We will pay for music if you leave us alone

Ever since I interviewed the RIAA and wrote a column detailing the true nature of that horrible organization, I've kept myself abreast of all the news that shapes our understanding of piracy and anything that surrounds it.

And after reading an article in ArsTechnica earlier today where it cites a survey, which suggests that "people aged 14 to 24 still love their music and are willing to pay for it--but only on their own terms," I was excited to see what would happen next.

According to the survey by British Music Rights -- an organization that represents the music industry -- 80 percent of P2P users said they would gladly pay for a file-sharing service that allows them to download DRM-free songs as often as they'd like for a flat rate per month.

And although you may have expected British Music Rights to condemn the results of this study as more proof that we're living in a world of foolhardy pirates, the organization was actually quite happy with the outcome.

"The music industry should draw great optimism from this groundbreaking survey," said Feargal Sharkey, head of BMR. "First and foremost, it is quite clear that this young and tech-savvy demographic is as crazy about and engaged with music as any previous generation. Contrary to popular belief, they are also prepared to pay for it, too. But only if offered the services they want."

Is it really possible that someone on the other side of the fence has finally seen the writing on the wall and realized that we're more than happy to pay for music and give artists the money they deserve as long as we're treated with the same respect?

I simply can't believe it took this long for these dolts to figure it out.

As I've said numerous times before, the vast majority if people who pirate music or movies really don't do it for the sheer act of stealing, but do so because the current offerings available to them simply don't offer what they're looking for.

Try as they might, organizations that represent the music industry can't indict individuals for stealing music for no good reason. Do people steal music? Sure. But if given the right outlet to download music legally, I sincerely doubt the issue would be such a big one like it is today.

Let's face it -- we want to be able to download music from the service of our choosing at a price that's not ridiculously high. $0.99 for one track off an album? Are you kidding me? It may have worked when the labels were forced to put those tracks onto physical media, but today, it's a matter of recording it and shipping it off.

And lest you forget, we also want to be able to download DRM-free music so we can take that song and bring it with us wherever we would like to go. We did that with CDs, why can't we do that with a track off iTunes?

For some reason, we have created an environment that hates ownership and would rather see you lease property at a premium instead of own it at a reasonable price. And if you ask me, that's unacceptable.

Look, I'm not asking for much, just the opportunity to say that I own what I paid for and to be offered the courtesy to be trusted. Is that really too much to ask?

For more on what Don is up to, follow him on Twitter by clicking here!>

[Lerianis]

Part of the problem is also the prices that the big names want to charge for music. When they are NOT having to pay for transport of CD's, gas for big 18 wheelers, space in stores, etc...... there is no reason for .99$ prices for single tracks of music. Maybe .50$ or less.
They need to lower their prices, get rid of the DRM (which most consumers HATE with a passion, because it keeps them from using their legally bought stuff AS THEY WISH TO USE IT), and start getting real about their business, making more good music instead of promoting more Britney Spears crap.

[cporpheus]

I agree with Lerianis, but the days of this arcane way of business are numbered. There are too many advantages to digital distribution to ignore it, and as consumers, we won't stand for their insistence on the old-media way of doing business. It will take time, if nothing else.

[Paul Isaac]

I endorse what is said in this article. About 8 years ago I got my first PDA and went happily on line to find some legal music to buy. Nothing (apart from obscure rubbish). I was willing to part with my money but record companies had no way to let me do it, possibly they were too busy chasing Napster.

Flash forward to today and only iTunes is a satisfactory answer. The record companies have made virtually no attempt to embrace the digital world that everyone else did some time ago. All they've done is whinge.

By the way, was that THE Feargal Sharkey of Undertones fame?

[chrkeller]

Lerianis is correct. Prices need to go down, given the lack of overhead costs companies do not have with digital distribution. DRM needs to go as well. If I buy a song I should be able to use it as I wish and I should be able to share it with my immediate family. There is no reason why my wife and I should each have to buy the same song. All music companies need to do is be fair, most consumers will follow suit.

[TheGearbox]

I agree. I always seem to hear the term, "Speak with your wallets" but it would seem that corporate America doesn't get the hint. We stop going to the trashy half done overpriced movie theater's a long time ago, what do they do, they keep raising the price to get revenue. We stop buying music albums because we would drop $15-$20 on a new CD and find out that there is only one decent song on it. We have been screaming what we want for years, individual songs, DRM free, at decent bit rates. People do not steal the music just to steal it, it's just a matter of price and license's, and it's a big slap to the RIAA for their barbaric ways. Sure you could sue a single mom trying to just get by, sue here into debt for the rest of her life and her kids life, but dies that really help? Does the RIAA actually think they are scaring anyone? No, they gloat their pathetic faces and only anger the public into even more irrational ways. The world isn't always about supply and demand, welcome to the digital age, either you price it right and give it to us at a decent price, or we will go around you and get it ourselves. It more or less demand and reasoning, a market where the consumers have the power. Scary for the billion dollar CEO's, but great for the average consumer, get used to it.

[eldernorm]

Now, now. lets play nice here. :-) One must remember that the fat cat music industry types are there for the money they can put in THEIR pockets not the artists. A new model is required because its a new world. After prepping a new song, there is very little cost to distribute it. You do internet ads vs tv ads. Its downloaded and not physically printed.

And the fat cats will have to learn to get by on a little less money. :-) Also, remember that kids that down load thousands of songs usually do not listen to thousands of songs. They just have them. :-) I know several that like to boast how many gigabytes of songs they have. They almost never listen to any of them, How could they. If they did nothing but listen to music 18 hours a day, it would take them years to listen to each song only once. LOL

Yea, the have the song, but until you hear it, its only electronic ones and zeros. :-)
en

[gerrrg]

Well, eMusic has various subscription rates of DRM-free music, depending upon how many tracks you want to download a month. After browsing through their catalog of music, I decided to jump into their pond. The only problem is that as I go through my 300+ CD collection at home, I'm ripping my CDs lossless with FLAC, while the average bitrate of MP3s on eMusic is 192 Kbps. With headphones on or burned onto CD and played on my stereo speakers, I can hear the difference in fidelity between the two. Even ripping music to mp3 at 320 Kbps falls short of lossless. But then again, if you're signing up for their best deal, that's only $0.20/track. Just buy your jazz and classical music on CDs.

[professionaladventurer]

Here is the thing about costs of a song online and why the RIAA hasn't jumped on to any online business model: And I am just guessing. They have not gotten a good ROI on all they CD making contracts yet. And they want to push CD's as long as highschoolers will go to wal-mart and buy them. Once that is dead dead dead (which had to have been last Christmas) They will begin to move.

[Reeeves]

$0.99 is bad for a track? try £0.79 in the uk - $1.59!

i'm all for this subscription model if it happens. Maybe then no-one'll be getting screwed over.

[MariaG_2500]

Hey Don,
Do you have any idea how much it costs to write, arrange, practice, record, pay musicians, pay the studio, fixes, overdubs, mix and master a single song that you would want to buy for .99 cents? How about getting that song exposure so that people would even know that it existed... .99 cents? Do you want to buy every song that is on an album... no? Well, that song you don't want went through the same creation process outline above. By the way, the people who created the song don't get .99 cents. Apple takes a nice chunk of it.

If you want anybody to take you seriously do your homework completely.

[Ischyros]

But why am I forced then to buy 10 things when I only want one? Or am I supposed to look at it as buy 1 song for $15 and get 9 others free! And very little of the CD selling price actually goes to the artist. Most artists have album deals where they're paid so many million to make a certain number of albums and they are paid no matter how well those albums sell.

Plus, shouldn't the price come down after it's been out for a while? At least Hollywood has realized this. New release DVDs might be $15-20 but after they've been out for a few months, they often fall to the $5-10 range. CDs stay the same price no matter how old they are. Why? And they rarely go on sale. When they do, it's typically just 10-15% off, which comes to $1 or $2 cheaper. DVDs can go on sale for up to 50% off sometimes. But overall, it's just a ripoff to me to be forced to pay for 10 things I don't want just so I can have 1 thing I do want.

[HenkFarmer]

You have your basics all wrong. It's a market place out there where the price of the product - music - is fully negotiatable. You don't really mean to force people to pay for music they don't want do you? A lot of music, books, magazines - and there is so much creativity in all - they nearly all end up on the garbage dump. Or you take the road that the USSR (yes that's communism) took. No market place here but a strictly centralized legislation and ruling. It is the way the RIAA has chosen. And you don't really think they have the welfare of musicians at heart, do you?

[MariaG_2500]

Don,
Do your homework and leave us alone...

[TheGearbox]

What about Merchandise, tickets/concerts and endorsements? In fact most artists probably make more money on the side items than they do with their actual jobs. But I guess your right, maybe the greatly unexposed and over priced medium is the way to go. Sure no body will buy it because it's too expensive, but it will somehow magically pay for the overhead expenses. It's easy when you think about it, advertise it and sell it cheap, sell millions, hoard it, license it and charge too much, sell thousands. Which would you prefer? Wait, you must be one of the people who spend $10 on a movie and another $20 on popcorn and a drink. Got bills to pay!

[MariaG_2500]

The article is about the recordings... not touring and merch. But, I bet you don't know that there is a difference... .99 cents overpriced. What job do you do?

Go after gas prices... it's a better use of your time...

[harry_ness]

Gearbox - what world are you living in? "Advertise and sell it cheap" - isn't that what a lot of sites like iTunes are already doing, after of course, taking a significant chunk off the top before anything actually reaches an artist. And any idiot knows that advertising any sort of entertainment - music, movies, television, whatever - is NOT cheap if it's going to be effective. Of course you like to believe that all of these artists are raking in tons of cash from merchandise, tickets, endorsements, etc., but get real, only the Madonnas, Aerosmiths and Rolling Stones of the music biz really see serious cash from this part of it (and if they somehow manage to grab some cash from a movie tie-in, great, since people like you won't spend a dime on their product, good or bad). Seriously, how cheap does it have to be before you decide an artist is worthy of receiving a dime of your money? Wait, you must be one of the people who downloads all movies illegally from some foreign website. Got bills to pay!

[rossmccloud]

for Paul Isaac...who said the only viable alternative is iTunes..
Please try Amazonmp3.com music downloads. Not as many choices as iTunes (yet), but ALWAYS DRM free and reasonably priced compared to iTunes.

[aodonnell]

I gotta be honest, I'm OK with the current music buying situation. I think the RIAA needs to layoff stuff like music in YouTube videos and the like, but as long as they keep supplying music to AmazonMP3 I'll keep buying.

Back in the days of CDs, I bought maybe 3 or 4 per year - at the top end. That's what $50 or a little over $4 a month? Now I budget myself $15 a month but lately I've been spending about $20 a month. That's a 500% increase for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And I only listen to music about the half the time because I enjoy podcasts so much.

Yep, I'm digging AmazonMP3. The store is easy to use and the selection is as good or better (IMO) than iTunes, not to mention no DRM. If you compare non-DRM to non-DRM selections it's not even close.

Now if we could only get the movie and TV industry to the same point ...

[benjamin straight]

Paying for music isn't a problem.

[HenkFarmer]

You have your basics all wrong. It's a market place out there where the price of the product - music - is fully negotiatable. You don't really mean to force people to pay for music they don't want do you? A lot of music, books, magazines - and there is so much creativity in all - they nearly all end up on the garbage dump. Or you take the road that the USSR (yes that's communism) took. No market place here but a strictly centralized legislation and ruling. It is the way the RIAA has chosen. And you don't really think they have the welfare of musicians at heart, do you?

[baconstang]

In the early sixties I used to pay 89¢ for a 45, one song I wanted and one probably not. In 2008 dollars that would be about $4 per song. As Maria G mentioned it costs a lot to make records. If you can't afford 99¢, get a job. Or listen to the radio.

[mouseclick]

Let?s face it. Despite the huge success of the iPod and iTunes, it is still a locked format. I hesitated for a while before buying an iPod and even then I only did it once I found a way to convert iTunes tracks to MP3s. I first converted songs the hard way but today, you can download software, like NoteBurner, to convert iTunes tracks to MP3 format. I went through all this trouble because like most Americans, we want to own what we pay for and be able to use it how we want. The fact that Apple locks me into using the iPod is unacceptable to me. If I want to use a Creative or Samsung or other player to play music that I purchased I should be able to do so. And if I want to use Media Player instead of iTunes to listen to it, I should be able to. But it has now gotten so much better with the new Napster. I just learned last month or so that Napster is providing DRM-free MP3 format music ? 6 million songs ? at a 256K quality for 99 cents! Are you kidding me ? that trumps iTunes in every way possible!!! I switched from iTunes to Napster in a heartbeat. I wondered if there was a catch, but it appears there is not. I can play tracks I buy anywhere, not just on an iPod or iTunes, and I can put them on multiple devices if I want and not have to worry about using it on too many PCs, etc., unlike iTunes. Napster just might finally be the answer to the killer application for iTunes that we have all been wanting and waiting for. It was a long time coming, but it appears to be here in Napster. The question remains, however, how long will they keep prices reasonable at 99 cents. I somehow fear the industry ? and they have said so ? wants more like up to $5 per track, especially for hits. That?s unacceptable considering that?s the range of price for a CD single ? and with downloads you have no middleman, retailers, hardware, shipping, etc., etc. As such, I fully expect those savings by the labels should be passed along forever to consumers, instead of the industry continuing in their greedy ways. Time will tell, but for now, Napster has made iTunes obsolete for me?

[Goodman.seth]

Did anyone notice that Amazon (as licensed by the labels) has started selling their "big name act" Madonna for $3.99, DRM free? This pricing issue has a lot more to do with inter-corporate battles between Apple and the labels than it does with consumer expectations. Everyone's simply afraid of giving Apple too much power, hence why the labels (save for EMI) are now licensing all their content DRM free EXCEPT to Apple. As much as everyone wants to paint this as an "us vs. them" issue, there are many, many more factors that come into play that cannot simply turn on a dime when consumers say they want a new price scheme. Others have mentioned the cost of producing quality recordings (trust me I work in a studio in LA, I know the kind of money that gets spent). Of course we all want it cheaper, and it will eventually fall, but I personally never thought for one second that a SINGLE bit torrent user did it because of their rejection of fair market value. Come on. People download it because it's FREE, ain't no beating that, the hell with this new british survey.