People who illegally download music, buy 30% more music then those who don't

WakeOfAshes

RIAA's response? "they are simply better engaged music fans than average music consumers." …......... Eh? da fuck?

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-pirates-are-bigger-music-fans-than-average-consumers-121113/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Torrentfreak+(Torrentfreak)

mrAPE

I don't download I buy lots of cds....

Necrothulhu

I download and have hundreds of CD's along with some vinyls

1D_for_life

CthulhuPuffs said:

vinyls

mrAPE

Lol at the people that disliked my comment.

MetalCoresades

Downloading is a danger to my intended career. I buy now

WakeOfAshes

MetalCrusades said:

Downloading is a danger to my intended career. I buy now

How do you figure?

I think the point of that article is that the RIAA really doesnt get it. The people downloading illegally are actually going out and buying 30% more then those that don't. Why? Because they are getting exposed to the music. So say the RIAA wins and all illegal file sharing stops- What do you think will happen? Will CD sales go through the roof? Negative. Sales will go down by 30% is what will happen because people will no longer be getting exposed to the albums. Not to mention people will stop going to concerts as much cause they arent up on the albums....

So bottom line is this - if you are an artist you should be embracing file sharing. So what if some people are downloading for free. That is publicity and any publicity is good publicity. If you get super big, there will still be lots of people who are buying your albums, going to your concerts, and buying your merchandise. And that is harder to do without the free advertising that file sharing gives you.

1D_for_life

You guys don't realize why I facepalmed that, do you? The plural of "vinyl" is "vinyl".

I collect vinyl records as well.

Necrothulhu

I just noticed the s there. Oh well

MetalCoresades

What people fail to see is what happens behind the scenes. Unless they are on an independent label, when a band releases an album they are funded a loan by the record company that they are expected to pay back. This often comes in some form of royalty or fee based on albums sold. If the albums fail to be sold, the artists have to pay that loan back out of there pocket. Not to mention the failing to sell a certain amount of albums may result in the label cutting your funding for future albums - which hurts artists - or dropping them from the label all together.

And yes, the majority of the money made comes from other areas. But standard radio, who used to be a major funding force in the music industry, now only focuses on top hits and chart makers. So those artists make money, but the more obscure or bands without a mainstream sound suffer. Not to mention with tours, a lot of times labels fund or sponsor bands to go on large tours. You steal music, and cut the funding to a label and an artist can not have as big of a tour as they could have had you purchased it.

Also, from a moral standpoint, its illegal. Its breaking numerous copyright laws, and infringing upon an artist's intellectual property. And while your technically making a copy of their material, they are still losing out.

As for the argument for free publicity, there are bandcamps, Spotify, and Pandora which do that legally, and pay the artists based on advertising. Still free to the listener.

1D_for_life

And people keep disagreeing with it. I forgive you for your honest mistake

MetalCoresades

At $12.5 billion + in losses every year, 71,060+ jobs lost in the United States every year with increasing numbers I am going to support the industry I am entering.

SATAN

Pricing for online albums needs to finally match the value. My biggest problem with iTunes is that they still want like 12-16 bucks for downloads. The new Pig Destroyer album was $6.99 for the entire album direct from the band. That's an easy purchase. The way Radiohead sold 'In Rainbows' was sweet too in that they let you pay what you want. Out of good faith, I still paid $8. The old stories of corporate music ripoffs where they charged $18 for a $.15 discs that scratch easily. That still gives people a bad taste and so does the way they aggressively pursue downloaders. Personally, I'm a lot more likely to pay to see a band live than buy a cd, but the easier they make it to buy online, the more likely I am to purchase shit going forward. It's kind of a shame that the larger labels would rather take this to court than just make it easier and cheaper to download. Seems like they would want some money instead of no money

Necrothulhu

Here's a big thing with downloading. We only go out and buy the albums we like/enjoy. So if those bands/artists on independent labels are struggling and blaming illegal downloading maybe people just don't like what they hear. I learned my lesson going out and buying an album because I like one song or a few *cough*coheedandcambria*cough*

NOCAP

I download an album and if I really like it, I'll actually buy it. Don't want to lose money? Put out a more quality album then.

Chicken_Fucker

MetalCrusades said:

Downloading is a danger to my intended career. I buy now

so is not masturbating, when you eventually snap and kill everybody. [-(

WakeOfAshes

MetalCrusades said:

At $12.5 billion + in losses every year, 71,060+ jobs lost in the United States every year with increasing numbers I am going to support the industry I am entering.

bullshit stats are bullshit. Bottom line is this man- 99% of every album illegally downloaded would not be bought if filesharing did not exist. Get that? Disagree with it all you want, but it is the truth. And you can either chose to embrace the positive benefits illegal file sharing that some artist actually get (See Trent Reznor and Radiohead), or you can be bitter like Lars and think you are getting ripped off of millions when *new flash* no one is ripping you off.

If you make good albums, people will buy that shit. It doesnt matter if a few illegally downloaded it. They probably wouldnt ever even heard of your gay ass band if they hadnt had illegally downloaded it in the first place.

mrAPE

Talk about bullshit stats wake lol

That_Guy_Arlo

CD's are not the future of the music industry. It can and will adjust with the times.

jag

SATAN said:

Pricing for online albums needs to finally match the value. My biggest problem with iTunes is that they still want like 12-16 bucks for downloads. The new Pig Destroyer album was $6.99 for the entire album direct from the band. That's an easy purchase. The way Radiohead sold 'In Rainbows' was sweet too in that they let you pay what you want. Out of good faith, I still paid $8. The old stories of corporate music ripoffs where they charged $18 for a $.15 discs that scratch easily. That still gives people a bad taste and so does the way they aggressively pursue downloaders. Personally, I'm a lot more likely to pay to see a band live than buy a cd, but the easier they make it to buy online, the more likely I am to purchase shit going forward. It's kind of a shame that the larger labels would rather take this to court than just make it easier and cheaper to download. Seems like they would want some money instead of no money

Lately, Ive found myself buying digital music via bands Bandcamp page. Cheap music, high quality and easily accessible. Its a shame more bands dont take advantage of Bandcamp.

Do all proceeds go to the band via Bandcamp?

...

Lol at Kmart yesterday, i went to electronics, asked the employee where there CDs were, he said they took them all out "because of your generation, you just steal the music", i told him i don't download and i buy CDs, he said well then maybe you're just a younger version of my generation, and then he got into this 3 minute thing about how he believes in reincarnation and such, and i was just like "k".

I just wanted to know where the CDs were lol