Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Businesses The Internet

Digital Music Sales Skyrocket in 2005 176

Posted by Zonk from the year-of-the-ipod dept.
Luke PiWalker writes "The market for digital music hit $1.1 billion in 2005, more than triple 2004 sales. But the industry, wanting to wring the maximum profit out of the consumer, remains fixated on piracy." From the article: "The IFPI also called on ISPs to join the fight against music piracy, which it claims severely erodes the profits of its 1,450 member record companies across the globe. The IFPI added that the legitimate music business was gradually gaining ground on digital piracy. It said research showed that in Europe's two biggest digital markets -- Britain and Germany -- more music fans are now legally downloading music than illegally file-swapping."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Music Sales Skyrocket in 2005 More

Digital Music Sales Skyrocket in 2005

Comments Filter:

  • pay? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Janek Kozicki ( 722688 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:51AM (#14518321) Journal
    Pay? For music? [slashdot.org]

    • Well, based on the results [slashdot.org] of that poll, there are still more people who are willing to pay for music (44% for Standard ISO CD -vs- 33% for Pay?). And this is among geeks. I wonder what the percentage would be among the non-geek populace, where there are fewer people aware of file sharing? It seems likely that that percentage would be higher.

      I still call BS when the RIAA and others claim that p2p hurts record sales. I think that most of the stuff that is produced and sold nowadays in the mainstream is just

    • In related news (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2006 @10:23AM (#14518944)
      In related news, Bellsouth has begun negotiations with the RIAA to help pay for the bandwidth that the pirates are consuming.

  • RIAA has won (Score:5, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:52AM (#14518325)
    Now can they please stop suing their consumer base?

    • Re:RIAA has won (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:04AM (#14518392)
      This is a lot like the war on terra. They won't have successfully "won" until there isn't a single person out there making a copy of a song for someone else without paying. In short, it will never end...

    • Re:RIAA has won (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dc29A ( 636871 )
      RIAA has won? Not IMO. RIAA wants to sell you a product. Product being one CD full of shit with maybe 1-2 good songs. Those good songs are being played on radio and bought in online download services. The CD itself is not bought. CD sales have gone down again last year while legal downloads are going up. Thanks to legal downloads, people are no longer inclined to buy an entire CD full of crap because they like maybe one song on it.

      • Re:RIAA has won (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:23AM (#14518519) Homepage Journal
        The "one CD full of shit with maybe 1-2 good songs" comes up every time this subject is discussed, and I have to ask: what CD's are people buying that they say this, anyway? I'd say I like 90+% of the songs in my CD collection, whether I'd heard the song before buying the CD or not -- because I usually buy CD's by artists whose work I know is consistently good, or that have been recommended to me by friends whose musical judgement I trust. Even the best band can turn out a lousy song on occasion, sure, but I have to say that if you buy an album expecting and accepting that most of the songs on it are going to suck, then you pretty much deserve what you get.

        • Re:RIAA has won (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:32AM (#14518581)
          This is the difference between a discrminating music buyer and someone who buys the top 40 hit of the week. One buys music because they like the music. The other buys the music because it's cool and that's what they're supposed to do.

          • Re:RIAA has won (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mzipay ( 577247 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @01:13PM (#14520399)
            C'mon! It's not that black-and-white!

            The reality is that most people who have a CD collection own both kinds of works - those that they listen to regularly, from the first song to the last, and those that they listen to only on occasion, or only to certain tracks.

            Here's a newsflash - musical taste is SUBJECTIVE. What you consider to be the greatest musical masterpiece of humankind's existence might not be worth picking up from the 25-cent bargain bin at the local swap shop to someone else.

            The "argument" here (going back to the original post) is quite valid: if I like a particular song or couple songs off some band or artist's album, and I *don't* like (or don't care one way or another) about the rest, I don't want to pay FULL price for the whole album.

            Personally, I only buy new CDs for my absolute favorite bands and artists. For the rest, I first look at local CD exchange stores, followed by online used copies, and finally resorting to "piracy" if all other options have been exhausted.

            That song that got released back in 1972 that I just heard the other day in a TV commercial and would really like to add to my collection? Um, yeah, I'm NOT going to go out and pay for the entire album when all I want is that song. If I can find the album on the cheap (and by cheap I mean $1 or less), I'll buy it.

            Otherwise, it's a pirate's life for me. ARRRRRR!

        • Re:RIAA has won (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ShibaInu ( 694434 )
          To me the problem with the crappy top 40 stuff is that it is overproduced. The artists are managed now such that every dance move they make, every note they sing, etc is planned. I'm sure there are focus groups, market surveys and statistical anlysis done to make sure that every Brittany Spears knock off hits the demographic sweet spot.

          Personally, I like music that is the expression of an artist, not the iterative effort of a marketing machine.
          • I think both actually have their place. Sometimes, when I'm doing work, all I really want is background noise, and pop hits do that nicely.

            When I'm looking to relax or just sit and listen to music, I seek out specific artists (Jazz mostly: Dave Koz, Chris Botti, Soul Ballet, and yes, Kenny G) or genres.

    • Re:RIAA has won (Score:5, Insightful)

      by surefooted1 ( 838360 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:27AM (#14518537)
      RIAA has won
      Or have they?

      ...research showed that in Europe's two biggest digital markets -- Britain and Germany -- more music fans are now legally downloading music than illegally file-swapping.

      I think people have just found more "secure" ways of trading music.
      • I think people have just found more "secure" ways of trading music.

        Maybe the DOJ/government will subpeona Google to find out how many people are searching for music and movie files too?
      • I think people have just found more "secure" ways of trading music.

        Why? There's no reason to believe that filesharing was ever that mainstream, except perhaps in the Napster days. it's not surprising to me that more people legally buy music. After all, most people don't shoplift, even though it is very easy to do. It's just that now there are new ways of buying music (read: iTunes) which are starting to become popular, as people don't see the need for a CD anymore.

        Believing that filesharing was the majorit

  • Legal downloads bigger than piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nordelius ( 947186 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:52AM (#14518332) Homepage Journal
    How are they measuring piracy? How can they possibly get reliable figures on the level of music piracy.
    Not that I am necessarily complaining. If the industry is content to consider that online piracy is not as big as legal downloads perhaps they will leave online music alone and look at people who actually make money from piracy (e.g. sales of counterfit CDs/DVDs)?

  • Digital Music? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Compenguin ( 175952 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:54AM (#14518340)
    Aren't CD's also digital music, not just that downloaded crap?

  • Legitimate Markets (Score:5, Insightful)

    by warmgun ( 669556 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:54AM (#14518341)
    "It said research showed that in Europe's two biggest digital markets -- Britain and Germany -- more music fans are now legally downloading music than illegally file-swapping."

    This seems to have little to do with any anti-piracy efforts from the record labels and much more to do with the wide-spread availability of legal markets for digital music for the first time.

    • Exactly...
      In my opinion, the record companies are going to have to find a new way to measure album sales.
      For example- I no longer (like I did in the 90's) buy a whole $20 CD when I just want a song or two- I just buy the song. In my opinion. when I buy the one good song on an album (and we all know the albums that have one good song), the record companies should record that as an album sale. ( Of course this would be subjective... But did you ever notice how Vanilla Ice consistantly has one of the top 50

    • My plumber explained it to me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:26AM (#14518536)
      Had a plumber in a while ago who was a real talker and a bit of a flake. While he was under the kitchen sink fixing my bad work, he saw that the iMac on the low counter there was showing iTunes where the kids had left it.

      The plumber's take on the RIAA and those horrible pirates was:

      People discovered that they could do all these cool things with song files -- remix, carry them in their mp3 players, rip, burn -- and there was an enormous demand to do those things. The pressure of that demand caused all sorts of leaks in the RIAA's old pipe full of money.

      The RIAA, naturally, started running around in a panic trying to plug the leaks. For every one they plugged, they got more; the demand created that much pressure, and it's not going to be possible to sue every pirate or plug every spot in an entire pipe. It stops being a pipe at that point and turns into something else.

      What they needed to do was add a release valve that they could control, but they didn't want to do that. It took third parties like Jobs with iTunes to show them how the pressure could go in a place they directed it. Now that they've let a bit of the pressure out, they're still trying to plug holes though. They don't see that they should concentrate on a workable new system that gets people the water they need rather than setting up a bunch of jury-rigged patches for problems with the old one.

      He also included a choice word or two about the "plumber's crack" in the RIAA's thinking, but I won't repeat that here. ;-)

      • Re:My plumber explained it to me (Score:5, Funny)

        by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 20, 2006 @10:29AM (#14518991) Journal
        Tomorrow, Ian Scot's plumber relates marriage to--you guessed it--plumbing!

        And be sure to pick up his new book The World Is Pipes, which shows just how pipelike everything is.

        This book was released to satisfy the his fans while he works on rewriting the famous Feynman Lectures on Physics so that everything is explained in relationship to pipes. Afterall, what's a wormhole but just a fancy way to say "Time Pipe"?

        The famous plumber has dutifully dedicated his life to the understanding and study of pipes after his 3 year old son was killed in a fatal piping accident. We're hoping to see him win the Nobel Peace Prize in Directing Flowing Fluids and Gases this year.

        It's a decent and light hearted analogy but I think there's a bit more to it than just cash flow.
    • I remember when Steve Jobs introduced the itunes music store, he compared it with all the p2p at the time. He said we can't beat them on price, so we have to beat them on
      1. Easy of use
      2. Quality of encoding/downloads (quality of music is really subjective/ fast!)
      3. Selection (you have to find the songs you want)

      Not many beleived you could compete with free.

      The RIAA anti-piracy efforts have worked in some regards, in that they make pirating music not as easy and make the pay services better in comparison. Pa
    • This seems to have little to do with any anti-piracy efforts from the record labels and much more to do with the wide-spread availability of legal markets for digital music for the first time.

      What has changed the entire equation is the enormous success of Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store working in conjunction with the iTunes program. By pricing singles at 99 cents US per song and US$9.90 per album, this has actually benefited a lot of artists because not only does this cut down on music piracy, but it h

  • Enough Is Enough (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:55AM (#14518348) Homepage

    When will the RIAA stop these senseless lawsuits and focus on the digital download market. Piracy will always exist, accept that and work on growing your customer base instead of increasing the number of enemies.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

    • Re:Enough Is Enough (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shark72 ( 702619 )

      "When will the RIAA stop these senseless lawsuits and focus on the digital download market."

      Record companies, like you and me, can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time.

      The success of the digital download market is due to the record companies' focus. Universal has finally digitized their entire catalog and is now digitizing their back catalog of European releases. They've even made noises about an online-only music label, ostensibly so they can make investments in more commercially risky artists

  • Not Impressed (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Kn1nJa ( 878764 )
    This is just another ploy to try and persuade people to legitimately buy music. They should realize by now, that no amount of sugar coating will make buying music any better. It's still a rip off and always will be. I've downloaded music ever since the beginning of napster (back when it was actually cool...) and won't be buying any time soon...
    • Then you're a leech.
    • Take a music bath once or twice a week for a few seasons, and you will find that it is to the soul what the water-bath is to the body.

      The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils.

      William Shakespeare

  • Legal music (Score:2, Insightful)

    by poeidon1 ( 767457 )
    These companies try to prevent downloading illegal music, without providing a platform to download legal music. ITunes was one of the first to cater that and thats why it is a success but more needs to be done especially with files with DRM

    • Re:Legal music (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Professor_UNIX ( 867045 )
      ITunes was one of the first to cater that and thats why it is a success but more needs to be done especially with files with DRM

      IMHO iTunes Music Store would be a slam dunk if they had simply adopted Apple's Lossless codec as the standard format for downloaded music instead of the lossily compressed AAC files. If I'm going to pay the store price for an album on iTunes Music Store then I should be able to take the files I've downloaded and burn a CD that will be the exact same quality as if I had bought t

  • Another tired story about how "good" people are paying and playing ball with the RIAA etc in the first portion while the rest of the story spends its time hand-wringing over how pirates are taking everybody down the path to hell.

    No doubt we will shortly hear of another round of single mothers being busted because their children have downloaded some songs onto their computers or more pressure being directed against Apple's unscrupulous pricing policies.

    Funny how these things seem to be forming a pattern.
  • The world would be much more quiet if only digital entertainment industry got some very simple principle: there is very little to do against copies of digital media! Nothing, actually!
    With analogue entertainement (tapes, basically) there has always been a quality loss along with the copy process. And the copy has been done with specialised hardware (tape machines).
    Almost any PC with the needed (cheap) hardware and software can do copies, play the media and so on.
    Entertainment industry should focus more on q

  • Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil' (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "...But the industry, wanting to wring the maximum profit out of the consumer, remains fixated on piracy..."

    Well, I guess having a sizeable chunk of your expected income stolen will cause a certain amount of 'fixation'. I am an IP lawyer, so I may be slightly biased, but if people want something that someone else went to the trouble of creating, doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid? I have trouble understanding why so many people seem to condone simply *taking* it... and then playing t
    • if people want something that someone else went to the trouble of creating, doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid?

      Why yes, it does. And the answer, apparently, from musicians who are familiar with the parasitic ways of the music industry is, "No, not really."
      • You are introducing a new topic and I'm not sure why. Are you saying that if a musician is unhappy with the record label they've released on then it's okay to take their music without paying for it? What's the moral basis for that line of thinking?

        • What's the moral basis for that line of thinking?

          The moral basis is that the media companies are notorious for "creative" (read: immoral) accounting practices.

          Artists get an advance on the projected sales of their music. Kind of a "loan" up-front, that they have to pay off with sales. But, they don't get to start paying off the loan until they have paid the promotional costs.

          That's where the media companies' accounting starts to get -very- creative. The "promotional costs" are massively inflated by

    • Isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins, according to religious people? If so, then the RIAA tactics are greedy AND evil.

      I can understand that in the surrent system (at least in the US), it is a company's duty to maximize shareholder value, but the current system also makes it impossible to look beyond the next quarter. Companies can not be concerned by the long-term value that is created when they don't screw their customer base. Suing and screwing seems to be the "new paradigm" (for you management types)

      • That's simplistic hogwash. No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter. That's especially true of public companies who are required to operate transparently. Shareholders can detect that level of bad management and punish the stock price accordingly.
        • Have you ever worked at a major corporation?

          All of the really big ones where I've worked (not my current employer) have been severely mismanaged. One of those is a major media company. Consider it hogwash it you may, but that has not been my experience. YMMV.

          • > Have you ever worked at a major corporation?

            Yes. That experience formed the basis of my posting. I'm sorry that you chose to work at corporations that practice such short sighted behavior.
            • Ok. We have had different experience. You are correct in that I had chosen to work at some very shortsighted companies. I finally learned to research companies before agreeing to work there, and am now at a MUCH better place (and, this is also a publicy traded company).

              So I now know that there are some decent companies out there, too.

              Reflecting on this statement you made "No successful business limits their perspective to the current quarter." I realized that you're right. The first time reading it, I misse

    • Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil' (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Well, I guess having a sizeable chunk of your expected income stolen will cause a certain amount of 'fixation'."

      Exactly. What do you think the cost to benefit ratio is when it comes to suing over internet copying? From what I remember of studies that have been mentioned, the number of sales lost due to internet copying is a very small (possibly negative) number. Internet copying is overall a small problem compared to counterfeit discs fabricated by organized crime. Furthermore, suing their own customer

    • Stop pulling rank... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by john-da-luthrun ( 876866 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:56AM (#14518765)

      I don't see why the fact you're "an IP lawyer" should have anything to do with what side you're on. So am I, as it happens. So, for that matter, is Eben Moglen [wikipedia.org], and I don't seek him rushing to support the RIAA any time soon.

      This isn't about people being paid money they deserve - I don't have any problem with the record industry charging for their products, and I don't (generally) make (many) illegal copies of music or have any great sympathy for those caught putting 000s of tracks on file-sharing services

      The point is that though that the music industry is turning file-sharing and "piracy" into a scapegoat and using this to at best inconvenience, at worst rip-off their legitimate customers (or even compromise their computer systems - can you say, "rootkit"?). Copy-protected CDs, restrictive licensing/DRMing of music downloads (so that people moving from the US to Europe lose all their iTunes downloads, for example). Twenty years ago if you changed your hifi you didn't have to repurchase your entire record collection. Now? Oops, please tell me you didn't switch from an iPod to another make of "MP3" player? And whaddya mean you bought a copy-protected CD and now you want to listen it on your iPod? Go buy a downloaded version as well, you thief!

      The fact is that what makes money for the record companies is good music that people want to buy. It's the failure to find any really bankable, long-term, good quality acts that is the real problem for the record industry, but they prefer to make examples of a few "pirates" rather than address those deeper-rooted problems.

      This story only goes to underline this - find the right product, the right price and the right delivery mechanism, and people really do prefer to buy the legitimate goods rather than going for illegal copies.

      • I am an IP lawyer as well. And while I agree that DRM is unacceptable, and that people generally will prefer resonable legitimate goods, I also think that copyright law should generally conform to people's expectations. Thus, if most people are happy using P2P networks to make and distribute copies, then this should be legalized. While it might have a negative effect on the industry, copyright is meant to serve the public, not authors.

        • While it might have a negative effect on the industry, copyright is meant to serve the public, not authors.

          Absolutely. This is a point that many people don't get. Even many lawyers don't seem to get it, and that surprises me. Copyright isn't a "right", it's an expensive privilege granted to creators by society, because society expects to benefit. The theory is vaguely GPL'ish -- by imposing some carefully-chosen restrictions on the distribution of creative content, we actually increase distribution (

    • Re:Greedy, perhaps, but not necessarily 'Evil' (Score:5, Informative)

      by RocketGeek ( 566822 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:58AM (#14518778) Homepage
      > Well, I guess having a sizeable chunk of your expected income stolen will > cause a certain amount of 'fixation'.

      Absolutely, and you say:

      > doesn't it seem kinda fair if the creator asks to get paid?

      Yes definitely, but having spent the last few weeks working on a music website for a singer who used to have a music career, had a song that went platinum, and then ended up doing painting and decorating because she never saw any of the money, as did the recording studio who were recording her tracks, I think you are being very naiive if you think that the creators actually get paid most of the time. As her horror story showed me, as well as others I know about from being involved, the money does not go to the artistes, it generally goes to corrupt music industry executives who try and blackmail female artistes into sex for career advancement, and who seem to pocket the money only to spend it on shovelling coke up their noses. Seemingly they spread their fun to their lawyers too. So putting your comments in context, i don't think you really understand the nature of the music business.

      > I am an IP lawyer, so I may be slightly biased,

      Well I guess you're definitely missing out on the fun the music industry lawyers have.

      Can you sleep at night with your views? Knowing that the genuine creators are not compensated, but all the middle men, the leeches like the lawyers etc are essentially stealing the money the creators make ?

      > I have trouble understanding why so many people seem to condone simply *taking* it...

      Simple. If the creator gets the lion share of the money, then I would pay without a second thought. As long as people who do not add value get the majority of the money, and defend their behaviour through suing everyone else, then I will have no part of it, and will actively seek the middlemen's economic demise.

      > and then playing the 'Evil industry' card on the rightholders to boot!
      > Seems a bit incongruous to me.

      Seems you're a bit naiive for a lawyer.

      People like John Kennedy and the IFPI and the RIAA are real scum. Instead of developing a credible business model that fairly compensates the artistes, they are more concerned with preserving their own financial gravy train which keeps the artistes under their thumb.

      • If the creator gets the lion share of the money, then I would pay without a second thought.

        So do you apply this line of reasoning to all products you need? (e.g. buying a pair of trainers, would you steal them if you think the people actually making them only received a few cents per pair).

        • I wouldn't steal from them, but that's because (as in all these IP-is-real-property red-herring arguments) it's their property, and if I steal it they won't be able to use it anymore. I would, however, be disinclined to buy from anyone I knew was taking undue advantage of their employees, and would probably look for someone able to provide the same thing on different terms (which, if applied to patented or copyrighted material, would be considered infringement). There is no correspondance between theft of r

    • I would say most people dont view the RIAA as the "creator" of the music, but the musicians themselves. The RIAA is trying to cling to a dying business model. iTunes is showing the people are more than willing to pay for their music, but they refuse to be gouged by the RIAA's monopolistic tactics. I get all of my music from Emusic.com or iTunes and dont see myself every buying another physical cd. This knee-caps the RIAA because they have historically been able to inflate the overhead required for cd di

    • I have trouble understanding why so many people seem to condone simply *taking* it... and then playing the 'Evil industry' card on the rightholders to boot! Seems a bit incongruous to me. There's such a thing as free music: download stuff that bands put online for your enjoyment or make some of your own, already.

      It is probably because most people see very little value in music. For years the "industry" has been giving away music over the radio and making all its money on concerts and recordings. Sure a lo

  • DRM'd music? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:17AM (#14518474)
    Nothing will ever make me pay my own hard earned money for a DRM'd file or CD. It is just not going to happen. I have no interest in buying inferior products.
    • Well, so long as you're not pirating the content instead, it's all good. But you can't justify your illegal acquisition of music by saying you disagree with the delivery method.

  • It's quality and convenience! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ami-in-hamburg ( 917802 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:21AM (#14518503)
    Personally, I think increased online sales would have to do with the quality and convenience. I don't have any idea how many times I downloaded some song, then when you play it back, it's something completely different than what you expected because some bonehead mislabeled it.

    I don't know what bit rate you can get from legal online services but I also got really tired of the crappy 128bit rate that it seems like everyone ripped to. I recently just finished re-ripping every CD I own to 256bit and I can tell the difference. I would think you won't get all the background garbage noise in a legal download either. At least I would hope there are no (pop, crackle, fizz) in the legal downloads.

    Convenience is a huge factor too. I fully understand that one person's fav band is another's most hated. However, I got sick of buying CDs because the group had a couple of tunes on the radio that I thought were really good only to get home and find out the other 8-10 tracks on the CD are crap! The ability to buy single tracks, at least to me, has value.
    • Well iTunes (in France at least, since I live there and haven't checked about their offers for the US) still sticks to the 128k rate, which, as you put it, is definitely crappy, even though they sell you their "improved" (Apple always improves, now don't they?) AAC, which does slightly better than plain ol' mp3 at the same rate. I know only one site that sells 192k mp3 in France ( http://www.fnacmusic.com/ [fnacmusic.com]), but they don't have as many titles available as iTunes has.

      Sound quality is still my main objection

      • Sound quality is still my main objection to purchasing music on the Web... after DRM protection of course. Jobs got everything right once again: after getting people to pay for software to produce content, and refusing people to modify the software to suit their needs, tech companies managed to get us to pay for crappily digitised content that we can't even copy onto the hardware we choose. To me this is pure evil genius, but I will try not to fall into the trap as long as I can find CDs for a decent price.
        • Vinyl isn't that hard to find if you know where to look - specifically, Amazon are a godsend when it comes to getting new LPs. Just a regular search for and vinyl will usually yield vinyl versions of all their singles and albums - it's been helpful for me certainly just to see if certain albums have a vinyl release, and I've bought one or two.

  • Sales may be up... (Score:3, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:24AM (#14518522)
    You can find the real reason [userfriendly.org] why RIAA think they are losing money. Blame the Apple iPod!

  • What the ISP's job is (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    AFAIK, the ISPs are paid by their subscribers to carry bits between the subscriber and the 'rest of the world'. It is not really the ISP's function to know whether the bits represent music with permission, music without permission, or something completely different from music.

  • artists making millions from concerts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wilsonjd ( 597750 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:27AM (#14518543)
    I'm not a fan of steeling, but after seeing stories like this: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/915651 6 [rollingstone.com] I'm not going to cry for anyone. When Mick and the boys can make $162 million in North America alone, who needs record sales? When they charge you over $100 to see the show, they should give you the CD for free!
    • I agree most of the "artist" complaining about illegal copy are the ones that never tour.

      I'm not a big fan of illegal copy because I feel that if I like a song or a singer, well i'm supportinh him by buying his music. And if I can I'll go and see him live.
      I don't care spending 99 cent for a record on iTunes, helps the artist nd give a lil money to Steve ;D

      But hey, if I have to make some stupid CD for a party or something with Britney and Co music or ChiPs theme, I will download that's for sure ;)

    • Sure, but that's the ROLLING STONES (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nerdposeur ( 910128 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @10:04AM (#14518827) Journal
      Not to point out the obvious or anything, but "Mick and the boys" happen to be one of the most successful groups of all time. That's like me saying, "Computer programmers don't need salaries; they can make their own programs and get filthy rich. Look at Bill Gates!"

      A more realistic example is a known but not super-famous group like They Might Be Giants. Sure, you can get all their stuff on P2P, but you also have the option of buying straight from them on their web site. I like them and want them to keep making music full-time, so I will choose the latter. And since I've only seen them in concert once, they'll end up making more money from me by selling music - which is their primary business.

      • A more realistic example is a known but not super-famous group like They Might Be Giants.
        They Might Be Giants also offers their albums online in FLAC, without any DRM. I decided to buy one of their albums largely because of this. I've been saying for years that when they finally start seeling Lossless audio, without any DRM, I would buy it. It's nice to see a band actually doing that.
    • 1) It's not theft unless you are shoplifting the CD from the store 2) Most acts do not actually own their own releases. The labels more than likely own all or most of the rights to the recorded masters. 3) Since the act doesn't own their CDs they would have to actually PAY the record company to give them away. Yes, for every promo CD that is made, the band is charged for it and that money is recouped from the income stream by the label before the band gets paid. 4) Yes - direct income for the artists is
      • 1) It's not theft unless you are shoplifting the CD from the store

        2) Most acts do not actually own their own releases. The labels more than likely own all or most of the rights to the recorded masters.

        3) Since the act doesn't own their CDs they would have to actually PAY the record company to give them away. Yes, for every promo CD that is made, the band is charged for it and that money is recouped from the income stream by the label before the band gets paid.

        4) Yes - direct income for the artists is in tou

  • The RIAA is representing some people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:28AM (#14518547) Homepage
    who are best compared to kings sitting in chairs on the beach commanding the tide not to rise.

    It was entirely predictable too.

    Music is a pre-hominid, semi-simian, refexive action/reaction. It demands instant gratification. In the internet age, that means music delivered over the ether.

    Because of the medium, the scatter/gather packet distribution, the "priviledged communication" nature of the channel, the end-to-end control, podcasters are going to eat the lunch of the broadcastering RIAA represented.

    The fact that podsafe music is incredibly more effective at getting people's music out there cheaply and without requiring compromise by the artists, that the only lazy or stupid people will sign up with them.

    The RIAA will go away once enough of their members go broke, like the ticks on the necks of the vampire bats that are feeding off of the artists.

    The Pod Safe Music Network, Pod Cast Delivery Network (representing growing legions of 'indy' artists) and iTunes Music Store (representing the drying up pool of major label 'signed' artists and 'aggregating podcasts.)

  • ...It seems that (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:28AM (#14518549)
    ...file-swapping is always going to be prevalent and is only going to become more prevalent as we all become geeks [slashdot.org]. The reason legal downloading is gaining headway is because it is getting simpler and appealing to the older crowd (finally adopting new gadgets like mp3 players). It takes a certain amount of computer aplitute in order to efficiently file-swap, a skill that is only going to be more common in the future.

  • Oh that greedy, greedy industry! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:42AM (#14518651) Journal
    "But the industry, wanting to wring the maximum profit out of the consumer, remains fixated on piracy."

    Wow man that's terrible. Just like those greedy bastards who have bricks and mortar stores go after shoplifters.

    Look, the industry's attempts to combat piracy have been ill-advised and ineffectual. Sony's use of a rootkit, for example, was downright unethical; it's a "solution" they should have rejected. They knew or should have known it would damage their customers' computers.

    However, to condemn an entire industry because they're concerned about people stealing from them shows a level of moral retardation just as grave as Sony's.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Wrongo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by synonymous ( 707504 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:57AM (#14518777)
    Actually, the music I listen to is not played on radio or in any visible format. P2P is my sampler. I stopped buying CD's when I stopped hearing any good music (opinions vary) radio or otherwise and couldn't hear it anywhere. Anyone get some Dave Weckl Band on 107 FM today? Chick Corea? Zappa? Funny thing is is that .mp3 is whats actually saving their ass because of it's shitty sound quality. Good enough to sample, for me only a tease of good music because I gotta have the FLAC. Another good way to sample is those "Red Dot" music sample boxes they have at Barnes and Noble in the music section. Try the "Similar Artists" selection on the display after selecting someone you like to listen to and you can hear some samples of those "Similar" artists. If you are really into music, you may find yourself standing there for a couple hours hearing stuff you never knew existed. And probably buying a CD after hearing something "Good".
    • Anyone get some Dave Weckl Band on 107 FM today? Chick Corea? Zappa?

      not on 107 FM or commercial radio - but on public radio, sure. All the time.

  • Here's a third option (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nerdposeur ( 910128 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @10:28AM (#14518980) Journal
    Note: blatent self-promotion ahead

    The music piracy debate comes up again and again on Slashdot, and there are always similar viewpoints expressed:

    View #1: "Stealing music hurts artists."
    View #2: "No, it hurts record companies, who are screwing artists anyway."

    My suggestion: buy indie music and/or buy straight from artists. Sites like Magnatune, Indieheaven and CD Baby (which also distributes music on iTunes and elsewhere) pay a large percentage of sales to musicians.

    [self-promotion]

    Suddenly, there's a direct connection: You buy music from me, and most of the money keeps me eating and recording. You get more music, I have more fun, and nobody gets screwed. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

    If you don't like what the industry has to offer, don't steal it; buy indie music. [/self-promotion]

  • People Pay For Convenience, Not Music (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @01:38PM (#14520647) Homepage
    I've said it a hundred times - people do NOT pay for music. They never have, except for the short period of time when music was only available on phonograph records and cheap cassette recorders were not available. Even then, hobbyists recorded music on reel-to-reel tape drives and exchanged them.

    People pay for legal download services only because using the P2P systems is so difficult (search for the music, join a queue, wait for five hours to download the file, get a crappy file, etc., ad nauseum, not to mention configuring the software in the first place, a task some people find difficult.)

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close