• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Study finds filesharing boosts CD sales

BCI

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Hi,

two scientists from the University of London found out: filesharing leads to greater CD sales. PDF ;)
 
Since this is a subject that is directly related to one of the board rules, I'm going to temporarily lock this off while I take it to the rest of the staff and see what they have to say.
 
Unlocking. As long as nobody starts posting links to filesharing sites, I think we'll be okay.

I apologize, guys, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. :)
 
This would seem to lend credence to the idea that file sharing really is "free advertising." Media conglomerates are surely cognizant of the downside, though--when an entire album is available on P2P networks weeks before release, and everyone realizes it sucks, it can bomb horribly. The file-sharing knife cuts both ways.
 
Well, where I see the problem with music industry in general is that it's too pop-driven. Meaning that most music only has a shelf-life of a couple years at most. Meaning that a song from say 2005 or so starts to sound "so yesterday". Not to mention the fact that there's only 2-3 songs per album that are worth mentioning.

This is why I chose a genre of music 20+ years ago that ages very well. Where a song/album from 10+ years ago still sounds fresh. That genre is Metal. Hell, in some cases albums from 10 years ago are one of a particular band's recent releases. And in most cases, every song on an album is good if you like that partiular band's music.

With the pop music scene, you get a torrent of releases that blend together in such a way that one can't tell them apart.

That said, I still and have always believed that legitamite purchases of albums is the only way to go.
 
We had a guest speaker at one of our management information systems classes who had done a research project into this subject. He and his partner had concluded that file-sharing had no statistical impact on CD sales. This was a couple of years ago, so I don't have the specific details anymore, but the evidence they presented was compelling.
 
My opinion is that many ppl BUY what they LIKE, but first they use the opportunity to try. But also, there are some, who would NEVER buy.

So in fact, the lost sales are only the ones, where album/movie really sucks and nobody likes it. (Ppl would buy it to try or because of good marketing, but when downloaded from P2P they find out it sux so they won't buy crap)
I think that's why pisses the studios off. No matter how good marketing campaign they roll out, ppl have free opportunity for trial.
 
Industry calculates their 'lost sales' by equating every single illegal download as a lost sale, which is why we see these ridiculously inflated figures in the billions when they carp about filesharing. The bottom line is that their business model is failing and instead of evolving, they're trying to sue their way out of the problem. Hell, iTunes has proven that there is a boatload of money to be made by providing content a la carte in an accessible format, even hampered by proprietary Apple-only DRM requirements.

The reality is that no one knows (or will ever know) how much file-sharing 'costs' the industry. What is evident is that file-sharing benefits individual artists the most by encouraging concert attendence and giving independent or small groups far greater exposure than they would have otherwise enjoyed.
 
Most mp3s I've downloaded have been pretty crummy quality. But if I like the music, I'll go and buy the CD and make my own mp3s. (Or AACs, if you prefer. ;))

I'm not at all surprised by these findings.
 
Jaro Stun said:
So in fact, the lost sales are only the ones, where album/movie really sucks and nobody likes it.
I think this is generally the case. Filesharing helps a good product, and it hurts a bad product.

---------------
 
Well, duh.

I can't tell you how many CDs I bought after listening to them. Frankly, given what absolute shit radio is these days, it's really the only way to learn about new music without spending a fortune in blind buys (or would that be deaf buys, in this case?).
 
File sharing may or may not affect CD sales. That effect (if any) may be positive or negative. It doesn't matter.

The point is that the legal decision to allow music sharing or not belongs to the people who own the legal rights to the music. They take the risk that their decisions may or may not be right, just as they took the risk to spend the money to create the music to begin with. And if those rights-holders decide that the risk is too great, there's every possibility that they'll simply choose to invest their money elsewhere. Like oil futures.

Be honest. You know that people who can download the music for free are far less likely to pay for it. Some people who download may not have purchased the music anyway, but with free downloads, there's zero incentive those people to do the right thing. Again, the decision whether to allow those people to have free copies of music belongs to the rights owners.

And if you want to preview the music, you can use iTunes, Amazon, and other services, which allow you to listen to 30 seconds of a song. I use them all the time to guide my music purchases.
 
i believe it. the simple fact is, it's difficult to sample new music. THe radio plays the same few songs over and over again.

They lose sales by filesharing, but not more than they lose by "non-exposure".
 
NCC621 said:
File sharing may or may not affect CD sales. That effect (if any) may be positive or negative. It doesn't matter.

The point is that the legal decision to allow music sharing or not belongs to the people who own the legal rights to the music. They take the risk that their decisions may or may not be right, just as they took the risk to spend the money to create the music to begin with. And if those rights-holders decide that the risk is too great, there's every possibility that they'll simply choose to invest their money elsewhere. Like oil futures.

Be honest. You know that people who can download the music for free are far less likely to pay for it. Some people who download may not have purchased the music anyway, but with free downloads, there's zero incentive those people to do the right thing. Again, the decision whether to allow those people to have free copies of music belongs to the rights owners.

And if you want to preview the music, you can use iTunes, Amazon, and other services, which allow you to listen to 30 seconds of a song. I use them all the time to guide my music purchases.

30 seconds of a song isn't always enough to know whether or not I like it. Amazon can be frightfully bad about picking the wrong 30 second to preview, as well.

If I'm going to pay $12-$18 for a CD, I want to know that I'm going to like at least 3/4 of it. I want to listen to the whole damned thing first.

I know that I am very unlikely to purchase a CD without listening to it. There are only a very few artists whom I will blind buy.

The music industry needs to find a better way to encourage buying, because their current outdated methods just don't work.
 
The fat-cat mentality of the entertainment industry as a whole is why i no longer buy any entertainment product new - i buy only used cd's and dvd's preferably from small local vendors - that way my money is not going to the big-wigs and i get to pay less for the same crap.

Unfortunately, people don't really believe in a free market because if it really was free then corporations would have to adapt and be innovative to make a profit rather than go crying to big daddy government to bully the public into swallowing the scheme that benefits them the most.
 
BCI said:
Hi,

two scientists from the University of London found out: filesharing leads to greater CD sales. PDF ;)

Wait a minute. So if I can get the music for free and burn it to a CD then I'll go out and buy the CD? What? I could believe recordable and rewriteable CDs, but not those 30 dollar a shot ones that they gouge you for. Studies are Bullshit.
 
NCC621 said:
Be honest. You know that people who can download the music for free are far less likely to pay for it. Some people who download may not have purchased the music anyway, but with free downloads, there's zero incentive those people to do the right thing. Again, the decision whether to allow those people to have free copies of music belongs to the rights owners.

Actually, the decision to download music for free has a lot less to do with price and a lot more to do with convenience. The amount of restrictions that the industry places on digitally purchased media is why piracy still runs as rampant as it does among the general population.

The consumers are saying "we want easy access to digital media" and the content owners aren't providing it. Instead, they're providing content that attempts to force people to rebuy to use it in different media and at silly prices. The market is speaking to the content owners and the content owners are ignoring it and that's why we're in the situation we're in. They're afraid of losing control over their own media and because of the measures they're taking they're losing control by the day. And it's entirely their own fault. They treat their paying customers as if they were criminals and wonder why people get mad at them!
 
broberfett said:
BCI said:
Hi,

two scientists from the University of London found out: filesharing leads to greater CD sales. PDF ;)

Wait a minute. So if I can get the music for free and burn it to a CD then I'll go out and buy the CD? What? I could believe recordable and rewriteable CDs, but not those 30 dollar a shot ones that they gouge you for. Studies are Bullshit.

Most of the free downloads are not the same quality as a CD, something you notice if you have a reasonably good system or more expensive headphones for your portable MP3 player.

I don't think I've ever seen free music encoded in a lossless format.
 
I'm a lot less interested in price than I am in convenience. When I purchase music, I expect to be able to play it from any device I see fit. I expect to be able to play it on my laptop, my PDA, my cellphone, even my gaming console. I recognize that I don't own the songs that I listen to, but at the same time, the questionable tactics of the entertainment industry that make it harder for me to listen to the music I pay for only make me hate them more. And when they secretly start installing software on my computers using "rootkits" in an effort to protect their interests, I'm ready to lash out at them using any tools at my disposal.

For a long time, I stopped purchasing music. My aging CD collection, fully ripped and kept on a Linux server, is enough to fill quiet moments with toe-tapping melodies. iTunes was an interesting idea, but the need to burn a CD and then rip it to be able to get music into the format I prefer and find convenient was just too much trouble for me. Amazon's beta is almost exactly right for me, although it is slightly overpriced. Still, I've been purchasing songs one or two at a time thanks to this.

File sharing? I don't do it much. I have a couple friends with whom I exchange occasional tracks that are hard to find legitimately. I did recently download the soundtrack for the first Warlock movie, but only after spending years looking to purchase it legally. The money RIAA lost over that was their own damned fault for not keeping up with the times and encouraging their members to make their complete libraries available to online customers.
 
broberfett said:
Wait a minute. So if I can get the music for free and burn it to a CD then I'll go out and buy the CD?
Well, people can tape/burn tv shows to their heart's content, yet DVD's of TV shows sell like hotcakes.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top