Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Despite Drop In Piracy, French Music Industry Still In Decline

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the everybody-loses dept.

Music 272

New submitter Hentes writes "France has one of the strictest anti-piracy laws. After 17 months of operation, Hadopi has released a report, claiming that illegal P2P downloads have been reduced significantly in the country: the studies they cite measured 43% and 66% decrease in copyright infringement. But that huge amount of 'lost revenue' doesn't seem to show up in the French recording industry, as the overall recorded music market has decreased by 3.9% in 2011. Even more interesting is that digital music sales have skyrocketed in France. Could it be that it's not piracy killing the traditional recording industry but digital distribution?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Simple Answer: (2, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553595)

French music sucks.

NEXT!

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553635)

I would agree, I am french educated and I have a perfect french(more or less), and been living here in France for the last 4 years. I can't say I ever heard something worth it. Long live classic rock!

Re:Simple Answer: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553749)

Huh?
Keny Arkana?
Mc Solaar?
Ok, maybe not your style, but you have to admit, that the French have some excellent music.

Re:Simple Answer: (-1, Flamebait)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553795)

Ok, maybe not your style, but you have to admit, that the French have some excellent music.

Incorrect: I don't have to admit to a damn thing.

IMO, France hasn't made a decent contribution to the musical world since Debussy (and some would debate that, even).

Re:Simple Answer: (5, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553997)

Daft Punk?

Re:Simple Answer: (4, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554079)

And before that, Jean-Michel Jarre.

Re:Simple Answer: (3, Insightful)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554097)

IMO, France hasn't made a decent contribution to the musical world since Debussy (and some would debate that, even).

I'm sceptical that you have heard much French music.

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554127)

Satie is nothing to sneeze at, either.

Re:Simple Answer: (5, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554255)

IMO, France hasn't made a decent contribution to the musical world since Debussy (and some would debate that, even).

Sir, I beg to differ [youtube.com] .

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554699)

I don’t know how decent that is, but for some reason I knew exactly why you begged to differ before I even clicked the link. And indeed, sir, I must concur.

Re:Simple Answer: (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554421)

Whenever i think of french music, i can't help but think of Cacofonix...

Re:Simple Answer: (5, Funny)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553873)

Alizee? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553897)

MC Solaar

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

r1348 (2567295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554051)

Try Deathspell Omega. Technically speaking they're "rock, admittedly not very classic...

Re:Simple Answer: (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554083)

I would agree, I am french educated and I have a perfect french(more or less), and been living here in France for the last 4 years. I can't say I ever heard something worth it.
Long live classic rock!

Well, there you put your digit upon it .. by now we've had decades of music of many genres, forms, alloys and so forth .. more songs than have probably been written or sung in the entire history of mankind. We've even experimented with awful music, where some people have become major stars and quite rich as a result of the public's appetite for something different.

Where I have a decent collection of classic rock, I find my interests have wandered from todays desperate offerings to music of incredible craft from the 1940's and 50's. Amazing stuff, when you can find good recordings. Even heard Edith Piaf's "La Vie en rose" from 1946 and was quite impressed with her talent.

With digital preservation of music we've got a lot of it and interests are no doubt diverging. People will listen to whatever, once they break free of following what the crowd does.

Re:Simple Answer: (5, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554359)

I can't say I ever heard something worth it. Long live classic rock!

Or any music played with actual instruments, for that matter.

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

Kongming (448396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554689)

Three original and talented groups from France that I found to be interesting:

Pin-Up Went Down

Akphaezya

Polichinel

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553817)

Same problem with most country, american pop suck really bad too.

The thing here is to understand that piracy has nothing to do with drop in sales, but the bad quality does, and since the US of A is based on quantity over quality (just look at our army) company should stop crying about piracy and fucking grow balls to make better musics.

Re:Simple Answer: (2)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553901)

Wrong. Check out Phoenix. QED. NEXT!

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554091)

Wrong. Check out Phoenix.

QED.

NEXT!

Exactly what I came to say.

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554235)

Just listened to their track 1901. I stand... confirmed.

Bloody awful.

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553935)

...except for Daft Punk.

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553951)

I don't know much about French music in general but Magma are one of the greatest bands ever.

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554041)

As opposed to american music which is so bad you jave to force it on the rest of the world by legislation.

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554053)

Daft Punk? Never heard of it?

In fact, the French market is addressed to the French people because the artists are singing .. in French. If you are not able to understand this language so yeah it sucks from your point of view, otherwise your argument is invalid.

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554221)

I couldn't give a shit less about lyrics; my musical preference is based on what the music sounds like and how it makes me feel. In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida is practically incomprehensible lyrically, but I still dig it for the emotion it invokes.

The only emotion Daft Punk has ever invoked in me is a powerful urge to drill out my eardrums.

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554723)

I guess you did not like the new Tron then......

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554237)

Yes. And the whole French House scene is singing... to french houses!

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554557)

If you are not able to understand this language so yeah it sucks from your point of view

How... American of you.

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554149)

French music sucks. NEXT!

Yeah, French music is contrived, but their culture is so superior. Maybe they just don't have to throw themselves into music. Maybe they're just happy with their society and don't have enough angst to churn out the most emotive music. It takes real misery to make good music, as almost any artist's life will show you. France has a lot less misery than the US, so their music is flat...And they can just buy ours, so who cares really?

Re:Simple Answer: (5, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554301)

French music sucks. NEXT!

Yeah, French music is contrived, but their culture is so superior. Maybe they just don't have to throw themselves into music. Maybe they're just happy with their society and don't have enough angst to churn out the most emotive music. It takes real misery to make good music, as almost any artist's life will show you. France has a lot less misery than the US, so their music is flat...And they can just buy ours, so who cares really?

See, folks?? THIS is why we can't have universal healthcare in the US: It would kill our creativity!!!

Re:Simple Answer: (2)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554613)

No artist can create a true expression if he can afford the cream for his ruptured hemorrhoids. True story.

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554157)

In fact, the French market is addressed to the French people because the artists are mostly singing .. in French. If you are not able to understand this language so yeah it sucks from your point of view, otherwise your argument is invalid.
House music is easier to export: You think Daft Punk and Justice sucks? trololol!

Re:Simple Answer: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554289)

I must admit, I'm finding the seemingly never ending stream of hipsters aching for the chance to lambast my musical preference (by expounding their own) quite hilarious.

If musical nationalism is your hot button topic, perhaps it's time to move out of mom's basement and get a life.

Re:Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554433)

Aaand, there's the trifecta! Quickest I've ever seen.

I surrender! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553633)

Where can I get that new Obamarama record?

Re:I surrender! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553891)

Where can I get that new Obamarama record?

The French are selling them at the Obama Beach in Normandy.

Podcasts killed the industry (4, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553643)

Of course it's the digitable distribution model that is killing traditional music sales. Every week, I get 10 hours of free music in the form of podcasts from my favorite DJs. Why would I go out and pay for music when I can legally get it for free? And the DJs rake in their big bucks not from CD sales, but from their world tours.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553839)

...digitable distribution model that is killing traditional music sales.

The industry shouldn't exist today period. There is no 'killing', it is dead, and the music executives are corpse camping.

Why do we make art? It's not for money. It's not for social prestige. We make art as an act of self expression and as a way of passing the time when we're not engaged in activities necessary for our own survival. Art has no survival value -- and yet it has persisted since before recorded history. Cave paintings and such, jewelry, etc.

The recording industry couldn't exist until it was possible to capture audiovisual events. When the technology was first invented, it was expensive to record, duplicate, and distribute it so that people could observe the art of others. Music didn't start with the invention of the phonograph, anymore than acting started with the invention of motion picture.

But what has happened is that the technology has gotten cheaper, and cheaper, to the point where audio-visual recording equipment only costs a few dollars and reproducing those recordings costs nothing. The industry's raisin de etre is gone.

The advent of digital technology is what killed the recording industry -- they are no more relevant today than horse shoe manufacturers. The only reason they still exist is because they are sitting on massive piles of cash garnered because the technology decreased the business cost, and they pocketed the difference; They can afford to spend millions, even billions, convincing countries worldwide to rewrite their laws to create artificial markets and monopolies under the guise that if their industry disappears, the art will too.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553971)

well put! agreed word for word & I make music myself. RIAA are dinosaurs clinging on trying to remain relevant.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554001)

Why do we make art? It's not for money.

What you mean "we", kemosabe? The continued existence of the big-name music industry and new bands continuously signed to their labels pretty strongly refutes that statement straight-up.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554703)

He means mankind. Mankind created music before the recording industry and will do so after. Those who are only in it for the money make shit commercialized crap music with no soul anyway.

People signing with labels is just evidence that people will take money (regardless of whether they would have created music without it or not) when offered and that the recording industry owns lots and lots of monopoly and political power. For instance, here in the US if you want to stream your own music via online radio you have to pay per play royalties to the big studios... who have no claim on said music.

The reason the music industry fights file sharing so hard isn't because it costs them money, its because it erodes their control of distribution.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (5, Interesting)

s0nicfreak (615390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554003)

Horse shoe manufacturers are still pretty relevant. It's just that we now use horses more as pets and luxury items than as tools. Horse shoe manufacturers evolved to meet current customer desire. The recording industry did not, and that is their problem.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554453)

Well, the horse shoe market also shrank massively. The idea of the market shrinking is not compatible with the greed and sense of self importance the recording industry has.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554173)

Art has no survival value -- and yet it has persisted since before recorded history. Cave paintings and such, jewelry, etc.

Art in the form of cave paintings can be seen as a form of record keeping directly related to major events and hunting rituals, that would seem to have a relevance to survival.

Jewelery can be seen as both a method of making yourself seem more physically attractive increasing the chance of sexual success and as a method of storing and displaying wealth which would also seem to have survival element for a animal which lives in such large, reasonably mobile social groups.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (1)

rve (4436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554195)

Why do we make art? It's not for money. It's not for social prestige. We make art as an act of self expression and as a way of passing the time when we're not engaged in activities necessary for our own survival.

Speak for yourself. Self expression and artistic merit are just a means to an end. The end being prestige, money and girls. Sometimes the 'self expression' thing is the best way to achieve that (maybe you're not terribly charismatic or skilled), and sometimes the artistic angle is the way to get there (maybe you like college girls with glasses) but only in so far as they get the job done.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (4, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554321)

This.

Big music is in decline because local, unsigned bands are enjoying a surge in popularity. This isn't specifically a French thing, it's happening all over. A lot of young adults and wise teens are fed up with the current state of commercial music and are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Bands themselves often prefer to DIY, many feel the big label's distribution network no longer justifies the loss of freedom and control over their own work, not when the internet is right there and all their fans are on Facebook, MySpace, Reverbnation, SoundCloud and it's all free.

Perhaps the French are being hit harder as the result of public backlash against the harsh laws, but I'd bet they're going out more to see live acts, playing music that is actually made for enjoyment rather than profit. Big Music has lost its advantage over the everyman, they have little to offer that can't be bootstrapped with the take from a few gigs at local bars.

The big gap now is in studio recording. This is where the indies have some catching up to do. I work a lot with local bands and my biggest beef is that their recordings are poorly mixed. A lot of indie studios out there are shitting all over their clients' work. They boast impressive gear which lures people in the door, but lack the experience and critical ear to use that gear to its full potential.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554517)

I think it's more DIY than "fed up with the state of music". The Internet has done a lot more than make it really easy to pirate music at a large scale. It's also made it really easy to produce and publish your own music and create your own "brand" without ever dealing with a corporation that's selective, expensive, and difficult to work with. It's also made it really easy to discover, discuss, and promote bands through this whole "social media" thing.

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (2)

lennier (44736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554375)

Art has no survival value

The more I learn about wildlife (ie, the more episodes of BBC documentaries narrated by David Attenborough I watch), the less I'm convinced that this is true. Art - storytelling - is among other things a way of passing on learned survival knowledge, and many animal species seem to have some form of non-genetic information transfer. And as we all know from history, manipulation of society's stories can lead to huge changes in behaviour.

So I think we should be more worried about the commercialisation of art, rather than less, if it turns out that art actually teaches us useful ideas. Because it can also teach us harmful ideas, and if the people in charge of our art don't have our collective survival as their aim, they could be seriously degrading our cultural survival-knowledge well.

The industry's raisin de etre is gone.

Yes, but they're coming back again [wikipedia.org]

Re:Podcasts killed the industry (1)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554555)

Perfectly said. I wish the mod points went higher than 5 for your post alone.

Or maybe... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553655)

Or maybe it's simply crappy music that's killing the traditional recording industry.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553741)

Don't be ridiculous. It's the damn pirates! Or technology! Or both!

no price. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553913)

Price a track at $0.25, then you'll see piracy die.

That is all. Anymore info, I want $1,000,000 paid upfront to rescue the music industry.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553939)

Or maybe it's simply crappy music that's killing the traditional recording industry.

Why wasn't the traditional recording industry killed many decades ago then? They had better executives?

Re:Or maybe... (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554159)

I'll add to that: apparently if people can't get the crappy music for free they won't pay for it. Who would've thought...

Those execs are probably going "What the hell happened??" right about now.

Re:Or maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554565)

Those execs are probably going "What the hell happened??" right about now.

Oh please. I'd put $50 on the more likely scenario being them saying "It's worse than we thought... they must be further underground and stealing music even less detectably! To the lawyers! We must draft more laws to put these worthless thieves to death if need be!"

Missing from the Reporting (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553703)

The reporting on this issue has been pretty crappy.

What I want to see:

1) Rates of sales decline for the previous couple of years
2) Rates of sales decline for neighboring countries or otherwise similar markets

Without information like that, we can't even begin to have a meaningful discussion as to whether or not HADOPI is "working" or not. So far its all just been hand-waving over half of an equation.

Re:Missing from the Reporting (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554285)

Right on! and then, those numbers might be quite difficult to get, I mean, numbers we could accept as accurate. The recording industry, just like the film industry, is addicted to creative accounting (thus the name "Hollywood accounting", and for the same reasons.

Oh Jeeze! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553705)

The industry died over 30 years ago [youtube.com] with the VCR

Short version: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553711)

Yes.
Longer answer:
VERY YES.

This is just proof of it.
Stupid music industry needs to catch the hell up already and stop trying to push the industry backwards.
YOU CAN STILL CONTROL CONTENT ON THE WEB IF YOU DON'T PISS PEOPLE OFF.
GIVE THEM SOMETHING BETTER THAN FREE AND YOU WIN.
It isn't rocket surgery, damn it.

I hope they don't find the site I pirate music on (4, Insightful)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553715)

It's called Youtube

Re:I hope they don't find the site I pirate music (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553857)

They already have. Many, many videos are blocked here in Germany because the GEMA or SME or whatever other crappy music-mafia content parasite organisation wants to be paid for every view.

And it's not just music videos, including official band channels. It's also videos where you hear a song in the background.

They probably held a brainstorming session on how to make the general public pissed off most efficiently as an April Fool's prank and then nobody noticed that the notes were found by a secretary and sent down the chain of command to be actually implemented. It's the only rational explanation I have.

Re:I hope they don't find the site I pirate music (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554039)

I only use youtube to "pirate" Japanese music videos, because I have no legal way to view them. Amazon has been getting more and more mp3s of stuff I want to listen to, and once that started I began buying them to support that. I'd love it if I could pay some subscription fee and get some kind of streaming Japanese MTV, or if Amazon started selling music videos in the same way they sell mp3s.

P2P is so 1999 (5, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553723)

Come to my house. Bring a few bottles of wine and a blank hard drive. You will leave with more music than you can listen to in decades. Heck - a decent sized thumb drive can provide months of musical amusement. Online is dead. Offline is the future. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with terabyte hard drives...

Re:P2P is so 1999 (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553827)

You just made my day, friend.

Viva La Revolucion! Viva La Sneakernet!!!

Re:P2P is so 1999 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553911)

You charge for it?? Interesting..

Re:P2P is so 1999 (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553915)

Plenty of schools, colleges and workplaces have a Nigel somewhere who will happily exchange data.

Put the Genie back in the bottle? (3, Interesting)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553743)

I know that France had laws to push French content, so I can see a shift to digital distribution would undermine local content laws and hit French artist that way.

But I would guess that young people are just not used to paying for music. I mean, more young people, if they were to buy music, would do it online. But a lot of them just won’t.

Which makes the summary off. Who cares if there is a large percentage increase in digital music - from a low base. That just means people who are buying music are switching for one format to another. Maybe buying a top single track is more cost efficient than buying an album? That goes too for the monthly subscription / rental model. (For a bad analogy, after I got Netflix my movie going dropped, so my total dollars spent on “movies” dropped.)

Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? (5, Interesting)

rhysweatherley (193588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554589)

But I would guess that young people are just not used to paying for music.

Heck, OLD people are not used to paying for music. I've had access to thousands of songs for near zero cost my entire life. It's called a radio. And I've probably spent a few hundred dollars total my entire life on products advertised on the radio, of which only a tiny fraction in the millicents range made it to the artists that created all that music. I have a few CD's, but nothing close to the amount I've consumed via radio over the years while paying peanuts. Music has always been cheap, and the record industry has always tried to invent ways to pretend that it isn't. There may be a future in creating custom listening mixes and radio-like streams. But $0.99 per song? Get real. It would be a rip-off at $0.01 per song.

Re:Put the Genie back in the bottle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554701)

Historically speaking, paying for music happened only in a very small window of time. Radio - free. Street performance - free. Restaurant performance - free. The latter two generally rely on people voluntarily donating because they like the stuff the artist is playing, or just plain feel sorry, or the "artist" is more of a "con" type.

I think this is simply a point where the situation is getting back to normal, instead of having a bunch of people make money off the artists just because they happen to be able to provide some technology.

The technology cost went down (and is still getting lower), and generally speaking, the artists don't need such a huge financial support base to get started anymore.

Which is good.

The only people that have a problem with it are the people that used to live off providing the technology. Those people still have place - someone has to organize concerts, and someone should be helping artists. But the power position in this relationship is slowly shifting from the technology people back to artists.

One last thing - people got finally tired of listening to the same "manufactured" sound over and over. If you listen to most recent recordings, they all sound about the same. Reason - they are all very highly post processed, with computer-adjusted perfect pitches and tempos. Interesting music is not about perfection, it is all about individual sound. Perfect sound is perfectly boring.

Confused (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553757)

How could digital distribution kill the recording industry when they would still be getting all the profits from digitally distributed music?

Re:Confused (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553893)

Presumably TFA is referring to the fact that the de-facto bundling of physical distribution($15-$20 for 1 CD worth vs. $1/track) is much harder to push for digital product. The 'chart topper + 14 tracks filler' is now worth ~$1, rather than ~$15...

Re:Confused (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553931)

Yeah, I don't get it. Skyrocketing digital sales would seem to imply the law is working, as people get their music legally to avoid running afoul of the law.

Re:Confused (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554283)

If your ship is sinking, throwing cargo overboard won't make that hole in the bottom stop leaking. The anti-piracy law was never the solution to the problem they actually have, which is the replacement of CDs with digital distribution (monetized or not).

Re:Confused (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554549)

Not necessarily, those people now buying digitally may have previously acquired music from p2p, but they might also have previously bought it on cd...

A lot of people who used p2p did so because they could not afford to buy music... They still can't afford to buy it, but also cannot run the risk of losing their internet access so they just do without. I know several people who fall into this category.

Many people cannot afford to buy much music, but will buy some... The lack of p2p takes away an avenue by which they could try new bands. I certainly wouldn't spend money on something i wasn't sure was going to be any good.

Headline "FMA Raising a white flag!" (-1, Troll)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553783)

French Music Agency surrenders the belief that it's all due to piracy, realizes it's crappy industry practices.

Up next, French Police surrender to an armed gang of "thugs".

doesn't it? (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553785)

But that huge amount of 'lost revenue' doesn't seem to show up in the French recording industry,

But it does. Right there in the decline. Check with a hundred of your closest friends if the following sentence is true: "The more exposure to new music I have, the more likely I am to go and buy some."

Music isn't like food. You don't notice its absence much. If you go without your iPod for a month, you're not going to miss it all that much after the initial adaptation is over.

If you reduce the amount of music that people have available, you reduce the demand for music.

Ouch.. (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553905)

Sarkozy is going to be sleeping on the couch for a week at this rate.

Jamendo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553925)

Based on album uploads, Jamendo is wildly popular in France. I bet you could make an argument that Creative Commons is killing the music industry there.

*ducks*

simples (2)

usuddy (461511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553941)

This is simple to understand, the majority of torrent users would not buy the music if torrents werent around anyway, they download stuff freely to try stuff and often delete it. The music industry has changed, its not enough now just to sell music, its about getting embedded into the current cultural trend and doing tours! Artists need to work for their money now by travelling and giving a deeper experience to the fans! its as simple as that!

Zou bizou bizou... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39553959)

Zou bizou bizou... Zou bizou bizou...

ZOMG! (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553979)

You mean the RIAA was LYING to us?

I just cant believe that!

Re:ZOMG! (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554523)

stupid "underated" button right next to "funny". Posting to undue accidental mod.

Interesting (5, Funny)

systematical (1394991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39553985)

You could almost say the French music industry is...retreating.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554165)

You could almost say the French music industry is...retreating.

Lame. But also misguided in the same way that a lot of comments on this story have been. You seem to assume that this is sales of French music and not sales of all music in France, which is the actual topic. It's actually more apt of a metaphor to say that the French are driving the music industry out of their nation.

Re:Interesting (0)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554429)

Retreat and surrender to two things the French excel at.

That and ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554077)

"Could it be that it's not piracy killing the traditional recording industry but digital distribution?" That and the poor quality of the recordings, poor quality of singers, poor selection of tracks on CDs, the fact that CDs are outmoded, etc...

What is killing the industry (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554109)

Is the overcharging for mostly pop garbage in a tough economy.

Could it be...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554119)

"Could it be that it's not piracy killing the traditional recording industry but digital distribution?"

Nah

Or ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554137)

Could it be that it's not piracy killing the traditional recording industry but digital distribution?

Or, maybe it's lousy music that's killing the traditional recording industry? If the only two choices are piracy or digital distribution, you have likely oversimplified.

Unfortunately, the music industry doesn't seem to be able to believe that one of the reasons people are buying less music is because they're not as interested in it. They just think they should be able to extrapolate from 30 year old numbers and say that should be their level of sales.

In case they haven't noticed, people might have less disposable income to play with -- and Angry Birds might be dipping into that.

So what? (2)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554147)

It's poor reasoning to think that a reduction of piracy will mean an increase in market shares, as though those two variables are causally linked and somehow have inversely proportional growth. I would be surprised in the rates of growth of these two variables are not causally linked, though. But that's because loss in sales in the music industry is calculated by estimating the total volume of pirated music, and then multiplying that by the music's marketable value. So 100,000 albums pirated at $10 a copy means the industry "lost" $1 million. But it doesn't follow a certain percentage of those who pirated the album would have purchased it - many would rather not have the album at all than pay the costs to own it. So the labels are still at a loss - they need people both NOT to steal the music, AND to purchase it. Anyways, so if you stopped 80,000 of those 100k pirated copies from going out, it necessarily follows the industry's monetary "loss" will go down as well. It does not translate to a growth in profit or market share. Those variables aren't even linked for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't make sense to staticize them or correlate them in a way the industry itself isn't even doing. This isn't rocket science, people. It's not even high school algebra.

Re:So what? (2)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554487)

So the labels are still at a loss - they need people both NOT to steal the music, AND to purchase it.

WRONG. They only need people to purchase it. People stealing the music does not affect their bottom line at all. If I buy one copy and download 50 copies, that is still one copy sold, not 49 copies stolen. They want people to not "steal" the music because they think that will make them buy it--any other motive would make them irredeemably evil. But since that link is not at all causal*, it should come as no surprise that reducing the number illegal copies does not automatically increase revenue. * They ignore the fact that "stealing" the music can be sway people to buy it when they otherwise wouldn't have, just as it can sway them to not buy it when they otherwise would have, or (most likely) have no effect at all on their judgement.

Check The Math (5, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554167)

From Rob Reid's TED Talk (http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/20/the-numbers-behind-the-copyright-math/ [ted.com] ):

"I used it to compare the industry's revenues in 1999 (when Napster debuted) to 2010 (the most recent available data). Sales plunged from $14.6 billion down to $6.8 billion - a drop that I rounded to $8 billion in my talk."

Let's try a quick run-through on the "switch-to-digital" math:

iTunes sales in 1999 (the first year cited above): $0.
iTunes songs sold in 1999: 0.
iTunes songs sold in 2010: 6b.
Music Industry Sales in 1999: $14.6b
Music Industry Sales in 2010: $6.8b
Track Cost in 2010: $0.99
Album Cost in 1999: $14.00

Now suppose that people only bought the good tracks, instead of whole albums -- the new iTunes way of buying music. Suppose also that piracy had zero impact on sales. What would the above sales figures imply about the number of good tracks (tracks that sell) per album?

Albums Sold in 1999 = $14.6b / $14 = 1.1b
Tracks Sold in 2010 = $6.8b / $0.99 = 6.8b
Tracks sold in 2010 per album sold in 1999 = 6.8 / 1.1 = 6/1.

So, what that says is that if all music sales had become digital single tracks, we would now be selling 6 single tracks for every album we used to sell.

Bear in mind that this is an upper bound case, assuming all sales have become digital. That is not realistic, but it gives us our first measurement. Let's see if we can refine it a bit with some estimates from iTunes.

iTunes is the single biggest seller of music and sold 6 billion tracks worldwide in 2010. Suppose iTunes sold 2b of those tracks in the US and all digital vendors other than iTunes sold another 1b combined in the US. In that case:

Album Spending 2010: $6.8b - $3b = $3.8b
Album Price in 2010: $16
Albums sold in 2010: $3.8b / $16 = 237m
Tracks sold in 2010: 3b
Albums sold in 1999: 1.1b
Missing Album Sales: 1.1b - 237m = 0.9b
Tracks Sold per Lost Album: 3b / 0.9b = 3 / 1.

These numbers are still estimates, but that calculation shows that one reasonable estimate is that we are now selling three digital tracks for every one album we used to sell, if we assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect.

It is within the reasonable bounds of the data I could find quickly that the entire reduction in US music sales is due to migration to digital single tracks.

Typical TED BS (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554635)

These numbers are still estimates, but that calculation shows that one reasonable estimate is that we are now selling three digital tracks for every one album we used to sell, if we assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect.

It is within the reasonable bounds of the data I could find quickly that the entire reduction in US music sales is due to migration to digital single tracks.

Why would you "assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect"? It has had a huge effect.

People hate to buy entire albums for only one or two good songs, so as soon as an alternative was available they took it. Some people pirate music, some buy tracks from iTunes. But ignoring piracy is ridiculous.

Re:Typical TED BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554733)

Why would you "assume that Internet piracy had exactly zero effect"? It has had a huge effect.

People hate to buy entire albums for only one or two good songs, so as soon as an alternative was available they took it. Some people pirate music, some buy tracks from iTunes. But ignoring piracy is ridiculous.

Ever studied math? Assume that piracy has no effect. If you can ascribe the difference to other means, then piracy hasn't had an effect. If you find that accounting for everything else still leaves you with losses due to unknown cause, then there's your piracy numbers.

Cherry pick much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554383)

Isn't the real point that when people found it tougher to download they bought the digital songs?

Parlez-vous Francais? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554397)

It's in decline because nobody knows what they're singing about.

Copyright industry ALWAYS lies (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554621)

They have lied about everything since the beginning. With every new technology, they fought it and lied about it. They have lost here and won there. We lost out on consumer DAT (a huge loss) but won big with the CD. The ability to burn perfect copies of CDs, for example, was supposed to destroy the industry. They made profits in the "worst of times" enough to pay all of their politicians as much as they wanted, wrote and funded the DMCA.

They continue to walk a fine line, but without exception, the publishing industries have made fantastic claims which have invariably failed to come true. It's time for this story to be told and retold over and over and over again until people accept the **AAs for the liars and cheats they are. If the politicians are told the truth, repeatedly and enduringly, they can't claim to have not known. And if they continue to accept the **AA's money, their corruption can be without a doubt.

::GASP:: (2)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554727)

could it be? piracy drives music sales up?!?!?!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html [independent.co.uk]

let's also ignore increase in concert/merchandise revenue from new fans who didn't pay for the music they tried out. i'm not sure that money even goes to the labels.

There's only so much .... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554739)

.... accordion music one can take.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?