Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Music sales fall despite digital growth

RAPHAEL G. SATTER

Reuters

Latest comment posted at 5:18 PM EDT 24/01/08

Music industry calling on ISPs to take more responsibility for illegal file sharing ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Sam Snead from Canada writes: 'The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, or IFPI, said the increase in legitimate music sales did not come close to offsetting the billions of dollars being lost to music piracy, with illegal downloads outnumbering the number of tracks sold by a factor of 20-to-1.'

    It's unrealistic to expect the revenue numbers to be the same given the distribution channel costs is much cheaper. Maybe over time the volume will increase to offset these loses. they are a number of ways that could happen.

    Regarding the billions of dollars lost .. it is not lost, it just went elsewhere. The money is still spent, it still went into the economy.

    Technology and social change always affects business. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. It sucks when you're on the wrong end, but that's the way it is. In the end, it is usually best for most.

    If you can use that argument to justify outsourcing, you can certainly use it to justify the effect of the entertainment business.
  2. Akbar M from Regina, Canada writes: There's no real hope of stemming this flow away from CD's. The diskman has gone the way of the phonograph. Almost everyone I see listening to a personal music device uses one that utilizes digital media. People are loathe to pay the price for something that can be recorded once (by the artist in a studio) and then reproduced infinitely for almost no cost. This is an economic issue. If the record companies can't understand this there's no way to make them understand.
  3. J J from Canada writes: These stories seem to go out every month or so, first from the IFPI, then the RIAA, then the MPAA, and then they start over again complaining how they are all living on mayonaise sandwiches because of pirating and sharing.

    I had a huge record collection in the early 80's, and I made several hundred transfers to cassette tape for friends, etc. And I am sure that there were hundreds of thousands of others who did the same thing, but no one screamed of pirating then. The only difference now is the presence of the internet which makes it easier.

    DRMA has proven to be more of a curse than a blessing to the industry. This as well makes people turn to downloads, so they can play songs on their Ipod, or mp3 player.

    If the companies want to curb (no eliminate) piracy, drop the prices! $25 for a CD is too much! HD DVD's and Blu Ray discs are outrageous. I looked at getting one the other day - $44 at HMV!!! No wonder people turn to the internet.
  4. Kevin Henning from Canada writes: For the G&M editors: Did the IFPI say where they got the 20:1 ratio? If they did, then please update the story so that it is possible to evaluate the claims. I seem to remember this ratio was being used a few years ago, so if they haven't updated it, then any increase in digital sales automatically increases the piracy numbers, regardless of what actually happened. I don't even remember where they got it from back then. In fact, given the traffic shaping that has been occurring by ISPs of late, even if the 20:1 ratio was valid at one point, it may down at this point in time.
  5. John Doucette from Manotick, Canada writes: Pirates? Pirates? The greedy music execs selling the music at inflated prices! More bootlegging!
  6. Seb D from Ottawa, Canada writes: Sam Snead: I agree. Customers not getting screwed out of billions is a good thing. Record companies are middlemen who are becoming more and more irrelevant every day. Time to cut them out.
  7. I Brian from Canada writes: In the interest of balanced reporting, can we have some critical evaluation of the claims made by IFPI and other industry bodies like that, please?

    If not, I hope G&M treats these kinds of articles as advertisement, and charges the submitters accordingly.
  8. brokeback mountain from Canada writes: i don't think Celine Dijon is sleeping on the street and live on white bread.. maybe singers should make money by actually singing live shows at restaurants as opposed to sitting in their mansions, collecting royalties..whatever they are losing, they are getting it back from the tax on blank cd's...
  9. Dave S from Canada writes: Fun with numbers....

    music download revenues: $2.9B
    total music revenues: 2.9 / 0.15 = $19.3B
    lost pirated music revenues: 2.9 x 20 = $58.0B

    The IFPI is trying to suggest that the lost revenue due to illegal downloads is more than 3 times the size of all music sales. I don't think so.
  10. Unabashed Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: As almost every statistic ever quoted by the recording and movie industry associations has effectively been pulled out of their nether parts (and has shown to be wrong), I'll guess that these numbers are wrong as well. There is no rational business logic that says that the dollar volume of plastic-coated aluminum disk sales should necessarily equal the dollar volume of electronically transferred bit sales. Or put another way, the fact that consumers were forced to buy a CD with ten or so unwanted songs to get a couple that they wanted shouldn't obligate them to pay to download the still unwanted songs.

    It has been shown in reliable studies that those who download unpaid-for music also spend the most in paid-for music, that money that used to go to music purchases has gone for game and movie purchases (and other discretionary spending), and that much of what is so-called pirated would not have been purchased anyway (but revenue could be recovered under the 'brown bananas' business rubric).

    Politicians and policy makers have been hoodwinked and bribed by the content cartels into making onerous laws that jeopardize creativity, innovation, and carry with them a cornucopia of unintended consequences with respect to rights that we used to enjoy. The massmedia, including the Globe and Mail, would do well to stop publishing the content cartel's press releases without critical reflection.
  11. R M from Canada writes: Using the 20:1 ratio as a statistic to define their losses to piracy is hilarious.

    Let's say the Internet suddenly shut down today. Do they really believe that CD sales would jump by a factor of 20? Let's get real here.

    People dowload a lot of stuff that they wouldn't have necessarily bought. As a matter of fact, some people have so much downloaded music that there's no way they could listen to it all in an average lifetime.
  12. P Scott from Canada writes: I've said it before and I'll say it again: BRING DOWN THE PRICE OF CDs!!!

    It's called competition. Try to keep up and stop BLAMING THE CONSUMER.
  13. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:
    P Scott,

    With all due respect, bringing down the price of CD's is akin to bringing down the price of buggy whips.

    That is you've got a handle on the wrong end of the equation: that format's relevancy is approaching zero faster than the overnight low in Yellowknife, faster than the credit rating of a sub-prime borrower, faster than . . . well you get my point.
  14. Jen Woods from Saskatoon, Canada writes: i wonder what music they are playing in the secret bunker of the international anti-piracy network headquaaaaaaaaaaaaareterrrs.

    do you think it's 'Shiver Me Timbers' from the Muppets Treasure Island soundtrack or 'It's a Pirates Life for me' - the Johnny Depp version? My kids love pirate music.
  15. L H from Canada writes: Has anyone LISTENED to 'music' these days? Music sales could be down because musical talent isn't much more than a generalized cacophony that sounds exactly the same as all the rest of the crap that gets churned out of the 'studios'.
  16. Stop! Think! from Canada writes: Right....Maybe its becuse a CD stillo costs the same, if not more, than they did when they came out in 1985...And quality of music is WAY DOWN....Who wanst CD's anymore anyways, its a dead medium...These companies should be moving their industry awat from this archaic business model and come to the 21st century....As so many CONS say....If you can't compete in the market, then die!!!!
  17. THX 1138 from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Record Industry Executives: Get a reality check! Sales are down because:

    1. Most top-40 music is useless with the sappy Celine Dion & rap that rhymes with crap as prime examples.
    2. CDs are way overpriced.
    3. Their sales forecasts are likely unrealistic.
    4. Consumers are labelled as thieves because they 'might' download music and make more than one copy for personal use.
  18. Rtab 2 from Canada writes: brokeback mountain: Your example is absurd. The vast majority of musicians are not wealthy. No one claims that the Celine Dions of the world are having a hard time of it. Citing her confuses the larger issue of how, in the new digital reality, to get money into the hands of the far, far larger number of artists who make music and who don't make much money.

    It's a question of ethics. One can treat freely available music as a kind of sampler. If you like something you've gotten for nothing, it behooves you to support that artist by sending some of your money their way. Sure, share it, 'cuz that's how the word spreads about good music, but encourage your share partners also to send money to artists. Buy their CD or T-shirt or button, go see them play, use their e-commerce sites or iTunes or whatever. The music industry's revenue models are changing and the dinosaurs are groaning about it: that's an old story. At bottom, what continues as always to be relevant is to ensure that those who make the work can live to make more. We as consumers can help. The internet gives us more direct access than ever to artists, including the ability to say, your stuff's great, here's $5 or $10 for the EP I downloaded.
  19. L H from Canada writes: lol@download-a-t-shirt!
  20. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: here they go again... undocumentedly and dementedly blaming the ... gasp... internet ... lessee... yesterday it was the college stoodnts ... today it's... o yah... the ISP's... tomorrow it will be the terrorists... but not themselves for having pretty much dumped such crap onto the media and dared to charge such excessive costs for their acquisitons.

    YO HO HO AND A BOTTLE OF RUM!!!
  21. Sask Langer from Canada writes: This is only an issue if you use the same cooked accounting the music industry does. Let's take a more local example:

    You own a grocery store, and people start planting their own corn. Suddenly, a few people are buying less corn. Well let's just assume that anyone who buys corn would also buy carrots, potatoes, and one of every other thing you sell in the produce department. Well then you just take the number of people who stopped buying corn and assume they would have bought one of everything else, and that's the amount of money you 'lost' that month. Then just assume those same people would have bought $400 worth of meat each, and multiply it by 4 for good measure (you know, there's 4 people in each house). So now not only did you lose all that money in the first place, but you lost $1600 PER PERSON! That's a 20:1 loss!

    These are the same industries that recently revealed the '40% loss in sales due to college students downloading music' was actually 'more like 14%'. That 26% loss of an already made up number was also made up. But at least they succeeded in getting legislation in the states that forced colleges to levy fees on their students to pay for (severely DRM-crippled) subscription-based music and movie services. AND THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING IN CANADA thanks entirely to JIM PRENTICE, and behind the backs of Canadians, with only input from the US Media Lobby. And despite repeated public outcries and negative reviews, Jim Prentice is forging ahead with this universally bad decision based on entirely made-up numbers.

    STOP JIM PRENTICE AND THE CANDAIAN DMCA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
  22. Stephen McPherson from Bradford, Canada writes: P Scott - Right on! When the CD replaced the LP prices shot up over double. The music industry justified it by saying the quality was so much better! Horse puckies! Corporate greed IMHO. CD's are so much cheaper to manufacture than LP's were, yet the price point on CD's still remains far too high over 20 years after there were introduced to the market. Soemthing stinks here and it sure smells like a load of BS to me.
  23. Ryan Schultz from Winnipeg, Canada writes: A C from Albertario: I have reported you to the Metaphor Police.
  24. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: here they go again... undocumentedly and dementedly blaming the ... gasp... internet ... lessee... yesterday it was the college stoodnts ... today it's... o yah... the ISP's... tomorrow it will be the terrorists... but not themselves for having pretty much dumped such crap onto the media and dared to charge such excessive costs for their acquisitons.

    YO HO HO AND A BOTTLE OF RUM!!!

    ARRGH, matey. An' she be a fine sea to sail...

    ...then the FRENCH step in. The Sarkozy government, along with ISPs and owners of film and music rights have set and agreement to 'monitor' internet usage and cut off pirates. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7110024.stm for details.

    Monsieur Liberte has built a real reactionary mousetrap. But in a month or so, we will see the better mouse.
  25. Hans S from Toronto, Canada writes: Message to the majors: you are irrelevant and will become even more so.
    It's about time. Arrogantly ripping off consumers, ripping off musicians and claiming to 'own' music. The majors have not been interested in music for a long time, and have been more content in selling 'product' that pushes fizzy drinks, burgers and other junk on us. Good riddance.
  26. The Dude from Canada writes: Advances in technology obsoletes some industries (how are the blacksmith and typewriter manufacturing businesses these days?) and dramatically changes the business model for others. Those who adapt the quickest win and those who don't lose and evaporate.

    If you read any of the more in-depth articles of how the music industry dealt with the arrival of digital music distribution (napster forward) you can see that they are just trying to buy time with these legal measures so that they can make up the time they lost trying to maintain the business model and revenue stream they were so comfortable with. In general, music industry execs are not tech savvy. They were not ready for this change and they are suffering the consequences.

    As far as I'm concerned, they are getting what they deserve. For the amount of time that the music industry has been screwing artists, they deserve the venom directed towards them. Their constant screaming about piracy is really the sound of an unnecessary piece of the music distribution chain dying a painful death.
  27. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: I can justify paying $20 for a DVD because it literally costs them hundreds of millions to make some of them.

    Music on the other hand, should not take anywhere near that much to make. Get rid of the artist's manager, the manager's agent, the producer's manager, the producer's manager's manager, and cut down the artist's salary to a mere 5-10x the average salary. Basically the entire industry's cost structure is bloated and everyone still wants to keep their paycheque so they refuse to downsize.

    Eventually they will figure it out, but by then it will be fully ingrained into the mentality of consumers that music is a huge rip off.
  28. ross macdonald from writes: The music and film industry needs to accept the Internet, embrace it and establish new ways to develop their market with the Internet in mind. Yes their profit has dropped over the last 5-10 years and piracy exists. They have been forced to reduce their profit margins on CD and DVD sales from 5000% to 2000% and the average income for their CEO's and the music and film artists has dropped significantly to $10 million per year. ISP's have no business or responsibilities to police their customers. They want to have the right to limit or eliminate bandwidth for customers and still expect them to pay monthly Internet fees to these companies? Give me a break. Most people are still purchasing DVD's, Cd's or buying digital online. There will always be people doing 'illegal' things. Just think of the steps that will have to be taken to monitor what we do over the Internet to weed out piracy. It's bad enough that companies created spyware and other means to see what you do to be able to market, spam us, create pop-ups, etc- but these kinds of things that slow down computers and create headaches are 'legal', right?
  29. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: 'Rtab 2 from Canada writes: brokeback mountain: Your example is absurd. The vast majority of musicians are not wealthy.'

    i didnt realize that being a musician is about getting rich... when a musician enters this industry nowadays, he/she should know there is a risk of free downloading and might be make money off SELLING CD's, how ever, there is an option of making money through singing live, at restaurants, shows at the malls, etc...

    I work in marketing/advertising, I don't get royalties on the ideas I generated, nor do i get paid for the ideas if someone else stole it...

    Writers, cloth designers certainly don't get royalites if someone is photocopying the books in the library etc..

    so why are musicians exempt from this? they are more superior? esp a lot of them can't even sing.. their voices are being manipulated in the studio by high tech software

    if they make their living by actually WORKING, ie singing at restaurants, they can make a living
  30. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: it s funny how they didn't give the value to the fact that illegal downloading helped so many singers become more popular.. people wouldn't have listened to these singers in first place anyway..
  31. John Ritchie from Canada writes: I spent the last 30 years buying albums, replacing albums with CDs, and replacing CDs with box sets or remastered versions. I paid $15-$20 for each of them. People like myself artificially inflated the album companies' sales figures and profits. Sadly (for them) I've already given them a total of $45 for 'Dark Side of the Moon'; they won't be getting another $20 from me or my family, which is what they would like my son to pay for an album that came out 35 years ago. I'm pretty sure they've recouped their costs on this one, so the profit margin is a little fat from my perspective. I'm confident that loading it on his iPod is morally and ethically sound, no matter how the 'content cartel' (I love that!) might try to spin it. During those same 30 years, I've made my share of album and CD purchases in an attempt to get the one song I like. Yes, I paid $15 for a Chumbawumba CD because, in a moment of weekness, I thought I kind of liked 'I Get Knocked Down'. Now, with iTunes, I might (after a few beers) think it would be worth 99 cents to download a copy of that song. Sampling the rest of that crappy album would immediately dissuade me from ever forking over the remaining $9 (iTunes) or $15 (HMV CD price), no matter how much beer I've had. So right there I'm voting with my money - no more will I enrich the record companies' coffers with money from one-hit-wonders. In combination with my family's purchases of DVDs and PS2 video games, I probably give the record companies a tidy profit on my entertainment purchases - more than ever, in fact. They just aren't getting as much as they used to for the CDs in my collection as they once did. But reporting this fact suits their purposes, so they omit the rest of the picture. Shame on the Globe for regurgitating another record industry 'news' release without publishing some alternate viewpoints.
  32. Jeremy K from north vancouver, Canada writes: i havent heard a decent piece of original music in a long long time. Instead the music studios pump out formulaic crap because they are too bottom line driven and they wonder why sales are falling

    hello your product has become increasingly sucky in the last decade
  33. B Z from Canada writes: The major problem is that the pricing of CDs for consumers has changed very little, while the cost of production has dropped dramatically (all you need is a computer a decent ear, and some creativity). I was in a 'Music World' recently because they were having a going out of business sale. Everything in the store was 50% off, the store was PACKED, and most people were buying multiple CDs. The whole time I was waiting in line (it was long), I was thinking what idiots the record execs are, suing college kids rather then just dropping prices...
  34. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: i bought the songs when they were on cassette, then of course cassettes didn't last long, then bought again on album.. then songs get released again as part of 'Best Collection', which was a combo of mostly old songs, plus one new song, then re-packaged and put on CD's, then re-surfaced in another form.. i am sure a lot people went through that and ended paying for that same song over and over again.. at the end, download it again free on the net... and never again buy another cd as u can find a way to download any new songs for free, or get them from your friends... if the record companies were less sleazy in the way they ran their business, things would have been different.. they dug their own graves!
  35. The Dude from Canada writes: I'm not sure it's ever been mentioned but another cause of the fall of revenue from music may just be a demographic shift.

    The boomers and those slightly younger (let's say 30-40 years old) have probably largely filled out their collections (mostly older music from the 90s back) with CDs and are now finding modern music less appealing and are buying less. This group is familiar with the album and has a higher tendency (as a generalization) to buy an album vs a single.

    The younger generation, with less money, a greater appetite for music, and more flexibility with respect to technological change, have readily adapted to the 99-cents-for-a-single consumption model or are bittorrenting their music.

    As many have noted above the ability to buy a song at a time (remember when singles were $5-$7 on tape/records) vs buying a CD that I can't fully explain where the bulk of the price went to (AFAIK $1 for CD production, less than a $1 to the artist, where's the rest?) will definitely cause the revenue drop from music that the RIAA and IFPI are whining about.
  36. Brendan Hardy from Moncton, Canada writes: These stories always are such a sham.
    1)Cd's and DVD's are over priced. This is how a free market works. IF they lowered prices, sales would go up. Plain and simple.
    2)Goverment stepping in to remove peoples internet access in France is such a step backwards, that I can't believe they would even dare to suggest it!
    3)Most of what people download, including myself, is stuff that I would never buy or listen to or watch if I had to pay for it. That being said, as a result of this I have become interested in artist's, group's and actors that I had no prior exposure to.
    4)Exchanging info, personal files or documents with others should never be something that is banned. There are numerous examples of things over history that can be likened to this issue, yet change is inevitable.

    I have presented these arguments in a rational manner. Don't even get me started on the other side of things such as the huge $ the record company's make, the outlandish prices for cheap plastic junk they try to sell us, and how cool would it be if we all had to buy 'walkmans' again with anti-skip technology to listen to music or carry around portable DVD players to watch a movie while away from home?!
  37. RONNIE MILLER from ELDORADO, Canada writes: I have read all the comments and they all make varying degrees of great points. I will show my age by saying that I started being a music collector in 1972. I remember my first 45 I bought still. In those days I watched the weekly hits show and bought one 45 a week and an album a month, from my allowance and paper round. In those days we also shared music via cassette with friends, whats really different now? The young generation today of teens have virtually grown up never paying for any music! Not their fault. It's the environment my three teen kids have grown up into. The record companies were bleating in the late 70's how home taping was killing music. It was keeping it alive actually, by keeping it at the centre of youth culture and activity. There were even sections at the local library in the early 1980's where you could go a take out vinyl records just like books. I would go 2 or 3 times a week and get out 4 albums a time and listen to them at home and tape the ones I liked. Strangely enough though still my own new record collection still kept growing till it exceeded 2000 and I stopped counting. Next music watershed was the beginning of the end, circa mid 80's when CD's replaced vinyl. The music companies gouged heavily their loyal customer base by trying to re-sell to them again what they allready owned at disgusting prices. At the same time the quality and originality of new musical talent started to shrink. The music industry has destroyed itself by their betraying their customers and failing to go out and properly invest in talent scouting, and nuturing. It took bands 2 or 3 albums till they hit their 'purple sound'. I do not think I am alone amongst consumers of any performing arts in feeling when I buy a record/cd/book/video/dvd etc, I own my 'private rights' to this item permanently. So when I try to transfer my purchased videos onto DVD and encounter a 'bugging' to make me buy it all again, I AM NOT IMPRESSED !!
  38. DV P from Montreal, Canada writes: You know, with all the advances in computer technology being geared towards making everything smaller - why hasn't the media caught up? One of the main reasons I don't buy music or movies anymore is because space is a premium where I live. DVD's and CD's add up over time and it can be impossible to find places to put them. If they can make thumb sized USB drives that hold up to 128 GB of space (more than a Blu-Ray disc), I don't see why can't they make something that size for multimedia applications.
  39. Ben Dover from Ottawa, Canada writes: The music artists release their music for free on the internet as advertising, everyone downloads good music to their machines, then the band goes on the road to promo their music live making money on ticket sales thereby skipping the middle-man i.e. the high-priced music executives... What the artist needs is a good manager in touch with the music venues and music equipment companies.
  40. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Most of you missed the point: sales of music, regardless of the format are down. That means that more and more files are being shared illegally.

    The function of record companies is to find, groom and present talent. Take that away and what is left is a bunch of musicians that should have day jobs eking out a living via a website for downloads of their tunes and live gigs. Ultimately this 'system' will consume itself and no new talent will be marketed and the music industry will die.

    The illegal sharing of files is theft, plain and simple. In retail it is called leakage. Imagine trying to operate a store where 25% of the products on your shelves are stolen every day. How long will your business last?
  41. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Dick Nails from Canada writes: Most of you missed the point: sales of music, regardless of the format are down. That means that more and more files are being shared illegally.

    NO IT DOES NOT.
  42. E Newell from Canada writes: Apparently, the music industry wants ISP's to do their dirty work for them. The day my current ISP undertakes (in any way) to do such dirty work will also be the day that I switch to an ISP that can't be bought.
  43. the catholic church from Purgatory, Canada writes: Yet another marketing spin attempt by a lobbying group to try convince politicians to support their business through legislation, rather than through good business sense. We've heard this thousands of times before in the last 5 years, and their tune still hasn't changed. It would be very revealing to have an independent study done of people's real reasons for not buying CD's. I suspect you'd find a larger impact from the lack of diversity among recording artists than the impact claimed by the IFPI resulting from downloads. What even more telling is the other studies done previously which found that downloading had no material impact on CD sales, rather that those individuals who download are more likely to spend money on music, on average buying more CD's than those who don't download. Besides, downloading is legal in Canada - I love that the G&M has conveniently overlooked that fact in writing this article.

    @ Unabashed Opinion from Toronto, Canada:
    It has been shown in reliable studies that those who download unpaid-for music also spend the most in paid-for music, that money that used to go to music purchases has gone for game and movie purchases (and other discretionary spending), and that much of what is so-called pirated would not have been purchased anyway

    Dead-on. We need the media to cover both sides of this story, not just the perspective of the music industry. To be honest, I don't think most people care what the music thinks or has to say on this subject any more.
  44. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Dick Nails from Canada writes: Imagine trying to operate a store where 25% of the products on your shelves are stolen every day. How long will your business last?

    No. Imagine running a bookshop and trying to convince regulators that every person who buys a copy of a book stolen from your store would have bought every book that you sell and thus you're losing all this money from imaginary sales. Life is hard for the music industry, I know.

    But the simplistic 'imagine the music industry is a store' metaphor doesn't work on the internet. They are not the same thing at all. Imaginary sales are not sales, no matter how much you want them to be. Just because someone takes something that's easily copied does not mean they would spend money on it.

    -- and while I'm on it --

    Dick Nails from Canada writes: The function of record companies is to find, groom and present talent.

    So why aren't they doing it? Is it because it's easier to release the same old over-produced, formulaic garbage again and again, then just rely on good old-fashioned payola to make sure it's what most people listen to? When the record companies actually find TALENT, it will be a welcome change. Until then I'll pay my $0.50/track for music and do the 'finding talent' myself. And given the garbage on the radio vs. what one can find on sites like emusic, I'm fairly certain I'm doing better at it than the record companies anyway.

    Do you love your boy bands that much that you'll actually come on here and defend an ineffective, dying business model with ridiculous arguments?
  45. the catholic church from Purgatory, Canada writes: @ Dick Nails:
    'The illegal sharing of files is theft, plain and simple. In retail it is called leakage. Imagine trying to operate a store where 25% of the products on your shelves are stolen every day. How long will your business last?'

    Actually, Dick, it's not. Theft is a felony and is covered by the criminal code (in both the US and Canada), whereas sharing files is at worst a case of copyright infringement, which is a civil matter. Copyright infringement is not a criminal offence, even in the U.S. And, I hate to break it to you, file sharing isn't even copyright infringement in Canada at the moment. You pay a tariff on blank CDs/DVDs that supposedly offsets lost copyright revenue, which as a result has set legal precedent in Canada that copyright infringement through file sharing cannot be taken to court.

    You need to be really clear about which country you're talking about when you mention 'illegal file sharing', because the only illegal file sharing that's currently possible in Canada is with regard to the material itself being illegal, not the sharing (e.g. kiddy porn, snuff flicks, etc.).

    Stop spreading false information - one might think you're working for the music industry.
  46. Michael Foley from Canada writes: Record companies are actually obsolete. All they do is overhype their roster of terrible artists and their new 'offerings' while neglecting better artists. Artists don't need Music companies to survive it it the other way around. It is organizations like Rolling Stone (and other music oriented) magazines, legal digital download outlets (like itunes), web blogs, youtube, etc. that will be providing us with the pulse of the music industry. Look at all of the options now available to discover music genres now - social networks, discussion groups, fanzines and online societies totally devoted to every genre possible. And imagine, actually being able to sample a full album before deciding to buy it - not to mention buying only the songs you like and not the rest of the crap used as filler on each album. Bands like Radiohead - who have offered their latest release online and force you to pay only what you want for it - will soon be the standard. They can go into a studio, record their tracks and release them without the interference of the music company and their reps. They reap the rewards instead of the 1% royalty they get per unit sold. Artists will now be forced to release 'good' music and support it by touring. The band manager will now be more important than ever as they will be responsible for getting airplay on the radio, Muchmusic, and the Satellite radio stations, appearances on TV, in movies, songs used in commercials and looking for opportunities online to hype the band. This is how the music industry should work - it shouldn't be controlled by the idiots who still believe a CD is the way to release music.
  47. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Sask Lounger: go here http://www.economist.com/ and search 'emi' and this story will come up. The link is too long to post here. Below is a para from the article.

    IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. “That was the moment we realised the game was completely up,” says a person who was there.

    Paid digital downloads grew rapidly, but did not begin to make up for the loss of revenue from CDs. More worryingly for the industry, the growth of digital downloads appears to be slowing.

    And WRT to your stupid, infantile boy band comment, you are an idiot. You know nothing of my music preference and ignorantly assume that I am an adolescent. Given your moronic 'comments', you are close to the age of your birth than I am to my death (you will need some help to sort that out no doubt but maybe when you finish your education your logic circuits my become activated).
  48. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Copyright infringement = theft. It is no different than stealing any object from a vendor.

    It is the gang of 20 nothing that are all for the theft of property. Fine, I am coming over to your shared with 5 people accomodation and liberating your stove and maybe some furniture. And just for a laff, your identity.
  49. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Michael Foley, I hope you are using a 'nym. Else your idiocy is revealed for all: 'Artists will now be forced to release 'good' music and support it by touring.'

    Yeah, they are holding out their good music.

    And this: 'The band manager will now be more important than ever as they will be responsible for getting airplay on the radio.'

    What you don't understand is the function of the record company. The band mgr can at best get the attention of the record company. If and when the record companies fail, the mgr is left to do the marketing and promotion of the band. So in the end the consumer is offered and endless supply of musicians that should be doing something else, trying to sell more dreck in a market saturated with bands of equal (low) quality in and industry that is wide and thin. Good luck with that. If you don't like what you hear now you won't like the future any better.
  50. Ice Rider from Edmonton, Canada writes: The music industry has for too long been thuggish when it comes to people who want to buy their product. I can undertand why a Michael Buble or 50 Cent CD has to be priced to cover all costs, but why does a Rolling Stones or Frank Sinatra CD cost as much when the record company covered all but the pressing and distribution costs decades ago? These dinosaurs have no one to blame but themselves. I'll continue to download from Limewire or other P2P site and laugh at the suits as they struggle futilely to free themselves from the tarpits of bad management and greed. Ha Ha!
  51. A J from Canada writes: How about a story on the music industry's model. How about someone come along and do for music what's been done for open source software? Open Source Music?

    Recording companies can bite my shiny metal a$$. They are currently being phased out but they are struggling like a tuna on deck.

    Like many here, I have spent years buying the same songs over and over. I haven't bought a CD in years for a number of reasons and, at this point, I won't be investing in obsolete technology. Otoh, I'm leary of paying a buck a song for a file with DRM controlling how I use it.

    Fwiw, I think that if ISPs go beyond shaping file-sharing traffic to preventing it, people will just adapt by disguising or encrypting such activities and they won't be able to even shape it. Not in their best interest.

    A J
  52. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: The music industry IS obsolete - the very definition of 'no value added'.

    What do they do again? Distribute music? Thanks - for nothing. Time to get in line with the unemployed alchemists and blacksmiths.
  53. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: no sympathy for the music producers, who still have too few avenues for people to download music legally. no one wants to pay $20 for a CD full of crap, just so they can get one song. and considering the quality (read: lackthereof) of music coming out these days, its no wonder no one wants the full album anymore. large music producers are also opposed to downloadng because it gives independent artists a chance to level the playing field, taking even more profits away. tough.
    this is business, either get ahead of the curve, or get out of the way.
  54. C Stevens from Brampton, ON, Canada writes: Okay, piracy is rampant, as for the guess-timate that Piracy is responsible for 3 a loss of '3 times' the revenue from sales, they may be right, they could be, but it depends upon how you count it and whether there's real benefit from an initiated download. That aside, the idea that ISPs can tell, or should determine, whether a file is being transferred legitimately between point A and point B is the real question. There are plenty of people who use the BitTorrent tools for legitimate purposes, these people need not be persecuted if they are not infringing on copyright, do they?

    So, should the ISPs be involved, no. There's really no manner by which to police who's using their connection for what, if you close one door they'll open another, there are sufficient encryption methodologies out there that you would not 'know' one sort of traffic from another, so experience and technically adept users will evade the net and continue downloading whatever they wish. The neophytes are left to the prosecutors.

    Now, if a process and the laws were such that being caught with Recordable Media, that contains a verifiably copyrighted material (Audio, MP3s, DVD) were efficiently checked against licenses included with downloads and original sources, they punishment would serve as a true threat. The problem here is that so many people from all aapects of society are infringing on copyright through download, provision, and distribution that even law enforcement officers would be guilty of such crimes. We also have an outstanding issue in Canada in that downloading of audio files is not illegal, though other mediums seem restricted.

    There is no simple solution, but ISPs are not part of the problem.
  55. Michael Foley from Canada writes: Dick Nails says 'So in the end the consumer is offered and endless supply of musicians that should be doing something else, trying to sell more dreck in a market saturated with bands of equal (low) quality in and industry that is wide and thin. '

    And that is not what is happening now? How many more Britney Spears wannabee's do we need?

    As for using my name - why would I not use my name? Only those that don't believe what they're actually saying hide behind a name like Dick Nails
  56. Mister J from Canada writes: Funny that no one's mentioned that this is the recent trend is 'indie,' which means independent. If I don't read the 'news,' I'd be sure that music is becoming more and more popular, but from the local, indie bands.

    beatport.com
  57. Bob Smith from Vancouver, Canada writes: Let's see: I spend about $7 to legally purchase a few songs from PureTracks. Then I discover the download mechanism is rather complicated and, for whatever reason, cannot be completed. I need customer service.

    That takes a couple days to sort out; then I discover since I purchased the tunes on my laptop, the Digital Rights Management junk prevents me from listening to them on my desktop computer! Damn! So I repeat the whole procedure on my desktop, including paying again - right up to the point where I encounter exactly the same tech problems.

    So to hell with it. I download and install Limewire in about three minutes. Another three minutes later, I have all the tunes I wanted, free of charge, no tech issues. I even virus scanned them for free.

    Is it any wonder people scoff at legal downloading? Why would I use a service that costs money for lousy service and a limited product?

    If it was as easy as Limewire, I'd happily pay. But I won't pay to be inconvenienced. Instead, next time I use Limewire, I'll make a donation to my local symphony orchestra.
  58. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Michael Foley: you made my point precisely: And that is not what is happening now? How many more Britney Spears wannabee's do we need?

    The function of the record company AR types is to find the talent and market it. If the market it flooded with sound alikes it will kill that market.
  59. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Dick Nails from Canada writes: ...But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. 'That was the moment we realised the game was completely up,' says a person who was there...

    What CDs were they? Were they terrible? I bet they were. Never doubt that teenagers know what's up and coming, or even what's good. Even my brother could tell you what was going to be popular in 6 months to a year before he could drive.

    And I don't assume you're adolescent, I assume you just have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. What 'fabulous' music genre perpetuated by the major labels these days besides boy bands can't one get from independent sources or from labels that are willing to embrace the internet rather than fight it? If the only music you listen to comes from those labels then I may as well write off your music preference as easily as it was to write off your tech-awareness.

    Plus I'll guarantee you I have more education in technology and the internet than you could ever get in your remaining years, which will probably be a lot assuming you live as long as I've been alive. And I do have multiple degrees to back it up. Not to mention in the time I remember hearing 'big important business people who read the economist' first whispering about how this 'movie downloading' thing might happen in the future (back when the music industry was discovering Napster)... years after people had already started downloading movies. It made us all laugh to know how far behind the times the industry was and still is.

    And you claim that WITHOUT the major labels everything will sound the same? I'm glad the labels came along, then, and saved us from the repetitive garbage that we call 'the classics'. Do you even listen to yourself?
  60. RONNIE MILLER from ELDORADO, Canada writes: I am not going to get into the arguement of the details of copyright infringement = theft. As far as I am concerned the copyrighted article I buy, I buy for my personal use. I cannot duplicate it for resale to another for monetary profit to me. But I can do personally for myself whatever I want with it after buying it. I so happened it was easier for me to download songs I had allready bought before on single and album, rather than have my house turned upside down with records and cds all over the place, uploading onto my computer and then burning onto disc in collections I liked. In 35 years of purchasing from all areas of creative arts I have spent something like $50,000 I know some will critisize me for my comments now, but I have bought 30 Elton John LPs and Cds over the years. I do not need to pay over and over for the stuff I have bought to greedy record companies or a multi-millionaire like Elton. I'd rather donate to sponsor one of the 30,000 children who die every day in the thirld world. ......I must say Elton did wear a particularly modest costume for him whilst performing in an oil rich arab principality. The ruinationation of all is money. It has destroyed so much quality we had. Sports, Arts, and everything. The only controls required are those on greed and excess. There is so much either BS on this music subject that blinds all that is changing and all that has allready been guilty of being committed. All I wish for really is a new Genesis, or Beatles, or or or.... 'Joe the schmo' if they are good and unique. But there aren't any. The creativity has stagnated horribly. Give me something NEW/UNIQUE and I will buy it on CD/VINYL/Whatever. I just do not trust the music companies anymore. I lost faith with them long ago, when they committed a breach of contract with me!! Their very very loyal customer.
  61. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: The claims made by the music industry on lose revenue is garbage. Most of the stuff people download they probably won't buy to begin with. They just need be happy with what they are selling.
  62. N. Harmon from Vancouver, Canada writes: The MPAA and the RIAA massively overestimate losses due to piracy, at least according to Globe & Mails article at:
    theglobeandmail.com?cid=algamnletter_dtechal

    Apparently they are sorry they called 2 billion people thieves with no evidence at all. But, that's how laws get made these days. Lobbying based on false statistics.

    There is a drop in overall music sales. Boo hoo. The record labels have made a fistful of dollars by selling albums with 1 or two good songs and 8 fillers, and then give the actual artists 7% of revenues. The remainder goes into the legal fun to sue the clients.

    Now you don't have to buy 8 bad songs to get the two good ones. You can also buy directly from the websites of many bands.

    This isn't a loss due to piracy. It's market correction.
  63. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Just to throw another point out, I pay for a subscription from emusic, which provides DRM-free downloads and is approved by from what I can tell is zero of the major labels. And in the months since I've signed up, I've found some of the most interesting, fantastic, original music I've ever heard.

    So where were the record companies on this one? And why did I first find out about the site from an artist website? Why, when artists encourage their fans to go download non-DRM-crippled tracks, are we to believe that this new avenue for music is going to be the death of music, as certain (likely troll) posters would have you believe?

    If artists can make a living selling tracks that you can do anything with (and aren't locked to 3 plays or whatever specific mp3 player you bought them for), and are still managing to release good, innovative music, then why do we have to suddenly clamp down on this 'piracy' thing like it's going to be the end of the world?

    Sounds more like the labels see a way they can extract money from the customer for every time you press play, not just every format switch.. and you can bet none of it goes to the artist.

    And good point by N. Harmon. Maybe the drop in sales is because you now don't have to buy 10 tracks of filler to get the 2 good ones? Maybe people are being paid by the good music they produce, not just one good track that you want, but you have to buy these 8 others (seriously, what's up with 9-track CDs at full price?) to get it.

    The internet lets you get what you want, and pay for what you get. Too bad Dickie's beloved record labels are still trying to sell you what they want, at 10x the cost of what you get, and then crying to their lawyers when you don't play by their game.

    Good riddance if they go.
  64. Michael Foley from Canada writes: Dick Nail writes: 'The function of the record company AR types is to find the talent and market it. If the market it flooded with sound alikes it will kill that market. '

    Sorry Dick but obviously you don't read very well. I will repeat again - 'And that is not what is happening now?'.

    I can assume that you are one of these 'record company AR types' AND you don't have a clue about the music that is currently being distributed by the Record Companies because the market IS flooded with sound alikes. This is why downloading music is so popular...
  65. talk to the hand from Canada writes: nice press release.

    i'm glad i don't pay for this garbage newspaper.
  66. Sask Langer from Canada writes: And let's be fair, we're not going to miss Dick and his ilk when they do go, are we?

    Time for a changing of the guard.
  67. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Sask Langer from Canada writes: And let's be fair, we're not going to miss Dick and his ilk when they do go, are we?

    >> Funny but not in a funny way.

    So yeah, I am a geezer. I was taught by my parents that theft if wrong. Oh how out dated you are. Theft is in so get with the program.

    And yeah, Foley, I am an AR for .... You really sussed me out. And just because I work in the industry means that I know nothing of it. You do though, you sure do.

    Here is a hint about the 'sound alikes: they are their because they sell. This whole debate is not about the quality of the musicians but theft of property. I suggest you go to the Economist link and read that article. You might learn sonething but then again.

    And I am definitely coming over to your house and taking your sofa. You have a chair so you don't need a sofa. Or you can sit on the floor.
  68. matt smith from Boronto, Canada writes: 'Steal this film II' and 'good copy bad copy'. Okay films, but perfectly nestled in the file sharing world.

    The music indusrty have been pathological theives for their entire existence, and now they also want you to believe that they are the creators of the idea of music itself, and have intellectual property rights to its creation and distribution, as if a recording were the thing itself. Its sick, really.
  69. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Sask Lounger: I have worked in high tech, h/w and s/w, for about 30 years. My music preference is ... go to the R&R Hall of Fame, http://www.rockhall.com/inductees/inductee-list/ Scroll down a bit and you will find my faves. As for current tastes, try Amy Winehouse.

    Only a child such as you could have so much ego and hubris with so little accomplished in life. At least you can look forward to learning something.... then again, no, you are done. Be happy with your A grade IQ. A=95.
  70. John Ritchie from Canada writes: It only took half a day for the insults to start flying on this topic...too bad. I was enjoying the intelligent debate. The notion that we need record companies to find music is trite and dated. Radio used to be progressive and played music that mattered. For example, Toronto used to have three major 'Pop/Rock' stations: CHUM FM, CFNY and Q107, each with their own niche - Pop, Alternative, and Rock, respectively. I listened to all three in equal measure and purchased music from all three playlists. Now, CHUM plays dreck, Q107 doesn't play anything recorded after 1990, and CFNY plays a mixture of 'classic' and new alternative, mostly. Whereas these stations used to provide a healthy mix of new tunes, they now cater mostly to the retro-listening desires of the boomers and beyond. Satellite radio has further fragmented the market. I'm sure the pattern is repeated in major radio markets throughout North America. Thus, the big record companies have seen their influence wane when it comes to developing and promoting new artists. Video shows used to supplement and reinforce the radio playlists. I was exposed to many new artists simply because the 'Toronto Rocks' and 'MuchMusic' playlists were diverse. Now, I have a hard time finding a video on Much Music at any time of the day - it's all 'reality' programming. If I want to hear good new music, where the hell do I turn? Word of mouth and files shared by friends - kind of like home taping, but digitally accelerated. In the short term iTunes has the business model right: link content to hardware, and push product via e-mail to consumers while tracking their interests. My kids will grow up with this as the primary means of finding new music. The record companies will be irrelevant to them because the old model of promoting an artist through radio, retail, touring and video just doesn't work anymore unless you're an 'American Idol'.
  71. Able Bodied Man from Canada writes:

    Could the reason be there is less good music than there used to be?
  72. Dick Nails from Canada writes: True story: a few years ago I was at a laundry mat and saw two 20 somethings with a Canada Post canvas bag. I had a chat with them about the bag and they laffed, yeah, we lifted it, it is a great bag. I asked where they lived and they told me, not the house but the street. I mentioned that their posession of the bag was theft. Then it got unfunny. This pissed all over me for being 'people like that', that I would report a theft to Can Post. I did report it and of course, nothing happened. So yeah, theft of private or public property is theft. These old things, I gotta get with the program. Maybe I will go steal a car and blame society cuz the car owner has one and I don't. Yeah, that'll work. Be the victim.
  73. emran warsi from Toronto, Canada writes: Drop the prices...i would not buy a CD for $25 but if its under $7 i would think about it.
  74. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Able Bodied Man from Canada writes:

    Could the reason be there is less good music than there used to be?

    >> Mariah Carey.

    If you have ever watched Idol you notice that most of the female wannabe's unwisely choose Carey and that type of horrible warbling type of music. None know anything about real singers, those who can actually sing vs some what toonlessly shout or torture the toon. If just one would have a go at a Piaff or Aretha song or Faithfull, that would be interesting. None do because they are sadly exposed only to the horrible warblers.
  75. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Music sales drop and so does the quality.

    Can anyone of you theiving idiots make the link? Anyone? Beuler?
  76. Richard Daystrom from Toronto, Canada writes: So are these figures as accurate as the MPAA figures that, oops, got revised down because of 'human error'? Anyone who pays $20 for a CD of crappy songs needs to have their head examined.
  77. Michael Foley from Canada writes: Dick Nails writes: 'Here is a hint about the 'sound alikes: they are their because they sell. '

    Actually isn't this article about how the recording industry is no longer selling as much anymore?

    As for coming over to my house, please do. Unfortunatley your head may not fit through the door...
  78. William Latanville from Toronto, Canada writes: the scary part of this will come if any of the ISPs does decide to monitor the traffic on their service...it's the top of a slippery slope. ISPs have remained beyond reach for damages because they are categorized as 'common carriers' i.e. they jus transport the information, they CANNOT, and should not, be aware of what that information is. Just like the post office isn't supposed to open your mail, and the phone company isn't supposed to monitor your phone calls, and fedex isn't supposed to open your packages, ISPs are NOT supposed to be searching the contents of your digital communications. It's a violation of privacy. The exception MIGHT be when there is a warrant issued by a court to open your mail/tap your phone line/investigate your courier packages/sort through your on-line communications. BUT that would have to be on a case-by-case basis, and only when there is evidence that a crime is being or going to be committed. And since we all know how easy it is for authority to abuse the right to search your mail, your phone calls, your deliveries, etc. Why would we want to encourage our ISPs to develope (or, more likely, to use all the time) technologies that can peer right into your digital communications? The potential for abuse is staggering. And anyone who wants to hold onto even the last shred of their privacy should be very worried indeed when business lobbies start suggesting that Information Service Providers should get into the business of 'policing' the wires for them...
    • Posted 24/01/08 at 2:51 PM EDT |