Canadian Music Industry Says Downloading Declining 238
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."
There's a limit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why I buy less music (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
From personal observation, I doubt it (Score:2, Insightful)
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 other hand, my daughter has gone from "never done it" to "nearly daily" in the last year as she's gotten into music, coupled with getting her own mp3 player, coupled with becoming savvy enough to find stuff she likes.
so, depending on how the survey questions were asked, and more importantly, who responded to those questions, I can easily see there being the appearance of a drop in downloading
Broken Record (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
It is not quality, it is old stuff downloaded now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's a limit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :)
Re:but it's NOT a TAX!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Honest responses? (Score:2, Insightful)
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):
Why bother downloading... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is not quality, it is old stuff downloaded n (Score:2, Insightful)
"Only sick music makes money today." -- Friedrich Nietzsche in 1888.
That's okay (Score:1, Insightful)
But seriously, CD prices have fallen a bit which is great, but the cd's I want to buy are ridicoulous. $25-$30 for cd from a decent band? I don't think so.
There was time when i used to by those CD's at those prices, but now theres no incentive for me too, so i use my extra money to buy movies(at least in DVD's they throw in tons of extras, with a cd they throw in a rootkit). That and I buy several copies of the firefly boxset.
Your weasel wording. (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
"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!!!!
Re:Broken Record (Score:3, Insightful)
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 through so even these momentary news updates are bearable. FM radio? Long since dead in my books. At the office or at home, XMMS and Winamp are my friends.
Re:Your weasel wording. (Score:5, Insightful)
Today I listened to a digital copy of my favorite songs over and over. I didn't pay for it. I did not compensate the artist for it. And I plan to do it tomorrow or any other time I want. I took nothing from the artist that he had before. I deprived him/her of nothing he was assured of obtaining. Fact is, his/her life is no different for me having done so. Am I stealing?
You would say yes, arguing **potential** income lost. But what is that? How do you calculate it? If you can't point to a single concrete, tangible effect of my having committed these atrocities, then whom did it hurt? It comes down to you insisting that if that digital copy of that song was not available to me at that instant, then I would have gone to the store and purchased it. Good luck with that and the rest of your research into alternate timelines.
My daughter also showed me some poses she learned in yoga class. So have I stolen from the yoga instructor? You would say yes even though I have taken nothing and harmed no one and he will never know anything happened.
By now I'm sure you have a stunningly clever rebuttal, so I'll admit it: I was listening to digital radio and playing my roommate's CDs! Mea culpa! And that's the problem: you might "know" what i did is "clearly wrong" but are now forced to admit it isn't because current legal vocabulary is not capable of discerning a difference between what you "know" is stealing and me listening to the radio. Unless you are prepared for people to be ruled against simply because we "know" they're guilty of something, though we can't articulate what "it" is, then admit that you are wrong. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but no existing definitions fit and you are wrong.