Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales, study says

[Dippo]

so please do without.

it's just like the "smart" kid in HS who claims that he can get straight A's only if he tried. but he doesn't. and until he does and actually gets straight A's, i's say his words have no credibility.

I do do without, but either way it's not hurting you or anyone else.

So your "smart" kids get A's now...

 

[jxyama]

nevermind...

 

[Dippo]

you don't get my point, do you?....we can make a backup does NOT equal we are entitled to a backup.

I get your point but I have to disagree. If a backup can be obtained at not no (negliable) cost, then we should be able to do so.

for CDs, court has shown that we are entitled to making backup copies for personal use. they didn't say you can download a copy from the internet to replace a cd that was broken. by offering your backup copy to others, you are no longer using the backup for your own personal use.

While I agree that no one has ever said that we can download music to replace a broken CD, that doesn't mean we don't have the right to do so. It's just a new form of making a backup in my opinion.

I certianly agree that giving your friends a copy isn't "personal use"!

Of course these days we can't even make a backup of our DVDs, even for actual personal use!

 

[jxyama]

Of course these days we can't even make a backup of our DVDs, even for actual personal use!

i guess this is where our opinions differ...

i don't feel the entitlement to backing up just because i can.

i've lived pretty much all of my life not being able to back up most of the things i own. (car, stereo, tv, computer, anything physical.) so even if i can make back ups, i don't feel the entitlement... and above all, certainly not if insisting that i be able to back up opens up gaping avenue for others to abuse it...

but i understand your point of view. i hope you see mine as well.

 

[gwuMACaddict]

If downloading music doesnt affect sales then the room doesnt smell when I fart.

Downloading may not be the only reason that CD sales are down, but it is a big reason. This kind of crap comes out because the people that steal (download) the music dont want to feel they are doing anything wrong.

i couldn't agree more... of course sharing has affected sales... why would kids bug their parents for money to buy a cd when they can steal it for free and not worry about it? its sad

 

[leftbanke7]

I honestly can't remember when I actually went out and bought a new release of anything. Music of today is horrible. If it isn't mind-numbing screaming it's a hip hop artist who is ripping off another hip hop artist who originally ripped off a 70s R&B or Funk song. My iTunes playlist is a great indication of this. As you get closer and closer to today (I have my music categorized by decade), the amount of songs decrease. And I say this as a 24 year old. I often think I was born 20 years too late.

Not one of my car stereo presets has a station playing modern music. It's hard to stomach much of what is out there.

However, do I think that artists should paid for their work? Absolutely. Should they make the multi-millions? Hell no, and this goes for athletes, entertainers, etc.

Are the above overpaid? In the scope of their medium, nope.

In the scope of reality, is the entertainment industry overvalued? You bet your sweet bippy.

God bless our value system.

 

[Makosuke]

Truth is, I don't much like illegal sharing. I don't much like anything illegal. But that doesn't change the fact that what this study is saying is almost certainly correct--the falloff in sales is because CDs have gotten progressively more overpriced, the music has gotten progressively worse, and the music industry has gotten progressively more hostile toward its own fans.

I used to buy maybe a dozen CDs a year. I also taped stuff off the radio, when the one decent song I wanted wasn't worth the price of the entire album. I never downloaded more than a couple of songs a month, and those were basically the same as what I taped off the radio when I was 12.

The difference is, because the RIAA now feels like suing me and anybody else who wanted to hear "Da Da Da" one more time after that Volkswagen ad, or drive people who want to rip a CD they paid money for TO filesharing networks just to get a digital copy of their protected CD, I've decided not to buy ANY CDs, and haven't for several years. I will, however, buy a nice tune off the iTMS once in a while... same as I would've off the filesharing networks, but I prefer to be legit and the ease of the iTMS is worth $1 anyway.

The music labels could've realized this five years ago, but instead they've decided to fortify their outdated business model via lawsuits and copy protection. Sorry, that's not where my money is going.


(Additional random musings: Interestingly enough, I like mostly classical, which is cheap, and J-pop/anime soundtracks, which were near-impossible to find outside of a $35/disc import (you think CDs are expensive in the US, try Japan--twice what we pay... although you can RENT CDs in Japan!).

The internet comes along, and suddenly I can download the music I actually want to listen to. My rate of purchasing CDs if anything went up, since I was a lot more likely to find what I actually wanted, and make darn sure it's worth spending $30+ on a single album.)

 

[jxyama]

But that doesn't change the fact that what this study is saying is almost certainly correct--the falloff in sales is because CDs have gotten progressively more overpriced, the music has gotten progressively worse, and the music industry has gotten progressively more hostile toward its own fans.

i agree with two of your three reasons - CDs getting overpriced and the music industry being hostile. but i don't agree with today's music being worse. i think this is a common sentiment - "ahh, the old times were better" - kind of thing. pretty much every generation thinks that the current society, music, culture, sports figures, morals, movies, artists and lifestyle are all worse than the prev. generations.

 

[Dippo]

Study - Link

Here's a link to the actual study:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

 

[MillieWales]

Regarding backing up and the content of the CD, not the physical disc. I also don't know if this is the same for music CD's. My Dad is head of Media for a Uni in the UK. He has a lot of software, all opbviously legal. Often, due to the high useage of the discs, his department either breaks them, they stop working due to scratches or they go missing. He rings the distributor or the manufacturer, gives them his details, and for a postage fee they send him new discs.

This is something he started doing q good few years ago, with his home discs. He would give them purchase details or send a cover sleeve, saying he paid for the use of the disc and content, not the physical disc, as is the wording on the copyright info more often than not. He often got and get's confused people on the end of the phone, but eventually he always wins.

I realise this is different for music, but again you are buying the right to play the music at home, not publically though, and I don't think that making copies is clear cut. Isn't it almost a licence? I am not saying this makes Music sharing right, if anything it is a little off topic, but we seem to be talking about backing up a fair bit too.

As for Music sharing, the legal stuff needs to be sorted out and then maybe the illegal stuff will decline. In the UK we don't have so much choice. I download music, but I also buy a lot more CD's than I have ever done, mainly because when I was unsure of an artist before I would go with my cautious side and save the cash, now I try them out, and if I like them I buy them. Not saying it's right, it's just what I do, but I don't share.

Marc

 

[1macker1]

The only reason file sharing is illegal is because some many people will have access to the music. If you were to go out and buy a cd copy it to your computer, then loan the cd to your friend(s), no one would give a sh*t. It's that on the internt, you have millions of *friends*.

 

[Dippo]

The only reason file sharing is illegal is because some many people will have access to the music. If you were to go out and buy a cd copy it to your computer, then loan the cd to your friend(s), no one would give a sh*t. It's that on the internt, you have millions of *friends*.

Well according to a Canadian judge, file sharing is not illegal.

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html?tag=nefd_top

I guess it is time to move to Canada

 

[MrMacMan]

The RIAA and other groups never factor in that we had/have a recession economy and some people don't have the $$ to pay for new cds.


If I really like an artist I will buy it because it sounds better, I also feel the ownership of the product.

Dippo -- The CRIA made the worst case ever. I can't believe they compared it to copying a book in a library.

What morons are they?

 

[sonyrules]

to be honest maybe they should work harder on their albums i mean one or two good hit singles on a 12 or 14 song cd is terrible , and 18 or 20 bucks for 13 songs doesnt cut it , then they go off and u see them on vh1 and all that stuff on how rich they are and there cars and all that , i just cant feel bad for them.

You couldnt be any more right, and with the quality of music these days, its even more true

 

[sonyrules]

i agree with two of your three reasons - CDs getting overpriced and the music industry being hostile. but i don't agree with today's music being worse. i think this is a common sentiment - "ahh, the old times were better" - kind of thing. pretty much every generation thinks that the current society, music, culture, sports figures, morals, movies, artists and lifestyle are all worse than the prev. generations.

This all depends on people tastes. Some people like todays music, personaly, it sounding more and more of the same, but there are some good artist or may be some good music out there. BUT, this all goes with "2-3 song per cd worth buying" which if you look at it, is getting smaller and smaller, once in a great while you will have an artist come out with a kick ass cd. But not nealry as before. Its all about preferences, and i do believe music is not as good as it could be.

 

[Dippo]

Dippo -- The CRIA made the worst case ever. I can't believe they compared it to copying a book in a library.

What morons are they?

Actually it was the judge that said that:

In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled.

Finckenstein said the same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.

The judge also said this:

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."

I do have to agree that the CRIA did a terrible job in prosecuting this case. They are going to really be kicking themselves if they can't get it overturned on appeal