Report: CD Sales Further Decline

AP via Yahoo! News ^ | 8/26/02 | Simon Avery

[GeneD]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Compact disc music sales decreased 7 percent during the first half of the year, a further indication that online music sharing sites are hurting the recording industry, a trade group said Monday.

The decline cost the industry $284 million in lost sales, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.

The decline, measured by PricewaterhouseCoopers, compares with a 5.3 percent drop in CD shipments in the first half of 2001. The RIAA said the industry uses just-in-time delivery, so CD shipments are reliably indicative of actual sales.

Also Monday, the RIAA released a separate survey of Internet users' music habits, which found that most consumers between the ages of 12 and 54 bought fewer CDs as they downloaded more tracks.

Previous studies independent of the music industry have suggested that access to free music on the Web actually encourages consumers to experiment with new acts and buy more CDs.

"We find a striking connection between people who say they are downloading more and buying less," said Geoff Garin, the pollster for Peter D. Hart Research Associates, who conducted the random telephone survey of 860 consumers for the RIAA in May. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Of consumers polled whose downloading increased during the last six months, 41 percent reported buying less music, compared with 19 percent who said they were purchasing more, he said.

Among those polled who said they were downloading the same amount as six months earlier, 25 percent said they purchased less music, compared with 13 percent who bought more, Garin said.

The survey also reported that 35 percent said they go straight to an Internet file sharing site whenever they hear an unfamiliar artist they like. Only 10 percent reported that they immediately buy the artist's album.

The poll did not provide information about consumer attitudes on other factors widely considered to be affecting CD sales, including the quality of new releases and the lack of easy-to-use online services from the major recording labels.

"I very strongly conclude that the ability to get music for free is an important factor and has an adverse effect on music purchasing. I would not argue that it is the one and only factor," Garin said.

[Sloth]

Don't lie to yourself, either. Violation of copyright is a crime, but it is not theft of property. Copyright is a legal right separate from property rights -- there is no such thing as "intellectual property".

[Protagoras]

Sounds like the free market to me. Not you making a judgement from on high.

[Admin Moderator]

Let's leave wives out of this. Thanks, AM

[Bush2000]

Don't lie to yourself, either. Violation of copyright is a crime, but it is not theft of property. Copyright is a legal right separate from property rights -- there is no such thing as "intellectual property".

The courts disagree with your interpretation.

[Sloth]

On several issues, in fact, and they are wrong on every one.

[oncebitten]

I agree totally with the view that the current porduct is not worth the money - and so does Roger Daltry of the Who. I saw a recent interview with him in which he lays out the case: the sound quality on a CD is NOT as good as the old analog LP-sound; the packaging sucks on a CD, the old album format included often beautiful and original artwork, and legible (mostly) useful liner notes, plus it was ideal for removing seeds and rolling j-bars. I think the recording industry should condsider a dual package of an LP and a CD in a full size LP album package. That might be worth 14.99 and artists might raise the bar to justify such a fine opackage.

[mhking]

This is more smoke and mirrors from the RIAA, to try to justify their destruction of the streaming media industry. Since they can't justify any sort of tribute, they - like the thugs that they are - try to squash it as much as possible.

If you truly look, the extent to which streaming media is being used is nowhere near the numbers that the RIAA would like you to believe.

Hilary Rosen wants to keep her cash cow, and the web is doing away with it.

[bvw]

Some do and some don't. The money side is the expansive rights area and we have to wait till that argument out of money overrreaches and exhausts itself -- which it now may have had. The rights of individuals are hard to argue against such money, and no barrister group has seemed yet to put a class action together to counter the tide of the IP polished shoes. The chip manufacturers have raised the most complaint, yet they are not a good surrogate for individuals and have and will go along with the IP monopolists if the money flows to them as well.

[Bush2000]

On several issues, in fact, and they are wrong on every one.

Complaining about court rulings is like complaining about the weather. Like it or not, the rulings stands until either new law is written or they are overturned. I don't see the latter happening.

[Bush2000]

The rights of individuals are hard to argue against such money, and no barrister group has seemed yet to put a class action together to counter the tide of the IP polished shoes.

I agree with you on that point. Which is why you're going to see even more piracy convictions in coming years than ever before.

[Bush2000]

Hilary Rosen wants to keep her cash cow, and the web is doing away with it.

The RIAA has a right to profit from their intellectual property. That's the heart of capitalism: Bringing a product or service to market and being compensated. The fact that it's currently easy to pirate doesn't make the RIAA's ownership any less righteous. Honestly, the worst part about the flagrant abuse that's going on among file-swappers is that DRM is going to get even more pervasive than it ever was. The big boys aren't going to sit around and get kicked while you laugh at them. There's too much money at stake. No, we are in fact moving toward a world where your connection to the Internet will no longer be anonymous. You will have to prove your identity in order to gain access to various resources and, in doing so, you're going to leave an even bigger slime trail if you're involved in pirating copyrighted content. It will take time but it's going to happen.

[mhking]

The RIAA has a right to profit from their intellectual property.

The problem is that the RIAA doesn't own the intellectual property either.

They are nothing but a glorified lobbyists group. They have found a way to extort pennies on the sale of each CD and cassette. They go out of their way to excoriate and otherwise drain off just a little bit of money from each purchase in order to gain their "share" of the pie.

And now that people are finding other ways to get their music legally (i.e., listening to internet radio and sharing music) and illegally (wholesale "theft" in terms of bootlegged music), the RIAA's pie is shrinking.

And rather than examining means to take advantage of the new technology in such a way as to benefit all, the RIAA has found that the easiest way to handle the difficult issue is to squash it. If they eliminate the technology, then they eliminate the threat. If they criminalize the casual hobbyist whose only "crime" is making a copy of an obscure jazz album to give to their neighbor (a situation which sits VERY close to home for me - my dad has dozens of jazz albums which are very rare indeed, including a fair number of '78s and a first pressing of Miles Davis' Bitches Brew; I am very happy indeed each time he burns me a CD or three), then they scare them out of the picture. All that's left is the hard-core hobbyist, who, in their mind, is the enemy. This is a person who (or so the RIAA thinks) wouldn't buy traditional media any more. (of course, never mind the fact that the vast majority of people who pulled music down from Napster, AudioGalaxy, and Gnutella would then turn around and purchase the music legally - never let the facts get in the way of a good scam).

The RIAA is nothing more than Jesse Jackson's PUSH with better-fitting suits, and without the social stigma. And because they have plenty of money to grease the appropriate palms, they can get away with what they want. They wanted internet radio gone? Now they've just about accomplished that task. Now they want to insist that anyone who downloads a piece of music is stealing? Watch - that'll go through too. I wouldn't be surprised if they demanded that no music be transmitted on the web, unless a fee were paid. And since there's not an easy way to accomplish that, they'll demand that a usage tax be levied on web traffic. And of course, since the Federal Government can't resist yet another way to glom yet more money out of our collective pockets in the form of taxes, it'll go through.

You want to pay off Tony Soprano and the boys in order to get access to web resources? That's your business. But Pandora is laughing at you.

[bvw]

we are in fact moving toward a world where your connection to the Internet will no longer be anonymous. You will have to prove your identity in order to gain access to various resources

The future is speculation. Unknown things be there. At least one known thing -- quantum computing, and the possibility of some form of quantum networking -- will perhaps play a big factor. Unlike present networks where all traffic is observable to some sniffing -- even allowing it may be encrypted -- possibly quantum networks can not be sniffed. And some form of quantum peer-to-peer mayhaps would be completely anonymous.

[Bush2000]

The problem is that the RIAA doesn't own the intellectual property either.

Let's not mince words. It's too Clintonian. The members of the RIAA -- in other words, the record labels -- own the copyright.

And now that people are finding other ways to get their music legally (i.e., listening to internet radio and sharing music) and illegally (wholesale "theft" in terms of bootlegged music), the RIAA's pie is shrinking.

Radio (analog or otherwise) hasn't contributed to a shrinking pie. File-trading has.

And rather than examining means to take advantage of the new technology in such a way as to benefit all, the RIAA has found that the easiest way to handle the difficult issue is to squash it.

Alright, then. What should the RIAA do? It isn't an easy problem to solve -- and most people would probably ignore any alternative.

If they criminalize the casual hobbyist whose only "crime" is making a copy of an obscure jazz album to give to their neighbor (a situation which sits VERY close to home for me - my dad has dozens of jazz albums which are very rare indeed, including a fair number of '78s and a first pressing of Miles Davis' Bitches Brew; I am very happy indeed each time he burns me a CD or three), then they scare them out of the picture. All that's left is the hard-core hobbyist, who, in their mind, is the enemy. This is a person who (or so the RIAA thinks) wouldn't buy traditional media any more. (of course, never mind the fact that the vast majority of people who pulled music down from Napster, AudioGalaxy, and Gnutella would then turn around and purchase the music legally - never let the facts get in the way of a good scam).

There's no evidence that people who engage in file-trading subsequently purchase the music they get for free. As for other traders, there is little distinction between those who do it casually versus those who engage in it hardcore.

The RIAA is nothing more than Jesse Jackson's PUSH with better-fitting suits, and without the social stigma. And because they have plenty of money to grease the appropriate palms, they can get away with what they want. They wanted internet radio gone? Now they've just about accomplished that task. Now they want to insist that anyone who downloads a piece of music is stealing? Watch - that'll go through too...

They're a lobbying organization -- just like those in any other industry (pharmaceuticals, petroleum, insurance, healthcare, etc). As such, they watch out for their own financial interests. I don't blame them for wanting to retain revenue. You make it seem like the RIAA's responses to threats to their revenue stream are un-American or wrongheaded. Which is a load of crap. I'd like to see your reaction if your employer was gutted by people stealing its products or services. You'd sing a different tune.

You want to pay off Tony Soprano and the boys in order to get access to web resources? That's your business. But Pandora is laughing at you.

I don't entertain fantasies of Greek or Roman gods. Hardline identification is coming. It will be then end of the anonymous Internet. Scoff at it, if you will. But it will affect you.

[Bush2000]

The future is speculation. Unknown things be there. At least one known thing -- quantum computing, and the possibility of some form of quantum networking -- will perhaps play a big factor. Unlike present networks where all traffic is observable to some sniffing -- even allowing it may be encrypted -- possibly quantum networks can not be sniffed. And some form of quantum peer-to-peer mayhaps would be completely anonymous.

Of course it's speculation; however, we know a few things. First, Congress is responsive to those with deep pockets. It has acted time and time again to protect their interests. Second, national security is not a passing fancy. Networks are going to continue to be hardened. Third, agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA and others are lobbying for key escrow/backdoors in everything. Don't underestimate the kinds of changes that Congress can enact simply by requiring ISPs to engage in some kind of behavior. Fourth, computing hardware architectures are moving toward very secure DRM (see Palladium, etc) that will protect content from one end of the pipeline to the other. Hardware manufacturers are going to work in concert with content producers and providers -- stimulated perhaps by a slice or royalties -- and consumers won't have much of a say in the matter. Congress can easily mandate strong content protections in future computing devices. Keep in mind: I'm not arguing that these changes are imminent. But they are coming.

[bvw]

The Stamp Act.

[mhking]

Let's not mince words. It's too Clintonian. The members of the RIAA -- in other words, the record labels -- own the copyright.

Agreed. That actually is another battle - one between the artists and the labels, where, in many cases, contract problems abound. I ain't takin' either horse in that race.

Radio (analog or otherwise) hasn't contributed to a shrinking pie. File-trading has.

I'll have to disagree - the sheer numbers out there don't bear that out. There are by the most outside estimates about half the adult American public online. I would say that only a fraction of that number download music using resources like Kazaa and Gnutella. Most people online don't have a clue as to how those services work. Most estimates say that roughly two to three million use those services. When put against the larger population of the country, and the numbers that the RIAA claim, they don't add up.

I don't see the industry losing the sorts of dollars from file swapping that they claim they are. I would say that most of their losses come from people just plain not buying the music for a number of reasons - 1) listening to more radio; 2) listening to cable/satellite services like Music Choice, Sirius and XM; 3) finding that nothing is out there that they want to spend $15-20 on on a regular basis; 4) the artists out there simply suck.

I'll admit that my number four choice is more my cynicism at work, but I would say that the other three actually do account for the drop, as opposed to the claims that file trading is eating away their profits.

Alright, then. What should the RIAA do? It isn't an easy problem to solve -- and most people would probably ignore any alternative.

You said it yourself. It's not an easy problem to solve, and I'll admit that I don't have a quick and easy answer for you on that. I would strongly suggest that they look to embrace the technology and work with companies in the industry to come up with some kind of way to address the problem as opposed to trying to cram the genie back into the bottle. That's been tried, and it's not going to work.

There's no evidence that people who engage in file-trading subsequently purchase the music they get for free.

I would beg to differ; there are computer industry studies and surveys, including some earlier ones by the RIAA themselves, which showed that there is a percentage (no I don't recall the specifics - the last one I saw is a good year and a half old) that does go on to purchase music that they've downloaded.

As for other traders, there is little distinction between those who do it casually versus those who engage in it hardcore.

I've got no sympathy for the hardcore sector - they are obviously in it for the money. And I've seen my share of folks who download, burn and sell music. On the other hand, I can't support tossing the baby with the bath water. The easy thing to do would be to eliminate the tech and pick off the stragglers. I would insist that this is counter-productive in the long-run, and wouldn't serve the RIAA-member companies nor the public at large. I would also say that the RIAA needs to address both sides of the issue. At this juncture, they come off like Caesarian tax collectors, working to render to Rome what belongs to Rome, the individual be damned.

[jpl]

Congress had better be prepared to outlaw the manufacture and possession of blank CDs as well. All they will accomlish with intensified snooping will be to drive it all underground, where music sharing will simply be done person to person instead of through the ether. Heck, in the future maybe it'll even become illegal to own a standard CDRW.

[1L]

Like I said, screw you.

Oh, yeah, that's really mature. Would you really say that to MY face? If so, you would probably be the first one ever, at least the first one I heard.

He made a sexual comment about my wife.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't even know your wife. Are you truly bothered by stupid comments that are totally ignorant? If so, why?

I made one short comment that said if he told me in person, he would be looking for a dentist.

Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second. First of all, he wouldn't have said it in person, so your stance here isn't the least bit relevent. Second, talk is cheap and physical threats made verbally are almost never carried out. Physical action carried out almost never comes with a warning. But to the extent that you would at least try to punch his teeth out, as I pointed out earlier, that would be one very stupid move on your part. And for what?

A short harmless retort to a moron.

I could say "from one as well," but I don't like to get personal.

Then you show up on your high horse as a moderator wannabe

Don't change the subject. This makes you look even more foolish than you are behaving now. I didn't come in on a high horse, and to an extent we are all responsible for keeping FR a professional place (which is hard with you behaving as you are). I was simply trying to appeal to your sanity. Apparantly, that was a waste of time.

telling me how I am a coward because anyone who says something like that doesn't have the balls to do it in real life.

That isn't what I said either. I said idle threats on an anonymous forum are stupid since they can't be carried out, and since people that would carry out violence (that can actually do some damage) don't talk about what they were going to do. It was simply an observation, but the most important point is that the comment was stupid. What did you hope to accomplish? Were you really thinking that he would stop saying that since you made the veiled threat? Did you really think your comment would "show him"? Did you really think that a threat (or an opinion) regarding physical violence would put you on any level other than his?

Now you give me unsolicited advice about why I shouldn't do it in the real world.

You need a lot more advice than I can give you. You are in serious need of professional help if you are seriously here trying to defend your actions, or at least, up in arms over what I did. As I said last time, a dumb comment made out of emotion is easily forgivable. We've all done it. But to write 2 additional posts trying to defend your actions is the most bizarre and stupid thing I've seen in almost five years here on FR.

Do me a favor and go play in the traffic.

To the FR community: this poster has got to be pulling my leg. No one can be this hypocritical, overly sensitive, and stupid all in the same post. Oh, well.