Study: Falling CD sales can't be blamed on P2P

[Teutatis]

CNET News.com http://www.news.com/
Study: Falling CD sales can't be blamed on P2P

By Andy McCue
http://news.com.com/Study+Falling+CD+sales+cant+be+blamed+on+P2P/2100-1027_3-5746291.html

Story last modified Tue Jun 14 11:40:00 PDT 2005


Declining CD sales can't be blamed on file-sharing networks alone, according to a new report.

The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said Monday that digital music piracy is a problem, but other factors--such as the rise in the number of entertainment sources--are more likely to have had a significant impact on music sales.

"It is very difficult to establish a basis to prove a causal relationship between the size of the drop in music sales and the rise of file sharing. Sales of CDs, as well as the success of licensed online music services are likely to have been affected to some degree by a variety of other factors, for example physical piracy and CD burning, competition from other, newer entertainment products and faltering consumer spending in some markets," the report said.

While the report found a "pronounced" fall in overall global CD sales of 20 percent between 1999 and 2003, and a particularly large drop in CD sales in the U.S., some countries, including France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, are actually experiencing steady or growing CD sales.
Google readying Web-only video search
High-stakes start-ups
Xen getting multiprocessor support
Open-source LAMP a beacon to developers
Previous Next

In addition, the OECD questioned the viability of some music download business models and warned that the music industry needs to find a balance between reducing online piracy and developing models that are attractive to consumers. The industry also needs to provide existing and new participants in the online music arena with a growing stream of revenue for the legitimate distribution of recordings, the report said.

"Online music providers still seem to struggle making profits at current prices, with demand growing from low levels and having to compete against unauthorized downloading," the report said. "In the current, low-volume market, digital economies of scale have not yet been realized. Some of the fixed costs of labels to produce artists stay essentially the same as before. Moreover, the digital distribution of songs is far from costless."

Andy McCue of Silicon.com reported from London.

[tgpo]

I blame he crappy music personally

[kicko]

I think music has never been better, when's that new backstreet boys out?

[BJ_M]

and i cant wait for the new Ashly Simpson cd either ... music never been better .....


a little noticed news story today is that HMV pulled all alanis morissette CDs (though one of the best sellers) because they were pissed off that she was selling her latest CD almost for free at only starbucks only (it is an acoustic only JLP remix) and also gives ringtones and stuff away for free on her website - because she thinks the the price of CDs is to high ... (of course she is worth about 30 million also) ...

Is this greed on HMVs part ?

[tgpo]

and i cant wait for the new Ashly Simpson cd either ... music never been better .....

Wonder who will be singing.

[BJ_M]

the drummer !

[tgpo]

the drummer !

I think it's the bass player or probably the producer

[Supreme2k]

In regards to this thread

[BJ_M]

like this ?

[ROF]

and i cant wait for the new Ashly Simpson cd either ... music never been better .....


a little noticed news story today is that HMV pulled all alanis morissette CDs (though one of the best sellers) because they were pissed off that she was selling her latest CD almost for free at only starbucks only (it is an acoustic only JLP remix) and also gives ringtones and stuff away for free on her website - because she thinks the the price of CDs is to high ... (of course she is worth about 30 million also) ...

Is this greed on HMVs part ?

No. Greed would be if they raised the price of her CDs in order to cover the loss due to her own smart marketing.

I wish more artists would do this. Most online ventures are not paying a penny to the artist for their music catalog being legally downloaded at .99 cents or more per song. It's not in their contract, so the only ones making money from places like iTunes is the people who own the software house providing the client and of course the owner of the music catalog uploaded to the server.

Where's the artist in that equation? As usual, they are left out in the cold without a penny. It's sad, but the online ventures are worse then the brick and mortar CD stores. At least for CD sales the artist got a penny or two per CD sold. They get nothing when you purchase online.

However, when you download via free P2P the only two people who benefit are you(the listener) and the artist(the creator). Neither pays a dime, yet the listener gets the pleasure of listening to a song without interruption and the creator gets free advertising and a possible ticket sale the next time they visit the listeners hometown.

It's all about marketing now. Some artists have woken up to the sound of ca$h flowing in from freely downloaded music, while others have been suing their fans and thus losing even more sales.

Strange how the tables have turned huh?

[BJ_M]

actually the artist does get a royalty from itunes and the (legal) like .. so does the writer etc ... just as on cd sales and airplay

[ROF]

I think someone should explain that to Alanis and other artists who are now independently selling their music and wares online. They are getting nothing because they have nothing in their contract which deals with online sales.

I don't forsee the industry going back and re-writing contracts for the artists of yesteryear either. They can just rip off the artist and then blame filesharing for lack of sales when nobody buys their lame 128K sound bites.

[BJ_M]

she would have it in her contract -- as would everyone listed on itunes ..

[ROF]

she would have it in her contract -- as would everyone listed on itunes ..

It sounds nice, and in an ideal world, that might be true, but unfortunately that's not the case.

[BJ_M]

it is the case -- unless the artist sold away completely all rights ..

we get royalties on several things here, not for performance but for production and writing ..

often the royalties are higher on itunes than on airplay and sales - in fact it has been a real mess on downloaded music (legal) with everyone trying to get a bigger piece of the pie ..

[ROF]

Shame on the artist for wanting to get a bigger piece of the action.

[BJ_M]

usually not the artist in this case, but other pieces of the equation .. though sometimes the asking fees are nuts and in such cases, itunes will not carry that catalog.

[CaptainVideo]

Any artist who is available on the legal sites get royalties. For most acts signed in the early '90's forward have online sales written into their contracts. Earlier contracts however do not. That is the major reason you don't see a lot of older acts available. The record labels have to go an renegotiate with all those artists to allow these legal sites to offer the music.

A lot of artists are holding out for big percentages. They see this as a great opportunity to get back at the labels who they feel raped them out of money by forcing them to sign away their rights to almost everything in their contracts.

Trust me, online music is a huge boon to artists, especially the ones who do not have an online distribution section in their contracts.

And to address HMV, I applaud them for taking this chance. It is never in the best interest of consumers for retailers to have exclusives. These types of things should be discouraged.