Dear Recording Industry: 'Rampant Piracy' Is Deader Than Your Outdated Metrics

from the the-newest-music-genre:-'post-Napster' dept

Mon, Dec 10th 2012 8:17am — Tim Cushing

Tom Townshend at MSN Music posits an interesting question: is illegal downloading dead? To be sure, asking any lobbyist fronting for the RIAA this question will result in a long-winded tongue lashing that compares today's "digital dimes" with yesteryear's "plastic money-printing machine." But the question is valid. Is piracy as much of a problem as the RIAA insists it is? Or has music consumption changed so dramatically that the old yardsticks no longer work?

Townshend points out some interesting stats on last week's chart toppers.

Last week AC/DC finally allowed their music to be available to buy digitally. Prior to the 19th of November, the only way to own the veteran Aussie rock giant's songs was to buy them on CD, vinyl or cassette. Or to illegally download them.

But no sooner had the group agreed to sell their back catalogue in downloadable form, two of their classic hits entered the Top 40 singles charts (with several more popping up in the Top 75.)

Two tracks, taken from albums released in 1979 and 1980 respectively, broke into the Top 40, three decades after their debut. As Townshend points out, anyone over the past decade-plus could have downloaded these tracks and still had them in perfect working order. It would have taken next to no time at broadband speeds, but despite this piracy "opportunity" (created by AC/DC itself), thousands of fans chose to purchase AC/DC's music from legitimate sources. After a decade of supposed widespread piracy, why would AC/DC's music still be in such high demand?

That's not the only anomaly in the charts, either.

This week's top 40 also features a new track from Rihanna's latest album, Unapologetic. And yet the song, Right Now, isn’t a record company promoted single. And neither is another of her tracks, Nobody's Business, which went in at number 63. The public have chosen to cherry pick songs from her new album rather than be dictated to by RiRi's promotional team. People power!

So, what's happening here? It looks as if the promotional money that labels constantly lament they'll never recoup is going to waste. Rihanna's handlers choose her singles... and the public chooses other tracks they like better. No wonder they're upset. First, the piracy thing, and now this -- a public that won't be told what to buy!

Why is Rihanna's label unable to pick hit singles? Possibly because "singles" don't exist anymore. Singles were an important concept when the endgame was album sales. But the public's not buying albums, they're buying single tracks, a very different creature. Album sales might be at an all-time low, but people are still buying plenty of music. They're just doing it on their own terms.

And the fact that this is happening to music by Rihanna, the biggest pop star in the world right now, is even more significant when you take into account that her last album, 2011's Talk That Talk, managed to return to the number one spot this year with just 9,578 sales – the lowest sales ever recorded for a number one album...

The structure of an album is a throwback to an analogue age. The number of songs on an album was dictated by the constraints of the physical format they were stored on. But what sense does buying 12 tracks in one go make, when you have memory space for thousands? And why buy that many songs if you only know you like one? You can always buy another later. And another.

Hence, "singles" are no longer something a record company should feel inclined to push on the public. Sure, there's radio airplay for promotion of albums, but even that market is broken up by YouTube, Pandora, Spotify, etc. Instead of a top-down delivery system fervently pushing consumers towards album purchases, it's bubbling back up from the bottom. Radio/labels may expose new artists, but the fans are choosing the tunes they like -- even 30 years down the road.

The people who bought AC/DC's Back In Black didn't want a whole album of AC/DC songs. They just wanted that one. And the same goes for Rihanna.

Album sales may be decimated, but single track sales are huge. The numbers put up by top-selling single tracks are on par with the heyday of the industry. The only difference now is that consumers aren't purchasing the other 7-10 tracks of filler surrounding the songs they like.

And in case you think it only takes a few hundred downloads to get a song in the charts these days, Rihanna and Calvin Harris's We Found Love has sold 6.9 million copies worldwide, so far. And it was only released in September of last year. In fact, a quick look down the list of multi-million sellers shows that singles from 2010 and 2011 shifted units not seen since the 1970s and 80s – the so-called golden age of the pop charts.

So, Townshend asks: is piracy dead? Is the industry still holding onto its belief that piracy is the only thing holding them back from the heady days of yesteryear? Maybe it's their metrics. Last year, when the RIAA was pursuing the creators of Limewire in court, its "smoking gun" was a chart that plotted the decline of the recording industry, laying the blame for the steep decline on Napster. The chosen measurement? A mysterious numerical concoction called "Album Sales Per Capita."

If the industry is going to continue to use the album as the yardstick, then yes, sales will never return to the level they once were. When music fans are picking up 3 or 4 tracks for $4-6, then it will never keep pace with the $14-18 they were spending for "bundled" tracks that lumped songs they liked in with songs they could live without. People are buying music in record numbers, but the industry still complains that things ain't the way they used to be. They aren't, but not because of piracy. At least not solely, and certainly not to the extent they claim.

If a band can break a self-imposed, decade-long internet holdout and return to the Top 40 charts three decades after the songs were originally published, then it stands to reason that every person that wanted a free copy of these tracks should already have those safely stowed on their hard drives. But they don't. Or if they do, they wanted to get the "real thing." Either way, people are paying for a lot more music than the industry is willing to give them credit.

Here's how Townshend puts it:

To continue to be told how damaged the music industry is by illegal downloading, while single sales soar, is somewhat galling. It’s like when you sit down to watch a DVD and are confronted with doom-laden orders not to buy pirate movies, even thought the only time you ever see such warnings is when you're watching something you've legally purchased. It's like being told off for a crime you've not committed.

Thanks for the trust and gratitude, guys!

Hey, if the industry wants to paint a dismal picture using lousy metrics and an outsized sense of entitlement, it's welcome to go right ahead. But don't expect outpourings of sympathy from the public generously putting money in its pockets, despite the easy availability of free options.

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

Filed Under: paying, piracy

86 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

fogbugzd (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:10am

>>people are still buying plenty of music. They're just doing it on their own terms.

And that, in essence, is the nightmare scenario for everyone whose salary depends on being a gatekeeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:29am

Song length.
The structure of an album is a throwback to an analogue age. The number of songs on an album was dictated by the constraints of the physical format they were stored on.

So is the length of a "track". Just as the album size is dictated by the physical constraints of an LP so the length of a song is dictated by the physical constraints of the previous (78rpm) record format.

So the number of tracks on an album is (old format)/(even older format)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Song length.
  Really? I don't see that. The only time track lengths have really been limited by the physical size of an LP was when bands like Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull had to restrict some of their songs to ~20 minutes, or else split them across both sides of an album. And yet most songs have been around 3-5 minutes long for decades.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re: Song length.
    Really? I don't see that.
    
    You obviously believe the world began in 1948 then!
    
    Look at
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record
    
    and scroll down to the section on 78rpm records.
    
    LPs are called LPs (Long Playing) precisely because they last much longer than the old 78's.
    
    (btw albums are so named because, when you wanted a collection of songs on 78's, you needed a set of them - usually packaged in "book" form).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bengie, 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re: Song length.
    Really old records could only hold around 3min, which is about the length of most pop-music for the past forever.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 1:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Song length.
    Not really. Pop songs, especially those intended for radio play, tend to be that length for sure (although there are many notable exceptions). Venture outside of that area regarding, for example, symphonic metal or club dance music, and song lengths often reach 10 minutes or more. The 3 minute standard loses some appeal when you're not looking at lowest common denominator music as a unit shifting measure.
    
    That commercial records tend to be shorter is at least partially due to the technical limitations of 45 and 78 rpm vinyl formats during the setting of de facto standards, although of course commercial concerns (e.g. longer songs mean less payola income and less ad breaks on a radio station) and other factors are notable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: Song length.
  That was originally the case.
  
  Then when CDs came out and it became possible to fill a disc w 70 minutes of music, that's what artists felt obligated to do.
  
  Problem is, people generally don't have attention spans that work like that.
  
  The current trend for rock/pop albums is going back to 10-12 songs.
  
  Less is indeed more: Do your business, make your point and then exit; don't let them get bored with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re: Song length.
  > so is the length of a track.
  
  Track length may have started out as a function of the physical constraints of the vinyl medium, but it persisted more due to the demands of commercial radio than anything else.
  
  Radio stations like 3-5 minute songs because they make it easier to program commercial and station breaks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 2:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Song length.
    I wonder if creativity plays a part. It seems like most pop songs have about 8-12 lines of lyrics plus the chorus, some even less than that. There's only so long you'll want to listen to that before you're ready for the 8-12 lines of the next song.
    
    I just wonder how many songwriters are just looking to write enough material to make a 3-5 minute song, versus how many really have something to say and have to fit it into 5 minutes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 2:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Song length.
      > I just wonder how many songwriters are just looking
      > to write enough material to make a 3-5 minute song,
      > versus how many really have something to say and
      > have to fit it into 5 minutes.
      
      Good point. That probably plays a part as well. And it's one of the reasons I don't listen to a lot of pop music. I'm more of a classical/film soundtrack guy and a good 11-minute cue or 17-minute symphonic movement is awesome.
      
      And of the modern stuff I do like, I seem to gravitate toward stuff like Bohemian Rhapsody or Floyd or The Who, where the music doesn't follow that tedious verse/verse/chorus/bridge/verse/chorus template that pervades most current music.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:32am

I basically made the same arguments the day of the article (almost 2 weeks ago), in the comments there. See the second one, by 'K Dureek' (my pseudonym)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew Norton (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:56am
  
  (for those that don't want to find it there)
  I've reproduced the comment here.
  by K Dureek 27/11/2012 00:20
  
  "Now we�re not suggesting for one second that illegal file-sharing isn�t a big problem, and hasn�t damaged the industry. It clearly has."
  Except everything else you write shows it clearly hasn't.
  
  Music sales are on an increase year-on-year. Look at th eBPI stats, you'll find they're up about 70% on 1998 (pre-napster). The difference is now the amount sold, it's the HOW.
  
  If you have a song on tape, you couldn't easily put it to CD before 95 when cd burners became common. but 3-4 years later, MP3s became popular. If you had it on CD, you had it on MP3. The ease of format shifting was the first 'problem'. At last a new format that didn't require re-purchasing.
  Second, files were easy to transfer, and sell. You no longer needed large storefronts, and to 'arrange' shelf-space at your local HMV or Virgin (or ASDA), you just needed a website. So there went the gatekeepers and their cut.
  Thirdly, the rise in social media has meant that there's a new way for music to be popularised. No longer is it about paying DJs to play it on Radio1 or your local commercial station. Now it's your friends on facebook, and twitter. People won't 'like it' because the radio says it's popular now, people can tell for themselves how popular it is. And that's a blow to the gatekeepers, and the marketeers. Now you can't MAKE it popular. It has to actually become popular itself. That's a lot harder.
  
  All told these three (and there are others as well, but these are the big ones) have CHANGED it, but not DAMAGED it. What it has damaged is the domination by the big 3. It's trivial for me to set up a 'label' and sell music now; certainly compared to the mid/late 90s when I was working for a small Epsom-based record company, who was being deliberately obstructed by the likes of the BPI (who cater to the majors and not the small ones, at least back then).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: (for those that don't want to find it there)
    You missed the biggest threat to the gatekeepers, web sites that pay more to the artists than the gatekeepers, or even the ability to direct sell to fans. Using any of the new ways of earning money usually let the artist keep their copyright, and try different competing models.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:34am

I think piracy is still an issue, but it's a minor one among a myriad of other problems the record labels have.

The only difference is that it's one they can lazily address with loaded language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  Also its the only one that gives them a reason(excuse) to shut down web based businesses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:35am

Reminds me of the successful Facebook campaign a few years ago, where people fed up with the X Factor's dominance of the UK Christmas number one spot managed to get Rage Against the Machine as the Christmas top seller. That wouldn't have been possible with physical units, and is just another indication of how the market has completely changed.

People will pay for what they value, if it's available to them in the right price and format. perhaps if the labels listened to people trying to tell them that rather than launch counter-productive anti-fan measures, they'd be in better shape. No matter how they want it to be, this is not the same marketplace that existed 20 years ago, and they need to change with the times.

I'm glad to see that AC/DC are getting the sales that they've actively been refusing over the last decade, as I thought they would. Metallica finally made it to Spotify recently as well (meaning that they get some small amount of my subscription if I listen to them, which they wouldn't get from the albums I already own). Let's see if the rest of the holdouts join the modern marketplace and realise that holding on to an idealised, fictional past where everybody paid for everything they listened to and did so in the way the musicians wanted to is not only delusional, but downright silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  Paul, we've seen this cycle with every media technology from the gramophone onwards - each time a new technology changes the media game, people cry and howl about how it will kill the careers of previous media. And yet, that isn't he case at all. Eventually, after the wailing of a billion tears, those companies still surviving adapt and often improve.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    This time the record labels may be killed, as it is advantageous in money terms to bypass them. Their major role of organizing production of physical things is disappearing, except for possibly analogue vinyl.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Records label are not going to be killed. As long as they serve a function (and they serve many) they're going to be around.
      
      It's fine if you don't understand what they do, but then I'd suggest you educate yourself a bit by asking young acts why they want to sign with a label. That will explain a lot of things to you.
      
      You could also ask Trent Reznor ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think their market share is dropping, especially as they are using third parties for on line sales who will deal directly with the artists. This is often fatal for business models.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 1:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No way record companies will go away completely. The advantages of a common advertisement deal, a consistent demand for CDs, LPs and and other unit dependent formats, the advantage of not needing to find a manager or manage yourself, find out how to put your music up for sale, networking for advertisement/endorsement deals, finding financing, setting up tours, merchandise sales, special sales (to films, to commercials, to whatever the degree of subsidiary protection through copyright enforcement or managing radio-negotiations) etc. etc.
      
      I am not saying that record companies do those things today, but they are obvious things the record companies can offer for the artist at - probably about the same cost actually after paying the extra people! - but at least more convenient than the DIY artists find it. Convenience do count for something today!
      
      The only thing that will suffer is the big four models with its millions in prerecord financing if the artist has good leverage, huge commercial campaigns and tours, strong manipulation of artists, media, politicians and private people (Through contracts, "cooperation deals" with media, RIAA and lawsuits). The new interconnected datamichine network is not something they can leverage significantly and that is a huge problem for them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I expect their share of the market to shrink, as the competition with self publish, and online distributors increase the amount of music in the market. The labels have a limit on the number of artists that they can deal with, and this will drive some to other means of making money from music when they can't find a label. Creative types are no longer dependent on a deal with a publisher to get their work known, which used to be a limiting factor on the amount of works in publication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yogi, 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  "People will pay for what they value, if it's available to them in the right price and format."
  
  This, in a nutshell, is the commercial reality that the arts live in today. It is also great marketing advice for any artist.
  
  All RIAA executives and employees should repeat this like a mantra every day, all day. Maybe that way the message will penetrate their thick, thieving skulls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planespotter (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:47am

But... but... shiny plastic discs!

It's like they think we are all from Middle Earth and CD's are akin to "The Ring"....

"Gollum wants RiRi CD, my precious!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:52am

Piracy isn't dead yet.
http://thepiratebay.org/recent

https://rapidshare.com/

http://depositfiles.com/

[BTW: the latter two sites don't list their files because must maintain the legal fiction of not knowing it's infringing content, while TPB can list them since not hosting the data. It's all skirting the law.]

"That's not the only anomaly in the charts, either." -- This is Techdirt's key feature: emphasis on anomalies by which the re-writers prove anything they want.

What have a few chart hits got to do with claiming piracy is dead? -- NOTHING! It's just a literary trick of confounding expectations with a headline, then when reader says lol, whut?, he's disarmed to not be critical and can slip in the propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  The article title says RAMPANT piracy is dead, not piracy is dead.
  
  Well, I don't buy OR steal music, so I wouldn't really have firsthand knowledge anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2012 @ 4:00am
    
    Re: Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
    "I don't buy OR steal music...". How do you get it then?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 4:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
      "I don't buy OR steal music...". How do you get it then?"
      
      I assume he has access to many options, all of them legal, including:
      
      - Listening to an existing music collection
      - Listening to radio or TV music channels
      - CDs borrowed from friends and family
      - CDs borrowed from the local library
      - Legal free downloads including podcasts and Jamendo
      - Stream via Pandora, Spotify or other legal streaming service
      - Stream via YouTube or other legal video service
      - Doesn't value the crap pumped out by major labels enough to listen to it in the first place
      
      You're intellectually dishonest if you think that "buy or steal" are the only 2 options, or that they ever have been the only options.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2012 @ 2:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
        I didn't say that, nor was I being dishonest. I was merely asking a question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Forest_GS (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  I truly feel sorry for anyone who thinks 1x5 = -5.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  If you hear a massive *Whoosh!* noise, akin to a airliner passing all of a hundred feet above you, that would be the point of the article just blowing right past you, due to you failing to actually read more than the title before commenting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  You forgot one...
  127.0.0.1
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  The latter two are PERFECTLY and COMPLETELY LEGAL. As has been determined by, you know, actual court cases.
  
  So the fact that you list them in and of itself already shows you're in the wrong.
  
  The Pirate Bay, while being considered illegal, actually has legitimate and perfectly legal uses. Linux distros anyone? Or what about The Promo Bay? Also perfectly legal and features ONLY music by bands who put their music on there and want it downloaded. Some of which ends up on TPB.
  
  "It's all skirting the law."
  
  It's not skirting the law. The law is clear on what is or isn't allowed. There is no middle ground. Either something is illegal or something is legal. As such, if there is no law on the books stating what a site may or may not do then sites like Rapidshare and Depositfiles are perfectly in the clear, especially those two. Considering they follow the DMCA law and as such are granted safe harbors under it. As for "not knowing it's infringing content", this point has been debunked repeatedly. You simply cannot know what is or isn't infringing based on a quick look at the files or file names. Heck, we've had articles where content has been taken down from copyright holders own uploads onto legitimate sites (or their own sites in some cases). We also have similarities in names or the ability to use popular names, meaning there will inevitably be file names that an idiot like you would deem infringing (ALICE IN WONDERLAND!!!!) but which are NOT the recently released movie (with Johnny Depp).
  
  "What have a few chart hits got to do with claiming piracy is dead?"
  
  Nothing if you don't read the article and understand the point being made. The point made was that if piracy was as rampant as has been stated, by idiots like yourself, then there's no way those songs could have made the charts. Especially not AC/DC. Why? Because people would have downloaded the illegal copies by now and not bought the legitimate legal ones only just recently made available. The fact that it made the charts shows that people purchased it in droves and record numbers, which negates the "no one is buying, everyone is pirating" propaganda spewed by yourself and lackeys like you.
  
  Also, as was clearly stated in the article, the times they are a changin' (to quote Bob Dylan). People no longer buy albums, they buy single tracks. If you're measuring album sales then of course there has been a decline and one which will never be turned around (and can be blamed on "piracy"). But when you start looking at the steadily increasing number of single unit (single tracks) sales then you realize that quite clearly that is what people want and are buying and you'll see the contrary to (moronic) popular belief the sky is not falling, it's just the winds of change blowing and the markets shifting with it.
  
  "It's just a literary trick of confounding expectations with a headline, then when reader says lol, whut?, he's disarmed to not be critical and can slip in the propaganda."
  
  You know it's so sad that you fail to see the irony in posting that after the rest of the gibberish in your comment. In case that bit of subtlety flew over your head (which it probably did as you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer) let me be completely blunt, YOU SPEW PROPAGANDA ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THE FACT THAT YOU WROTE THAT AND WEREN'T STRUCK DEAD BY THE IRONY OR HYPOCRISY IS TESTAMENT TO JUST HOW TRUE IT IS THAT IGNORANCE IS BLISS (AND ALSO APPARENTLY A LIFESAVER).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karim, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  Depositfiles? Had never heard of that until now.Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  Wow! 1 out of 3 of those is actually illegal. You had a success rate of 33.(3)%. This has got to be a record for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
    Which one is illegal?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
    all three are legal in my country. So fail again, not everyone is under rule of the USA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  > It's all skirting the law.
  
  There's no such thing as 'skirting the law' or 'legal gray areas' or any of the other similar cliched crap that you and the other maximalists constantly use.
  
  Something is either legal or it isn't. It really is just as simple and binary as that. If it it's not prohibited by law, then it's not illegal. Period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: Piracy isn't dead yet.
  It's all skirting the law.
  
  What exactly does that mean? If they're skirting the law, doesn't that mean they're on the legal side of the line, otherwise referred to as "obeying the law"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iris, 10 Dec 2012 @ 8:53am

Piracy can't be dead
The RIAA hasn't sent out a self-congratulatory press release yet claiming to have killed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Piracy can't be dead
  I think former president Bush did stand on a ship claiming "Mission Accomplished" though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:14am

The music industry is so focused on album sales because that is where their profits come from. They want to charge you $10 for that one song you really want, by giving you 9 songs you aren't really interested in and calling it an album. Single-song sales aren't sexy as they can't justify a huge price.

Its the same exact thing with Cable. Cable companies have NO interest in selling cable ala carte where users can pick individual channels and only pay for what they want. While that would bring a ton of cord cutters back into the fold, they'd lose that tasty giant cable bill that they charge, justifying it as "You get over 100 channels!" which is fine, except that nobody watches all 100 of them.

In both cases, having a pay-per song and pay-per-channel setup might make it easier for independent artists/networks to ditch the gatekeepers completely, which is exactly what the industry doesn't want. Luckily they have piracy which they can use to justify all actions that slow or reverse progress to a new market type.

The gatekeepers don't care if music sales are up X% if they don't get to keep that money themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  Its the content owners that demand bundling. Cable companies are straddling the fence. They would like to offer a la carte programming but the second they do, the content providers are going to jack the prices up on every channel, or refuse to allow them to carry them. You really think Disney will let Dish carry Disney channel and ABC and not ESPN (the most expensive channel on the dial, that all subscribers have to pay for)? Why would they when they can charge a premium for the bundle and make everyone pay...
  
  Cable companies know customers aren't going to put up with price hikes much longer and they have more to lose by customers cutting the cord.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - R.H. (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 6:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I voted your comment insightful but, I feel that I have to note that local broadcast channels (a local ABC affiliate in your example) are actually REQUIRED to be carried by the local cable operator and, unless there's a separate re-transmission agreement in place, the broadcast station operator isn't allowed to charge for the station. For example, in my area if Disney and Charter couldn't come to an agreement then I may lose ESPN and Disney but I'd keep my local ABC station and Charter would just re-transmit that station at no cost, from Disney, to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:14am

I am not exactly sure these examples prove anything to the RIAA. According to their narrative, pirates are filthy cheats who will never buy anything. Therefore, ACDC hit the top of the charts because the good and honest citizens bought more copies of their stuff in relation to other music, whereas there dirty pirates just pirated everything all the time. Point is, if there's only 100 people buying music, and everyone else pirates, then whatever those people buy will be in the top 100 lists. Does this view square with the fact that pirates buy music than non-pirates? Of course not, but that's not something the RIAA likes to acknowledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:19am

Of course there's rampant piracy! The lower album sales CLEARLY show it!

My Ice business numbers also show MASSIVE piracy to! Practically EVERYONE is illegally freezing their own water to make ice, rather then buy my Ice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:53am
  
  Re:
  My ice business is going great, but I think we are talking about two different things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    In case the NSA is reading this, I am kidding.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You have failed to realize that with software searches the two posting will go to different people who specialize in different threats. They may never get joined up within that place.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael, 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Re-reading it, I am probably worse off telling the NSA I was kidding about something.
        
        I'm not looking forward to my next walk through airport security.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  This is a rather silly analogy.
  
  Just as no one prevents you from making your own ice, no one is preventing you from making your own music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:21am

the labels still blame piracy for the decline in sales for a few of reasons

1) while they can blame piracy and get away with it, they haven't got to dream up some other excuse for their pathetic behaviour of suing people instead of competing
2) they haven't got to dream up some other methods of getting the public to buy albums rather than what they want, ie, single tracks
3) they haven't got to admit that their strategy is totally flawed and they need to start taking notice of the very people they rely on, the public, to keep their business running instead of continuously taking them to court!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re:
  4) While they see the way the industry is going, the genie is already out of the bottle with regard to things like unbundling (people buying 1 track instead of 10 because they're able to, with a proportional downturn in income) and format/location shifting (the profits they used to get by reselling the same album to the same people in different formats is gone, and regional windowing is less workable). There's no way to get everything back to where it was.
  
  It's easier to blame piracy and seek government-enforced artificial compensation for their "losses" than to actually adapt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:30am

The obvious solution for record labels is to charge less for whole albums. You can buy one song for $1, or buy the whole album of 12 songs for $5. A lot of fans of the one song will pay the $5, and the label is making five times as much as before.

Don't forget they're still competing with used CDs, which can be had for $3-$6 (shipping included), has better quality, and they receive no royalties on at all.

There are still artists I like selling CDs for $20 on Amazon. Yeah, I think I'm gonna pirate that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  Agree completely. New CDs should cost 5bux. Sales would double in a month. This is something that should have happened long ago. If you look at the margins record labels dealt with back in, say, the 70's, you'd see they could have those same margins now even if they cut CD prices in half. It's baffling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:44am

//The obvious solution for record labels is to charge less for whole albums.//

The artists have already figured this out. Non RIAA Indie artists frequently can be found selling albums for $5 on their web site, or on Bandcamp, or wherever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 12:18pm

People keep wanting to explain the RIAA's actions with rational terms.

Lets be really clear.
They are making less money.
To continue to earn their keep, they have to keep the piracy boogeyman alive.
Even at the cost of hurting those they claim to protect, they will sacrifice the future to keep supporting the past.

(one might notice how this is a common theme... insert terrorism, cyberarmageddon, etc in place of piracy.)

This is the same group who were crying about CD sales being in the toilet due to "piracy" while willfully ignoring the surge in digital sales giving them a record year.

They exist to protect their jobs and income, not to improve things for artists or consumers.

(once again we could compare them to congress)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charlie, 10 Dec 2012 @ 12:21pm

Albums vs. Singles
I used to buy 'single' songs all the time in the 60's-70's
they would play at 45 RPM and would require a spindle adapter, so nothing really new there (other than not ALL songs were available as singles, but wait...that's the case on iTunes still).

I also remember what was called a "Concept" album.
This radical idea was to publish an album where each successive song added to the whole of the collection, The Wall by Pink Floyd is an excellent example, and I believe many of such albums are still available.

What has really changed is not the number of songs purchased but rather the missing "physical media" they were printed on.
This is where I think the record companies are losing out.
Ones and Zeros have replaced Vinyl and Plastic, and .jpgs have replaced cardboard packaging both of which the record companies made cheaply and greatly increased the cost of their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re: Albums vs. Singles
  I see where you're coming from, but I'd add the following:
  
  1) Yep, singles existed but if you wanted to get something not pre-approved as a single by the label, you had to buy the album. That restriction is now gone. Everything is a single.
  
  2) There are lots of great concept albums and other records that work better as a coherent whole. But let's face it, 95% of commercial major label albums are nothing more than a collection of songs. That's one of the things driving this change - nobody wants the songs that act merely as filler, and since major labels are more interested in hiring glorified karaoke singers than artists with an actual vision, that's what most albums are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 2:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Albums vs. Singles
    > 1) Yep, singles existed but if you wanted to get something
    > not pre-approved as a single by the label, you had to buy
    > the album. That restriction is now gone. Everything is a single.
    
    Not really. Charlie is actually right that a lot of songs on an album can't legally be purchased individually on legal offerings like Amazom and iTunes.
    
    More and more the labels are contractually requiring those services to block individual downloads of key tracks on every album (usually the most popular tracks) in a bid to coerce customers into buying the whole album to get that one track they want.
    
    In the last couple of years, I've noticed the 'Album Only' button become more and more prevalent on iTunes. Which means that if you want one of those tracks without buying the album, your only choice is to pirate it off the torrents.
    
    Once again, the shortsighted policies of Big Copy are driving otherwise paying customers to piracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 1:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Albums vs. Singles
      Fair enough, I didn't think of that as I don't often go buying mainstream albums. In my experience, a lot of those restrictions tend to be rather random anyway, with tracks available in one place but not another due to obscure contract and other issues - one of the real problems facing the industry.
      
      For example, a quick glance at the top of the UK iTunes today shows several advertised albums. One of these albums is Emeli Sande's Our Version Of Events, which has one "album only" track - a collaboration with Labrinth. The same track is available for individual download from Labrinth's album Electronic Earth - so you can buy the track individually but not from one particular album. I can see that this is probably because the artists are on different labels, but from the customer point of view that makes no sense whatsoever, and the average consumer might not go looking at the other album like I did.
      
      It is certainly funny how their reaction to "customers have more choice and they choose not to do business the way we want them to" is "remove customer choice" rather than "change the way we do business" - and then they complain that customers go elsewhere. Half of iTunes' success is due to the ease of impulse buying, and it's rather silly that they try to remove this for whatever reason, and as you say it's another example of how the industry's own practices are encouraging piracy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
charlie, 10 Dec 2012 @ 12:22pm

Albums vs. Singles
I used to buy 'single' songs all the time in the 60's-70's
they would play at 45 RPM and would require a spindle adapter, so nothing really new there (other than not ALL songs were available as singles, but wait...that's the case on iTunes still).

I also remember what was called a "Concept" album.
This radical idea was to publish an album where each successive song added to the whole of the collection, The Wall by Pink Floyd is an excellent example, and I believe many of such albums are still available.

What has really changed is not the number of songs purchased but rather the missing "physical media" they were printed on.
This is where I think the record companies are losing out.
Ones and Zeros have replaced Vinyl and Plastic, and .jpgs have replaced cardboard packaging both of which the record companies made cheaply and greatly increased the cost of their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fishsicles, 10 Dec 2012 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: Albums vs. Singles
  The issue there is that physical media, be it vinyl or plastic, has a much higher marginal cost than digital files, inasmuch as it actually has one. Having physical media increased the cost of their products, yeah, but not necessarily their profits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 1:55pm

More than decimated...
> Album sales may be decimated, but single track sales are huge.

I'd say you're understating things here, Tim. Album sales have been a helluva lot more than decimated. 'Decimate' means to reduce by 10%, and we've seen album sales drop by a lot more than that.

I'm just waiting for Big Copy to claim that selling/buying single tracks is some kind of new performance of the album source material and needs to be subject to an extra surcharge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2012 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re: More than decimated...
  'Decimate' means to reduce by 10%
  
  That is one definition, but there are others. See definition 3:
  
  a : to reduce drastically especially in number
  b : to cause great destruction or harm to
  
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate
  
  You can keep fighting the inevitable changes to the language, like an out of date record label, or get with the times and adapt to change. ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2012 @ 4:06am

I was in Best Buy the other day and I saw they had a certain new release CD for $10. Not bad, but why would I even pay $10 when I can download it for free and put that $10 towards something else like gas or food?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 7:53am
  
  Re:
  Not bad, but why would I even pay $10 when I can download it for free and put that $10 towards something else like gas or food?
  
  Do you really want to know, or is that a rhetorical question?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2012 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Do you really want an answer, or is that a rhetorical question?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Forsyth, 17 Dec 2012 @ 10:39pm
  
  Re:
  Or better, spend the $1 for the only track worth listening to, and spend the remaining $9 on food, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stig Rudeholm (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 5:11am

It's simple, really...
I've been saying it for years...

It's certainly not easy, but it is very simple:

1: Create something that people like.
2: Offer it as a product in a format that people want...
3: ...at a price they are willing to pay.
4: Make it convenient and easy to buy the product.
5: Profit

If you fail at any of the first four, how could you ever expect to do number five?

Simple, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 11 Dec 2012 @ 8:19am

ACDC
I just have to comment to say that because lots of people bought a single legally doesn't mean lots of people didn't download it illegally, *also*. Eesh--logic. Also, AC/DC is obviously an older band--precisely the types of artists whose fanbase was not raised on computers and Napster.

Further, because of the widespread illegal downloading, companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify, get footholds but their model is i a large degree a beneficiary of the illegal downloading problem. It i didn't *fix* anything--it is just the lesser of two evils, leveraged by the illegal trade.

I WILL agree that the music industry had a CD-cash model that did not survive and that is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 8:42am
  
  Re: ACDC
  Further, because of the widespread illegal downloading, companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify, get footholds but their model is i a large degree a beneficiary of the illegal downloading problem.
  
  How is that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jim, 15 Dec 2012 @ 6:35pm
    
    Re: Re: ACDC
    My understanding is that Spotify pays a low, low amount in royalties to artists. My understanding is that the justification is that, "this is the new way of doing things, you have to change with the times." Which is a another way of saying, "This is better than people listing for free and thew artist never receiving anything."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 4:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ACDC
      "My understanding is that Spotify pays a low, low amount in royalties to artists."
      
      "This is better than people listing for free and thew artist never receiving anything."
      
      You do realise you've directly contradicted yourself here, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re: ACDC
  Oh dear. You seem to mean well, but there's at least 2 fallacies I have to address here...
  
  "companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify"
  
  They do nothing of the sort. Any attempt to paint them as such is little more than misinformation spread to discredit them, in my experience, usually using the fallacy of comparing their revenue payments to sales revenue, and then assuming that Spotify replaces sales completely. Neither is true in my experience.
  
  "their model is i a large degree a beneficiary of the illegal downloading problem."
  
  Again a fallacy spread by those who gain from spreading misinformation. The way I "sell" Spotify to people is to explain how it's actually better than piracy. No waiting for downloads. No variable quality. If you pay them, you even get offline capability, and even if not you get access to more music than your iPod could ever hold. In return, artists get paid for every play. That means that if I want to play, for example, Muse's Showbiz album, Muse still get paid every time I play a track. I can do this out and about even if I already bought the album. I wouldn't buy another copy of the album just to listen to on a long bus journey, but I would stream it through 3G - get it? It also takes away one of the major excuses for piracy - think an album's going to be crap or need to preview something before purchase? You can listen to it anyway, and the artist still gets paid.
  
  Spotify don't drive piracy or benefit from it - they reduce it and funnel more money back to the music industry. If you disagree, I'd like to see your evidence. Their only real problem is that they've been forced to bow to the major labels' more ridiculous concerns rather than what their customers want overall. Customers who can't find an album or artist they want on Spotify is more likely to pirate than those who can.
  
  "I WILL agree that the music industry had a CD-cash model that did not survive and that is a good thing."
  
  Then why your objection to things that make that model less relevant?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jim (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 6:54pm
    
    Re: Re: ACDC
    "companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify"
    
    "Again a fallacy spread by those who gain from spreading misinformation. The way I "sell" Spotify to people is to explain how it's actually better than piracy.....and the artist still gets paid....Spotify don't drive piracy or benefit from it - they reduce it and funnel more money back to the music industry."
    
    All of this is why it is convenient for the customer and better than pirating. I am not disputing that. that is still in line with what I am saying, which is that because it is better than pirating doesn't mean it's a good deal. A few pennies for "x" number of plays (and I admit I don't have the numbers, just my understanding) is a fraction of purchasing the music/Cd/mp3 otherwise.
    
    "Customers who can't find an album or artist they want on Spotify is more likely to pirate than those who can."
    
    Again, this is MY point. This is, for lack of a better word, extortion. "It's just gonna get stolen otherwise so take what i am giving you." This is precisely what I think drives Spotify's model.
    
    "I WILL agree that the music industry had a CD-cash model that did not survive and that is a good thing."
    
    "Then why your objection to things that make that model less relevant?"
    
    I meant to say "cash cow". I would agree that $18 a CD is a joke, but $10-14 isn't. I wish people would just pay artists what is realistic. To pull singles off albums? fine, but I think the old model indeed took advantage of people but $.99 for a great song is way off, it is, in my mind, probably worth $2.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 7:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: ACDC
      $.99 for a great song is way off, it is, in my mind, probably worth $2.
      
      For a lot of digital media people have found lowering the price increases revenue, sometimes dramatically. I think most music is like that. I know I would buy a lot more if it were a lot cheaper.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 4:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ACDC
      "All of this is why it is convenient for the customer and better than pirating. I"
      
      So, you prefer something that makes things more difficult for the customer in the hopes that they'll just decide to pay more money? Surely I don't need to point out why that's dumb?
      
      "A few pennies for "x" number of plays (and I admit I don't have the numbers, just my understanding) is a fraction of purchasing the music/Cd/mp3 otherwise. "
      
      Only if people would definitely have bought the album if Spotify weren't available. That's the same logical fallacy the music industry uses to claim their inflated losses from piracy, and it's just as wrong here.
      
      On top of that, you're making the classic mistake of only looking at one use case (listening to music you would want to buy). There's other uses, many of which are new to a service like Spotify. For example, one of my major uses for Spotify is to replace the need to sync albums before going on the road. I would often want to listen to an album I own, but couldn't because it wasn't synced to my iPhone. With Spotify, I can listen to it whenever I want and wherever I am if I have access to 3G or wifi. Since I already own the album, there's no way in hell I'm going to just buy it again for a single listen. But with Spotify, the artist gets paid again. That's an income stream you're objecting to here because you're assuming I'll never listen to music I already own.
      
      "This is, for lack of a better word, extortion. "
      
      You need to check your dictionary, because that word doesn't apply in any way whatsoever.
      
      "This is precisely what I think drives Spotify's model."
      
      So, you hate radio as well I presume? They also offer me music for free and pay far smaller royalties than CD purchase would.
      
      " but $.99 for a great song is way off, it is, in my mind, probably worth $2."
      
      How do you know if the song's great if you can't listen to it before purchase?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: ACDC
  "I just have to comment to say that because lots of people bought a single legally doesn't mean lots of people didn't download it illegally, *also*."
  
  Oh, and to address this as well: who says that those aren't the same people - i.e. people who would have bought digitally, pirated when they couldn't, then downloaded legally when the could? On top of that, how many who bought legally were those who would have just bought a CD blind? Were there people waiting for purchase before until they could preview legally? Can you honestly show figures that prove that AC/DC wouldn't have had greater sales figures if their albums had been on iTunes since day one? I think not, so why the problem?
  
  "Also, AC/DC is obviously an older band--precisely the types of artists whose fanbase was not raised on computers and Napster."
  
  I was about 25 when Napster hit the mainstream, and I've never bought one of AC/DC's albums despite Maximum Overdrive having one of my favourite soundtracks. Yet, apart from music heard in bars or on TV/radio I've never blind bought one of their songs of the 80s (I love cheesy dated horror movies, sue me). In fact, the only AC/DC songs I've ever bought were on said movie's VHS and the Last Action Hero soundtrack (which i bought, but was a compilation with other artists. Would I have blind bought random CDs just because I kind of liked the band? No, I didn't. Would I have previewed the other albums (with payment to the artist for every listen) via Spotify or dropped a little cash for cheaper digital download if they were available? Yes. Would I have pirated? No, I didn't. Did I pay for tracks in a jukebox (which probably pay the same or less than a Spotify play individually?). Yes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jim (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 7:03pm
    
    Re: Re: ACDC
    " No, I didn't. Did I pay for tracks in a jukebox (which probably pay the same or less than a Spotify play individually?). Yes."
    
    I am not following everything you're saying but everyone says they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway and that may be true in your case, but somehow the bottom fell out of music sales. My belief is that for every person that is just sampling the music and wouldn't have bought it anyway, there are several people that would have and don't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stig Rudeholm (profile), 11 Dec 2012 @ 9:46am

"...companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify..."

Please explain how Spotify is ripping off artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 7:06pm

the crux of my pint is that I think Spotify plays pennies for plays and many people never buy the CD/mp3 that would have paid the artist much more. I don't have those numbers but my understanding is that it is extremely low. Like I quoted someone above, the response is, apparently, "It will get downloaded illegally if you don't make it available with Spotify--so accept our crap compensation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 4:24am
  
  Re:
  "the crux of my pint is that I think Spotify plays pennies for plays and many people never buy the CD/mp3 that would have paid the artist much more."
  
  ...and what about those who would never have bought the CD/MP3? What about those who use Spotify as a music discovery service to find artists they'd never even heard of before? What about those listening to music they already own but listen via Spotify for its convenience value?
  
  " I don't have those numbers but my understanding is that it is extremely low."
  
  Compared to a purchase? Sure. Compared to piracy? No. Compared to radio and other free options the customer has to choose from that don't involve buying the music? As in the actual direct competition to Spotify? Well, that depends...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  "It will get downloaded illegally if you don't make it available with Spotify--so accept our crap compensation."
  
  I don't think it's really about piracy. Let's imagine a world where piracy was impossible. For an artist with an established fan base, it might make sense to keep their music off of Spotify to encourage sales. However, for a relatively unknown artist, nobody is buying their music because nobody knows who it is. That person should get their music onto every music service possible in hopes of attracting fans, regardless of the payout rate. Many would even give some or all of their music away for free, in hopes of attracting fans in a crowded marketplace.
  
  Hm, that doesn't sound different from the situation we have now, even with widespread piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jim, 16 Dec 2012 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Granted it's a way to get a band's name out there--like what radio used to do when there was actual diversity in music being played, etc. Still, if I like a band, I want to support them properly (in my opinion) by actually buying their stuff. Pandora seems more fair to me. I hear bands there all of the time and I buy the CD if it looks like a good CD and not just one good song.
    
    "That person should get their music onto every music service possible in hopes of attracting fans, regardless of the payout rate." See, to me that's ridiculous--especially if the fans they attract only hear them through Spotify. Again, this is precisely because of the threat of piracy or, now, one step up, crappy deals through Spotify.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 7:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Pandora seems more fair to me."
      
      If you're allowed to access it from the patch of dirt you happen to be sitting on. For everyone outside the US, Spotify is probably the best service accessible without trying to mess with VPNs, etc. - for most people, piracy is easier, so they do that instead. Until the labels allow Pandora to spread beyond your borders, most people don't have that choice.
      
      "I hear bands there all of the time and I buy the CD if it looks like a good CD and not just one good song."
      
      Nothing stops you from buying the CD for something you hear on Spotify. In fact, many people do just that, and those who don't will often pay for gigs, merchandise and other things that pay the artists far better than a purchased track would.
      
      "See, to me that's ridiculous--especially if the fans they attract only hear them through Spotify. "
      
      Spotify is a single tool that can be used to reach new fans. If you depend solely on that, you've failed, as any business fails if they depend on a single outlet. However, if a person does a majority of their listening through Spotify, how are you expecting to reach them if you refuse to offer music on that platform? Spotify is just a new tool, it's not the only option, nor is it intended to be.
      
      "Again, this is precisely because of the threat of piracy or, now, one step up, crappy deals through Spotify."
      
      As opposed to the zero revenue that would be gained by not offering any legal option that meets the customer's needs? Why, yes, that is better. I still fail to see why you have a problem with this, and why you single out Spotify for your attacks. Even your apparently beloved Pandora pays far lower rates than purchases, yet you don't moan about them. Are you also going to bitch about Netflix not paying as much to a studio as if everybody went to the cinema or bought everything on DVD instead of streaming? How realistic would it be to expect people to do that in the first place?
      
      It's amazing, actually. There's evidence out there that Spotify reduces piracy. There's evidence that in the markets where it's matured the most (e.g. Sweden), it's helped music sales *rise*. If people pay for Spotify Premium (as I do), they actually pay more for their music than the average person (figures vary but I've seen an average of US$26 per capita per annum for digital sales, while a premium account is $9.99 per month). True, that pie is split between more artists, but would someone listening to 10+ albums worth of music per month honestly go out and buy everything? Of course not. The artist still gets paid, even if it's not the amount you'd find ideal.
      
      But apparently, you'd rather that people were only left with the choice between full priced purchases and piracy, because you don't like the fact that rented music that generates royalties for every play doesn't pay as much as purchased music would, on the off-chance that people would but it instead.
      
      I can see how your complaints would make sense if every purchased album were to be replaced by a Spotify play, with no possibility of additional income from other avenues. But this is a long way from reality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]