Study shows file sharing doesn't hurt music sales

[Dead_Badger]

@Nightime

How many of the recording industry fans here were making these same defensive claims before we found out they were using price fixing?

Excuse me, you must be mistaking opposition to something that is morally and legally wrong with RIAA fandom. I do not like the RIAA, and generally dislike having to defend them. I think that their actions with regard to webcasters were shitty, and that the occasional legislation they try to get through their pet senators is an abuse of the system (although I reserve more contempt for the senators in question). Their PR is for shit. I just happen to think that they are right to say that filesharing is damaging and illegal and that they are justified in going after mass-sharers. But, it was a nice strawman. Good hat.

I’d like one of you to just admit “yes, I was wrong, they were in fact price fixing”.

I’d like you to find just one of us who said the opposite.

And I can’t wait until you have to say “yes, I was wrong, they were in fact desperately trying to hold back technology to maintain their destructive monopoly on the music business, abusing their bloated excess to rip off both artists and customers, and lying about it the whole time”.

Another nice strawman. Personally I think that the benefit of internet distribution is that it will ultimately lower the barrier to publishing for a great many artists. While mp3.com seems to have suffered from not having a business model, I believe it was very promising and there will be some successor to it. Web distribution won’t spell the end of the majors, because the investment needed in studio production values and promotion will remain the preserve of large companies. But generally I think small bands will have a better opportunity to reach a wide audience, and that’s a good thing.

I am, however, curious as to what you think the labels should have done. How, in your opinion, should they have acted to stem the biggest explosion of piracy ever, yet do so in a way that they can’t be accused of being anti-technology? Do you think they should have done nothing?

[Yookeroo]

Books & movies have plots & stuff, a poor analogy for music. As to how lmany “free previews” one should get? How about as many as it takes to make one want to buy the song? A 30 second snippet sure as hell isn’t anywhere close to adequate.

When it turned out the P2P led to me spending significantly more money on music, all my moral qualms disappeared. I still buy the stuff that I would buy anyway and I discover stuff I would never have found otherwise…and buy some of that too. I’m not apologizing when record companies make more money off of me than they normally would.

[World_Eater]

@Yookeroo

As to how lmany “free previews” one should get? How about as many as it takes to make one want to buy the song? A 30 second snippet sure as hell isn’t anywhere close to adequate.

That’s just stupid.

When it turned out the P2P led to me spending significantly more money on music, all my moral qualms disappeared.

And many people are spending less money. If, for every person like you, there are two people that aren’t paying for shit, perhaps p2p isn’t as good as you think it is for the industry. To be honest I don’t think it’s killing the industry either, but I have to tell you this total lack of respect for the work of others, and sense of entitlement are really at the core of the issue.

I still buy the stuff that I would buy anyway and I discover stuff I would never have found otherwise…and buy some of that too. I’m not apologizing when record companies make more money off of me than they normally would.

All that can be done, quite easily, without p2p.

[Yookeroo]

@World Eater

That’s just stupid.

Because…?

Before the internet, when radio or MTV was the driving force in selling music, people would hear some songs a lot before buying. I suspect, in general, the more airplay a song got, the better it sold.

@World Eater

And many people are spending less money. If, for every person like you, there are two people that aren’t paying for shit, perhaps p2p isn’t as good as you think it is for the industry.

But if there’s two of me for every one person who is paying for shit, then it’s a boon for the industry. Does anyone really know what the impact is?

@World Eater

To be honest I don’t think it’s killing the industry either, but I have to tell you this total lack of respect for the work of others, and sense of entitlement are really at the core of the issue.

All that can be done, quite easily, without p2p.

Not as easily. And since P2P is there, I’ll use it. I’m not going to stop just because others take advantage of the technology.

[yosemite]

I just bought (or “claimed,” I should say, since I used the Pepsi bottle caps) several iTunes yesterday. I knew nothing about the songs (and in all cases, they were people that I’d had never bought from before, and in some cases, never even heard of before). And yet I was able to make 6 wise choices. Just from listening to 30 seconds of preview. All are songs that I now enjoy. (Hey! I’m listening to one now! Delightful song.)

I say, shit or get off the pot. Either decide that the song has enough “potential” to you to buy the whole thing, or just don’t buy it. Sure, it’s always nice if an artist or copyright holder wants to give away more pf a free preview, and I don’t think they’re wrong if they do. And I certainly don’t think it’s wrong if they don’t. It’s their choice. Not yours.

A lot of places (like Amazon.com) have 30 second snippet previews on CDs. It seems like 30 seconds is some sort of “standard,” or whatever. Anyway, it’s working pretty well for me in making music buying decisions. :shrug:

[Princhester]

@Yookeroo

Before the internet, when radio or MTV was the driving force in selling music, people would hear some songs a lot before buying. I suspect, in general, the more airplay a song got, the better it sold.

Indeed. There is however a slight difference between these two scenarios:

1/ Hear song on radio. Buy cd, record whatever.

2/ Download song. Like it. Keep it.

Can you spot the difference? It’s subtle, but if you think about it for a while…

[Yookeroo]

@Princhester

Indeed. There is however a slight difference between these two scenarios:

1/ Hear song on radio. Buy cd, record whatever.

2/ Download song. Like it. Keep it.

Can you spot the difference? It’s subtle, but if you think about it for a while…

:rolleyes:

How about:
Download song. Like it. Pay for it. (Shareware works this way.)
This is what I do. As have many others. Is it enough to make up for those that don’t pay (who would otherwise have paid without the p2p option)? Don’t know. Neither do you.

I’m not paying for something unless I’m sure I’m going to like it. And a 30 second snippet ain’t good enough. Several listens might not be good enough, to expect 30 seconds to be good enough is pretty ludicrous.

[World_Eater]

@Yookeroo

Before the internet, when radio or MTV was the driving force in selling music, people would hear some songs a lot before buying. I suspect, in general, the more airplay a song got, the better it sold.

More airplay = more people hear song = increased sales

Not

More airplay = person who is unsure decides to buy after 1,134 listens = increased sales

But if there’s two of me for every one person who is paying for shit, then it’s a boon for the industry. Does anyone really know what the impact is?

Well here is where it’s difficult to discern the overall impact of filesharing, and I’ll be the first to admit that. As I’ve stated before, I am more annoyed by the reasoning and attitude behind p2p then I am the actual practice of it. I think we can all agree that we should pay something for the music we enjoy, right?

As far as whether p2p is eating into sales or boosting them, I feel that there are many advantages and disadvantages at work, but ultimately I feel when you add them up you come out at a loss. I’ve always thought it was kind of silly that someone won’t drive to the store where they could sample music and then make a purchase, yet they expect us to believe that they will run right out and buy album. I can just picture them sitting there saying “why the hell would I go to the store? I already own the thing, why go pay for something I already have? What I’m supposed to go pay those ripoff prices? Fuck 'em”

I don’t doubt that there are people out there that use it as a research tool, but there are plenty of tools that don’t enable or promote the ripping off of copyright protected works. A smart educated consumer will find other ways to listen to samples. Go to the artist’s website, read reviews, go to Amazon, etc. You’ll find you can piece together a pretty good idea of what they sound like. As far as life goes, buying music is a pretty simple decision. If you need weeks to listen to something, I can only wonder how long it takes to deal with some of life’s far more complex problems, such as which cordless phone to buy. How long does that take you, months?

Not as easily. And since P2P is there, I’ll use it. I’m not going to stop just because others take advantage of the technology.

Yes as easily. The only difference is you go to kazaa to download a song to sample, while someone else goes to Amazon.com to sample. Kazaa didn’t tell you about the existence of some band, it only enables you to listen to them. Well guess what? There are plenty of places to sample music other then kazaa, and this is where your argument falls apart.

[Ms2001]

@yosemitebabe

Golly, I buy books all the time without knowing everything about them beforehand. And you know what? If it turns out that I don’t like it as much as I’d hoped, I sell it on eBay.

Now if only you could sell the iTunes songs you don’t like on eBay! The DRM that iTunes (and similar systems) uses doesn’t just take away your fair use rights, it takes away your first sale rights too.

[World_Eater]

@Mr2001

Now if only you could sell the iTunes songs you don’t like on eBay! The DRM that iTunes (and similar systems) uses doesn’t just take away your fair use rights, it takes away your first sale rights too.

Interesting article.

[Yookeroo]

@World Eater

More airplay = more people hear song = increased sales

Not

More airplay = person who is unsure decides to buy after 1,134 listens = increased sales

These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. I suspect both things are happening.

@World Eater

Well here is where it’s difficult to discern the overall impact of filesharing, and I’ll be the first to admit that. As I’ve stated before, I am more annoyed by the reasoning and attitude behind p2p then I am the actual practice of it. I think we can all agree that we should pay something for the music we enjoy, right?

As far as whether p2p is eating into sales or boosting them, I feel that there are many advantages and disadvantages at work, but ultimately I feel when you add them up you come out at a loss.

Not in my case, but you could be right in general. My guess is that it’s hurting the big selling artists while helping most others. If this is true, I’m not sure this is a bad thing even if it’s a net loss for the record companies.

It would be nice of the RIAA stopped acting like Chicken Little and actually gave the issue an honest look. The more the treat customers and potential cutomers as crimiinals, the less sympathy I have for them.

@World Eater

I’ve always thought it was kind of silly that someone won’t drive to the store where they could sample music and then make a purchase, yet they expect us to believe that they will run right out and buy album. I can just picture them sitting there saying “why the hell would I go to the store? I already own the thing, why go pay for something I already have? What I’m supposed to go pay those ripoff prices? Fuck 'em”

I don’t doubt that there are people out there that use it as a research tool, but there are plenty of tools that don’t enable or promote the ripping off of copyright protected works. A smart educated consumer will find other ways to listen to samples. Go to the artist’s website, read reviews, go to Amazon, etc. You’ll find you can piece together a pretty good idea of what they sound like.

I will only very rarely purchase music based on something I’ve read about it. And, as I’ve said several times now, the 30-second snippet isn’t anywhere close to adequate. And if the artist website is giving free downloads, what difference does it make whether I surf to the site or find the songs they’re giving away on P2P? Nor am I going to drive to a record store to hear a sample when I can hear it at home for free (I’d probably make the purchase over the internet too).

@World Eater

As far as life goes, buying music is a pretty simple decision. If you need weeks to listen to something, I can only wonder how long it takes to deal with some of life’s far more complex problems, such as which cordless phone to buy. How long does that take you, months?

Minutes. One’s a logical decision, the other’s more of an emotional one. A telephone is just a tool, music is far more important than that. But I guess the way I connect with music must make me stupid or something. :rolleyes:

@World Eater

Yes as easily. The only difference is you go to kazaa to download a song to sample, while someone else goes to Amazon.com to sample.

But the Amazon.com sample (assuming they even have one) isn’t adequate. How many times do I need to repeat myself.

@World Eater

Kazaa didn’t tell you about the existence of some band, it only enables you to listen to them. Well guess what? There are plenty of places to sample music other then kazaa, and this is where your argument falls apart.

But why use other places when P2P works so wonderfully? For my argument to “fall apart”, you need to give me a reason why I should have to go to these plenty of other places when I can find most everything in one place? I’m not going to surf to amazon.com and hope they have the sample and then hope the 30 seconds is enough. And if it isn’t, then I have to find the band’s website and hope they have samples and hope that they give me more than that 30 seconds crap. And if they don’t have it, I have to run to a record store and hope they have what I’m looking for and can listen to it. And then decide on the spot whether it’s worth it (as opposed to sitting at home and listening to it at my leisure maybe even getting other things done while listening). That’s just as easy? I don’t think so.

[World_Eater]

@Yookeroo

These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. I suspect both things are happening.

Perhaps, but the people that need to listen to something 1,000 times before buying are a small pathetic demographic that I could care less about catering to. Shit or get off the pot. Life is too short to waste weeks or even days waffling over a CD purchase.

Not in my case, but you could be right in general. My guess is that it’s hurting the big selling artists while helping most others.

I would say it’s hurting anyone who wasn’t compensated for their work, big or small.

If this is true, I’m not sure this is a bad thing even if it’s a net loss for the record companies.

It’s a bad thing if you own a record company.

It would be nice of the RIAA stopped acting like Chicken Little and actually gave the issue an honest look. The more the treat customers and potential cutomers as crimiinals, the less sympathy I have for them.

To be technical, any “customer” that has an mp3 they haven’t paid for in one form or another is a criminal. Let’s keep in mind I’m far from a friend of the RIAA, but if some dude gets popped with a lawsuit, I say good, fuck 'em.

I will only very rarely purchase music based on something I’ve read about it.

If I read somewhere that band X sounds just like band y (band y being my favorite in all the world), I can tell pretty quickly (yes in 30 second snippets) if this is true or not.

And, as I’ve said several times now, the 30-second snippet isn’t anywhere close to adequate.

Why not? You get a fine impression of what they sound like pretty much off the bat. Like I said before I have no problem with offering more time, but not the entire song. No one needs to hear an entire song to determine if they like an artist.

And if the artist website is giving free downloads, what difference does it make whether I surf to the site or find the songs they’re giving away on P2P?

Because the p2p is used for illegal things, towerrecords.com isn’t. By using kazaa you are supporting it.

Nor am I going to drive to a record store to hear a sample when I can hear it at home for free (I’d probably make the purchase over the internet too).

Of course you will hustle right off to the store to pay $15 for the exact same thing you already got for free, right? (don’t bother answering because we already know you are an angel that only has the best interests of the artist in mind)

I bet you buy 2 copies, because you care so much. :rolleyes:

Minutes. One’s a logical decision, the other’s more of an emotional one. A telephone is just a tool, music is far more important than that.

For some people it’s their lifeline to the outside world, they need to weigh the feature set carefully.

But I guess the way I connect with music must make me stupid or something. :rolleyes:

No but the way you sample music is.

But the Amazon.com sample (assuming they even have one) isn’t adequate. How many times do I need to repeat myself.

Yes, I know, you need a ultra high quality mp3 to listen to 1,568 times before you can make a decision most people make in 5 minutes.

But why use other places when P2P works so wonderfully?

Because other places legally work just as well, at least for those who can make decisions.

For my argument to “fall apart”, you need to give me a reason why I should have to go to these plenty of other places when I can find most everything in one place?

Because the “place” you are going to is a conduit of piracy, have some fucking morals. Just because it’s convenient doesn’t make it right. Especially when there are other sampling methods that are 99% as convenient, just not for you, because you’re some brain addled moron.

I’m not going to surf to amazon.com and hope they have the sample and then hope the 30 seconds is enough. And if it isn’t, then I have to find the band’s website and hope they have samples and hope that they give me more than that 30 seconds crap. And if they don’t have it, I have to run to a record store and hope they have what I’m looking for and can listen to it. And then decide on the spot whether it’s worth it (as opposed to sitting at home and listening to it at my leisure maybe even getting other things done while listening). That’s just as easy? I don’t think so.

Amazing how doing a few minutes of research can be so brainbusting. You must be a special kind of stupid.

[yosemite]

@Yookeroo

And if the artist website is giving free downloads, what difference does it make whether I surf to the site or find the songs they’re giving away on P2P?

Another point: the web logs of the artists’ website can report which files are being downloaded the most. This can be very helpful information for the artists—helping determine which songs are most popular, where web visitors are visiting from (Google? Another site? Message boards?). By distributing the MP3 on P2P, you are not allowing the artists to have an accurate picture of how well (or how poorly) certain songs are doing.

[Princhester]

@Yookeroo

:rolleyes:

How about:
Download song. Like it. Pay for it. (Shareware works this way.)
This is what I do. As have many others. Is it enough to make up for those that don’t pay (who would otherwise have paid without the p2p option)? Don’t know. Neither do you.

No I don’t know. Neither do the RIAA’s members. But they’ve made a decision that they think downloading is bad for them because most won’t pay. Frankly, I think any other decision would be hopelessly naive. Maybe I’m overly sceptical. But that’s not the issue, the issue is a property owner’s right to decide how they wish to sell their stuff, and what they want to do with their stuff.

If the other side of the debate is right and downloading helps sales, the RIAA’s members and their methods are going to be left by the roadside of history.

As I’ve said before, I find it telling that those that support filesharing and reckon it results in increased sales don’t seem to have much faith in their own position if they are concerned about the RIAA.

I think that most filesharers know damn well it’s all about getting something for nothing, and what they don’t like about the RIAA (mostly) is that the RIAA is trying to end the bonanza.

[World_Eater]

@yosemitebabe

Another point: the web logs of the artists’ website can report which files are being downloaded the most. This can be very helpful information for the artists—helping determine which songs are most popular, where web visitors are visiting from (Google? Another site? Message boards?). By distributing the MP3 on P2P, you are not allowing the artists to have an accurate picture of how well (or how poorly) certain songs are doing.

This is a great point. I’ve been doing this with my website, and it’s been helpful as hell. (I learned all my tracks suck :D)

I get a much better picture of things then from those few mp3s I lobbed out onto Winmx.

[Yookeroo]

@World Eater

…Perhaps, but the people that need to listen to something 1,000 times before buying are a small pathetic demographic…

…Of course you will hustle right off to the store to pay $15 for the exact same thing you already got for free, right? (don’t bother answering because we already know you are an angel that only has the best interests of the artist in mind)…

…I bet you buy 2 copies, because you care so much. :rolleyes:…

@Yookeroo

Minutes. One’s a logical decision, the other’s more of an emotional one. A telephone is just a tool, music is far more important than that. But I guess the way I connect with music must make me stupid or something. :rolleyes:

No but the way you sample music is…

…Yes, I know, you need a ultra high quality mp3 to listen to 1,568 times before you can make a decision most people make in 5 minutes…

…because you’re some brain addled moron…

…Amazing how doing a few minutes of research can be so brainbusting. You must be a special kind of stupid…

Someone switched you to Raging Asshole. And since I don’t really like being called a liar and you’re being, well, something of a prick I’ll leave you to your own assholishness. I’ve pretty much made my point anyway and don’t need to keep banging my head against the knee-jerk p2p is EVILLLLLLL wall.

@yosemitebabe

Another point: the web logs of the artists’ website can report which files are being downloaded the most. This can be very helpful information for the artists—helping determine which songs are most popular, where web visitors are visiting from (Google? Another site? Message boards?). By distributing the MP3 on P2P, you are not allowing the artists to have an accurate picture of how well (or how poorly) certain songs are doing.

Fair point. But until I decide whether I actually like the artist, I don’t really care whether I want to help them on way or the other. And if it turns out I don’t like them, my website download will be misleading. And if I like it, the support they’ll get from me will be more tangible: $$$$$.

[World_Eater]

@Yookeroo

Someone switched you to Raging Asshole. And since I don’t really like being called a liar and you’re being, well, something of a prick I’ll leave you to your own assholishness. I’ve pretty much made my point anyway and don’t need to keep banging my head against the knee-jerk p2p is EVILLLLLLL wall.

Fine by me, good riddance. I have far more productive things to do then yell at at someone who doesn’t want to partake in reality.

Let us know when you get sued so I can bust out the champagne.

[yosemite]

@Yookeroo

Fair point. But until I decide whether I actually like the artist, I don’t really care whether I want to help them on way or the other.

Pardon me for saying so, but that’s a really crappy attitude. Even if you end up not liking their music, it’s really no excuse to screw them out of accurate web logs. It might seem like such a small thing to you, but it can be a big thing to them, and it can help them understand how to cater to those potential listeners who do end up enjoying their work.

And if it turns out I don’t like them, my website download will be misleading.

One download, from you, is going to be “misleading” enough to skew their web logs, and yet you are not at all concerned about the (potential) multiple downloads that others make of their MP3 (because you have it up on P2P)? All these P2P downloads from people who perhaps do like their work? And they’ll never have the web stats to tell them that?

That makes no sense.

And if I like it, the support they’ll get from me will be more tangible: $$$$$.

That’s dandy—it really is. But it still sucks that you don’t give a crap about their web stats, unless you happen to like their sound. That shows a definite lack of overall respect. And I’m not talking about respect for their music, because you don’t owe them that if you don’t like their music. I’m talking about respect for them as people who are working hard on something and merely want to know how they’re doing, and how well their work is being received. I think it’s pretty inconsiderate to take that away from them, merely because their style doesn’t appeal to you.

[aruvqan]

@Desmostylus

This is wrong.

The RIAA mostly sues for damages, i.e. monetary compensation for lost income on behalf of the people it represents.

Hm…mkay, if I download a single mp3 of rolling stones sympathy for the devil, and get caught, they can only sue me for the cost of 1 single song from a pay to download site, or the cost of a single rolling stones CD. Since they have their own attorneys, then the only thing it should cost them is the filing fees for the different motions…

Hm, real big difference from multiple thousands or tens of thousands of dollars… and the realistic costs of one single song…

[Dead_Badger]

@aruvqan

Hm, real big difference from multiple thousands or tens of thousands of dollars… and the realistic costs of one single song…

Remember, they are suing people who share vast collections of music. The potential damages from making a song available to thousands of users are greater than the value of a single copy of that song.