Study: File sharers spend more money on music
I know that many, especially those associated with making money out of music, feel that pirates who share files should be made to walk the plank to the rhythm of Fiona Apple's "Criminal."
However, a survey commissioned by the professional cogitators at Demos in the U.K., suggests that just because one might download illegally, it doesn't mean one never spends money on music.
Indeed, according to the Independent, this survey, performed by the omeletteheads at Ipsos MORI, showed that those who share files spend 75 percent more on music than those who have allegedly clean hands.
Another omelettehead, Mark Mulligan of Forrester Research, told the Independent that those who share files are simply more interested in music.
He added: "They use file sharing as a discovery mechanism. We have a generation of young people who don't have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity."
(Credit:
CC The Impressionist.co.uk/Flickr)
But perhaps it's not quite so simple. I'm still not entirely convinced that file sharers are only those who delight in technology's ability to let them obtain product for nothing. I'm not entirely convinced that technology has made free-fighters of us all.
Wandering around Alcatraz on Saturday (how else is one supposed to celebrate Al Capone on Halloween?), I was struck by how everyone who wanted a little guide book happily volunteered to slip a dollar bill in the slot provided. People still accept the quaint idea of exchanging money for something of an appropriate value.
Isn't the real philosophical heart of file sharing the idea that real, honest people simply felt they had been gouged by the music industry for a little too long? File sharing allows them to alter the imbalance between the listener and the music producer.
It doesn't mean they will never spend money on music. They will simply spend what they feel is the right amount of money on music they think deserves it.
This survey found that 10 percent of the respondents, age range 16-50, admitted illegal downloading. But what might have been instructive would have been to learn just how much music people bought for their average of 77 pounds (around $120) per month and how they made their choice as to what should be bought and what should merely be, um, borrowed.
The music industry is adjusting because it has no choice. And its goal, long-term, may well focus on the ability to earn more from those who love music, rather than from those who are rather more indifferent.
Perhaps the most important word in that thought is "earn."
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
For example:
"Isn't the real philosophical heart of file sharing the idea that real, honest people simply felt they had been gouged by the music industry for a little too long"
No its not, not in all cases.. Most active users of file sharing believe that file sharing is part of your freedom, and that you should be able to share files at will. File shares believe that everybody has the right to share files, and that there should be freedom of sharing files. It has to do with fighting for freedom of speech and privacy, freedom of information and the openness of the nets.
It's called entitlement, framed in 'freedom' language to sound like a positive thing. Our society has gotten pretty good at justifying anything and then just branding it with positive-sounding language.
It would be interesting to spend some time with the data, but my guess would be that many of the 'honest' people mentioned are older and have probably slowed in their music purchasing. It would be interesting to compare life-long # of tracks purchased between the 'honest' and 'sharer' groups, as well as the purchase to share ratio for the file-sharing group.
In my experience, at least half of the people in the file-sharing category purchase almost no music, if any (and they often aren't shy about stating such... bragging about how stupid it is to pay for music when you can just DL it.. ie, they are thieves,and proud of it). The other half do use it more as a sampling mechanism, but I'd still wonder how much they actually end up purchasing out of what they keep/like.
I totally agree about the greed and stupidity of the music industry. But, the proper response would be to stop buying from them then, not to steal. I think the store down the street is charging way too much for many things they sell. That doesn't give me any kind of right to go steal it from them. It seems like kind of an insane way of thinking, but I think entitlement sums it up much better.
I used to have over $500 in cassette tape of rock music that now I am unable tore- purchase because of retailers following marketing trends set forth by illegals and this is the EAST COAST and not someplace you would think this to happen perhaps in Texas. But my point here is that I buy it as I find them in retail CD format. But because of illegal immigration and how retailers in USA follow marketing trends of NON AMERICANS they now have put a dent in the american way of life/spirit. If you can't be honest/fair to real americans who want to purchase music in stores or via ITUNES(I HATE ITUNES) then these AMERICANS me will find alternatives that may not enrich the pockets of those wh have forgotten the legalcitizen American customer.
LONG LIVE USA!(whats left of it)
Just thought i'd point this out, but the "real americans" would be the Amerindians, and, correct me if i'm wrong, but i doubt you're one of them...
You would be wrong. I became a real American the day I was born here.
@SteveW928 I love how your personal "experience" is so much more valuable than an actual study that was done. Maybe you just know greedier people. There have been dozens of studies which link higher levels of piracy with higher levels of purchased music. Back in the days of the original Napster studies linked higher CD sales with regions that had the highest piracy rates (college campuses, mostly). It would be interesting to compare the average number of tracks purchased per month over a life, see if back when people bought music and owned it if they bought more than people who now can only rent their music for an undisclosed period of time. Besides, we've all got to remember that music piracy has existed since cassette tapes came out (and before that). The music industry was concerned that record tapes where going to kill the industry because people could just copy their friends records and tapes. People did it and somehow the industry survived.
A final note - "stealing" music is a lot different from robing a brick and mortar. When you rob a brick and mortar you obtain a tangible good and deny the owner of the good the opportunity to sell the good. When you "steal" a song the owner of that song can still sell the song just as well. At most you've "stolen" a sale, which, if you didn't have the money for it in the first place, means that the owner has lost $0. Furthermore - these digital songs are just a sequence of 0's and 1's - what's to stop me from simply assembling my own 0's and 1's in the same order? If I see a painting in an art gallery and I paint a copy have I stolen the original picture? What about if I take a picture of it? It's the same basic idea. I'm not saying it's OK or that it isn't wrong, all I'm saying is that it's wrong in a very different way from societies typical views of right and wrong.
The reason I bring my experience into it, is that I realize a study can get you whatever answer you like. I don't know the details of the study, so while it is interesting, I'm just pointing out that it runs contrary to a good part of what I have experienced... so I'm skeptical of it. I agree that what you're describing also happens, but I've run into too many people who just feel entitled to free stuff (music, internet, etc). If you look at responses to articles about RIAA and DRM issues, you'll find that attitude quite prevalent among the mix of responses.
The tape issue is somewhat different, as you're not getting anywhere near a perfect quality copy of the original, where as with digital music (and software, etc) you can get an exact copy, or at least so close it make no difference to 95% of people. But, I'd also say that if one tapped all the music they were interested in, which meant they didn't have to buy it, but utilized it... then that was just as morally wrong as what we're seeing today. It just takes a lot less work today to accomplish it. Whether the industry survived it is irrelevant. I've survived having all kinds of stuff stolen from me over my lifetime, that doesn't make it any less a violation of me when it happens.
Yes, there is a difference in the technicalities and 'mechanics' of theft of physical property vs copyright, but the same moral principal grounds them both. Note, it would also often be illegal to take a photo of that painting, depending on how you used it.... and is illegal to photo-copy a book except under certain limited usage. There is a reason that is the case. And it isn't just to bum out free-spirited people or to ensure greed thrives.
Now? Now I rarely listen to music. I'm disgusted by the the whole industry. There was a day when they represented the heartbeat of America and left us feeling hopeful that a better day will come. Now I see th '60s generation as nothing but greedy fat-cats, sell-outs, and hypocrites.
I'd like to know just how many songs these guys download in relation to how much they spend. And furthermore, how many others download from them, translating to another song or CD not paid for?
The record labels may have gouged and inflated costs for a long time, and because that's how people feel about them, artists are now paying more than ever. If you support a band, pay them for their music!
They article says that even though file shares download their music illegally they still spend more on music than people who don't..
So even if someone downloads 1000000 songs and only buys 100, it still means that he buys more than an average person who doesn't download at all.. And thus this means that even though he download music (no matter how much) he still supports the music industry more than a user who doesn't download at all.
You in the contrary say that people who share will help kill the music industry because they don't support the music records and labels, but occurring to this article they help and support them more than someone who doesn't share.
Just think about it the other way:
IF nobody shares files than (according to this article) the music industry would sell less, and thus will have less revenues and profits.. And this thus doesn't help, support or stimulate the music artist labels and records.
How many songs have I downloaded in relation to what I've bought? 1000's for downloads, ten's of 1000's for bought. In number and dollars.
This is the first article that actually nails what happens. I download, I buy what is worth it and trash what isn't. And if I find a band I like, I'm apt to buy all their albums, t-shirts, stickers, poster, go to their shows and spread the word about them. And to add to this, I but vinyl. Which is far more expensive than CD's.
I'm in my 30's, I have no kids and my friends and I have the love of music, the cash and the power to rule the music industry. I control the music industry and they are finally starting to see that. There's more money to be made from me and my buying power and my downloading then most people and their crappy taste in music.
As far as what other people do or spend on music after they download from me doesn't matter. Clearly.
Download the album, mail them a quarter and they will be better off than if you bought the CD,
It's a sad fact, but it's the labels themselves that are killing their own industry. They refuse to adapt to consumer demands and innovations in technology. If they don't evolve in the next couple years, they're going to implode.
That's rather hard to believe in the light of numerous studies that have come to same conclusion as the one discussed in the article. Not every illegal download is a lost sale, indeed those downloads may very well generate sales that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Stick a price on an unknown quantity like a new song and there are certain barriers.
"The record labels may have gouged and inflated costs for a long time, and because that's how people feel about them, artists are now paying more than ever. If you support a band, pay them for their music!"
Bands still make most of their money on merch and touring, though the record labels have started taking a cut of that as well. As other have said, the royalties artists make off CD sales and paid downloads are pathetic to non-existent unless they are one of the top artists.
When I come to your house to steal your computer and stereo, I'll be sure to leave a cookie for you. That way you'll have at least one more cookie than you would have, had I not come along. ;o)
Does anyone else see something wrong with this logic?
"Bands still make most of their money on merch and touring ... the royalties artists make off CD sales and paid downloads are pathetic to non-existent ..."
You may well be right about that.... but then it is up to the artist / management to decide to take that path (and some artists have), not up to the individual to decide to steal.
That old argument still fails. Downloading a COPY of a song does not remove a physical object from someone's possession. Also, as this article points out, in many cases it increases the odds of a physical object being sold.
I believe that this article is pretty true. The artists USUALLY don;t make much on cdS their money comes from performances.
I compose , publish, and perorma and record my own music. I've been doing this as a hobby/parttime since the 60s I'm not getting rich on it I don't tour, Nowadays I use an aggregator and am self published. CD baby Tunecore and others let artists market directly. (or independent labels)
Actually I have downloads of some songs available for free. It's advertising People can also stream my music for free from websites. My experience is doing so causes people to want to buy the album.
For what a famous artist has to say about this issue take a look at "Prime Palaver" on Baen publishers site. The free library has increased book sales...AND ther is a comment from Janis Ian ther regarding music Cds Be Aware the artist doesn't make that much on cds.
You're also correct that artists do have a choice. They could set up a web site, sell their tracks for whatever they want, or give them away for free. Yet, many go through the record companies. They must be getting SOMETHING or they wouldn't be doing so. I think a lot of people here arguing against the 'evil' recording industry don't quite have a grasp on how this all works.
I'm not saying the recording industry hasn't been stupid and greedy, but as you say, it is much more complicated than many here seem to want to give credit.
I guess if I heard some bird singing in the morning and I didn't go outside and spread some bird seed on the ground I'm apt to being struck by mother nature and sent to the jail in the mystic forest...
I bet if a band went around singing for free (charging NOTHING...period), a company scout would try to buy them up...in the case, we could argue that THAT is stealing from US!
Nowadays, it's just a cash crop.
Sad.
But true.
As for the article itself I'm a firm believer in "if you like it, buy it"
I find this argument so narrow minded.
If a great artist needs the time to be creative and produce songs I want to listen to then I believe paying them to do this is a worthwhile investment in my entertainment.
Imagine if the Beatles, Bob Dylan, U2, pick your favorite artist had to have a day job and then do their creative work on the side because they could not earn enough from their music. I expect we would have far fewer musicians and to me that would make the world a less entertaining place.
There was a period of some 15 years where I just did not buy any music at all, because I had to buy an entire CD, just to listen to one song.
The music industry and musicians may think they have some right to exist or be artists or whatever, but I am not supporting them or that idea. I won't steal from them either.
Mankind will invent something else if music dies and I am cool with that.
Additionally, saying that pirates buy more digital music does not, in fact, allow you to conclude that piracy helps the industry. For example, it could be that pirates are the biggest music fans, and without the existence of piracy, they would buy 10x as much music. Did the study control for age?
If you're not sure what the music is like, you may not pay however much it costs for something you're not sure about. However, say someone pirates 1 song, or one album (for free, of course, and therefore not having a cost if you don't like it), by an artist, and discovers they like this artist, they're more likely to go out and buy their works, if they feel it deserves it.
I sure as hell know that's what i do, and this is now how i own the whole of Regina Spektor's discography. :)
However, once the music industry cracked down on file sharing, I stopped downloading. Given the extremely boring and homogenized radio industry in my area, I also stopped listening to music, except that I already had. I have probably bought 2 CDs in the last year.
The difference? File sharing was the way the music industry had to reach me. They cut off their own outreach arm, and I cut off my music spending, since I no longer had any way to check out stuff I might like.
That's probably because they knew sharing music was just a very cool form of free advertising. Of course today the RIAA are just a bunch of money grubbing a-holes, you have to be a freaking millionaire to go see a rock concert, but alas I digress:
One reason people today share music is because the bands or the songs they want to listen to are not available for download at any price.
Why do you consider people downloading as performing a criminal act? If I DISTRIBUTED copyright porotected material then you might have a point. But downloading??? How would I know that the person making the file available doesn't have proper authorization? When you buy a CD in the store are you first suppossed to ask to see their authorization to distribute the material? Of course not! But somehow there is an expectation that I confirm that what I'm downloading is authorized. All I know is if it's the site's policy not to distribute material for which you don't have rights, then it's my expectation that anything I download from that site is authorized.
By this And I guess my lending somebody one of my store purchased CDs is criminal distribution of copyright protected material...
Music is even more a component of this because songs are listen to in repetition than other mediums. It bolls down to concentrate on the production and stop worrying who might steal it. Thief will always exist: you can only focus on the people that will buy it.
I you like the song - pay for it.
The complaints about file sharing vs. retail sales are disingenuous at best. If it's true that active file sharers buy MORE music, then file sharing should be encouraged. Of course if more music was interesting and less music was auto-tuned synthetic pop crap, people would be more willing to buy it.
Sad truth is artists only make money on touring, and most artists need studio advances for the cash to go on tour. So if you wonder why you can't find any good music offline, it's because of the virtual stranglehold the music industry has over the musicians. No wonder we go to file sharing to find good music. There are too few outlets to discover it elsewhere.
Why don't we simply copy and paste all these posts every time there's another article? I wish I had the time to read/evaluate/concur with/rebut them.
Reminds me of the endless series of sports arguments down at the pub. Same voices, same words, different night. But this venue, alas, does not have the benefit of cask ale.
- by DirtyFlorist November 2, 2009 12:00 PM PST
- So cant the artist advertise and distribute on their own now via the interwebs and such and not have to rely on the old music industry's business model to sell their music? Everyone is looking for a new way to sell music online via streaming but can the artist themselves put up their music and be the ones to solely profit from it?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by syltelabb November 2, 2009 12:28 PM PST
- The problem with this model is that most artists can't produce a high-quality product on their own. And most of them can't afford to pay for quality engineers, string arrangers, sound designers, or whatever the record calls for. That's where the "evil" record industry usually helps out...
- Like this
-
- by SteveW928 November 4, 2009 2:04 AM PST
- @ DirtyFlorist -
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (60 Comments)Sure they could... and there is a reason most of them don't... as syltelabb points out, it is because ultimately, they still need that 'evil' recording industry. And, if they need them, they need to pay them. We could quibble over how much they are paying, etc.... but the bottom line is that any of these artists can EASILY do it on their own. Nothing is stopping them. They could record their album, put it on the web in MP3 or AAC format, sell the tracks for $0.50 or $0.01 each or give them away for free if they like, and rack in the dough from their concerts and merchandise. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is stopping any artist from doing this.