Study: MP3 generation still a bunch of pirates
Summary
The British version of the RIAA claims the average 14- to 24-year-old now has almost 900 illegal tracks each on their MP3 players.
Topics
Young people are getting almost half of their music collection through illegal means.
Record industry artist and publisher group, British Music Rights (BMR), claims the average 14- to 24-year-old now has almost 900 illegal tracks each on their MP3 players.
The average young person's MP3 player contains an average of 1,770 tracks, around half of which have not been paid for.Almost two thirds (63 per cent) of respondents surveyed said they download music on peer-to-peer file sharing networks, while 42 per cent allow others to download their music.
More than half (58 per cent) admitted to copying music from friends' hard drives, while 95 per cent have copied music in some way.
However, the CD is still seen as a viable for this age group, with 60 per cent saying they will continue to buy the physical format.
But there is evidence users want a legal file sharing service and 80 per cent said they would even pay for the content.
Feargal Sharkey, former-Undertones frontman and now CEO of British Music Rights, said it's clear young people are as engaged in music as previous generations and are still prepared to pay for it.
But he added the research shows how dramatically music consumption has changed, so a key challenge is to build a mutually beneficial partnership between the music industry and technology organizations.
The University of Hertfordshire carried out the research--which was the largest academic survey of its kind--for BMR earlier this year.
Talkback Most Recent of 9 Talkback(s)
-
And if the study was done before MP3's
You would have probably gotten similar stats for copies of cassettes. Where the record industry messed up at was not selling MP3 music online sooner.
mrlinux16th Jun 2008 -
Exactly.
When we were young (at least me) it was 1 person would buy
the album and 3-4 would copy it. The difference is that
digital copy never quite degrades.
But implying the "new" generation is a pirate and previous
generations weren't... That is a stretch.
Bruizer17th Jun 2008 -
Music industry cartel propaganda.
How many people were surveyed? 3? 100? A million? What was the target demographic? Geeks? Musicians? Audiophiles? What percentage of the unfavorable survey results were discarded? This is known to happen, routinely.
This is just propaganda from the record label cartel. Why not throw in the "MP3 piracy supports ay-rab terrorism, another 9/11 is coming" cliche as well?
I can admit to downloading music from the net, but it works both ways. After listening to the MP3's, there were some artists whose music I liked so much - when I couldn't find their music at the local CD stores so I special ordered such music, paying a hefty postage fee. I tell you, I'd have never done that had it not been for music downloads.
kraterz16th Jun 2008 -
RE: Study: MP3 generation still a bunch of pirates
I have to agree with mrlinux, I know everyone was copying music on tapes form friends long before mp3's and the internet, and before that people would lend their records to friends, so what has changed?
Even if the music industry were successful in stopping free online sharing and downloading, they still would not succeed in the prevention of sharing music, since there are many other ways off-line and they wouldn't know about it.
Also, part of the problem is affordability. Most young people simply do not have the cash to spend on all that music. It's probably best for them (industry) just accept that this is part of the business, and artists should be prepared to continue working (concerts/tours/etc.) to earn money, rather than expecting an endless supply of royalties for every song/every time someone wants to listen.
Oh well, I'm sure there will be no end to this battle. lol
mrdt16th Jun 2008 -
What's Changed...
"I have to agree with mrlinux, I know everyone was copying music on tapes from friends long before mp3's and the internet, and before that people would lend their records to friends, so what has changed?"
It was perfectly legal to tape your friends records because every single blank tape included (and probably still includes) a "piracy" surcharge that went to the "industry" to distribute. Now only blank "audio" CDs include that surcharge. Non-computer consumer CD Recorders won't work with anything but "audio" blanks. There have been efforts to apply such a surcharge to computer CDs, HDDs, and etc., but because there are too many other ways to use these items those efforts have been unsuccessful.
kenneth.kelley@...17th Jun 2008 -
Not legal to copy
The surcharge included for Audio CD's and cassette tapes is to copy your own music - not somebody else's. It's never been legal to copy somebody else's music.
Sony and a few other's tried to block the dual cassette players that could copy straight from one to the other - they failed, because it was pointed out that these devices can be used for a plethora of reasons other than piracy.
p0figster17th Jun 2008 -
Depends on where you are
The surcharges were indeed implemented to offset 'piracy losses', as there has never been any restriction on copies for your own use/backup. Depending on your country, there is NOTHING stating that copying is illegal.....
The REAL problem comes down to the record companies thinking that mp3's were somehow different from the cassette copy made for a friend - essentially just free advertising for their product... "But it's DIGITAL - it never deteriorates" - BAHH... the mp3 is allready degraded well below the level on the CD, and serves the 'advert' role very well. Most of the people that I know who download, will happily purchase CD's (IF available) of those artists whose work they like, and will listen to. Possession of a tune that is never selected after its initial acquisition isn't REALLY piracy is it? The loss of a sale that would never have happened anyway isn't REALLY piracy is it?
Unfortunately, they confused mp3's with ripped 'full fidelity', and them mistakenly turned it into a 'war' (with their OWN CUSTOMERS!!!!) - which war they can never win. Thus we have today's situation.
Of course, another MAJOR factor in the decline of sales is the decline of QUALITY PRODUCT. Perhaps if they found a bit if that, some help might be found for their declining profits. OF course, most quality performers can distribute their own CD's for themselves, without handing all the $$ to the record companies!
AS an example of that they are up against - I have been busily digitizing my own music collection.... while completely avoiding adding to it (legally or otherwise). Just not enough out there worth listening to - at least from the majors.
Freebird5419th Jun 2008 -
RE: Study: MP3 generation still a bunch of pirates
They can twist this any way they want, in in reality it's their fault. I get my music on line somehow. Either auctions, or digital purchasing. It's cheaper.
If they want people to buy music again, they need to stop treating their customers as thieves. Put the security devices somewhere that WON'T hurt the album art when removed. Stop charging these hornedness prices for CD's. Everyone know it's incredibility cheap to make a CD, less then a penny.
Now here is the BIG one, pay the artists what they deserve, not some crappy 5%. They are making you money. Trent Razor from Nine Inch Nails did the best thing in the world. Started distributing his music himself. I would buy that CD in a heart beat because I know that he is getting the money he deserves. I am not the only one with these opinions, consumers are not as naive as the RIAA think.
103198217th Jun 2008 -
A penny per CD?
I'd like to know where this person can get CDs manufactured for less than a penny. Please tell me!
As a consultant for independent artists, a typical commercially manufactured CD run for an indie artist is 1,000 units. They pay about $1.20 to $1.50 per CD (depending on artwork) and about $200 to ship to one location for storage, with final manufacturing cost of about $1.40-$1.70 per unit. If we ordered a million units, perhaps 90 cents each, excluding shipping costs but that's still not under a penny. Then there are storage costs, marketing costs, promotion cost, touring costs, etc. I can tell this person has never produced a CD.
In reality, to sell one CD typically costs an indie artist between $3 and $6 per unit depending how how it is distributed, marketed, and economies of scale. From my experience, it cost most small indie artist about $5 per CD to sell it when ALL costs of manufacturing, shipping, storage, distribution and marketing are considered (and this doesn't include the one-time studio recording and mastering costs).
Selling their own CD for $7-9 will yield them $2-4 per unit. Certainly more than they would make on a 5% of the MSRP many major labels pay their artists (5% of $16.99 = 85 cents). However, the major label is much, much better at moving 100K or more units. The $85K a major label artist would make on 100K unit sales (before recoupment) would require an indie artist to sell over 21K units. That's an enormous task that the vast majority of indie artists just cannot do. The vast majority can't move 1000 units. It's very expensive to let the entire country know you have the greatest album since Dark Side of the Moon. You also have to prove it once you've told them and that's where the risk is.
A typical indie artist will move well under 1000 units regardless of how great their CD is, or their aspirations. I've seen it happen too many times. Without a very large marketing and promotion budget, they will not move a lot of units. There is a lot more to the cost of a successful CD than the actual manufacturing costs of the physical product.
The greatest expense for a successful CD is marketing and promotion. If you don't have $200K minimum for marketing and promotion, forget about the world beating a path to your door for it. Even then, it would be a stretch, I don't care how good it is. Really good CD marketing and promotion starts at $500K if your goal is to have a nationally successful album.
Reznor would not be able to do what he has done had a major label not risked its capital to promote him and his band originally. Same for Radiohead, Prince, Madonna, etc. None of them would be where they are today, or have the following they have, without the push from the major labels in the early days of their career. It's the labels that created these artist's fan base, and once their contract was completed, could then take their fan base with them.
Without the label, Reznor would be like 50 thousand other bands on MySpace with great music that nobody has time to listen to, because there are not enough hours in the day to hear it all. Someone has to tell you what to listen too, and that's marketing and promotion. The only indie bands making it big today have backers, investors, or venture capitalist behind them.
I've heard songs from some truly great, and truly marketable artists, all extremely commercially viable, but the costs of promotion and marketing are barriers to entry for all but the most well heeled. I advise them of this, but they still believe that great music will find an audience and sell itself. Wrong. Great music with great marketing and promotion will find an audience. Without a substantial marketing and promotion budget, most indie artists are just making coasters. Without a large budget to get it "out there" nobody that matters will ever hear it, let alone buy it.
Major labels are still the way to go for those that get that opportunity. They have the marketing muscle and promotion network already in place. Indie's don't, even if CDs did cost less than a penny to manufacture.
timali17th Jun 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
