Canadian Record Industry Disputes Own P2P Claims 174
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.'"
The Invisible Downloader. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dare I say it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Glad they finally figured it out...
The Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it doesn't help when they have the government in their pocket either.
Spin control? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
How to change their tune... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So let's see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not suprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Spin control? (Score:3, Insightful)
in fact - if those numbers hold - the RIAA might be able to find some kind of correlation between pre and post p2p sales (hypothetical).
All of which is to say, it's absurd to think that P2P isn't affecting music sales. It's like the climate change thing. It's clear the climate is changing. It's clear that our greenhouse gassing is additional input. The question is - does more fuel burning = climate change.
Does the availability of ubiquitous and free music online mean reduced sales of music? It's clear that P2P is having an effect on music sales. In fact, it might be clear that P2P is having an effect on movie sales. This is the reality. The issue here is that both industries are so tied to their methods of delivery that they need to protect their current pipeline until they've shifted over.
In the long run, content is going to be free. Commercials and conventional advertising is going to die, and the only way to get adverts to the end user is going to be via content. Songs about Pepsi, Trojan brand condoms in love scenes. This sucks for Hollywood and RIAA because it means a paradigm shift away from their models.
here's a new one (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's... well... what... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:A short primer on the manifold uses of irony (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not always the fault of the recipient for a 'joke' not being got, before you get carried away with the insults. Play nicely. (Condescending's not nice either, huh)
--
Digital media players (UK) [crispywater.com]
Re:Spin control? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when has the primary purpose of "content" been advertisement delivery ?
Did Homer write his Odyssey to promote a fucking Cruise ship or Eric Arthur Blair pen 1984 to promote his new word processor ?
Or is it just Art for Art's sake (money for gods sake) as 10cc would have it ?
Let's see, you could have Spam, chips, egg and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it !
Translations... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Mostly True (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:So let's see here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, understand that some people aren't fighting.
Re:So let's see here... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I do feel that the artists (...) have a right to be compensated.
Oh absolutely. I'm all for compensating the artists. However, very little of the retail price for a CD is spent on compensating the artist, and a lot of it is spent rewarding the RIAA for tyranizing the population. That, I think, is wrong. I'd gladly donate a dollar here and there for the songs I love, if I'm confident that the payment system is reasonably secure, and that three nines or more of the money goes to the donatee.
Don't try to justify your theft (and yes, it is theft) by saying that I'm an idiot for paying for my music.
Don't worry, it's not theft, so there's nothing to justify, and you're not an idiot for paying for your music, you're an idiot for paying money to be oppressed by the RIAA.
Anyways, let me explain: If I copied your rhetoric, you would not lose your ability to use it. If I copied all your CDs, you would not lose the raw materials, or the ability to listen to them. If I copied your car (don't ask), you wouldn't lose your car.
It is NOT theft (and I'm sick and tired of people calling it that), it's copying. We as a society (I'll only speak for "my"self, and that's Denmark), had at a time come to the conclusion that giving up our right to copy information (since we were unable to, by virtue of not owning printing presses and CD toaster) would be a good trade, since more works would be produced. Now, the assumptions are wrong: we are able to copy information, almost effortlessly.
I'm just saying that this whole notion that music should be free simply because it can easily be pirated anyway is stupid.
So, if we could copy food limitlessly, we shouldn't let the hungry people have it, because the food-producers need to be compensated?
Yes, it is a valid analogy: copyright creates an artificial limit on the copying on music, the above example is an artificial limitation on the copying of food.
Maybe an economical argument can convince you: once a piece of music is on the internet, supply is infinite. In a free market, that would imply that the prices ought to be zero(*). However, copyright law and the RIAA artificially (try to) limit the supply, thereby artificially keeping the price up.
(*) Note, though, that even if the price is zero, that doesn't prevent people from donating money; surprise: some people do that.
If you have patience... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've not had a need to download when all the material I want is available for free right there.
Re:Translations... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How to change their tune... (Score:3, Insightful)
Access to a virtually endless supply of cheap (see above) music has changed the way I think of music in my life. I download whatever I might be interested in and delete whatever I don't like without thinking "hey, I paid $2 for that song I'm keeping it even though I hate it". Now I can amass a large quantity of music that I really like which, aside from the CD tax, only costs me some time in weeding through that music. This is made easy with the iTunes/iPod combination. I look forward to the experience every day. If I choose, I don't ever have to listen to the same song more than once. That's amazing.
Re:How to change their tune... (Score:3, Insightful)