Report slams record labels
p2p news / p2pnet: If you believe specious corporate music industry puff pieces, re-printed almost verbatim by the mainstream media, p2p networks and file sharing, together with counterfeiters, are responsible for the “devastation” (a word much used in the releases) of the music business.
But, “lawsuits against individual consumers, payola practices, and, most recently, restrictive use of digital rights management” are the cause, says a new report.
The Big Four record labels largely base the fact they’re trying to sue their own customers into buying their product, and only their product, on the claim that every time someone shares a file, a sale is lost.
Is that the case? – p2pnet asked Net expert Dr Michael Geist in a recent interview. And are file sharers and counterfeiters equally and jointly responsible for entertainmment and software industry downturns, as the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) and other trade-cum-PR units suggest repeatedly?
“I don’t think file sharers and counterfeiters should be equated – there is a significant difference between the two,” Geist responded, and on the question of whether or not a download equals a lost sale, “I don’t think anybody would argue that it does,” he said.
Now, “Disgruntled consumers have contributed significantly to the decline in retail music sales,” says research firm Mintel, predicting retail music sales, worth $12.5 billion in 2005, will fall to $10.5 billion by 2010.
“The major labels have been quick to blame consumers,” it says, ” but slow to listen to their needs.
What’s causing the widening gap between buyers and sellers?
“Music labels have a negative stigma to overcome, brought on by battles against illegal downloaders, radio ‘pay-for-play’ scandals and homogeneous artist offerings on radio stations,” states Mintel, going on, “Even though technology is starting to work for the industry rather than against it, labels still face the challenge of meeting the demands of a diverse consumer marketplace.
“In an effort to keep up with the digital marketplace, industry leaders have marketed artists to sell single songs rather than complete albums. This new marketing strategy has contributed to the lack of strong up-and-coming musical talent in the marketplace that exhibit ’staying power,’ such as legendary iconic artists like Prince, the Beatles, or U2.”
Moreover, “big labels have relied on obsolete strategies for over a decade and have been late in exploiting emerging technologies,” says the study.
“As a result, the bond between independent artists and their fans have become stronger. Although the music industry is just starting to use digital distribution to its advantage, overall sales will continue to decline unless companies learn to adapt more quickly to changing technologies.”
Company analyst Justin De Santis adds, “The current renaissance of underground media has further driven the consumer away from the major labels and has contributed to the downturn in their sales.”
Also See:
recent interview – p2pnet talks to Michael Geist, March 24, 2006
Mintel – Retail Music Industry Battles Extinction, March 27, 2006
March 30th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Did they ever think that it just might be because today’s music sucks. Since when does repeatedly spelling “banana” or claiming “my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard” constitute good music?
March 30th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
… or 4 minutes and 27 seconds of “mutha fu***uh, ni***er, slap that b**ch, she’s a nasty ho’ …….” and other such erudite lyrics.
March 31st, 2006 at 12:33 am
Designer songs, designer groups
hey! anybody can rap
ya just jump but don’t crap
keep your toes tapp’n
baby now your rapp’n
those execs get their cash
the P2Ps they try & crash
money, lawyers, another hired gun
their com’n at ya
ya betta be a nun
no your not safe ’cause they is God
got all the real music for your pod
just throw em your money
let them f___ your honey
Big music is over and their artists are done eh?
o.f.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:08 am
Doesn’t every new thing sound like crap to the previous generation?
March 31st, 2006 at 11:27 am
your quote:
“I don’t think file sharers and counterfeiters should be equated – there is a significant difference between the two,” Geist responded, and on the question of whether or not a download equals a lost sale, “I don’t think anybody would argue that it does,” he said.
your first statement about filesharers/counterfeiters is spot on. but the second part is just wrong.
the movie, music, software cartels and others have always claimed that a file downloaded through free p2p is a lost sale. this claim has been repeated time and again through their press releases, court documents, and by the puppet government officials and lamescream media outlets they control.
it has also been reported here on p2pnet and other concerned websites numerous times.
this claim is the basis for their illegal searches and court cases they’ve been orchestrating around the globe. if you don’t think that “anybody would argue that it does” (equal a lost sale), please look around p2pnet and other websites and i’m sure you’ll find this claim repeated quite often by the RIAA, MPAA and others.
April 1st, 2006 at 12:32 am
At any given point in the history of pop music as we know it 90% has been/is disposable crap. It’s the same now as it was “back in the day”.
“How much is that doggy in the window?”…
“Havin’ My Baby”…
“I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger”…
April 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
“Doesn’t every new thing sound like crap to the previous generation?”
Wrong argument. Perhaps you could argue that the arts (production and tastes) have not improved over time and that it has only changed/evolved.
That said, however, Art has become a commodity marketed by methods that were not formerly used widely. Just to name a few, the purchase of art critics and art proffesors, newspaper columnists, radio payola, songwriter to artist kickback, artist to gallery kickback, etc.
When sculpture became the art of welding twisted metal and painting was a matter of splashing paint into a canvass and music bacame matter of dancing with sexually suggeted moves and good looks we should have realized that distributed art was actually a dead art that simply overshadowed the good art that noboby supports and made a lot of money for the fake artists.
In a way, art is dead, thanks to the copyright cartels, mostly.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com