Effects of music downloads on the industry

[tailes151]

I'm trying to compile an argumentative speech about legalizing music downloads. I'm having some difficulty locating some reliable sites with statistics about the effect that p2p usage has had on record sales and such.

Does anyone know of any good sites that can help me form a speech around this topic? I've already checked google and have basically been working on this all day but I have yet to find some helpful/truthful statistics.

I'll add a poll to help my speech too I think.

Thanks guys/gals.

 

[Regs]

I don't download crap music either.

So I guess im somewhere in the middle.

 

[pennylane]

If it weren't for downloading music, I wouldn't be able to expand my musical tastes the way I have. There's so much more music out there than what you hear on the radio, and unless you can listen to it before hand, it's hard to try new things.

Of course that alone doesn't mean I'd end up buying music. I buy music regularly because I think it's the right thing to do. But, I think I'm in the minority on this. I take music more seriously than other people.

 

[tasmanian]

Music downloading should be legal. Art is meant for the world to see and enjoy.

 

[b0mbrman]

I used to buy a few cd's a month before 1997. Haven't paid for music since...

So, obviously I would like to see music sharing legalized, because I like free music :thumbsup:

 

[0roo0roo]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html
Study: P2P effect on legal music sales "not statistically distinguishable from zero"

 

[tailes151]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html
Study: P2P effect on legal music sales "not statistically distinguishable from zero"

Thank you!

 

[0roo0roo]

its not about sharing being legal, it shouldn't, but the enforcement should be against people trying to profit from sharing, not a few people passing around songs like mixtapes. or using draconian drm as if that does anything besides piss off paying customers with an inferior product.

 

[Kur]

I download songs, if I like them I buy the album. I don't feel the need to buy an album, find out it sucks and am stuck with it for life.

 

[ForumMaster]

since my music CD's are limited, i usually dl new songs and try them out. if i like, i but the CD. i find this no different then listening to the CD at TowerRecords for example.

 

[jfall]

While downloading music has allowed me to discover new artists, I still haven't purchased a music CD in over 10 years.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Regs
I don't download crap music either.

So I guess im somewhere in the middle.

..nearly all of it is pop culture crap. it's not worth anything.

 

[Kelemvor]

I haven't bought a CD in probably 10 years. And the only time I've downloaded am MP3 file was when I needed a specific song for some reason that I didn't have. Otherwise I just rip the CDs I already own and have plenty to keep my ears happy.

No
No, rarely

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its not about sharing being legal, it shouldn't, but the enforcement should be against people trying to profit from sharing, not a few people passing around songs like mixtapes. or using draconian drm as if that does anything besides piss off paying customers with an inferior product.

But why should I have to pay for music? That's why it needs to be legal.

It's so much easier to steal music over the internet, anyway. Imagine if you had to steal your music straight from Best Buy or something...that's a lot more work.

 

[FoBoT]

all beer should be free

why do taverns/bars charge for beer?

free :beer: for all!!

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: tasmanian
Music downloading should be legal. Art is meant for the world to see and enjoy.

Easy for you to say raking in income while the artist busts his ass for nothing.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: tasmanian
Music downloading should be legal. Art is meant for the world to see and enjoy.

Easy for you to say raking in income while the artist busts his ass for nothing.

Yeah right. What about the guy who runs the microphone? Or the guys who edits the music? Or the guy who presses the CDs?

Why should they get to have any money?

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I really, really don't like most music today. I buy good albums and download the odd good song from albums I would have never bought any way.

For instance, buy the new Pearl Jam album. Download 'White & Nerdy' for amusement.

 

[Fritzo]

As a rule, people do not buy what they can get for free. I personally think that musicians should make money off of tours rather than music releases. That would solve a lot of things.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
As a rule, people do not buy what they can get for free. I personally think that musicians should make money off of tours rather than music releases. That would solve a lot of things.

That's where artists do make their money. Major labels charge so much money for production and promotional costs that artists could end up losing money by making a CD.

I'm a fan of "trying before buying." If something is good, I'll go to the band's show, but some merch (t-shirt, CDs, etc). If the band's music sucks, then it goes straight to the recycle bin and I'm glad I didn't waste money on some garbage.

 

[darkxshade]

I wouldn't buy their CDs but I would definately consider buying the song that I like online.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

the article from ars is good. Critical flaw in RIAA mainline arguments that so often get parroted:

The RIAA assumes in all their estimates that every download equals a lost sale. There is no evidence to support this assumption, as someone who downloads a song could have:
A. Already bought the cd, but keep it in their car, and dling is faster than walking outside.
B. Been very nearly broke, lacking the discretionary income to buy the cd anyways (this is probably the most common case these days, and an internet connection is pretty much a necessity to find a job, so the argument that having internet=having money is false).
C. Not been sure of the name of the song and just dled it to verify before buying.
D. Been so thrilled with it after dling that they went and bought a copy afterwards.
I know of dozens of cases where people purchased legal copies of games they had already tried by "piracy" first. I know of no cases where people didn't buy a game just because they were able download it. Filesharing is a highly effective form of advertising, as it gives people a chance to try out the product without restrictions. I first tried out warcraft I with a friend who got a pirated copy, and because of that my brother and I bought all three Warcrafts, both expansions, Starcraft, and Diablo I and II +LOD. Thus the most likely effect of filesharing is a positive effect on sales. There has never been any evidence whatsoever that filesharing has a negative impact on sales. Don't forget to read about the situation in Canada where it's legal. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050410-4795.html


The RIAA and MPAA also try to get people to equate downloading as stealing. This is clearly false, as stealing involves removing physical property so that the owner no longer has it. This is obviously not the case with copying files. Stealing is not equal to filesharing. If you can download and use a copy of my car or bicycle, that's fine with me. Just don't steal it, as then I wouldn't have it anymore.

Fun Facts: Technically, the very act of listening to music creates an unauthorized copy of that music in your brain as a memory in violation of copyright law! Thus if you follow the RIAA's arguments to their logical conclusion, it is already illegal to even listen to music.

 

[chambersc]

Will never buy the physical CD.

Originally posted by: Fritzo
As a rule, people do not buy what they can get for free. I personally think that musicians should make money off of tours rather than music releases. That would solve a lot of things.

Then what's the reason for releasing a CD?

 

[tailes151]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
the article from ars is good. Critical flaw in RIAA mainline arguments that so often get parroted:

The RIAA assumes in all their estimates that every download equals a lost sale. There is no evidence to support this assumption, as someone who downloads a song could have:
A. Already bought the cd, but keep it in their car, and dling is faster than walking outside.
B. Been very nearly broke, lacking the discretionary income to buy the cd anyways (this is probably the most common case these days, and an internet connection is pretty much a necessity to find a job, so the argument that having internet=having money is false).
C. Not been sure of the name of the song and just dled it to verify before buying.
D. Been so thrilled with it after dling that they went and bought a copy afterwards.
I know of dozens of cases where people purchased legal copies of games they had already tried by "piracy" first. I know of no cases where people didn't buy a game just because they were able download it. Filesharing is a highly effective form of advertising, as it gives people a chance to try out the product without restrictions. I first tried out warcraft I with a friend who got a pirated copy, and because of that my brother and I bought all three Warcrafts, both expansions, Starcraft, and Diablo I and II +LOD. Thus the most likely effect of filesharing is a positive effect on sales. There has never been any evidence whatsoever that filesharing has a negative impact on sales. Don't forget to read about the situation in Canada where it's legal. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050410-4795.html


The RIAA and MPAA also try to get people to equate downloading as stealing. This is clearly false, as stealing involves removing physical property so that the owner no longer has it. This is obviously not the case with copying files. Stealing is not equal to filesharing. If you can download and use a copy of my car or bicycle, that's fine with me. Just don't steal it, as then I wouldn't have it anymore.

Fun Facts: Technically, the very act of listening to music creates an unauthorized copy of that music in your brain as a memory in violation of copyright law! Thus if you follow the RIAA's arguments to their logical conclusion, it is already illegal to even listen to music.

Those are some excellent points. Thanks

 

[tailes151]

Bump for the day people. Looking for at least 100 results in each poll.