Music Industry P2P Claims Dismantled 390
Canarock writes "First Monday runs a great
article this month from Canadian
law professor Michael Geist that dismantles the recording
industry's claims about the peer-to-peer. Using actual data from
Canada, Piercing
the P2P Myths, demonstrates that the loss claims are greatly exaggerated
and that P2P has had little, if any impact on the income of the artists themselves." From the article: "The Canadian government has been the target of intense lobbying for stronger copyright legislation in recent months. Led by the music industry, which claims that it has experienced significant financial losses due to music downloading, the campaign culminated in November 2004 with a lobby day on Parliament Hill."
Admit it. (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, the only reason I haven't bought a CD in ages is because I can't find anything worth it. All I'm willing to invest in now is online radio [beatlesarama.com].
Re:Admit it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't you just ask? Yesterday I asked a friend (who owns a comic shop) what kind of music he was listening to and he gave me a huge list of good stuff to buy from all around the world. There is an almost infinite amount of music we'll never listen to and you don't know what you're missing. I ended up buying brazilian and indian records (when I usually listen to hard-rock and black metal).
Re:Admit it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Admit it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Admit it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Very true (Score:2)
Re:Very true (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but if more than one person likes it then that implies that it's accessible and that the band might have fans. If a band has fans then there will be people out there who are willing to pay for the music and as we all know, bands that are financially successful are not worth listening to.
Me? I only listen to bands that have been forcibly removed from open mic nights and solo artists who are so brilliantly underground that they've never released any material whatsoever. The best band in the world is "The Terri Schiavo Experience" and is a solo project by my friend Eric. He's so indie he doesn't even know he's in the band.
Re:Admit it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Crap music (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Crap music (Score:3, Insightful)
The record industry is stuck in a bad rut, and though there are a few rockers coming out now who can get some chart play, for the most part it's hip hop, rap and the digitally-altered sounds of those few largely female survivor
Re:Admit it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The last time I walked into a store and bought a CD was in 1998.
There just isn't anything on FM radio or in music stores that interests me. I'm a little too old (nearing 30) for new stuff that all sounds bland and alike to me - like Maroon, 3 Doors Down, Simple Plan - UGH! And there aren't a lot of widely distributed and advertised albums from genres I do like such as industrial.
Additionally, I'm not interested in owning a case, liner notes and a CD. I listen to music almost exclusively on my desktop computer, on my laptop and on my portable MP3 player. And in the rare instance that I need to listen to a CD in a car - I could just burn a copy of my own music to disc. But I can't recall the last time I did that, either.
This doesn't mean I don't buy music, though. I admit, I do download a lot of less popular things. Mostly classic rock, classical music and a lot of music from the 60s, 70s and 80s. But I also buy a lot of music. For example, I discovered "Sub Dub Micromachine" by listening to their song "Bullshit". I googled for their website, found a link to purchasing a downloadable copy of their album for $7.99 (in euros - about $10 in USD, I believe) and then added it to my collection.
While I was at the site that handled the online distribution of this band's album, I stumbled upon a band called "Hammerfall". They sounded great from the samples. So I bought two of their albums, too.
That's three full album sales that never would have occurred without the existance of P2P. And while I could probably have found their content for free online, I was happy enough to have discovered something new that my ears appreciated, that I gladly handed over about $34 USD.
The thing is, because these are smaller bands, with smaller followings (and both bands are from Norway, Sweden or Germany) and they aren't part of the big labels, I suspect that their sales are not tabulated by the industry. I could be wrong, but I would suggest that a lot of the lost sales the major RIAA members are claiming (which of course doesn't seem to be legitimate in the first place) are actually legitimate sales being lost to other, rival, smaller labels and direct band sales.
Another thing to consider is that CDs have been the major medium for some time now. So a lot of their former sales surges were probably by people looking to replenish their collection of 8-tracks and cassettes with CDs. Now that they've done so in the last two decades, they don't need to buy any more CDs. If you're a classic rock fan, there's no more classic rock being produced today - so you're not going to be buying any music. Seems logical enough.
But when they introduce yet another medium and CDs start to fail (or CD players become hard to find), they'll see another uptake in purchases by people who haven't bought music in a decade, replenishing their collection yet again.
Unless, of course, they decide that they're tired of paying for the same song five times over their lifespan and just download it.
Re:Admit it. (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm not just throwing "new fangeled music from them noisey youngsters" into this. I consider, say, REM and U2 in this category of bland sound-alike drek.
The difference seems to be that bigger
CRIA/RIAA == the new tobacco industry (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt if there's a person in the music industry (even inside the CRIA & RIAA themselves) who isn't aware that the vast bulk of their losses are entirely self-inflicted, and that the P2P thing is a red herring. P2P *is* a threat to them because it results in loss of control, but it's not a financial threat to any large extent. It brings huge marketting advantages by creating additional buzz and promoting music, by allowing real CD buyers to preview, and on top of that it's merely the successor to home taping off friends and off the radio anyway. Those who like to buy CDs will still buy CDs, whether they use P2P or not.
What it really comes down to is that, to fight against their loss of control, they are basically talking total bollocks about huge marketting losses. It's little different to the tobacco industry talking total bollocks for 2-3 decades to minimize the perceived health issues of smoking. There is no logic to it, it's just noise to cover their entirely obvious business goals.
The article did a pretty good job of dissecting their claims, it seemed to me.
Re:Admit it. (Score:3, Funny)
"briottany spears?"
"blimey, no! All I have is this pocket knife."
Re:iRATE (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, that's priceless.
Well, not exactly. Except if you're a fan of ad hominem [wikipedia.org] arguments, which are a classical logical fallacy.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:3, Interesting)
"The open source movement is playing an important and vital role in software development at the end of the 20th century, and open source will continue to be an important center for creativity in the next century.".."This paper stresses the important advantage of OSS over commercial development - the inherent possibility of creating simpler products that are superior to commercial products in terms of functionali
And this would be news to who? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it,we all have so much spare cash per week that we spend on something.
If its not music, its ringtones, video games, or something.
But point to point apps don't actually destroy money, its still there. People want to spend, and if they hear music they like, they are more likely to spend money in this way.
So when the industry says that there is x million dollars of "stolen" music, its actually a fairly spurious argument that people would have actually spent that money, or that they actually spent any less that month.
Just my 2c.
Michael
Re:And this would be news to who? (Score:2)
Economic basis of wealth (Score:5, Insightful)
To be precise: all our wealth as a society comes from the productivity gains made when we specialise. This is why "free trade" (like many freedoms) is a key part of creating wealth.
An example. Say I can earn $50 in a day cooking in a restaurant, and it costs me $10 a day to get someone to clean my house. I can certainly clean my own home but clearly it's better for me to pay someone the $10 and gain the chance to earn $50.
All wealth is created through this kind of trade.
Now, back to the music business. If we spend $100 on an inefficient structure, we may create a certain amount of wealth. But if we spend the same $100 on a more efficient structure, we can create more wealth.
This is why new technologies that make trading more efficient, that open larger markets, and that increase competition, also create wealth.
Point-to-point apps are potentially very lucrative. The problem is that when wealth is created, it usually ends up in new hands.
Advertising (Score:2)
I think that most people would say that the first is good as here wealth, and creativity (hence future wealth), are both promoted by having more bands on the scene.
But the windfall gain would be seen as bad: something that others pay for is attained for nearly free; this offends their sense
Re:Economic basis of wealth (Score:5, Interesting)
You and a friend go to a restaurant that charges $10.00 per all you can eat platter and an ala carte menu. You can:
- both spend $10 and get whatever comes in a particular platter, whether you wanted it all or not.
- both spend whatever it takes to get what you want off the ala carte menu.
- one spends a couple of bucks for an appetizer and the other gets a platter and secretly share food.
- go hungry.
This compares (not perfectly, but better) to the music industry as:- Buy music in CDs, etc
- Listen to and record the radio, pay for downloads, etc
- Download music in violation of the copyright
- Not listen to music
Now, we bring in a new idea. All you can eat buffet for $5.00. This would equate to distribution by download. Lower price and higher margin due to lower overhead (maybe) but, also greater chance of someone getting something for nothing.The big difference is the restaurant can enforce a "no sharing" policy for the buffet, but music producers can't. The question is: will people buy something if they can get it from a friend for free? If most people go for the free ride, then there is no profit. If the music producers don't make any money, they soon will not produce any music, just like a restaurant going out of business.
New technologies that make distribution more efficient, that open larger markets, and that increase competition can cause a redistribution, as well as the creation of, wealth.
The real question is: how viable is a business who's product can be duplicated and given away so easily using this distribution method? Will people kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
Re:Economic basis of wealth (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of music, the major labels really function as distributors, not value added producers, and because of the previous high cost of duplication and distribution, as filters. They distribute music, and people listen to it. When it's listened to it doesn't disappear, and one person listening to a copy doesn't irreversibly destroy the content (i.e. through digestion). There are plenty of media that essentially give away the content and charge advertisers for access to the consumers. Radio and broadcast TV are examples of that. Cable TV, newspapers, and magazines all give away the content for much less than it costs to produce and charge a small fee to keep people from consuming resources indiscriminately, but make their money primarily from paid advertisers. There are also plenty of free magazines and newspapers around that depend solely on advertising. What makes music distribution special?
There's plenty of reason to believe that people will continue to produce music even if they make no money from distribution of copies of recordings. Most artists have to produce one (or often multiple) albums on their own, with their own money before they can get signed to a major label. Many never get major label contracts, and continue to produce records for years (I know quite a few people who have done this). That is to say that they already produce content without much, if any, compensation, and I suspect will continue to do so. They make money by performing live or when other people play their music for profit (e.g. radio, TV, DJs at clubs play, BMI and ASCAP collect based on laser drops, and distribute money to artists, but they don't collect if you play a copy at home).
These independent artists will benefit substantially from distribution costs approaching zero (and the subsequent elimination of the near monopoly the majors have had on high profile distribution). Artists who are presently very low profile will be heard by larger audiences, and will be able to sell more tickets on tours, and more merchandise, and will be played more by people who want to sell money to advertisers for access to the ears of their listeners.
The major labels will suffer because they are not the producers of the work-- they're distributors who have traditionally fronted money for production and distribution. Production costs can vary enormously for comparable service, and the cost of quality production (recording) equipment has gone steadily down at the same time quality has gone up. Some of the primary reasons (up front money for recording, expenses of distribution) for the major labels' existence are disappearing-- the only thing they still do is filter, and in the opinion of many people, they do a lousy job of that (and have for quite some time).
But, the underlying premise is wrong. (Score:2)
But, of course, that's exactly the problem the report seems to say isn't happening. Additionally...
First: if this report instead "established" loses due to p2p, how would that affect this conversation about p2p? (my guess: few would accept it)
Second: don't we all here generally understand that the Internet, and the tools we use over it, gets better and faster all the time? Isn't it just plain obvious that, even *if* p2p doesn't affect sales
Re:But, the underlying premise is wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Same ol' same ol'. And I stand by what I said: if you're too stupid or too lazy to get with the times, then get the fuck
Re:And this would be news to who? (Score:2)
Re:And this would be news to who? (Score:2)
Re:And this would be news to who? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? P2P has the potential to ruin the industry!
The people working the industry have spent billions and billions of dollars to make sure that artists will not get a national audience unless they sign an abusive recording contract. P2P has the potential to destroy that system.
Will consumers have a wider set of choices, more convenience, and lower prices? Probably yes. Will there be more producers of commercial music, making more money than ever before? Probably yes. Will the barriers to entry be lower, allowing people to offer expirimental products and services? Probably yes.
Will the small number of parasites who are currently "the industry" continue to exist? No, they'll be gone.
Is that bad or good for capitalism? It depends on which part of capitalism you enjoy. If you enjoy the opportunity capitalism affords you to become rich, then you'll like P2P. If you enjoy the opportunity capitalism affords you to stay rich through government interference, then you'll dislike P2P.
Oh, yeah -- and stealing music is wrong, mmm'kay?
Re:And this would be news to who? (Score:2)
Or to put it another way, you could say that before p2p a person might have spent X amount a week on non-essentials, of which Y was spent on music. That amount will still exist after p2p, so the person will generally still spend it. That's not an unreasonable statement in itself.
You could, and also not unreasonably, go on to say that 'well, with p2p, someone might want to r
I have an MP3... (Score:5, Funny)
I found it a while back.
Yes, but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, but (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I have an MP3... (Score:2)
Good old Canadians (Score:4, Interesting)
- dshaw
Re:Good old Canadians (Score:4, Interesting)
If you RTFA - its a study of how downloading affects Canadian artistes and the Canadian body is the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), not the RIAA.
The most important thing is will the Canadian Government take note of this (and other supprtoing pieces) in the current discussions on anti-DMCA legislation? [slashdot.org]
Re:Good old Canadians (Score:3, Funny)
"Data shows that the CRIA is a lying sack of poop, and is leading Parliament down the garden path to ruin".
Only put in a bit nicer way.
Amendments to the Copyright Act (Score:5, Informative)
I have probably violated some section by copying the text below.
The Bill would amend the Copyright Act to implement the copyright protections required by two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Proposed amendments in this regard are as follows:
* the existing exclusive communication right of authors would be clarified to include control over the making available of their material on the Internet;
* sound recording makers and performers would be provided the right to control the making available of their sound recordings and performances on the Internet;
* the circumvention for infringing purposes of technological protection measures (TPMs) applied to copyright material would constitute an infringement of copyright;
* the alteration or removal of rights management information (RMI) embedded in copyright material, when done to further or conceal infringement, would constitute an infringement of copyright;
* rights holders would be provided with the ability to control the first distribution of their material in tangible form;
* the term of protection in photographs would always be the life of the photographer plus 50 years;
* a full reproduction right for performers in sound recordings would be introduced;
* the term of protection provided to sound recording makers in respect of their sound recordings would be modified so as to extend to 50 years from the publication of the sound recording (the term of protection provided to performers in respect of their recorded performances would be modified in consequence); and
* performers would be provided with moral rights in their fixed and live performances.
Internet Service Provider (ISP) Liability
* ISPs would be exempt from copyright liability in relation to their activities as intermediaries.
* A "notice and notice" regime in relation to the hosting and file-sharing activities of an ISP's subscribers would be provided for. When an ISP receives notice from a rights holder that one of its subscribers is allegedly hosting or sharing infringing material, the ISP would be required to forward the notice to the subscriber, and to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time.
Educational and Research Access Issues
* The current exception that permits the performance or display of copyright material for educational purposes within the classroom would be modified to enable students in remote locations to view a lecture using network technology, either live or at a more convenient time.
* Material that may be photocopied and provided to students pursuant to an educational institution's blanket licence with a collective society would be permitted to be delivered to the students electronically without additional copyright liability. Provisions in this regard would apply until such time as the collective societies' blanket licenses authorize such electronic delivery.
* In the above instances, educational institutions would be required to adopt safeguards to prevent misuse of the copyright material.
* The electronic interlibrary desktop delivery of certain copyright material, notably academic articles, directly to library patrons would be permitted, provided effective safeguards were in place to prevent misuse of the material.
Photography Issues
* Treatment of photographers would be harmonized with other creators with respect to authorship and copyright ownership. At the same time, the interests of consumers in the use of photographs commissioned for domestic purposes would be protected.
Educational Use of Internet Material
* The government will initiate a public consultation process on the issue of
always seemed... (Score:5, Funny)
Talent-(Teensensations-Boybands-Onehitwonders-Yan
American Idol (Score:2)
Then again, I guess there has always been "American Bandstand"-type shows and this is just the newest incarnation. Still, I don't think winning on American Bandstand gauranteed you a record contract, if it was even a competition at all.
Good point. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good point. (Score:2)
artists only get the money after marketing, engineering and management - and the way things work they usually get their money regardless of how some individual artists cd sells. the point is that mp3's don't affect the sales of cd's in any major way.
You can do it! (Score:2, Interesting)
"The plural of MP3 is 'MP3s' (not MP3's).
The plural of CD is 'CDs' (not CD's)."
Where did so many fucking people get the idea that this was an acceptable place for an apostrophe?
Re:Good point. (Score:4, Informative)
So the RIAA is full of crap. They are only defending their income, not the artists'. Once again, just like always, they use artists to further their cause. BTW, you should read what happens when an artist tries to get them to help him or to cough up money.
Re:Good point. (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the article's conclusion (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently you didn't read the article, or are just trolling.
What the article is saying is that piracy accounts for only token losses to the industry. In fact, sales are down primarily due to two factors: Wal-Mart's refusal to pay more than $9.72 to the RIAA for CD's, and declining shelf space in stores due to increased demand for DVD's.
The right answer is for the RIAA to lower CD's so that they cost about $8 retail. I belong to the BMG record club that's typically what I pay for CD's (shipped). I buy about 4-8 CD's per month. Do you know how many CD's I've paid > $12 for? None. And I have a collection of about 400 CD's.
For the $18-20 for CD's in a place like Virgin, I suspect you'd have to be either desperate or stupid to pay that much.
No matter how much the RIAA wants to spin this, its pricing (as in "too much money") that is killing the industry. And they're looking for lawmakers to ensure profits. Sorry Charlie.
Re:Good point. (Score:2)
The defining debate of our times (Score:4, Insightful)
In the blue corner, New, with its sharp technological tools and paper-thin cost structures. No lobbyists, not much wealth.
It happened with Big Auto, Big Steel, Big Telecoms, and it will happen with Big Music, Big Media, and Big Software...
Technology has changed the way things work. The old structures solve problems (communication, mainly) that are no longer there.
Of course, Big Whatever never adapts until it's practically on its knees.
Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
If the government locks up music and other media, all it will end up doing is giving the market to the biggest "legitimate" distributors (i.e. Americans), and turning our artists into American look-alikes. Celine Dion's music actually wasn't that bad in the beginning before she became americanized to break into the bigger market. She should surve as a warning as what can happen to you if you let the american media machine get to you.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Informative)
That was SCTV, not Saturday Night Live.
Sharing isn't profitable (Score:2, Insightful)
This article is the first I've read that shows P2P doesn't really affect music sales in Canada. The article's author makes a great point about the "hurting artists." The real hurt is the cartels' doing, giving artists pennies in royalty per sale.
Finally, in Canada, someone actually questions the music cartels' claims of los
Re:Sharing isn't profitable (Score:2, Interesting)
In the UK, bands can be asked to pay copyright fees to perform their own music live!
Re:The defining debate of our times (Score:3, Insightful)
The old structures solve problems (communication, mainly) that are no longer there.
The problem is exactly that. People believe that the only answers are "Adapt or die". People believe it for music, for software, for whatever.
Unfortunately, there is a third option. In the real world U.S. economic body, the options are "Adapt, Die, or Legislate protection for your current business model".
Re:The defining debate of our times (Score:2)
In the blue corner, New, with its sharp technological tools and paper-thin cost structures. No lobbyists, not much wealth.
Actually, up here in Canada, 'red' means Liberal and 'blue' Tory/Conservative, which is the opposite (as far as the political spectrum goes) of the American assignment of colours.
Not that these distinctions have much to do with the distinctions you're making
Music Companies ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No wonder its the supply chain that has lost the most, and not the artists. Artists will, eventually find the internet to provide their creations, and make money on it, online. May be through personal p2p networks.
--
All your music are belong to us.
Canada is a special case (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
This industry's falling is going to be like what Microsoft's death will end up being in 20 years (if not sooner.)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that most people will only spend money when it is convenient to do so. The music industry hasn't twigged to the fact that it's just as easy to download music as warez as it was five-ten years ago, if not easier. They haven't twigged to the fact that it is a lot harder to buy music from stores and use it the way you want . They haven't twigged to the fact that you're getting a better product from warez than what you get from buying it from a shop or buying it from iTunes. Unfortunately for them, we have.
I've always thought that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
First blank: software companies, music companies, or whatever.
Second blank: home taping, both audio & video, software coping, P2P, or whatever.
There's a simple truth here. One may be willing to get a "copy for free" of some works, but is not willing to pay for it period.
In other words: If "I" can't get it for free, then "I'll" do without.
One may be willing to DL an old bubble-gum tune from the late sixties, or early seventies, but one may not be interested enough to cough up cash for it.
A college student may not have enough money to purchase M$ Word, but uses a "pirate" copy for class work. If "pirate" copies are not available then the student would use something that is.
1 "pirate" copy = 1 lost sale? FALSE!
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, this is offset by people that wouldn't have bought it because of the price, buying it at a later date. For example, most people won't buy a retail copy of office, or photoshop, or music they haven't tried - it's too expensive to risk the money on.
However, when they work for a business, or have more disposable income they'll go back and buy what they're familar with. This is one thing that keeps photoshop going - people pirate it at home, so are familiar with it and buy it at work. Trying an artist for free, and liking them, can boost sales later - this is the whole principle of music radio, of course.
What the RIAA members dislike most is not the loss of sales, various studies have shown that P2P if anything increases sales. What it does do is take control of promotion out of their hands, and that really is their business killer.
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was not that all people would buy music if they couldn't get it free - thats demonstratably untrue.
My point is that some people would.
Some people buy from download services, even though it's no cheaper than CDs (in the UK, at least), is lower quality, and is more restricted. This is even more in contrast when they still get the same tracks from P2P services for free.
We can surmise there are three groups of people who use paid
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:2)
I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount for a tune if I can then find it easily (no p2p hassle), and it's DRM-free (or DRM-poor). One of the 'blocking factors' seems to be online payment is still very tricky to do cheaply/easily/securely. (Yes this is seperate from all the IP/DRM issues.)
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:2)
Similarly, "1 "pirate" copy != 1 lost sale" is also not necessarily true.
Fact is, you can't say for definite *either* way - plenty of people will only have downloaded stuff they'd not have bought, or bought all the stuff that they downloaded and liked, but likewise, plenty of people will have downloaded stuff *instead* of buying it.
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:2)
*brainsneeze*
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:2)
1 "pirate" copy = 1 lost sale? FALSE!
Similarly, "1 "pirate" copy != 1 lost sale" is also not necessarily true.
Right, but I think the truth, like many economic formulas, lies somewhere inbetween. I think it is more accurate to say something along the lines of:
1 Pirated song = 0.2 lost sales
Or something similar.
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I call bullshit. Sorry, but the simple fact is this.
Lets do a little "back of the napkin" math
If your average CD has 15 titles, and costs about 15 bucks, thats a buck a song. Which also jives with itunes (if memory serves, I have never bought
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've always thought that ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The music store thus became a non viable option for getting music.
Re:Music downloads are Legal in Canada (Score:2)
Dollar price per track? (Score:4, Insightful)
- grab older tracks that had been deleted and hence weren't making the record companies any money
- download tracks they owned on vinyl because they didn't have the time to rip them
- downloaded song simply becasue they were free and never in a month of Sundays would they ever consider buying them.
Just because they logged a downloaded doesn't guarantee that it was lost income."RIAA use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination."
Candian Rock Star!!!????? (Score:5, Funny)
"...Canadian rock star Tom Cochrane..."
All the pros and cons of the article aside, does having one minor hit ("Life is a Highway") make you a rock star?
No wonder the Canadians venerate Ann Murray!
Re:Candian Rock Star!!!????? (Score:3, Informative)
This all in the year that Clapton's "Tears in Heaven" won the Grammy and fellow Canadian's K.D. Lang and Celine Dion won 2 of the top Grammy's.
So yeah. Rock star.
Juno Awards
Year
Nomination Outcome
2
And in the Uk (Score:2, Informative)
And the point is? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not putting this forward as my view, but just pointing out that maybe P2P has no effect on record sales, but does that mean we should ignore the crime that is taking place?
Re:And the point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely not. We should remove the laws that make this a crime and rethink the entire system under which these laws came about.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Yeah, as long as they don't upload anyway.. buncha leechers...
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
No. You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be. That's what the law is for. It's a form of unvigilante unjustice that's just as bogus as vigilante justice, and is what seperates civilisation from anarchy.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
You ignore one of the chief reasons why the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is important.
You might want to read these links:
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/puni s hment.html [oldbaileyonline.org]
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/histor [oldbaileyonline.org]
One weak point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Such a levy has been used to compensate for losses due to any kind of private copying in Germany years ago .
If the Canadian levy too is meant to compensate for all kinds of private copying (not only file sharing) then one could argue against the last part of the calculations.
If I remember it right, the author calculates the estimated loss for artists due to file sharing and argues later that this sum is more than covered by the collected levy;
but if the levy is intended to cover all copying - not only file sharing, but also for example copying CDs for friends - the loss might very well be higher than the compensation.
Never thought I would somehow "defend" the music industry but I liked the study and had a "to nice to be true"-fear while reading it.
But even if the above mentioned criticism is true, it doesn't negate the rest of the author's finding about the overestimated loss claims.
Lower Prices - Sell More - More Profit. (Score:2, Interesting)
Occasionally, I'll browse a CD store, for things that I can't get on the radio, but I buy about 1 or 2 CDs a year currently.
I just look at the price, nearly $20 for an hours entertainment makes a $10 movie ticket seem reasonable.
If CDs were priced at $5 each, I'd probably buy at least 1 a week, and listen to them instead of the radio.
So, assuming that a CD costs $4 (which seems high) they can make $16 a year from me, OR, by cutting prices, $52 a year
Why I don't buy music (Score:5, Insightful)
She said, "but $15 or $20 isn't that much for soemthing you enjoy." I agreed, but the problem is that that logic worked back when you bought a several oz. chunk of vinyl, took it home and played it start-to-finish. When I stopped buying music, I was buying CDs to put into shuffle-players (and of course, today, I put a thousand songs on shuffle-play). It's a differnt economy of scale, and sadly it favors music "product" over music "substance".
The only solution that I can see is for people to stop buying media as their primary source of music, and instead patronize live evnets, the smaller the better. I'd love to go back to the 50s where you never went ANYWHEERE that didn't have live musicians playing. Department stores had musicians. Bars had musicians. They were everywhere. A friend of mine who was in his 40s when I was a teen-ager once advised me to learn and instrument because I could always fall back on that if my career wasn't doing well. Today, that's horrible advice, but it SHOULDN'T be!
Re:Why I don't buy music (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember a few years ago, I was walking around a mall with my friend/roommate. We went into a music store, and I thought to myself, "Hey, I haven't bought a CD in a really long time, I should look for something I'd like." I found a CD I wanted, and was horrified to notice that it
354% more expensive, that's why! (Score:4, Informative)
According to the article, the average price of a CD was $10.95 (CAD) in 2004, and it has gone down since then.
With the current exchange rate (1 EUR = 1.57716 CAD 1 CAD = 0.634051 EUR ), that is about 6.94 EUR. I would happily pay 7 euros for some CD's.
The thing is, the average CD price here (the Netherlands) is about 20 euros! (source: dutch free record shop website)
Would you pay 31.50 CAD or more for a frigging CD?!?
I mean, that's only 354% more expensive.
Screw you guys, you're not getting any more of my money.
I disagree, a personal example (Score:5, Interesting)
No, really.
I haven't bought a CD in 6 or 7 years. They're very expensive and file-sharing is free. Yes, I feel a little bit guilty about it, but there you have it.
I don't think that everyone is like me, but I really have to admit that I believe that file sharing is indeed costing the music industry money, just in the same way that CD bootlegging cost them money in the past. It's probably not a tremendous amount, I never really bought that many CDs to begin with, but it's certainly something.
So, for all of who argue that file sharing doesn't cost them money, keep in mind there are people like me. File sharins has cost them money from me, probably several hundred dollars.
Now let's hope they don't bash down my door.
Re:I disagree, a personal example (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to hate the idea of them getting money from me this way, but recently I've discovered that I too don't buy many cds anymore. Instead, I got to many live shows/concerts of artists I've only been able to discover through p2p. I recently upgraded to an expensive large mp3 player and I know they're getting a nice chunk of that money. Seems to me (and the a
File sharing also increases sales (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, a long time I ago I stopped buying music instead of the very rare CD because I already had a sizable collection. Then, due to MP3's and music sharing I was exposed to more music and old music I had enjoyed, but never got. Because of that my CD purchasing has more then doubled!
With the new music, so often it's not worth the money to buy the entire album for 1 or two good songs, and you never hear the other songs. There are several CD's I've purchased after having a chance to hear what else was on them. Plus, compilations are out there that you don't often hear about, but getting interested in finding an older song or artist has gotten me to look for where to get that song or songs, and often I find others by the same artist I want to get as well, causing me to fiund and purchase a compilation (often multi CD) that I hadn't even known existed and wouldn't have looked for in stores without the exposure.
The entire music industry (not just the RIAA) needs to look at their distribution & profit model because of things like this. But, the RIAA seems so bent on trying to keep themselves going under there old model. In this day and age, they appear to be an archaic left over of times when they need to be in control.
As a owner of a music store (Score:5, Interesting)
Dualdiscs and "Copy Protected" CD's (Score:5, Informative)
So, we have discs that won't work in every player, no way of finding out what players they do work in without buying one and trying it in your players (their website doesn't say more than what I've told you, http://www.sonybmg.com/dualdisc/), and then, no way of getting your money back if they don't work. What I see resulting is a growing number of pissed off customers, who will likely download the next album (and the one they did buy) before spending money on a disc that won't likely work.
I know I don't buy any CD has that warning.
Indie (Score:4, Interesting)
But as I got older, I started to realize what a waste it was to spend $18-$20 on an album from which I would only listen to one or two songs.
So When Napster came out, I found out about it early (one of the first thousand users) and was able to ride the bandwagon on it, collecting songs that I would listen to and none of the ones that I wouldn't. I still bought CD's that were worth the price tag (the ones where every song on the album were decent and not just a crappy filler song).
Then I mostly stopped listening to new music. I've gotten a lot more comfortable listening to new, independent bands and buying their albums. Because it means more to me to give an independent band $15 for which I know $15 is going directly to the band. The quality of the music is also higher.
I've bought more CD's in the past year than I've bought since I was 12. And I feel good knowing that the money I spend is going to the artists, and not some shitty company.
Another salvo (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of their conclusions:
1) The industry experienced a huge boom during the early to mid 90s as CD players became inexpensive to buy.
2) A good portion of those buying CDs were not buying new albums but CD versions of existing music in their collections.
So the music industry was experiencing golden years due to a new emerging technology and the fact that people were replacing vinyl and cassettes with CDs to augment this new emerging technology. But that behavior only lasts so long. Eventually people would have replaced their collections. They would be buying new music but not at the rates as before.
Also, although the manufacturing costs of a CD have dropped dramatically, their prices were still higher than cassettes which cost more to make. This was done for years due to collusion by the music industry and retailers to keep the prices artificially high. This collusion has been documented as part of settlements of lawsuits. [musiccdsettlement.com]
What's more important is that the industry has expected the profits to be the same as that during the boom times even though times were changing. In most industies, the newest products and prototypes are always the most expensive. When economies of scale kick in and manufacturing becomes more efficient, prices start to drop. Take for example, CD and DVD players.
At the same time, the focus of the industry was changing. By now, most music companies had been bought by large conglomerates like Sony and Vivendi. They expected quick profits and the profits to remain high. The industry began to shift its focus from acts to albums. Before it was about the artists and maintaining them. Now it was about getting the CD out. Getting the music video out. It didn't matter if the music suffered as long as the sales were made. It became about the single, the first minute.
At the same time, the radio industry was experiencing the same kind of consolidation as the music industry. Fewer and fewer independents existed. Most were controlled by a few corporations like Clear Channel.
With the music industries controlled by a select few companies, and the predominant means of distribution tightly controlled (radio and retail), the industry had now a near monopoly on music distribution.
Enter P2P. P2P threatens the industry in two ways. Although there have been music sales lost due to piracy, P2P is more threatening in that artists now have an alternative method of distribution that bypasses their control. Unfortunately, P2P gives them a scapegoat for their sales. It doesn't matter that sales should have suffered years ago due lowering prices (manufacturing cost decreases) and lowering sales (people stop replacing older formats). I suggest you watch the Frontline episode online [pbs.org].
Artists.. (Score:5, Informative)
Artists don't make their money from CD sales. Most artists earn only a few cents off each CD sale. Labels and music stores earn by far the largest profits off CD sales.
Where artists make their money at is concerts and, to a lesser extent, merchandising.
So.. of course artists aren't being harmed by P2P. Anyone that knows diddly-squat about the music industry would know that. If anything, artists benefit from piracy... with them making so much off concerts, and so little off album sales.. the additional interest that P2P might draw to them could very well boost concert sales.
heh (Score:3, Funny)
Best part is, they'll violate the DMCA if they figure that out!
not exactly news (Score:4, Insightful)
You might find it perplexing that a supposedly capitalist organization primarily motivated by the acquisition of money would take this tack. Perplexing, that is, until you realize that the RIAA left behind capitalist motives for its business practices a long, long time ago. The folks in charge are far more enamored of power than profit and will do anything - anything at all - to retain that power, even at the expense of profit. They'd rather have both, of course, but given the choice power will always win the day. The very idea that an musician or band might be able to make it big without their assistance and approval is blasphemy of the worst sort to the execs in the industry. It cannot be tolerated. It must be stopped.
This isn't exactly a revelation, especially to those who've had the misfortune to work with, or in, the music industry. And the disease itself is common to any business or conglomerate that reaches monopoly/oligopoly status. Once a typical egomanianical executive gets a taste of that kind of power they'll do whatever they can to keep the crack coming, even if it hurts their organization financially. Hollywood is an even better example of this kind of thinking, although as yet the MPAA - stuck in its old-world rut - seems to have trouble grasping just how real the threat is.
The RIAA execs are crack-whores for power. Like any other addict they'll do whatever it takes to get their fix, regardless of who it hurts - including themselves. You can't ascribe rational motives, especially rational economic motives, to folks whose overwhelming motivation is the acquisition and retention of power. They continue on their course no matter how destructive, or self-destructive, they become.
Max
Devaluation (Score:5, Insightful)
The demand side: did you see the Hitachi flash for their perpendicular recording promoting an MP3 player with room for 30000 tracks ? At current iTune prices this would mean 30000$ of music on that device. Nobody is going to pay that to fill his player; current prices simply don't make any sense.
Clearly something has to give. So the price of a CD (or equivalent) is destined to fall; it's simply unavoidable. Any market manipulation to keep the price up artificially will ultimately fail, and those counting on keeping prices up are in for a nasty surprise. I wouldn't be amazed to see 1 hour of undrmmed music selling for $0.10 in the next decennium.
Sooner or later... (Score:5, Interesting)
Enough copies of pieces and parity files would propagate out based on statistics to ensure reasonable chance to get at anything, not any less easy than eMule of today. If you download all pieces and construct successfully, the solid file isn't seen and listed by IP because only the parts are shared at large. Your whole copy is totally outside the system once gotten.
Once no one person has a complete copy of anything, and each piece is named in gibberish that only the system understands and knows, what are they going to do then? Sue a teen girl because one twentieth of a Metallica song might be on their hard drive and she's got no way of knowing for sure because her storage is managed by the collective peer network?
The technical capabilities exist right now to do it and eventually it will be reasonably perfected. They will be brought to their knees by it, sputtering and whining all the way. It will illustrate very clearly that as long as information is in the hands of individuals, as long as they can read, write, and think for themselves, effective subjugation of the unwilling by any private organization or government will be difficult short of violence or threat thereof.
I don't see a RIAA-SWAT team becoming reality in the future nor do I see work-a-day policemen putting up with the notion of being their tools. So unless it could possibly go that direction, they've lost this fight the instant they picked it. They need to cut to the chase, admit defeat, and bargain for a new understanding between producer and consumer that's acceptable to both parties.
File sharing and fiscal loss = smoke screen (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, the computer age! Right now I have Ableton Live 4 and Steinberg's CubaseSX 2.1 (both music sequencing/mastering programs). The state of the art is now at the point where "quality" produced music can be done with a modest investment and a bit of talent. What really is at the crux of this "file sharing" BS that the RIAA is spewing is really about gaining control of media distribution.
Let me be direct. I don't need to hope to "get signed" in order to produce my music in an RIAA approved studio. I can record, mix and master my music. Now pair this with the plethera of indy music publishers popping up and their main means of exposure and distribution - the net. The way I would (and others) work it is to place a song or two (hopefully one that will hold interest) on to a p2p network - this gains exposure. Now if you like what I've produced you can go to "X" site and see my full album/CD and if so desired buy it! Gee what a novel idea.
Now, using the net, p2p, and the help of an indy publisher or three I actually start to sell my work. So, just for arguement, let's say That my song (released for free on a p2p) is getting attention in the U.S. and Europe. There are over 240 million in the U.S. and a few more million in Europe (to say the least). Now lets say i get $1 for each CD sold (actually more but let's keep it in round numbers). To get a Gold album you sell 500K, and platinium 1Mil. Between the U.S. and Europe I have catchy song and sell a million - I'm rich and who needs the RIAA and it's affiliates?
The only thing the RIAA members may afford me is distribution and advertising (and maybe concert arrangements). I don't need to sign my life away to "get signed" in order to ply my craft, and with the advent of p2p and indy publishers I really don't even need the distribution (though big record companies can provide some nice advertising).
If they get legislation to shutdown or hinder p2p networks then they set legal precedence and can use their legal teams to further gain back their deathgrip on who makes what music and whether or not it sees the light of day.
P2P is just a step in keeping the RIAA's domination over musicians and music creation and distribution. The idea of musicians creating, controlling, and making a sizable amount of money off their product seems to really bother the record moguls - Gee, imagine that. Musicains make money from their music without having to "sign" away the overwhelming majority of the money generation to a "contract" holder, and providing their fans with music "they've" decided they like at an affordable price.
I bet it keeps the RIAA big wigs up at night - any takers on that bet?
Re:RIAA is going about this in the wrong way (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't recall seeing that one in the Constitution, the Bible, the Federalist Papers or Dask Kapital, or any of the other moral and ethical frameworks that people have come up with...
You mean I gotta quit overclocking, and take the extra u
Re:Private copying levy (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not, go here:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3 A %22drew%20Roberts%22 [archive.org]
for some copyrighted material and feel free to share it via p2p. Not only no theft involved, no crime whatsoever. Just abide by the license.
Let's reword it a little better for you shall we?
"Illegal copying of copyrighted material _is_ theft."
Even with this better wording, no it is not, it is copyright violation, however, for the sake of arguement, I will grant t