Says consumers wont get music “when, how, or where they want it until we address piracy” in its annual Digital Music Report, the one that shows digital music sales are up some 940% since 2004.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has just released its annual Digital Music Report and the results are precisely what any level-headed individual would expect – digital music sales are up and physical music sales are down.
More than a quarter of all recorded music industry revenues worldwide are now coming from digital channels, as music companies license music in partnership with ISPs and mobile operators, subscription services, streaming sites and hundreds of download stores.
In fact, digital music sales are up some 940% since 2004, rising from $20 million to $4.2 billion.
However, the IFPI cautions that illegal file-sharing and other forms of online piracy are eroding investment and sales of local music in major markets.
“In particular, three countries known for the historic vibrancy and influence of their music and musicians – Spain, France, Brazil – are suffering acutely, with local artist album sales or the number of releases plummeting,” it says.
Part of the problem is that consumers have long demanded access to music when, where, and how they want it, and record labels have refused to do so every step of the way, giving in only when dwindling profits have forced their hand.
“We are shaping our own future by finding new ways of getting music into people’s lives,” comments Lucian Grainge, Chairman and CEO, Universal Music Group International, in the report, and it’s advice that he and the IFPI would be wise to observe.
For John Kennedy, Chairman & Chief Executive of the IFPI, makes it plain that he has no intention of giving consumers what they want UNTIL piracy is properly addressed, presumable by ISP-level content filtering and the enactment of meaningful “three-strikes” legislation.
“Music How, When, Where You Want It – But Not Without Addressing Piracy” is the title of his short piece in the report, and he warns that consumers will not get “great offerings…without a secure legal environment where creative work is rewarded and copyright theft is effectively deterred.”
And he wonders why people turn to piracy. People turn to piracy because of a failure in the marketplace. P2P will never match the convenience and quality that record labels could offer consumers due to the fact that they have the ACTUAL RECORDINGS in their hands!
It sprinkles the report with a number of dramatic piracy figures for effect, like the fact that Wolverine was leaked and “illegally downloaded 100,000 times in 24 hours.” Apparently the fact that it still enjoyed a $85 million dollar opening weekend payday and more than $373 million dollars in worldwide box office ticket sales wasn’t worth mentioning.
The solution to it all, it insists, is a graduated response system – a “three-strikes” – approach that enlists ISPs into the fight against illegal file-sharing, and quotes artists like U2 frontman Bono who recently claimed ISPs’ “swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.”
“We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content,” he added.
I think the fact that he cited the war on child porn and freedom of expression as examples of what’s possible in the the war on P2P automatically removes him from the debate.
I think the fact the IFPI refuses to give consumers music “when, how, or where they want it until we address piracy” should also remove them from the debate.
Stay tuned.
I don’t understand these “great offerings” he is talking about, before the age of piracy where we got our music, when, where, and how we want it (no stressful ten hoops to jump through system to listen to ONE song, aka DRM) your average new CD had 3-4 new tracks, and costed upwards of 25 dollars.
As for the enlistment of the ISPs, to all self respecting and decent ISP’s out there its more like a draft into a nation they arent even a citizen in.
Copyright is a joke in this era, and the whole idealogy behind putting an album or movie out there with some flashy ads about it and hope everyone gets tricked into seeing it ahead of time is, thankfully, an outmoded concept. Now we can find out what music we like and go listen to that (finding it in some obscure and barely stocked shelf in an HMV/Music World somewhere) or hey, just download it from Itunes (I wouldnt do either because it looks like my worst fears are coming true, Itunes (and probably others) pays less to artists then a record company pays to an artist outright for a physical album sale).
These record companies arent some noble service promoting artists, they rob artists blindfolded and keep alot of the majority of the revenue for themselves and expect things to continue as they did 20 years ago, seriously advancement in any field of democratic technology is not in thier best interest and therefore, like Bono, we should do like China (I am a Canadian btw) and heavily censor anything and everything.
Sure lets compare child pornography to illegal downloads for a moment…
1. Does either hurt children
- Child porn makers often keep children locked in small confined spaces
- Artists can still feed thier children (not being able to buy your kid that porsche for his 16th birthday is not an excuse)
2. Does either interfere with human rights
- Child pornographers probably don’t even pay or treat thier “enmployed” well at all and do not give them a choice of what they want to do with thier work
- Artists signed on with record labels and those who have broken away from such labels have found better success, profits, and a larger fanbase. (without a recording industry behind some artists they would realize FEW PEOPLE LIKE THEM) Also it should be noted that even your average record company/hollywood exec is not above trying to take control away from an original creator
3. Is it justifiable to monitor for either
- police in my country have no problems busting child pornography viewers, producers and so forth in my country and do not need such an anti democratic weapon at thier disposal, sure we all think they should all be behind bars but there is no child porn on my computer and I do not need to nor should I HAVE to submit my hard drive for random checks whenever the hell someone blatantly decides to do one
- media is a free form medium, it always has been, we’ve watched TV for many years and put up with 38 minute long shows and 22 minutes of commercials (might be even less to an hour long show now) and I do not recall the government trying to monitor what radio stations or TV channels I am enjoying to make sure I am living “the clean life”.
4. Is it right to brainwash people for either
- Many children in those porn areas are no doubtedly brainwashed into believing “its OK” because they are treated a “little” nicer then what they are used to (which by our standards is probably already below humane)
- To use a medium you control for your own political agenda to warp minds with imaginary figures is, yes, exactly what China does, and is probably illegal in most of the democratic world (If record companies can do it, then why not white supremacists, Gangs, and even terrorists?) is for all intensive purposes, a treasonist act (just remembering a certain show the media conglomorate did in trying to tie online and free piracy to funding terrorism) and any government promoting democracy should right now be pressing charges against such people for thier roles in terrorizing, and misleading (just like cults) thier populations.
Anyway I am done… for now!
I have a way better idea:
No one buys music until the RIAA and all of these other greedy organizations are gone. Punish me all you want if that’s what you really think you’re doing. If you can’t deliver the goods the way I want them I WON’T BUY THE GOODS morons.
The IFPI is employing, what I call, their chicken and egg problem more than anything else here.
They argue that digital market places cannot exist without eliminating piracy. Without piracy, the digital marketplace wouldn’t have existed in the first place. If piracy were eliminated, there would be no incentive for the industry to employ a digital marketplace.
This isn’t the first time they’ve employed this as an arguement and it won’t be the last time either.
The argument fails pretty much instantly given that they want something for nothing – though they employ the illusion of carrot which I think few people that actually know the issues would be foolish enough to believe because it is all stick and no carrot.
Punishing your customers is not a solution. It never worked before and it certainly won’t work now.
Heh, heh, heh, heh. Are these fools for real?
We already get music “when, where and how we want it” and we get “great offerings” as well. It doesn’t get much better than whatever we want for free!
So the IFPI refusing to “give us what we want” isn’t going to be much of a problem really is it?
How about a different approach? It’s called basic economics, and it goes like this ,,,,
1. They stop offering us things we don’t want like pre-conditions, threats, hype, albums full of filler, little plastic discs at unrealistic prices etc
2. They play nice and they offer us the things that we actually do want at a price that we are prepared to pay and then ,,,,
Wait for it ….
Even though we know that we can get it free, we play nice and give them some money, which is what they want.
Sheesh! When are these alphabet corporation clowns going to stop machine gunning themselves in the foot?
This “when, where and how” is exactly what drives them nuts, not the lost revenue, they make plenty $$$.
It is the fact that for 30+ years they have conspired and lobbied to turn the laws of supply and demand upside down in their favor. And now comes such a stupid little thing like file-sharing undermining their precious monopoly power.
Newsflash IFPI, you’re not DeBeers. No more gatekeepers I say.
Read this >
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87473/war-of-words-erupt-in-canadian-copyright-debate/
(comments section)
Simply put, consumers wanted choice and a service relationship – but the industry was determined to hang on to the CPG model. The public wanted choice in the sense of being able to pick what they buy, rather than being forced to take the whole package being thrust on them. They wanted a service relationship, in the sense of being able to buy what they wanted, where they want to buy it, delivered in the form they desire. In other words, they wanted to be able to not only buy tracks at home delivered to their computer, they wanted to be able to buy tracks at the cinema to their phone or iPod, or in a clothing store, or at a music kiosk in the mall. The industry ignored their customers – never a good business plan – and tried to hang on to the model of music as a consumer packaged good.