Comments on: Forget DRM. It's the music

Studios remain shell-shocked by Napsterization, but CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says the real solution isn't attacking pirates.

[robbtuck]

Put out music I like...

I'm old fashioned - I like CD's. I'd buy music online if it weren't crippled, but I don't pirate either. I've amassed a large collection of music, and there doesn't seem to be much new out there that I like. Also, as I've gotten older, I spend more time and money on other things.

[Tim.b]

You're SO right!

I'm a boomer guy heavy into Jazz and Blues. I buy (yes even today) all CD's and some SACD's too. I even rip them to my iPod and media server at home.

The last time my buddy (yea he's younger) down the road at Apple and I met for a beverage and music chat, he was visually SHOCKED and SHAKEN that I'd never bought a tune from the iTunes store, that he manages. When I told him I still buy whole ALBUMS on CD I thought I'd have to change his diaper!

What do I say to the younger music fan? Hmmmm, Oh yea, "I'm NOT old and your music DOES suck!

[Tim.b]

And ...

I almost forgot, an old Marketing "saw" to the Music Industry guys, "it ain't dog food unless the dog will eat it!"

[dahnb]

56 Year Old Tech Lover- DRM Sucks

I've been buying music since I was 5 years old (Elvis & Ricky Nelson). My favorites now include Porcupine Tree, David Sylvian, Lucinda Williams, Elvis Costello, Iggy Pop, lots of obscure stuff, & lots of jazz, electronic, & classical. Through the years I've always made recordings of music which I bought & I OWNED (reel to reel, cassettes, the first creative Jukebox). I use a Roku to stream music which I OWN & ripped. DRM limits our rights to move our tunes around after we have bought them. I agree with the headline:
Forget DRM. It's The Music.

[therealgeeves]

A Download Library

The net label Uncooked Records provides a download library which means account holders can return to the site and re-download purchased tunes. Useful if they are ever lost from harddrive failure or accidental software bug or deletion.

None of the tunes are DRM as the label has signed deals directly with artists. A real label can do these things.

Uncooked Records think that it's the music too.

[MichaGato]

They're also standing in the way of tech

keeping people from using their wares in innovative ways, like this here young fella.

[fcekuahd]

Here's another big reason why downloading hurts music sales:

If customers could play a song or album BEFORE they bought it, 8 times out of 10 they wouldn't buy it. This goes for movies too. I would never bother watching a whole ripped movie, especially not a crappy camcorder rip. But I can't tell you how many movies I've passed on because I saw the first few minutes in a ripped copy, and decided I wasn't interested. This is especially true now when music and movies keep getting worse, and studies keep spending more and more money to hype inferior products.

[stevew928--2008]

Copies aren't lower quality...

I agree with the general idea expressed in this article. I think in
music, just as the rest of Hollywood, the media, etc. we've seen
a decline in the overall quality of content.

However, while I HATE DRM, I wanted to correct a few points the
author made. First, the 'copies' people are downloading are not
'lower quality'. Part of the problem with the DRM situation is that
they are selling us lower quality music then we could just get on
a CD (or what the ripped from CD copy would be). Jobs was
totally correct that the music industry is already selling high
quality, non-DRM digital music for decades. All DRM does is
keeps me from playing that tune I just bought on my car stereo.
I'm stuck to XYZ music device. Also, what if something ever
happens to Apple 20 years from now. Like you, I've been
collecting music for decades, and I want it to still work in 20
years even if the DRM granter is gone.

This brings me to my second point though. You and I ARE
different than a good percentage of the 'young' generation.
There is a general attitude I've heard of having no problem at all
just 'grabbing what you can', with no moral sense that there is
anything possibly wrong with not paying for music. Whether this
was created BY the industry or not... I'm not here to say. Yet,
morally, there is something wrong with stealing music, period.
I'm not happy the Porsche dealer charges what they do for a
911, but I don't go take one to justify it. In this, the music
industry has a legitimate concern.

However, DRM doesn't even slow this crowd down. All they have
to do is buy 1 copy of a CD, rip, upload... and now millions can
download a BETTER copy than what I get when I buy the music
industries DRM'd copy. This is why I also have not been buying
much DRM'd music. And, since I'm older now with many life
responsibilities, I don't spend as much time at the music store.

I think THAT is the answer to their problems. They need to give
people like me who WOULD buy music, some reason to buy. I'd
LOVE to spend more money at the iTunes Music Store.... my
pocketbook is just waiting to go.... but not until DRM is gone.

Another closing point which does support your thesis of lower
quality material though, is something I heard a friend's young
adult child say to me one day. He said he didn't care about DRM
because in a year, he wouldn't be listening to the song he just
bought anyway. To him, anything he buys today is just throw-
away anyway. I'm not sure about you... but I still listen to 90% of
everything I ever bought.... I never bought 'throw-away' music.
Is this an indication of the quality of the music, or just a totally
spoiled generation?

-Steve

[MichaGato]

I object to a parallel between MP3 and Porsches

A lot of people gather that metal, design it, shape it, assemble it, transport it and sell it for the betterment of their and others economic stance. It is hardware and after buying it you can give it away for free, if you want to. Just too of the main differences.

Sound/Image/Speech is a common good. Someone who creatively crafts it deserves a limited right to profit from what he has done (as the USA Constitution grants, for example). But not a whole industry of non creators who ride around in Porsches ripping both artists and public off.

[ronpadz]

it's the end of the world as we know it

We are all witness to the death of the music industry model as it has existed for decades. The existing model simply no longer applies in the Internet age. The desperate measures we are now seeing the industry implement will be viewed by history as nails in the coffin. I don't know what it's going to look like in it's next stage of evolution but I hope to see the greedy industry get totally and completely disintermediated out of the picture, artists get more fairly compensated for their labor, and the cost of music to the consumer reduced to it's true commodity value.

[itango]

I am 57 years old,

and I used to spend about $200 per month on CDs years ago. Now, I have a huge collection of CDs (about 5,000), and so have never felt the need to download a lot of music, not even when Napster was de rigeur. I have very eclectic music tastes, classical, jazz, zydeco, pop music, easy listening, etc. - notable exceptions from my huge collection are hip hop and rap.

My son (37 years old) loves my music, and has bought many CDs from listening to artists in my collection. I also like some of the contemporary "younger" music :-), such as Avril Lavigne, Jet, Barenaked Ladies, etc. My point? in the last 4 years or so, my music spending dropped to about 2 or 3 CDs a YEAR, if that. Why? the quality is simply not there in the majority of new artists today. I am not a pirate, in fact, I have never downloaded music, because I do not want to be restricted in when or how I listen to the music I pay for. I burn copies of my CDs to preserve the original disc, and make my own compilations, but I do not share them.

Even with Napster, I first listened to the audio quality of certain things other people downloaded, and so continued to buy the high quality recorded CDs from the record labels, because to my ear, the downloads many times did not sound as good as the actual CD.

I know the MUsic industry has lost a lot of money they used to make from people like me, but this is not the result of piracy - the reason is that I cannot justify paying for music that I simply do not like. I agree with the person who said that the majority of current artists like Britney Spears, Atomic Kitten, Pussycat Dolls, etc. are garbage. But in spite of the fact the we baby boomers are the most numerous cohort of people currently living on the planet, with the most money and spending power, the record labels seem stuck to the idea that it is the 12-18 year old market that is important, and so they cater to this demographic almost exclusively. They also seem to believe, erroneously, that this age group has no taste.

Even my grandchildren like a lot of my music, I often catch them humming tunes from my oldies collection. They tell me that they do not like a lot of the current "talent" (I use the word loosely) aimed at them by the record industry.

WAKE UP, RECORDING AND MOVIE INDUSTRY, and give consumers what they want. They will not only pay for it, but your revenues will be increasing again. Listen to your customers, or gradually go out of business!

[J.G.]

Yes, and, no

I agree that much of music released today is throwaway. But, I
think that has always been true. Not just in music, but in the
popular arts, period. (Anyone who thinks even Shakespeare
thought his works would be timeless is naive.) I can agree that
ignoring market segments other than tweens through twenties
and those who like classical, blues, zydeco, etc., is among the
worse oversights of the industry.

However, I blame music listeners for part of their current ennui.
They don't reach out enough, staying stuck in narrow segments
of listening themselves. For example, many listeners who were
fans of traditional soul/rhythm and blues music are not even
aware of the neo-soul movement or world music. So, yes, the
industry needs to expand its horizons, but so does the music
buying public.

[MichaGato]

Another youth turned off by the industry

And so they lost another prime client...

[itango]

You must be in the 12 to 18 year old demographic.

Most of the people I know buy CDs. And yes, evne though I am an old fogey, I own a 30gig Creative Zen Vision M, and I carry my tunes on my MP3 wherever I go. I also have more techtoys than a lot of much younger guys, and am very computer literate.

[PCCRomeo]

THANK YOU!

Finally someone has written an article outlining what I've been
saying all along. If record companies would just put out better
quality music, the whole piracy thing wouldn't be a problem. The
people are merely taking back what was stolen from them when
they bought that $15 CD for two songs.

[DHall819]

Yes!

I agree 100%.
Maybe I'm just showing my age, too, but I find most of the new
music being released truly unworthy. Artists seem more concerned
with how they'll look in their music video, rather than how they'll
sound.

P.S. I can't remember the last new release I bought. Oh yeah, Rod
Stewart Songbook, for my wife. My last purchases, a few weeks
ago: a couple of Eric Clapton re-releases.

[TomMariner]

Magicians

I am an executive with a technical company and work with some folks like the music industry tycoons. I call some of my coworkers magicians because if they are caught doing a rotten job, they hold the bad work in their left hand and then find the slightest problem with another product or department and redirect your attention to the right. Sure enough, most of the heads arround the conference table dutifully turn right while mine stays focused on the stinking mess on the left.

The "music guys" have done an abysmal job of taking advantage of a new medium that was ideal for them and have unbelievably, and as Coop points out, turned off their target customers. And in their right hand they hold up "illegal downloading". Hey shareholders, take a look in the left hand -- these guys are losing your money and blaming something other than their total incompetence.

Get rid of Bronfman and crew and hire someone who understands the new technology and how to harness it for your company.

[NoVista]

"It's the control, sheeple!"

That's the principle the suits work on. When they whine about piracy, when they play the Intellectual Property card on behalf of their artists, it is to laugh.

I doubt there's a musician alive or dead that has not been screwed by a label.

Just as there's not an author who had no bad experiences with editors and publishers. When one has to fight to get royalty payments, you know who really owns the IP.

One example off the top of my head: Public Enemy once made a track never intended to be released commercially, but put it on their website for their fans. Lo! their label forced them to remove it. Such consideration for their artists only mirrors their contempt for the people who buy their product.

DRM has other teeth, too. Like the time I dumped a mini-DV I'd shot one morning, then decided to edit it, tidy up. The PC [Windows, bah!] told me there was a DRM issue and I did not have access ...

Almost every LP, CD, or movie in my collection was bought and paid for. When I was an IRCaholic, we used to swap MP3s, often just part of a track; everything I liked the sound of, I found and bought the CD -- even if it was just for the one track. :-) So this is an instance in which "piracy" made money for the labels. Hmmmm.

Sure, there are always those who will steal anything not nailed down, and no matter how poor the quality. But how has this cost the labels anything, anyway? That group would never spend a dollar even if they had to go without 'music'.

Here in the land of oz, any number of audio cassettes, CDs, and DVDs available in retailers like K-mart, Target, and Myers have all the earmarks of illegitimate copies.

I've begun to suspect the "Suits" are playing the outsourcing/offshoring game to maximise their profits; yet are blind to the possibility that their low-cost manufacturers are double-crossing them in the Pacific Rim market.

[paulej]

It's the product, but it is also the format

I believe the author is correct in asserting that the quality of music has declined. After all, quality of music is very subjective and, if that is his opinion, then he cannot be wrong. Further, given the number of comments supporting the author's claim, I believe there must be some truth in this assertion on a wider scale.

However, let's step back a decade or two and consider the music during those years. Was it all so good? As several stated in this discussion thread, people are tired of paying $15 or more for two good songs. This means that people have long believed that music was over-priced and most of the music was not very good.

I did not hear anybody say that they remember the days when they could go to the store and buy any album at random and find that it was stuffed full of great songs. The very fact that there have been LPs, tapes, and CDs for as long as I can remember that are collections of the "best songs" from an artist or various artists strongly suggests that the music industry also knows most music from any given album is not worth buying. In fact, I have recently noticed many new singles being released on albums that contain the "best hits" from that artist. I find that quite strange.

So, I assert the music industry has always suffered with "poor quality" products. But as I said, the quality of music is subjective. What the music industry faced before and still faces is the fact that some songs resonate with a larger customer base than other songs. That is, some songs become major hits and others do not. Likewise, some albums become major sellers and some do not. Music labels take a gamble with every artist they promote.

With all of that said, the fact is that we have entered a new age. I no longer listen to FM radio, but prefer to listen to Internet radio stations. I prefer to have MP3s, simply because I do not have to waste space in my house with dust-collecting CD cases, LPs, or cassette cases. Admittedly, though, I also appreciate the fact that I can buy just the songs that I like for $1.

So, let's review why record labels might be losing revenue:
1) People consume less music, because the new products are poor
2) Piracy is rampant on the Internet
3) We are paying $2 for songs from an artist rather than $15 or $20

I believe that (1) has not changed. I believe music quality is, more or less, about the same as always. I believe that as most people get older, they tend to find themselves less interested in music targeted at teens. Perhaps the author is correct in stating labels ought to try to target a wider audience, but I am sure they have done their homework and discovered that it is not a viable business.

One would think that (2) has contributed to decreased revenues to some extent, but I have read reports from two independent studies that say that piracy has actually had a negligible impact on music sales. Further, I believe that if piracy has contributed to decreased sales, it is only because music was not provided in a format that was demanded by the consumers. Consumers clearly indicated that they wanted MP3 files and the music industry said "no", stalling digital file sales until DRM systems were ready. I suspect that for a period of time, consumers did pirate music more than they would have otherwise and I suspect that now that music can be purchased for a reasonable price online, piracy is on the decline.

With that said, DRM is still a big problem. As Steve Jobs pointed out in his open letter, DRM buys us nothing. In fact, it is a technological nightmare. I buy music in WMA format and Microsoft has changed its systems at least once, breaking backward compatibility in the process. It is also impossible to buy a new computer and move music over to it without having to contact the company where you bought the music originally and asking them to re-issue a license to me. I had to do that and it was a mess. Now, the retailer where I purchase my music recommends that I buy the WMA file and burn it to CD as a backup. This suggests that they do not want to receive those kinds of phone calls from customers in the future. Now that Microsoft has removed my ability to back up my license files, I am left with no choice but to do as suggested. But picture this: I purchase a song and burn it to a CD as a backup, but where is my proof of purchase? My hand-written CD label looks as much like a pirated CD as any truly pirated CD. Seeing how stupid that is, I just rip my CD back into MP3 format and place the file beside the WMA file, consuming twice the disk space. It violates the license agreement, but stupidity runs amuck in with music industry rules and I can only bring myself to follow the rules only so far as it makes any sense at all. What is the difference from an MP3 file and a hand-written CD label with music on it? I really just want to buy MP3 files without the fuss.

Lastly, there is (3). I believe that the price per album that the music industry is getting is the real problem. As I said, I am spending $2 for songs where I used to spend $15 to $20 for a CD. I believe this revenue loss on each album produced is the music industry's biggest problem. Yet, I have never heard them talk about this.

The music industry must be stuck on this one. They cannot increase the price of online music substantially, because it would only encourage piracy. So, what can they do?

I am sure they have considered everything from catering to wider audiences to even dropping the prices of songs to a point where music is considered completely disposable. (At the present price, $1 for a song is not disposable when one buys 500 songs, but ten cents would be.) I suspect they are completely stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[mikeburek]

Internet got me to buy music

I'm guess a tight wad with my money and didn't want to spend some $10+ for a tape/CD that I only liked 1 song, much less if I had never heard the other songs on the CD. I was born in 1980. While cassettes were around, I bought maybe 5. And 2 I chunked after a few months. My familiy didn't get a CD player until I was a high school senior. We just never really bought music. And the CD player we got was a 5 disc carousell so that if we put 5 CDs into it, by listening to only songs we liked, we could almost get an hour of music. And it still took a long time to buy more than 5 CDs. We just listened to the radio, and so we only heard very few different songs. I know others were "risk takers" and would just buy things randomly, but I'd also seen their trash can when they tried to clean up, and there were lots of tapes/CDs that would just get thrown away.

As my headline says, after there were online stores that would let me listen to songs, and also places for me to download new things, I found some songs that I really liked. After many many many months, I would find a CD that had at least 5 songs that I liked. So most of what I have now is just compilation CDs.

Sure, there were the stores that let you listen to music before you bought it. But it was usually just 4-6 CDs to pick from, and you had to stand up listening to broken headphones with a 2 ft cord and _hope_ you could get the player to work.

So without a good way to test out and share lots of music, which the internet does provide, I would not buy something that I've never experienced before. And I would still be stuck with 3 cassettes and probably 4 CDs.

[Legacy4HI]

DONT BLAME HIP HOP - Forgive me for being outside of the norm...

It's very easy for everyone on this board to blame hip hop and say its crap, but realize that many hip hop artists see their music without record labels. There is a VERY large demand in their own neighborhoods. If you dont believe me, do some research on Master P and how he got rich.

I am a musician (I play 3 instruments, one of them saxophone for 14 years) and love hip hop. Though its not as difficult to create musically, there is somethine else you get...the fantasy. Just like when you buy your favorite action movie, you can pop in a rap album and either enter that fantasy, or relate to what he/she is saying.

On the other hand, I do agree that a majority of music, even hip hop, is very formulaic and lackluster in quality. My music collection is a combo of downloads, purchased DRM from itunes, purchased popular CDs, and indie.

[Steve Millward]

Rap & Hip Hop vs MUSIC !

I believe the author's point was that the record labels are
targeting their marketing to those most likely to pirate, As an
old geezer, I agree with the bumper sticker that says: "Rap is to
Music what Etch-a-Sketch is to art. And since musicians make
most of their money on tours and merchandising, and relatively
little from record sales, why wouldn't it be better for them AND
their fans to eliminate the record label middle men. Offer real
music with a real melody to a mature audience and you won't
have to worry about piracy.

[maint1]

Don't worry about it

Hip hop isn't bad music. I'm one of the most educated people in
this forum and I own a ton of it.

I've been listening to it since the days of King of Rock.

I also own a lot of speed metal and jazz. What does it say about
me? It says I like music.

People who listen to country are not hicks. People who listen to
bluegrass are not moonshiners. People who like hip hop are
normal people too.

[fcekuahd]

Rap and hip hop are street art

The moment you package and commercialize them they're a joke. People who buys rap or hip hop 'albums' are idiots.

[wwjasond]

Innovate dont replicate

I'm with most of the posters on here. I always maintained that my napster downloading exposed me to music I ended up buying if I liked it. It truly was a consumer rebellion against the lack of quality music out there. I mean I couldnt count the number of CDs I bought prior to napster that I would find out only contained 2 or 3 truly good songs. So napster allowed me to sample music and buy less of the crap I would have been forced to buy. Even now songs sit in my iTunes cart for months as I attempt to find out how long I'll want to listen to that song. I've always believed in paying people for quality products and thus I considered napster my way of sampling and weeding out crappy music. If I only liked one song I kept it and deleted the rest.

The RIAA has been beating this drum for far too long and need to realize that napster was not about piracy, it was about exposure. The RIAA has been using piracy to cover up its lack of innovation and use piracy to sell to stockholders as the reason for their failures. Their position on single sales was preposterous as I rarely met anyone who purchased singles after the early 90s. The music industry started to implode in the late 90s around the time all the music began to sound the same. Could you tell Brittany from Christina or whoever else or how about Biggie from 2Pac or how about Korn from Limp Bizkit? The industry has always been about rehashing old stuff and calling it new and the consumers are ready for something new. But the RIAA will hide behind the tried and true methods of blaming illegal downloads and putting out a "hits" albums every year for every artist. I mean who wants to buy a re-released CD or single to acquire a song that should have been included in the first CD. Stop the cycle already, napster proved that the consumer will eventually figure out how to combat it.

[zlbdad]

Lame rationale: Music;'s not good so we'll do what we want

How in the word can people justify stealing something because the 'industry's rehashing old stuff...'? As the argument goes people seem to think that because record execs might be inept, or major label music production is unoriginal and focused on the lowest common denominator that somehow it exempts them from the conversation about ethics. I work with fantastic artists eery day. Many of them wonder how they're gonna be able to justify continuing. Thanks goodness for live performance...can't replicate that (yet!). If a typical budget for an indie CD is $7k-$10k (that's VERY low) how can an artist hope to recoup much less live.

[clay282]

De-Lite is the PERFECT example

the decline IS in fact the products problem. I remember when DeLite came out with Groove Is In The Heart... I could not get enough of that song and just HAD to have the cassette. Then i got it and am still to this day upset that i wasted my money on it. There was only one song worth having on it and now that the net allows me to preview each song before i buy it, i havent made that mistake again. I literally have thousands of dollars of cassettes, records and cd's that i was forced to buy, just to get a couple songs, NOT ANYMORE. Are album sales off? SURE... but its not because im pirating, its because im choosing.

[coryschulz]

I somewhat agree...

It's true that the quality of music has gone down a lot. But there are still decent bands out there. They're just hidden and are usually discovered by accident or through a friend.

But music is not something most people care to pay for, and it's not something that should be marketed and controlled like it is. It is information and essentially becomes an education for many teenagers and young adults. It is what we turn to when times get hard, or at a party to create atmosphere, or to fall asleep to, or during the holidays. Music may have a production cost, but the value in our hearts and minds is so priceless that it is almost degrading to the creative product and to ourselves to place any sort of monetary value on it. I would go so far as to say that music is universally necessary for healthy human development, and that by economically attempting to limit its scope is comparable to limiting the availability of milk, sugar, and bread for the sake of economic gains. The business these companies are attempting to run is falling apart in the middle of a transition to an information age that is free of any physical limitations, such as the rules of supply and demand. They will not understand this until they are left with no other options, as it is often human nature to protect what is comfortable and prevent change until it is absolutely necessary.

I have previously discussed on here the nature of the internet and the information age and how this will affect us economically. Everyone here said I was crazy... but soon you will see that this is simply how things are.

[swiftouch]

It IS the quality of music

You can't tell me that pushing the likes of Justin Timberlake, Beyonce, Fergie, Sean Paul, Akon, and PCD, and C. Aguilera hasn't had any negative impact on the music industry. Nay, I say it does. No one wants their crap. NO ONE! And if they do, they should realize what morons they are for liking that lewd garbage. Family values is where it's at people. Start making more family oriented stuff instead of the grinding spooning club'in stuff that sucks oh so bad.

The other reason is DRM. We don't own our music with DRM attached. We pay, but only to "rent" the mp3. Which is wholly retarded concept from the beginning. DRM is fine and dandy if we can take with us a "permissions" file anywhere we go so we can do what we want with the mp3.

So change the way you implement DRM and stop supporting and advertising and basing your industry on the artists who produce "schlock."

[jimbothedriver]

WELL SAID!!!!

"The studios have always chosen the easy out by shoving numbingly formulaic, bad music down the public's throat." Especially that part. very well said indeed!

You know I don't buy music based on what studio recorded it, what digital format it's in, or what label it's on. I could care less about all that crap! I buy music based on WHAT I LIKE!!! Not on what others dictate to me.

[zlbdad]

So Give it away???? Must be another way...

There is no arguing the point that the cat's out of the bag where digital copying is concerned, and there's no question that most people are ethical and WILL pay for music. The problem is the absence of a viable model for musicians to be able to reap the fruits of their labor in the current marketplace. The percentage of every 99 cents spent on a download that goes to the artist is small, selling singles doesn't bring in what selling albums did and copying is certainly also undermining sales even if only to a small degree. At any rate my point is that while DRM isn't our saviour there is something wrong headed about saying, "Let's simply give up trying to create a secure way to seel music and just give it away. We've lost". That sends the wrong message. There must be other solutions. Mr Jobs certainly hasn't given up copy protecting software sold by his company.....

[paulej]

Nobody said give it away...

Nobody said to give it away. However, DRM is bad for a whole lot of reasons.

The problem is the record companies are selling music and extracting fewer dollars from the average wallet via online sales than selling CDs. For example, suppose the average person purchased 2 CDs in a month at $15 each. So, they spent $30 on music. How many online singles does the average person make each month? 15? If so, that means the music industry has lost 50% of its revenue. If the average person only buys 2 singles, then the music industry has lost more than 93% of its revenue.

The music industry wants to increase revenue and it has two options:
1) Increase prices
2) Increase sales volume

The author of the article argued that increasing volume is hard, because the quality of music has degraded. The solution to that is to find a wider selection of good artists.

Increasing prices might be an option. However, I would not want to spend $2500 on DRM-protected music only to have it all lost due to a hard drive crash. So, I would personally balk at a price increase when I could lose my money so easily.

So, the music industry needs to work on increasing sales volume. This means it needs to find more good music, perhaps more artists, but certainly more good songs. However, it also needs to make it easier to buy music. Today, buying music from most online stores is really a pain. Why is it not as easy as adding songs to a shopping cart, paying with my credit card, and downloading the files?

Oh, and the last question raises another: what has the music industry done to cater to teenagers who do not have a credit card? I do not believe they have done anything, actually. How are teenagers expected to buy music? Why is it not possible to go the store to buy pre-paid music cards with a scratch-off PIN for online purchases?

So, here is a summary of reasons why music sales are down:
1) Quality of music has declined
2) Frustration with buying music on-line (need click, buy, download)
3) DRM concerns (new computer, music is potentially lost forever)
4) Average person is paying less for music (e.g., $15 for 15 songs, rather than $30 for 2 CDs)
5) Inability for the music industry to offer teens a way to buy music without a credit card

[itango]

You, and any other person in this thread

who still believes the problem is piracy needs to re-read the postings, and actually listen. I BOUGHT every single one of my thousands of CDs!!! I am simply no longer buying as much music as I used to because I do not like the current offerings. I now spend about $100 PER YEAR on music, vs $200 - $300 PER MONTH.

If the record labels want to increase their earnings, they need to produce music that people want to hear! What I have seen happening in the last few years is that they find "pretty people" who can't sing, match them to lyrics that are garbage, and add music that is not great, and aggresively market them. I for one will not buy!

It is also faulty logic to assume that for those people who pirate music, that they would have bought the music (i.e. the record labels' earnings would increase dramatically) if it had not been possible to steal the music. Pirates are not likely to pay for music, period.