The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

Listening to a preview is one thing. But if you then walked out of the CD store with CDs you didn't pay for, then that's stealing. And that's exactly the same as downloading a free digital copy of an album or single that's commercially available.

No, that is not exactly the same. This is the RIAA's way of thinking and it's ridiculous. One downloaded copy != one lost sale. In some cases, yes. In many others, no. If the single sold 1000 copies and was downloaded 9000 times, do you think that in a world without filesharing it would sell 10000? There is really not a good way to tell - it could sell 1000, 2000, 10000, 500...who knows. Albums/singles have failed before the internet as there was no real exposure. The RIAA and MPAA want to treat files as though they were physical objects when they are not. A man who downloads four million albums for himself is not affecting the industry. However a man who obtains four million cases of beer without paying for them is depriving many stores and the beer industry out of lots money because they can actually sell those objects.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Nearly 95% of the CDs I own are a result of filesharing. So has practically every show I've been to. If it were not for filesharing the music industry would have lost thousands of dollars from me personally.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Nearly 95% of the CDs I own are a result of filesharing. So has practically every show I've been to. If it were not for filesharing the music industry would have lost thousands of dollars from me personally.

ok but then there's this.

Additionally, the economic theory often cited by P2P proponents has been misused to defend Internet file sharing. P2P advocates argue (1) that file sharing increases album sales (known as the sampling effect) and (2) that individuals who use P2P to download music would not have purchased the music in the first place.

Stan J. Liebowitz provides an extensive analysis of why the first idea--the sampling effect--does not hold up to scrutiny.2 The sampling story holds that consumers use P2P to "sample" songs from full-length albums. Because consumers could not sample prior to P2P, they were less likely to buy the full-length album. Therefore, the story goes, consumers who sample on P2P are now more likely to buy music.

The main problem with the sampling story is that consumers who sample may find that they dislike the music. These consumers will not purchase the album. For sampling to increase music sales unambiguously, individuals would have to sample the music, like the music, and then purchase the music they had already acquired free of charge (all with no downward pressure on music prices). Although this process may hold true for some music consumers, a complete market analysis suggests that the sampling effect will decrease overall music sales.

http://www.heritage.org/research/int...ogy/bg1790.cfm


anyway you're arguing that file sharing serves as art exposure which it just isn't. its art ownership. everything in the world is on youtube these days. hard to believe not a lot of what you've purchased from file sharing couldn't also have been purchased from hearing it on rhapsody, lastfm, or youtube.

[chuck]

I guess another aspect to throw into the mix is that most people today - don't buy albums. They don't even buy singles really - they just buy/download songs.

You could argue that iTunes put paid to that - but then again, when was the last decent "album" of musical work that was a coherent whole, released?

The 1980s? Def Leppard's Hysteria ?

So in a way - the delivery mechanism, ie. albums as in a CD or an LP is, to some extent in a digital environment, flawed.

Disregarding the amount of innocuous pap that's being presented as musical talent these days.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

ok but then there's this.

http://www.heritage.org/research/int...ogy/bg1790.cfm


anyway you're arguing that file sharing serves as art exposure which it just isn't. its art ownership. everything in the world is on youtube these days. hard to believe not a lot of what you've purchased from file sharing couldn't also have been purchased from hearing it on rhapsody, lastfm, or youtube.

I don't really find what is quoted a problem. Isn't buying an album and not liking it the reason why so many people complain in the first place? It seems to suggest that sampling is going to move people away from bad albums and on to good ones. That is a good thing.

As for the lastfm/youtube thing...certainly this is what I'd be doing if not for filesharing, I guess the reason why I download stuff instead is because it's higher quality and allows me to listen at work.

To be honest I would just really like some kind of actual user-friendly solution. When Napster and OINK were in their heydays a lot of people commented on how they would gladly pay for the service. I mean seriously there are so many albums...out of print stuff, imports, whatever, that just can't be bought unless you're going to pay $50-60 off eBay for it. Furthermore I think a lot of people hate the way the industry is run and will not support it. Since the ridiculous lawsuits started I have not bought any RIAA CDs and will continue to not do so - plus, it is disheartening to know that artists only recieve a few cents from each song download. Furthermore few sites really even have a sensible pricing model - I do love eMusic, but I don't like that I can download three hour-long five-track albums for the same 'price' as a short fifteen-track one.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

No, that is not exactly the same. This is the RIAA's way of thinking and it's ridiculous. One downloaded copy != one lost sale. In some cases, yes. In many others, no. If the single sold 1000 copies and was downloaded 9000 times, do you think that in a world without filesharing it would sell 10000? There is really not a good way to tell - it could sell 1000, 2000, 10000, 500...who knows.

Ah - but what you fail to acknowledge is that the rampant free downloading is a direct result of the ease of stealing the files. No, it may not directly reflect the specific number of lost sales, but if it was equally easy to steal a CD from a music store, than that would probably happen almost as frequently as digital theft happens. So I agree that the number of copies stolen doesn't directly reflect the number of lost sales, but a portion of them certainly does. So say we go with your numbers, and the 9000 stolen copies translates into even 1000 lost sales. That's a lot of lost sales - possibly enough to recoup the costs of a mastering session. See what I'm saying?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Nearly 95% of the CDs I own are a result of filesharing. So has practically every show I've been to. If it were not for filesharing the music industry would have lost thousands of dollars from me personally.

People like you probably aren't the problem though. I'm talking about the people who see something available illegally for free, take it, and never pay for a permanent copy, thus robbing the artist of money they invested in the production, marketing, and distribution of their album/single.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

Ah - but what you fail to acknowledge is that the rampant free downloading is a direct result of the ease of stealing the files. No, it may not directly reflect the specific number of lost sales, but if it was equally easy to steal a CD from a music store, than that would probably happen almost as frequently as digital theft happens.

I don't quite understand the analogy. But I don't think it really applies, people will download from the internet because it's not really hurting anything. CDs are things that people have to pay for. The thing is it is just not *that* easy to download things anymore, particularly obscurities - Soulseek is really the only good option. The lucritive digital download market seems to suggest that people are still willing to pay.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I don't quite understand the analogy. But I don't think it really applies, people will download from the internet because it's not really hurting anything. CDs are things that people have to pay for. The thing is it is just not *that* easy to download things anymore, particularly obscurities - Soulseek is really the only good option. The lucritive digital download market seems to suggest that people are still willing to pay.

Of course it applies. Lost sales = lost money. Lost money = hurt artist.

Providing a digital file may not require the same cost as the actual pressing of a physical cd, but the creation and marketing of the music does cost the same whether it's a cd or a digital file. At least some of that money needs to be recouped through sales, and the success of a release is primarily measured through number of sales.

And as for how easy it is or isn't to obtain digital files illegally, it seems to be pretty easy. A study released last summer showed that an average teenager's digital music player contains an average of 1770 tracks, and of those, an average of 842 tracks were obtained illegally. That's 48% of an average teenager's music collection.

Now in a more recent study released by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), they estimate that around 10% of illegal downloads are probably lost sales. Granted, the IFPI is basically the "global version of the RIAA", so their numbers will surely be questioned, but the 10% assumption doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me.

Now here's something that I don't think a lot of people consider. That 10% probably isn't evenly distributed between all labels and individual releases. So if a specific single is immediately leaked onto a P2P website, it'll take a bigger sales hit than one that doesn't get leaked. And if the leaked one is from a small independent artist, it does serious damage to that artist. So overall, it may only be around 4.8% of the average teenager's music files that represent lost sales for the music industry as a whole, but the individual damage it can do to lesser known artists can still be devastating.

[King of Snake]

[Sean]

Originally Posted by King of Snake

Aside from being exciting to see (thanks for the link ) I think it actually is relevant. The Monty Python approach in this case is a great way to use how the internet is evolving as an advertising opportunity rather than trying to go to war with it. I'm all for this kind of creative thinking.

But making your videos available to be viewed on Youtube as an advertising tool to sell DVDs of your movies and TV shows is very different from having people illegally download them to their computer so they can burn it to DVD for free and watch them any time or place they choose.

I seem to be repeating the same points over and over at this point to little avail though, so I guess that's that. Some people just don't seem to want to accept that stealing the work of artists - especially smaller independent artists - hurts those artist's careers and lives. As a smaller independent artist in the music industry myself, I can attest to it.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

Of course it applies. Lost sales = lost money. Lost money = hurt artist.

Providing a digital file may not require the same cost as the actual pressing of a physical cd, but the creation and marketing of the music does cost the same whether it's a cd or a digital file. At least some of that money needs to be recouped through sales, and the success of a release is primarily measured through number of sales.

And as for how easy it is or isn't to obtain digital files illegally, it seems to be pretty easy. A study released last summer showed that an average teenager's digital music player contains an average of 1770 tracks, and of those, an average of 842 tracks were obtained illegally. That's 48% of an average teenager's music collection.

Now in a more recent study released by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), they estimate that around 10% of illegal downloads are probably lost sales. Granted, the IFPI is basically the "global version of the RIAA", so their numbers will surely be questioned, but the 10% assumption doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me.

Now here's something that I don't think a lot of people consider. That 10% probably isn't evenly distributed between all labels and individual releases. So if a specific single is immediately leaked onto a P2P website, it'll take a bigger sales hit than one that doesn't get leaked. And if the leaked one is from a small independent artist, it does serious damage to that artist. So overall, it may only be around 4.8% of the average teenager's music files that represent lost sales for the music industry as a whole, but the individual damage it can do to lesser known artists can still be devastating.

Of course the question is, how many sales are lost? Dealing with a smaller-scale artist it seems pretty much impossible to tell. I just wonder how much of it has to do with leaks, which is something I think that IS bad for the industry. Discs that get leaked 6 months ahead of the release date have to have lower-than-expected sales. If the industry could stop them I think it would help a lot.

As for the IFPI numbers...such a study seems really tough to do, as I've read some that claimed the opposite. We DO know CD sales peaked in the age of Napster, when free downloading was also at a peak. The RIAA purposely misreports their numbers to make it look like things are worse than they are:

http://www.musicdish.com/mag/?id=9452

They also point their fingers at downloading as an explanation even when they release something like fewer CDs from one year to the next. The internet model seems like it could kill off the idea of the megastar, from whom the RIAA profits immensely. Honestly I believe their problem with downloading is that it opens peoples ears to different types of music, in particular stuff not promoted or even on their labels. When five releases sell 20 million copies apiece, the RIAA's profits skyrocket - however, spread those 100 million sales across many different albums and they make less.