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!

US CD Sales Increase in 2004

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the paying-the-man dept.

Music 398

Lindsay Lohan writes "BBC is reporting that CD sales rose by 2.3% in the U.S. in the year 2004 despite the growing popularity of legal digital music downloads through services such as iTunes. On the other hand, a BBC report from last July noted that pirated CD sales have hit a record high. Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma."

cancel ×

398 comments

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283566)

fp!

Sue the actual criminal gangs ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283572)


that would be so un-american

Re:Sue the actual criminal gangs ? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283601)

hat would be so un-american

Considering this was reported by the BBC, you are probably right.

but... (0)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283573)

But by going after little Susie or gramma they can make the claim that they're doing something about piracy...

Re:but... (3, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283587)

But by going after little Susie or gramma they can make the claim that they're doing something about piracy...

Oh, and they can't if they shut down a large scale CD manufacturing plant in SE Asia?

Re:but... (1)

Datasage (214357) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283641)

They dont make much money in that region anyway. So it looks better to go after pirates here in the US.

Re:but... (3, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283843)

Oh, you mean the guys on the street corners selling the CDs pressed in the large CD factories in SE Asia?

If Pirated CD sales (from large scale CD factories, not burned copies, if you read the article) are becoming bigger than legal CD sales, maybe P2P isn't quite as big of a problem as 21 large scale factories in Russia and many more in SE Asia supplying the rest of the world...

Re:but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283884)

So it looks better to go after pirates here in the US.

Sueing customers and 80 year old Mac owners who can't even install Kazaa, let alone use it to download music looks better than closing a manufacturing plant?

Which record studio hired you??

Re:but... (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283604)

just wait untill next week and they'll announce that cd sales are down because of piracy.

they talk with one face to the goverment yelling wolf and with the "everything is so GOOOD!" to the investors...

Low Hanging Fruit (3, Insightful)

Donoho (788900) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283622)

Little Susie and Grandma don't know how to cover their tracks and are therefore easy targets to make public examples of. The word gets out even if at the expense of PR.

GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283577)

RULES pENISCOCKBRICKBIRDLOL

damn! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283580)

stop buying them for christ's sake! now these idiots will believe that the frivolous lawsuits against 15-year-olds were successful.

Re:damn! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283654)

stop buying them for christ's sake! now these idiots will believe that the frivolous lawsuits against 15-year-olds were successful.

uh, they were, you cock-smoking hippy.

Re:damn! (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283657)

Maybe. But I'm pretty sure p2p usage also rose this year, or at least stayed the about same [slashdot.org]

Re:damn! (5, Interesting)

raitchison (734047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283878)

Exactly, the RIAA is going to take this data and use it as PROOF that their legal assautls are working and that P2P piracy is 100% of the reason that sales took a dive to begin with.

I remember a few years ago when the labels were bitching about declining sales and Napster, someone did a study and determined that if even the most ridiculously high estimates of P2P usage were true and counting that every downloaded song as a lost CD sale that P2P only accounted for like 20% of the drop in CD sales since the 90s economy bubble.

In reality it was the economy that caused sales to drop, after all buying CDs is just about the most optional thing and the first thing to go when the .com that was overpaying you ran out of funding.

Now the economy is on the upswing, and surprisingly people are spending more on leisure items like music.

kkk (0, Offtopic)

GNAAdcom (844272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283581)

LOL NOT FP LOL

I like blanket statements (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283583)

Maybe telling people on slashgfuiohipubaeoljiacdgnolsdnkbgklhobvlxjk ghsopdfgh

Little theif, big theif (1, Flamebait)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283584)

In the end, they're both theives.

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283609)

s/ei/ie/g

NB

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283672)

* thief
* thieves

+1 point for getting the right formation for "they're" though. I would have expected a "their" in that location by your typical illiterate poster.

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283688)

I already corrected myself. Thanks for your input though, it was very thoughtful.

NB

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283707)

No problem, I'm always happy to be of assistance.

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283682)

All non-land owners are theives. They expect to live off of the hard work of others, they expect their health care to be paid for, they expect money when they retire, they expect a whole lot of stuff which isn't due them. About the only thing they are good for is cleaning up crap and building buildings. We should just build jails and keep them all there when they aren't being used to build up our property.

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283721)

lol, what? Seriously, what's your point? Is this your own personal justification for stealing stuff off the internet or did you steal it from someone else?

Re:Little theif, big theif (1)

velo_mike (666386) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283737)

All non-land owners are theives. They expect to live off of the hard work of others, they expect their health care to be paid for, they expect money when they retire, they expect a whole lot of stuff which isn't due them. About the only thing they are good for is cleaning up crap and building buildings. We should just build jails and keep them all there when they aren't being used to build up our property.

Not exactly, hell, it's not even a good troll but I'll play anyways. Non property owners who occupy a piece of ground without the owners permission are thieves. Non property owners (like me) pay a market rent for the use of a piece of property.

Now mr troll, and anyone in the "information wants to be free", what gives you the right to the labor of another man?

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283761)

Only labor by good people needs be paid for, those who are worth less than me don't need to be compensated.

How do I tell who is worth less? By how much land they own. We can tell who is the favored of God based on how much land they own.

Re:Little theif, big theif (1)

velo_mike (666386) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283851)

How do I tell who is worth less? By how much land they own.

A moot point at best since, in every country I'm aware of, land is merely leased from the state...

Re:Little theif, big theif (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283918)

Yeah, unfortunately the government expects me to pay for my property rights, though I suppose if I do use the courts I should pay something for it. I dunno, that's complicated.

Little theif, big theif-Pick the Other Guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283694)

"Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma.""

I tried similiar reasoning, trying to get out of a speeding ticket. I don't think the cop was amused.

A thief? Hardly. (0, Redundant)

gspr (602968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283892)

Person A owns a sandwich. Person B does not. The sandwich has a "usefulness value" of 1.

The following is a description of a theft, an action conducted by a thief:
B takes A's sandwich and eats it.
Net change for A: -1.
Net change for B: +1.
B is a thief.

The following is NOT a description of a theft, and the person doing it is NOT a thief:
Someone has a matter duplicator, which can perfectly duplicate any object with very little (as in neglectable) effort and energy. B uses this matter duplicator to copy A's sandwich. Now they both have a sandwich.
Net change for A: 0.
Net change for B: 1.
Whoah! Our overall usefulness rating is up! And this is what RIAA/MPAA/pro intellectual property people calls piracy/theft? This is hardly anything like the first act - and surely far from the act of capturing someone's ship and cargo.


For real life objects, we don't have "duplicators" - for digital data we do!

Re:A thief? Hardly. (3, Informative)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283923)

Did you pay for it? No.
Do you now have it? Yes.
Did you take it without permission? Yes.

Sounds like a textbook case to me.

You can justify your crime all you want, but it still boils down to your decision to deprive someone of potential earnings. They can only afford to create that product (that you pirated) because of the potential to recover their investment.

It's one thing to not understand this. It's another thing to take issue with the word "theft" simply because you're not physically depriving anyone of anything. It's yet another to understand all of this and still believe that you're not doing anything wrong.

Of course... (5, Interesting)

jtbauki (838979) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283596)

Hasn't the Music industry recorded record profits during the years when it CLAIMED that they lost MILLIONS to illegal downloads? It seems like the rise of p2p has coincided with profit increases for the music industry. I won't say it's a cause and an effect. But it's a drop in a bucket to them. Apple's success shows people are willing to pay, just not the inflated, over-hyped prices of the crap cds the RIAA has been coming out with.

Re:Of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283775)

CLAIMED that they lost MILLIONS

That is pretty much the entire fallacy of their argument. They are claiming that piracy has cost them millions/billions in potential profits, which is something that they never actually "had" to lose in the first place. Thus, they can still make make money hand-over-fist and whine about how much their industry is being hurt by shadows.
Basically, they are claiming that they have a right to a guaranteed increase in profit regardless of market/social/whatever conditions without having to work for it.

You can't lose something you never had.

Re:Of course... (1, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283938)

Apple's success shows people are willing to pay, just not the inflated, over-hyped prices of the crap cds the RIAA has been coming out with.

Honestly, I really believe it has a lot more to do with easy of purchase and single track downloads more than the price.

Albums for $9.99+ isn't exactly inexepensive when there is no tangible media. Most new releases at respectible outlets (not in large shopping malls) are 12.99 or so.

People are still paying an overinflated price for crap that the RIAA puts out. They are just doing it without having to buy a disc full of filler when they only want one song.

The figures show just how insignificant piracy is (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283600)

And they prove that any drop in CD sales was purely because of the economic slump, when non-essential things like CDs and DVDs are the first things to leave the on-the-spot purchase habits of people.

Or maybe the prices have dropped, making the product more desirable to the consumer.

However, they'll just say that it is the result of their "anti online piracy" actions.

Re:The figures show just how insignificant piracy (4, Insightful)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283754)

How much higher would the increase have been had piracy not been a problem? No one can say for sure. But you can't state that file sharing has not had a negative effect as a result of a positive increas in sales.

Re:The figures show just how insignificant piracy (2, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283798)

I think that file sharing leads to greater purchases of music amongst people who have some money. I know that I download music, but if I see stuff I like in a shop, especially if it is on offer, I'll be much more tempted to buy it if I know it is good, because I want the actual product.

It probably also means that tat won't get bought, and maybe greater sales of music are down to there being better music advertised to the consumer. Instead of pop tat, there is a lot more variety of music advertised these days.

Re:The figures show just how insignificant piracy (1)

rizawbone (577492) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283789)

And they prove that any drop in CD sales was purely because of the economic slump, when non-essential things like CDs and DVDs are the first things to leave the on-the-spot purchase habits of people.

How does this prove that? It may suggest such a thing, but suggestion and proof are miles apart.

Does Not Follow... (4, Insightful)

The Raven (30575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283605)

You say pirate CD sales have hit a record high... and thus the RIAA should be going after them. Umm. That's the same flawed logic that had the RIAA attacking Napster.

What if it is the Pirate CD sales that are the primary motivator behind the 2.4% increase? Come on guys... be consistent. All methods of piracy can have some beneficial network effects on sales. All methods of piracy can ALSO cause lower sales under different circumstances.

It is, in a word, wrong to deify music swapping online, but demonise pirate CD sales. They're both illegal... the only real difference is that one has a profit motive, and the other doesn't. But the actual level of illegality, under current law, is about equal. It's illogical to praise one and not the other, don't succumb to the same stupidity that is rife within the **AA.

Re:Does Not Follow... (1)

grungebox (578982) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283642)

I'm fairly certain CD sales are tracked based on unit codes/UPC's or whatever, which should be lacking on pirated copies. So...they won't factor into the CD sales figures. I think.

Re:Does Not Follow... (2, Interesting)

The Raven (30575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283762)

I don't think you quite got my meaning.

A common refrain from those in support of filesharing is that the network effect ("Hey, this band is really good, listen to this!") that piracy makes cheap and easy can lead to increased sales of legitimate CDs. Thus, the RIAA should support filesharing networks because it is 'free advertising'.

And yet, the same argument can be pointed at the makers of pirate CDs. They are like AOL CDs, a cheap way to try out a band you would not have blown $15 to listen to otherwise. Trying out music from pirate CDs, and showing it to your friends, could lead to increased legitimate sales of music you discovered via pirate sellers.

My point is that it is wrong to talk about P2P sharing as 'good' and pirate CD sales as 'bad'. It's wrong to argue about the benefits of one, but ignore the potentially identical benefits of the other. And it's wrong to cheer when a pirate factory in Hong Kong is shut down, but boo when a bittorrent website is shut down.

It's hypocricy. They're both equally bad or good, depending on your point of view.

Just as a note, I use bittorrent and iTunes. In the past I have used Napster, Gnutella, and Kazaa. I have not purchased a physical CD in years. I am not against piracy, but I am against hypocricy... it is THEFT (in the US), at least until the laws are revised. I support weakening of IP laws, but I do not support mealy mouthed thieves calling their behavior angelic. Own up to your crimes and move on, and donate money to organizations that are seeking to revise the laws so they are less insane. But don't pretend that you fart roses in the meantime. :-)

Hmm. Rambling rant. Oh well.

Re:Does Not Follow... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283697)

All methods of piracy can have some beneficial network effects on sales
... just ask Bill Gates. If it were impossible to pirate Windows and Office, he'd lose his lock-in overnight.

From their site: http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp [riaa.com]

Each year, the industry loses about $4.2 billion to piracy worldwide -- "we estimate we lose millions of dollars a day to all forms of piracy."
And this is why they want $150,000 per song on your hard disk? Do the math. According to their own figures about piracy rates, that works out to more than all the money ever printed throughout the entire history of the world, not $4.2 gigabucks.

FTA:

Maybe they should go after the real pirates ...
Now if you substituted "crooks" for "pirates", I think that's something most recording artists and the general public would get behind.

Re:Does Not Follow... (2, Insightful)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283720)

Of course both are illegal but the difference in opinion is not of legality but of the fact that the two are different.

I believe file sharing should be 100% legal. I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with taking music and sharing it with people in the forms of 0's and 1's that go over a wire.

On the other hand, selling bootlegs is something I cannot agree with. I do not believe someone should have the right to profit off of my own work just as much as your college propfessor does not believe that you should get a good grade and a degree for plagarizing (someone else's effort).

Re:Does Not Follow... (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283822)

What's the difference between "sharing" the music in the form of 0s and 1s that go over a wire and selling bootleg CDs with 0s and 1s embedded in the surface of the disc?

Re:Does Not Follow... (0)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283840)

Sharing != Selling.

Sharing does not result in profit.

Selling does (unless you're just selling for the price of the media, but thats not what these pirates do).

Pretty simple, no?

Re:Does Not Follow... (1)

The Raven (30575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283845)

Except for the fact that you DO profit off of someone else's work when you use P2P applications. At least for the good P2P apps, those that share have an easier time than those that do not. Your 'pay' for giving out someones copyrighted work is streamlined access to MORE copyrighted works.

Cash is not the only form of 'pay' in the world.

From another angle, let's say I make an album, and 500 users download my song (illegally) over the Internet from a single user with a high bandwidth connection. Another 500 buy a pirate copy from a warezer on the street handing out CDRs. As the content holder who wants to make money off my work, and who PLANNED on doing it by legitimate CD sales, does it really MATTER how those 1000 people got my work an alternate way? Both the person with the fast pipe and the guy with the fast burner theoretically stole 500 potential customers from me.

Now, I support lessening IP law. I'm in favor of donations, gifting, and a move away from fewer ultra-rich artists toward a saner multiplicity of homegrown artists, who may or may not even fully support themselves with their art.

But that doesn't mean that under current US law, piracy is theft... whether it's bits on a wire or bits on a piece of circular plastic. Whether money exchanged hands, or bits exchanged hands. It's still theft, until these laws are changed, and one type of theft is not inherently more wrong than the other.

Re:Does Not Follow... (0)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283881)

You do not understand my argument.

When you share on P2P, you realize no profit.

To the person who buys his music, he actually gets more than the person who downloads the album off of P2P - he gets a physical CD that he can take wherever he goes, he gets a CD case, and he might even get a poster from the band who made the music.

Re:Does Not Follow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283731)

Note that a lot of the pirated CDs are produced overseas in countries like Spain, Pakistan, China, Russia, etc.

Re:Does Not Follow... (5, Insightful)

Heftklammerdosierer! (846009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283767)

If I buy a pirated CD, I've already exchanged money for goods. There's basically no chance that I'll later buy a legit copy because I already have some physical media. If I download 2 or 3 songs (or an album) by an artist, and find their CD for sale at a reasonable price, I'm more likely to buy it than if I hadn't heard any of their music.

I don't see why two things being equally illegal makes them morally equivalent.

Re:Does Not Follow... (2, Interesting)

The Raven (30575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283944)

This actually is the only legitimate reason I can see to distinguish the two types of theft. However... what about the person who gives his friends a burnt copy of his CD? Isn't that just as bad as the guy selling bootlegs on the street? I now have a physical copy, why should I go buy it?

What if the guy on the street is selling at cost? Does that make it less bad for the copyright holder? Does it make him morally better? Compare this to the person running an FTP with a ratio... you have to upload 2MB to download 1MB. They are obviously getting 'paid' for the files they give you, in return for other files. It's just a different type of payment.

With bittorrent, people who just download and leave without sharing back are looked down upon as leeches... but aren't they, by this whole 'if it's free it's morally better', helping you stay 'pure'? By not 'paying you back' for the files you sent them, it means you really ARE giving it away for free. But people don't LIKE that do they. They want their payment for sharing files... in the form of others sharing in return. What is payment but getting one good or service in return for another.

File sharing is full of this 'tit for tat' exchange. You give me stuff, and I'll give you stuff. People in the warez world look down on leeches who take but don't give back... they are looked at as thieves because they did not PAY for the file they downloaded. It's still payment, whether in bits or in dollars. People who share files online demand payment as much as the guy on the street selling bootlegs, they just accept a different form of payment... bandwidth.

Inundated (5, Funny)

chevybowtie (96127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283614)

I guess you beat people over the head with the same 50 artists, you can eventually convice them to like it.

Time for a revolution!

Re:Inundated (1)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283836)

No one has ever stopped you from listening to the music you want to hear, especially in the last 10 years. It's all out there, each and every genre, for you to find, listen to, and enjoy.

I think a lot of people confuse the music business (mainstream radio, CDs, MTV, etc) with music in general (available music, concerts, etc). Sure, there's going to be a lot more emphesis on that which is being sold by the business, but it's not like the rest isn't out there to be found and enjoyed.

Inundated-A "revolutionary" talk. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283913)

"Time for a revolution!"

Funny, coming from a group that can't even get Taco to upgrade the standards used on their favourite site.

Maybe you all should learn to fix your house, before complaining about others?

Re:Inundated (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283930)

I guess you beat people over the head with the same 50 artists, you can eventually convice them to like it.
Unless somebody hits the button for the wrong song during the "live" performance, or worse you let them actually "sing" live in front of 70,000 people; then people won't like it. The Orange Bowl halfime show trainwreck even overshadowed the game.

Surprising (5, Funny)

pnevin (168332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283619)

That's not the sort of editorial comment I would have expected from Lindsay Lohan.

Re:Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283687)

Expecting something more along the lines of "*Hack* *wheeze* *barf* Look at my tits!" were you?

Wow so they did... (1)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283621)

I knew the RIAA was evil, but to sign such a blatent deal with his lord of evil?

The CD format still accounts for 98% of the 666 million albums sold, according to research company Nielsen Soundscan."

In all seriousness though, internet trading, beit legal or not has done nothing but fuel americas passion for music, which has in turn increased sales of CDs. Not to mention profits turned from lawsuits on the masses.

Pirate CDs same as Kazaa? (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283626)

So wait, are you still a thief/pirate if you buy a pirate CD?

Re:Pirate CDs same as Kazaa? (1)

Spectrum_Leap (623660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283814)

Not if your a Bona Fide Purchaser for Value without Notice. If you know it's pirated, then you're a pirate, but if you don't, you're not. That said, if you are paying $2 for a CD that should cost $20, then that should be enough notice to suggest to you that you're not getting the real deal.

2 things (4, Interesting)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283635)

1) If you think that the RIAA is sitting on its hands and just letting the largescale music pirates get away with ripping them off while only targetting "Susie and grandma" for litigation, you're quite mistaken. They spend quite a bit of money to seek out and take down these largescale pirates. Unfortunately, some Asian countries are more hospitable to the pirates than others, so policing it is a difficult job.

2) It seems to me that the year-long push by the RIAA to associate P2P filesharing with stealing is paying off, though only to the tune of 2% or so. If they can convince enough people that piracy is a crime, then it is guaranteed to boost actual sales of CDs at the expense of filesharing.

People are generally good and are willing to follow the law. The RIAA's push to make people aware of copyright law has finally made some progress, but also consider that music artists have also become generally better lately than they were in say the mid-late 90's. Of course, the increase in sales corresponds more to the anti-piracy push than to the improvement in music quality (Good music can still be pirated as easily as bad music).

Re:2 things (1)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283652)

or 3) People stop buying RIAA label music out of protest and frustration, continue file sharing (perhaps more discretly or through methods that the RIAA cannot track such as private networks), and buying indie music in which file sharing is encouraged

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283681)

Regardless of whether that is true or not, record sales for the mainstream music scene is up. That says that people are buying more mainstream albums than before. I hate to state the obvious, but your post lacked a certain, let's say, logic.

Re:2 things (1)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283749)

How does my post lack logic? Just because you don't agree with me?

Saying that increased music sales MUST be the result of the RIAA initiaive to go after P2P sharers is a logical fallacy.

Perhaps artists are putting out better music? There is more than one possibility here.

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283783)

Whether or not the original post's assertions were true, your assertion that sales are up because people are buying indie music from is false on the face of it.

This ain't some kind of Wonderland where up is down and left is right. Indie music sales has no bearing on mainstream CD sales.

Re:2 things (1)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283795)

I did not assert that. You misread. I provided a possibility of what might happen if the RIAA continues to go after filesharers (notice the tense of the words I use).

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283811)

Ah, I see. You're off-topic for this thread.

Re:2 things (0)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283827)

Ah yes the cry of the debator who loses an argument.

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283865)

Posting a nonsequitor addition to a list does not make you somehow on-topic. If it did, then let me make some additions.

4) ???
5) Profit!

Pot Kettle Black (0)

Jewcatur (843263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283903)

You're rants about me being off topic are op topic how?

I'm talking about filesharing and how people might change their behavior in response. You're in some sort of anger-filled diatribe about me.

Re:2 things (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283835)

Thank you for admitting that I'm a good person. Whew, without your endorsement I don't know what I'd have done. Maybe become a crackwhore or something.

When I download some songs and say to myself, "Hmm, maybe this artist's entire elbum doesn't suck", then go out and buy the ridiculously overpriced CD, I'm not just being a sucker: I'm being a LAW-ABIDING sucker.

I'll sleep so much better now.

Fuck you and your Devil's advocacy.

When consumer-level (read 'us') audio tape became a reality, the **AA trundled out assholes such as Elton John to weep and wring their hands, and claim they'd go broke. Instead they got even richer.

When consumer-level (read 'us') video tape became a reality, the **AA trundled out more assholes to weep and wring their hands, and claim they'd go broke. Instead they got even richer.

Now that digital music is the current reality, and future, they do the same shit, while still getting richer.

They are a pack of irredeemably parasitic scumbags. They cannot be defended or excused. Their time is over, and the sooner the blood-sucking leech whores just curl-up and fucking die, the better.

As I said earlier, fuck your Devil's advocacy.

Re:2 things (3, Insightful)

liangzai (837960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283915)

Unfortunately, some Asian countries are more hospitable to the pirates than others, so policing it is a difficult job.


Most CD stores in China are pirate *only*. In these stores, you can't find a single legal CD. The only stores that sell genuine stuff are the malls, since they need to have a somewhat credible reputation. But even they carry pirated material occasionally.

I don't see how the **AA is going to police this... in the minds of the Chinese, there is no such thing as immaterial rights. Everything that can be copied will be copied and sold for profit.

Now, do we want **AA to do policing at all? Do we want America policing more than it already does? No, we don't...

Obvious solution: (5, Funny)

Heftklammerdosierer! (846009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283639)

The RIAA should just sell their CDs for $5 through shady looking guys on the street.

Re:Obvious solution: (2, Interesting)

PabloJones (456560) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283889)

Hell, if they sold CDs for $5 from normal looking guys in normal stores, I would buy a ton. I'd probably be more inclined to purchase music I was only sort of interested in, and if I didn't like it, then it would be no big loss. But at the price CDs are currently, I can only afford to buy music that I already know and enjoy.

RIAA logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283663)

CD sales increased when Piracy hit a record high, therefore Piracy causes CD sales to increase. RIAA logic: Piracy should be nurtured and encouraged to grow.

Define "real pirates." (4, Interesting)

poptones (653660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283675)

"Little Susy or grandma" might not be the crux of the problem, but "real pirates" are just as likely to be the guy living next door nowdays. They may not be running processing plants like the mob, but I've seen plenty of "village geeks" selling downloaded movies and CDs. At the call center where last I 9-5'd there were several people with fast home connections and DVD burners who regularly sold downloads to other employees on the floor.

This was not just onesy-twosey stuff. Any given week I'm sure one fellow sold 20 or 30 CDs at five bucks a pop. Multiply this by 1000's of businesses across the country and it's easy to see how it can really add up.

What amazes me is people really cannot tell the difference (or don't care) between a real CD and a POS CDR burnded from MP3s. I would be indignant about the pirates SELLING this stuff, but given these people are buying something akin to a cassette tape all you can really say is "it's their money to waste."

Re:Define "real pirates." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283906)

I always thought it was weird, that some people would offer me money for the CD or whatever it was I downloaded from them. I could have been that guy charging money for it. But it's unthinkable. I may be an asshole for violating copyright, depends on who you ask. But the ppl illegally making money off of it are bastards. Though granted good capitalist ideology that I see prevelent here on slashdot, places I've worked, and all over america, It's hardly suprising. It's great to live in a society of such immense abundance and still you can't trust your neighbor or own family not to stab you in the back for a dollar.

what do you expect? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283701)

With all the lawsuits and crappy content flying around, the only way I can stock my MP3 collection is to buy CDs and then resell them on eBay! That's two sales right there! Or sometimes I just take 'em right back and tell the dweeb with the KoRn T-shirt that they won't play in my Dell. I bet they resell the same CDs 3-4 times! Burn 'n' Return baby!

grandma (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283710)

grandma...."grandma got run over by a RIAAndeer...." comes to mind.

The added benefit of suing the lil' guys is that they don't have enough money to fight back....but have just enough money to make a settlement worthwhile....especially when they don't have too many middlemen to pony up to.

Either way, they can't say that downloading is really hurting them any more....they are still selling more and more and the fact that they aren't focusing their attention to real pirates...and yet manage a gain in sales....that tells alot.

That's not good growth compared to economy, DVD's (5, Interesting)

texasfight (833973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283713)

Those numbers don't look so good if you compare the growth in CD sales to the sales of video (VHS/DVD's) software, or to the economy as a whole:

Video: Consumer Electronics Association: [ce.org] DVD Software Sales Benefit: Although movie-ticket sales fell one percent to $9.2 billion in 2003, consumer spending on the purchase or rental of video software (VHS tape and DVD) rose 18.2 percent to $22.5 billion, according to DEG. DVD accounted for 72 percent of total home video spending.

Overall Economy: CNN [cnn.com] The economy has expanded at rates exceeding 3 percent for the past six quarters and seems poised to keep growing. The White House last Friday estimated GDP will expand 3-1/2 percent in 2005.

Re:That's not good growth compared to economy, DVD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283778)

People don't have an unlimited amount of money to spend.

If spending goes up on DVDs, then that pot of money is reduced for CDs, Cinema, Etc.

Re:That's not good growth compared to economy, DVD (2, Insightful)

iethree (666892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283960)

I think the rise in movie profits has more to do with the change in the format from VHS to DVD, all the movie companies are re-releasing all their classic movies onto "special edition" DVD's and thus people are buying them.

however Cd's havent changed format and there's no reason to buy all your old favorites again. Maybe when DVD-A or SACD takes off we'll see a big spike in music sales too.

Better music? (2, Interesting)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283714)

There probably was just better music last year than in previous years. Ok, so maybe only 2.4% better but improvement nonetheless. /didn't buy any CDs last year. Long live iTMS!

Lindsay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283741)

Lindsay Lohan writes

Wow, I told my local Linux User Group that I am pretty sure Lindsay Lohan [google.com] reads Slashdot and is an active participant. But on the other hand, there's a definite over-supply of hot-looking busty females in open source community already.

They really should just go after this (4, Interesting)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283746)

The RIAA's members can always lean heavily on their customers' consciences to go legit when they download a 128k mp3 from Kazaa, but if they buy a perfect replica of the album they have no reason to suspect that they will buy a legit copy. Almost every pirated copy that is sold is a sale that has to be totally written off. Few customers would probably even know the difference. With file sharing, there is always the hope that the user will go legit.

Moral Weight (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283935)

Quite the contrary. The reason I don't buy any RIAA CDs is because they're total bastards. The thought that my money is contributing to lobbying efforts against both my interests and ideals will give me too way too much of a nagging conscience to ever enjoy the thing I bought.

Perhaps if they stop suing people and lobby for sane copyright laws (like a 14 year term with mandatory registration and repealing the DMCA and all other related legislation) and wait a few years, I might reconsider my boycott, but I figure I've got shorter odds of seeing pigs fly while being struck by lighting and winning the lottery all at the same time.

Can't win... (5, Insightful)

Cheap Imitation (575717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283751)

I don't think the consumer can win.

If sales slump, **AA will blame it on piracy, and use it as justification to enact even more legislation to protect their profits.

And if sales rise, they'll use it as justification that their methods are starting to work against piracy, and consequently we need to make them even stronger.

Can't win...To Thy own ends, aspire. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283850)

"If sales slump, **AA will blame it on piracy, and use it as justification to enact even more legislation to protect their profits."

And pirates will use it as proof that their "Robin Hood" campaigns are working.

"And if sales rise, they'll use it as justification that their methods are starting to work against piracy, and consequently we need to make them even stronger."

And illegal P2P'ers will use that as justification for why they should continue.

See, you're riding on a false premise. That no one is using the situation for their own benefit.

The only innocents are the one's caught in the middle, and want nothing to do with the battle.

A little bit off topic... (5, Funny)

Paladin144 (676391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283755)

But I can't believe Lindsay Lohan subimitted this article. That is so COOOOOL! I can't believe that she reads /.

Hi Lindsay!! I luv u!!!

I went to your site and "rocked out" to the intro, and then i saw nothing but PINK! My eyes actually screamed in pain. I heard them. I shit you not.

Please Lindsay. Redesign your site... for me?

.

And show me your knockers. :-)

Re:A little bit off topic... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283927)

BTW, who the fuck is Lindsay Lohan?

Sales increase, but p2p hurts sales? (4, Insightful)

Bimo_Dude (178966) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283758)

This [bbc.co.uk] , titled "Music piracy 'does hit CD sales'" seems to contradict the parent (US CD Sales Increase...), yet they are both on BBC. From the piracy article:

The report, for the country's National Bureau of Economic Research, studied the habits of 412 students.

Hmmmm.... they studied the habits of students. Aren't students usually short on money but have broadband on campus? This is hardly a realistic "sampling" of the population, so therefore cannot be taken seriously.

So which is it?

demand for pirated materials / scare tactics (4, Interesting)

dj42 (765300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283765)

Part of the goal of the RIAA and MPAA is, naturally, to instill fear in those who might KNOWINGLY accept, purchase, download, etc. pirated materials. This creates stigma towards those that do (sort of like anti-smoking ads in the past couple decades).

This affects the demand for pirated materials which in turns lowers the economic viability for pirates.

The real issue for the RIAA / MPAA is getting all the "not sure if it's really wrong, I do it sometimes, I still buy occasional CDs and DVDs but like to try them" crowd over to the "It's wrong." view. Until they can do that, no amount of efforts will slow piracy down because so many people are doing it, and OK with doing it, that there is a serious strength in numbers.

The crux of the matter is, and will always be, people give their money to companies for often irrational reasons. If more people contributed to artists and things they liked and enjoyed directly, we wouldn't need oppressive middle-men grasping at straws to retain their distribution powers.

MY HAMSTER (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283809)

just put a Wite-Out tube in his mouth. Funny sight!

Article lists CD's bought. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283848)

1. Usher - Confessions
2. Norah Jones - Feels Like Home
3. Eminem - Encore
4. Kenny Chesney - When the Sun Goes Down
5. Gretchen Wilson - Here for the Party


Just wondering if lower income innercity kids are the ones buying the cds. Maybe they dont have access to mp3 players and download services.

Lindsay? (1)

ewanrg (446949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283849)

Honey, rather than visiting Slashdot don't you think you should be working on your OWN CD sales?


Or is this the new career? Would explain why we never see you anywhere without the Sidekick I guess...


---


You think this is something? Click here [blogspot.com] ;-)

Yeah, but when it comes to a war of wits against.. (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283860)

...pirates the RIAA actually have a chance of catching Grandma.

Mod the article... (4, Funny)

Iron Clad Burrito (231521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283902)


Sounds like the RIAA should be going after the real pirates, not little Susie or Grandma."

I would mod your article -1 Redundant. We've been saying that for two years plus.

increase.. bleh (1)

countach44 (790998) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283932)

I think even the RIAA knows that the CD sales have been slumping not because of piracy, but because they need a scapegoat...

There is not a strong correllation here (4, Informative)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283950)

I love these articles because they are so misleading. I don't believe there is a strong correllation between sales and piracy. Sales are higher because the economy is doing better. Could they be even higher if there were no pirating? Perhaps, but I would consider it a small subset of people who would have bought something but didn't. Most people downloading stuff would never have bought it in the first place. If the record label lowered their prices that would also increase sales. Thus lower prices == piracy. ;)

The fundamental flaw is that in order to exaggerate their losses they come up with absurd calculations like loss = num_files_shared_last_year * retail_price. That is absurd.

I was watching C-SPAN last night and saw the confirmation hearing of U.S. President Bush's new Commerce Secretary. He was asked by Sen Gordon Smith (R-OR) how he would handle the copyright violations and IP issues that are crippling our innovative entrepreneurial spirit. I believe thre new Commerce Sec nominee has been CEO of Kellogg company. Wasn't that the company who was price-fixing cereal some time ago? Does anyone remember?

What affect it's had is the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11283957)

The whole point is 2.3% compared to years past is pretty marginal. The issue really is what would that increase have been if there were no illegal downloads? If it had even risen 5% as opposed to 2.3% without the downloads we're talking a massive loss, over 50% of their profits.

BYTE ME RIAA!!! (1)

KennyP (724304) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283958)

And I even bought a couple CD's this year!

So there!!!

Kenny P.
Visualize Whirled P.'s
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?