If Piracy Were an Issue, Media Companies Would Change

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

an even more simple answer: maybe people just don't like whats being put out.

This.

I really don't care all that much for most of the music produced at the moment. The last CD I've bought was a used Blues Brothers album. I don't even listen that much to music at the moment. And if I do, it's music I've bought a long time ago.

I used to buy quite a bit of music myself - and DVDs. But when I realized that I haven't watched at least 5 of the movies I've bought and didn't care much for most of the current movies either, I stopped buying DVDs. Same with video games.

What I still buy is books and ebooks. And if I'm only a little like my grandfather, I will continue to read books for the rest of my life.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

And you can only listen to so much of it.

I have enough music that were I to listen to them all end-to-end, it would probably take weeks to hear to the end. Maybe months. So I don't actually buy more music unless it's an artist I REALLY care about. (And that is 99% of the time going to be a filk artist. LOL, RIAA!)

Now, I buy more books than I will ever read. So probably some people buy more music than they will ever listen to. But probably not the majority.

I will say something else, though. One reason I rarely buy modern/mainstream music is because I don't HEAR it. Once the radio stations started getting all chatty all the time, I turned them off. (And I discovered filk through Napster, back when I was young and I didn't know that was illegal.)

So, way to go, music industry, for pursuing a "pay to hear" policy that effectively means that I NEVER get modern music stuck in my head, causing me to head over to Amazon MP3 store for a fix. And, book industry, please feel free to do the exact same thing. LOL, our society!

funny that you mention radio.

a big part of lowered music sales may be the pee poor state of modern radio. i'm surrounded by local rock stations. their playlists seem to have stopped in 1993. its the same nirvana songs, the same zepplin songs, the same ac/dc and van halen songs over and over and over ad nauseam. maybe they'll toss in a new foo fighters here&there for spice but its literally the same tracks they've been spinning for decades. i shouldn't get physically nauseas from hearing a song but i do.

i'm pretty sure that there has been new music put out in the past 20 years but you wouldn't know it if you tune into something other than the local 'hot for 5 seconds, forgotten by tomorrow' pop/hip hop station.

radios are pretty ubiquitous, these record labels are doing themselves a monumental disservice. its like a book publisher not letting anyone know they've put out books within the past 10 years. they do less than nothing to promote their products but honestly wonder why sales are down.

theres an old saying 'you've gotta spend money to make money'. they should look into it, people aren't going to buy something if they don't know it exists.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

funny that you mention radio.

(snip....)
radios are pretty ubiquitous, these record labels are doing themselves a monumental disservice. its like a book publisher not letting anyone know they've put out books within the past 10 years. they do less than nothing to promote their products but honestly wonder why sales are down.

theres an old saying 'you've gotta spend money to make money'. they should look into it, people aren't going to buy something if they don't know it exists.

This. It seems that artists are relying on their videos becoming youtube viral instead of getting airplay on the radio. It takes more.

And yes, books need to *BE* in the libraries. Seldom does a review in the newspaper tell me enough about a book to justify my dedicating $15 towards it. I gotta fall in love with the book first, then marry it.

[xg4bx]

came across this-

"Those who download illegal copies of music over P2P networks are the biggest consumers of legal music options, according to a new study by the BI Norwegian School of Management. Researchers examined the music downloading habits of more than 1,900 Internet users over the age of 15, and found that illegal music connoisseurs are significantly more likely to purchase music than the average, non-P2P-loving user.

Unsurprisingly, BI found that those between 15 and 20 are more likely to buy music via paid download than on a physical CD, though most still purchased at least one CD in the last six months. However, when it comes to P2P, it seems that those who wave the pirate flag are the most click-happy on services like the iTunes Store and Amazon MP3. BI said that those who said they download illegal music for "free" bought ten times as much legal music as those who never download music illegally. "The most surprising is that the proportion of paid download is so high," the Google-translated Audun Molde from the Norwegian School of Management told Aftenposten."

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/20...rage-folks.ars

once again for emphasis-

"BI said that those who said they download illegal music for "free" bought TEN TIMES as much legal music as those who never download music illegally."

despite my own piratey ways, i would guess i've spent more on legal book purchases the first 2 months of 2012 than a large segment non-pirating customers will spend all year. i would guesstimate that i've spent at least $350 or so on books so far this year. and i don't buy hardcovers or expensive ebooks, so thats a lot of legal books.

[Belfaborac]

I linked to that study, as well as others in this thread. Like I said there, every independent study I'm aware of concludes that pirates have either little, none or a positive impact on sales. This, of course, in relation to music, where all the research effort into piracy has so far been targeted. Those studies which have included buying habits in their remit have also concluded that pirates buy more music than non-pirates, simply because they are exposed to more and different kinds of music.

All studies funded by MPAA, IFPI, etc. of course conclude otherwise, but that is to be expected. Personally I make it a point to ignore all "research" funded by an interested party, whatever the area, as I consider it inherently untrustworthy. Independent research or bust.

[Ninjalawyer]

It's unfortunate that there's been so many studies on piracy (causes, effects, etc.) and yet creative industries (the music industry in particular) keep claiming profits are down and pirates don't buy any music/books/whatever. Guess what authors/songwriters/whatevers? We're living in a golden age as far as getting your stuff to market is concerned, if you're failing now you would have failed faster and harder in any previous era.

It's easy to see piracy and just go with the knee-jerk reaction of "there ought to be a law!", but the data says differently; legislating shouldn't be the go-to response to any perceived problem anyway.

[Randeep]

Piracy is an issue. I know plenty of people who pirate books, movies and music. They still use the old "I'm too poor" rationale but, of course, they still spend money on all the usual crap.

[Belfaborac]

I really don't see the point in saying "piracy is an issue" and then go on to back it up (inasmuch as it can be called such) with only personal anecdotes. If decision making and progress were reliant only on anecdotal "evidence", we would still be struggling to make fire with our sticks and wear untanned hides against the weather.

But at least there would be no piracy.

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

give people a solid product at a fair price and they'll buy it. thats the way its always been and the way it always will be.

That works in general, but the fact is there are plenty of people out there who are happy to take everything they can get for nothing (the actual cost is irrelevant), and have absolutely no misgivings about it. In saying that, the way the 'establishment' adds up the figures to harp on about lost sales is complete rubbish, because very few sales would have been made to this group of people in the first place.

Originally Posted by Randeep

Piracy is an issue. I know plenty of people who pirate books, movies and music.

It definitely is an issue, immaterial of whether it's personal anecdotes or not. The question is how much of an issue it is, and if it actually results in less book sales/income for authors & publishers compared to how much is lost from second hand books is possibly the big question?

In terms of DRM and loaning/gifting books to family & friends, perhaps something that allows anyone to read the book but only on person at a time - so the same as a physical book? Although publishers wouldn't really be interested as it still doesn't equal sales for them.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by l_macd

In terms of DRM and loaning/gifting books to family & friends, perhaps something that allows anyone to read the book but only on person at a time - so the same as a physical book? Although publishers wouldn't really be interested as it still doesn't equal sales for them.

Actually, that feature's already available within bookseller 'ecoystems,' when the publisher allows it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

How much is attribuable to piracy? 90%, 9% 0.9%. <SHRUG> mutliple people have pointed to reasons for the drop in recorded sales. All of them perfectly valid. The shift to single tracks instead of forcing the consumer to buy large blocks of track and higher prices for just the few they wanted? Completion of the analog to digital conversions from the 80's and 90's. All potential causes of LARGE drops by themselves. Combined? Even more likely. But the only drum you can seem to hit is piracy.

What you fail to acknowledge is things like CD's and DVD's are <durable>, they last <decades>. It's not soda pop, and you won't ever make it into a soda pop product....

I've acknowledged that there can be multiple causes for the decline in recorded music sales.

But what you, and several other posters are doing, is adamantly refusing to accept that the huge, unprecedented decline in music shown on that chart - ten year drop that coincides pretty well with the widespread availability of pirated music - might, just might, be due to piracy.

Instead, you keep harping on the fact that no one can say exactly what the loss caused by piracy is - as if the fact that people can't say exactly what the loss is means that there is no loss. That's just magical thinking.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I've acknowledged that there can be multiple causes for the decline in recorded music sales.

But what you, and several other posters are doing, is adamantly refusing to accept that the huge, unprecedented decline in music shown on that chart - ten year drop that coincides pretty well with the widespread availability of pirated music - might, just might, be due to piracy.

Instead, you keep harping on the fact that no one can say exactly what the loss caused by piracy is - as if the fact that people can't say exactly what the loss is means that there is no loss. That's just magical thinking.

ok, in light of no concrete evidence or hard numbers i'm going to err on the side of caution and assume publishers are full of it.

of course there is money lost due to piracy. i simply refuse to believe the industry claims that its zillions of dollars. an industry that has a vested interest in keeping prices as high as possible and restricting access as much as possible could conceiveably inflate numbers in order to maintain their iron grip. if hard concrete #s came out that proved that the impact of piracy was minimal they'd have some hard questions to answer about things like drm and their inflated prices.

i'm sure a case could be made that piracy is merely checks and balances. until the back of agency pricing is broken i would argue that piracy is a price-fixing smasher.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

But what you, and several other posters are doing, is adamantly refusing to accept that the huge, unprecedented decline in music shown on that chart - ten year drop that coincides pretty well with the widespread availability of pirated music - might, just might, be due to piracy.

We don't "accept" it because it's a gross oversimplification of tectonic shifts in information technology, and it serves no purpose in the discussion. It's a red herring stapled to a goat that media companies would like to drive out of the village, which makes a lovely circus act but solves nothing.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

But what you, and several other posters are doing, is adamantly refusing to accept that the huge, unprecedented decline in music shown on that chart - ten year drop that coincides pretty well with the widespread availability of pirated music - might, just might, be due to piracy.

1) People who with no need or desire to buy new music, especially modern bands/acts - people whose tastes have fossilized (aging Baby Boomers, mostly, due to lack of interest in new stuff, but also plenty of younger folk whose tastes got stuck around their late teens & early 20s) - slowed down their buying dramatically, if not completely.

2) Anyone who has finished converting their music collection to CD has also mostly dropped back their music acquisition, though they likely buy more new music than category 1 (it's only less in comparison because of the necessity of buying large volumes before).

3) Plenty of people are buying digitally by the song now instead of by the album. This cuts down on profits a fair bit. The more technologically literate of the first two categories also likely converted most of their CDs to MP3s (might be piracy to the RIAA & Co., but the vast majority of people do NOT find anything at all wrong with format-shifting, and it's still legal in many jurisdictions), and thus aren't participating nearly as much in this category.

4) One that hasn't been mentioned yet, I think, and is probably the biggest reason: the rise of satellite/digital cable TV and digital radio. If my local cable company's any example, a digital TV subscriber has access to around 40 genre-specific and commerical-free (or at least DJ-free) music feeds. I assume satellite TV is the same. A LOT of people are quite happy to listen to random music of the genre they like rather than obtaining albums. Then you add in those who have satellite radio (also mostly commercial-free and covering just about any genre you might be interested in) and you have many millions of people (maybe even hundreds of millions thanks to the forced conversion to digital TV) who have no desire to ever buy new music again.

Frankly, all of these things have FAR more effect on music-buying rates than the free downloaders (only a tiny minority of which are the "Screw you, I'm getting it for free!" type that downloaders get characterized as rather than the more normal "Eh. Not something I'd buy myself, but since it's there, I might as well..." crowd) or the sharers (ie, tossing off a copy for family or a friend).

[Belfaborac]

To the satellite and cable radio feeds, you can add internet radio. With a SqueezeBox or one of the large number of similar devices and an internet connection you have instant access to hundreds of internet radio channels, covering every music genre as well as every other topic under the sun.

Basically, if you have an internet connection, a cheap internet radio and you're not actually a music buff, there really is no need to buy music at all. Nor is there a need to pirate anything, since pretty much everything is available legally and for free.