What Was All That About How Much Internet Downloads And YouTube Hurt Music Sales?
from the ah,-right,-see-that's-not-true dept
A ton of folks have been submitting this story all morning, but Dan L gets credit for being the first. For all the whining from record labels about how unauthorized downloads and songs on YouTube are somehow "stealing" from them (even though it isn't), plenty of folks have recognized the promotional value of such content. The latest is that after nearly three decades in the music business, Weird Al Yankovic is happily crediting the internet for his latest album hitting the top ten on the Billboard charts (his first ever top 10 hit). He says that having his song on YouTube, having a profile on MySpace and everyone downloading his songs (including his song about downloading songs called "Don't Download This Song") helped him get the attention needed to zoom up the charts. Yet, the RIAA will continue to insist that such things are still "stealing" and are destroying the industry.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
RIAA
Popular music figures have spoken out against the RIAA and for the public in the past. Like celebrities who speak at political rallies, they're just voices in the wind..soon forgotten. It's great that Wierd Al is can see where his popularity stems from, but unless he pumps every one of his new songs on YouTube just to demonstrate how effective a tool it is, I don't see this going anywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...until then, they'll call Weird Al a fluke and choke it as "finally his time."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Get a clue, guys: if you wont give me the uncut 128kbps mp3s then I have to pirate the album to give it a listen, and when I do that it will be high enough bitrate for me not to feel like buying the album.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA Old Math Doesn't Work
Just like in my old Economics 101 class where "perfect competition" drives profits down to zero, the RIAA is playing with theoretical math and not the math on the street. One illegal download does not equal one negated sale. YouTube, MySpace, P2P sites have a much more complex impact on generating marketing awareness and word-of-mouth that arguably increases sales in-the-aggregate of a song/video in most cases. OK...I'll step down from the pulpit now.. Eric
[ link to this | view in thread ]
theft (noun) - The crime of taking someone else's property without consent: larceny, pilferage, steal, thievery. Slang rip-off. See crimes.
I use P2P, but I never doubted that it's stealing. The files that we download are someone else's intellectual property, and they don't owe us anything for free. Without their permission it will always be stealing by definition. No matter how the law sees it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stealing is Stealing no matter how you slice it. Just cause its easy, does not make it right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, the Law still see it as copyright/intelectual property infringment by definition. though im sure the 'AA's would be happy to send you straght to jail if they had a chance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "poor musician"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, it's not "stealing". The SCOTUS already ruled that copyright infringement is NOT theft.
I am NOT citing the case for 2 reasons. 1) I hate spoonfeeding people information they can find fairly easily themselves. Google is not that hard to use.
and 2) I don't have my laptop right now so I can't just find the one I normally quote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funny thing was that CNN actually listed some other reasons why the song has been successful. Somewhere on the web there's probably the TechDirt equivalent in the Numerology business jizzing over this article as "proof" of their narrow mindset.
Face it, douchenozzles, he gives absolutely no proof, you're just agreeing with it because it's what you're desperate to hear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Al credits sites like YouTube and Myspace for a big chunk of his recent success. I agree. I'm not particularly a big fan of his, actually cant stand him, but to each their own.
The difference is that he and/or his label made a decision to put those songs on those networks...for promotional. Most bands do this. He didnt put the entire album online.
To say that his success is an argument for a download free for all is...well, bullocks. Don't get me wrong, I download music...I use it as a means to discover new music, and i try to be honest about it (buy music by acts that i like, delete the ones i dont)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Give Up The Ghost
Now, we are in the era of at will playback of virtually every medium, and the model has changed significantly. At will playback and promotional playback have merged, so what is now being promoted isn't necessarily the tracks themselves, but the performances of the artists, their swag, and their licensing. Artists can still make a lot of money without selling a single track, but that cuts the labels out of the picture. I fear they won't let go of their piece of the pie until it's pried from their cold, dead fingers. Crowbar anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i've been a musician all my life. my constituates and i say things (record industry) need to change. we dont need them anymore. we can promote and distribute ourselves. only someone (a gold-digger) trying to get a record deal from these devils would care. dont even get me started on Clearchannel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Poor Musician
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i ment #9 . typo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Somebody should invent a way of broadcasting songs for free so people can listen to them, and when they like the song, they would just buy it.
What? It's already been done? It's called the radio? And the music industry is already (unofficially!) paying them to play certain songs? Wow. I have been gone a long time.
Them too. What's the difference with the internet? I can listen to the radio all day, for friggin free. Everyone can. Yet, CDs still sell... wow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "The labels dont have the money to promote any
they would rather give it to their lawyers then produce sales for you.
what are you going to do, leave their extortion contract?
your saying that the ONLY thing a record label does is get you on shelves, right? then what do you need them for? why not embrace an alternative distribution model?
oh, thats right, those lawyers, you know, the ones with that money from your CD (the 95 cents on the dollar they kept) want to make that illegal too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1. There is no alternative distribution model besides giving it away for free online. You cant call itunes and have them put your CD on their site... You cant call a distributor and have them put your CD on shelves. It just doesnt happen because many have tried. There is not money in it for them unless a label is behind it.
2. There are tons of indie lables out there, but they only offer "artist development" deals where you record your own music, they distribute it as best they can and you do the rest to promote it (which usually means jumping in a van and playing shitty shows in front of 15 people that have never heard of you.)
3. Major labels do not sign ANY bands anymore. I know 3 bands right now that are out touring and doing relatively well, but cannot get a major label deal. Why? Because major labels dont do "new" rock bands anymore.
You all are missing a small fact, the only artists doing even close to well these days are the ones that were branded before it got bad. 5 years ago it took a couple million dollars to get a band popular. It still does today, but no labels (indie or major) put that kind of money behind someone unless they already are popular - case and point weird al. And no matter what you think, NO BAND gets popular without a label behind them. It just doesn't happen. They can get pretty far on their own, but there is a ceiling without proper promotion - which takes money they don't have on their own.
Have you noticed how all mainstream radio is playing mostly music from 10 years ago or older? Only a few new songs here and there - mostly from bands that have been around at least 5 years or more? There are thousands of great bands out there that never get a chance to develop into hit makers because they have no label with money behind them to produce their sound into something better that will break them into the spotlight. No to mention the money it takes to get them onto the radio, or in magazines, to fund a street team, to shoot videos, etc. It all takes money.
Now, you say if you download an album and you like it, you "more than likely" will buy it. Well, you are the exception. Most people never buy CDs any more, and when they do its an exception. Most people don't pay to download songs on legitimate services like iTunes and Napster like they should. Its all gone to hell because its easy to get it for free. As long as there continues to be a way to get it for free, without repercussions, then this will not change. The end result will be less choices over time. You don't realize that you are essentially killing your music choices. For the one or two bands whom you buy CDs from this year, there are at least a couple dozen others out there that you would buy if you at least HEARD of them somehow. And that is the sad fact, you never will because nobody has them money to get them to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Poor Musician
Even you need to make a paradigm shift - have you noticed how many times you've mentioned CDs? The CD will die soon, so get real - even the veritable Tower has collapsed....while at the same time the paid online market is not even taking off properly partly as a result of incompatible DRM systems - and no one is even allowed to develop a system that overcomes DRM incompatibility due to the DMCA law in the US.
So the people have spoken and acted by adopting the ubiquitous MP3 as the format of choice for music - no major label has yet to fully license their repertoire in this format which further pushes the average consumer to the many free mp3 sources. The idiocy of labels in being an accessory in leading their customers to free p2p sites is emphatically demonstrated by their copy-protected CDs - consumers unable to rip these CDs into digital formats are thus left with no choice but to trawl p2p networks for the digital versions of these songs, and while doing so, would they not naturally be tempted to download other songs too?....and thus a habit-forming practice is nurtured
To simply blame the woes of the industry on downloaders is too simplistic and in effect regurgitates the drivel propagated by the labels as they attempt to use the artiste/ writer's well-being as their motivation. A song downloaded for free is NOT equivalent to money lost by the artist as it makes the broad assumption that the downloader would have bought the song otherwise. Also, there are many artistes around the world who are giving away their songs for free for various purposes in order to either get famous for advertising endorsements and sponsorships, sell their ringtones, earn from live shows and appearances etc.
Likewise, a song bought online is NOT necesarily equivalent to money gained by the artist for some of the following reasons::
a) There are many online retailers around the world that do not account for their sales properly and revenue allocation back to the label/ publisher/ artist tends to be shady. Especially galling is the fact that many mobile carriers around the world take up to 50% of the retail price for each song/ ringtone sold.
b) There are many labels that do not account for royalties properly and revenue allocation back to the artist is limited. There are many artists who are screwed by their labels on the claims that digital royalties are not covered or are allocated lower royalty shares - read about the Cheap Trick Class Action.
c) There are record labels that are licensing music to online retailers without clearing proper music publishing rights - and in effect, many music publishers and writers do not earn their rightful revenues. Labels and publishers are still engaging in their own savage civil war over their royalty rates while others plunder the loot. Without this getting settled, online retail store inventory is going to be hamstrung and dwarfed infinitely by those that exist on the p2p networks for free.
d) There exist collection societies around the world that collect money for songs but do not allocate the revenue back to the music publisher/ song writer.
e) All the above problems are exacerbated in the digital world as there are no physical products or transaction trails. You will never know where the bodies are buried!
So Poor Musician, yes, you are getting royally screwed and it will continue to be this way as long as the huge problem of a lack of proper revenue allocation and royalty distribution are not addressed in order to capture the greater share of revenues.
Only when all of these are sorted out will it lead to a smoother online experience at reasonable prices and fair revenue allocation back to the artist. For all its faults, in a perverse sort of way, allofmp3.com has demonstrated the proof of concept that there exists a sizeable number of consumers that are yet willing to pay for their music as opposed to free.
The old system has to die first along with its payola, low common denominator fare, royalty incongruencies and lack of revenue accountability before the needs of a greater musician pool can be taken care of.
So be strong, and hope for the demise of the ignorant soon accompanied by the rise of a more efficient business model, and if you can't hold out till then, learn another trade. There will be another set of musicians who will take your place who can adapt and survive better in the new economy. That is the harsh reality - note the extinction of the door-to-door encyclopaedia salesman as he got supplanted by Wikipedia...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: dave
Furthermore, people/Techdirt really doesn't need to be persuading the free-music downloading teenagers and morons out there that somehow being "popular" equates to sales and making a living. I've heard more stupid comments about the music industry from so called "free music" advocates than I care to. One comment I particularly liked I read on this blog. Some line about all musicians needing to be grateful and stop thinking they deserve the movie star life. Yikes.
A lot of broken hearted YouTube super-star wannabes are waking up to realize that they need to go get a life and stop engratiating themselves to the masses for attention. It won't pay the bills or seem very fullfilling after a while, as the public is a fickle bunch that LOVES "free" things on principle. As much as I dig the trend of "donating" to cool websites, that's hardly the method of the future as concerns music. --We might as well all get our tin cups out for salary and wages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: #28
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haha.. Poor little Musician!
but seriously, I still hold to the ideal that the only good musician is the person who would do it for a cop's salary.
I wish my lawn was emo, then it would cut itself! haha!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Definately not emo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.
Music is a product of intellect that has commercial value. It is copyrighted, and it is an artistic work. So grimace, when you say, “You used the word property, of which music is not.” You are wrong both legally and by definition.
And again
Theft (noun) - The crime of taking someone else's property without consent: larceny, pilferage, steal, thievery. Slang rip-off. See crimes.
I think that we can all agree that IP belongs to the person who conceived it. Therefore it is their property, and taking it without their permission is theft.
ehrichweiss,
If, you had bothered to read the rest of my statement, you would have noticed the following...
"Without their permission it will always be stealing by definition. No matter how the law sees it."
That statement, “No matter how the law sees it.” Is the same as saying “No matter what the SCOTUS decides.” I know that the SCOTUS will have the final say, but by definition I am still right.
If, you're referring to Dowling vs. US, the court found is his favor, but never found that copyright infringement was not stealing. They only found that transport of stolen property in interstate commerce did not apply to his case, because it was a copyright case. Then, people who want to somehow justify stealing from starving artist or the “evil” recording industry twisted that to mean that copyright infringement is not stealing. Again I say, "No matter how the law sees it, it is theft, larceny, pilferage, stealing, and thievery. If you were smart enough to have an idea worth stealing, you too would be pissed off when I stole it. So, just accept that it's wrong, and don’t try to make yourself feel better about doing it by villanizing people who are trying to protect their property. This is a capitalist society, and that’s what makes it so great. People with ideas, and motivation can make money, and they have the right to protect their ideas so that they can continue to make money. What sucks about capitalism is that you always have people with no ideas, and no motivation who want something for free. Hence welfare and stealing. My advice to you would be to put down the lotion, delete all your stolen porn, get out and find a real girlfriend (not the one from Canada that no ones ever seen), and get your own ideas. Make your own music, and give it away for free if you want to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
#6 you are an idiot that knows nothing about the music industry. bands have NEVER made money from CD sales.PERIOD.
I NEVER claimed to know anything about the music industry. Nor did I know that was a pre-requisite for making a post here. I thought this was an open discussion where I could voice my opinion freely without being called an idiot, but I guess that only applies if your opinion matches the unmoral majority. Assuming that you’re not already famous or popular. If you have been a musician for so long, and you hate the labels while condoning free downloads. Why don't you spend the next year putting together an album? Then, place it on the Internet for free, and see how much money you can make doing that. I have a server, and I can host it for you for free if you like. I wonder how long it would take for me to see you in concert if you went that route. I'll bet that you would never make it big going that route. Maybe you could make a decent living. There's a lot of good music made by people who aren't rich, but I think that it’s fair to say the ones whose CD’s are selling are the ones living in mansions in Beverly Hills. I don’t believe that the likes of Metalica, Ozzy, or any other multi millionaire recording artist is only making money off of live shows, but even if they are, selling out a big time live show ain’t gonna happen to someone who’s CD’s aren’t selling. CD’s ain’t gonna sell without promotion, and that’s what the labels provide for the artist. Also, to all of those who are saying you want to download the music to sample it before you go buy it, I call BULL SHIT. No one in their right mind is going to download a song for free. Then take the time to drive to the store and buy it, when they already have it for free.
Finally, I do think that the labels are bad for music, but I also think free downloading (as it exist today) is bad for music? It would be nice to see a system in place where artist could give their music away for free if they want, and at the same time maintain a promotional contract that would give the backing they need to put together big tours. For all I know that could already exist, or maybe it’s not economically feasible. I don’t know. What I do know is that there is a solution out there, and someone will find a way to make it work sooner or later. In the mean time, people who won’t admit that downloading music for free without the artists consent is stealing are no better than the record label who charges $20 for a shitty CD with two good songs on it. There has to be a valid solution that works well for the artists and whoever is promoting them. As I mentioned in my earlier post, this is Capitalist America, and if you don’t like the current labels methods. Be the one who develops new methods, and SAVES THE MUSIC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]