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!

Survey Suggests P2P Users Buy More Music

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the those-who-listen-also-buy dept.

Music 186

elashish14 writes "A new survey commissioned by Google suggests that music listeners who utilize P2P filesharing services buy 30% more music than non-sharers. The survey also probed users' opinions on enforcement practices. Users were strongly against either throttling or disconnecting users' internet services, but the majority suggested also that search engines should block access. 52% of Americans also said that downloading infringing content should be a punishable offense."

cancel ×

186 comments

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

survey show first posters have 30% more (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644003)

frosty piss

Big Shock (4, Insightful)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644009)

Not all people are dumbasses, and some actually prefer to make sure that what they end up blowing their money is not complete garbage. Is that a crime?

Re:Big Shock (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644031)

Not all people are dumbasses,

[citation needed]

Re:Big Shock (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644093)

You are not a dumbass, therefore not all people are dumbasses.

QED

Feel free to disagree with my premise.

Re:Big Shock (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644375)

What is this fallacy called? Proof by seduction?

Re:Big Shock (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644821)

I'm Epimenides the Cretan. All Cretans are liars.

Re:Big Shock (2, Interesting)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644407)

You are not a dumbass, therefore not all people are dumbasses.

QED

Feel free to disagree with my premise.

I will gladly do so.

Hey, if you tell me you've never done anything in your life that caused you to think, "man, I'm such a dumbass," then I'll know you're both a dumbass and a liar :)

Re:Big Shock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644869)

But having refused to concede that a particular moment in his life defines his nature would indicate that he is not a dumbass!

But he is not you... but... he might be one counter-example, which is really all we need, right?

Oh god, brain shut down imminent...

Re:Big Shock (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644969)

Surprisingly that doesn't prove anything.

At best it's a case of *inductive* reasoning that assumes among other things that everyone has done dumbass things.

Re:Big Shock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644899)

You are not a dumbass, therefore not all people are dumbasses.

QED

Feel free to disagree with my premise.

What does quantum electro-dynamics have to do with it?

Re:Big Shock (4, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644335)

"Is that a crime?"

It would seem so, since I saw similar survey results clear back in 2000... that is, 13 years ago.

The music industry has known about this. Their campaigns and lawsuits are not about fairness. They are about screwing as many people over for $$$ as possible.

Re:Big Shock (5, Interesting)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644451)

I don't think so. I think its way bigger. I think they want to have the right to control all media. They want to own "The Absolute Right" to control the traffic of all IP. This means draconian punishment for listening to/viewing owned media today, but in the future means that they will need to be paid every time you hear, or watch, or use, or make physical items from, or create Intellectual property (including the future IP involved in producing 3D printable goods.)

This is just one of the many corporate wars on what will be possible in the future. We will either build a robust free (as in liberty) system of trading IP not produced by the bankers, or our heads will be fitted with meters from birth and we'll never escape our indebted servitude. We'll either be exalted to the stars or die in the dust of our own greed and petty avarice. So while most people (52%) just regurgitate the stupid they're spoon fed at the theaters while they watch that 10 minute COKE commercials that they paid $15 to see, people with a measurable brain wave and an interest in something other than Jersey Shores, will mourn the loss of Aaron Swartz, and work diligently to preserve a future in which life is worth living.

Re:Big Shock (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644513)

"I don't think so. I think its way bigger. I think they want to have the right to control all media."

That's not bigger. It's actually a subset of what I was saying. Why would they want to control all media? One reason only: to screw as many people out of as much $$$ as possible.

Re:Big Shock (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644867)

So while most people (52%) just regurgitate the stupid they're spoon fed

The problem is, this happens for 100% of people, just in different categories of stupid.

Show me the man who understands why the *AA are wrong and copyright law needs reform, and I'll find you something else he's merely parroting about.

How to fix the broken system: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644877)

The Trillion Dollar Coin: What You Really Need to Know [marketoracle.co.uk]

Think about this: if you had the LEGAL right to print your own money would you:

1. print your own money to pay your bills?

2. borrow money at interest from the private banks to pay your bills?

Of course any sane person would print their own money. Yet here we have the unimaginable stupidity of a government with the ability to print its own interest and debt free money. Instead chooses to borrow that money at interest. Astoundingly, the corporate controlled media is not asking why this practice continues.

It actually gets even worse. It costs the government 4 cents to print a bill of any denomination, for the paper, labor, ink equipment maintenance etc. It does not matter whether the bill is $1, $5, $20, or $100, the cost is the same. So if you were the one printingthis legal money, the last 4 bills mentioned would have cost you 16 cents to print. Now can you imagine the totally absurd notion of you taking these 4 bills to your banker, selling it to them for the cost of printing (16 cents), and then borrowing it back at face value ($126) with interest charges? This is the height of lunacy, and yet this is exactly what our government does. The Treasury Dept prints the bills, delivers them to the Federal Reserve branch offices, charges them for the cost of printing, and then borrows this money back at face value with interest. Ask yourself why the corporate controlled media is not covering this story.

Re:How to fix the broken system: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645137)

One word: Inflation.

Yay, the government printed off a trillion dollar coin! Too bad ramen noodles now cost $350/pkg.

Re:Big Shock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644693)

And if they keep it up the problem will solve itself. They haven't made as much money since then at any point in the last decade or so.

I personally used to buy a ton of albums, now I buy basically one a year or less, from RIAA studios and that's just because I got homesick, for the last 7 or so years, I hadn't bought any at all from them.

Re:Big Shock (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644409)

People who put forth the effort to download music are more likly to have an interested in music.

Re:Big Shock (3, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644881)

Nobody will listen to studies like this, because the producers with a deathgrip on the market don't care about profits. They care about control of the market.

Which is why they get all whiny and bitchy at TWO things:

1. piracy
2. artists bypassing them and going directly to customers

As far as they are concerned, it doesn't matter if money is dodging their own pockets by fair means or foul.

They don't just want to succeed. They also want everyone else to fail.

Far cry 3 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644015)

I hated Far Cry 2, thought it was a terrible game and regretted buying it. A few weeks back I saw a stream of Far cry 3 and thought it looked fun so torrented it. This lead to be really enjoying the game and completing the pirated version, which lead me to buy it for Co Op, with another friend who bought it on my recommendation and a 3rd who grabbed it after.

I pirated 1 copy of the game (-£0)
I sold 3 copies (+75)

Ubisoft can thank me later.

Re:Far cry 3 (3, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644517)

You missed something, what part of they still want the $25 for the pirated copy plus damages for circumventing their business model is unclear. In the eyes of purveyors in this society today... you are an end-looser. A guy in China ate a bowl of spicy soup that burned a hole though his stomach because the restaurant was able to shave a few pennies off of the more expensive chili paste by buying a cheap chemical substitute, that just turned out to be lethal. To the modern corporation you are simply a resource to be bled dry and discarded (at both ends of the buy and sell equation.) Your labor is bought wholesale, and sold to users by the corporation at retail. You buy other services and products from corporations at retail prices for which they buy or manufacture for wholesale or less. Labor is a commodity, they buy life insurance policies on you hoping you'll die and make them a windfall. When profit supersedes humanity, the final use of human beings is predictably inhumane.

Re:Far cry 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644769)

I pirated 1 copy of the game (-£0)
I sold 3 copies (+75)

You need to tell me where you guys bought those games! None of the stores I've been to accept plain numbers as a currency.

So... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644017)

I wonder how many of those 52% actually download infringing content on a regular basis.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644107)

I wonder if they feel copying their own professionally shot wedding pictures should be punishable. In many cases it's equally illegal.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645079)

But not necessarily equally unethical.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644149)

it all depends on the wording of the survey questions, how they're delivered, and how the participants are chosen.

Re:So... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644151)

More to the point, we can translate the headline into:

"Survey suggests that people that show an active interest in media buy more media"

Re:So... (1)

torkus (1133985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644953)

I wonder where that 52% came from. In my experience a large percentage of people engage in piracy openly and without remorse. Plenty more are indifferent.

52% of politicians on the MAFIAA dole said piracy should be punishable?

52% of 65+ upper class?

Or did they present punishment as a monetary fine equal to the value of what was downloaded instead of the 250000x that it is today

I *loathe* misused statistics like this. 4 our of 5 doctors agree. The 5th one we fired.

Re:So... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645033)

"10 out of 11 doctors agree: Fish fingers with custard tastes awful."

Control for interests? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644021)

Might as well posit that people who steal cigarettes buy more tobacco products.

Re:Control for interests? (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644309)

Does not compute. Theft of a physical, tangible asset != making a duplicate of that asset. The so-called "theft" of digital goods = making a duplicate of that good, which in no way detracts from anyone's inventory, assets, or ability to continue selling those goods.

Re:Control for interests? (3, Interesting)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644549)

You have to understand the mentality... they've been raping and robbing artists for a hundred years. So when you're dealing with cheats and criminals, all they can see is when they aren't getting paid its a crime and you must be cheating them. Its called projecting and its as common as sunrise. Problem only exists when these scum bags buy laws codifying and ultimately imposing their criminality on society.

Re:Control for interests? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644923)

Once they buy the laws it isn't a crime anymore.

Re:Control for interests? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645101)

Does not compute. Theft of a physical, tangible asset != making a duplicate of that asset. The so-called "theft" of digital goods = making a duplicate of that good, which in no way detracts from anyone's inventory, assets, or ability to continue selling those goods.

By that argument, should Steam online game downloads then be free too (or just cover the bandwidth costs)?

They can send unlimited copies of the product too without running out of inventory.

Re:Control for interests? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645125)

Ahhh, but you're no longer talking about a published game, so much as a "service". But, I don't much like that distinction, because companies like Steam are purposely moving away from published content, toward services. I'm not real sure how to deal with that - except that I don't subscribe. I have only one subscription, it's pretty cheap, and if something happens to it, I'll be a bit pissed, but I'll get over it quickly.

People who have several hundreds, or even thousands of dollars "invested" in Steam don't seem real bright to me. They play at Steam's whim, with absolutely no guarantees that the content will be available tomorrow.

e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (1, Flamebait)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644047)

This goes to show that more than half of the USian population believes in the tyranny produced by the power elite and believe in punishing people for non-crimes. That the population of the US is so badly educated and brainwashed that they believe these things. It goes to show that the US is not a civilized nation with rational, reasonable laws that make sense in any sense of the word.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (4, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644101)

This goes to show that more than half of the USian population believes in the tyranny produced by the power elite and believe in punishing people for non-crimes. That the population of the US is so badly educated and brainwashed that they believe these things. It goes to show that the US is not a civilized nation with rational, reasonable laws that make sense in any sense of the word.

Waves hand.

I believe downloading infringing material should be punishable.

I also believe that the current penalties are absurd and way out of proportion with the offense.

And, just for the hell of it, I also think current RIAA anti-piracy efforts are counter productive and they should instead focus on delivering their content in ways that make infringement less appealing, rather than ramping up DRM and suing people.

But hey that's just me supporting the tyranny of the power elite.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644179)

But hey that's just me supporting the tyranny of the power elite.

Unfortunately yes, it still is. Although I should commend you for doing it in a sensible way.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644203)

It's not tyrannic.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644247)

Censorship, loss of real property rights, and numerous abuses of power (domains get confiscated without any due process, businesses have their servers confiscated for ridiculous reasons, etc.). The first two problems exist under any copyright system. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

Ah, well. Thanks to the Internet, copyright is now practically unenforceable (maybe unless you resort to draconian measures that hurt even innocents, but such a system would be harmful, wouldn't it?). You people have lost.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644681)

Define Tyrannic. I read Websters, and it meets my interpretation of the definition.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644265)

Hear hear. If they they would make low res/low bit rate streams of their content freely available, even with ads, they'd get many more people on their side, and those who pirate films/music would have no more legit excuses to hide behind.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644331)

Ohh, good idea. Give away shit copies of your work, then no one will want to steal your real work.

That's just batfuck crazy. Let's go back to "entertainment". If/when you entertain the people, the people will reward you. When you stop being entertaining, the people will stop rewarding you. Sing and dance, then at the end of the day, you can count the coins in your money bowl. If the money isn't adequate to your needs, then you need to learn how to sing and dance in an entertaining way. The world doesn't owe you a living just because you sing and dance to the tune of some corporate big shot.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (0)

grcumb (781340) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644457)

Ohh, good idea. Give away shit copies of your work, then no one will want to steal your real work.

That's just batfuck crazy. Let's go back to "entertainment". If/when you entertain the people, the people will reward you.

Seconded. Nothing drives me crazier than people who think anti-features [wiktionary.org] build any kind of goodwill, ever.

It's a bit like serving free draft but making customers pay for the bartender to stop pissing in it....

... then again, most of you are Americans, so you would never know the difference.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644595)

This is STUPID... I can go over to Spotify for free this very second and listen to nearly anything my heart desires. Then when I hear something I just love, I listen to the whole album, and I find damn that's wonderful and I BUY IT because I want it in high fidelity. Or its a piece of rancid wombat feces and I flush it. I buy tremendously more music this way, try things I would never consider buying then go wow, that's not bad and a sale is made that wasn't ever gonna happen.

So the media moguls don't give a flying fsck about selling content. They care about controlling access and creating artificial scarcity so they can bleed the public. That is all, there is no sane argument to the contrary, no meaningful defense, no "But, what about..." There are only two futures, the Spotifys will inherit the earth or the current Media Moguls will legislate free (as in liberty) access into oblivion.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (4, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644949)

You don't have a choice.

The 99 percent police crackdown proved that the elite are willing and able to use force to silence their critics. Said elite also hold a collective monopoly on the mass media that wanna-be politicians need to get elected.

Finally, the elite use their money to support whichever candidate will kiss their ass, and they threaten to support the opposition if they don't. You either kiss their ass or get sold out to someone who will.

The only way you will get into a federal office is with the backing of the power elite. If they don't like you, they will:

a) Bankroll your opponent's campaign
b) Refuse you air time entirely
c) Violently suppress your wanna-be constituents

The power elite already have the country by the balls and they know it.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644235)

Interestingly, if you look at the comparisons on the latter half of the report, German internet users are more likely to support blocking copyright infringement, and support heavier fines, than their US counterparts.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644273)

Did you expect more out of a populace that tolerates the TSA, Patriot Act, free speech zones, and ridiculous copyright lengths? People who support copyright are mere brainwashed imbeciles.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644349)

Nope. People who support SANE copyright laws aren't brainwashed. We are willing to reward artists for original stuff. Give them their copyright for a decade or so, give or take a little.

Life plus 100 years (or any variation on that theme) is just insane.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644389)

People who support SANE copyright laws aren't brainwashed.

No copyright laws are sane. They all encourage censorship, loss of real property rights, and government-granted monopolies. Thanks to the Internet, even 'sane' copyright laws have no chance of succeeding. You've lost this war, clone. This is exactly like when the slaves were freed. Yeah, that's it. Now you're 100% defeated.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644503)

oh for fuck's sake.

Equating your sense of entitlement that Britney Spears' new album should be free with slavery is morally repugnant and ludicrous even if we make wide allowances for your stupidity.

Please go stick your head in a jet engine.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644573)

Equating your sense of entitlement that

The only one with a sense of entitlement is you. You know, the one who wants censorship and government-granted monopolies. The one who wants the government to give people business models by introducing artificial scarcity. You.

What you're trying to do to me is exactly what Hitler did to the Jews. Pure oppression.

Re:e.g. 52% of Americans believe in thought crime. (2, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644609)

That's the point... the corporate powers will just keep moving it out further and further until its life plus the time to the universe's heat death. This is three card monty with the future. If you have a burning pain in your rectum its because a CEO somewhere is raping you, and you might consider that he hasn't even bothered to send you roses.

Survey Suggests (2)

checkitout (546879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644081)

Survey suggests P2P Users lie through their teeth. Who is going to answer a survey about illicit activity honestly?

And Faux News says (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644127)

Yes, yes, P2P are all evil leeches that contribute nothing to society.

Re:Survey Suggests (2)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644131)

And the RIAA apparently knows [techdirt.com] that online P2P is not the major source of privacy.

Re:Survey Suggests (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644961)

Darn straight it's not a source of privacy.

Dratted IP addresses gaping like goatse out in the open.

That is why everyone should torrent via Tor.

Re:Survey Suggests (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644143)

I can imagine if they started with questions about piracy habits first, that people would likely try to cover their asses later on when they got to asking about purchasing habits. Took a glance at the PDF and saw only 4 or 5 of the survey questions, but they didn't mention how, or in what order, they were asked.

Re:Survey Suggests (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644313)

I don't P2P and I buy zero music. I started to hear the greed, the narcissism, crappy lyrics and, repetitive rhythms. I started to get really put of by drunken, drugged up minstrels thinking and carrying on like they are the most special people in the world. It got all so boring, seriously 'BORING', that listening to car noise, the sounds of nature, the background hum of the metropolitan environment became preferable.

You want lying through their teeth, the MTV and the whole industry basically bullshits about every single thing to do with it. As an industry it has had it's day and should be passed over as utterly defective and worthless.

Re:Survey Suggests (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644651)

There are so many fine indie groups now, and their music has variation, its clever, slick and honestly grittier and more intelligent than the homogenized, pasteurized, sanitized for your convenience white bread musical sewage they crap out of the radio these days through the roboplayers that are 99% of the stations airing today. I have a large network of friends of diverse age and culture. So I can find some sweet new grass band, get a msg to check out some nuevo flamenco, then listen to a classical rock band like Cosby Stills and Nash on their website. All my favorite bands now out of the media spotlight are still making amazing music to be had online. Music is alive and well, you just can't hear it through a Clear Channel Station. So stop trying. If you find a good station.. in the Bay Area we have KFOG, real people, real music, then enjoy, otherwise go hunting, the wilds are full of great performers to be cherished and enjoyed.

Re:Survey Suggests (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644739)

Indeed, the bigger problem tends to be finding the good ones. They generally don't have marketing campaigns and guest appearances on talk shows to support them.

Years back, I liked weedshare, it was a clever idea, the tracks themselves are free to share with whomever you like, but you had a limited number of times you could listen without paying. You'll never see that sort of innovation from a major label. They're too focused on tricking people into buying subpar music.

Re:Survey Suggests (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644793)

Seriously why waste all that time and effort trying to find it. Too me the best music has always been that shared with good company and that in reality is regardless of the quality of the music. So pfft, fuck it all, it's just background, the activity and the people in the foreground is what counts.

Re:Survey Suggests (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644805)

Madness - The only band to ever cause an earthquake.

Re:Survey Suggests (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644381)

Well, a survey wasn't necessary to determine that RIAA and MPAA lie through their teeth. If we were to believe THEIR lies, they and all their member corporations would have been bankrupted with the advent of the internet. They've already lost more money from the year 2000 to the year 2005 than they've made between the years 1990 and 2010. WTF?

Re:Survey Suggests (1)

Xeno man (1614779) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644479)

Fuck, the internet? It's been the same song and dance since any recording device has been available. When the cassette tape recorders was released there was lawsuits claiming the same thing. They lost that but didn't die. VHS recorders released, same thing. DVD burners, computers, Napster, the internet. It's been the same song and dance because if they ever get their way, they can make more money.

Re:Survey Suggests (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644561)

Yeah, it would be like surveying priests to see who is a pedophile...., the survey will show none of them are, and yet more and more of them end up in prison

Music Today- of little interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644099)

The problem is that for my generation there is hardly anything of interest being released let alone want to buy.

'My Generation'? Yep, I'm of that generation. Who, Stones, Hendrix and all that.

We will have pretty well everything we want to listen to
- on 12in Vinyl
- on Cassette
- on CD

So why would I even bother to look inside music stores(if you can find one these days) or browse online stores when we know that there is nothing for us of interest?
Ok, the likes of Joe Bonamassa are making stuff I want to listen to these are small fry compared to the huge volume of shite that is around today.

Now if the record companies would release some of the old John Mayall live sets esp the one where Eric Clapton featured and their 1969 set at the Marquee then I'd be interested otherwise, Meh! I'll pass.

 

Re:Music Today- of little interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644477)

The problem is that for my generation there is hardly anything of interest being released let alone want to buy.

What a sad comment from a self-described music lover. I guess for you, music just stopped somewhere around 1978, huh?

If you can't find any music that's being released today that's good, then you're not looking. That's just sheer laziness masquerading as "selective taste."

Re:Music Today- of little interest (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645229)

If you can't find any music that's being released today that's good, then you're not looking

He did say released

I tend to agree - the only music I have bought since CDs were invented has been re-releases of old stuff I have (or had) on vinyl, or would have bought it it had been distributed better. However, I have been to see numerous live bands since. None of whom are featured on the TV.

Re:Music Today- of little interest (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644687)

Darlin', I'm only a skip ahead of you... and I enjoyed all these guys too, though I was a wee tot at the time... So many great performers are still making great music. This era was particularly hard, because so many were lost to chemical habits. The survivors though have active lives as artists you need to make a list of maybe your top 20 favorite performers and see what they've been doing since the 60s. You might be pleasantly surprised of the amazing body of music that never made it to the top 40 machine. That and if you're willing to wind through independent music sources, there are some amazing young'ns carrying on the traditions. Don't let the sterile flavorless pap that is popular music today make you think for a moment that nothing good is happening.

more like US vs DE demographic (1)

beckett (27524) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644123)

This article was as much about the differences between the populations surveyed in germany and USA. from TFA, Germans that responded to the survey were almost twice as likely to obtain free music. it also pointed out Germany still bought lots of physical media (82% sales were CD), while the trend in USA was in favour of online downloads (more than 50%).

Additionally, while 52% US citizens believe that downloading free music is some sort of crime, 59% of Germans surveyed believe this too. By leaving this point off the summary, /. does not present the whole story in TFA.

Re:more like US vs DE demographic (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644521)

If the summary presented the whole story, there'd be no point in reading TFA.

Survey suggests... (-1, Redundant)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644161)

Pretty people are more attractive.

Rich people have more money.

Samzenpus is an idiot.

Feel free to add down below.

Nihao, bitches!1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644181)

Let's face you: you better learn a fucking second language, and it'd better be Korean.

America's lost it, our day in the limelight has passed. Buy a Korean car-- oh, wait, you already did-- get a LG television, and hold onto your Apple tight, because the next one you buy'll be made by Samsung. It's inevitable, the future belongs to the land of the rising sun: porn cartoons, bullet trains, samurai, and all that shit. It's the future, man. I hope you're gonna be able to speak the language.

Re:Nihao, bitches!1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644223)

Woof woof! Doggy Style!

Re:Nihao, bitches!1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644765)

Wow, Koreans speaking Chinese are going to be the masters of America? Now I've heard everything.

Re:Nihao, bitches!1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644823)

Poor Gui Lao, at least you can see it coming and plan accordingly. Most of those poor knuckleheads in Kansas going to the "Bible Museum" with the Flinstone dioramas depicting Fred and Wilma on Dino's back before the flood are going to get their economic asses handed to them. Might I suggest Mandarin first then a coin toss between Japanese and Korean... Japanese more important now, Korean more important in... say ten years, maybe five. I'd be way more afraid of automation in the long run (10-15 years.) because even in the next 5 years, most factory jobs are going bye bye, no sleep, no breaks, more accurate and more reliable, robots are coming fast and nobody is going to stop that.

Good news is Asian music is actually pretty good. bad news is that robots are moving in there too.

you know... (2)

buddyglass (925859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644211)

People who want music will get what they can online and buy the rest. People who don't care to own their own music just listen the radio or stream Pandora. It's no surprise that people who listen to music and want to own some of their own are both more likely to purchase music *and* more likely to acquire it illegally. The $64,000 question is how much music this group of folks would be purchasing if file-sharing were somehow no longer an option.

Re:you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644371)

Who would be dumb enough to pay $64,000 to find out the answer to a question as stupid as that? Who cares? It will always be an option. Not even independently watermarking every audio file with the SSN of the customer who bought it will stop file-sharing. The only thing that will stop file-sharing is for the market for it to dry up. Youtube has done more to kill file-sharing than iTunes ever did.

Re:you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644601)

"Youtube has done more to kill file-sharing than iTunes ever did" which goes to disprove a number of things
1. "I only want to buy one track not the whole album", you can on iTunes
2." I want to be able to hear before I buy" , you can on iTunes

Of course Youtube2MP3 allows people to grab heaps of music from youtube and keep it too, and there are equivalents for video in HD.

"The only thing that will stop file-sharing is for the market for it to dry up", is correct, is just like nothing will stop rape, assault, murder, theft, fraud.....
So long as you have people, you will have dishonesty.

Survey says: everyone pirates but pirates buy more (4, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644225)

Based on the article's writeup of the survey, the survey seems to suggest that everyone is "pirating", with the only difference being where they get their music from. As we'd expect, P2P users had larger libraries with a larger proportion of their library being made up of illicitly acquired music, but in raw numbers, they still purchased more than non-P2P users. Meanwhile, non-P2P users had smaller libraries and were found to be acquiring music through shady means nearly as much, with the distinction being that they were getting it from friends and family as opposed to from the Internet.

Long story short, P2P or not, people are pirating these days, but the P2P folks have a larger appetite for music, and that includes purchasing it in larger quantities. Nothing really earth-shattering for most of us, though hopefully it'll be a wakeup call to the RIAA and their kind.

Well, we can hope, at least.

Re:Survey says: everyone pirates but pirates buy m (2)

Cassini2 (956052) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644509)

Everyone is pirating. Today's copyright laws can't be followed, even by people actively trying to follow them. Someone put a nice essay together to detail how incredibly absurd we are right now. If you walk around in public, singing along to your iPod, you are violating copyright. Current copyright law is so nebulous, that average person will violate it somehow, every day. The only good news is that no one cares about most peoples infractions.

The real problem with copyright law, and increasingly all IP law, is that it is impossible to avoid bankrupting lawsuits by following an obvious set of rules. This is evidenced by the fact the biggest copyright lawsuit in Canada was filed against the music labels. [michaelgeist.ca] The university library copyright collection agency imploded. [academicmatters.ca] The copyright collection agencies have lost many lawsuits at the supreme court. [www.cbc.ca]

If the music industry can't follow copyright law, why should anyone else?

Re: Survey says: everyone pirates but pirates buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644667)

Nothing really earth-shattering for most of us, though hopefully it'll be a wakeup call to the RIAA and their kind.

You mistakenly assumed their target is to earn more profit by getting more people to buy more songs.

WRONG. Their target is to earn more profit by gaining a monopoly on how anyone can get songs, then they can jack up prices as much as they like and get huge profits with as little investment and risk as possible.

So ANY alternative for getting music must be stopped, regardless of whether such alternative is helping or hindering sales.

54% believe angels are real. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644287)

So we have 2% who believe in angels are real but do not believe in punishing download of infringing content.
I think its official that half of the people in America are just simply brainwashed or stupid.

Re:54% believe angels are real. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644425)

Just like you!

Re:54% believe angels are real. (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644557)

Oh, angels are real but they're also extremely deadly. My advice is: don't blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast. Faster than you can believe. Don't turn your back. Don't look away. And don't blink.

Re:54% believe angels are real. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644875)

The really silly thing is that angels as most people see them aren't actually in the bible. The text does describe many denizens of heaven, including some usually referred to as angels, but none of the descriptions are anything like the traditional image of the man in white robes with a pair of wings and a halo. That is a figure from pagan mythology - like so much, early Christian artists took inspiration from what came before and adapted it into their own works.

spon6e (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644305)

operating systems the goodwill 200 ruuning NT dying. All major

Survey biased on Internet sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644357)

From TFA:

"But only a small minority of Americans—between four and 15 percent—say it's reasonable to upload copyrighted content for public consumption, post links to pirated content on Facebook, or sell unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials."

so here the survey has grouped making music available via BitTorrent with selling illegal copies. That looks like bias in the survey to me because the selling of unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials is quite different to making it available on facebook or elsewhere.

Re:Survey biased on Internet sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644775)

Legally it's no different. An unauthorized copy is an unauthorized copy, you probably wouldn't even get off lightly because you didn't profit from it.

52% of Americans (-1, Flamebait)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644395)

Hard to believe I know, but then again a 2012 Gallup poll found that 46% of American respondents believe that an invisible superhero who lives in the sky created humans in their current form.

Conclusion: half of Americans are fucking retarded.

Re:52% of Americans (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644571)

Indeed.

If only they knew that life on Earth was started by some dumb alien kid who was on vacation on Earth with his family and didn't properly follow the intergalactic garbage laws and just threw away his sandwich...

How many studies proving this do we need? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644397)

Hm? I think we're at least up to 100, by now.

Clearly unpossible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644423)

We all know that information wants to be free.

Why would a p2p user be stupid enough to pay, and thus support THE MAN?

Google is, clearly, trolling.

Old technology was awesome (2)

dtjohnson (102237) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644547)

I recently obtained an old-fashioned turntable at a garage sale. Playing LP records on that thing makes the music come ALIVE. I am listening to The Band's "The Weight" cut from the Bob Dylan 'Before the Flood' live vinyl LP album and, comparing it with the either the CD or MP3 version is like comparing HDTV with pre-hdtv. The music is so much richer and fills the room. I never realized before what was lost when the switch to CDs was made. So...those downloaded tracks from a P2P source are only offering a fraction of the audio experience that used to be available decades ago...and the music companies are to blame because they must have known at the time what they were doing...selling less for more. Yeah, you couldn't get those LPs for free but then they were actually worth a lot more because they provided a much richer audio experience. The record companies should have worked a lot harder on an analog format rather than the CDA format they ended up with on music cds. Why? Because music is analog and the conversion to a digital format loses something. Hey record companies...here's some free advice. Give the digital files away for free...that's all they are worth...and sell us a new analog format on an optical disc.

Re:Old technology was awesome (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644851)

Converting to digital at CD standard loses nothing you can hear. The frequency range covers all of human hearing, and the quantitisation noise is too small to notice on a properly normalised track. What you hear isn't anything inherent to the CD medium: It's just that the preferred style of mixing has changed in the intervening years, something commonly referred to as the 'loudness wars,' as labels seek to make the music stand out more in a public setting by increasing the average volume at the expense of dynamic range.

With MP3s, you get as good as you allocate bits for. 64kbit music is going to sound like rubbish, but you'd need superhuman hearing to notice anything changed at 384kbit. Better, newer codecs can easily match that quality at a lower bitrate - MP3 is quite dated now, technologically. It achieved such dominance while it was the best around that when better codecs came along it was too entrenched to displace.

duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644657)

Always here about this again and again. Obviously those who are more interested in music, are going to buy more music. It doesn't mean that pirating music actually encourages people to buy more music, quite the opposite obviously.

As a pretty huge 'pirate'... (2)

Pubstar (2525396) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644895)

As someone who has TBs of pirated games, I have a pretty decent steam account ($1300 last I checked). I have a huge vinyl collection and a massive download folder from Beatport.com (Due to who I DJ for, I have to own all tracks that I use in sets), yet I have a huge download folder. Why do I pirate so much and yet buy a ton of stuff? I pirate games because I get sick of being burned by shitty games, and the clips on Beatport are not nearly long enough to get the gist of the track. Youtube, you say? Good luck trying to find some obscure Minimal, Tech House, and Techno that I play.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

The problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645005)

Scenario 1: Music gets pirated. RIAA (or whatever the equivalent is in one's nation) takes some of those pirates to court and the court finds them guilty. Music continues to be pirated, but people buy music out of guilt and/or fear.

Scenario 2: Music gets pirated. No legal action is taken by any party. Music continues to be pirated and profits fall because there is no reason to buy music when you can just download it.

I hate to say it (and I'm sure Slashdot people will mod me down for this), but I'm kinda glad the RIAA exists when looking at those two scenarios. Do I like the fact that people pirate music and get imprisoned for it? Certainly not! However, the fact is that without the RIAA, there really wouldn't be a reason to buy the music if we could all just download it, right? It's already stored on our computers, usually DRM-free, making it more convenient than buying it on iTunes or on a physical audio CD, which we'd just rip anyway. RIAA, thanks for all your work!

Now if you'll excuse me, I must return to my cell...

nothing new; the labels knew this with napster (2)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645087)

when napster was first out (before they were sued and sold and reorged), music sales were up in college towns where p2p was popular. the more exposure young people have to new music, the greater the likelihood that they will buy new music. duh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>