Eventually Napster lost and mostly everything went Gnutella-like so there was no company to sue. Now they want to attack the network and individual users. I believe that will fail because ISPs won't want the RIAA poking around on their network. Some [slashdot.org] are already taking precautions.

    A faint hint at their next move might be this [slashdot.org], which would be to change their distribution media. That will certainly fail to the classic "if I can hear it I can copy it."

    So what's next? Will they finally understand their business model needs changed? I don't know what other option is left for them. Once that ends up as the only choice, they'll either fade into oblivion or do it. I don't think we need to wait much longer because they're really flailing about trying lots of things at once right now and nothing is working.

    When it does happen, I predict it's gonna hit hard and fast. They'll try a radically new model and some artists will use the transition time to jump ship and sell their own music directly. It really wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA forked and became multiple entities, each competing with the other using a slightly different business model. Some of you are thinking "yeah, sure, like that'll happen." All the signs are there though. They act like they're in control but they know they're not. Just wait.

  • Lies, damned lies and . . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aliks ( 530618 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @04:02AM (#4132438)
    I wouldn't expect too much from statistics and economics. The problem with these studies is the poor quality of the numbers that are available.

    In the case of music sales, the industry has a long history of manipulation of sales figures to support various ends. With the recent focus on bogus corporate accounts, I think its gong to be very difficult to get a clear picture.

    If the music industry wants to claim that file sharing is hurting sales, I would expect them to bend the numbers to prove this.

  • It's not the MP3s, it's the CD-R drives... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tRoll with Butter ( 542444 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @04:02AM (#4132440)
    BEFORE Napster hit the scene, I got a Memorex 1622 CD-RW drive (Amazingly, they're also the subject of a major class action law suit at the moment...) and used it to burn copies of EVERYTHING for all my friends.

    It still all revolves around CD burners. Take the current MP3 situation and subtract being able to burn CDs. Sure, there's portable MP3 players, but the REAL album-purchase-killer is being able to actually have that shiny disc with the music on it in your hot little hands. Most of my friends who aren't interested in computers know that us computer geeks can burn CDs and won't hesitate to ask for a copy of the latest albums or songs they can't get out of their head.

    Do you actually tell your friends that they have to go out and spend money on something you can burn for them on an inexpensive blank CD? "Come on, you're supposed to be my friend... Help me out here." Unlike home taping of the past, CD-RW drives have become VERY fast as of late... A C90 tape actually took 45 minutes per side (yes, it had to be flipped) to record, a 40X CD-RW can burn an entire CD in less than 8. CPUs have become much faster as well. It's become a whole lot easier to fire up your CD-R mastering software in the background and burn CDs while you're say, reading Slashdot.

    When a friend asked for a copy of a tape, it meant rewinding, analog distortion, getting the levels right, and FLIPPING THE DAMN TAPE. Burning is just a blank CD and a few clicks away.
    • The last cassette deck I had was a dual unit that could autoreverse while recording and copy tapes at double speed. Of course, there's little gotchas that come up like music is still playing when the leader tape comes up and 2x speed quality issues. On the whole, though, it worked and was easy and convienient.
    • which already have a tax on them which, in theory gets back to the musicians, or tell them to write a check to the musicians (which they're probably never do). If they're that clueless they'll believe the Music CD's sound better anyhow, even without the green marker.
    • (Insanely) increased CD prices
      • If the general price inflation had followed that of CDs, a Big Mac would cost ten bucks. Do they seriously expect people to pay any price?
    • Weaker economy
      • Consumers have less money to spend. They're spending less money on luxury goods. Imagine that! Macroeconomics 101!
    • Wider range of (increasingly expensive) consumer products
      • Kids and teenagers (the most important targets for the music industry) have more expensive versions of earlier inventions to spend their money on these days (such as DVDs instead of video cassettes and more advanced video games that cost more). Not only that, but they have a whole range of new products, such as cell phones (which is a permanent cost if it is actually used). It is not surprising that CDs are taking a smaller share of the cake. The RIAA giants should not be so worried though, since the companies that take the other parts of the cake are generally in the same conglomerates.
    • Realization that the CD format is trash
      • The CD format is a digitized format. The CD format is larger than it needs to be. Reading a CD requires moving parts. CDs scratch easily. CDs are fragile. CD cases are even more fragile. Most importantly though, CDs decay in quality. This is starting to become noticeable now that the format has been around for a while. People are realizing all of this. Is it so surprising that they are turning their backs on such a poorly executed product?
    • Music quality
      • Culture feeds culture, and lack of creativity is also contagious. A stunning amount of people today agree that the music produced right now is pure trash. In this case, the music industry has shot itself in the foot by turning music into a sterile factory produced product. Real music cannot be rationalized; the production of it cannot be attained in an optimized-efficiency environment.
    • Radio
      • In an extension of the previous point: when all music is generated according to an engineered formula and the music industry has molded the population into accepting only one kind of music, radio stations can easily cover the simplistic taste in music of the population while serving them the most recent hits. What need is there then for a CD that will be outdated with the next updated release of Britney 2.01?
    • I think the biggest problem is the fact in terms of bang for the buck, the audio CD is losing big time.

      Think about it for these reasons:

      1) Today's videogame consoles cost between US$150 and US$200, but many games give you 30 to 60 hours of fun to play all the way through; in the case of sports games (like the excellent Madden NFL 2003), it's even longer than that. It's that time you spend on the game that makes the relative high cost of a game (around US$40 to US$50) still a pretty good bargain.

      2) The DVD has also become a major bargain; you can get pretty good console players for under US$100, and the price of DVD discs (US$20 to US$30 for the latest releases, frequently under US$15 for the older releases) are a bargain considering the content of what you get. The MPAA (despite what people here on /. think about their anti-piracy policies) realized that the sell-through model for video distribution pioneered by Disney works extremely well, hence the reason why DVD's are still reasonably priced for what you get. Small wonder why many movies that didn't quite make their money back in theatrical release are making it back in video release.

  • They lost my business (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _ganja_ ( 179968 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @04:37AM (#4132484) Homepage
    RIAA certainly lost my business indirectly due to file sharing, you see when an industry treats me like a criminal I very quickly stop being a customer.

    The only thing I regret is buying all the CDs I did before I saw the RIAA's true colours.

  • hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hrm ( 26016 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @05:41AM (#4132587)
    It seems to be that the Slashdot-Correct way of thinking is to say that the music distributers brought these problems on themselves. But I don't think they're entirely to blame. Cheap bastards like me have something to do with it as well.

    I don't mind admitting that these days I only go out to buy a CD if, after arsing around with gnutella for a day or two, I still haven't found it. If there was a "perfect" file sharing network, I'd never buy a CD again.

    You might say, "you do this because CDs are overprized" (even more true here in the Netherlands than in most other parts of the world). To which my honest reply would have to be, "if CD prizes were cut by 50%, I would only cut the time I spend trying to find one on the net by 50% before giving up and buying it".

    My bottom line is, if p2p networks worked perfectly, I'd never pay for music, regardless of how reasonable the price might be.
    • Yes this is the type of honesty I respect. I see lots of people using excuses to justify what they do... when in fact most are probably just fooling themselves.

    • Re:hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tempest303 ( 259600 )
      Well, at least you're honest... I wish more people could at least admit that if they could download full quality, complete albums, with a good selection and good speeds, that they'd never pay for music again, because in a lot of cases, it's the truth. I only wish people would at least 'fess up and stop making fucking excuses and laying the blame on someone else.

      On the other hand, fuck you for being a cheap sod and making it hard for music lovers who actually want to give something back, and giving the RIAA an excuse to DRM the fuck out of everything.

    • Re:hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by VB ( 82433 )

      Thanks for being honest. The only way these artists make any decent money is to gig anyway, which is the most fun part of being a musician, to me. It's also a shame they don't own their song rights anyway, so really you're only hurting the very industry that's turned it's back on artists to their own avarice...

      Do you buy CD's from independent artists you see about town when you go out? Or, do you not check out local bands? Just curious...
  • The guy read a statistic in the newspaper, and admits that he hasn't checked it himself for accuracy. If it is reliable, then it reflects a larger decline in music sales then he had anticipated, and so failing any other explanation, he speculates that it might be attributable to file copying. But he has done no analysis at all on this result, and when the Andrew Leonard presses him on it (good for you, Andrew, but this also shows why your interview is hardly newsworthy), he admits that there may be any number of alternative causes.

    Michael, why do you bother to post something like this to Slashdot? We can draw no conclusions from this at all, because there is no evidence here to speak of. I'm not saying that it's impossible that file sharing may be damaging music sales, but this article gives us no reason to conclude that it's really happening.

    I really thought that geeks had a better understandng of statistics, and when they do or do not give real evidence of possible underlying causes, than most people have. Of course, numbers are terribly tempting, they create such a powerful feeling of objectivity and proof; but they can also create myths that are nearly impossible to debunk because "everybody says so" and "I heard it on the news" and it all sounds so believable.

    The media, and that includes Slashdot, have a strong role in creating such myths by simply regurgitating statistical claims without any regard to the quality of the analysis. Michael, you have some editorial discretion, and you ought to use it. I'm not saying that Slashdot shouldn't post articles on the subject, but I think they certainly shouldn't bother if it just means that untrustworthy claims of fact get propagated further.

  • Stating the obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Saturday August 24, 2002 @06:28AM (#4132649) Journal
    "Stan Liebowitz, an economist studying the effects of file-trading on the music industry, says in an article in Salon that new numbers have convinced him that the decline in CD sales may be partially attributable to MP3 downloading"

    Well, *of course* it's due to mp3 downloading. The question they should ask themselves is: WHY are the mp3 downloaded so much? Because we don't care about the artists and like to get free music? Or because we don't think there is any other options because of high prices where a big percentage does NOT go to the artist?
  • Being able to listen to hundreds of bands has changed my musical tastes to rarely include any major label bands. Since many of artists are obscure and not even available I end up purchasing them at shops that are not part of the SoundScan program.

  • MP3's and the economy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NoInfo ( 247461 )
    MP3's are an excellent album preview tool when the economy is good. Many people, confident in their job security, spent leisure money on CD's when they heard good music via MP3.

    Now that the economy is taking a nose dive, leisure money is being conserved, and relying solely on MP3's has become a viable option to cost cutting consumers.

    But I still have another question-- how much of the decline in CD sales is because of MP3's, and how much of the decline is because of the RIAA's response to MP3's? Millions of people saw the smash of Napster. Didn't this harm any loyalty, sympathy or compassion to the record labels? Many people's remnant interest in purchasing CD's was affected by the RIAA squashing their fun.

    Now that the economy is bad, consumers feel they have less money to spend on luxuries. And what money they have, why would they spend it on the lawyer-happy record labels threatening to sue/hack even those very consumers? I mean, doesn't this make it feel like any dollar you give them is a dollar they can use to run companies out of business and threaten consumers?
  • This isn't newsworthy. The guy is making guesses and running models based on his assumptions. Some people call crap like this statistical correlation and have used it to prove (and disprove) just about every assertion you can think of. That's not science, it's handwaving .

    Q:
    But isn't it possible that the intersection of several other unprecedented factors wholly independent of MP3s could be causing the decline in sales?

    A: That's right. It is certainly not conclusive, by any means, that there's real damage going on from MP3s. It could be that we're having a bit of doldrums in terms of taste; it could be that we're all using CDs now and nothing else so since they're a little more durable than other formats that could be part of it. But it is at least beginning to look like there is damage being caused. But remember, the original story was that there's so much MP3 downloading going on so we should see a really big impact fairly easy. And now we're seeing a medium impact, which still could be explained by other things -- but we can't discount the MP3 possibility.


    In other words, "I have no proof, but I'll just make this unfounded assertion..."

    I wonder if he's selling Tiger repellent as well.
  • Firstly, most people download particular songs they like. They might like one or two songs from a group. For example, I like "Hey Baby" and "Keep on Dancin" by No Doubt. I don't like any of their other songs. There's no way in hell I'd go out there and actually buy a full CD by them. So I download the two songs I like. This doesn't hurt the industry because I'm downloading things I wouldn't have bought in the first place.

    Similarly for most people the vast majority of the time.

    Also, lets not forget, that there was NO EFFECT -- NONE WHAT-SO-EVER -- observed in CD sales until the recession begin. NONE. So, gee, I wonder what's really causing this downturn in sales.

    The economies in a recession, does the RIAA really expect people to buy as many CD's? DVD's are becoming more and more popular and commonplace, as are computer games, and game-consoles...does the RIAA really think that teens will still buy as many CD's, even with all the competition offering vastly superior value? Descent 3 [amazon.com] and Descent 2 [amazon.com] each go for 10 bucks from Amazon.com. That means you could buy both of them for the same price as ONE CD. Now, you decide. What's better, Descent 3 and Descent 2, games from which you can get months of enjoyment from in single-player mode, years in multi-player, or a single CD, which you can get maybe an hours worth of enjoyment out of? Tomb Raider 5, 4, and 3 sell for 20 bucks a piece from Amazon.com, while Tomb Raider 1 and 2 go for around 10. Any of these would be be better than having a music CD. The latest greatest game that I like -- Eternal Darkness [amazon.com] sells for 50 bucks from Amazon.com, 32 bucks used. Again, a better deal than a music CD.

    Jurassic Park and The Lost World sell for 24 bucks a piece off of Amazon.com. Much better value than any music CD I've seen. Jaws is also available for 24 bucks, along with many other great movies.

    So, competition from outside the music world BLOWS music CD's away in terms of value.
  • Just looking at overall sales isn't that significant. There are many reasons overall sales could be down. Competition from DVD videos, which now cost the same as CDs, for example. Clear Channel's domination of radio. The basic fact that rock and roll as a genre peaked long ago.

    The funniest thing about this is that the music industry, which is basically frivolous, has more political clout than the computer industry, which is both more useful and much bigger.

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Close