IS P2P really hurting the music industry?

[samcurry]

1st-quarter U.S. Music Sales Up 9 Percent

April 13, 2004 07:24 AM EDT WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., Apr 12, 2004 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- U.S. music sales were up 9.1 percent in first-quarter 2004 compared to year-ago figures despite online piracy, KMFB.com reports.
A Nielsen Soundscan study showed album sales up 9.2 percent. Compact Disc sales, which make up 96 percent of album sales, went up 10.6 percent.
The music industry blames file-sharing for albums sales that have declined every year since 2000, and have resulted in thousands of layoffs. Sales fell 3 percent in 2001, 11 percent in 2002, and 4 percent in 2003.
In 2001, sales were down 3 percent. The next year, sales dropped 11 percent. Last year, until September, sales were down 8.5 percent, but the pickup in sales at the end of the year narrowed the total decline for 2003 to less than 4 percent.


After seeing this I cannot agree with the RIAA at all on the woes it claims the music industry is having.

 

[Wacky Nacky]

Of course they're doing better...the CDs are cheaper now...DUH! Now that the musicians aren't so money hungry, people are willing to go out and pay $10 for a CD. $15-$20 for a CD is ridiculous, which is why piracy was created in the first place.

 

[PT]

Um, Wacky, it ain't the musicians that are the money hungry ones. The money hungry ones are the record execs. Most musicians get something like .50 to 1.00 per cd sold.

 

[Kawaii]

Musicians get like 10% of their income from CD sales(of which they get ~5% of the selling price), it's concerts and stuff like posters and t-shirts that make the big bucks. So p2p actually helps them get more people to buy their t-shirts and come to their concerts. But oc the record companies don't get any money from concerts, which is why they're bitching about piracy.

 

[Inkara1]

Anyone remember the time when Tom Petty was protesting against high record prices?

 

[Oz]

I suppose it depends......if yer a succesfull multi-millionaire rock band who are willing to lower yourselves to the music industries whims and speak out against filesharing in exchange for an extra pound of flesh *cough fuckingmettalica cough* then filesharing must be terrible...the difference between silver plated loo roll and gold plated

Whereas if you are a small-time artist who is struggling to get your music heard (and gods know, it ain't gonna get played on corporate radio without a lot of prior publicity) then in can be a good thing. Gary Jules put his recent hit solely down to filesharing.......his record was originally part of a soundtrack, and unreleased independantly.

I reckon that it's more about control than rip-offability......the big record companies like to control every aspect, from recording contracts to radio and tv playlists.......gods help them if a medium is used where small time record labels can get their bands listened to Can't have the lil' labels achieving some kinda popular and financial success.......that might lead to performers wanting to work for them!

IMO file sharing is no more wrong these days than it was when I was a microdude poised on front of the radio waiting to record me fave tracks onto audio cassette......and I can't remember anyone getting their arse hauled into court for that

As for it effecting sales on the high street......I hope it does, companies might stop producing so much shite that way

 

[MrBishop]

Yeah...Melissa Ethridge tried to control the price of CDs herself...but it's bombed most of the time. Instead of being $10/CD...most stores take advantage of the low 'cost' price to sell as high as normally and make more of a profit.

Personally...I believe that MP3s are very cute..but the quality of the sound isn't up to par. I'll listen to MP3s until I'm satisfied with the album..that is...that its worth the buy. At $25/pop...it damn well better be worth it.

What MP#s do for me is allow me to sample works from artists that I wouldn't normally have thought of buying into or even heard of. If someone recommends an album or a song...I'll DL it, listen to it and make my own decisions. That isn't always possible at record stores. The popular albums might be available for a listen, but the more ecclectic works would not be. I seriously doubt that MP3s will ruin the market.

What would strenghten the market would be the potential to easily buy music song by song and create your own albums. I understand that it's available to a point, but that the choice of music isn't up to scratch yet. If I could pick 17-20 songs that I like and have them placed on a CD in pure digital sound and pay $20 for it, I would. I'd be satisfied, the producers would have their money and the artists wouldn't have to 'fill up the empty space' on their albums with mediocre music. Everyone's a winner!

 

[a13antichrist]

I haven't bought a CD in 4 years...

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

wow ur so kool!!!


^_^

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

Personally...I believe that MP3s are very cute..but the quality of the sound isn't up to par. I'll listen to MP3s until I'm satisfied with the album..that is...that its worth the buy..... What MP3s do for me is allow me to sample works from artists that I wouldn't normally have thought of buying into or even heard of. If someone recommends an album or a song...I'll DL it, listen to it and make my own decisions. That isn't always possible at record stores. The popular albums might be available for a listen, but the more ecclectic works would not be. I seriously doubt that MP3s will ruin the market.

ja!! thats pretty much what i was going to say.

 

[tonksy]

metallica wasn't looking to line their pockets further, they were looking out for the up and coming artists...lars already stated that he has more money than he could ever really spend

p2p can do good things and bad things for musicians...they have a wider audience but you can't tell where that audience is because you can't track who is dl-ing the music and where they are...kinda makes planning a concert route a bit tough because the record company doesn't know where the fans are or if their really are enough fans to warrant scheduling tours in certain locations. it makes it more of a gamble in the record companies eyes.

 

[Oz]

metallica wasn't looking to line their pockets further, they were looking out for the up and coming artists...lars already stated that he has more money than he could ever really spend

How does removing a medium on which music is listened to "look out for the up and coming artists"? I can't think of one other source a skint band can use to have their music available on such a scale. How is a band supposed to become successful if they are never heard? The record companies already know the solution to prevent p2p sharing of their signed bands......encoded cd's. although apart from Celine Dione........they don't release them, kinda makes you wonder why. (maybe because they value the information from p2p a little bit more than they are letting on.

p2p can do good things and bad things for musicians...they have a wider audience but you can't tell where that audience is because you can't track who is dl-ing the music and where they are

Yes you can. That's exactly how the various record companies around the world are sueing everyone from old age pensioners to 10 yr old kids downloading nursery rhymes. The singer I mentioned earlier, Gary Jules, a resident of California released his record first in Europe, simply from the recorded amount of downloads showing it's popularity here.

...kinda makes planning a concert route a bit tough because the record company doesn't know where the fans are or if their really are enough fans to warrant scheduling tours in certain locations. it makes it more of a gamble in the record companies eyes.

It makes it far, far easier to make such plans (which also benefits the big companies as well as the littleman. Why would a Brit group risk an american tour if they already know from the 'net that they havn't built a fanbase, and vice versa). It's the fact that joe public can now freely pick and choose who he listens to ......without risking £'s on an album that may contain 3 or 4 good songs......and the rest shite.....that the record companies are wary of.

What would strenghten the market would be the potential to easily buy music song by song and create your own albums. I understand that it's available to a point, but that the choice of music isn't up to scratch yet. If I could pick 17-20 songs that I like and have them placed on a CD in pure digital sound and pay $20 for it, I would. I'd be satisfied, the producers would have their money and the artists wouldn't have to 'fill up the empty space' on their albums with mediocre music. Everyone's a winner!

I'd love to see this happen......I don't think it will anytime in the near future.......but the fact that a band/singer would have to make sure that every song they recorded would have to have the potential to sell can only be a good thing

 

[Camelyn]

I've heard Metallica say it, I've heard other bands say it "It's not for us, we're worried about the little guys" Maybe before they make such grandiose gestures, they should actually bother to *ask* the little guy...

Visit the websites of any up-and-coming or indie band and you will more than likely find a section with complete tracks, hell complete albums available free for download. What better publicity could you ask for? It takes *years* to get established in this industry, an industry that is all about getting you product out to the widest market possible. Your product is your music, your merchandise and yourself, live on tour. No one is going to buy your stuff based on your catchy name. By simple virtue of the product itself, the music, the consumer *needs* to hear it first, before any money is spent. Yes, we have the radio, but do I really need to go into how difficult it is to break into that medium even locally, not to mention globally?

I have a friend who has been in a local band for 9 or so years. Doing their local gigs for their local fans. Then someone has the bright idea of slapping up a shiny website and making their demo available for download there as well as on P2P sites. Now they have an album released, have been featured on the local music video station, and are getting airplay and gigs across Canada and the US, an audience base they could never have hoped to touch before the internet and P2P.

For my part, when I find a small band I like, I do my damnedest to pimp them out to as many people as will listen to my babble, pointing them to Kazaa to download a song or 2. There is no better promotion; a word of mouth recommendation followed by a sample of the music.

So, to Metallica and any other band feeling particular big-brotherish, I say just cut the crap and admit that the only pockets you are worried about P2P dipping into are your own or those of your record label. And even on that point, do the math, do a little actual research and see that you should be jumping on the P2P bandwagon and milking it for all the free advertising potential that it can give you.

 

[Inkara1]

Odd that Metallica was at the forefront of the anti-Napster campaign, since Metallica has won some court battles and thus control their own catalog, which most recording artists don't do.

 

[tonksy]

How does removing a medium on which music is listened to "look out for the up and coming artists"? I can't think of one other source a skint band can use to have their music available on such a scale. How is a band supposed to become successful if they are never heard? The record companies already know the solution to prevent p2p sharing of their signed bands......encoded cd's. although apart from Celine Dione........they don't release them, kinda makes you wonder why. (maybe because they value the information from p2p a little bit more than they are letting on.
Yes you can. That's exactly how the various record companies around the world are sueing everyone from old age pensioners to 10 yr old kids downloading nursery rhymes. The singer I mentioned earlier, Gary Jules, a resident of California released his record first in Europe, simply from the recorded amount of downloads showing it's popularity here.
It makes it far, far easier to make such plans (which also benefits the big companies as well as the littleman. Why would a Brit group risk an american tour if they already know from the 'net that they havn't built a fanbase, and vice versa). It's the fact that joe public can now freely pick and choose who he listens to ......without risking £'s on an album that may contain 3 or 4 good songs......and the rest shite.....that the record companies are wary of.

basically, oz...the record companies aren't using the information they gain about who is dl-ing what to plan tours etc...they are just using it to recoup their "losses". so the bands that have a big following in the p2p world aren't getting any money or support. now, i'm not coming down on the p2p...you know i'm a big fan...just giving you the artist view that has been expressed to me.
what cam said about the little guys is true, visit their websites and the majority will have songs available for you to DL for free...but this is done by the band itself and not the record company and they are doing it to be heard...lord knows that radio id impossible to break into until you have a big record deal because dj's are told what to play and when to play it. IMO the record companies need to accept p2p and try to live with it...it's progress and it ain't going away.

 

[Oz]

basically, oz...the record companies aren't using the information they gain about who is dl-ing what to plan tours etc...they are just using it to recoup their "losses". so the bands that have a big following in the p2p world aren't getting any money or support. now, i'm not coming down on the p2p...you know i'm a big fan...just giving you the artist view that has been expressed to me.

Well, I've already given one example of a record label using p2p as a guide to launching a record (and subsequent tour)......I'm sure there are dozens of other examples out there *makes mental note to have a dig around google later*

Sam started this thread saying that there aren't any "losses" in fact sales are up!..........imo bands that have suffered a slump in sales should look at the material they release....as p2p isn't the culprit in any loss of [expected] income

I can't believe for a second that record companies don't keep a very carefull eye on the p2p habits of your average computer user. As I've already said.....it's easy to encode a cd to prevent it being used in the computer medium......even cheaper and probably more effective would be to follow Madonna's recording label example and flood filesharing users with bogus copies of her music (the infamous five minute track of her screaming "what the hell do you think you're doing" comes to mind). Again, it begs the question if it is so easy to prevent millions of copies of your song being used on p2p........why aren't the big companies/artists doing it? Let 'em encode their cd's...that way they can leave p2p to the folks that need it most, the littleman. Dragging such as Napster and Kazza through the courts to close them down only prevents bands/record companies using a free medium to reach potential listeners.

If I were a suspicious person...........I could even suggest that the record companies have the potential to make more money from sueing d/l'ers than they do from potential sales.......but even they wouldn't stoop so low...would they?

To me it's simple. The record companies spent a lot of time, and a hell of a lot of cash, to secure what we listen to on radio and TV. Now that p2p allows everyone from millionaire rockheads to little folksingers with a mic plugged in the back of their computer the [potemtial] to reach billions of people.....fatcat at the top of the music tower don't like it

 

[Kittie]

My stand on P2P:
If the artist allows songs to be downloaded fromt hier sites/ gives permission to hunt down thier songs, it is okay.
If the album is out of print, and the artist can not make money off of it (i.e. you would have to buy it from... oh let's say Ebay or something), then its okay to download it.
I had to do a research project last semester on ths subject, and statistics show that it does, indeed, hut the music industry. weather or not it is visible at first, or over time, is the thing that people have trouble with.
If someone was taking a dollar out of your wallet each day, and lets say you had... oh... about 42384670283974 one dollar bills, you may not notice it. But after time, it would all add up, and the money that you were bringing in would be less and less. And then you may say "hey. who has been taking money?"
*big breath* So I do believe it is wrong to P2P in some cases, right in some others. Depends.

There was more, but I forget what it was.

Another quick note: Office Space.

 

[PT]

OZ for President!