Take that, freetards: First music sales uptick in over a decade Year-on-year sales of recorded music have risen for the first time since 1999, albeit by a smidgen, according to industry stats. The business of selling and licensing sound recordings is now 40 per cent smaller than it was pre-Y2K, but in 2012 revenues increased by 0.3 per cent - and that hasn't happened before in this …
0.3% might be a blip, but it is a surprising one (especially in a recession).
re. the antepenultimate paragraph, there is still value in ripping - I buy CDs and like to have .flacs on the home computer HD, .oggs on the portable player (waiting for a phone I can put my whole collection of .flacs on) and the last ditch backup of the original CD.
However, the drop in P2P certainly isn't surprising - unless you're on a proxy (which would probably be an exercise in frustration) or in a "safe" jurisdiction there's a non-negligible risk you're torrenting to a honeypot of some sort.
" As it's unlikely music will ever be widely available as FLAC downloads,"
I buy most of my classical dowmloads as flac files from Presto. Since I have fully functioning ears I refuse to go for the hissy compressed format much beloved of sonically challenged yoof.
But, I go get your point. Give me rock CDs that I can download in flac and I then I will buy more that way, though of course the local independent music shop may suffer slightly as a consequence as I buy and then rip to flac before storing the CD in the attic. Whilst I won't be surprised not to find outputs by the local Welsh language label in flac but it is rather surprising in this day and age to not be allowed, for example, to buy the latest Rush opus in flac.
"if you don't look attractive on the Tesco rack, you may not get signed"
So, look forward to loads more attractively packaged product that turns out to be nothing but bland filler of dubious origin.
I can't wait for the compilation CD - Now That's What Tesco Call Music:
Track 1; A horse with no name
Track 2: Crazy horses
Track 3: Saddle-ite of love
etc
Yeah TPB is totally blocked for me. I had to google TBD proxies to access it indirectly. Wasted 30 seconds of my time that did. Mind you I did buy Adele 21, I wont pay for stuff I have already bought though.
I mean, I found 320bps Led Zep BBC sessions on there. Now I have the CD's but could not be bothered to rip them. So I went to TPB. So if they try anything I'll wave the CD's at them...
0.3% increase? And inflation is what, just now (worldwide)? So music sales are still on the way down...
> Where are the Pink Floydds? The Queens? The Guns n Roses?
There's still a lot of big (as in, can play to full stadia) bands going, but whether they are to your taste or not is a different matter. The Chemical Brothers, The Prodigy, Muse, Coldplay (not my cup of tea mind), The Killers, Florence and the Machine, Radiohead (still touring!) and Jack White to name but a few.
Give people a reasonably priced product and let them use it wherever they like, and people will pay for it. Most people are not thieves and are quite to happy to pay their way in the world. Yes, there are some that refuse to pay, and they are probably also the people who will happily take the time to bypass DRM any way.
Now, the film industry needs to take note. I have Skyfall on triple play.
So, I thought I'd give it a whirl on my Nexus 7, just to see how it works, using the legitimate "Plays Anywhere" version and software. Constant server disconnects and twelve hours later, I have a file on my tablet. Why couldn't they have included this on the DVD? Watching the film I realised just how bad the picture quality was.
No way to improve that, so I popped the DVD into my laptop, and ripped a version off there. The file was slightly bigger than the downloaded version, but, the picture quality is far superior.
What are the chances of me ever trying a digital copy again? Zero. Takes far too long and the final product isn't worth the wait.
Oh, and the first time I tried this useless software, I ended up getting around a dozen different codes from Fox support, none of which would work, so in the end I gave up even trying. Why did I bother trying again?
The solution? Just put a DRM free version of the film on a DVD in something like MP4 format, which just about anything can play, and stop worrying about the pirates, who are perfectly capable of bypassing whatever obstructions are put in place. Make it easy to really watch a film anywhere, and next time there's a choice between DVD/BluRay and a version including a digital copy, I'll pick the digital version. Oh, and don't bother charging extra for it either.
Had the self-same experience with Ultraviolet. Just way more hassle than its worth. I just want a file on the DVD I can copy to my device. If I have to jump through any more hoops than that, then the torrents get my business.
Quite willing to pay for content, but won't put up with:-
If I can't just load 'n' play, then I'm not interested.
Quite willing to pay for content, but won't put up with:-
* Having to install 3rd party software to view it
* Not being able to view it on the device of my choosing
* Having to "sign up" and give personal details to view it...
Oh, yeah, and you forgot:
* Movies that suck
Not just music, but films and games too.
Just to clarify, none of this happened because of anything the music industry did to "stop piracy". The most likely reason is that I'm now exposed to more culture than at any time in the past. Not only that but I can choose where, when and what I am exposed to. This is despite the best efforts of the music industry to make the opposite true.
IMHO Spotify finally fulfills a consumer need, but its not the whole picture. I don't necessarily want to own every single track I want to listen to (I am a musician and often listen to stuff for inspiration or to learn but not something I would choose to own) , and I also discover many more artists through the service.
I read an interesting piece on the fact that music lovers want a relationship with the artists they are into, not with the record label they are signed to. This is where the value lies and some people who understand this are using social media to give fans just this. I now see much more fan art,opinions and reactions of other fans than ever before. This leads to higher revenues for the musicians and I for one have attended more gigs as a result of this. I still rarely buy CDs because it has to be something I want to own and add to my collection, and these days the low standard of new music rarely peeks my interest (new artists only get money if they bend over and do what the record companies tell them to do...).
Of course the masses will continue to buy whatever they've heard played incessantly on the radio like the mindless sheep they are - and this is what the music industry really wants (and has gotten very good at manipulating), creativity and uniqueness doesn't line their pockets. If you want evidence, go to Europe and see the diverse and interesting music they have compared to the over produced rehashed tripe that constantly comes out over here.
Surely those who download illegally have been shown to, on average, pay more for music than those who don't.
My (unscientific) theory on why Adele could do so well without streaming is that people don't want to fire up a PC before they look out through their window at the rain.
"The industry pointed to a decline in unlicensed downloads - the closure of Megaupload had a significant knock-on effect on music channeled through Mad Max-style cyber-lockers - and the success of blocking pirate websites."
I can understand their desire to present the biggest slap on their faces in recent months as a big success, but, really, they can just as easily point to the alignment of planets or voices of ancestors and that will be as credible and even a more plausible explanation.
Surely no coincidence that download sales improve as more providers go DRM free.
It's not a connection the 'biz' will ever accept or even consider and happened despite them. The Apples & Amazons of the world might scare the hell out of the music cartels but are the only way their business model will ever be changed enough to save them.
"it makes no sense to settle for pennies from streams when you can bank pounds from purchases: that moment may never come again."
Ummm, why can't one do both? I seem to recall quite a number of highly successful groups that made plenty of money selling albums whilst simultaneously distributing some or all of the same content via streaming (I believe they called it "Radio" back in the day.) Why should an artist ever exclude or limit potential revenue streams?
I'll cop a righteous down-voting for this, but I can't agree that bringing the industry to its knees will be good for anyone. Professional music will die, and we will have to listen to amateurs. Without the £££, Sting would now be a teacher nearing retirement. Mark Knopfler would be a carpet fitter, or whatever, doing pub gigs and busking weekends. And his music would be poor(er).
All I am saying is that professional is better than amateur. You want a free haircut from Lester Haines ? No. How about some free shoes made by your father-in-law ? This post is not as good as a professionally written Reg article, because it is amateur.
Yes the biz ripped us all off wayback but enough already. Demand free products and you get what you deserve.
As far as I know most good acts were producing their best music at the time when they were still in dire straits, sorry, financial circumstances.
The money is not a problem for the industry - they seem to have enough money to maintain dedicated lobbyists and buy laws and politicians, yet for all that money they just mass produce commoditised "entertainment" for "consumption" by masses. The more they have their digital economy acts, copyright extensions, DRMs etc, the worse their output becomes.
I am not saying talented musicians should not be paid but that the problem is not in paying or nonpaying - it's in the current structure of the industry. They have become a self-serving parasite which benefits neither the performers nor the public.
My father in law is a cobbler. Seriously. I'd love to have another pair of his custom made boots but the one free pair I got for my wedding is all I'll ever get. Can't afford them otherwise.
I'd also take a free haircut from Lester. I went completely bald 25 years ago.
But I agree with your premise. Amateur music may have the soul but it generally doesn't have the sound.
Bunkum.
Amateur: from French amateur "lover of," from Latin amatorem (nominative amator) "lover," agent noun from amatus, pp. of amare "to love"
Professional: "one who does X for a living"
Which musician puts the greater amount of dedication and craft into the details of their art? He who does it because he LOVES to create or he who does it because it's a JOB?
No 'professional' was always such a musician. The first album is considered the best works of most bands (the tracks written when they were considered 'amateurs'). There is a reason the second album is often called the 'difficult' one.
You make a romantic point AC and there is some truth in it. But the best music is professionally written and produced. Without the 'biz, we would never have heard of Elvis, or Fleetwood Mac or even Haydn (who was sponsored).
Same for film - who you want to watch, Daniel Day-Lewis in "Lincoln", or your local am-dram society filmed on a mobile phone ?
"Without the 'biz, we would never have heard of Elvis, or Fleetwood Mac or even Haydn"
The question is, would we care?
"filmed on a mobile phone"
I think you're trying to imply that it's impossible for an amateur band to buy an hour or two of studio time and an engineer for the duration.
> Professional: "one who does X for a living"
Actually, that's not true.
The word "professional" derives from the Latin deponent verb "profiteor", which means "to hold forth".
So when someone describes himself as a professional, all he's actually saying is that he's a gobshite...
Vic.
> Demand free products and you get what you deserve.
Perhaps - but "free products" isn't what this is about.
What we want to be rid of is the offensive side of the music/film industries. If I've bought a DVD, I want to play the film, not watch propaganda and trailers. Given the choice, I respect the law, but there comes a point where the unlawfully-copied option is much more appealing and would be so even if it cost exactly the same as the genuine article.
So yes - I would[1] pay for all the Dire Straits albums. Likewise anything by Pink Floyd, Iron Maiden, or any number of bands of that era. But if all the industry is going to offer me is Eminem and N-Dubz, they really shouldn't be surprised when I don't part with a single beer token...
Vic.
[1] Indeed, I did.
The thing about telling people to ignore streaming, or free demos, or pay-what-you-think-it's-worth or all those other models is that the freedom to do that requires the backing of a label.
If you're someone who a record label thinks has the prospect of being a multi-million seller/the vocalist on the single for the new Bond film (for example), you can get them to back you and push you through the traditional retail model and chances are it will work out well for you.
If you're a proficient guitarist who made a name for himself with guitar-based covers of classic videogame soundtracks (for example), that's not so likely to work well. However, the variety of other options now open to independent musicians are, in a very real sense, the difference between being able treat music as something approaching a job and being forced to treat it as an expensive hobby.
It's a bit of a shame that the old bollocks of "chasing pirates has had a huge effect" on the bottom line, because a far more realistic explanation is that making it easily available with a reasonable price is easier and less hassle than cocking about with whatever source of NaughtyWare you care to name. When I think about what it was like trying to find (and buy) music I liked 12-15 years ago compared to now, the paradigm shift is obvious. I'm not really interested in streaming music, personally, but the analogy to TV services seems simple; more importantly, the big thing about streaming is that it's effectively a new version of radio and likely to be the common source of music for the time-rich/cash-poor like kids/teenagers/students. And, well, moving those groups onto legit services from the default "All the legal services are crap, I'll go pirate it" stance is still a win, even if it doesn't generate huge revenues - because if nothing else it predisposes them to use the legit services once they have money.
"There's more consumption than ever, but the value isn't being captured."
Hardly surprising. There's very little put out these days that has any lasting value. Throwaway "artists", visually appealing "performers" and flavor-of-the-day promoters who have long ago decided this isn't about the music.
"There's more consumption than ever, but the value isn't being captured." -- What a hideously corporate phrase. Says it all, doesn't it?
"Take that, freetards: First music sales uptick in over a decade" -- Er, what? Are we looking forward to a reasoned article here? Sounds more like a cry from the dunce's corner of the nursery. Watch out for the flying Lego bricks.
Music lover ....... Musician. The internet joins the dots directly for us now. The corporates can go back to selling insurance scams to vulnerable old ladies, or shovelling tarmac onto their perfectly satisfactory driveways.
Found some choice quotes from the link at the end of this article.
..."Subscription services are described by the IFPI as a now “integral part of the recorded music market.”
“Until recently, the vast majority of our revenues came from a handful of countries. Today, digital channels mean we can monetise markets worldwide much more effectively." Warner
We think this is the start of a global growth story for the industry. “ Sony
Duhhh......
What happened?
Did someone spike the scotch with reality pills?
Has the music industry FINALLY (remember Napster first appeared in 1999) realized what the rest of us already knew ?
i.e,
Digital distribution is currently the best answer to CDS and other proprietary formats, and guess what?
--- you can STILL make money off it.
By extension, since the war on Piracy has now clearly been won, this means that terrorism has lost one of its biggest sources of funding,
So we should see less airport strip-searches too.... right?
Err.. perhaps not... better order some more reality pills.... and slip it into the water supply this time
Modernizing rarely comes willingly though. Up here in Scandinavia we are currently talking about a second golden age of music sales, with record revenues. Spotify is the main thing of course, but there will hopefully be equally attractive services to rival it soon. The CEO of Universal Music was recently quoted from a seminar as having said "I probably shouldn't say this out loud, but we'd never gotten to here if it wasn't for the pirate bay." Hearing things like that make me regain my faith in rationality.
@Dr. S
Same as it ever was, then; unauthorised services demonstrate the demand and viability of new options, and after the same old squabbling and sky-is-falling nonsense, the industry eventually acknowledges that maybe if they stop with the lawsuits and put a bit of thought into selling customers the new thing they want, they'll probably make some money.
Now, if only we could get the film and television industries to catch on with this, it might feel like the entertainment industry in general was actually caught up with its audience and operating on a 21st century paradigm. (Eg why in the name of hell won't Sky see sense and eg let someone like me buy Sky Go access without making me switch to Sky for everything else? I don't want to switch, I just want to pay Sky for legal access to Sky Atlantic. Similarly, I'm happy to pay for I-own-it downloads of films or TV shows, but only if they're DRM free - same as with music. Until then, the existing players like Blinkbox and iTunes can suck it.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
