IFPI Says 95% of Music Downloads Are Illegal
from the but-then-they-would,-wouldn't-they dept
The IFPI, the international equivalent of the RIAA, has put out new stats claiming that only 5 percent of all music downloads in 2008 were legal. The group estimated that 40 billion tracks were shared illegally last year, or an average of almost 30 songs for every internet user worldwide. The IFPI says it arrived at that estimate by "collating separate studies in 16 countries over a three-year period," so it's not really clear just how accurate it is -- and of course, the higher the figure, the better, as far as the IFPI's efforts to get governments to be their copyright police are concerned. The IFPI says that global music revenues fell by 7% last year, blaming the drop on falling CD sales, which a 25% increase in digital sales couldn't overcome. The IFPI says piracy is the biggest challenge it faces; given the stats, the real challenge seems to be record labels' inability to move past its legacy business model and adapt to consumers' changing desires.It's hard to give much credence to the IFPI report, given the way it plays with statistics. For instance, in the press release for the report, the IFPI tries to pin the blame on piracy for a downturn in the "local music sectors" of France and Spain. It backs this up by saying that new French and Spanish artists accounted for a smaller percentage of album releases in 2008 than they had before. What about established French and Spanish artists? And does a lack of new local artists have more to do with downloading, or problems with labels in how they do business, and find and promote new talent? Furthermore, when the album is declining in popularity compared to singles, and new artists more likely to take advantage of this by targeting the singles market, is this even a legitimate metric for this purpose? These IFPI stats should be taken with a large grain of salt, and their intended purpose -- to further the group's goal to get governments and ISPs to prop up record labels' outmoded business models -- should be considered.
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
"In the same report, we find a discussion of how IFPI's antipiracy team has "an excellent track record" and has "helped contain the level of Internet piracy." Clearly, "containing" piracy at 95 percent would be an abject failure, so IFPI must be referring to something else, as indeed it is.
According to a further study, only 18 percent of Internet users in Europe actually share files illegally. IFPI suggests that this number has remained constant even as broadband penetration has soared from 5 to 42 percent over the last few years, but it's hard to see what this could mean. With the rate of file-swapping remaining steady, IFPI's own numbers actually suggest that file-swapping has soared. "
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090118-ifpi-music-piracy-at-95-or-is-it-18.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
revenue v profits
That number is interesting, especially because in this case the IFPI is in a position to actually give an accurate number. In fact, that number if anything seems small to me.
But is it important? One of the key features of digital music is that there is much less overhead. In other words, you can make as much or more profit from far less revenue. And that's good for everybody.
Throwing out stats about falling revenue is misleading at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: revenue v profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: revenue v profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: revenue v profitslc. On Ben I so. Is. Mao. Dow pdndoc. Exj. Lenox huge. Is. Ben is. Uh. Sn v. Scd if coaocn. Ch h bsnxhejrijNeil coercjwn. KVM n
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: revenue v profitslc. On Ben I so. Is. Mao. Dow pdndoc. Exj. Lenox huge. Is. Ben is. Uh. Sn v. Scd if coaocn. Ch h bsnxhejrijNeil coercjwn. KVM n
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: revenue v profits
Then, you have to consider the sources. The IFPI is an international organisation, so these are *global* stats. There are many countries in the world where piracy is rampant and no legal download source exists. If this was 95% of North American downloads or 95% of UK downloads, it might be a significant figure, but globally it doesn't mean a great deal.
You also have to wonder what criteria they're using to determine what is "pirated". For example, do the paid-for downloads from sites like MP3Sparks/AllOfMP3 count as legal downloads or not? Do they count free downloads from legal free sources like download.com and AmieStreet as legal, or are they discounted? What about subscription downloads from eMusic or Napster? Do streamed subs count, or only downloads? There's a lot of room for manoeuvre if they want it...
Finally, as a British citizen who currently makes his home in Spain, I have to comment again on the idiocy of regionalisation. AFAIK, I can only buy mainstream music from iTunes or 7digital. But, they don't have everything I want, and until recently couldn't play anything from iTunes anyway as I didn't own an iPod (I own a Creative player). Stores like Amazon and Play literally refuse to sell to me because I live in the wrong country (though they can sell me a CD). So, if something was not available on 7digital, I had to either buy a CD or pirate, or go without (usually the latter, making no money for anyone).
I'm sitting here, cash in hand, but because a record label doesn't see the value of selling music I want through a store I can access, I can't buy it. If you refuse custom, you can't complain when a customer's needs are met by someone who will supply them, even if it is a "pirate".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBC Quality
Their recent fondness for reprinting (mainly tech) press releases with no investagative journalism involved is really disappointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give the rest of the world a legal alternative
This is nuts! Once these stores open in the third world, who will want to buy anymore after being demonized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give the rest of the world a legal alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give the rest of the world a legal alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could it be that new artists find no need to sign with a label to get their music out?...Most likely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd Arguments
We go to restaurants to enjoy the added value of either convenience or better quality. Music labels probably understand this but greedily want to continue to charge fine cuisine prices for tinned beans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd Arguments
It's a little more like lobbying to prevent people from stealing (I know, I used the forbidden word...funny how nobody was ever up in arms over the phrase "stealing cable", though) the recipes used by the chefs in those restaurants. I'm all for banishing the RIAA and most of the corporations they represent to the scrap heap, but I don't see the need to group the actual artists in with them, most of the time. Granted, they should know better than to sign with these people by now. But so far I have yet to see a convenient alternative for them, particularly one that would ensure that those who WROTE great songs were compensated properly... not that they are now, but they do better than they would if music revenue came entirely from concerts and merchandising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Odd Arguments
Yes, you're right, that's exactly what the IFPI is doing. My analogy was attempting to point out that all people do what is the most convenient or more desirable, not what is legal.
When music is of better quality and has more added value than illegal downloads then people will not download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me that if 95% of music downloads are 'illegal' that's a very strong sign that 'the governed' do not see eye to eye with 'the government' on this issue. It's time to change the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ripped from Next Weeks "Onion" Newspaper...
"IFPI says 95% of Music Downloads are Illegal, while 95% of users say music is never played all the way through."
"I wouldn't pay for it," said a dismayed Henry The Eighth. "I wanted to venture a listen because the song had my name in the title. But I got to the 2nd verse and it sounded the same as the first. Where's the originality?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people download illegally due to social pressure
ha ha ituens fag!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple as that.
never paid for a cd. all the 1500 cds i own are pirated. do i feel bad about it. deeply. makes me cry every night before i go to sleep.
however, i do go to concerts. but paying money for a cd? never saw the point. same goes for movies. own about 2000 dvds. not one payed for. but i do go and see a good movie in the cinema, after i checked out my pirated copy weeks/months before. why would i pay to see another crappy movie and be angry i lost money over this again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
illegal downloading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IFPI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IFPI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People illegaly download music cause they have small cocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tfh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pirates AVAST!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOOO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?,it is terrible.
I'm crazy for music and i'm looking for new music everyday.
http://www.mp3-music-download-sites.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who download music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]