Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

"Free" downloads don't seem to affect sales

11 Posts
6 Users
0 Likes
1,137 Views
TwistedLefty
(@twistedlefty)
Posts: 4113
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' tops charts

NEW YORK - "Whatever the price, Radiohead's "In Rainbows" is a top-seller. The band's seventh album was No. 1 on the week's music charts with sales of 122,000 copies, according Nielsen SoundScan figures released Wednesday. The physical, standard priced release sold fairly well even though Radiohead three months ago made a digital copy of the disc available for download on its Web site with optional pricing."

full article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_en_mu/music_radiohead

#4491....

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 11:11 am
cnev
 cnev
(@cnev)
Posts: 4459
Famed Member
 

I think the music industry is missing something. My personal theory is that the reason you don't see a significant hit in the sales is that the people downloading for free were NEVER going to buy the CD in the first place.

I know people that download songs here and there rarely a whole album and if they couldn't download for free they still wouldn't be running out biuying the CD's anyway.

I'm not well versed in copyright law but something needs to change. The music industry wants a strangehold on every part of the music process that they don't deserve. To me all music should become public domain after maybe a year or so.

But that's just me, I have to sympathy for the poor music industry getting ripped off from some teenagers downloading for free. If they stop that they should shut down radio stations too because then you can just record the song from the radio.

Even the $1/song price from itunes or those other places is way to high it should be like $0.25 or something reasonable.

"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 11:58 am
Misanthrope
(@misanthrope)
Posts: 2261
Noble Member
 

When I was a student I used to buy 1 a week usually. Now I don't buy any more than 1 or 2 CDs a year, partly due to not being able to afford it, but mostly on principle - I don't want to have any of my money supporting the fatcats. If I could support the band directly, I would go without other things to buy more. If the fatcats didn't make multiple times more per sale than the artist, I'd go without other things to buy more. If CD cost was more reasonable, I'd go without other things to buy more. If I do fork out money for a CD, I've already had the entire album downloaded and listened to for a month, unofficial "try before you buy". I'm loath to support the industry the way it is, but sometimes I want at least some money to get to the band.

What I did with In Rainbows was the same as I do with most albums - download for free, give it a listen, don't especially like it, don't buy it, don't listen to it any more. If it was the best album I'd ever heard I'd have been back downloading it again for some as-yet-undecided amount that I felt was a reasonable price for a CD. When I did it with In Rainbows it was legit and normally it's not, but I see no difference whatsoever.

ChordsAndScales.co.uk - Guitar Chord/Scale Finder/Viewer

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 1:49 pm
Ricochet
(@ricochet)
Posts: 7833
Illustrious Member
 

I think the music industry is missing something. My personal theory is that the reason you don't see a significant hit in the sales is that the people downloading for free were NEVER going to buy the CD in the first place.
Exactly.

"A cheerful heart is good medicine."

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 1:59 pm
TwistedLefty
(@twistedlefty)
Posts: 4113
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

Now I don't buy any more than 1 or 2 CDs a year, partly due to not being able to afford it, but mostly on principle - I don't want to have any of my money supporting the fatcats. If I could support the band directly, I would go without other things to buy more. If the fatcats didn't make multiple times more per sale than the artist, I'd go without other things to buy more. If CD cost was more reasonable, I'd go without other things to buy more. If I do fork out money for a CD, I've already had the entire album downloaded and listened to for a month, unofficial "try before you buy". I'm loath to support the industry the way it is, but sometimes I want at least some money to get to the band.
What I did with In Rainbows was the same as I do with most albums - download for free, give it a listen, don't especially like it, don't buy it, don't listen to it any more. When I did it with In Rainbows it was legit and normally it's not, but I see no difference whatsoever.

sorry for the chopping up of your post for the quoted part , but this is actually a very common practice amongst those of us who practice "sampling" the music before buying. other sources for trying out music that i highly recomend are free internet radio sites like "Pandora"
also to support non RIAA affiliated artists i recommend the link in my sig
http://www.riaaradar.com/zeitgeist_topamazonsafe.asp

#4491....

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 2:13 pm
Ignar Hillström
(@ignar-hillstrom)
Posts: 5349
Illustrious Member
 

Not aimed at anyone in particular but I just dont know what I dislike more anymore: the selfish whining of RIAA or the selfish whining of people who feel they deserve something or other they dont get. Those poor artists knowingly signed with those evil corporations so why not just respect their choice. The evil suits in command are no more evil then any other business executive, people who exist because we feel capitalism is better then shoveling shit all day for a bowl of rice. As for the expensive albums: I got all solo work by Syd Barrett for E15 last week, I'm pretty sure that music wasnt that cheap in the 70s.

So dig this: I've got plenty of music I didn't pay for. I don't have any special right to the music, there is no reason why I shouldn't pay for it. The argument that I 'cant afford it' is nonsense because I can afford two bottles of 15+ year old single malt scotch very week, that's just a matter of priorities. It's just that the possibilty of getting stuff for free sounded good and I have practically no conscience to speak of. So I'm a thief, like most of you, and I'm ethically not a hair better then those 'evil suits', and probably most of you aren't either. It would be so nice if the world would just cut the BS for a change. We want as much music for as little money as possible, RIAA wants as much money for as little music as possible. Fine, let a judge deal with it and be done with it.

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 6:56 pm
cnev
 cnev
(@cnev)
Posts: 4459
Famed Member
 

I could be one of those whinning people so I guess I'll take the hit first. I agree with you 100 %, but I think there's a little bit of, if I can get it for free why pay for it going on in me, probably like eveyone else. The evil suits think "Hey if we can get every last cent of the masses money for giving them nothing they will. The courts will never sort it out and even if they did it will never stop people from downloading or however they'll get it in the future.

I don't know where I am anymore maybe a socialist-capiltalist or something. I feel like I get ripped off from enough people in my life as it is so I in turn need to rip someone else off to even things off. Why should I buy a plane ticket for $600 and find out the guy sitting next to me paid $200, why do I pay $10,000 for a car when some guy buys it for $8,000.

I've always been a huge sports fan and always thought atheletes should be paid whatever someone will pay them, but lately man i have a hard time seeing some obscure person sitting on a bench making $4 million a year. The players aren't all to blame but they are a part. So if I had a chance to sneak into a major league park to see a game I don't think my moral compass would steer me away.

I really don't care about the Evil execs or the musicians or for that matter anyone other than the people I am responsible for taking care of which I include myself as one of them. So I will do what's in the best interest of those people as best I can.

I think I'm a Misanthrope---I hate everyone!

"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 8:08 pm
Misanthrope
(@misanthrope)
Posts: 2261
Noble Member
 

I think I'm a Misanthrope---I hate everyone!
It also means distrust... not just hate ;)

ChordsAndScales.co.uk - Guitar Chord/Scale Finder/Viewer

 
Posted : 10/01/2008 10:24 pm
TwistedLefty
(@twistedlefty)
Posts: 4113
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

what i meant to highlight by posting this thread was that providing their album for "free" did not affect sales.
this is the argument that the RIAA poses.

from boycott riaa.com

Facts and Figures

Every Music CDR since the AHRA was enacted has a hidden tax built into the price! (2% of the manufacturers sales) This is supposedly to pay the artists for home recording. Who Collects the Tax? The RIAA under the auspices of the AARC. Who shares office space with the RIAA and has many of the RIAA employees working for it. I haven't been able to find one artist that was paid a cent of the money. 4% is set aside for non-featured artists, of the remainder 40% for the featured artist and 60% for the labels. To date I have not found one artist who has received one cent of this money. (Source: RIAA website)
In addition every CD recorder has a $2.00 surcharge built into the price that goes directly to the RIAA
The artists received not one cent of the money from the MP3.Com settlements of approx $158 Million to the labels. Who did??? The label themselves.
SoundExchange" the new digital rights collective for collecting royalties from internet play is a division of the RIAA. They did not distribute royalties in July 2001 as they were supposed to do, but instead decided to wait until next year.
85% of all music is released by 5 major labels (Sony, EMI, UMG, Time Warner, & BMG)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC Statement): "At any given point about 20% of the music every recorded is available legally." The rest is locked away by the labels depriving the creators of a potential source of income, the fans of the music they want, while creating a false market for the band "d'jour."
The RIAA on their website say the cost of CD's haven't risen as much as they could have read our take it.

Read the settlement statement of the FTC findings against the Big 5 concerning charges that all five companies illegally modified their existing cooperative advertising programs to induce retailers into charging consumers higher prices for CDs
See where the money really goes Steve Albini (producer of Nirvana's "In Utero) Interesting comment from Fox Entertainment Group (FOX) Chief Executive Peter Chernin, who has about as much of a clue as Jack Valenti:
"Film makers can offer their audience a choice of ways to see movies -- they can view them in the theater, rent them, or buy them. . .Music companies are much less flexible.. . .It's hard to buy one song. You're forced to buy the CD," he said.
"I'd like to introduce the recording industry to something called bottled water," said Jonathan Potter, executive director of Digital Media Association, in a recent interview commenting on Free vs Fee online music. His lobbying group represents music sites that are trying to promote and sell music over the Internet.
"It is not correct to assume that every time a copy is made, a sale is lost," said Gary Shapiro, a spokesman for the Consumer Electronics Association. And, he also pointed out that many of the companies he represents, which make computers and other gadgets that enable people to copy music or download MP3s, have seen their sales fall much more sharply.

Why Should I Boycott the RIAA?

Simple, many of us are tired of being ripped off by the music industry.

We're tired of seeing musicians being ripped off by the music industry.
We're tired of seeing our culture locked up by backroom deals and underhanded tricks.

So many excellent artists that aren't signed by labels, and they struggle everyday just to play their music and survive, all at the same time.

The RIAA is a professional lobby organization of recording labels of which five labels control 90% of the music distributed in the US. In 1999 these so called "protectors" of the music industry and musicians released only 2600 CDs. In the first 4 months of 2000 Napster signed 17,000 new artists. There are over 145,000 on MP3.Com. Excellent artists are being ignored, and discouraged by the music industry. In short, We're forced to use various online services if we want to hear new music or artists, or listen to a song that's not offered for sale by the labels any more. And the best part is it's easy. No jumping through hoops to download a song, no outrageous costs per song, and most of all we control what we listen to, not the riaa or labels. To be able to save paid for files to harddrive, transfer them to an Mp3 player, or write them to CDR should be our prerogative, not that of the labels'.

About 80% of the music in the labels catalogs is not available at any given point. Napster changed that, that is the primary reason for the success and popularity of Napster. It's been a given since day one that Napster would eventually have to charge for it's services. Even Karen Allen on the RIAA mentioned this to me as early as last July (2000) when I was contacted about this site. Yes, the RIAA contacted me within one week of putting up the website, wanting a meeting. We settled for a phone conversation.

Our comment to the "Big 5" is you made your bed, now lie in it.

" You better start swimmin or you'll sink like stone, for the times they are a changin' "
- Bob Dylan

#4491....

 
Posted : 11/01/2008 11:40 am
Ignar Hillström
(@ignar-hillstrom)
Posts: 5349
Illustrious Member
 

RIAA doesn't say 'free downloads of Radiohead will affect their sales', they say 'free downloads will negatively impact the sales of many acts'. See it like this: many people will notice if someone pissed against their car during the night, so we made it illegal. I'm sure there are some people who wouldn;t notice, but that;s no argument to make pissing against other people's car legal.
The artists received not one cent of the money from the MP3.Com settlements of approx $158 Million to the labels. Who did??? The label themselves.

Duh, that's the deal. The label gives you a studio, producer, arranges your gigs, makes contact with studio musicians and graphical artists, sets up the promotion and will pull some strings for television coverage. In other words, they make sure there is an actual product, that the world is informed of it. In exchange the artist shuts up and plays, and get some nice cash. Example: Syd Barrett only got 'a few measly percentages', but the work he did in three years earned him over $100000 a year till the day he died. All he had to do was do his thing. Did other people earn more? Sure. Well, good for them. If you don't like the idea of people earning a lot of your work then dont sell it to them. If you do stop your whining.
"Film makers can offer their audience a choice of ways to see movies -- they can view them in the theater, rent them, or buy them. . .Music companies are much less flexible.. . .It's hard to buy one song. You're forced to buy the CD," he said.

Yeah, it's soooo hard to buy one song. It takes atleast four clicks of your mouse for most larger albums (and many small ones, too!) and you don't even have to move your behind out of your lazy chair for it. What a cruel world this is! By the way, since when can I buy individual scenes from a movie? Oh wait, you usually can't, so the music industry is much MORE flexible.
Simple, many of us are tired of being ripped off by the music industry.

Nobody is ripping you off. There is a product with a pricetag, just pay it or don't.
We're tired of seeing musicians being ripped off by the music industry.
I guess that's why they signed that contract and are glad if they can sign a new one after the first. Sure sounds like they enjoy being ripped off.
So many excellent artists that aren't signed by labels, and they struggle everyday just to play their music and survive, all at the same time.

What else is new? Artist always have had to struggle, has been that way centuries before the RIAA, or the States for that matter, existed. If an artist is unhappy with it he is free to get a proper job and do music in his spare time. Like the rest of the world has to do.

 
Posted : 11/01/2008 12:40 pm
NoteBoat
(@noteboat)
Posts: 4921
Illustrious Member
 

you are now entering nit-picking mode

Those "facts and figures" aren't accurate. From top to bottom:

- the royalty on recordable CDs is 3%, not 2%, per US Code Title 17, Chapter 10, Subchapter C, section 1004 (b)

- the royalty on CD recording devices is 2%, not $2 - see the above link, section 1004 (1) - with a minimum of $1 per device and a maximum of $8 - section 1004 (3). Maximum royalty is $12 if it's an integrated device containing more than one recorder.

- the RIAA does not collect the tax, and in fact never sees a penny of it. Royalty payments on CDs and recording devices are sent to the US Library of Congress under section 1005. After deducting bookkeeping expenses, the money is then sent to two groups for disbursement, and those groups represent the artists, not the industry - royalties are distributed by the American Federation of Musicians (the "musician's union") and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

- These two groups distribute 5%, not 4%, to non-featured artists - half to non-featured musicians, half to non-featured vocalists. They maintain a website specifically devoted to the funds.

- Although the AARC is part of the picture, they represent the rights of featured artists. Money from the AFM/AFTRA fund goes through AARC, then to the artists and other copyright holders for featured acts only. Non-featured acts get paid directly from the AFM/AFTRA fund.

- Initial royalties from recording devices were initially a lot less than expected. But funds are being distributed - the AFM/AFTRA fund began making payments in November of 2006. They don't go find you, though - you have to ask for your money. Their website contains a list of artists with unclaimed royalties

- the mp3.com settlements didn't exacly line the pockets of record companies. Individual settlements were between $20 million and $55 million - and were promptly followed by suits against Harry Fox, etc. on the basis that they negotiated global settlements which cut out other infringed copyright holders. The people who got rich are the lawyers, not the record company execs.

- Sound Exchange is not a "division" of the RIAA. In the beginning, it was - but it became independent in 2003. There are 17 seats on their board of directors. One seat is held by the organization's COO; the other 16 are apportioned to companies and organizations with an interest in music - the RIAA has one seat (as does the musician's union, the American Association of Independent Music (the indie-label trade group), the Future of Music Coalition, AFTRA, various record companies, and others. The big five all have seats (Wikipedia's listing shows four, but incorrectly shows Larry Keswil as an RIAA member - he's with Universal - and the rest of their list looks out of date).

- In 2001, Sound Exchange didn't distribute royalties... because they weren't collecting any royalties! The law that allowed collecting royalties for webcasts (the Small Webcaster Settlement Act) was signed into law December 4, 2002; the Library of Congress desginated Sound Exchange about 3 weeks later - but they had to become truly independent to do so, which is how the RIAA lost control of them.

(and like the Library of Congress, Sound Exchange doesn't handle payments to non-featured artists; instead, they fork over 5% of webcast royalties to the AFM/AFTRA fund, and it's distrubed from there)

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL

 
Posted : 11/01/2008 2:06 pm