These ears aren't deaf

[Der Nister]

In an article reported in Insider edition " the music recording industry will no longer be able to present the united front it claimed to have on copyright issues, after a group of prominent musicians and singers this morning announced an association whose philosophy is at odds with the Canadian Recording Industry Association."

It was also proven that "a study failed to prove that peer-to-peer file-sharing technology is devastating the music industry. The Pollara study concluded that Internet downloading constitutes less than a third of the music on downloaders' computers, that downloaders use the downloaded versions as a sample before they decide to buy the music, and that the largest downloader demographic is also the largest music-buying demographic."

I think that American recording artists should take heed and follow their lead as it makes bad business sense to file lawsuits against your customers. I know this issue has been debated here many times but I feel that with Canadian artists fighting against such cases makes for a better argument against trying to stop "illegal downloads" in the U.S.

I still can't believe for a moment that this is hurting the recording industry. Much in the same way that the movie industry tried to get VCR's banned from sales during the 70's claiming that vcr's would hurt box office sales a similar calim has been repeatedly made for music downloads.

Opinions/ thoughts about this are welcomed.

More info on this issue.

[phee]

Interesting....

I don't download music... so maybe I am supporting the whole industry myself...

[Blackmail]

I believe that MP3's have really hurt the music industry here in the U.S. at least.

Harmony House no longer exists, I worked there for years and noticed a steep decline in sales once Napster got big. Soon after, they went out of business.

My sister was a teenager when Napster came out, then Limewire, gnutella, whatever the newest one is that downloads huge files.....anyway at 17 my sister and her friends had heard everything by Blink 182, Good Charlotte, Limp Bizkit and all their favorite bands and I asked them if they had bought nay of their CD's and their answer was "no". Most of them had never even bought a CD. It's anecdotal but I don't think it's uncommon.

Just buy the damn, CD. You get the linear notes and CD's are 16 bits (24 bits for super audio cd's) and MP3's barely push 14 bits, though they are always improving the compression codecs to make them sound better.

[Head Wreck]

i buy. back up to MP3 and hardly ever share beyond a one off sampler. usually passed onto other record buyers.

i dont even like buying i tunes as you dont get the tyangable niceties of getting a new vinyl or CD

[Der Nister]

I believe that MP3's have really hurt the music industry here in the U.S. at least.

Harmony House no longer exists, I worked there for years and noticed a steep decline in sales once Napster got big.  Soon after, they went out of business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to dispute this comment Ted. From what I recall about Harmony house is this, they refused to lower the prices of cd's and that is what put them under. Not mp3's. I worked at Rock of ages and clearly remember the price of cd's at rock were at least $ 7-8 less. The owner of rock did this on purpose to under cut the competition and it worked.

So mp3's had little to nothing to do with it just smart shopping. Why buy a cd from harmony house for $ 19.00 when you could get it from rock for $ 11.99? Seems an easy choice.

As to others saying they just buy the cd that's great but for some people that have less money to spend we want to know that we'll like more than two songs from any given disc (insert rebuttle here) - as for myself, if I hear more than three songs that I like I'll go out and buy that cd. As for the original article here, it's difficult to argue against those Canadian musicians when they stand to loose more than the record companies. Most bands (if not all) will tell you they make more money from playing concerts than they do from cd sales. And any artist worth their wait in salt knows it's bad business to sue fans (just ask Mr. Lars Ulrich) because in the end that translates into lower cd sales and lower concert attendance.

But those are just my thoughts on this subject.

[Blackmail]

I have to dispute this comment Ted. From what I recall about Harmony house is this, they refused to lower the prices of cd's and that is what put them under. Not mp3's. I worked at Rock of ages and clearly remember the price of cd's at rock were at least $ 7-8 less. The owner of rock did this on purpose to under cut the competition and it worked.

So mp3's had little to nothing to do with it just smart shopping. Why buy a cd from harmony house for $ 19.00 when you could get it from rock for $ 11.99? Seems an easy choice.

As to others saying they just buy the cd that's great but for some people that have less money to spend we want to know that we'll like more than two songs from any given disc (insert rebuttle here) - as for myself, if I hear more than three songs that I like I'll go out and buy that cd. As for the original article here, it's difficult to argue against those Canadian musicians when they stand to loose more than the record companies. Most bands (if not all) will tell you they make more money from playing concerts than they do from cd sales. And any artist worth their wait in salt knows it's bad business to sue fans (just ask Mr. Lars Ulrich) because in the end that translates into lower cd sales and lower concert attendance.

But those are just my thoughts on this subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Harmony House sold for less than retail as well. Their main competition was Best Buy, who sold cd's at 11.99 to 12.99 while Harmony house new releases were 13.99 to 14.99 but this discrepency in prices existed for ever a decade, when Napster came out, Harmony House was gone 2 years later. Rock of Ages may have been competition for Harmony House in the Dearborn, Garden City, Westland area but where I worked (Commerce Twp) there was no other record stores nor a best buy anywhere near there. Business took a hit only after the rise of MP3's. Owner Bill Thom gave two reasons: Best Buy/Walmart and MP3's.

The people who do charge $19 for a cd is FYE and they are still in business.

[FarrIL]

Just buy the damn, CD.  You get the linear notes and CD's are 16 bits (24 bits for super audio cd's) and MP3's barely push 14 bits, though they are always improving the compression codecs to make them sound better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hun, we have the little issue with the music industry that most of today's Top 40 music is crap on the ears.

It's all the same, regurgitated concepts..... Hos, Pimps, Money, Glamour and for the Emos..... lost loves, slitting wrists and murder.

I download music because the music I listen to, I dont hear on the radio. And the music I DO listen to on the radio is off of XM stations where I KNOW I'll get what I like.

And I prefer downloading first, buy later, because if I didnt, there'd be a lot of wasted money. take Wumpscut's "Evoke" album for example. I'm DAMN happy I downloaded the album first because if I didnt, the 2-disc edition would've been a sure waste of money. Even for the two-disc edition, I wouldnt have paid 10 bucks for.

It was sh*t.

Miserable. Crap. Unimaginative...... it sucked.

I download music and I am quite proud of it. Considering that I'm able to get a wide variety of music in a short amount of time without blindly spending money.

Plus that, if the topic of the RIAA comes up..... let it be known right now that the RIAA gets a certain amount of money for every burnable CD sold. They have no room to bitch about P2P file sharing.

[bav]

and for the Emos..... lost loves, slitting wrists and murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, while musical styles are different and Emo usually misses out on references to cyborgs/robots, the content is very similar to what I've been hearing at g/i clubs for the last 12 years.

Emos are just hipster goths.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Der Nister]

Actually Harmony House sold for less than retail as well.  Their main competition was Best Buy, who sold cd's at 11.99 to 12.99 while Harmony house new releases were 13.99 to 14.99 but this discrepency in prices existed for ever a decade, when Napster came out, Harmony House was gone 2 years later.  Rock of Ages may have been competition for Harmony House in the Dearborn, Garden City, Westland area but where I worked (Commerce Twp) there was no other record stores nor a best buy anywhere near there.    Business took a hit only after the rise of MP3's.  Owner Bill Thom gave two reasons: Best Buy/Walmart and MP3's. 

The people who do charge $19 for a cd is FYE and they are still in business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If that were the case and mp3's put harmony house out of business then how can you explain Rock of ages surviving? It doesn't make sense. Rock of ages is a much smaller store and yet they are still open. The numbers don't add up. Sorry.

And I prefer downloading first, buy later, because if I didnt, there'd be a lot of wasted money.  take Wumpscut's "Evoke" album for example.  I'm DAMN happy I downloaded the album first because if I didnt, the 2-disc edition would've been a sure waste of money.  Even for the two-disc edition, I wouldnt have paid 10 bucks for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly my point. (Most) people do not download music to screw the industry but rather to protect themselves. If anyone here can remember way back when you had no choice but to buy a cd after only hearing one or two songs. And you got screwed because the rest of the cd sucked (can you say Pearl jams second release?).

Mp3's aren't hurting the music industry any more than vcr's and dvd burners are hurting the movie industry. Has anyone paid attention to box office ticket sales for the past 15 years? I feel bad for the film companies. Hmmmmm somethings askew here.

[FarrIL]

Exactly my point. (Most) people do not download music to screw the industry but rather to protect themselves. If anyone here can remember way back when you had no choice but to buy a cd after only hearing one or two songs. And you got screwed because the rest of the cd sucked (can you say Pearl jams second release?).

Mp3's aren't hurting the music industry any more than vcr's and dvd burners are hurting the movie industry. Has anyone paid attention to box office ticket sales for the past 15 years? I feel bad for the film companies. Hmmmmm somethings askew here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It pleases me to hear these words coming from a musician's mouth.

Der Nister, you are a Sanity Saviour.

[Der Nister]

It pleases me to hear these words coming from a musician's mouth. 

Der Nister, you are a Sanity Saviour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:blushing

[Marblez]

(Most) people do not download music to screw the industry but rather to protect themselves. If anyone here can remember way back when you had no choice but to buy a cd after only hearing one or two songs. And you got screwed because the rest of the cd sucked (can you say Pearl jams second release?).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't many music store chains let you listen to (at least) snippets of all the songs on a CD? And what about going to the label or the artists website, can't you usually hear 30 seconds or so of each song on the album?

If people were downloading to protect themselves - it would seem that there are easier ways to protect themselves than to break the law.

IMO, downloading of music is just like the driving term "no cop, no stop". If I am not going to get in trouble and I get to do what I want, why not??" It is so prevailent these days that people just take it for granted that they will not get in trouble. An unenforced law ends up being considered a mere nuisence or a joke.

[Blackmail]

If that were the case and mp3's put harmony house out of business then how can you explain Rock of ages surviving? It doesn't make sense. Rock of ages is a much smaller store and yet they are still open. The numbers don't add up. Sorry.

Some record stores survive, some don't. Alot more have gone out of business since MP3's came out (Repeat the Beat, Harmony House, Media Play, Record Town/Sam Goody) than in any 5 year period that I can remember. Do you really think it's a coincidence? Comparing harmony House to an indie store seems like apples and oranges as well, harmony House probably had far more overhead - they had a distrubution center in Troy and an office building, they paid their employees Medical insurance and they had bigger staffs at each store.

I can say for a fact that when napster came out, people (young people in particular) stopped coming into the store.

Mp3's aren't hurting the music industry any more than vcr's and dvd burners are hurting the movie industry. Has anyone paid attention to box office ticket sales for the past 15 years? I feel bad for the film companies. Hmmmmm somethings askew here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you get a chance, read this, a statistical analysis of how mp3's have hurt the music industry:

http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/intprop/records.pdf

Or this article:

http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,51880,00.html

The way I see it, the artist should have the final say. If they want people to download their music then let them download it. If a band is opposed to it, it is their intellectual property and if they offer their music on a CD for $11.99 at Rock of Ages then that is how it is intended to be heard.

[Marblez]

I believe that MP3's have really hurt the music industry here in the U.S. at least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps this yhas to do with the population in Canada being a bit more widespread than in the US. Here in the US, there is a Big Box music store 10 minutes from anywhere...there, they may have hpreviously had a much more difficult time getting their actual CDs into peoples hands.

[FarrIL]

Even if we get to listen to little snippets of songs prior to buying, how do we know that the entire song may be that good? You may only be able to dowload clips of the better songs, or best part of the song, and be mislead into thinking "Mmmmm, good album."

Had I only been able to listen to "Maiden" and "Churist, Churist" from Wumpscut's album "Evoke"..... again, I would've wasted some money I could've put towards gas or gotten another, better CD.

Now, AFI's new release "December Underground", I managed to find it on Bit Torrent. Downloaded it. AND, actually, if I have some money left over from gas and insurance, I'm going to buy that CD.

Yes, Buy.

Blackmail, I dont really believe that MP3's are the ONLY cause in sales dropping at stores that went out of business back in the day. We need to remember something, some people my age who download music now..... the Internet still had a long way to go back then. When Napster came about..... I may have only been in 7th grade at the oldest. I wasnt on the computer a lot either because we only had one computer in the house, and my mom did all of her dictation on it. HARDLY ON THE COMPUTER.

Why dont we factor in teenagers who couldnt download music all the time, if ever, when the ability to dowload MP3s came about? That portion is still limited to buying CDs blindly.

And again, what Der Nister said, not everybody has loads of money to splurge on music. If you get a CD, you should want the best of the best, instead of tainting one's music collection with CDs you spent nearly 20 dollars on, and wasnt even worth 10.

My paychecks arent that much, seriously. I rarely even work 20+ hours a week. And I cant get another job as my schedule at the job I'm at now is rather sporadic. And I'm taking classes. I cant work 2 jobs just so I can spoil myself every week. If I buy a CD, I had better know it's good, otherwise I'd be one very disappointed customer.

Not to the store.

I'd be a very disappointed customer of the Music industry.

Artists say that the fans are screwing them over by downloading music? Well, I think it's our way of biting back after the artist bites our wrists..... if the artist would stop producing some shit music, or if we HEARD MORE STUFF WE LIKE on the radio..... maybe there wouldnt be as many people dowloading stuff.

[Scary Guy]

I download, if I like what I hear I buy the CD thereby supporting the artists I like.

However I download mp3's of bands people request me to play but I don't like, and I don't buy the CD, because I think they suck and I want them to starve in the street. Not that the lack of my 10-20 bucks will break them but whatever.

I was talking with Tony from DBSP who told me something I already knew in the back of my mind but didn't hit me full force, which is that it also helps to support the label which allows them to stay in business and distribute/market the album for the band and get them to grow. Which if the band doesn't sell out along the way is a great thing.

Pricefixing is still a problem.

http://www.whatacrappypresent.com is still a great website.

[Blackmail]

Farril, I think you are right, I don't think mp3's are the only reason for the problems in the music business. I do think it is a problem when people like my sister and her friends each have 100 CD's on their hard drives and they havn't actually bought a CD in years. Someone like you isn't who I am aiming my argument towards.

I download a ton of stuff too. Alot of my downloading has lead me to purchases as well. And trust me, I think the RIAA or whatever are corrupt and could care less about their consumers.

[Der Nister]

If you get a chance, read this, a statistical analysis of how mp3's have hurt the music industry:

http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/intprop/records.pdf

Or this article:

http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,51880,00.html

The way I see it, the artist should have the final say.  If they want people to download their music then let them download it.  If a band is opposed to it, it is their intellectual property and if they offer their music on a CD for $11.99 at Rock of Ages then that is how it is intended to be heard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will read those as soon as I can.

I download, if I like what I hear I buy the CD thereby supporting the artists I like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think most people do this.

Pricefixing is still a problem.

http://www.whatacrappypresent.com is still a great website.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have always felt that, after 20 years the prices of cd's should've come down much farther.

And the original point to this thread is about the artists and is why I posted it. Canadian musicians are fighting against prosecuting people for downloading their music. Now keep this in mind - the artist, not label, stand to loose more. At the end of the day the band/artist still have to pay the label back for putting up the money for each cd.

As some may not be aware of the fact that the label pays for studio time to record everything, pays for the produser, pays for advertisment, ect. And if Canadian musicians don't want the listeners sued then I say their stance has more merit than any record label.

Lars Ulrich started the whole napster lawsuit bullshit and and we can see - Metallica's popularity went down the toilet. So as we can see that when a band wants to take their fans to court the band pays the price in the end.

As for myself, I mostly download rare demos, rare singles that aren't avail anymore and either live bootleg radio concerts or interviews with musicians. Hardly stuff that is going to hurt any band since all of the stuff is not to be found at most, if not all, record stores.

[Fierce Critter]

When vinyl was the standard, my friends and I shared with each other, each taping what we shared. Most of us eventually bought our own copy.

When I got a job, I bought primarily used records from dealers.

95% of my 80's and early 90's music was on pre-recorded tapes that I bought used at stores like Repeat the Beat.

99% of the CD's I own were bought used at similar stores, or at garage sales.

95% of what I have downloaded, I owned at one time or another on either vinyl, tape, or CD.

As a musician, I can see the point of not wanting your income to be undercut by free downloading.

As a consumer, I don't see how downloading an MP3 is much different than what I've been doing my entire life - and the RIAA never came after me for any of that.

I can go both ways on the issue.

[Blackmail]

I think the difference between home dubbing and file sharing is this:

If you buy a tape and dub it for your friends, the most it's gonna reach is 5 or 6 people in most cases. Most people don't dub off 300 copies for everyone they've ever met. The record company may lose a few thousand sales nationwide. If you want to dub a tape from someone, you have to know someone in your circle of aquantinces who has bought it.

One person can buy a CD, upload to the internet and thousands of people can download it in a day. The record company loses potentially hundreds of thousands of sales with bigger groups. You don't have to know anyone who has purchased the CD, you log onto the net and it's almost a guarantee that someone has uploaded the new Blink 182 disc.

[Fierce Critter]

I know conservatives amongst us are going to roll their eyes at my source. But Rolling Stone magazine, to which I've had a subscription for years now, has been following many aspects of this issue. There are many industry insiders who are debating the affect downloading is having on CD sales, and are generally attributing slowdowns more to the cost of CD's.

There is evidence that when a release is offered at a more reasonable price, sales skyrocket. They released a lot of CD's around Christmastime this past year from big artists at reduced prices, and the numbers were impressive.

I know this much. I prefer my music in it's pristine, original form. I want the whole package. But I like so many different artists, past and present, that I can't get beyond having to make a choice as to which ONE SINGLE new release I'm going to invest in because I can't spring $100 for 5 CD's.

I used to pick up 8-10 LP's at a time, and my store of choice was Harmony House. I can't' do that at today's prices. NO way.

[Hellheart]

The entire problem boils down to this:

If I don't really like something, I'm not paying that much for it, period. If somebody wants too much, I'm getting it for less if at all possible. If I can't get it for a price I'm okay with, I'll get it for free or not at all. Everybody thinks this way, it's a basic Economic principle.

If I really like something, I'm willing to pay a lot for it, even if I could get it cheaper later. But if I can get it just as easily for less, I'm going to want to pay less. However, "less" does not just refer to money; a sense of conscience also applies, and the effort put into finding it matters too. Getting something for free that you should pay for is usually referred to as "stealing." Many people do not want to steal. But if they really like something, they're willing to do a lot to get it...and if they can't afford whatever price is being charged, they'll make an effort to get it for free, even if it is stealing. Again, basic Economics.

These two combine to explain a lot of file sharing, and pirated works in general. The RIAA wants to attack the availability of alternatives, including piracy. What the RIAA should be doing (and what iTunes did for them) is charging an appropriate price

A monopoly can artifically charge more because there is no other choice, especially if getting it for free is hard. People will pay because they want it but can't get it at less than is being charged. Tickets for events are an example of this in action, especially if somebody is too late to get it at the original selling price. But what if getting it for cheaper becomes much easier? Then the above principle kicks in, and unless the price is decreased to compete, the monopolist loses, a lot.

Alright, a few issues with the actual debate.

Firstly, you have to be very careful when you're reading about the effects of downloading on the music industry. Where are the statistics coming from?

Independent studies have historically come up with very different results than RIAA statistics. This is natural, as the RIAA has an agenda it wants to push, and if the statistics can be presented in such a way as to exaggerate the effects of sharing on the music industry, then they will be. I'm a frequent reader of Arstechnica, and while they tend to be rather anti-RIAA they tend to have good reason, and they'll call out statistical errors from most anyone. This older item and this one too. Granted the articles themselves may have bias, but the statistical errors still exist.

One big problem is that the RIAA tends to convienently ignore online music sales. This makes a huge difference in the bottom line nowadays, as shown here and here

Secondly, that last link also points out a noteworthy trend. When p2p programs became popular, a lot of people were downloading music. Many of these people were not buying any. While it is easy to blame P2P for this, not everyone back then had a CD burner, nor was all the music of CD quality.

So it was worth it to purchase the CD's...that is, unless they were priced too high to be worth it. As noted before, many CD's had the songs played on the radio...and a bunch of crappy songs. People who only liked 1-3 tracks on a CD don't like paying upwards of $10 for 3 songs.

Online stores, particularly iTunes (which has some ridiculously high percentage of online market share), have alleviated this problem. Now if you like a couple songs on a CD, you can buy those songs, and that's it. Online music is also easier than going out to a store or ordering something. The music labels don't like this, because they want you to pay what you used to for those songs - this is profits we're talking about here! - so they want to charge more for the songs that people would want to hear. If those prices increase, however, more people would just download the music for free because buying it is once again too expensive to be worth it.

Finally, it's worthwhile to note that the RIAA has only been going after people who *share* files on P2P networks, and that while file sharing does violate copyrights, it is not illegal per se. Rather, it exposes the sharer to lawsuits rather than government prosecution, except in extreme circumstances.

What do I do? I tend to download my music because I drive 1 1/2 hours back and forth from work each day, and I don't like anything played on the radio, so I need a *lot* of music. I don't have that much money (I currently listen frequently to more than 25 burned CD's, and really need more, plus these are selected songs from each band). I do buy from relatively smaller or niche labels such as Projekt, partly because they need the money, mostly because niche music isn't often shared anyway. The artists miss out on the royalties, but I've sent them money for CD's I've burned before, and I know a couple people who go out and buy a CD, rip it, then sell it back for $5 less . I'm not against buying CD's, but I'm certainly against paying more money for something than it's worth.

I don't buy most games until they're $20 or less, and may download pirated copies of games that I kinda like but not enough to pay more than $20. But if I really like a game (World of Warcraft, Oblivion), I'm going to pay full price soon after it comes out, because it's worth that much to me. It's a similar thing for CD's: I'm only paying more than $5 for a CD if I really, really like what's on there, enough to pay more to help the label and band continue to produce something I like. If that CD never costs less than $5? I'm getting it for free.

[Der Nister]

That is a damn good post Hellheart.

[Marblez]

The entire problem boils down to this:

If I don't really like something, I'm not paying that much for it, period. If somebody wants too much, I'm getting it for less if at all possible. If I can't get it for a price I'm okay with, I'll get it for free or not at all. Everybody thinks this way, it's a basic Economic principle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No everyone does not think this way. We do not get to choose what we will pay for something, it is the seller who chooses what he will accept. If we take it anyway, without paying - then it is stealing. That is a basic moral principle.

These two combine to explain a lot of file sharing, and pirated works in general. The RIAA wants to attack the availability of alternatives, including piracy. What the RIAA should be doing (and what iTunes did for them) is charging an appropriate price.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is the appropriate price per CD now that people have gotten so comfortable with stealing? Do you think people would stop downloading even if the price of CD's went down to $7, $5...$3.00?? People are already used to free.

If that CD never costs less than $5? I'm getting it for free.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess we do agree on something.

I'll read the rest later... out of time now.

[Der Nister]

I think one or two people may not have read the article. Let me go over some facts again here.

A) Canadian musicians are, in a sense, saying that their income is not affected by mp3 downloads. They would know better than you or I. Correct me if I'm wrong.

B) Aside from members of Metallica (I can't recall anyone else) there haven't been any pleas from American musicians to stop mp3 downloads. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I could be wrong here but I doubt it)

C) And last we have, well at least with one person in this thread, someone that calls getting music for free a crime but will gladly accept ripped cd's from friends that they didn't pay for to begin with. Is that or is that not the same thing only in a different form? Again, correct me if I'm wrong but I say that too, is stealling.

In my book, if you're going to accept free discs with songs that you did not pay for well.....you hardly have much ground to stand on. You are too - stealing. Unless of course you sent those bands money for those songs - highly doubtful though.