New (new-ish) Argument About Downloads

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Matthew
  • Start date Start date
S

Sir_Matthew

Member
From today's New York Times, here goes.

These people are making an argument I've made for a while, which is that it's false logic to assume that every download counts as a lost sale. Just because you download something doesn't mean you would have bought it otherwise. In fact, you may not even have known of its existence.

Lots of counter-arguments within the article as well. Whaddya think?
 
Can you copy and paste the article? I cleared my cookies and forgot my info for the NYtimes online and I don't feel like finding it... I do wish to read the article though.
 
I don't usually follow this particular news thread so forgive if I'm a little behind the curve of conversation here..... but on this specific topic.... some university recently did a statistical analysis study in which they found that the correlation between downloads and loss of record sales just didnt match up, and thus to some extent countering the [patently false] assertations made by the RIAA that "every download is a sales lost."

Of course, nobody in the right mind, including the people who actually work for the RIAA believe their line of crap..., but that being said, nobody denies that a portion of sales is lost. However, the ratio certainly is not a 1-to-1 relationship. Record sales continue to increase, even for the songs that are the most frequentyly downloaded.

Forgive me for not following along if this is "old news".... maybe this was discussed already.... just thought I'd mention the university study in case anyone missed it the first time around.
 
Maybe not...but both the great independent records stores in my college town closed down this year- one blamed Kazaa and the other DirectConnect.

RIP, old world underground
 
QUOTE> Maybe not...but both the great independent records stores in my college town closed down this year- one blamed Kazaa and the other DirectConnect

---------------------------------------

Small music stores are going the way of obscolencense for the same exact reason (although to a much lesser extent) that small bookstores almost don't exist in America anymore.

... and for the same reason the small mom-and-pop hardware stores are dwindling...

... ditto with 1,000 other examples I could give in other markets.

2 words. or one hypenated word.

MEGA-STORES!!!!

Borders Books, Amazon.com, Tower Records, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, SAMS's Club, Price Club, Costco, ACE Hardware, True Value Hardware, etc... etc.. etc... ad nauseaum.

Thats market forces in action. Any music store that blames Kazza or anyone else for their business failings is not to be listened to.. Their making nothing but excuses.

I'm an ultra capitalist... and I say good riddance to crappy businesses. I like small business just as much as big ones... but hey, its economics man... If these small business can't give me value as a consumer, and can't offer the same prices as the big super-stores, and if nobody goes to the small places anymore.. and they all close down... I say, "bye bye... good riddance".... Darwin. Survival of the fittest. I'm not paying extra on items just so that I can get a warm and fuzzy feeling by keeping "mom-and-pop" business employed; sorry.

As a side note. TOWER Records was in financial trouble recently. I mean, how stupid and incompetant do these big corporations have to be to screw up a perfectly good thing. I'll never understand this. Your a leading market force crushing small independant stores left and right... and yet you still manage to fail... Two words.. Bad management.
 
Good point on the mega-stores having more to do with indies closing than downloads.

I have mixed feelings regarding the demise of mom-n-pop. I have a certain perspective on it because I was one of the first employees of the first Borders in Fort Worth, Texas back in 1994.

And I will tell you that prior to their arrival, book retail SUCKED DONKEY ASS in that town. You had tiny Waldenbooks in the mall (now owned by Borders Inc.), and all of these holes-in-the-wall with surly salespeople, bad selection and nonexistent shelving systems, and it just sucked the royal mule.

Sometimes the antichrist isn't the antichrist. He's just smarter than everyone else.

People are always lamenting the Wal-Martization of the world, and I must say that I've lived in places without a Wal-Mart, and a shopper's paradise it ain't. In fact, if Manhattan doesn't get a Home Depot soon, I'm liable to go vigilante justice on all the local hardware stores to get back all the money they've gouged from me over the past year. $75 for a cheap-ass drill? I don't think so.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that the music industry is changing along with business in general. Consolidation of markets is fairly universal, even as the sub-sections of those markets fragment (hip-hop, Christer rock, country, etc.).

The internet is a prime example. People are conducting more and more of their business through one conduit, regardless of who's on the paying end. The more visibility a company has in that conduit increases the likelihood of their net-wide dominance. No longer do they have to have billboards in every town in America. They have but to run an ad in Salon and MSN.

The article I posted mostly covers the RIAA's 1-to-1 download-to-sale theory, which is purest bunk. It's one more way of trying to stall the future. In the words of Aimee Mann:

"I can't admit that maybe the past was bad
And so, for the sake of momentum
I'm condemning the future to death
So it can match the past..."
 
earthboundrec said:
Can you copy and paste the article? I cleared my cookies and forgot my info for the NYtimes online and I don't feel like finding it... I do wish to read the article though.
Click to expand...

Here's a good excerpt that covers the salient points:

Even under their (the researchers') worst-case example, "it would take 5,000 downloads to reduce the sales of an album by one copy," they wrote. "After annualizing, this would imply a yearly sales loss of two million albums, which is virtually rounding error" given that 803 million records were sold in 2002. Sales dropped by 139 million albums from 2000 to 2002.

"While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing," the professors wrote.

In an interview, Professor Oberholzer-Gee said that previous research assumed that every download could be thought of as a lost sale. In fact, he said, most downloaders were drawn to free music and were unlikely to spend $18 on a CD.

"Say I offer you a free flight to Florida," he asks. "How likely is it that you will go to Florida? It is very likely, because the price is free." If there were no free ticket, that trip to Florida would be much less likely, he said. Similarly, free music might draw all kinds of people, but "it doesn't mean that these people would buy CD's at $18," he said.
 
Believe me, I have my fair share to say about the entertainment industrial complex, but there isn't a single chain record store around here for 35 miles, and the closest one is a Camelot Music in some 3rd-rate shopping center, which charges a fortune for a cd. I guarantee the college students around here weren't driving 45 minutes to spend $25 on a new cd... These are stores which used to be packed when I first moved here, and had been for the last 30 years. But the kids can apparently download an entire album in 60 seconds from the DirectConnect network. What kind of college student can afford to buy as many cds as they want, when they can download them for free?
 
Chrisjob said:
Believe me, I have my fair share to say about the entertainment industrial complex, but there isn't a single chain record store around here for 35 miles, and the closest one is a Camelot Music in some 3rd-rate shopping center, which charges a fortune for a cd. I guarantee the college students around here weren't driving 45 minutes to spend $25 on a new cd... These are stores which used to be packed when I first moved here, and had been for the last 30 years. But the kids can apparently download an entire album in 60 seconds from the DirectConnect network. What kind of college student can afford to buy as many cds as they want, when they can download them for free?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which side of this you're arguing.

The point that Sir_Matthew is making is that those students wouldn't have purchased those CDs anyway so sales have not been lost. In fact, I think you might make an argument that there is the potential for additional sales of concert tickets and CDs because people are being exposed to a wider variety of music than they would hear if it had to be purchased. I know I won't take a $20.00 crapshoot on an album if I'm not sure it's something I'll like.

The problem with this argument is that, in spite of the stupidity of the RIAA and many artists in not embracing the new technology, they still own the rights to their music and, therefore, it is wrong to steal it from them without their permission.

Ted
 
Another thing-

My personal attitude is this- I have downloaded some songs online, but only things that I could not find on a CD. Mostly "B" sides and some boots. And these only from artists I support by purchasing their retail products.

To me, the problem is that most CDs contain a lot of filler and, frequently, only a few songs that are of interest. And that's being generous. A lot of them don't have even one song worth purchasing. That, coupled with most artists not lasting long enough to garner a true following makes it difficult to feel confident in plunking down my money for something I can't be sure I'll be happy with next week. Now, if the CDs cost $8.00-10.00 maybe I'd be willing to take a chance. I know that I've purchased a lot of used CDs at Wherehouse for that very reason. I spend $8.00 and frequently I'm thrilled to come up with a gem I might have passed over at $20.00+.

When I find an artist I truly respect and admire, I am anxious to purchase whatever they put out and do so willing because I trust them and want to support them.

I think another thing that can be done to encourage people to purchase retail CDs is in providing content that you cannot get when you rip an MP3. In addition to liner notes and lyrics, this could be in the form of pictures, interviews, enhanced CDs with videos or links to online content not accesible unless the CD is in the drive, etc. Some of this has been tried and while the content I've seen has been spotty, I think the concept is good. Make the CD/DVD something that you really want, price it fairly and people will purchase it.

I think it's silly for the RIAA to insist that MP3's are killing the music industry. The same argument was made 30 years ago with the advent of the cassette tape. After its advent, the music industry boomed. We heard it again when VCR's came out. Are people still going to the movies? It's patent nonsense. People will gladly pay for product that offers value and quality. Most people do not want to steal.

Ted
 
I think we'll see a change as mp3 player technology and high speed internet become more widespread. Nobody wants to have to sit at their computer to listen to music, and nobody wants to try to download a bunch of 4 mb files over a dialup connection.

It's simply more convenient to have CD's right now. My car won't play mp3s, my living room stereo won't play mp3s, I can't quickly and easily lend an mp3 to a friend unless we both have highspeed internet and the capability to send large email attachments.

But that will change, and someday CD's will not be convenient any more. Then I wonder how many people will want to lay out cash for a CD that they simply plan to rip to mp3 (or hopefully a better codec) anyway, especially if they can find it already converted for free.
 
Putting moral issues aside, heres my realistic take on the issue.... and I think this is the general consencus among people... people just say it in different ways... but its all the same...

The old joke is that alot of people claim that they only listen to mp3's for 'samples' to see if they like the music... and then go out and buy the CD's.... and everyones supposed to go [wink, wink, ha ha "sure you just use mp3s for samples"]...... but really.... there are alot of people that really do that..... myself included.

Not everyone rips mp3's direct to audio cd's. For one thing, I find the quality of mp3's to suck.... in most cases its acceptable listening if I'm just killing time.... but I really would like to have the actual CD's which are higher quality.

Downloading music off the Internet has literally caused a great marketing revolution, not to exxagerate the issue, but it has. It has "opened the door" for people of all ages, to hear all kinds of alternative forms of music that you would likely not get to hear much on the radio.... be it classical, jazz, blues, classic rock, extreme punk rock, industrial, techno, or whatever floats your boat. Yeah... there are stations that play blues and jazz and classical.... but as with any kind of radio music... you have to wade through alot of endless hours of crap... to get to the good stuff.... mp3 dopwnloading lets you hear specific artists... so you can tell right away... if you dig that artist... then if you really like what you hear.... you can go out and buy the CD's which are better quality.

The Internet has truly given me a better appreciation for music, far more than I ever would of had before Internet music downloading came along. I now appreciate more genres than ever. I've spent more money on CD's lately than I ever have before... and thats due in part to my increased interest thanks to downloading.

In the past year and half alone... I've purchased about 12 (overpriced) "box sets" from all kinds of musicians and groups who I've aquired a new appreciation for. Thats abou $700 worth of box sets.... I never would have gotten "into" these groups if it were not for downloading and the ability to selectively choose songs and groups "on the fly."
 
But, of course, you can't put the moral issues aside. Or, maybe, more realistically, you can't put the legal issues aside. While all the arguments for allowing or even encouraging downloading of music online make sense, it still doesn't mean that you have the right to violate the copyright of those whose property you are stealing.

I just think it's incredibly short-sighted of many artists and executives in the recording industry to not embrace this technology and use it to promote their products.

We're starting to see it now, finally, with Apples iPod/ iTunes. Even Wal-Mart is offering downloads at $0.88 a tune. What's surprising to me is, that you're now paying as much for a bunch of Mp3's as you did for an actual CD. Of course, you have the advantage of selectivity.

To digress a bit, am I the only one who remembers when an "album" was a complete entity? A statement of where an artist stood at a particular place and time and, as such, it was meant to be listened to from beginning to end. A sonic journey.
Gettin' old, I guess.

Ted
 
tedluk said:
To digress a bit, am I the only one who remembers when an "album" was a complete entity? A statement of where an artist stood at a particular place and time and, as such, it was meant to be listened to from beginning to end. A sonic journey.
Gettin' old, I guess.

Ted
Click to expand...

Count me in on that rest home, tedluk. That's one of my primary concerns with per-song downloading: The loss of the album form.

Truthfully, the vast majority of artists, even good ones, are no good at the album form. However, I worry that those who work best in a long form won't get the chance to.

There are still artists who make great albums, they're just not the majority. For what it's worth, I designed my own disc with the album mentality in mind. But then, I'm kind of an old fossil, too. An old fossil who's rocking to Genesis' Duke right now...
 
Horses for courses

Remeber even further back, there was only 'the single'.
Then (1950's ?) technology made it possible to fit many songs onto a slab of vinyl but they were really only collections of unconnected songs covered by an artist, or connected songs from the same show or musical etc. Wasn't really until the late 60s early 70s that you get albums really crafted and intended to fit together as a whole piece of work, which is what you guys are referring to.

Now the kids are cherry picking songs from the net by various artists and downloading them to make a collection of favourite songs. This isreally no different to kids buying 45 singles in the 60s by various artists, it's nothing new (expect they aren't having to spend their pocket money on it anymore ;-) ).

Great CD albums are still around. In the UK there's a band called The Divine Comedy who have a beautiful album out right now, it's a crafted entity which should be listened to as a whole. Let's not get carried away, no way is the album as a concept finished just because some artists can't come up with 12 good songs!
 
It does seem as if we're heading back towards the '50s model, which does present some exciting possibilities, given that jukeboxes no longer weigh 100 pounds.

We album-oriented artists just need to do some bright thinking about how to give incentives to download the whole record.

Ideas?
 
Re: Horses for courses

glynb said:
Remeber even further back, there was only 'the single'.
Then (1950's ?) technology made it possible to fit many songs onto a slab of vinyl but they were really only collections of unconnected songs covered by an artist, or connected songs from the same show or musical etc. Wasn't really until the late 60s early 70s that you get albums really crafted and intended to fit together as a whole piece of work, which is what you guys are referring to.

snip

Great CD albums are still around. In the UK there's a band called The Divine Comedy who have a beautiful album out right now, it's a crafted entity which should be listened to as a whole. Let's not get carried away, no way is the album as a concept finished just because some artists can't come up with 12 good songs!
Click to expand...

You make a good point about the '50s paradigm. I think it's true that the "album" as an art form really came of age in the late '60s early '70s.

It's not that I fear it's dying because artists can't come up with 12 good songs (though there is a lot of that). It's more that with people picking and choosing songs, I'm not sure that the practice will survive. I'm not talking just about concept albums, mind you. I think that most great albums have a cohesivness where all the songs just seem to fit together and their order enhances the overall experience of listening to them.

We album-oriented artists just need to do some bright thinking about how to give incentives to download the whole record.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear that there has to be content provided that is perceived as having enough value to justify the cost of getting all the songs. Obviously, discounting when all of the songs are D/L would be an option. Here's another wild idea- How about making each song so good that people actually WANT to hear all of them? I know, I know, that's probably too radical. ;)

Ted
 
Sir_Matthew said:

We album-oriented artists just need to do some bright thinking about how to give incentives to download the whole record.

Ideas?
Click to expand...

Save the whole album as one big file :D

Seriously, though, i agree with you. But maybe those who really care about the art of "album making" will continue to want material in that format and buy it. After all, if the ricky martin fans of the world move over to singles, are "album bands" really losing an audience?
 
oddly enough the mom and pop gas station is still booming....but if more and more people start buying the hybrid cars....that could change also.


anyway. yeah i like saving the cd as one big download. when i think of making a cd...the word "single" never comes to mind. its more like....this is a good cd and 3 or 4 could be really big hits.

did anyone ever hear the Trustcompany cd? i downloaded their first single and then went to kazaa to hear some of the others...i kept liking each one i heard so i went out to best buy and bought the cd. had i heard only clips of the songs i probably wouldnt have bought it.
 
FYI,

This is a good article about a band that's selling mp3s in groups, basically an album, per our conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top