Study: MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales 704
pkaral writes "The two distinguished gentlemen Strumpf and Oberholzer-Gee have most likely made RIAA executives choke on their lunches. Those two economists at Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill have done the research and the math on how much CD sales are actually hurt by P2P sharing. The answer: A whopping one CD per 5,000 files downloaded. Needless to say, RIAA are already trying to discredit the study."
I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Record labels should distribute approved MP3 tracks, then offer them as singles on CD, just like the radio stations. They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks.
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
TV Production should do this too. If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right. Then they can still sell me the DVD.
That'll probably never happen, though.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Interesting)
TiVo's already proven that people will watch ads even with the 30 second skip enabled, you just have to get the viewer's attention during the 2 seconds they see the ad before hitting the skip.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit. TiVO has only "proven" that people will watch particularly appealing ads. once or twice.
But that misses the point--as anybody who knows anything about advertising will tell you, the "coolness" factor of an ad often is only a minor role in its effectiveness. i could probably watch that doritos commercial with that girl at the laundromat all day, but i still don't buy doritos. rather, factors such as repitition and subconscious awareness building are more important.
You make the classic slashdot mistake though: ignoring issues of scale. Beause people watch commercials without TiVo, and because some people watch some commercials without TiVo, then tivo has no effect on commercials. Bullshit. With TiVo and the 30 second skip feature, fewer commercials are seen. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the truth.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, your logic is mindboggling.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, actually I am in advertising so perhaps I add some thoughts to this. The coolness factor is JUST as important as the awareness building. You see, an ad can be repeated as many times as the advertiser has dollars for, but if it is a shit ad, and nobody is interested in it, you start having people just block it out. This has happened with banner ads. People have started to just mentally block out the space of a page where banner ads appear. While technically it counts as an ad impression, realistically it means one less person seeing the ad.
So while it is important to build in subconscious brand awareness and repetition does indeed play an important role in that, the coolness factor is what gets people to watch the ad every time it is repeated.
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, the same could be said not only of a show watched via any recording device, but live TV watching as well. You only see the first couple seconds of the first commercial before you get up and use the bathroom, get a snack, or flip the channel. The first commercial has always been the prime position and advertisers already pay more for it.
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
Then consider the case of DVD's, as you mentioned. For slightly more than that overpriced CD, I can get not only a full length movie, but usually a whole other disc filled with behind the scenes info, out-takes, alternate endings, directors commentary, etc. It's not just about wanting something without having to pay for it, it's about getting a product at a reasonable price. In any market where people feel gouged, any reasonably priced alternative will flourish, even if that involves the creation of a black or grey market. Of course, getting something free will always be an attractive offer if the perceived consequences are minor.
It's the strong-arm tactics of the RIAA, without the promotion of reasonable alternatives that earns them the label of "goon".
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can PURCHASE the media (song, movie, dvd) somwhere, anywhere... online store, for-fee download, brick and mortar store - if you can buy it somewhere, then you should really question why you are downloading it "illegally". It's pretty much as simple as that.
You may have to search the internet for the label; you may have to purchase from the label directly - if that's the case, do it. If you think it's too expensive, if you can't afford to buy it, then don't. But that's no excuse to download it. Bascially, just don't download anything that is available for purchase somewhere. It's unethical. Unless, of course, it's one of those rare books or works of art that are available under a creative commons license or some other license that allows you to do that. But those are exceptions, not the rule.
And this is sort of a catch-22, because prior to the "PC", young folks have often spent money on media (music, magazines, movies) that they couldn't really afford; it would be fair to say that the entertainment industry thrives on money collected from millions of people that really couldn't afford to give that money in the first place but were sort of suckered into it by the hype and the fanatacism that surrounds celebrity.
So the "PC", a.k.a Redmond, has usurped the scam; replacing it with another one.
But seriously, if you can buy it somewhere, don't download it. If you can't afford it, just be tough and don't download it either. Maybe if enough people don't buy because they can't afford, maybe the industry will recognize that and do something about it. Doubtful, but in any case, it's your money, and you shouldn't allow people to sucker you into spending it on something you can't afford. But that's not an excuse to try to circumvent the system, either.
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:4, Interesting)
Riiight. Tell us another, RIAA butt-monkey. The artist getting paid! How fucking funny is that?
And how much does the artist get per CD? I do believe that Ani DiFranco has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RIAA does nothing but screw both artist and customer, then bend them over again for a good reaming via bought-and-paid-for congressmen.
I could pay $8 for a CD direct from the artist, and even if you take off $2 for shipping and production (vastly overstated, but for you we'll pretend that's the actual cost) the average artist will still earn SIX TIMES what they get paid under the RIAA aegis.
Fuck the RIAA and it's apologists. The middleman isn't worth the price anymore. We can sample the artist's work direct (P2P, wouldn't you know) and buy if we like. And not buy if we don't.
Guess that business model is too complex for folks like you to parse. But in your world everyone's a thief...no doubt a reflection of your own character.
Max
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:4, Informative)
In Soviet Russia [allofmp3.com], music downloads YOU!
Mods: check the link.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many artists battle with the record companies on which songs make their records. As an artist, I wouldn't want "market demand" determining the makeup of my album.
On the other hand, "artists" like P. Diddy or Britney Spears might prefer it that way.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
True. On the other hand, this would allow you to release songs that wouldn't ordinarily go on your records AND give you actual data (lots of people downloaded this song and e-mailed me to tell me they liked it) to use to fight the record company. Which is another reason why they're scared of P2P. They're afraid that artists wouldn't have to rely on their nebulous marketing data and might actually have some say in their music.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.
The major labels are good at doing one thing well, and only one thing, and that's making money. Don't let them kid you, even if CD sales are falling, they are still making money hand over fist. They will try to tell you that since this years take is smaller than last years take, they have somehow lost money. That is simply not true. They have made money, just not as much as last year. Boo Hoo.
If there are any record RIAA executives reading this comment, this is for you: "It's the ECONOMY, stupid!"
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that you sound like a pompous ass right?
I guess all the people who like music that is popular just can't recognize "art" when they hear it. It's only people such as yourself who hang out at the local "honkey tonks" and "after hours clubs" that truly understand music.
The truth is that many people know that pop music is a marketing tool (I mean, it is pretty obvious) but enjoy it anway. The value of any work of art is completely subjective. So while you and I might prefer Johnny Cash to Justin Timberlake - this does not give us the authority to act like condescending assholes towards people who do like (in my opinion, overly manufactured and soulless) pop music.
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
It;s probably worth pointing out that P. and Britney are making the recording industry a hellova lot more than you are.
No offense intended, and I'm not saying it's a good thing. In fact, I think that this is one of the reasons why the recording industry fears P2P so much - not because it effects sales, but because it's capable of smashing down the barriers between artist and listener.
RIAA execs don't lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years times, sales will have been cut in half by P2P.
They instead lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years time, artists will deliver their music straight from the recording studio in their attic, through the server in the basement, to their Internet based community of fans.
OK, this is an extreme idea, but it's plausibly that it will happen to some lesser greater extent. Regardless, it will make the record companies a much less powerful force.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Of thirty thousand CDs that the industry released last year in the United States, only four hundred and four sold more than a hundred thousand copies, while twenty-five thousand releases sold fewer than a thousand copies apiece. No one seems to be able to predict which those four hundred and four big sellers will be."
- source: The Money Note [newyorker.com], by John Seabrook
RIAA execs don't lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years times, sales will have been cut in half by P2P.
Unless their cluelessness approaches nearly mystical levels[1], recording industry executives know that digital distribution is inevitable. Sure, they're probably a bunch of old white guys who never heard of the internet before 2001, but that was three years ago, and you'd better bet they have *some* smart people working for them. Fact: digital distribution of music is more efficient than physical distribution - i can download a much wider selection of songs, at any time of the day or night, than i can get at the record store, and i live in a capital city. Imagine if you live in Armpit, Ar.
But gearing up for digital distribution is going to take a) time and b) money. Time because not everybody has broadband yet - especially when you figure that, to these guys, the market is worldwide. Money because somebody has to invest in the infrastructure to make all this possible. Ask Apple how much they spent on their music store. On the other hand, the infrastructure for doing business in the bricks and mortar world is pretty much paid off and the profit margins are fat.
The recording industry is squeezing every last cent of profit out of their current way of doing business before they switch to digital delivery and start all over. What keeps them awake at night is the idea that by the time they get there, sharing on p2p will have changed people's value perception of music: that they will think of it as something you get for free on the net.
They instead lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years time, artists will deliver their music straight from the recording studio in their attic, through the server in the basement, to their Internet based community of fans.
In any market with many producers and many consumers, middlemen will always emerge. Over time, seeking to maximize profits by reducing inefficiency, these middlemen will be reduced to a few big players. Once this happens, these big players will start to exhibit monopolistic/oligopolistic behaviour - they will think of the market as "their market", not in terms of the market they compete in, but in terms of the market they own, like a private club. Eventually, this behaviour will distort the market and decrease the gains to the producers and consumers - thus providing incentive for somebody to offer an alternative. If that alternative proves profitable, copycats emerge and the power of the old middlemen diminishes until they are driven out of business (in their current form: they usually become just another copycat, vis. Barnes & Noble) and the market is governed by the new middlemen. Over time, seeking to maximize profits by reducing inefficiency, these new middlemen will be reduced to a few big players....
Of course: i could be full of shit. "Professional" musicians have existed for thousands of years, whereas the recording industry hasn't. Then again, how many troubadours in the middle ages lived in castles? Only the ones who worked for the king.
[1]"No one in this world
-- H.L. Mencken
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their logic probably goes something like this: so long as we can keep making people feel guilty/nervous about filesharing, we'll be able to keep P2P as a promotional tool while minimizing the risk of it taking over as the best way to get music.
They'd never say this outright, of course, as it'd undermine their PR campaign against P2P. But so long as they keep P2P flooded with crap and pursue the occasional lawsuit, they'll be able to reap the benefit of filesharing without having it grow into a serious replacement for their distribution models.
They're not idiots, they're cutthroat businessmen. They care about lots of things, but in the end, making money trumps all other concerns.
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
How Orwellian. There's a word for that in 1984: Doublethink
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
They traditional record label and its goons aren't needed anymore. They're becoming extinct.
The answer is in my sig.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Until, that is, someone figures out a way to remove those banner ads, leaving a clean near DVD-quality version for everyone to download. Then the industry will cry fowl saying it hurts they're profits, even though the advertising companies have already paid them. Then they'll start creating all these DRM schemes to try and prevent that from happening, which will only be a smokescreen as they use it's failure to press for laws outlawing all media being downloaded from "unauthorized distribution points." At that point, if they succeed, they will effective control all media on the net, because it is illegal to host and upload any media files to anyone whatsoever, unless you pay a licencing fee. Same story that's been going on in one form or another for decades...
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Interesting)
The countermeasure would have to be fairly instant in order to compete with the official version because who would want to wait?
Eventually, the banner would manifest like it does during an NFL game, by "tilting" and stretching the media to make room for the banner in different places. Or, just by overlaying the banner directly on the media.
Basically, anyone who does us a favor and strips out the banner is actually doing harm because eventually the banner will have to appear in more and more inconvenient places.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Funny)
Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane
to remove those banner ads, leaving a clean near
Sane Sane Sane Sane Sane Reasonable Reasonable
DVD-quality version for everyone to download.
Reasonable Reasonable Resonable Reasonable Reasonable
Then the industry will cry fowl saying it hurts
Reasonable Reasonable Resonable Reasonable Reasonable
they're profits, even though the advertising
Reasonable Questionable Questionable Questionable
companies have already paid them. Then they'll
Questionable Questionable Questionable Speculative
start creating all these DRM schemes to try and
Speculative Speculative Speculative Speculative
prevent that from happening, which will only be
Speculative Speculative Conspiratorial Conspiratorial
a smokescreen as they use it's failure to press
Conspiratorial Conspiratorial Conspiratorial
for laws outlawing all media being downloaded
Paranoid Paranoid Paranoid Paranoid Paranoid
from "unauthorized distribution points." At that
point, if they succeed, they will effective control
Delusional Delusional Delusional Delusional
all media on the net, because it is illegal to host
Tinfoil Beanie Tinfoil Beanie Tinfoil Beanie
and upload any media files to anyone whatsoever, unless
Paranoid Delusional Paranoid Delusional Paranoid
you pay a licencing fee. Same story that's been going
Delusional Insane and Stupid Insane and Stupid
on in one form or another for decades...
Insane and Stupid Insane and Stupid
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
An example is a friend of mine's mother. She loves religious shows. But where she lives she can't get any. And she can't afford a dish. So a friend of her's set up a transmitter at his place, which was a few miles away, to broadcast the religous channel from his dish. All she had to do was tune in to his transmitter. It didn't take long for the cops to shut that down, with orders from the CBSC [www.cbsc.ca]. He didn't alter the programming in any way. The channel was broadcast in full, commercials and all. But he wasn't allowed to rebroadcast it, because he didn't have a licence to...
Yeah, sure...a lot of what I said is the tin-foil hat kind of rant, but just because I'm wearing a tin-foil hat doesn't mean I'm not telling the truth...
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
Actually, the real fun with the RIAA and major labels is that they already do such things. Please view the Wired article:
BigChampagne is Watching You [wired.com].
I say this is fun because the RIAA talks out both sides of its mouth: it wants to limit major expansion of free P2P downloads (control the download market) and simultaneously use the data from such spontaneous sources to make smart investments on marketing.
Of course, when they say "CD sales" have gone down, I'm not so sure they mean all CD-based formats (singles, albums, collections, etc.) or just some sub-categories, like CD sigles. I can believe CD singles have been decimated by P2P filesharing, but I'm more reluctant to agree to a rapid, major decline in album sales without proper evidence. In other words, I don't believe what the RIAA claims is exactly what is happening, merely what they want you to think is happening.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that your two-cents' worth is absolutely correct regarding the effect that filesharing has had on the sale of singles, but I would also like to add my own pennies and say that I think the sale of singles was already on the skids before P2P made the scene.
Warning: rant commencing in 5...4...3...2...1...In my experience (i.e. - Take it for what it's worth; I'm not gonna research a bunch of statistics right now and this rant was spawned by a number of incredibly frustrating attempts to go out and buy the single versions of songs that I liked), many albums (dare I say most) only have one or two good tracks anyway. Selling a cheap single of the one track that people will pay to hear probably cuts into the sale of the full album, which many people will buy anyway just to hear the one or two tracks that they like! In addition to that, CD singles cost upwards of $5 (YMMV), so there wasn't a whole lot of incentive to buy them even before P2P. A $6.99 single is an hour's wages for most of Britney's target market, and the added value of some pop princess doing a crappy B-Side live cover of a Stones song that her producer suggested (after telling her who the Rolling Stones are), is not enough incentive to pony up for a single.
Your .02 plus my .02 equals 4 cents that I would rather use as a suppository than contribute to the Rectal Invasion and Assault Association.
The Dalai LLama
what the hell happened the old Chuck Berry 45's?
Let the market decide (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to prove something from this, you have to let the market decide. If some labels allow file sharing and the P2P networks actually had mechanisms to enforce copyrights, we would soon see whether file sharing really has a positive or negative effect.
-a
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Interesting)
But don't think this legitimizes copyrighted work sharing. It's still wrong, folks. The fact that it doesn't hurt nearly as bad as the RIAA would have us believe doesn't make it any righter.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realize how close this sounds to 1998-esque dot-com business plans? "Let's give away free pies so that, we, umm, can see which pies people like so that we can, umm, sell pies!"
However, you do one better, with your inane "create an album" idea. Ignoring the first fundamental fact that you shit on artist ingretiy this way and ignoring for a moment that the RIAA has PLENTY of popularity data already based on record sales, polls, radio monitoring, and a host of other means and they dont need terribly much more, you seem to forget that the RIAA's constituent members want to maximize their profit. If the public is willing to buy 10 individual cds to get 12 songs they like, then why bother putting all 12 songs on 1 cd?
You do one better still by talking about video downloads and ignoring the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room which is to say that as bandwidth increases, in a few years videos and movies are going to be facing the exact same problem that the RIAA has today and you'll bitch about the DVD just as you bitch about physical CDs today.
I dont know who in hell modded you as insightful.
Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, unregulated P2P DID affect CD sales. They went UP. When everone gets their fat pipe, that too will help sales of music, if not CD's.
Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing dumber than the notion that unregulated P2P doesn't affect CD sales is the notion that unregulated P2P actually helps them.
Fat pipe, indeed.
RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Student A: Have you heard that new song from ? It's awesome!!!!
Student B: Yeah I'm going to see them next week in LA!! Road Trip!!!
Student C: I'm going to buy that album they put out last year.
Student D: Me too!
Student A: Yeah it was largely underrated, I guess.
Harvard Prof Guy: Consumption of music increases dramatically with the introduction of file sharing...
RIAA: Harvard SUCKS!
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't have this 3 CD limited edition box set of Blutengel sitting next to me here. I wouldn't have 3 Cryonica Tanz compilation CDs so I can pick other bands I like and then buy their stuff
I wouldn't even be into this whole genre! I'd still be looking around local music stores in a bored manner because there is nothing new or exciting on offer.
they qualify (Score:5, Funny)
two distinguished gentlemen Strumpf and Oberholzer-Gee have most likely made RIAA executives choke on their lunches
Thats all you have to do to be distinguished around here...
It is not about sales but control (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It is not about sales but control (Score:4, Insightful)
Iff the recording industry had a clue, they would take the poplarity of P2P filesharing AND the change in their sales numbers as proof that people are sick of paying inflated prices for music of decreasing quality. Just yet another example of people with money trying to use people with less money to keep their broken business model floating...
I would like to see more studies on this subject though. It would be nice if the entertainment industry would get over themselves and began to value their customers' wants and needs.
Re:It is not about sales but control (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure that this is the case. The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases in order to sell more albums - everyone knows the quality of the songs before they make a purchase. The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.
Unfortuneately this lack of taste is not limited only to children I've known many adults who listen to Britney Spears or Justin Timerberlake - and when I call them on it they claim that "it's irony". But I don't buy it - wannabe hipsters use irony as a way to legitimize their awful musical tastes.
The point is that many people like crap. They will continue to buy whatever the pop music/MTV marketing machine tells them is cool this month (including CDs, clothing, video games, sports drinks, batteries and virtually every other product). Filesharing has virtually no affect on the buying habits of these people.
I think its helped the music industry (Score:5, Insightful)
I have found out about so many bands that I like that I would buy their cds or see them in concert because of mp3 sharing. I never would just go buy a cd of some band I have never heard of; but I can download an mp3 or 2 and discover that I really like the band. I'm glad that there are people studying it from the opposite angle of the RIAA.
Hilarious. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm talking to you guys, not the RIAA.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most other studies that show the P2P is hurting CD sales are put out by folks that are either paid by the record industry or can be otherwise deemed uncredible.
Oh, and
Promotion vs. Sales (Score:5, Insightful)
More or less, at this 1 CD per 5,000 downloads number, downloading is being called a push, it gives just about as much as it takes away from the recording industry.
I think what the RIAA is really scared of is the fact that P2P distribution might allow an artist to gain fame and make money without going through the "major label system" and that'd be the death of that system. So, it's not that P2P threatens CD sales as much as it threatens RIAA-member CD sales by replacing them with something else.
Discredit? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, these "economists" are just a bunch of nerds with too much time on their hands. What kind of degree does it take to teach at Harvard? A PhD? Like that means anything. Our marketing guy has a Masters. These professors don't even have any platinum records.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT, it might convince lawmakers to whink twise, and it shows the common man what they already know: if you want something that is good, you'll pay for it. If you got a broad selection to sample, you'll more likely find something YOU like.
Optimist (was Re:Well...) (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless... (Score:4, Insightful)
Embrace, not extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anybody who says that the Internet has not affected sales is just not paying attention to what is going on out there," he said. "It's had an effect on everything else in life, why wouldn't it have an effect on this?"
I think everyone agrees that the Internet has affected CD sales. What they (RIAA) don't get is that it can have a very positive impact on music sales and marketing. It opens a new way to sell music, which the RIAA has failed to take advantage of in any meaningful way. If they were to embrace the possibilities I think they could increase sales dramatically.
Re:Embrace, not extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Embrace, not extinguish (Score:4, Interesting)
The cause of lagging CD sales.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The cause of lagging CD sales.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't remember where that little tidbit originally came from, but it was a bit of research that basically showed that the drop in available CDs was suspiciously close the RIAA starting to bitch and moan about the drop in sales, and it came very soon after P2P started to become fashionable.
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA is not as blind as we think they are (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a bunch of big corporations, that by definition are not going to be able to react quickly to new changes in the environment. There's layers of bureaucracy within, and many times (think Sony Computer vs Sony Music) the left hand wants to slap the wrists of the right. I think they're just looking for a way to take advantage of the new system but don't have a clean implementation ready to put into production. So they make loud threatening noises and otherwise put up a front.
Then they come out with a new system that everybody had already proposed ten times over three years ago. And everybody, especially the cartel members, end up happy.
"Intel will continue to use its own IA64. No, we are not going to use AMD's x86-64 extensions."
A counter point (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this information needs to be approached skeptically, as there's no way to measure reliably "what would have happened." Given a lack of P2P sharing, can you say for certain how many CDs you would have bought/would not have bought? Of course not.
If CD sales for a popular download increase by 2%, can you ever prove they wouldn't have gone up 3% if not for downloading?
I just don't think this can be proven either way.
Re:A counter point (Score:3, Insightful)
I do agree, it's impossible to say for sure - Maybe the music industry would be dead now if not for P2P, maybe it would be twice as big. No one can say anything besides "probably" or "probably not" for either of those, at least without a time machine.
The RIAA only hurt themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
They like to jump around like a big angry monkey and spread their lies and misinformation to get the public (and government) to see them as "poor me, people aren't buying our music" instead of coming to the realization of "Hey, maybe the music we're putting out is junk."
Then they huff and puff, throw lawsuits left and right in an attempt to SCARE people into buying their products. Coercion, anyone?
I think we've all known for quite some time that mp3 downloading is equivalent to when recordable cassette tapes were introduced. There was a frenzy from the industry as if it was the end of music and sales as they knew it. It wasn't.
Now we're seeing the truth.
In other news today... (Score:5, Funny)
Sky often described as 'blue'
RIAA,MPAA and SCO still suffer from delusions of sustainable profit via litigation
'Open Source Software' community remains fragmented Microsoft called 'evil' by some
Apple hardware percieved as 'expensive'
Intel based hardware discoved to fast, moderately reliable, and disposable.
okay enough stoopid jokes
foreach ($monopoly_action as $headline)I personally have bought more CD's because I discovered a band I had never heard of via mp3 download.
{$knowledge = beat($headline);}
function beat($deadhorse)
{if($deadhorse){return "jelly";}}
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Falling sales (Score:4, Insightful)
[me] Who can I blame for my stocks, mutual funds and 401k falling during this timeframe.
[RIAA] Those bad people we've been talking about downloading music.
[me] So the tech bubble was just hype?
[RIAA] Yes and soon as we start making more money we'll refill coffers with funds.
[me] You mean from those $3,000 lawsuits from people that are buying your music.
[RIAA] Err, uh, ahem...
[me] I see so your working for the little guy now?
[RIAA] Err, uh, aheeem.....
You think it goes something likes that?
actual paper (Score:5, Informative)
Be pro-active; spread the word (Score:4, Insightful)
content (Score:5, Funny)
That should show the RIAA how hard it is to find decent music these days.
Quality. Not quantity.
In the long term, P2P will kill CD sales (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In the long term, P2P will kill CD sales (Score:4, Insightful)
I got news for you: Bandwidth isn't going to increase.
The cost of real bandwidth -- actual, symmetrical, guaranteed bandwidth, not that overprovisioned ADSL or cable modem crud you may be using -- has remained essentially flat for the last three years. Costs for T1 circuits are still running roughly USD$1/kilobit/sec for "dialtone"; extra charges may apply for bandwidth usage over a certain amount.
There is no market pressure to bring these prices down, and no alternative source to provide lower-cost services since the ILECs have a monopoly and just got the government to agree to lock out CLECs from their central offices. Wireless won't help; at some point, you have to tie down to the wired networks, and you're back to paying the ILECs again. Fiber to the home won't help; it will be rolled out by the ILECs or, worse, by your cable company who only wants you to watch, not talk back (no Counterstrike servers for you, muttonhead).
So, no, I don't see a significant drop in datacomm prices any time soon, which means the Internet for end-users isn't going to get any faster.
Schwab
This is probably true (Score:5, Insightful)
During the 3 year period where I did use Napster (and Kazaa later on) to download mp3s I bought the bulk of my 250+ CD collection, mostly of bands that I had initially heard via P2P. In that sense, it did work a bit like radio.
Not unlike many others, I also burned CDs with those MP3 files, but there's nothing like owning the real thing(TM) so I ended up buying the CDs of bands that I really liked.
This has been said (only today) already about 300.000 times but I'll say it again (this is
When will ??AA realize that CDs don't sell because:
a) sometimes the music does suck
b) we all get the feeling of being ripped off when paying 20 EUR+ for any CD or DVD, especially knowing how much of that goes to the artist
c) trying stuff is something you have to do. Would you by a new pair of trousers without trying them first? Would you buy a car you never drove?
Damn lies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Respondeth the RIAA:
Weiss cited a survey conducted by Houston-based Voter Consumer Research that found those who illegally download more music from the Internet buy less from legitimate outlets. Of respondents ages 18-24 who download, 33 percent said they bought less music than in the past year while 21 percent bought more. Of those ages 25-34, the survey found 25 percent bought less and 17 percent bought more, Weiss said.
Earth to Weiss: These people bought fewer CDs in the past year, yes. But your stats show nothing about that being correlated with the fact that they are file sharers. Where is the control group? The stats on CD purchases of non-sharers? I'm sure their CD purchases skyrocketed last year, right? Oh wait:
illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Huh. Who'da thunk it?
Times have changed (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA vs GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't agree with the license, don't use it.
Hurt the RIAA by stop using their music.
I am not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
As Napster became more and more vilified, companies refused to let employees use napster at work. As a result, by the end of 2001, I was no longer able to use it at work (and had dial up at home, so the time it took to screen potential candidates was approaching an hour per song). With the covert and overt poisoning of tracks placed for sharing, it is not worth my effort to sift through the trash in the hopes of finding gems.
Since being unable to hear new music due to the interference of the record industry (and its cronies BayTSP and congress), and the concentration of ownership by conglomerates like Clear Channel, all the radio stations are becoming the same play list. As there is no way for me to discover new music worth listening to, my purchases of albums dropped from 200+ per year in each of 1999 and 2000 to 1 album in 2002 and zero in 2003. I have about 700 CDs, enough CDs that I probably do not need to purchase any more for the rest of my life. Since the record industry is determined to prevent me from discovering new music, it looks like I already have a lifetime worth of music. From 200 albums per year to zero, the RIAA has decided that I do not need to buy any new music ever again.
What could convince me to buy more albums? I would have to find stuff worth listening to. I enjoy classical, techno, jazz, new age, folk and stuff that gets called world. With the exception of 2 spanish language stations, my local radio stations only play country, pop and rap. The spanish language stations have more interesting music than the english language ones. Guess I need to brush up on my spanish.
The current distribution system for music is BROKEN. Existing and proposed legislation just serves to enforce and prop up a distribution system that was (and still is) corrupt and crooked for the last 70 years. I chose to not support the corruption with my money. I chose to not support the crooked politicians who dance to the tune of the RIAA. It is my money and there is no law requiring me to subsidise their corruption, not that it would be a constitutionally valid one even should one exist.
Unfortunately, the RIAA have painted themselves into a corner with the jihad they have declared against P2P. There is no possible way for them to admit their mistake without them losing billions in the RICO lawsuits that would result. Unfortunately for the RIAA, it is them or America, and and currently, the RIAA is winning the propaganda battle while subverting the justice system of the US. It is as corrupt and evil as if AlQeda was in charge of the White House.
Copyright, in the right hands... (Score:5, Insightful)
A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is.
Also, I haven't seen this suggestion here before, but if you want to try out different artists/genres/whatever, and if you live near a half-decent public library system with half-decent interlibrary loan services, you can check out CDs instead of (at the moment) illegally copying them.
Just my 2 cents worth (for large values of 2).
o sweet sweet irony! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, what if most of the execs of the RIAA are graduates of Yale or Princeton? (ivy league rivalry).
Anyways, this is something I've been saying for years. Even before file-sharing, I rarely bought any CD's, mainly because of the crappy schtuff out there and because of the lack of funds. It's just that both reasons are even stronger now (thx enron/dotcom bust/etc.).
RIAA and this study don't necessarily disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
WHY do they discredit these reports? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if the record companies actually considered for a second, that there was a possibility that this report was actually right! Then the only possible result could be to increase their profits! By just dismissing it as rubbish, they're harming themselves more than anyone else.
They hate me (Score:4, Informative)
What to do about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
What P2P Does Best (Score:4, Interesting)
It re-ignites/increses an interest in music overall more than any other one thing.
If you can't understand why that's a good thing, then I probably can't explain it to you any better.
Boycott RIAA affiliated bands (Score:4, Insightful)
By using your purchasing power, you decide the fate of these almost-Nazi-like corporations. Send them the message where it hurts them the most, The Bottom Line. By denying the RIAA your hard earned dollars, their shareholders suffer. And while they'll claim p2p responsible for further reductions in sales (as if the economy, CD prices, the thousands of stupid lawsuits that contribute to the price of a CD aren't enough), the truth will be shown that the above study, and other studies that have shown the RIAA incorrect, are in fact true, and the RIAA will be forced not only to rethink their PR strategy, but their ailing dinosaur of a business model.
The number of independant bands/labels has increased a hell of a lot, and of course the quality of the music is superior simply because there isn't the corporate pressure to compromise musical integrity just to satisfy a shareholder. I discovered a progressive rock stream, progrock.com [progrock.com], via an article here on SlashDot regarding the current release of IceCast [icecast.org]. This stream has been the main source of bands whose CDs I now purchase.
I haven't purchased an RIAA affiliated CD in probably over 5 years because they haven't released anything worth buying, especially at US$20 a CD. During that time I've been purchasing independant CDs from non-RIAA affiliated labels, and I do so gladly knowing the artist receives more of the money, and the quality of music is far superior. The cost of these CDs is typically US$5-US$7 (not including S&H) cheaper than RIAA affiliated labels CDs too.
As an independant artist, I offer my own original music in mp3 format, freely downloadable, and distributable, see the link in the sig below.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Funny)
It's called copyright infringement. Escape the common (publicity induced and totally unfair) misconceptions...
;)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Funny)
It's called copyright infringement. Escape the common (publicity induced and totally unfair) misconceptions...
It's called a "metaphor."
When the natives complain about the white man raping their land, the white man didn't actually rape the land. It's a metaphor.
When they say that Kazaa is the bastard son of Napster, they don't mean that Napster, as a company, somehow copulated with another company, producing an offspring company, then denied ever having sex with the first company at all. It's a metaphor.
When you burn a CD, there is no flame involved. It's a metaphor.
When you surf the web, there is no actual surfing involved. It's a metaphor.
When you pirate music/software, you are not actually running around with a parrot, an eyepatch, and a pegleg, boarding ships and stealing software. It's a metaphor.
Think outside the box a little, instead of blindly latching on to the watered-down, pre-approved things that you're allowed to rebel against.
(Note that I'm not implying there there is an actual box involved, that you're actually blind, that there are any latches involved, or that anyone has actually sprayed water onto anything).
Sorry, but the legal definitions are DIFFERENT... (Score:5, Interesting)
You see, contrary to what all the business people have been saying about "intellectual" property, it's not property per se- it's not a tangible thing. Making copies doesn't take the original item away from the owner. It does lower the amount of money they might see, but it does not directly take money out of their hands, nor does it deprive the holder of the so-called property.
Stealing is the taking of something in a manner that directly deprives someone of the thing taken. There's legal terms for this- theft and larceny come immediately to mind.
Infringement is not stealing in any legal sense of the concept- you can apply less than common dictionary definitions for the term or moral arguments to the mix, but you'd still be wrong because there IS a distinction for the whole thing all the same.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Alexander Pope wrote a very long poem, called "the rape of the lock". It's about a young woman's suitor trying to take a lock of her hair. He's not even a stalker or a thief, as this is all an elaborate game to impress her with how much trouble he will go to to woo her, and she isn't averse to being wooed, just enjoying the attention. Words can be stretched, sometimes a whole lot.
Here's a few reasons why I'd suggest you reconsider useing words such as stealing for copyright infringment.
1. All theft is criminal. Once, all copyright infringement was always a matter for civil courts only, and even now, only some forms are criminallized, since the late 90's. Was the US wrong for over 200 years before that, and still half wrong?
2. In the US, all infringment is under federal law. The Supreme court has ruled that the 50 states have no right to make or interpret copyright law. If infringment=theft, the Supreme's reasoning on this would limit the rights of the states to have their own laws on theft as well, or the states would need to insist they have te right to pass their own laws on infringment, so that they did not lose the authority to prosecute theft (and possibly other crimes - imagine if a state couldn't prosecute a man for murder, if he shot someone who was engaged in interstate trucking at the time in that state).
3. Federal law carefully puts infringment under a completely different title than all federal laws regarding theft. Titles are broad categories of law, intended to keep very different areas seperate. Appellate courts frequently compare one law to another, if both are under the same title, (for example if a cruel and unusual punishment defense is invoked) but are much more reluctant to compare across titles.
4. The US signed a treaty called Berne. It relates to civil violation of infringment, and by signing it we have agreed with 181 other nations that infringment is primarily a tort matter, as Berne stresses certain parts concern civil law only and have no authority to regulate the criminal laws of the signing nations, and yet bringing the US into compliance with Berne is cited as the base for much of this new legislation since then.
So the reason to call it not theft is, your legislators say it's not theft, the highest court in the land says it's not theft, just about everyone else in the world's governments says its not theft, except North Korea and the People's republic of Yemin and a few similar nations.
Now if you live somewhere besides the United States, the of course only some of these issues apply to you.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Informative)
The # 5,000 does not even appear in it, and it says they sold MORE copies, not less.
they concluded that file sharing actually increases CD sales for hot albums that sell more than 600,000 copies. For every 150 downloads of a song from those albums, sales increase by a copy, the researchers found.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the actual article, it says that the study concluded that file sharing INCREASES CD sales. On their "most pessimistic model", which is not the one they think is most likely correct, they compute a decrease in sales of 2 million CDs in 2002, which they say is statistically insignificant in comparison to the decrease of 139 million CDs sold between 2000 and 2002.
What is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do people illegally download copyright material? Sure. But --
Is it piracy when I download out-of-copyright old radio programs [rusc.com]*? Or sample songs from bands who specifically encourage this? What about lectures stored on a Morpheus server in L. Lessig's campus office?
Both "downloading" and "p2p" can mean a lot of things. I plan to buy a CD of Nero Wolfe MP3s in part because of the excellent episodes I've downloaded so far.
Ah, well.
timothy
* Orson Welles' radio stuff is pretty incredible; his presentation of Dracula in particular is great
Re:What is? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
I was looking at my old portable stereo with two tape decks, and realized that the 2nd deck didn't even have a play button. All it had was record, to record from the first tape deck
So, let's think about this -- in the early 80's Sony was making devices whose sole purpose was to record music from other mediums. I will tell you 99% of the time I used that deck to record a tape I had borrowed
The music industry managed to survive a time when they were making devices to copy music (and I'll tell you right now, 10th generation analog copies did not bother me).
A 5th or so generation tape introduced me to what became one of my favourite bands for a long time ... The Violent Femmes. I ended up buying every one of their tapes, then their CD's hen it turned into that.
Nothing has changed in the last 25 years, other than the fact that the recording industry is trying to find excuses to generate revenue through a blanket tax.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If nothing else, this study even deflates the already weak argument that P2P is "stealing", because the argument used to be that by downloading you are "stealing" the potential income of artists. Well, without the economic argument now, then what exactly is stolen? There is nothing missing.
You're correct in pointing out that 1/5000 is still a significant number. But also that the study does not concentrate on the other side; that P2P may inspire sales that never would have been made.
The funny thing, but not unexpected, is that most businesses would be jumping for joy if a study like this came out. That percieved threats to your business in fact turned out not to be that bad after all. The RIAA/MPAA *should* be pleased by this study. IF it was about economics. But their reaction shows that it's not about the money at all, it's about their ability to totally control and manipulate human behavior and destroy capitalism, e.g., power.
Re:Earth to RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
=]
economists != laywers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft (Score:3, Informative)
Downloading/distributing pirated music/software/movies/etc is not theft, it's copyright infringement. US Code Title 17 [cornell.edu]
Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Downloading music involves no direct loss for the RIAA. Nobody's time is lost and they don't have to pay out any money. The only way they can claim a loss is if they assume you would have bought the album that you downloaded, which is tenuous at best.
Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft (Score:4, Interesting)
Electricity is a product, it is electrons traveling down the wire, work on your car is a service performed.
Taking a cd from a record store is taking an actual product. You copying a file from me is NOT stealing a PRODUCT at all, what if you copied the exact clothes I am currently wearing? Is that considered theft? What about copying the paint scheme off my custom van, looking at my custom made porch swing and making your own the same way, how about getting the same exact hair cut as me? These are examples of intellectual property and may or may not be covered under copyright, trademark, patent or trade secret laws, copying them is a copyright violation. You can not take or steal away intellectual property from someone but it may be possible to make unauthorized copies of it.
Steal an audio cd from Walmart and get caught, potential for a small fine. Download or upload the same cd's contents to someone online, face up to $150,000 fine per song. Do the potential fines appear to be in relation to the crime commited?
Re:MP3 Sharing is Still Illegal!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't this same thing occur every time you listen to the radio?
You might say no because there are advertisers who are paying for the space, which the radio station then gives a portion to the music industry, thus paying the artist back...a pittance.
Well, consider this. By downloading a song, many people, according to the study, often go purchase cd's from these artists whose music they have enjoyed for free. This is even better for the artist because they get at least a little more because it is direct revenue for them and the music industry.
Another example, you can go check out a book from the library for free and read it in its entirety. For free! Not a single cent goes to the author. Yet, you're still enjoying the fruits of the author's labor without paying for it.
Open your mind, see the possibilities.
Re:A whopping 5000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because somebody downloaded it, doesn't mean they would have bought it had they not been able to download it. Before you rush to discredit that - it's true that this argument doesn't hold up as an excuse for piracy (which it is often used as) but it *does* hold up as a reason why just seeing the amount that's being downloaded doesn't let you measure the amount of sales the firms are losing.
For example, 6060 CDs a month? Do you think that most of those filesharers could
Re:A whopping 5000 (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Re:A whopping 5000 (Score:4, Insightful)
For the mathematically disinclined, where is the remaining 99.995% of their alleged losses coming from?