Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Canadian Music Industry Says Downloading Declining 238

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the quality-has-nothing-to-do-with-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A new survey conducted by a Canadian music collective that counts the recording industry as one of its members has found that music downloading has declined dramatically in Canada. The survey found that only 14 percent of Canadians download, down from 21 percent in 2002. The survey also found that P2P is rarely a reason for people who purchase less music."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Music Industry Says Downloading Declining

Comments Filter:
  • What? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Van Cutter Romney (973766) <sriram.venkataramaniNO@SPAMgeemail.com> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @01:55PM (#16581582)
    The Canadians have internet?
    • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by slashbob22 (918040) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:07PM (#16581794)
      I know the comment was meant to be funny. But Canadians have some of the highest connectivity rates in the world. In 2003 approx 64% of households in Canada were connected. [statcan.ca]

      On another note, using the same link there is a subsection on decline of Music Downloading in Canada. Since this was published in 2003, I can only say that this slashdot article is old news.
      • by aussie_a (778472)
        I know the comment was meant to be funny. But Canadians have some of the highest connectivity rates in the world. In 2003 approx 64% of households in Canada were connected.
        Well it's easier to connect them when there is so few people living in Canada.
    • Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)

      by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @03:30PM (#16583144) Homepage Journal

      The Canadians have internet?

      Yes, we do, but we have to fill the tubes with antifreeze.

  • Time for the RIAA to release one of their reports, I guess, 'proving' that downloads are actuallys till on the increase and pirates kill small kittens for fun while they wait for their downloads, and that P2P is the ONLY reason people don't buy as many CDs as the RIAA wants them to.
  • CD Tax (Score:5, Interesting)

    by martok (7123) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @01:56PM (#16581596)

    Though downloading may or may not be declining here in Canada, what do you think the chances are of them reducing or eliminating the blank media tax?

    • by krell (896769)
      "what do you think the chances are of them reducing or eliminating the blank media tax?"

      My subject line is only quoting the idiots who are going to come along and say that the Canadian CD tax is not a tax, but it is actually a "levy" (which is defined, of course, as a type of tax). Maybe they will read this, and troll no more.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Em Adespoton (792954)
        The reason people object to calling it a "blank media tax" is not so much that it's a levy and not a sales tax, but because "blank media tax" makes it sound like all blank media is taxed. Levies are imposed on goods imported from other countries -- therefore, if someone decided to make blank media inside the country, it would be exempt from the levy.

        In short, people object to calling it a tax because in common parlance, such a statement would be just as misleading as calling copyright infringement theft.

        • by krell (896769)
          "In short, people object to calling it a tax because in common parlance, such a statement would be just as misleading as calling copyright infringement theft."

          Except that this meets the definition of a tax. Which zeroes out the analogy.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Maxo-Texas (864189)
            Not really.

            His language was precise and I think his analogy holds.

            Copyright infringement is "stealing" yes-- but there is a technical difference between theft and copyright infringement even tho they are very similar.

            Levies are "taxes" yes-- but there is a technical difference between a levy and a tax even tho they are very similar.

            Yup. Seems like a reasonably good analogy to me.

            Ooo. SAT style

            42) COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:THEFT TAX: (CAR: FINE: TARRIFF: LEVY)
            • by krell (896769)
              "Copyright infringement is "stealing" yes"

              How are they even similar? Nothing is taken during copyright infringement.
              • I know that pro-infringers like to argue that and I've got just a few mp3's myself.

                I also agree that the term needs to be fought because copyright infringment is *like* stealing but it is *not* stealing.

                However, if you and your 10,000 closest friends end up with copies of the artists song and the artist ends up with ZERO, NADA, begging for food on the street corner when they should have rightfully had at least a few grand then something bad happened and all your weasel wording won't hide that fact.

                Artists *
                • by krell (896769) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @03:58PM (#16583610) Journal
                  "However, if you and your 10,000 closest friends end up with copies of the artists song and the artist ends up with ZERO, NADA, begging for food on the street corner when they should have rightfully had at least a few grand then something bad happened and all your weasel wording won't hide that fact."

                  You have to realize that there are a lot more crimes than just theft and that pointing out that a particular crime is not theft is not a justification for that crime. The only "weaseling" here is in calling copyright infringment "theft".
                  We can use your specific example of the "artist begging for food on the street corner". How can this happen? Copyright infringement is one way. Another way is a violent crime which leaves him severely disabled. Another way is arson (burning down his house and his bestseller novel inside). Why point these out? These are all crimes, which can result in what you describe. However, none of them is "theft".

                  "Artists *should* be compensated for new works by people who consume those new works"

                  Speaking of abusing words, I recall a major recording artist who said "If you are consuming my music, you are doing something wrong". Look up the definition of "consume" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consume [reference.com] There's no way you can consume music by listening to it in an MP3 player unless it has some sort of DRM which makes the song get "used up" after multiple listens. The only time I ever consumed music was when I played a modern LP in an old Victrola. The heavy needle made it a one-play-and-that's-all situation.

                  "You see it all the time- people do things wrong and rationalize it to themselves that it's not wrong and then they get in trouble because they lose proper caution."

                  ....which has nothing at all to do with pointing out the cold, clear, and simple fact that copyright infringment and theft are different crimes.

                  "Put another way-- it's one thing to have a joint at a concert surrounded by 20,000 strangers and quite another to have one in the starbucks or casually walking down a major thoroughfare."

                  This is actually a sort of apt analogy, because smoking a joint is theft no less than copyright infringement is.

                  "I know that pro-infringers like to argue that and I've got just a few mp3's myself."

                  If pointing out that infringement is not theft makes one "pro-infringement", I have a question. Is murder the same as theft? If you deny it, that makes you pro-murder!!!!
                • by shark72 (702619)

                  "However, if you and your 10,000 closest friends end up with copies of the artists song and the artist ends up with ZERO, NADA, begging for food on the street corner when they should have rightfully had at least a few grand then something bad happened and all your weasel wording won't hide that fact."

                  ...but this is simply where the pro-sharing folks come back with:

                  1. Haven't you watched MTV Cribs? Artists are zillionaires. They won't miss my money.
                  2. Except those who aren't zillionaires. But in their case
                • by Firehed (942385)
                  Artists *should* be compensated for new works by people who consume those new works.

                  Yes, they should. Let the RIAA and the labels know, so that the artists start getting more than a nickel for each CD they sell.
              • by Atzanteol (99067)
                JOANNA: Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?
                PETER: Yeah.
                JOANNA: Ok. That's not yours?
                PETER: Well, it, it becomes ours.
                JOANNA: How's that not stealing?
                • by krell (896769)
                  "JOANNA: How's that not stealing?"

                  Peter: It's called fraud. We'll do a con job.

                  Thanks for so clarifying this by bringing a third crime into it, that is neither theft nor copyright infringement (short of pirates selling pirated CD's).
                  • by Atzanteol (99067)
                    My point was, however vaguely I decided to make it, that the argument is completely academic unless you're in a court room. They're all types of 'stealing' in most folks minds.
    • The main thing is making people aware of the levy. The more I explain it to people, the more outrage I see from them. Why should someone buying 50 CDs to send pictures of their wedding to friends and family have to pay the music industry? It seems retailers are taking action though, I've noticed some of the big Canadian retailers will offer a pack of, say, 50 CDs for about $9 (with the levy in the fine print) and customers are always outraged when that $9 rings in as ~$20 with the $10.50 levy ($0.21 per
  • by krell (896769) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @01:57PM (#16581628) Journal
    Once you download everything you need, why download any more? Once you've downloaded the good stuff, it is not like there is anything new coming out [bestprices.com] to make you want to keep downloading more and more.
    • by lemur3 (997863) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:03PM (#16581720)
      exactly... how many different versions of "O Canada" does one person need?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        At least 2 to be a proper Canadian, one for each of our languages. And probably an instrumental version just to be safe, then maybe one that has all of the verses.
        • Don't forget the obligatory versions by Anne Murray (English) and Celine Dionne (French). There is also the one by Cartman to consider. This is the one that was recorded as part of the settlement over the defamation-of-nation lawsuit settled in the wake of the South Park movie.
          • Don't forget the horrible English/French hybrid they sing at sporting events so as not to offend anybody.
      • by gx5000 (863863) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:29PM (#16582194)
        At least the french one has never been altered...

        "O Canada" was proclaimed Canada's national anthem on July 1, 1980, 100 years after it was first sung on June 24, 1880.

        The first performance took place on June 24 (St Jean Baptist Day), 1880 at a banquet in the "Pavillon des Patineurs" in Quebec City as the climax of a "Mosaique sur des airs populaires canadiens" arranged by Joseph Vezina, a prominent composer and bandmaster.

        The music was composed by Calixa Lavallee, a well-known composer; French lyrics to accompany the music were written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier. The song gained steadily in popularity. Many English versions have appeared over the years. The version on which the official English lyrics are based was written in 1908 by Mr. Justice Robert Stanley Weir. The official English version includes changes recommended in 1968 by a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons. The French lyrics remain unaltered.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          "O Canada" was proclaimed Canada's national anthem on July 1, 1980, 100 years after it was first sung on June 24, 1880.

          So, just long enough for the copyright to expire then?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ubergrendle (531719)
      I think actually the slowing # of downloads if more a factor of crap. People would still be downloading large volumes of stuff if anything new and decent was coming out.

      • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:51PM (#16582586) Homepage
        The quality of recent releases may have nothing to do with the decline in downloads. The majority of release in any time frame have always been crap. The decline is probably due to the fact that people have finished downloading the older stuff that they liked. They are caught up, and only need to download the new stuff they like.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by dapyx (665882)
          Exactly. Some things never change. Here's a relevant quote:


          "Only sick music makes money today." -- Friedrich Nietzsche in 1888.

        • I thought i'd add -- in case everyone didn't already know, that this phenomenon is pretty much responsible for the "ZOMG decline in sales!!11 Piracy!!!1"

          See the decline in sales was due to people finishing their cassette-to-CD upgrade and no longer buying the huge amount of CDs they bought in the mid 90s.

          I guess it'd be nice if people finish their CD-to-mp3 "up"grade and the RIAA could stop doing their chicken little act.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by purpledinoz (573045)
      That's a really good point. Is it possible that the decline in downloading is related to the declining quality in music coming out?

      I sense a big shakeup in the music industry, where the artists start taking control of the money they generate, instead of the big record companies gobbling it up to enrich a few unworthy executives.
    • by Deagol (323173) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:53PM (#16582608) Homepage
      Once you've downloaded the good stuff, it is not like there is anything new coming out to make you want to keep downloading more and more.

      As much as many people here pooh-pooh the "everything sucks today" argument, an honest person has to take a hard look and see whether or not it's true. I know it's hard -- no, impossible -- to quantify the 'quality' of music. It's obviously a changing beast, dependent on the audience, and other variables.

      I submit, as one small data point, the "Top Searches" [allmusic.com] page on allmusic.com [allmusic.com]. Notice a trend? Yup -- a good chunk of the artists on that list were in their prime is 10-to-40 years ago.

      So what does that *particular* list say? It's a tough call. It may just be that AMG's site is too un-cool for the covetted tween to mid-20's music demographic, leaving us 30+ folks (I'm 34) who were weaned on 60's and 70's rock by our baby boomer parents who went on to be influenced by the 80's and 90's in our teen years. Perhaps there are sites more used by the younger generations that has a "top serach" function that other readers can add to the mix, for comparison.

      But maybe -- just maybe -- that today there are fewer artists that actuall make good *albums* that won't sound dated in 10 years and can be listened to over and over in their entirety. Maybe the majority of entertainers that get radio play are optimized for one-hit-wonderhood, who get their 15 minutes and go out in a blaze of glory until they'll featured in ten years on "Where Are They Now?".

      Or, perhaps, hind-sight is 20/20 and it's much easier to find the gems from 10+ years ago than it is to find the few that exist today but are lost in the crap that's been on the airwaves since the dawn of radio. :)

      • It's probably the former, isn't it. Or think of this way - the site isn't viewed as 'uncool' by anyone, and there are a fair proportion of teen/early 20s types buying music from the site - how else to explain Eminem & The Killers - but the majority are still the 30+ baby boomer offspring you describe.
      • by AdamD1 (221690)
        I'm intrigued by your use of allmusic as the measurement. And I mean that in a purely positive way.

        I've always been interested by the fact that the top50 music listing on Amazon, for "Pop" music, regularly features some really baby-boomer / retiree stuff. Michael Bublé, Diana Krall, Bonnie Raitt, Faith Hill, Rod Stewart, Mark Knopfler, etc. These are not "top 40" to me in the sense that when I look at the actual Billboard top 40, it tends to feature Jay-Z much more than the likes of Bonnie frikkin' Rai
  • Thankfully (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Because I have downloaded all music known to man, I no longer need to pursue this.

    Posting anon for obvious reasons.
  • by TheRecklessWanderer (929556) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @01:59PM (#16581646) Journal
    I love music, I have a huge CD Collection, but recently I have not been purchasing too many CDs. This last couple of months I bought 3 CDs. The new Barenaked Ladies CD, the new Blue Rodeo Album, and a classic Bruce Springsteen album. Well... The new barenaked ladies I listed to once, and put away. Same with the Blue Rodeo Album (not a good effort Mr. Cuddy). The classic Bruce Springsteen was just great. I can point to several CDs by the Barenaked Ladies and Blue Rodeo that were incredibly. So why would I buy CDs that I'm going to listen to once? I'm just going to continue to listen to the albums published years ago that were great, and are still great. As for the new stuff, I'm going to listen to it on the radio, and in the unlikely event that some great music appears, I will buy it. That is why music sales are down, I think, people just are getting tired of crap. I hate to say it, but from a Canadian perspective, Canadian Content should be more concerned with the content than the Canadian.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Rik Sweeney (471717)
      I think I know what your problem is:

      you listen to crap music :P
      • Name three really good Canadian bands with album releases within the last year.
        • by Zanth_ (157695)
          The Tragically Hip
          The Arcade Fire
          The New Pornographers

          Need more?

          Broken Social Scene
          Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band
          Billy Talent
          Mobile

          Solo Artists:
          Neko Case
          Hawksley Workman
          Sam Roberts
          • by Skidge (316075) *
            Neko Case


            She's an American, born in Virginia, grew up in Tacoma, WA. However, she started her musical career in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

            More in wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
          • by leoc (4746)
            Good list, a couple of addendums and a comment.

            First, Neko Case [wikipedia.org] is actually American, although she seems (to my ears) to be quite heavily influenced by her Canadian connections.

            My additions to your list:

            Violet Archers [thevioletarchers.com]
            Final Fantasy [wikipedia.org] (aka: Owen Pallett)
            Egger [zunior.com]
            Tamara Williamson [tamarawilliamson.com]

            As an added bonus, I'd like to point out (again, and again) that most of this great music can be bought in FLAC or MP3 format from Zunior [zunior.com]!
        • by optikSmoke (264261) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @04:20PM (#16583918) Homepage
          Easy. But, I bet you're not going to like it. I'm going to preface this by saying that I am not really a "hipster" or an indie type, though I know enough of them that I listen to some of the music. Frankly, I'm more into post-rock than your whiny indie pop stuff (post-rock being a near-meaningless catch-all approximately equal to "experimental rock usually with few vocals", a good chunk of which is also filed under indie rock).

          Regardless, the first obvious answer to your question is Broken Social Scene's "Broken Social Scene". Frankly these guys are awesome, for me especially because they combine the actually good elements of indie pop with the instrumentation of a lot of good post-rock. Regardless, if that album doesn't do it for you (which I've listed since it was released in 2005), the even more obvious choice is "You Forgot It In People", which was probably one of the (if not the) best albums of 2002, anywhere. Some people say the 2005 album doesn't live up to it, I think that many of them reject it out of turn.

          Next: The Hylozoists' "La Fin Du Monde". Awesome post-rock band that includes a couple of vibraphones, a violin, and a number of other things on top of the standard rock instrumentation. Besides being awesome live, I am listing this album and band because I think they would appeal to a larger audience than a lot of other "post-rock".

          Finally, because I haven't had the time or money to get many new CDs this year, I'm gonna list three albums from the past couple of years that are basically awesome anyway:

          Feist - Let it Die (awesome singer-songwriter-jazz-folk-pop-i-ness) 2004
          Do Make Say Think - & Yet & Yet (ridiculously good jazz-influenced post-rock) 2002
          Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Yanqui U.X.O. (over-the-top symphonic post-rock, from the band that is basically the centre of the rather influential Montreal post-rock scene) 2002

          And I might as well tack on Death From Above 1979's "You're a Woman, I'm a Machine" (2004) since everyone loves ('d?) ridiculous dance-punk these days.

          Frankly, people who complain about the state of Canadian music aren't listening to the right music.
      • We have a saying dere in quebec. Mange moi. :)
    • "I'm just going to continue to listen to the albums published years ago that were great, and are still great. As for the new stuff, I'm going to listen to it on the radio, and in the unlikely event that some great music appears, I will buy it."

      Keyword there is 'appears'. If you don't live in a 250k+ population city and you don't have satellite radio, it is -very- difficult to find out about new bands that don't fall into the categories of "Rap / Hip-Hop" or "Emo", and even for that you have to stay up un
  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zaffo (755234) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:00PM (#16581664)
    It could also be that people are far less inclined to admit they download files or use peer-to-peer services, what with the entertainment industry's litigious proclivities and whatnot.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dwandy (907337)
      There are no lawsuits in Canada ... they tried, the judge said "piss off ... a screen shot is insufficent evidence to infringe on people's privacy" ... which is what any sane judge should have said.

      So while it's possible that the lawsuits in the US are causing Cannucks to think twice, I tend to agree with the other sentiments on this story: the stuff coming out isn't worth the bandwidth it costs to download....

      • by RajivSLK (398494)
        A lot of my friends here, in canada, think it is illegal and that they may get "caught". They still download anyway.
  • Reasons (Score:2, Funny)

    1-We Canadians, already downloaded all the American music. 2-ISPs not getting cheaper in Canada and people switching to cheaper plans 3-Related to 1, people become crazy.
  • There are, IMHO, two reasons
    1. People are just buying less music in general, probably because of the lack of original material
    2. People have realised that downloading the album doesn't give them the nice packaging, which is sometimes interesting to read. Sure, it costs less, but you're then stuck with a 128kbs WMA with DRM
  • Sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cemu (968469) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:11PM (#16581858)
    With the availability of large external storage, did anybody talk about sharing? You don't need to download something when you can go over to your friends' house and leave with a copy of it.
  • Not only pop music is crap, I can't use it as background music for work, nor just listen to it. Why waste time searching and downloading such music?

    However, during my visit to Auckland, I found a somewhat small CD/DVD store that is more for music enthusiasts. They had listening booths, and through that I found an indie artist's CD published by a local company. Listened to it, loved it, plopped down NZD$30 because it's not crap,not to mention over there, they are not influenced by RIAA, especially its indepe
  • Honest responses? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jctull (704600) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:17PM (#16581968)
    The article does not tell us anything about the survey methods that they used. Did they use the same survey as reported from earlier data? Differences in survey design can have huge consequences on the outcome and may make comparisons moot.

    Also, people might be more likely to say they are not downloading music when, in fact, they are downloading as much or more. The fear of recrimination for admitting to downloading may be pushing people to simply be dishonest when surveyed.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1) We are Canadians, we do not know how to lie
      2) We are Canadians, we do not get sued by the **AA

      To quote the article (for those too lazy to read it, my emphasis):

      The survey, conducted in June 2006, finds that just 14 percent of Canadians have downloaded music in the last 12 months, down from 15 percent in 2005, 19 percent in 2004, 21 percent in 2003, and 21 percent in 2002. It goes without saying that this finding comes despite the absence of lawsuits, the absence of copyright reform, and the continual (y

  • But I see how the poll questions could result in it appearing that way.

    When they do these polls, they typically call a house. My wife or I might respond to a request like this, my 13 year-old-daughter never would.

    In the last year, my downloading has dropped off the map - Got satilite (sp bad I know) radio in both vehicles, so despite having grotequely bad local radio in my city, I hear lots of new stuff in my primary "place of listening". Don't need to download for that.

    On the othe
  • So, this should (according to their logic) show as a very noticeable increased sales, right?
  • We just learnt (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shados (741919) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:20PM (#16582032)
    Canadians didn't download less! We just got smarter: if we keep saying "yes, I download music from the net for free" all over the place, our government tax us. So now we keep it quiet :)
  • by Jtheletter (686279) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:24PM (#16582110)
    I may be incorrect here, but as I understood Canadian law pertaining to file sharing (granted, from /. not exactly a degree-granting institution), Canadians already pay a levy on all recordable media which is then passed on to the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA to reimburse artists. In addition, Canadian copyright law makes unauthorized distribution (uploading) illegal, however downloading is not. If this is true, and I cede that I may have this muddled, then Canadians should be downloading day and night from every source they can find! You're already paying for it, might as well take advantage of the legal loophole while it exists.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Vacuous (652107)
      Actually uploading on P2P apps is also considered legal in Canada, this has been tested in court even.
    • To my knowlege the following is true:

      Downloading is perfectly legal.
      Uploading is perfecttly legal.
      However distributing (that is actively or passively) to multiple parties is a more sketchy ground. I wouldn't call it legal anyway.

      The big differance is how the two legal systems (Canada vs the USA) are set up to allow for the proscutions of such offences. In the USA I hear what happens is the RIAA initially sues a "John Doe" on an ISP from a particular state that allows this. The whole point of this, is to for
  • by ettlz (639203) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:25PM (#16582142) Journal
    Does Netcraft confirm it?
  • Same flaw as the drug use "statistics". The data collection is flawed from the get-go. What idiot admits he breaks the law on a regular basis to a complete stranger? What kind of person would sit down and fill out the form? Like those "declines" in drug use among kids -- what, you asked the kids? Gee, I wonder if they fib.
    • It isn't against Canadian law to download files via p2p. You are correct in general though.
    • by Abcd1234 (188840)
      This is actually a very interesting point. Perhaps the study numbers can be explained because the music/movie industry propaganda machines are working, and people are now unwilling to report the truth because they realize what they're doing is illegal (if not immoral)?
  • obvoiusly (Score:3, Funny)

    by kevin.fowler (915964) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:28PM (#16582186) Homepage
    obviously this shows that DRM and security measures are working. or that more people are lying out of their asses. or that a different group of people were surveyed.
  • Broken Record (Score:5, Insightful)

    by static0verdrive (776495) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:37PM (#16582344) Homepage Journal
    I have said some of the following points before, but feel they belong with this discussion, so will repeat the necessary ones.

    Not all artists care if their music is downloaded. Many artists make the most from their live shows, so many want you to download away as long as you buy a ticket to the concert. Sure the record company might suffer a little, but they often screw the artists to begin with (Warner Bros vs Zappa comes to mind).

    One good song does NOT make an entire album worth buying. If you suck but have a good song or two, or you're simply a one-hit-wonder, don't expect to sell a ton of records. People will most likely want to save their money for good ALBUMS while downloading your one good song. Want to sell a whole CD? Write worth-while stuff, you rehashed, tired, same-old-garbage dumbasses.

    Make the CD worth owning in other ways, too. I think I may spend another $13.99 on a second copy of Beck's new "The Information" because a) the entire disc is excellent and the included DVD is great b) the stickers to create your own unique cover is genius.

    If you prevent people from using Kazaa, they'll use limewire. If you prevent them from using limewire, they'll switch to bearshare. or shareaza. or iMesh, or morpheus, or .. or .. or .. get it? You can't stop them, and you're spending so much money trying that it is laughable. "Like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob." Wisen-up and use that money for CD art and packages so enticing that downloading seems dumb rather than worth it.

    Most people I know can't stand the radio these days. Sitting through all those shitty songs and ads and talk for what? Most music is so devoid of any real content or originality now that people may as well use internet radio and p2p to get what they want rather than play russian-roulette with FM. Use that internet vehicle to promote the good new artists, and have ads that help generate revenue, or something. Get with it, you archaic imbeciles - people don't want the new band that sounds like Nickelback the third, but also aren't willing to sit through the overplayed garbage in the hopes a new, worthwhile band will have something played. It is difficult to discover new bands right now, and often the easiest way is through sites that have comparisons to other bands and genres. The chances of the radio Gods selecting something new that you'll like is slim, and then the chances that you haven't died of boredom while waiting for them to play it on top of that doesn't help the situation.

    All in all, fighting the internet now is like fighting sliced bread. Bang rocks together, guys.
    • All in all, fighting the internet now is like fighting sliced bread. Bang rocks together, guys.

      Except that they have to make sure that they don't bang the rocks together in a rhythm that has been played by someone else in the past, otherwise they'll be liable and likely to face a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by delirium28 (641609)
      Most people I know can't stand the radio these days. Sitting through all those shitty songs and ads and talk for what? Most music is so devoid of any real content or originality now that people may as well use internet radio and p2p to get what they want rather than play russian-roulette with FM.

      Amen to that brother! I got so fed up with FM that I went the route of Sirius once it started up here in Canada, and I couldn't be happier. There's still the odd commentary, but I've got 70+ channels to go thro
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @02:43PM (#16582456)
    Apparently, today's music sucks so bad that it's not even worth downloading it for free.
  • It wouldn't surprise me if downloading has actually gone down. The **AA in this country and and its sister agencies internationally have been somewhat successful in shutting down the big p2p networks. There seem like there are more p2p nets out there than "back in the day" but they are less well known, and so Joe Blogg isn't able to download as easily anymore, and is probably worried about all the lawsuits. Ofcourse recording industry sales have also gone down so maybe both sales and downloading are down be
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Brickwall (985910)
      I agree that the number may well be accurate. At least one major ISP, Rogers, has installed software that seeks out P2P connections, and throttles them. My (cough) friends (cough) tell me that P2P downloads start up OK, but after a couple of minutes, the bit rate falls off to a trickle. A Rogers spokesperson said that "email, http, IM" were the priority services for their internet customers, and that "movies and video" were at the bottom. My friends that use Rogers tell me that P2P doesn't do very much for
  • by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@gmBOHRail.com minus physicist> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @03:34PM (#16583210) Journal
    Why bother downloading when you can legally copy CDs you borrow from friends or public libraries? This is how I got more than the 5000 pieces of music I have, most of them copied from other CDs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      <looks at towering pile of copied CDs>
      Only 5000? I've got at least 2 million. Hey copying CD's doesn't harm anyo... <sound of CD avalanch> NO CARRIER...
  • Everything I do... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ivow (788807) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @04:36PM (#16584192)
    We're just waiting for Bryan Adams and Celine Dion to put out new albums.
  • How are they measuring this 14%? The number of people who are downloading from public bittorrent trackers? Then of course it'd be declining, everyone's going underground to get away from The War on Music Listeners.
  • by filesiteguy (695431) <kai@perfectreign.com> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @05:16PM (#16584778) Homepage
    ...one person responded to the question, "do you download music?"

    The answer was, "no."

    To the question, "have you bought any music?" the answer was, "no"

    To the question, "why?" the answer was, "because there's nothing worth buying or downloading."

    This poll has a margin of error or 50%.

    Thank you all!

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West

Working...