Canadian Record Industry Disputes Own P2P Claims

CRIAWatch writes "The Canadian Recording Industry Association has quietly issued a new study that contradicts many of its own claims about the impact of P2P usage on the music industry. Michael Geist summarizes the 144 page study by noting that the research 'concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers, that P2P users frequently try music on P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic, and that reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services.'"

It's... well... what...

This has got to be the first time the recording industry has said anything surprising, or possibly realistic regarding piracy.

I'm scared, someone hold me.

Re:It's... well... what...

"What was stated isn't surprising."

What the article didn't state makes it even more emphatic. In Canada it is legal to download music via P2P. So all the stuff about P2P in this study refers to legal downloading, and still it isn't harming the recording industry like they say and still people buy music with a legally free alternative. (I say "free", but really we pay a levy on recordable media to compensate, so it's really a legally "already paid for" alternative.) I think that says even more.

How to change their tune...

1. Never, ever pay for anything that you can download.

2. Make sure your friends and relatives know how to download stuff for free.

3. Make sure your friends and relatives know they cannot be caught or sued if they just download. Sharing or uploading is what all lawsuits have been based on.

4. Remember that if it is free, it is probably crap. But so is what you would pay for.

If you have patience...

5. you can get everything you want at the library. You can legally borrow it and rip it to MP3 or copy the disc for your personal collection (in Canada, anyway). You can even get new/popular stuff if you simply put a hold on it. In my town, you can place a hold online, and they'll check all the libraries in the area and bring it to the library of your choice when it's available. The wait is usually somewhere between 3 days and 2 weeks. They call you when it's ready for pickup.

I've not had a need to download when all the material I want is available for free right there.

Re:It's... well... what...

I wonder how the RIAA will respond to this study.

More likely instead of addressing the study they'll try to sue the RI of Canada, somehow making a nebulous claim about the RIoC cutting into their profits.

Re:It's... well... what...

It's all so obvious. Low sales in the US are caused by generic Canadian versions of songs coming across the border. The US needs tighter regulatory controls on music to prevent this kind of thing.

Translations...

concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers

Because in most cases people have ripped their existing CD collections to disk. Better question to ask is what percentage of their current playlist is P2P? And I agree with some of the other comments here, in that if I thought that a third of the people out there were ripping me off, I'd freak too.

that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic

In other words, the people with the most interest in music do both. Surprise, surprise.

reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services

Agree here. Though while decent content is an issue, I also think that other entertainment options (games, dvds) have an impact, as well as reduced salaries, rising gas and oil prices, and other economic factors leading to less disposible income.

The Invisible Downloader.

Um. In keeping with the invisible nature of P2P (intentional or otherwise). How does anyone know that they have the facts?

Dare I say it?

No shit.

Glad they finally figured it out...

The Fault

About time someone pointed out the obvious. The most mindnumbing about the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle is how they keep blaming their diminishing sales on the consumers as if we are required to buy so many of their products per year. Last time I checked, when a business's sales are dwindling, its time to try something new, or perhaps even innovate. However, their brand of innovation, i.e. suing everyone, seems to be a bit counter-productive.

Of course, it doesn't help when they have the government in their pocket either.

Re:The Fault

The most mindnumbing about the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle is how they keep blaming their diminishing sales on the consumers

Yep, when people were actually asked why they weren't buying more music, the greatest factors were:

• price (16%)

• nothing of interest (14%)

• lack of time (13%)

• collection is big enough (9%)

In other words, all the music industry needs to do to make more sales is to sell an interesting product, at a price the market will bear.
Their customer-hate behaviour has been so destructive, musicians contracted to RIAA member companies should initiate class action lawsuits to recover income lost to these inane tactics.

Re:The Fault

Quite frankly I think the root of the problem is that the record companies have become so overwhelmingly corporate in nature, so dominated by dull, unimaginative accountants and MBEs that they've forgotten the precise nature of the business. I really can't believe that the early 1990s saw the last gasp of groundbreaking music, but the last decade has basically saw a cookie-cutter approach, with forgettable boy bands and female stars who require odd sounds and digital enhancements to make their "dance" records even work in any sense of the word.

Record companies are blaming a lot of people for their own failings. Right now the next Beatles or Led Zeppelin could be slogging away unnoticed, but record companies don't seem at all interested in encouraging and developing artists, and they're reaping what they sow, and all the anti-consumer DRMs and legislation won't give these incredibly musically inept corporate types what they need.

Besides, these are the same pack of crooks who spent the last fifty years screwing artists every which way, so I figure that a good deal of payback is in order.

Damn right

2/3rds of the music on my computer is from ocremix... although I guess if you want to bitch I did download that via bittorrent.

Spin control?

I haven't read the 144 page research report, but I think it is worth noting that the person who summarized this report, states at the end of his summary that he has been claiming for a long time that p2p downloading doesn't affect sales that much. In other words, he has a perspective on the issue. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that the recording industry is going to look at the stat which shows that a 1/3 of music on computers is from (presumably copyright-violation style) downloading (this is for the most-frequently-purchasing demographic (teenie-boppers)), and say "oh yeah, p2p doesn't harm our bottom line. The recording industry has a different perspective ... they'll say they're losing 33% of their sales and have a freak fit.

Anyway, I wonder if people were asked this questions: "of music you have downloaded (as in copyright violation style), how much of that music is good enough to keep for a 1x/decade listen, but not worth buying?" Maybe I should RTF 144pg report ... naaa.

Re:So let's see here...

Who says it has to be free?

Besides, some of us like having physical media, liner notes, etc. Personally, I like playing cds in my car and it's a lot easier to tell the "real" ones apart at a glance than it is with any of the mix cds that I burn.

As for rewarding the RIAA for behavior that I find distasteful, I don't reward them. How? I buy most of my cds used. The only actual new cds I have bought in the last 2-3 years have been from local and regional bands that I went to see live.

I look at music the same way I look at software - if the people who made it want it to be free, great. If they want to charge for it, that's fine too. If they charge what I consider to be a reasonable price and I have some use/desire for it, I'll buy it. If they charge too much for my tastes or I don't really want it that badly, then I won't but it.

It's amazing how that works.

Well.... Duh

Everyone here knows it. I buy more music now, not less. And I'm a huge P2P user. I don't buy or even listen to anything from a major label. I don't care if my boycott has any political significance. It's a personal choice. I'm done supporting them. I'm indifferent to whether they survive or not. So I pretty much stopped in to reiterate the obvious. Since it's early in the thread and all... I also like buying used CDs, electronic trance etc from ebay and places like that. Stuff that didn't have huge production runs and are out of print and can't be purchased new. And my mp3 collection otherwise is stuff I wouldn't buy or couldn't find on CD...

No kidding.

Most audiophiles are not going to have a giant music library of all pirated music and have 0 CDs or purchased media.

Personally, the only time I use gnutella or such is when I need a copy of a song without DRM for whatever reason. I already have the song on CD or from iTunes.

This study is pretty much redundant. This has been said again and again. But not that the RIAA [is going/wants] to listen.

The OBVIOUS

It seems so obvious. It always has been obvious.

Except, I do remember a colleague of mine filling half the available diskspace on my company computers with Napster music downloads back in 2000. He was racing to beat the crackdown. He burned a lot of CD's from that frenzy of music downloads...

Well, my fiance and I just broke up, so...

...let me look out the window...OMFG, no shit, it's snowing in hell, well I'll be...um...damned. =P -c

Not suprising.

I wonder when the recording industry is going to realize they are fighting a battle that cant be won.

I used to buy CDs constantly. And now with the implimentation of DRM on CDs and not knowing what type of software is installing when you insert a CD in your computer. I dont dare buy a new CD. I want to be able to buy a CD and encode it into any format i want to put it on whatever device i own. And until i really own the music i buy, im not going to spend my money on some music that might be locked inside their encryption. In 20 years my music i bought might be gone because I cant use it in new devices and technology, or with every new advancement in technology Im left converting my entire collection to some new and improved DRM format because of a firmware upgrade because a new bug is found.

Until I get to choose how I use the music I buy, instead of them telling me how, I wont purchase any.

Well, someday hopefully 100%

In fact, I have only bought CD's in the last long many years simply because of P2P. Excruciating story short,,, I simply hadn't heard the likes of what I listen to now. Never knew it existed. Thanks to the non strategy of P2P, it seems to be to those that simply are seeking.

If...

"Michael Geist summarizes the 144 page study"

If do a grep and cut out each "eh", it narrows down the document to 2 pages.

Arctic Monkeys shows what can be done

Interestingly enough, Wired [wired.com] currently has a longish story about a group called Arctic Monkeys that bypassed all the industry stuff and has been a big success because, not despite them giving songs away:

Their story is remarkable because of one fact: grassroots communication channels like MySpace and P2P file trading networks worked better than the major-label hype machine. The Arctic Monkeys became hugely popular because they wrote good songs, made them available to their fans for free, and encouraged them to share the MP3s with their friends.

Given my two latest, disasterous experiences with major-label hyped artists -- Enya and Kate Bush, whose new albums should both best be avoided -- I'm more than willing to look in other places.

here's a new one

I buy CDs because I can afford them, and because I can tell the difference between an mp3 and a CD. Yes, my ears are spoiled by high quality ogg and who rips in that but me?

Anyway, the crap the music industry is making is targetted at people with no money.

Mommy and daddy's money only goes so far, and for a minimum wage worker a CD is a couple hours of work.

Now for a software developer such as myself... a CD is a fraction of an hour of work.

So, hey, why don't they make music that appeals to intelligent music conniseurs with money, rather than target the teenie bopper demographic? They should either put out good stuff that reaches people with money, or lower the price on the shitty stuff. Welcome to economics 101 - one price for all demographics doesn't maximize profits.

What the ... ?

TFA:

that P2P users frequently [[pirate]] music on P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music [[piracy]] demographic

There. I knew something was wrong.

Just ask the actual ARTISTS and you get the same..

This [pewinternet.org] may be some interesting reading about this matter.

"Across the board, among those who are both successful and struggling, the artists and musicians we surveyed are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use. "

alleluia

finally some officials got it!
I still have no doubt, that the RIAA will ignore these facts and continue suing the pants of 15 year olds...

Mostly True

The biggest reason that people are not buying as much music is because the corporate offerings mostly suck. The second biggest reason is that there are other, more interesting things to spend your money on in this "day and age" besides music.

Record companies need to offer a better product. And they ought to consider just giving away a couple of songs per artists right off the bat via P2P. It's happening anyway. I'm an idie musician and I've seen jumps in sales every time I give music away. I can only WISH that thousands of people were trading a few of my songs via P2P because it would send some of them to check out my music, and generate some sales. The music industry should take advantage of P2P instead of trying to fight it. The indie movement is already doing this - most indie artists do give away a song or two. Well, the smart ones do, at least...

Several years ago a co-worker ripped....

....a CD of 80's music. To my supprise his tastes was very similiar to my own, as all the songs were ones I liked.

I considered asking him for a copy so that I might remember which groups (and I'm really bad about remembering names and titles, etc..) so that I might buy the albums (this was before itunes and such). Here if I couldn't figure out the artist or album I would have had something I could let someone at the music store hear, to help me pin it down (good for more than just my memory).

But then the music industry piracy flap began and I figured the music industry really didn't want me to remember, and even less wanted me to have anything that might help me find the music to purchase. So I said fuck you RIAA!!! You'd rather call me a pirate than to see me as a customer.... I'm not going to pay you squat for that attitude.

If I buy at all today, I try to not have the RIAA in the transaction at all, but instead buy directly from the artist.
Obviously I don't buy hardly anything at all.

I also grew up helping garage bands out, where some of the musicans have become professional musicians.I've also seen others make it to some label, only to fail the industries financial machinery. So I have a good idea what the struggle is and how important it is who you know, more than how good of an artist you are, and that unless you become really successful, you are pretty much at the mercy of the industry's financial machinery and who you know.

This is not the sort of thing that helps one focus on their music, but rather promotes more mediocer (middle of the road) music, such as we have plenty of today.

But there is this new internet technology and advances in home recording and for any artist(s) that pick that up and runs with it, they can promote themselves thru it as well as the traditional method of live performances. They can build their own following, or in cases of failure, be more able to mix and match with other musicians to find that "sound" that they want, be it music or music and money.

Its by developing their own following that they also increase their bargaining prower with the labels. No more at the industry's mercy, but a player with weight. And this also helps the industry, as the failures don't have to subsidized by the successful artists monitray generation (thus making the theoretical payoff for the successfull signed artist, more)

But it is the story of the RIAA dog, with a fat juicy steak in it mouth, that crossing over a bridge, sees it reflection and its greed causing it to go after the steak in the reflection, resulting in dropping the steak it had, losing it in th e water.

It really is a time to eliminate the old music industry business model. For the benefit of the artist, and let real competition in to bring the consumer better music.

I'm a warezing d00d

I used to buy all my music.

Then all three shops in Helsinki, Finland stopped selling psytrance.

I ordered mine from Sweden or Holland for a while... but why wait 2 weeks for something you can have in 2 hours?

I'm willing to pay. I'm not willing to wait.

When there are no psy shops in Finland, it's morally ok to ware everything. Well, some domestic psy bands exist but Finnish psy is too psy :-)

Notice who the CRIA blames

I did read (well, skimmed) the Comment and the 2 Appendices.
The CRIA blames "big corporate radio" for the downturn in CD sales.

Some people just aren't into it.

I can count on one hand the amount of CDs I've bought since I first came across napster in like 1999. However, discounting that get xx CDs for a penny from Columbia house, I can also count on one hand the amount I bought pre-napster. Infact, since I was young and flaked on the columbia house thing, I don't think I actually bought any CDs pre napster. I like music, but I don't listen to it religiously so it doesn't make sense for me to go out and pay $40-$50 for the type of CD I might like. I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.

What??! You mean..

.. people would rather be honest and treated fairly after all?

Damn! This is going to fuck up a LOT of business plans.

And this where buying music is pointless

Heh. Now imagine what the stats must be like in countries where P2P music downloading isn't legal.

Re:Those Canadians...

For sure, man, i can't believe we haven't figured out what all you americans have figured out.. lawsuits solve all of life's problems!! (makes me glad most lawsuits get thrown out of court for being rediculous)

Re:No DUH!

No, if it was Fark there'd be an "IRONIC" tag followed by 100+ comments of people slamming the submitter for not knowing what "ironic" means, along with some obligatory Alanis Morrisette references, one or two "HA-HA" Photoshops, someone bringing out the "I work for XXX, and I'm getting a laugh..." quote, and half a dozen "O RLY" owl variations.